Page images
PDF
EPUB

for the company, whether the holder is the purchaser
named in the ticket, so as to deprive such holder of
his right of action for being wrongfully expelled from
a train by the conductor under the erroneous claim
that the signature offered is not that of the original
purchaser. Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. Railway Co.
A com-
v. Russ, 6 C. C. A. 597, 57 Fed. Rep. 822.
mutation ticket entitled any member of a firm to
travel thereon, on certain terms, among which was a
condition requiring them to sign their names on the
back, and another providing that the ticket should be
good only for the persons named thereon. Held, that
the ticket was not good for a member of the firm who
had not indorsed it. Granier v. Louisiana W. Rail-
way Co., 42 La. Ann. 880, 8 South. Rep. 614. Where
a traveler applies to the regular ticket agent of a rail-
way company for a ticket, and is given one which is not
good for some reason of which he is ignorant but for
which he pays the price of a valid ticket, and the con-
ductor, upon presentation of such ticket, ejects the
holder from the train, the company must respond in
damages. Evansville & T. H. Railroad Co. v. Cates,
14 Ind. App. 172, 41 N. E. Rep. 712; Callaway v. Mel-
lett, 15 Ind. App. 366, 44 N. E. Rep. 198. See Phila-
delphia, W. & B. Railway Co. v. Rice, 64 Md. 63, 21
Atl. Rep. 97. One who asks the ticket agent for a
first class ticket, paying for the same, and goes to the
depot immediately after buying the ticket, but misses
the train, and, taking the next train on the following
morning, is forcibly ejected by the conductor because
his ticket proves to be a first class limited ticket
which expired the day he purchased it, may main-
tain an action for tort for the forcible ejection. Louis-
ville & N. Railway Co. v. Gaines (Ky.), 35 S. W. Rep.
174. Where defendant's ticket agent, by mistake, sold
a person an expired and worthless ticket, which
showed on its face its worthlessness, and the con-
ductor refused to accept it, and, in default of pay-
ment of fare, compelled the holder to leave the train,
but used no physical force, the latter cannot sue in
trespass for the expulsion. Baggett v. Baltimore &
O. Railway Co., 3 App. D. C. 522. See Gulf C. & S.
F. Railway Co. v. Rather, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 72, 21 S.
W. Rep. 951. Where plaintiff, upon presenting his
ticket to be stamped for the return passage was re-
fused by the ticket agent because the agent at the
selling office had neglected to stamp it, and was then
told that the ticket was worthless for passage on the
defendant railroad, but, nevertheless tendered the
ticket in payment, of his return fare, which was re-
fused, and declining to pay his fare, was ejected, he
can recover only the damages sustained by reason of
the delay and purchase of another ticket and not for
being ejected from the train. Russell v. Missouri K.
& T. Railway Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 35 S. W. Rep. 724.
Plaintiff having purchased a ticket good only on
trains stopping at his destination, was, by fault of de-
fendants' station agent, induced to take a train which,
under the schedule, did not stop at that place, and
was ejected by the conductor. Held, that plaintiff
could sue in tort, and not merely for breach of con-
tract. Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. Railway Co. v. Rey-
nolds (Ohio Sup.), 45 N. E. Rep. 712. But where the
purchaser of a ticket, uninfluenced by any fault of the
railroad company's servants, gets on a train which
does not stop at the station to which he has bought a
ticket, the company is not liable in damages for fail-
ing to stop the train at that station to let him off.
Louisville & N. Railway Co. v. Miles (Ky.), 37 S. W.
Rep. 486; Noble v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Railway Co.
(Okla.), 46 Pac. Rep. 488. Where a limited ticket, good
only to a certain date and so mutilated that the date

when it expires cannot be deciphered, is presented by
a passenger, it is the duty of the conductor to accept
the passenger's statement as to when the ticket was
purchased and when it expires, and the manner in
which it was mutilated until he can ascertain with
reasonable certainty that the ticket has expired or
that it was mutilated by the fault of the passenger.
Houston & T. C. Railway Co. v. Crone (Tex. Civ.
App.), 37 S. W. Rep. 1074. Where a ticket is pre-
sented on the day of purchase, but the conductor re-
fuses to accept it because it bears a prior date, which,
if the true date of the sale, would not entitle the holder
to'passage, he may refuse to pay or get off, and, being
forcibly ejected, may recover therefor. Ellsworth v.
Chicago, B. & Q. Railway Co. (Iowa), 63 N. W. Rep.
584. Plaintiff purchased from the defendant's agent
a mileage ticket or book, containing 2000 miles of
transportation for which he paid $50. The date of
issue was stamped on the ticket, and it was, by the
mistake of the agent, punched on the margin to ex
pire on the day it was issued instead of a year later.
Plaintiff signed a contract printed on the cover which
stated that the ticket was "void for passage after date
punched in margin." He offered this ticket and the
mileage thereon for his fare on defendant's road six
months after he purchased it but it was refused. He
refused to pay another fare aud was ejected by the
conductor. Held, that the provision limiting the
ticket to expire the day it was issued was void as the
price paid for one day's use of the ticket was extor.
tionate and plaintiff was not bound by his written
agreement until it had been reformed in a court of
equity; and that plaintiff was entitled to recover dam-
ages. Kreuger v. Chicago, St. P. M. & O. Railway
Co. (Minn. Sup.), 71 N. W. Kep. 683; Price v. Chess-
peake & O. Ry Co., 40 W. Va. 271, 21 S. E. Rep. 1022.
LOUIS B. EWBANK.

WEEKLY DIGEST

Of ALL the Current Opinions of ALL the State and Territorial Courts of Last Resort, and of the Supreme, Circuit and District Courts of the United States, except those that are Published in Full or Commented upon in our Notes of Recent Decisions, and except those Opinions in which no Important Legal Principles are Dis cussed of Interest to the Profession at Large. ALABAMA.. 3, 12, 24, 32, 34, 38, 59, 66, 77, 79, 88, 98, 101, 110 .58, 92

ARKANSAS.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

-

2. ADMINISTRATION Claims against Decedent-Implled Contract.-Acceptance by a woman of a devise of a house on condition that "she provide a home" therein for her uncle creates a family relation between her and such uncle, which excludes an implied contract to pay for nursing and other personal services rendered by her to him.-IN RE LACKEY'S ESTATE, Penn., 37 Atl. Rep. 813.

3. ADVERSE POSSESSION.-Until a patent has issued for public land which has been entered, possession of a third person cannot be adverse to the entryman.STEPHENS V. MOORE, Ala., 22 South. Rep. 542.

4. APPEAL-Bill of Exceptions.-Where two judg. ments were entered at the same term, though the record recited that "plaintiffs, by counsel, except to setting aside judgment, and to modification of the judg. ment heretofore entered," In the absence of any show. ing in the bill of exceptions to the contrary, it was presumed that plaintiffs acquiesced in the entry of judgment.-CRITCHFIELD V. LINVILLE, Mo., 41 S. W.

Rep. 786.

5. APPEAL BOND

Garnishment.-On appeal by plaintiff, in an action accompanied by garnishment, from a judgment holding defendant not indebted to plaintiff, an appeal bond, which Laws 1893, p. 123, § 6, requires to be given to the "adverse party," need not be given to the garnishee.-SEATTLE TRUST Co. v. PITNER, Wash., 49 Pac. Rep. 505.

6. ASSIGNMENT FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS-Preferences.-Mortgages made and preferences attempted by an assignor in connection with and as a part of a general assignment for the benefit of his creditors are invalid, but they will not necessarily destroy the validity of the deed of assignment, nor affect the pro rata distribution of the assigned estate among the creditors.-STURTEVANT V. SARBACH, Kan., 49 Pac. Rep.

522.

7. ASSIGNMENT FOR CREDITORS Sale of Pledge.-A debtor made an assignment to one who held his note secured by certain stocks as collatteral, and a judg. ment for the amount of the note, which was a first lien on his estate. The creditor sold the stock collateral: Held, that on sale of the stock, which it held as pledgee, and not as assignee, it was bound to apply the proceeds at once, and could not, after converting the stock into money, hold the money as collateral, and allow interest to run on the notes.-IN RE WILHELM'S ESTATE, Penn., 37 Atl. Rep. 820.

8. ASSIGNMENT OF CHOSE IN ACTION-Suit by Assignor.-An assignor of a chose in action, secured by a vendor's lien cannot sue in equity to enforce the lien for the benefit of his assignee. -PENN V. HEARON, Va., 27 S. E. Rep. 599.

9. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT Privileged Communications. Declarations made by a client to his attorney while the latter is drawing a deed of conveyance for the client as grantor, and openly in the presence of the grantee, are not privileged as to the grantee.HUMMEL V. KISTNER, Penn., 37 Atl. Rep. 815.

10. BANKS-Deposits-Set-off.-A bank cannot set off against the deposit of an insolvent depositor notes owing to it by him which had not matured at the time of his assignment in insolvency.-HOMER V. NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE IN ST. LOUIS, Mo., 41 S. W. Rep.

790.

[blocks in formation]

13. BILLS AND NOTES-Promissory Notes-Negotiabil. ity. The indorsement of credits on the back of a note before its delivery does not render it non-negotiable. -FARMERS' BANK OF SPRINGVILLE, N. Y. v. SHIPPEY, Penn., 37 Atl. Rep. 844.

14. BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS Surrender of Stock. Where a building and loan association's bylaws provide that a member who has made all pay. ments may surrender his shares of stock at any time after a certain period from the date of his certificate, on giving 60 days' notice, and take the withdrawal value thereof in cash, the relation of debtor and creditor is established as (soon as the member has surrendered his stock, and has given the required notice.MCNAB V. SOUTHERN MUT. BUILDING & LOAN ASSN., S. Car., 27 S. E. Rep. 543.

15. CARRIERS-Goods-Exceptions in Bill of Lading.In a clause in a bill of lading exempting the carrier from liability for "loss or damage arising from collisions, explosions, accidents to boilers or machinery," applies only to the group of mechanical parts connected with the boiler and steam supply, by which power is generated and applied, and the vessel or train of cars is propelled, and it does not include an axle of one of the cars in a train. Accordingly held that under such a bill of lading the carrier was not exempted from liability for damage caused by the breaking of an axle of a car.-N. K. FAIRBANK & Co. v. CINCINNATI, ETC. RY., U. S. C. C. of App., Sixth Circuit, 81 Fed. Rep. 289.

16. CERTIORARI-Municipal Corporations-Powers.Certiorari will not lie in favor of private prosecutors to review a municipal ordinance, unless it appears that such prosecutors have a personal or property interest which will be specially affected, in an injurious manner, by the enforcement of such ordinance.-TALLON V. MAYOR, ETC. OF HOBOKEN, N. J., 87 Atl. Rep. 895. 17. CITIZENSHIP Naturalization-Eligibility of Mex. icans.-Native citizens of Mexico, whatever may be their status from the standpoint of the ethnologist, are eligible to American citizenship, and may be individually naturalized by complying with the provisions of the naturalization laws.-IN RE RODRIGUEZ, U. S. D. C., W. D. (Tex.), 81 Fed. Rep. 337.

18. CONFLICT OF LAWs-Action in Federal Court for Injuries in Another Country.-The right of an employee of a railroad company, injured in the republic of Mexico by the negligence of the company, to recover in a civil action damages for such injury under the law of that republic, may be enforced in a federal court of the State of Texas having jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject-matter; that law being neither so vague and uncertain, nor so dissimilar to the law of the State of Texas, as to prevent it from being so enforced, and both parties being citizens of the United States.-EVEY V. MEXICAN CENT. RY. Co., U. S. C. C. of App., Fifth Circuit, 81 Fed. Rep. 294.

19. CONFLICT OF LAWS - Assignment for Benefit of Creditors.-The question whether a creditor residing in Pennsylvania is, by participation in an assignment for the benefit of creditors made in that State, and valid under its laws, estopped to proceed against lands in other States included in the assignment, on the ground that it is invalid in such States, is to be determined by the Pennsylvania courts, though the validity of the assignment elsewhere involves the lex rei sitæ.KENDALL V. MCLURE COKE Co., Penn., 37 Atl. Rep. 823. 20. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Liability of City for Damage by Mob.-A State may constitutionally compel its counties and cities to indemnify against losses of property arising from mobs and riots within their limits, independently of any misconduct or negligence on the part of such city or county to which the loss can be attributed. The Illinois statute to that effect is therefore valid.-PENNSYLVANIA Co. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, U. S. C. C., N. D. (Ill.), 81 Fed. Rep. 317.

21. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Power of Congress over Navigable Waters.-Congress has absolute power, in

the interests of interstate and foreign commerce, over the navigable waters of the United States, and may de. clare what may or may not constitute obstructions thereto.-UNITED STATES V. NORTH BLOOMFIELD GRAVEL-MIN. Co., U. S. C. C., N. D. (Cal.), 81 Fed. Rep.

243.

22. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Trial by Jury.-The right of trial by jury in proceedings according to the course of the common law, as shown and practiced at the time of the organization of our State government, and continued or guarantied by the third section of the bill of rights of the constitution of 1885, has reference to legal rights and contentions, and not to equitable demands, enforced in a court of chancery, whether pertaining to the original or concurrent jurisdiction of that court.-HUGHES V. HANNAH, Fla., 22 South. Rep. 613.

23. CONTRACTS-Agency-Conditional Sales.-A con tract between an implement manufacturing company and a firm to which it consigned goods, provided that the firm should be the company's "sole agent or agents for the sale on commission of its machines until all goods shipped under terms of this contract are sold or turned over" to the company, "which shall be done on the latter's order;" also how the sales should be made, the manner of settlement for same, the amount of the commission, and how it should be paid, that notes taken for machines should be made payable to the company, and that the proceeds of sales should remain the property of the company till it should be paid. There were various other provisions relative to the terms of the agency: Held, that it was an agency contract, and not one of conditional sale, and that the machines consigned to the agent thereunder remained the property of the company till sold.-MONITOR MANUFG. CO. v. JONES, Wis., 72 N. W. Rep. 44.

24. CONTRACTS-Coverture-Personal Defense.-In an action by a married woman on a contract made by her, coverture cannot be interposed as a defense.-MoORE V. PRICE, Ala., 22 South. Rep. 531.

25. CONTRACT-Parol Evidence to Explain.-Where a written contract contains characters, abbreviations, or apparently ambiguous terms, parol evidence is ad. missible to show that they have a recognized and gen. erally understood meaning in the trade or business to which the subject of the contract relates. Such evidence does not vary or add to the writing, but merely translates it from the language of the trade into the language of people generally.-MAURIN V. LYON, Minn., 72 N. W. Rep. 72.

26. CONTRACT-Part Performance.-A plaintiff having done work under a special contract, but not in full compliance therewith, and the same having been accepted by defendant, who was thereby benefited, may recover the contract price therefor, less compensation for imperfections of the work or materials.-SMITH V. PACKARD, Va., 27 S. E. Rep. 586.

27. CONTRACT-Separable Contract.-A contract to erect five houses, described, on lands to be designated, to be completed at a fixed time, for a definite price for each house, is a separable contract.-BARNARD V. Mc. LEOD, Mich., 72 N. W. Rep. 24.

28. CONTRACT-Speculative Damages. -No recovery can be had for the breach of a contract to place plaintiffs' names at the bottom of advertisements in Detroit papers for beautifiers of women, stating that such beautifiers may be had at plaintiffs' stores, as the damages would be speculative.-STEVENS V. YALE, Mich., 72 N. W. Rep. 5.

29. CONTRACTS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE Consideration.-A completed sale of a business is not a sufficient consideration for a subsequent contract by the seller not to engage in the same business in the vicinity within a certain time.-CLEAVER V. LENHART, Penn., 37 Atl. Rep. 811.

30. CORPORATION-Foreign Corporations.-The leas ing by a corporation of the use of its property and franchises for an inadequate rental is, in respect to

[blocks in formation]

32. CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Assault-Reputation.-On indictment for assault and battery on a woman, where defendant's witnesses testified to his good character, their testimony on cross-examination that his charac. ter "was bad for running after women" was admis sible.-BALKUM V. STATE, Ala., 22 South. Rep. 532.

33. CRIMINAL EVIDENCE-Forgery.-Evidence of unexplained possession of forged checks under suspi cious circumstances of concealment authorizes the submission to the jury of the question of guilt under an indictment for the forgery of one of the checks.BARNES V. COMMONWEALTH, Ky., 41 S. W. Rep. 772.

34. CRIMINAL EVIDENCE Homicide.-In a murder case, it is proper to admit, and allow to be exhibited to the jury, a diagram, prepared by an attorney for the State, of the place of the homicide, indicating the locality of objects to which there is much reference in the testimony, upon which can be traced the route that it is claimed defendant followed in going to and returning from the place of the homicide, in connec tion with the evidence of the draftsman as to its ac curacy.-BURTON V. STATE, Ala., 22 South. Rep. 585.

35. CRIMINAL LAW-Forgery.-A mere account, which creates no obligation, and is of itself neither an evi dence of debt, nor of title, is not the subject of for gery, as being within the meaning of the words "other instrument," if otherwise construed.-STATE V. HEATON, Wash., 49 Pac. Rep. 493,

36. CRIMINAL LAW-Homicide-Defense of Property. -One has no right to shoot another to prevent him from taking away a dog which both are claiming.TRUSTY V. COMMONWEALTH, Ky., 41 S. W. Rep. 766.

37. CRIMINAL LAW-Indictment-Allegation of Intent -Where the intent to commit the act charged in an indictment is not necessarily an ingredient of the crime, as defined by the statute, then the fact that the act may have been committed under an ignorance or mistake of fact is no defense to the crime charged.-GARVER V. TERRITORY, Okla., 49 Pac. Rep. 470.

38. CRIMINAL PRACTICE-Burglary-Indictment.-Is an indictment for burglary of a smoke house used in connection with the dwelling occupied by a husband and wife, both being the property of the wife, the ownership may be laid in the husband where the smoke house is on the same premises as the dwelling, is subjected to the ordinary family uses, and the bus band carries the key to, and owns and controls meat kept in, such house.-RICHARDSON V. STATE, Ala., 2 South. Rep. 558.

39. CRIMINAL PRACTICE-Indictment.-A person may be charged as principal and as accessory before the fact to the crime of arson in different counts of the same indictment; and the prosecution will not be compelled to elect upon which count it will proceed.STATE V. ARDOIN, La., 22 South. Rep. 620.

40. DAMAGES-Breach of Contract by Carrier.-Where the agent of a connecting carrier by mistake has given to a shipper an unusually low rate on a special ship ment, and the initial carrier, without knowledge of such rate, breaks its contract of carriage by sending the goods over a different road from that mentioned in the bills of lading, so that the shipper is compelled to pay the usual rate of freight, the initial carrier is lis ble, because of the breach, only for such damages f might reasonably have been within the contemplation

of the parties on making the contract, and not for the whole difference between the regular rate and the special rate, of which it had no notice.-CENTRAL TRUST Co. V. GEORGIA PAC. RY. CO., U. S. C. C., N. D. (Ga.), 81 Fed. Rep. 277. 41. DAMAGES Personal Injuries.-A woman living with her husband, in an action for damages, is not entitled to recover for moneys necessarily paid for medicinal treatment and care.-STATE V. CITY OF DETROIT, Mich., 72 N. W. Rep. 8.

42. DAMAGES-Personal Injury.-Where the declaration charges only a physical hurt, resulting in soreness and lameness, there can be no recovery for rheumatism augmented by the accident, though plaint. Iff was a rheumatic person.-HALL V. CITY OF CADILLAC, Mich., 72 N. W. Rep. 33.

43. DEEDS-Consideration-Agreement to Support.Where a grantee agreed to live with and care for the grantor during his life in consideration of the convey. ance, the fact the grantor removed from the house in which the parties lived to a cottage near by, which he had built for greater convenience and retirement, and also for securing a lodging room on the lower floor, did not show an abandonment of the contract, or that the conveyance was without consideration.-CHASE V. CHASE, R. I., 37 Atl. Rep. 804.

44. DEED-Delivery.-Where a father, in consideration of love and affection, conveyed land to his daughter, and delivered the deed to the justice of the peace, before whom he acknowledged it, with directions to hold it till called for by the proper person, and she was aware of and assented to the conveyance, and in her father's life took possession of the premises, the deed took effect on delivery to the justice, and its subsequent loss did not affect her title.-APPLEMAN V. AP. PLEMAN, Mo., 41 S. W. Rep. 794.

45. DEEDS-Registration-Subrogation.-A purchaser of a trustee named in a trust deed recorded prior to the docketing of a judgment, and executed by the judgment debtor's grantee, who purchased prior to such docketing, but whose deed was recorded thereafter, takes subject to the judgment. JONES V. BYRNE'S EX'X., Va., 27 S. E. Rep. 591.

46. DEED-Right of Way.-Grantees in a deed provid. Ing that, while part of the granted premises shall be used in common by the grantor and grantees, the grantees shall be granted and allowed a pass way on the grantor's land, lose their right of way by excluding the grantor by erecting a structure of a permanent character on most of the granted premises, and fencing the rest; this being acquiesced in by the grantor.BOTSFORD V. WALLACE, Conn., 37 Atl. Rep. 902.

1

47. DEED BY WIFE-Consideration.-A decree will not be disturbed where it was determined from the testimony of two or three witnesses who are not agreed upon the facts. KIELDSEN V. BLODGETT, Mich., 72 N. W. Rep. 9. 48. EQUITABLE ASSIGNMENTS. Where a fund to become due was assigned to secure future advances, the assignee's agreement to pay a certain amount thereof when received to a creditor of the assignor gave the creditor no lien on the fund, nor was it an equitable assignment thereof, especially where the assignment was annulled after the agreement was made, and before the assignee had collected the fund. - HICKS V. ROANOKE BRICK CO., Va., 27 S. E. Rep. 596.

49. EQUITY- Multifariousness. persons, induced by identical fraudulent representaA large number of tions to become subscribers to a company, may unite in one bill against such company and its officers and agents, praying for the cancellation of their subscrip. tions.-RADER V. BRISTOL LAND Co., Va., 27 S. E. Rep.

590.

50. EVIDENCE-Customs and Usage-Commissions.— A real estate agent seeking to recover commissions for negotiating a sale, where no contract was made in regard thereto, may prove the custom as to the rate of commissions and the time of payment in the place

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

53. EVIDENCE-Parol Evidence Fraud.-Where the evidence shows that whatever agreement was entered into between the parties was reduced to writing, preliminary oral negotiations cannot be considered as independent evidence of such an agreement.-SHELEY V. BROOKS, Mich., 72 N. W. Rep. 37.

The

54. EXTRADITION Revocation of Warrant. governor of a State has the power to revoke his war. rant for the surrender of an alleged fugitive from justice at any time before he is taken out of the State.STATE V. TOOLE, Minn., 72 N. W. Rep. 53.

55. FEDERAL COURTS - Following State Law. - The federal courts will follow the law of the State where a judgment is rendered as to its effect in merging the original cause of action. -PARKER V. WHITTIER, U. S. C. C., D. (Mass.), 81 Fed. Rep. 335.

56. FEDERAL COURTS-Jurisdiction.-In an action on negotiable bonds which have matured, together with the coupons, neither the interest on the bonds after maturity, nor the interest on the coupons after their maturity, constitutes a part of the matter in dispute, in determining the jurisdiction of the circuit court, where the controversy arises between citizens of different States.-GREENE COUNTY V. KORTRECHT, U. S. C. C. of App., Fifth Circuit, 81 Fed. Rep. 241. 57. FEDERAL COURTS Jurisdiction - Citizenship -Next Friend. A next friend conducting a suit in behalf of an infant is not a party to the action, and his citizenship is not a test of the jurisdiction of the fed. eral courts.-BLUMENTHAL V. CRAIG, U. S. C. C. of App., Third Circuit, 81 Fed. Rep. 320.

Evidence.-A cred

58. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES itor of an insolvent, if necessary to secure his debt, may purchase at a fair price property of his debtor which exceeds in value the amount of his debt, and out of the purchase money reserve enough to pay his own debt and pay the remainder to the debtor, though he may know at the time that the object of the debtor is to deprive other creditors of the means of collecting their debts.-FLY V. SCREETON, Ark., 41 S. W. Rep. 764.

59. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES-Partial Assignments. -Where an insolvent made transfers to various creditors, and afterwards made an assignment for benefit of creditors, the question whether the transaction, as a whole, constituted a general assignment, inuring under the statute to all the creditors, could not be raised by an attaching creditor seeking to enforce his legal rights against one of the transferees, by whom the property was claimed in statutory form for the trial of the right of property. - DAVIDSON V. KAHN, Ala., 22 South. Rep. 539.

[ocr errors]

60. GARNISHMENT Following Funds Trusts. A judgment creditor who has garnished a company, and procured a judgment nisi for his claim in full, has no right to a fund due from the company to the debtor at the time of the garnishment, but which was subsequently paid for the benefit of the debtor to a trustee in whose hands it was attached by other creditors, as it is presumed the company retained funds sufficient to pay the claim. - OHIO BRASS CO. v. CLARK, Md., 37 Atl. Rep. 899.

61. GIFTS - Delivery. Shortly before his death, the donor said to his wife's brother, in the presence of his wife, that he had transferred his life insurance to the wife; that the policies were in his safe; and that, as soon as possible after his death, the brother should get the insurance money for the wife. After the donor's death the brother found in the donor's office safe an absolute assignment of the policies to his wife, inclosed with the policies in an envelope bearing her name: Held, that the question of delivery was for the jury.-KULP v. MARCH, Penn., 37 Atl. Rep. 913.

[blocks in formation]

63. HUSBAND AND WIFE-Employment of Husband by Wife. In equity, a contract between husband and wife, relating to the wife's separate estate, is as valid against the husband's creditors as if the wife were a feme sole,-TALCOTT V. ARNOLD, N. J., 37 Atl. Rep. 891.

64. INJUNCTION - Local Improvements. A suit by a taxpayer brought to enjoin the execution of an unconstitutional act for a local road improvement is too late if not brought until after he has voluntarily paid all taxes assessed or to be assessed against him for that purpose. STATE V. BADER, Ohio, 47 N. E. Rep. 564.

65. INSURANCE - False Representations.-Where one procuring insurance for plaintiff, as her agent, falsely represents that she is a business man, it avoids the policy.-FREEDMAN V. PROVIDENCE-WASHINGTON INS. Co., Penn., 37 Atl. Rep. 909.

66. INSURANCE-Warranty and Conditions.-A condition in a fire policy that it shall be void "if the property shall be sold or transferred, or any change take place in the title or possession," does not apply to a mortgage executed before the policy was issued. COWART V. CAPITAL CITY INS. CO., Ala., 22 South. Rep. 574.

67. JUDGMENT-Equitable Relief.-A party cannot ob. tain equitable relief against a decree rendered in a cause to which he was a party, on the ground that no process was served on him, where the process appears to have been executed by the return, and by the recital in the decree taking the bill for confessed, unless a false return of service was procured or induced by plaintiff therein, or he can in some way be connected with the deception.-PRESTON V. KINDRICK, Va., 27 S. E. Rep. 588.

68. JUDGMENT LIEN-Interest of Beneficiary.-Where testator leaves his estate in trust, giving a beneficial interest in one-fourth of it to his son on the death of testator's wife, but the specific property of which it shall consist is left within the control of the trustees, and can only be determined, when they make the divis ion between the beneficiaries on the death of testator's widow, such sum has no vested interest in any part of the land, but only a mere possibility, not the subject of lien.-IN RE HANDY'S ESTATE, Penn., 37 Atl. Rep. 854,

69. LANDLORD AND TENANT-Crops-Tenancy in Com. mon.-An agreement for the cultivation of land on shares construed, and held, that the owner and the Occupier were tenants in common of the crops; the title, however, remaining in the owner as security for the performance by the occupier of the terms of the agreement, and for the repayment of advances which the owner might make to the occupier, and for the payment of all indebtedness due from the latter to the former.-ANDERSON V. LISTON, Minn., 72 N. W. Rep. 52. 70. LIEN ON CROP-Advances.-The indorser of a note whose payee has made advances to an agriculturalist on the strength of the indorsement is entitled to the benefits of Rev. St. § 2514, creating a lien on the crop in favor of one who has made advances "in money or

supplies" for the purpose of raising such crop.-LockHART V. SMITH, S. Car., 27 S. E. Rep. 567.

71. MANDAMUS-City Warrants.-An application for mandamus to compel a city treasurer to pay certain warrants is a proper remedy, though there was a question as to whether they had not been in fact previously paid, where the material facts were not controverted, but the controversy was rather as to the construction to be put upon them, thus creating substantially a question of law, and not of fact.-BARDSLEY V. STERNBERG, Wash., 49 Pac. Rep. 499.

72. MASTER AND SERVANT-Assumption of Risks.-A servant who knew from his own observation, as well as from what had been told him by his employer, that an open dock on which he was piling lumber was unsafe, because of defective supports, assumed the risks of the employment by voluntarily continuing in itSODERSTROM V. HOLLAND EMERY LUMBER Co., Mich., 72 N. W. Rep. 13. 73. MASTER AND SERVANT Fellow servants. - A switchman employed by a board composed of representatives of three railroad corporations, and beyond the control of any one of such corporations, and a car inspector employed by one of such corporations, are not fellow servants, though both were working in the same yard, and were engaged in the common enter prise of handling business for the same road, and the inspector was subject to the board's yard regulations. -KASTL V. WABASH R. CO., Mich., 72 N. W. Rep. 28.

74. MASTER AND SERVANT-Intimidation of Employees -Damages. It is an unlawful intimidation of employ ees for a large number of persons to surround them, and follow them for a considerable distance, urging! them in a hostile manner not to go to work, and call ing them opprobrious names, though no physical vio lence is used; and persons so doing are liable in dam ages to the employer.-O'NEILL V. BEHANNA, Penn, Atl. Rep. 843.

75. MASTER AND SERVANT-Negligence-Fellow-serv ant.-An employer whose duty it is provide reasonably safe appliances cannot escape liability for his negligence by employing incompetent or unsuit able persons to discharge it.-DONNELLY V. BOOTH BROTHERS & HURRICAN ISLE Granite Co., Me., 37 Atl. Rep. 874.

76. MASTER AND SERVANT - Wrongful DischargeMeasure of Damages.-When suit is brought and trial is had before the expiration of the stipulated term of service to recover damages for a breach of contract by a wrongful discharge, the recovery cannot be for the whole amount of salary for the entire term, but only for the amount thereof to the date of trial, less sach sum as plaintiff has earned, or might with reasonable diligence have earned, from the time of discharge to the time of trial.-DARST V. MATHIESON ALKALI WORKS, U. S. C. C., W. D. (Va.), 81 Fed. Rep. 284.

77. MECHANICS' LIENS-Constitutionality of Statute -The mechanic's lien law (Acts 1859-60, p. 514), provid ing that if a claim for materials or that of a subcon tractor is presented to the owner within 30 days after the completion of the building, and suit is brought within 9 months, it is sufficient to give a lien for the entire claim, not exceeding the amount of the con tract, without requiring notice of the claim in fact of constructively to be given to the owner, and without regard to the amount due under the contract, is u constitutional.-SELMA SASH, DOOR & BLIND FACTORY V. STODDARD, Ala., 22 South. Rep. 555.

78. MORTGAGE-Assignment - Satisfaction.-In 60 sideration for a deed the grantee assigned to the grantor a mortgage on the lands of a third person The grantor and grantee made a contract, to whet the mortgagor was a stranger, whereby the grantor

agreed to apply the proceeds of the mortgage to the satisfaction of mortgages executed by him on lands which he had subsequently conveyed to the grantee's children. The grantor satisfied the assigned mortgag of record, but failed to apply the proceeds as agreed The grantee was never disturbed in the possession a

« PreviousContinue »