INDEX TO NOTES.
(The General Index follows this.)
Adverse possession; to flats Almanac; as evidence Animals; property rights in dogs:-(I.) Gen- erally; (II.) actions of trover, replevín, and trespass; (III.) actions against com- mon carriers: (IV.) actions for injuries to dogs by railroad and street cars; (V.) right to kill dogs: (a) police power; (b) unlaw- fully killing dogs; (c) barking and howl- ing dogs; (d) dangerous dogs; (e) trespass- ing dogs; (f) sheep killing dogs; (g) dogs chasing other animals; (h) dogs "at large;" (i) killing a dog by mistake; (VI.) criminal actions for injuries to dogs; (VII.) larceny and obtaining a dog by false pretenses; (VIII.) value; (IX.) as to license and tax laws: (a) generally; (b) taking property without due process of law
Associations. See SYNDICATES. Bees; property rights in:-(I.) Generally; (II.) trespass and trover; (III.) larceny; (IV.) tithes
Corporations; contract by chief stockhold-
Scientific books and treatises as evidence: -(I.) Exact sciences: (a) general rule as to admissibility; (b) tables of expectancy of life: (1) admissibility generally; (2) in accident cases; (3) in other cases gener- ally; (4) conclusiveness and effect; (c) the almanac; (II.) inexact sciences: (a) gen- eral rule as to admissibility; (b) reasons for the rule; (c) the contrary rule; (d) opinious founded on books; (e) use of, on examination; (f) use of, to sustain or dis- credit expert; (g) use of, on cross-exami- nation; (h) use of, in argument; (III.) law; (IV.) miscellaneous matters Presumptions as to sanity at time of mar- riage Executors and administrators; right to rents on lease of intestate's property:- (I.) Classification by states; (II.) English cases: (a) form of lease; (b) apportion- ment; (c) summary of English cases; (III.) summary as to rents accruing during owner's life; (IV.) summary as to rents accruing after owner's death: (a) rights of heir, (b) rights of administrator: (1) by statute; (2) in a foreign state; (c) liability
of administrator: (1) generally; (2) for use and occupation; (3) accounting and sure- ties; (d) rights of creditors; (e) apportion- ment
What assets pass to the administrator de bonis non :--(L.) Generally; (II.) the rule in the different states; (III.) summary: (a) goods remaining in specie; (b) choses in action; (c) avoiding sales or transfers made by predecessor; (d) rule at common law: (1) where assets have been converted by predecessor; (2) where there is a devas- tavit; (3) requiring the predecessor to ac- count; (4) money and balance due from predecessor; (e) where the common-law rule has been changed by statute: (1) where assets have been converted by predecessor; (2) where there is a devastavit; (3) requiring the predecessor to account; (4) money and balance due from prede-
Fence; liability for the malicious erection of a fence:-(I.) Introduction; (II.) malice gives no ground of action; (III.) contrary doctrine; (IV.) state statutes and decisions thereunder
Fisheries; right of, separated from upland 393 Husband and wife; marriage of person when insane:-(I.) Invalidity of; (II.) de- gree of incapacity which will affect; (III.) test of capacity to contract; (IV.) test of capacity to know the nature of the act; (V.) incapacity combined with fraud; (VI.) incapacity as a ground for divorce; (VII.) ratification and waiver of right to attack; (VIII.) evidence of incapacity: (a) pre- sumption and burden of proof; (b) suffi- ciency, weight, and admissibility; (c) effect of inquisition; (IX.) annulment: (a) ne- cessity of decree for; (b) jurisdiction; pro- cedure; (c) effect Hypnotism; (I.) Nature of subject; (II.) de-
finition; (III.) its existence and effect gen- erally; (IV.) its use in procuring the com- mission of crime; (V.) its use in procur- ing submission to criminal acts or attacks; (VI.) its use as an inquisitorial agent; (VII.) its curative uses; propriety of re- straint 269
Incompetent persons. See HUSBAND
AND WIFE; HYPNOTISM. Injunction; by municipalities against nuis-
ances in waters and watercourses:-(I.) In general; (II.) pollution and other matters affecting health Insurance; voluntary exposure to unneces- sary danger within meaning of insurance policy:- (I.) Construction compared with negligence; (II.) consciousness of danger; (III.) risks incident to duty or necessity; (IV.) unexpected results; (V.) what con-
The rights of a servant who continues work on the faith of his master's promise to re- move a specific cause of danger:-(I.) In- troductory; (II.) general rule stated; (III.) rationale of the relation between the par- ties after the giving of the promise; (IV.) continuance of work after promise not contributory negligence as matter of law: (a) generally: (b) contributory negligence predicated from the gravity of the risk in- curred; (c) contributory negligence predi- cated from the length of time the servant has worked after the promise was given; (d) illustrative cases; (V.) servant's action not maintainable unless his continuance of work was actually induced by the mas- ter's promise to protect him from some danger, etc.; (VI.) whose promise is bind- ing on an employer; (VII.) rule where the promise relates to simple appliances; (VIII.) obligations of the servant pending the fulfilment of the promise Medical books; as evidence Municipal corporations. See INJUNC
Negligence; intoxication as affecting:- (I.)
Intoxication no excuse; (II.) when it amounts to contributory negligence: (a) generally; (b) with relation to trespassers; (c) with relation to persons injured at crossings; (d) with relation to passengers; (e) with relation to persons injured on bighways, streets, etc.; (f) with relation to miscellaneous matters; (III.) effect when there is negligence on both sides; (IV.) question for the jury; (V.) presump- tion and burden of proof; (VI.) intoxica- tion as evidence of negligence: (a) admis- sibility; (b) weight and sufficiency; (VII.) employment of persons having habits of intoxication
New Trial. See EJECTMENT.
Partnership. See SYNDICATES.
Real actions. See EJECTMENT. Replevin; for dogs
Riparian rights. See WATERS. 40 L. R. A.
Scientific books; as evidence Specific performance; of contract known
Syndicates; relations and rights of syndicate members:-(I.) Scope and nature of the subject; (II.) rights and powers of mem- bers; (III.) rights, duties, and liabilities in transactions between themselves: (a) gen- eral rule as to good faith required; (b) sales by member to association; (c) pur- chases with secret advantages; (d) dealings between associations having common members; (e) contribution to capital, ex- penses, and losses; (f) interest in property of association; (g) compensation for serv- ices; (IV.) remedies
Tithes; of bees
Trespass; for injury to dogs
For taking bees
Trover; for dogs
For taking bees
Upland. See WATERS. Waters. See also INJUNCTION. Separation of riparian rights from upland:- In general; right of fishing; right of wharf- age; mere riparian rights; cases merely recognizing the doctrine; adverse posses- sion; partition; method of separation Right of owner of upland to access to navi- gable water:-The English rule; the rule in Ireland; the rule in Canada; general ex- pressions favoring the right of the shore owner in this country; the rule in Massa- chusetts; cases holding the opposite rule (New York, New Jersey, Washington, and Oregon); the rule of the Federal courts; other decisions denying the riparian own- er's right; the effect of statutes; access cut off by railroad; right as against priv- ate individual; estoppel by grant; special reasons for refusing relief; right as against improvement of navigation; summary 593 Wharves; right to erect:-The rule in Eng- land; the rule in this country, cases recog- nizing the right of the riparian owner; rule where title extends to thread of stream; effect of custom; statutory right; rights as against individuals; right under grant or license; to low-water mark; pre- scriptive right; the Federal cases; cases denying the right; statutory restrictions; wharves beneficial; regulation of right: harbor lines: right of municipal corpora- tion to build: right of city to regulate; right of New York city; abatement of wharf; effect of street along shore; private contracts; direction of wharf; rights of state and general government; effect of constructing in front of private property; right in wharf which has been erected; log pier; ejectment for pier Right of, separated from upland
507 Wills. See MASSES.
See HIGHWAYS, 3; | AGRICULTURAL STATE INSTITUTIONS. AIR. See EASEMENTS, 7-9. ALIENS.
HOSPITALS, 2. ACCIDENT. See INSURANCE, 29–32. ACTION OR SUIT. See also CASE, 3.
1. The administrators may sue upon a cov- enant to pay rent to their intestate which is appended to a lease made by him, although his heirs are the only persons who would suf- fer substantial damages by failure to pay it. Walsh v. Packard (Mass.) 321
2. The right to recover for injury to a dog is not lost by killing him, under the hon- est but mistaken belief that he was fatally in- jured. Citizens' Rapid Transit Co. v. Dew (Tenn.) 518
3. An architect supervising the construc- tion of a building and giving notice of an in- tention to build may be joined with the owner of the premises as a defendant in a suit for an injunction against the building. Kennedy v. Burnap (Cal.) 476
4. A corporation cannot complain that its receiver appointed in another court is not made a party to a suit to revoke its contract to sup- ply water to a city and its right to occupy streets. Palestine Water & P. Co. v. Palestine (Tex.) 203
5. The state is not a necessary party to a suit by a city which has the exclusive con- trol of streets, to revoke the right of a water company to use them. Id.
6. An amendment to a bill for an injunc- tion against the improper use of land dedicat ed to the public should be allowed to join some of the original donors as plaintiffs, when the bill is filed by other resident citizens. Rowzee v. Pierce (Miss.)
1. A lease of land for forty-nine years to an alien is void under Wash. Const. art. 2, $33, prohibiting the ownership of lands by aliens and providing that all conveyances of land to any alien shall be void. State, Winston, v. Hudson Land Co. (Wash.) 430
2. Conveyances made to a corporation when a majority of the stock was owned by citizens will be declared void where a majority of the stock is transported to and held by aliens, under Wash. Const. art. 2, § 33, pro- hibiting the ownership of land by aliens and providing that all conveyances of lands to any alien directly or in trust shall be void, and that every corporation the majority of the capital stock of which is owned by aliens shall be con- sidered an alien for the purpose of such prohi- bition.
NOTES AND BRIEFS, Aliens; ownership of property by. ALMANAC.
NOTES AND BRIEFS.
2. A street-railway company is liable for the killing of a dog by an electric car, caused by the negligence of the motorman. Citizens' 519
Actions; common law remedy to enforce Rapid Transit Co. v. Dew (Tenn.)
Of railroad right of way.
AFFIDAVITS. See EVIDENCE, 29.
3. A dog is the subject of larceny under Iowa Code 1873, § 3902, making it a crime for anyone to steal any "chattels" of another. Hamby v. Samson (Iowa) Injury by dogs.
4. One who harbors a dog on his premises as owners usually do with their dogs is to be deemed the owner under a statute respecting the liability of owners for injuries done by 117 Shultz v. Griffith (Iowa) Negligence of a party bitten by a dog is
AFTERBORN CHILD. See CONSTITU-dogs. TIONAL LAW, 6; JUDICIAL SALE, 3.
immaterial under Iowa Code, 1485, on the question of the liability of the owner of the dog, unless that negligence amounts to an un. lawful act. Id
6. A traveler going into a yard of a feed and livery barn which is open to patronage by the public and at which his team is being kept for the night, in order to see that his buggy, which was left in the yard, has been put in the barn and to get some articles from it, when this is done between 8 and half past 8 o'clock in the evening, while employees are working at the barn, is not a trespasser or doing an unlawful act within the meaning of Iowa Code, § 1485, so as to preclude his recovering from the pro- | prietor for injuries received from a dog which attacks and bites him. Id.
Animals; property rights in dogs:- (I.) Gen- erally; (II.) actions of trover, replevin, and trespass; (III.) actions against common carriers; (IV.) actions for injuries to dogs by railroad and street cars; (V.) right to kill dogs: (a) police power; (b) unlawfully killing dogs; (c) barking and howling dogs; (d) dangerous dogs; (e) tres- passing dogs: (f) sheep-killing dogs; (g) dogs chasing other animals; (h) dogs "at large;" (i) killing a dog by mistake: (VI.) criminal actions for injuries to dogs; (VII.) larceny and obtaining a dog by false pretenses; (VIII.) value; (IX.) as to license and tax laws: (a) gen- erally; (b) taking property without due process of law. 503
on a trial without a jury is not an essential part of the record on appeal, and where gen- eral findings are made by the court and a judg ment pronounced thereon, the appellate court will conclusively presume that the trial court considered all the competent evidence before it and decided all the material and necessary issues presented by the pleading, although the opinion shows the contrary. Phenix Ins. Co. v. Fuller (Neb) 408
6. When any document is offered in evi- dence and excluded, it must be brought into the record to have its competency determined on appeal. Slauson v. Goodrich Transp. Co. (Wis.) 825
7. An appellate court can take notice of papers which are not part of the judgment roll only when they have been preserved and prop- erly identified in the bill of exceptions.
10. Failure to show that a designated per- son was regularly appointed shorthand re- porter to take the testimony of an accused before a committing magistrate will not sup- port an assignment of error, if it does not APARTMENT HOUSE. See BUILD-appear that he acted or reported the testimony or certified to it. People v. Ebanks (Cal.) 269 INGS, 1. Briefs.
APPEAL AND ERROR. See also CASES CERTIFIED.
1. A separate appeal must be taken from a death warrant signed after judgment, to bring the question of its regularity before the ap pellate court. People v. Ebanks (Cal.) 269
2. Trustees representing a religious society to which a devise was made in trust to expend the proceeds in saying masses are proper par- ties to appeal from a decision against the de- vise. Hoeffer v. Clogan (Ill.) 730
3. Defendant in error in the Virginia su preme court of appeals waives the omission from the appeal bond, given before the clerk as prescribed by Va. Code, § 3471, of the con- dition for the payment of all actual damages incurred in consequence of the proceedings, by failing to raise the objection until it is too late for plaintiff to give a new bond or to have an- other appeal allowed. Virginia F. & M. Ins. Co. v. New York Carousal Mfg. Co. (Va.) 237 Supersedeas.
11. Under rules requiring but one brief on each side, and permitting a reply in addition, although separate briefs may be permissible where there are several counsel on the same side, the allowance for printing will extend only to what is reasonably necessary. Cook v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. M. R. Co. (Wis.)
12. The provision of the Wisconsin su- preme court rule 9, that in cases depending on the evidence the brief of appellant must contain a concise statement of the leading facts or con- clusions which the evidence establishes or tends to prove, does not mean a recital or restate- ment of the evidence, but merely that such facts or conclusions should be stated with a reference to the names of the witnesses and the places in the printed cases where the evi- dence which establishes or tends to prove such facts or conclusions may be found. Milwauke Cold Storage Co. v. Dexter (Wis.) Questions first raised on appeal.
13. Alleged error in failing to direct a ver- dict for defendant accident insurance company on the ground that plaintiff had voluntarily exposed himself to unnecessary danger, is not available on appeal where no request therefor was made in the trial court. Johnson v. Lon- don Guarantee & A. Co. (Mich.) 440
4. An order of supersedeas to preserve the status quo of the parties pending the determi- nation of an appeal upon its merits is within the inherent powers of an appellate tribunal which is authorized to issue all writs neces- sary and proper to the complete exercise of its appellate and revisory jurisdiction. State, 13a. Variance between pleading and proof Barnard, v. Seattle Bd. of Edu. (Wash.) 317 is not ground for reversal when no objection Record; evidence. was made in the trial court. Colfax Mountain 5. A written opinion filed by the trial court | Fruit Co. v. Southern Pac. Co.
Errors in party's favor or at his re- a fire insurance policy is not error, where that quest.
15. An inconsistency in the instructions due to the fact that some instructions are more favorable to one of the parties than he is enti- tled to is not available to such party. Hess v. Preferred Masonic Mut. Acci. Asso. (Mich.) 444
fact was fully proved, with no question as to the accuracy of the proof. Western Assur. Co. v. J. H. Mohlman Co. (C. C. App. 2d C.) 561
27. Verbal inaccuracy of a charge to the jury will not require a reversal, if the charge as a whole fairly and accurately presents the law applicable to the facts. Perham v. Port- land General Elec. Co. (Or.) 799
16. The failure of the court to assess dis- franchisement as part of the punishment of a convict is not an error of which he can com- APPORTIONMENT. plain. Miller v. State (Ind.)
Appeal; conclusiveness of findings of jury as to law. 653
17. One who relied upon a former adjudi- cation of a matter cannot complain of a deci. APPRAISAL. sion which is to the same effect. Gibson v. Gibson (Wash.)
APPURTENANCES. See DEEDS, 2; EASEMENTS. 9.
ARREST. See also REWARD, 2.
18. A conclusion as to an ultimate fact, ARCHITECT. See ACTION OR SUIT, 3. drawn from certain specified evidential facts which are legally incompetent to support it, is a proper subject of review on proceedings in error. Nichols v. Peck (Conn.) 81 19. Findings of fact are not conclusive on the appellate court in equity cases, unless the evidence is so evenly balanced or so unsatis- factory as to leave the court in serious doubt. North Point Consol. Irrig. Co. v. Utah & S. L. Canal Co. (Utah)
Errors requiring reversal.
20. Filing the sheriff's affidavit that he was biased, taken upon a challenge to a special venire summoned by him, embodying facts brought out while the jury were excluded from the room, is not reversible error. Peo- ple v. Ebanks (Cal.) 269
21. Irrelevant testimony will not require a reversal, if it was harmless. Mack v. South Bound R. Co. (S. C.) 679 22. There will be no reversal for cross-ex- amination as to matters not testified to in chief if the examination in chief is not in the record, so that it does not appear whether the cross- examination was improper or not. People v. Ebanks (Cal.) 269
The arrest by a police officer of San Fran- cisco, without a warrant, of a murderer, for a crime committed in another county of the state, is made in the exercise of his duty, so as to preclude his recovery of a reward for making it. Lees v. Colgan (Cal.) ASSAULT AND BATTERY. See CAR- RIERS, 4. ASSIGNMENT. NOTES, 2; FRAUD, 2.
23. A judgment will not be reversed for failure to sustain a demurrer for reasons not specified therein. Bristol v. New England R. Co. (Conn.) 479 24. An improper statement by counsel in opening a case, which is immediately with ASSOCIATIONS. See also drawn after an exception, with an acknowl edgment that it was not justified under the ex- isting state of the record, will not be regarded on appeal as prejudicial error, if it was not so considered by the trial judge. Erb v. German- American Ins. Co. (Iowa) 25. Refusal of instructions the meaning of ASSUMPSIT. which is involved in doubt, or which are un- A public officer receiving fees to which called for in the case, is not reversible error if he is not entitled, from a party whom he knows the instructions given upon that branch of the to be ignorant of the law, without informing case are as favorable to the complaining party him that he is not bound to pay, receives as the facts and the law will warrant. People money fraudulently, and is liable to an action v. Ebanks (Cal.) 269 for money had and received. Marcotte v. Al-
« PreviousContinue » |