Page images
PDF
EPUB

8.

9.

upon. The warrant of attorney and note are still to be regarded as separate instruments, notwithstanding they are thus connected. -Twombly v. Parsons, 272.

The note and the warrant of attorney bearing different dates, are to be presumed to have been executed at the times they severally bear date, notwithstanding they are upon the same paper.Ibid.

But it is not a valid objection to a judgment by confession that the warrant of attorney was executed at the same time as the note upon which it authorizes judgment --Ibid.

See CASES MADE; CERTIORARI TO JUSTICES COURTS; CRIMINAL LAW; EVIDENCE, 6; FINDING OF FACTS; PRACTICE IN SUPREME COURT, 9.

PRACTICE IN CRIMINAL CASES.

See CRIMINAL LAW.

PRACTICE IN SPECIAL CASES.

See ATTACHMENT, DISSOLUTION OF; PIEADINGS AND PRACTICE IN CHANCERY, 11, 12, 13; SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS TO RECOVER LANDS.

1.

2.

3.

4.

PRACTICE IN SUPREME COURT.

Where error is brought in the Supreme Court upon a judgment of the Circuit, in a case brought there by certiorari to a justice of the peace, an assignment of errors "that the Circuit Judge erred in holding that the justice's judgment was erroneous in the several causes of error assigned in the affidavit for certiorari," is a sufficient special assignment of errors under the rules.-Berry v. Lowe, 9.

On a writ of error, the Supreme Court corrects only such errors as have been committed adversely to the interest of the party suing out the writ.-Ibid.

Suit against the maker and endorser of a promissory note. Defendants pleaded separately, and the issue as to one was tried, and judgment rendered against him. On error, the record not showing that any objection was taken in the Court below to the trial of the separate issue, it was held that it must be presumed either that the action was severed by consent, or by the putting off of the trial as to himself by the other defendant.--Maynard v. Penniman, 153.

Error will not be presumed: it must be made to appear affirmatively. Ibid.

5. Assignments of error are not necessary on a common law cer

tiorari.-Stokes v. Jacobs, 290.

6. On case made after judgment for Supreme Court cannot send the Barman v. Carhartt, 338.

review upon the facts, the case back for a new trial.

7. Where an objection was made to an assignment of errors which was purely technical, and it was evident the defendant in error could not have been misled, the Court permitted an amendment to the assignment to be made at the hearing.-Trudo v. Anderson, 357.

8. On the trial in the Circuit Court without a jury, rulings of law which might affect the finding of facts-as upon the admission or rejection of evidence-must be brought before the Supreme Court by exceptions, as upon a trial before a jury. But when the only question is whether the facts found support the judgment, the finding of facts is to be treated as a special verdict, and no exception is necessary, as the record itself presents the question as fully as it could be presented by exceptions.-Ibid.

9.

When a case made after judgment in the Circuit Court is settled and filed with the clerk of that Court, either party desiring action upon it may cause it to be certified to the Supreme Court.Robertson v. Little, 371.

10. The Supreme Court cannot dismiss a case made after judgment which has never been transmitted to and filed in that Court.-Ibid. See APPEAL IN CHANCERY; PRACTICE IN CIRCUIT COURTS, 2.

1.

2.

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.

An authority in an agent to sell property, does not authorize him to exchange it for other property-Trudo v. Anderson, 357.

An agent can not ratify an act done by himself beyond the scope of his authority, so as to bind his principal.-Ibid.

Execution of deed by attorney. See DEED, 1, 2.

PROBATE OF WILL.

See EVIDENCE, 3, 4, 5.

PROHIBITORY LIQUOR LAW.

See WITNESS, 2.

PROMISSORY NOTES.

See BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES; GUARANTY.

1.

PUBLIC LANDS.

The General Government has all the common law rights of an individual in respect to depredations committed upon the public lands. And the Commissioner of the General Land Office-being the proper executive department to enforce those rights-in the absence of legislation by Congress on the subject-may lawfully direct the seizure and sale by the local land officers, on behalf of the Government, of timber cut by trespassers on the public lands. Stephenson v. Little, 433.

PURCHASERS.

Under the Recording Laws: See ATTACHABLE INTERESTS IN LANDS. Bona Fide Purchasers: See BONA FIDE PURCHASERS.

RAILROAD CORPORATIONS.

See RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.

RATIFICATION.

See FRAUDS, STATUTE OF; PRINCIPAL AND AGENT, 2.

RECOGNIZANCE.

Not a written instrument which proves itself: See PRACTICE IN CIRCUIT COURTS, 3.

Genuineness of may be disproved.—Ibid. 4.

1.

RECORDING LAWS.

Where a deed from several grantors is put upon record, as to only a part of whom it is properly executed and witnessed, the record is only evidence of the deed as to those parties by whom it has been properly executed, and whose execution of it has been duly witnessed so as to entitle it to record had they been the only grantors named.-Hall v. Redson, 21.

See ATTACHABLE INTERESTS IN LANDS; DEED, 4, 5; MORTGAGE OF CHATTELS.

REDEMPTION.

From Mortgages: See MORTGAGE. 3, 4.

From Execution Sales: See SALES ON EXECUTION.

[blocks in formation]

1.

2.

REPLEVIN.

Defendant being in possession of a quantity of wheat, plaintiff brought replevin for one hundred bushels, which were measured out and taken under the writ from the whole quantity. Held to be no valid objection to the maintainance of the action that plaintiff did not demand and take under the writ the whole quantity; the evidence showing the whole to have been the plaintiff's, and that he did not own as tenant in common with others.Crouse v. Derbyshire, 479.

Where one's property has been disposed of without authority, he may bring replevin therefor without a previous demand, notwithstanding it is in the hands of one who bought it in good faith.Trudo v. Anderson, 357.

1.

RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.

H. contracted with the railroad company to draw, saw and pile for them certain wood at one of their stations, and the plaintiff was employed by him by the day in piling the wood as it came from the saw. While thus employed he was injured by the cars being thrown from the track, and running against the woodshed, and in some way causing his hand to be crushed. For this injury he brought action against the Company. The Company, on the theory (which there was some evidence to establish) that the cars were thrown from the track by means of a plank which H. had placed between the rails to aid in his work under the contract, asked the Court to charge the jury;

1. That the plaintiff and H. while working on the premises were bound to use the same ordinary care against accidents to themselves as was incumbent on the Company, and that if the neglect of plaintiff or of H. in the course of their work under the contract contributed proximately to the accident, the plaintiff could not recover, unless the conduct of the company's servants was wanton or willful.

2. That if H. in the course of his work under the contract placed the plank on the track, and thereby the cars were thrown off and ran against the woodshed, this was neglect on the part of H. which contributed proximately to the accident, and that plaintiff could not recover unless the conduct of the Company's servants was wanton or willful.

There was no evidence that plaintiff knew of the plank being placed on the track, but it was proved to have been seen there by the station agent.

Whether the Company were entitled to this quere; the Court being equally divided on the Central Railroad Co. v. Leahey, 193.

charge, or not, question. - Mich.

RIPARIAN RIGHTS.

1. The rule of riparian proprietorship upon the river Detroit, as laid down in Lorman v. Benson, 8 Mich. 18, is applicable to Lake Muskegon; and the ownership of land bordering upon the lake carries with it the ownership of the land under the shallow water so far out as it is susceptible of beneficial private use, but subordinate to the paramount public right of navigation, and the other public rights incident thereto.- Rice v. Ruddiman, 125.

ROADS.

See HIGHWAYS.

ROAD FUNDS.

See HIGHWAY FUNDS.

1.

SALES OF LANDS BY GUARDIAN.

A petition by the guardian of a minor to the Probate Court for license to sell lands of his ward, stating that a part only of the land is under improvement and the balance unproductive; that it is necessary a portion of the proceeds of the land should be used to pay certain debts incurred in behalf of the ward, and that in the opinion of the petitioner it would be for the interest of the minor to have the land sold, and the proceeds, after paying the debts, put out at interest, is a sufficient compliance with the statute. Nichols v. Lee, 526.

SALES OF LANDS ON EXECUTION.

1. Trust estates are not liable to levy and sale on execution.-Gorham v. Wing, 486.

2.

Under the Revised Statutes of 1838 a sale of lands on execution did not divest the title of the judgment debtor until consummated by a deed. - Ibid.

3.

The time for redemption on sales under said Revised Statutes was to be computed exclusive of the day on which the sale was made.

[ocr errors][merged small]
« PreviousContinue »