aggravated by accident; what constitutes | prove the transfers by which he claims title immediate notice of accident. INTEREST. NOTES AND BRIEFS. 425 before he can maintain a suit thereon, if such transfers are not admitted by defendants. Hall v. Henderson (Ala.) 673 4. The facts concluded by a judgment must be proved by the record. Gambrill v. Schooley (Md.) NOTES AND BRIEFS. 427 those dependent upon them; and the mem-LEVY AND SEIZURE. NOTES AND BRIEFS. 753 Labor unions; right of men to organize; right of, to injure others in furthering their own interests; injunction to restrain boycott by. LAKES. Lake, see WATERS, 2-4. 754 A claimant who gives a levying officer a forthcoming bond, and retains possession of the property, is not liable thereon for failure to produce the property at the time and place of sale, where subsequently the same officer seizes and sells the property under a lien of superior dignity, applying the proceeds to such superior lien. Floyd v. Cook (Ga.) LIBEL AND SLANDER. 450 Award of Punitive Damages, see DAM- Admissibility of Evidence, see Evi DENCE, 33-37. 1. No recovery can be had for injury Rights of Riparian Owners in Bed of to plaintiff's credit as a merchant, in an action for slander, in the absence of evidence showing that such injury had been sustained. Gambrill v. Schooley (Md.) LANDLORD AND TENANT. The owner of property is under no obligation to exercise care and diligence to discover latent defects for the benefit of intending lessees, so as to be liable for injuries to their property by reason of such defects after they have taken possession under the lease. Franklin v. Tracey (Ky.) 427 2. Slanderous words not published, spoken by plaintiff concerning defendant in a slander suit of which defendant was ignorant when he spoke the words which form the basis of the action, cannot be considered by the jury for the mitigation of even punitive damages. Id. 3. Proof of the utterance of other actionable language is not precluded in a slander case by the fact that the words counted on are actionable per se, and the only defense is denial of speaking them, so that the malice is admitted if the words are found to have been spoken. NOTES AND BRIEFS. Id. LEGACY. See WILLS. LETTER. Evidence to Identify, see EVIDENCE, 17. derman with respect to stock dividends; | LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. conflict of laws as to. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. 587 Conflict of Laws as to, see CONFLICT OF 1. A railroad company which induces an employee to refrain from bringing suit for injuries, by promises to retain him on the pay roll, pay him for the injuries, and give him a life job, which promises are fulfilled Of Carrier, see CARRIERS, 9, 11. Conflict of Laws as to Validity or Contract, see CONFLICT OF LAWS, 1. LIVE STOCK. Liability of Carrier for Injury to, see MANDAMUS. The judgment of a state board of equalization of Missouri, which has laid a substantial tax upon corporations therein, is final under the Missouri Constitution and statutes. Missouri ex rel. Hill v. Dockery (U. S. Sup. Ct.) until after the statute of limitations has 4. So long as a private corporation is a solvent and going concern, the statute of limitations does not begin to run on a stockholder's subscription to its capital stock, to be paid at intervals upon the call of the board of directors, until a call has been made. Id. NOTES AND BRIEFS. See HOMICIDE, 6, 7. MARRIAGE. 571 2. The right of railroad companies to discharge employees does not imply the right to be guilty of a violent or malicious act which results in injury to the discharged employee's calling. Hundley v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ky.) 289 3. A custom of railroads to keep a record of the causes of the discharge of employees, and to decline to employ those who are discharged for certain causes, Limitation of actions; effect, on opera- makes it a part of the contract of employ tion of statute, of delay of party in taking ment that no false entry as to the cause of action incumbent upon him; when limita- such discharge shall be made, or communition begins to run as to stockholder's lia-cated, if made, to any other railroad combility; in case of insolvency of corporation. pany. ld. 138 4. Averments that plaintiff has been deprived, by blacklisting, of the right to engage in railroad employment, and that the wrong has made it impossible for him ever to get such employment, are mere conclusions, and insufficient to state a cause of action, without averring that he has sought employment and been refused by reason of the wrong. Limitation of time for bringing action for negligent death; acknowledgment of tort and promise to make amends as suspending operation of statute; estoppel of one who induces another to refrain from bringing suit until after bar of statute, to rely on statute. 193 Id. 5. An agreement between railroad com- was tending when she was injured, in stoppanies not to employ persons discharged by ping and starting which she moved the the respective companies gives employees greasy handle of a lever from a point 8 no right of action unless carried out. Id. inches from the exposed cogs to a point 5 or 6 inches from them, and then back Duty and liability of master. again, the cogs, though covered when she commenced work, having been uncovered for six weeks before the accident, to her knowledge, assumed the risk of the exposed machinery, the defect of the exposed gearing being obvious and the danger apparent. Id. 6. A master is not bound to have present at every moment a representative at the place where work is being performed, to keep safe the position which an employee may chance to occupy as against possible negligence of coemployees. Southern Indiana R. Co. v. Harrell (Ind.) Assumption of risks. 460 7. Assumption of risk and contributory negligence are distinct and separate defenses; the former resting in contract, the latter in tort. St. Louis Cordage Co. v. Miller (C. C. A. 8th C.) 551 8. The defense of assumption of risk is not conditioned or limited by the existence of contributory negligence, and the latter is not an element or attribute of it. Id. 9. A servant, by entering or continuing in the employment of a master without complaint, assumes the risks and dangers of the employment which he knows and appreciates, and those which an ordinarily prudent and careful person of his capacity and intelligence would know and appreciate in his situation. Id. 10. An employee cannot be heard to say that he did not appreciate or realize the danger, where the defects were obvious and the dangers would have been apparent to an ordinarily prudent person of his intelligence and experience in his situation. Id. 11. A servant, by continuing in the employment without complaint, assumes the .risks of the defects and dangers which arise during the service, to the same extent that he assumes those which exist when he enters the employment. Id. 12. Among the risks and dangers which a servant assumes by entering or continuing in the employment without notifying his master of them are those which arise from the failure of the master to completely discharge his duty to exercise ordinary care to furnish the servant with a reasonably safe place to work and reasonably safe appliances to use. Id. 19. A foreman of a bridge construction gang does not represent the master in directing, at a time when a train is passing, the raising, by a derrick so constructed as to swing toward the track, of a stone to be placed in a pier of a railroad bridge, the effect of which is that the stone swings against the train, and is forced against an employee to his injury. Id. Liability of master to third persons. 20. Authority given to a servant employed as night watchman to arrest trespassers includes authority to take the prisoner to the town calaboose, and there confine him until he can be turned over to the 21. Where a servant does an act in the execution of a lawful authority given him by his master, and for the purpose of performing what the master has directed, the master will be liable for an injury thereby inflicted on another, whether the wrong be occasioned by negligence, or by a wanton and reckless purpose to accomplish the master's business in an unlawful manner. Id. 22. A servant who shoots at a trespasser as he is running away, after having broken away from the servant, who has arrested him, and is taking him to the town calaboose, acts within the scope of his employment so as to render the master liable for an injury thereby inflicted, where he is employed as night watchman, with authority to arrest all persons trespassing upon the premises. Id. 23. A lot owner cannot relieve himself from liability for injury to an adjoining building through the negligent excavation of his own lot by letting the work to an independent contractor, if, by reason of the depth to which the excavation is to be carried, it might reasonably be anticipated that injury would probably occur from the prosecution of the work unless reasonable care was exercised. Davis v. Summerfield (N. C.) NOTES AND BRIEFS. 492 MENTAL SCIENCE. MILLS. Applicability of employers' liability act to railroad in process of construction; limitation of, to specific persons, acts, etc., enumerated therein; what risks assumed by servant; liability for injury by fellow servant; foreman as fellow servant with those working under him; servant choosing dangerous place to work where safe place provided; effect of employers' liability acts on fellow-servant doctrine and assumption of risk; test as to whether act causing injury was one of superintendence; what consti- viding for condemnation of property for tutes vice principalship; liability for negli- ' public mills. NOTES AND BRIEFS Mills; constitutionality of mill acts pro 582 |