« ForrigeFortsett »
18. A party is not permitted to give secondary 38. What declarations fail to prove partnership.
780 within his reach, which he fails to produce.
39. Parol' evidence is inadmissib e to show that Idem,
344 there was an antecedent parol agreement or under19. Parol' evidence to impeach a deed more than standing between the parties, different in a ma. forty years old, and which had never been ques- terial particular from that which the written contioned by the grantors, under which large and di- tract contains. versified interests had grown up, offered by one
Gavinzel v. Crump,
783 who claimed under a hostile title, held properly 40. Every admission of a party given in evidence, excluded.
is to be taken as an entirety of the fact whicb Idem,
makes for the one side, with the qualifications 20. In an action for damages for being dismissed which limit, modify or destroy its effect on the from employment, evidence of incapacity is admis- other side. sible on the defense.
Ins. Co. v. Newton,
702 Lyon v. Pollard,
361 41. Where the admission related to two particu21. Insufficient evidence of identity, what is. lars, the death of the insured and the manner of Hardy v. Harbin,
his death, and showed death of the insured only as 22. Evidence by comparison of handwritings is they showed that he had committed suicide, the very unreliable.
whole admission should be taken together.
703 23. In an action by husband and wife for person. 42. The preliminary proofs of death of the inal injury to the wife, evidence that the husband and sured are admissible as primi facie evidence of wife were not living together at the time of the in
the facts stated therein against the insured and on Jury, and had not been for some time, is inadmis- behalf of the company. sible on the defense.
793 Packet Co. v. Clough,
43. The way-bill of the goods is admissible in 24. What the captain of the boat on which the evidence to show the carrier's contract. Injury occurred, said of th transaction tw ays
Railroad Co. v. Pratt,
827 afterwards, was but a narrative of a past occur- 44. In an action to recover back a tax on certifirence, and not admissible as evidence for plaintiff. cates of a railroad company, as illegally exacted, the Idem,
400 annual reports of such company are admissible in Packet Co. r. Viles,
409 evidence. 25. What is not sufficient evidence of adverse
Bailey ”. R. R. Co.,
45. Oral evidence is admissible to prove a new Groshol: v. Ncroman,
471 agreement made subsequently to a written agree26. Under the Statute of Illinois, proof of the ment upon a new consideration. partnership or joint liability of either the plaintiff's
Grandin 1'. U. S.,
708 or defendants is unnecessary in the first instance. 46. An injury upon a railroad car, while the pasCooper v. Coates,
481 senger injured was in the exercise of ordinary 27. In assumpsit, any matter which shows that care, is prima facie evidence of the company's liathe plaintiff never had a cause of action may be bility. proved under the general issue.
Railroad Co. v. Pollard.
877 Chambcrs Co. v. Clews,
SEE APPEAL AND ERROR, PRACTICE ON, 3, 5, 6.
PRACTICE, 5, 6, 9. the plaintiffs are holders for value before maturity
1. to render an exception available in this court, without notice. Klem,
it must affirmatively appear that the ruling except 29. Persons of sound mind and discretion must
ed to affected, or might have affected the decision
of the case. in general be understood to intend, in the ordinary
Railroad Co. v. Smith,
513 transactions of life, that which is the necessary and unavoidable consequences of their acts.
2. If the exception is to the refusal of an interBank v. Jones,
rogatory, the record must show that the answer 30. Where, in replevin, the complaint alleges related to a material matter involved; or, if no
answer was given, the record must show the offer property and right of possession in the plaintiffs, and the answer traverses directly these allegations of the party to prove by the witness particular any evidence is admissible on the part of the de facts, and that such facts were material.
551 1. The law of Louisiana requires an actual seiz.
Watson v. Bondurant,
509 that the record is in due form.
2. Where the sheriff's return is incomplete and Marwell u. Steicart,
564 presents no record evidence of the sheriff's acts, it 32. In an action on policy of insurance, evidence is traversable, and it may be shown that no actual to show that the applicant made true answers to seizure of the property in dispute was ever made by the questions, different from those inserted in the the sherifr. application by the agent, is admissible.
609 Life Ins. Co. v. Mahone,
1. To make a false representation the subject of the insurauce, where there is no issue in regard to
an indictment or of an action, two things are necit, is inadmissible.
essary, viz. : that it should be a statement likely to Idem,
693 impose upon one exercising common prudence and 35. The opinion of an agent, based upon past caution, and that it should be the statement of an occurrences, cannot be received as an admission by existing fact. his principals. This is doubly true when the agent
Sawyer v. Prickett,
105 was not a party to those occurrences.
2. A promissory statement is not, ordinarily, the Ilem,
593 subject either of an indictment or of an action. 36. Extrinsic evidence to contradict a record, by
10. showing that the appearance by the attorney there.
SEE EQUITY, 1, 13.
RES JUDICATA, 5.
cute a government claini, and receive for his com. Pleasants 1. Fant,
780 pensation 25 per cent. of the sum allowed in pav:
of Congress of Feb.
ment n the claim, does not give such attorney a 5. A bill to reform a policy of insurance cannot
023 law annuls the contract as to the future, and for.
nary agreement of insurance, may he reformed,
623 after an action at law thereon has been defeated.
9. Under the charter of an insurance company,
which provides that every contract. bargain, agrec-
ment and policy shall be in writing or in print,
and be under the seal of the corporation, a contract
to issue a policy as an executory agreement to in-
sure is binding without a written memorial of it.
Ins. Co. v. Colt,
usage to give, did not impair the preliminary con-
11. The contract being, valid, can be enforced in
a court of equity and having been enforced by
the procurement of a policy, an action can be
maintained upon the instrument; or the court, in
enforcing the execution of the contract, may enter
a decree for the amount of the insurance.
313 14. Where written proposals for insurance were
15. And this is especially so, when true answers
were in fact made by the applicant and the agent
substituted for them others, thus misrepresenting
the applicant as well as deceiving his own princi-
16. Nor does it make any difference that the an-
read to the applicant and signed by him.
17. Where the application for insurance states.
press condition and agreement, that the statements
and declarations contained in said application are
false answer to an inquiry whether the applicant
has made any other application to have his life in-
sured, and whether he is married or single, will
SEE BILLS AND NOTES, 9.
1. Where a bill of goods was furnished upon a
written order, and a bill at once mailed to, and a
was drawn upon the defendants for the
amount, which they refused to accept, this consti.
tuted a demand of payment and the account draws
Cooper v. Coates,
2. A sale of goods withc . a term of credit given
is liquidated when contracted. and after the ac-
count is presented and impliedly admitted, the de
fendants are in default and chargeable with inter-
3. Accrued interest constitutes part of a debt
part of a deot which may be used to uphold in.
Sloan l'. Leivis.
ditional compensation sball be paid to certain gor-
216 eroment employees, was not repealed nor the right
of recovery barred, by the Appropriation Act of court for further proceedings as the case may re-
state court, the jurisdiction of this court attaches
339 and the case must be heard on the merits, althougla
the state court also placed its decision on another
ground which is not a federal question.
R. R. Co. v. Maryland,
16. Both parties in this court are entitled to be
heard on the federal question and on the sufficiency
of any other point decided, to affirm the judgment,
If the federal question was erroneously decided.
17. Where the only question made and decided in
Matthelos v. Mestea,
18. Where the state court decided that a contract
60 for the building of a schooner was not a maritime
Eduaris v. Elliott,
torney acted without authority.
Jarwell r. Stewart,
328 is involved it carries with it the whole case.
set up under a judgment of a court of the United
States, and a decision is against such right or im-
Dupasseur v. Rochereau.
24. In such a case it due validity and effect has
25. If jurisdiction of the case was acquired only
by reason of the citizenship of the parties, and the
389 under like circumstances.
avoid a will or to set aside the probate thereof, on
420 the ground of fraud. mistake or forgery.
Kieley v. McGlynn,
429 question "was necessarily involved in the decision"
Edwards v. Elliott,
Moore v. Mississippi,
court to an action by the State, the state court was
429 | bound to pass upon it; and having decided against
R. R. Co. v. Maryland,
not present a question of which this court can take
Srott v. Kelly,
Railway Co. v. Ramsey,
31. Where the record shows jurisdiction, an ad set aside, the United States held the land as If no
McCarthy v. Mann,
832 2. Where the Act of Congress declared that a
the legal title vested in them.
the original grantee of the land by contract, such as
tivas by operation of law.
Carpenter v. Rannels,
4. It is a fundamental nrinciple in the land sys.
tem of this country, that private entries are never
permitted until after the lands have been exposed
to public auction, at the price for which they are
aftörwards subject to entry.
Eldred i. Serton,
5. Congress did not intend to change this system
grants of land to build railroads.
6. Under the Act of the 3d of March, 1863, by
which the Solicitors of the Treasury is authorized
to sell, with the approval of the Secretary of the
Treasury, certain lands of the U. S., bis approval
is a condition precedent without which the solicitor
U. 8. v. Jonas,
7. The purchaser may require written evidence
of this approval or he may refuse to accept the
8. The United States may maintain an action to
recover logs sold by Indians from their reservation
to a third person, where the logs were not cut for
the improvement of the land.
U. 8. v. Cook,
9. The timber while standing is a part of the
It cannot be rightfully severed except to improve
the land. When rightfully severed, it is no longer
a part of the land, and there is no restriction upon
10. The Indians having only a right of occupancy
in the lands, the presumption is against their au-
thority to cut and sell the timber. Every pur.
chaser from them is charged with notice of this
timber was rightfully severed from the land.
12. The issue of a patent upon the award of the
clusive as between the United States and several
Warren v. Van Brunt,
after, it was by a proceeding in the court against
the patentee or those claiming under him.
15. An entry cannot be made under the pre-emd-
tion laws by one in trust for another, and a court
of equity can not decree that it was so made.
wards located; when located the title acquires pre-
796 cision and becomes attached to the land
Schulenberg v. Harriman,
Schou 1. Harriman,
7963 taken, either by legislation or injudicial proceeding
to enforce the forfeiture of the grants.
18. The provision in the Act of 1856, that all
lands remaining unsold after ten years shall revert
to the United States if the road be not then com.
pleted, is a condition subsequent.
19. No one
take advantage of the non- 32. But where the claimant presented before the
556 | LEGACY.
MARITIME LAW, 3, 5, 10.
STATE LAWS AND DECISIONS, 9.
TAXES AND TAX SALES, 12.
1. Maritime liens upon the property sold by the
order of the admiralty court follow the proceeds,
but the court cannot decree that third persons who
could not have proceeded against the property in
i'em, may recover a proportion of the proceeds to
satisfy their claims.
Wilson 2. Bell,
2. No lien on, or right of preference in, such
proceeds can be acquired by virtue of the proceed-
ings under the state garnishee process, or by execu-
tion or attachment.
3. A ship’is not discharged from a bottomry lien,
unless the bord is actually paid. What is not pay-
Belle of the Sea v. Johnson,
4. A person having a lien upon property does not
lose it by taking a bill of sale of the same property,
the bill of sale being voidable, and there being no
evidence of intent to abandon the lien.
Avery v. Hackley,
5. Material men, furnishing repairs and supplies
to a vessel in her home port do not acquire thereby
any lien upon the vessel by the general maritime
Rodd v. Heartt,
6. Liens granted by the laws of a State in favor
of material men for furnishing necessaries to a ves-
time contract and can only be enforced by proceed-
ings in rem in the District Court of the United
7. To create for future services of a contractor a
lien upon particular funds of his employer, there
must not only be the express promise of the em-
upon which the contractor relies, but there must be
some act of appropriation of the fund on the part
Dillon v. Barnard,
unpaid contractor a priority of lien on the proper-
600 ty of a railroad company, over a mortgage made
9. The contractor's lien continues a prior incum-
remains unsatisfied. A judgment does not extin-
If the lien of the judgment expires that
of the debt remains.
STATE LAWS AND DECISIONS, 5.
1. A Statute of Limitations begins to run as
a person within the State upon whom process to
commence a suit may be served.
Erpress Co. v. Ware,
2. A State Statute of Limitations is not a bar to
action upon coupons detached from bonds
and transferred to parties other than the holders
of the bonds (which bonds had been canceled),
when it would not be a bar to an action on the
Clark v. Iowa City,
3. The statute of a State which extends the same
limitation to actions on all written contracts, sealed