Sidebilder
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

Provision, in contract for transportation of person accompanying horses, that questions under it shall be determined by laws of a certain state, did not require contract on other side of paper for shipment of horses to be governed by the same laws.-Brockway v. American Exp. Co. (Mass.) 626.

Contract for shipment of horses and contract on back of same for transportation of person to accompany them held separate contracts.Brockway v. American Exp. Co. (Mass.) 626. § 3. Carriage of passengers-Relation

between carrier and passenger. The obligation of a carrier of passengers to use the highest degree of care which human foresight can suggest exists only with respect to the results naturally following from defective machinery, etc., and in the operation of a street railroad only the care of an ordinarily prudent man is required.-Stierle v. Union Ry. Co. of New York (N. Y.) 419. § 4.

Performance of contract of transportation. Provisions of railroad ticket may be supplemented by parol to show special agreement to stop train at station.-Evansville & T. H. R. Co. v. Wilson (Ind. App.) 90.

Complaint in action for failure to stop at station to receive passengers held sufficient.-Evansville & T. H. R. Co. v. Wilson (Ind. App.) 90.

Where railroad company makes special agreement to stop train at a certain point, violation thereof will support an action in tort.--Evansville & T. H. R. Co. v. Wilson (Ind. App.) 90. § 5.

Personal injuries.

An instruction in an action for injuries sustained while in defendant's passenger elevator held proper.-Hartford Deposit Co. v. Sollitt (Ill.) 178.

Evidence as to the carrying power of an elevator held properly excluded in an action for personal injuries sustained by a passenger.-Hartford Deposit Co. v. Sollitt (Ill.) 178.

Evidence as to the operation of other elevators is properly excluded in an action for injuries sustained while on a passenger elevator. -Hartford Deposit Co. v. Sollitt (Ill.) 178.

A declaration in an action for injuries received by failure of defendant railroad company to stop its train a sufficient time at a station to allow plaintiff to alight held sufficient after verdict.-Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Clausen (Ill.) 680. A railroad company must use the highest degree of care in providing passengers with safe means of exit from the train.-Pennsylvania Co. v. McCaffrey (Ill.) 713.

Evidence of a custom, consented to by the railroad company, for passengers to alight from trains elsewhere than at the depot, is admissible.-Pennsylvania Co. v. McCaffrey (Ill.) 713. Where it is customary, a passenger alighting on the side next a parallel track need not look or listen for approaching trains thereon.-Pennsylvania Co. v. McCaffrey (Ill.) 713.

Where it was customary to do so, a passenger alighting from a train on the side where there was a parallel track held not, as a matter of law, guilty of negligence.-Pennsylvania Co. v. McCaffrey (Ill.) 713.

[blocks in formation]

on the facts.-Pennsylvania Co. v. McCaffrey (Ill.) 713.

A railroad is liable for injuries to passengers on freights in the same degree as for injuries to passengers on regular trains.-Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Beebe (Ill.) 1019.

in a drover's contract restricting recovery for Under Code Iowa 1873, § 1308, a provision personal injuries to acts of gross negligence held void.-Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Beebe (Ill.) 1019. make void provisions of a contract limiting A drover held a passenger for hire, so as to liability of the road to gross negligence.-Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Beebe (Ill.) 1019.

A finding that a railroad company is guilty of negligence where a passenger in charge of stock on a freight train is injured by a sudden start of the train held justified.-Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Beebe (Ill.) 1019.

Where a drover was required by contract to ride in the caboose and to feed his stock, held, that it was for the jury whether he was guilty of contributory negligence by being in the stock car at the time he was injured.-Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Beebe (Ill.) 1019.

A person attempting to cross tracks to a depot platform to take an approaching train held a passenger, under Pub. St. c. 112, § 212.Young v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Mass.)

455.

Where a passenger was unable to get upon a was narrow and depot platform because it crowded, and was killed by a train, held evidence for the jury as to negligence of the company.-Young v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Mass.) 455.

Evidence held to warrant a finding that plaintiff's physical condition was the result of injuries received in an accident.-Copson v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Mass.) 613.

fares, failed to notice plaintiff, is evidence that The fact that the conductor, in collecting the latter was in a proper place and conducting himself as a prudent passenger.-Copson v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Mass.) 613.

The rule that a railroad company is bound to exercise all the care and skill which human prudence and foresight can suggest to secure the safety of its passengers is not applicable under all circumstances.-Stierle v. Union Ry. Co. of New York City (N. Y.) 834.

In a case where plaintiff had been thrown down and injured by jolting of the cars while attempting to board a train not standing at a station, held, that there was no evidence to justify a finding that the railroad company had invited the traveling public to board the train there, and so was under an obligation to prevent such jolting.-Jones v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.) 856.

Where plaintiff was thrown down and injured by the motion of defendant's street car in going around a curve, but there was no direct evidence of the speed of the car at the time, held, that it was error to submit to the jury the question of defendant's negligence.Ayers v. Rochester Ry. Co. (N. Y.) 960. § 6.

Contributory negligence of person injured.

Though a passenger on a railroad train has the right to rely upon the performance by the carrier of its duty to exercise the utmost degree of care and skill which human foresight and prudence can suggest, he is not thereby relieved from the duty of using his own senses of sight, hearing, and perception.-Piper v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.) 851. § 7. Sleeping cars.

A passenger on a sleeping car, who, in looking for the door of the water-closet, opened the door of the vestibule, and stepped off the train, held

guilty of contributory negligence, barring a re- |§ 5. Removal or transfer of property by covery.-Piper v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. (N. Y.) 851.

CASE CERTIFIED OR RESERVED. For determination of questions of law, see "Appeal and Error," § 3.

CASE ON APPEAL.

mortgagor.

Where chattel mortgagor before maturity of debt sold the property to a company, persons owning stock in such company and furnishing

money for its business, in whose favor the company confesses judgment. held not entitled to contest the validity of the mortgage.-Sondheimer v. Graeser (Ill.) 174.

Evidence of oral assent of mortgagee to a sale of the property by the mortgagor held ad

Necessity for purpose of review, see "Appeal missible to show the mortgage debt was not due and Error," § 9.

CERTIFICATE.

Of acknowledgment of written instrument, see "Acknowledgment," § 1.

Of case or question of law for determination, see "Appeal and Error," § 3.

CERTIORARI.

because of such sale.-Anderson v. South Chicago Brewing Co. (Ill.) 655.

[blocks in formation]

Where a mortgagee has accepted from the Certiorari will not lie to correct proceedings of assignee for creditors a payment on his debt board of officers appointed to examine into qual-out of the general funds, he will be required ifications of militia officers.-Devlin v. Dalton to repay such amount before he is entitled to a foreclosure. (Mass.) 632. M. Rumley Co. v. Moore (Ind. Sup.) 574.

[blocks in formation]

Of legacies on property by will, see "Wills," § 10.

To jury in civil actions, see "Trial," § 4.

CHATTEL MORTGAGES.

1. Requisites and validity.

Evidence held not to show a delivery of the

[blocks in formation]

Equal protection of laws, see "Constitutional
Law," § 5.

CIVIL DAMAGE LAWS.

goods to the mortgagee, as required by St. 1883, See "Intoxicating Liquors,” § 5.

c. 73, § 2.-Drury v. Moors (Mass.) 618.

It is not necessary that the mortgagor shall be the absolute owner of the property mortgaged.-Albright v. Meredith (Ohio) 719.

A purchaser of goods under contract of conditional sale, who has paid part of the price, has an interest which can be mortgaged.—Albright v. Meredith (Ohio) 719.

§ 2. Recording.

A mortgage must be acknowledged to entitle it to be recorded (Burns' Rev. St. 1894, § 3352), and hence the recording of a mortgage, with a void acknowledgment, is not notice to subsequent lienholders. - Kothe v. Krag-Reynolds Co. (Ind. App.) 594.

CIVIL RIGHTS.

See "Constitutional Law," § 5.

CLAIMS.

Against county, see "Counties," § 2.

estate assigned for creditors, see "Assignments for Benefit of Creditors," § 3.

estate of decedent, see "Executors and Administrators," § 2.

school district, see "Schools and School Districts."

To property levied on, see "Attachment," § 6.

CLEARING HOUSES.

3. Construction and operation. The mortgagee's failure to take possession of the property within nine months after maturity of the debt held to make his lien inferior See "Banks and Banking," § 3. to that of the attaching creditor.-Shannon v. Wolf (Ill.) 682.

4. Assignment of mortgage.

A chattel mortgage is a nonassignable instrument, and hence a purchaser takes it subject to all existing equities.-Anderson v. South Chicago Brewing Co. (Ill.) 655.

CLERKS OF COURTS.

Compensation of clerks of court for indexing decrees, etc., under Rev. St. §§ 1255, 1256. 1263, determined.-Clark v. Board of Com'rs of Lucas County (Ohio) 356.

CLIENTS.

See "Attorney and Client."

CLOUD ON TITLE.

See "Quieting Title."

COLLATERAL AGREEMENT. Parol evidence, see "Evidence," § 9. COLLATERAL SECURITY.

See "Pledges."

COLLATERAL UNDERTAKING.

See "Guaranty."

COLLECTION.

[blocks in formation]

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

See, also, "Jury"; "Taxation," § 1.
Special or local laws, see "Statutes," § 1.
Subjects and titles of statutes, see "Statutes,"
§ 2.

81. Police power in general.

Act March 8, 1897, making it unlawful to

Of estate of decedent, see "Executors and Ad- practice medicine without a license, etc., is a ministrators," § 1.

Of taxes, see "Taxation," § 4.

COLOR OF TITLE.

See "Adverse Possession."

valid exercise of police power.-State v. Webster (Ind. Sup.) 750.

§ 2. Vested rights.

A resolution of a city council authorizing the person to make a permanent structure in a street which amounts to an encroachment, confers no vested right when the construction is

To sustain adverse possession, see "Adverse made thereunder. Hibbard v. City of Chicago Possession."

COMMISSIONS.

Of broker, see "Brokers," § 2.

COMMON CARRIERS.

See "Carriers."

COMMON COUNTS.

See "Assumpsit, Action of."

COMMON SCHOOLS. See "Schools and School Districts."

COMPENSATION.

Of broker, see "Brokers," § 2.
Of trustee, see "Trusts," § 4.

COMPETENCY.

Of experts as witnesses, see "Evidence," § 10. Of witnesses in general, see "Witnesses," § 1.

COMPLAINT.

In civil actions, see "Pleading," § 52.

CONCLUSION.

Of witness, see "Evidence," § 10.

CONDEMNATION.

(Ill.) 256.

§ 3. Obligation of contracts.

The acceptance of a gratuitous trust does not establish a contract relation with the trustee, and hence the allowance to him of compensation under a statute subsequently enacted does not impair the obligation of any contract.— Arnold v. Alden (Ill.) 704.

§ 4. Privileges.

A resolution licensing a person to erect an awning in contravention of an ordinance is a grant of a special privilege, and hence void.Hibbard v. City of Chicago (Ill.) 256.

85. Equal protection of laws.

Acts 1895, p. 248, providing as to sex, age, and moral character as qualifications of applicants for liquor licenses, held not to violate the constitutional guaranty of equal protection of the law. Daniels v. State (Ind. Sup.) 74.

Acts 1897, p. 253, held not to discriminate in favor of wholesale liquor dealers so as to deny retailers equal protection of the law.-Daniels v. State (Ind. Sup.) 74.

§ 6. Due process of law.

A private sale of land for delinquent taxes, without notice to the owner other than notice of the public sale which always precedes the private sale, held not without due process of law.-Newton v. Raper (Ind. Sup.) 749.

CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS.

See "Trusts," § 1.

CONTINGENT REMAINDERS.

Taking property for public use, see "Eminent Creation, see "Wills," § 6.
Domain."

CONDITIONS.

Conditional delivery of deed, see "Escrows."
In deeds, see "Deeds," § 3.

In mortgages, see "Mortgages," § 7.
In wills, see "Wills," § 7.

CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONS.

Disclosure of communications, see "Witnesses," § 1.

CONTRACTS.

See, also, "Assumpsit, Action of"; "Carriers," § 1; "Covenants"; "Guaranty"; "Indemnity"; "Insurance": "Interest" "Landlord and Tenant"; "Partnership"; "Patents": "Payment"; "Principal and Agent"; "Principal and Surety"; "Sales"; "Vendor and Purchaser"; "Work and Labor."

Agreements within statute of frauds, see "Frauds, Statute of."

Bills of lading, see "Carriers," § 1.

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

ance.

[ocr errors]

Submission to arbitration, see "Arbitration and Award."

Subrogation to rights or remedies of creditors, see "Subrogation."

'Transportation of goods, see "Carriers," § 1. § 1. Requisites and validity.

Where a contract purports to be given under seal, and seals appear opposite some of the names, it will be presumed that all intended to seal.-Ryan v. Cooke (Ill.) 213.

Where the president of defendant wrote to plaintiff, "When you get house and barn completed for Mr. B., send bill for same to us. Star Brewery, P. H. Rice, Prest.,"-the_letter created a liability.-Star Brewing Co. v. Farnsworth (Ill.) 228.

Instrument executed by two owners of stock of corporation held a complete and binding contract.-Sellers v. Greer (Ill.) 246.

Acceptance of proposed written contract, assenting to its terms, and acting on it, held equivalent to formal execution.-Sellers v. Greer (Ill.) 246.

Acceptance of new terms on refusal of plaintiff to perform held based on a good consideration.-Pierce v. Walton (Ind. App.) 309.

A promise by the purchaser of coal to protect the barges in which it was shipped held supported by sufficient consideration, although made after the contract for the purchase of coal was closed.-Pierce v. Walton (Ind. App.) 309. The duty resting on the purchaser of coal to protect the barges of vendor in which it was shipped is a sufficient consideration to support an express promise to protect the barges from ice.-Pierce v. Walton (Ind. App.) 309.

Promise to induce one to perform an act which he is bound to perform is without consideration.-Spencer v. McLean (Ind. App.) 769. The mere fact that adjoining houses are uniform in line does not warrant a finding that it was due to agreement. - Hamlen v. Keith (Mass.) 462.

An agreement by the officers of corporations engaged in manufacturing and dealing in electric goods, who became officers of a new corporation which purchased the interest and good will of the others not to engage in a like business for five years, held not against public policy.-Anchor Electric Co. v. Hawkes (Mass.) 509.

Illegally carrying out a lawful contract will not prevent a recovery.-Fox v. Rogers (Mass.) 1041.

§ 2. Construction and operation.

Where a contract is entire, and is to be partly performed in the state where made and partly in another, the lex loci contractus governs as to its validity.-Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Beebe (Ill.) 1019.

Transactions construed, and held, that a contract was not limited to a written statement.Banewur v. Levenson (Mass.) 10.

To change construction of words otherwise plain, evidence of intent is inadmissible.-Smith V. Abington Sav. Bank (Mass.) 545.

Agreement between stockholders of corporation as to purchase and sale of their respective shares of stock among each other construed, and rights of the parties thereunder determined.-Jones v. Brown (Mass.) 648.

§ 3. Abandonment.

Right of building contractor to abandon the work before completion determined.-School Town of Winamac v. Hess (Ind. Sup.) 81. § 4. Actions for breach.

A recovery may be had under a contract, if there has been a substantial compliance therewith, less the damages requisite to indemnify the other party for failure to fully comply with its terms.-Shepard v. Mills (Ill.) 709.

The provisions of a builder's contract considered, and held, that an action for breach and for labor and material furnished could not be maintained without an architect's certificate.International Cement Co. v. Beifeld (Ill.) 716.

Claim against an insolvent estate held to be made within the terms of a building contract, and not to be an action for damages independent of the contract.-International Cement Co. v. Beifeld (Ill.) 716.

Where instrument authorizes demand for paypayment in money does not authorize action.— ment in produce only, refusal of demand for Leiter v. Emmons (Ind. App.) 40.

In an action for breach of contract, held, that defendant was not liable for the value of goods of plaintiff which he obtained otherwise than under the contract.-Banewur v. Levenson (Mass.) 10.

A party relying on the execution of a written agreement as an abandonment of a previous oral agreement assumes the burden of proof.Banewur v. Levenson (Mass.) 10.

A parol agreement held not rescinded by the drawing up of a written agreement which was never signed.-Banewur v. Levenson (Mass.) 10.

In an action for breach of contract to procure the release of an attachment, held, that plaintiff was not required to show that he tried to procure another to assume defendant's undertaking.-Banewur v. Levenson (Mass.) 10.

In an action for breach of contract to procure the release of an attachment by furnishing money to pay creditors, it was no defense that de fendant had replevied the attached goods, and been adjudged to return them. - Banewur v. Levenson (Mass.) 10.

Complaint, in action on conditional contract, held insufficient, where it failed to set out the condition as part of the contract, and aver per Rubber Works v. Graham (Mass.) 547. formance thereof or excuse the want.-Newton

Contract with corporation construed, and held that, after it had been carried out, the corpora tion could not defend on the ground that it created no obligation, or was void for uncer tainty or want of mutuality.-Herrick v. Wardwell (Ohio) 903.

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.

See "Negligence," § 2.

CONVERSION.

See, also, "Trover and Conversion."

Wrongful conversion of personal property, see "Trover and Conversion."

In partition between heirs the proceeds of a sale held to be real estate for distribution to

[blocks in formation]

See, also, "Building and Loan Associations"; "Insurance," 82; "Municipal Corporations"; "Street Railroads," § 1.

Quo warranto, see "Quo Warranto."

not subject to lien for their full value, held valid.-Clapp v. Allen (Ind. App.) 587.

One who received benefits of a contract, when sued thereon, held not permitted to claim that the contract was ultra vires as to the other party.-Voris v. Star City Building & Loan Ass'n (Ind. App.) 779.

One who deals with a corporation is presumed to know the limitations of its authority, and hence is estopped to plead its want of authority-Voris v. Star City Building & Loan Ass'n (Ind. App.) 779.

Personal property includes an equitable or contingent right to receive a possible surplus remaining from the proceeds of a foreclosure sale after satisfaction of the debt.-Gray v. Massachusetts Cent. R. Co. (Mass.) 549.

A lease by a railroad company held to include all its property, whether pertaining exclusively to the road or not.-Gray v. Massachusetts Cent. R. Co. (Mass.) 549.

§ 4. Insolvency and receivers.

Priorities in the claims for taxes, and labor

Taxation of corporations and corporate property, preferred by common law or statute, will be ensee "Taxation," § 2.

[blocks in formation]

Contract between two persons practically owning all the corporate stock, for a division thereof, held enforceable between them, though not binding on the corporation.-Sellers v. Greer (III.) 246.

In an action against a stockholder of a corporation turning upon the question whether there had been an overvaluation of the property taken for the stock, held error to admit evidence of a conversation between one of the persons who turned in such property and a third party, in which the overvaluation was admitted.-White, Corbin & Co. v. Jones (N. Y.)

289.

Stockholders whose names appear on the stock book or on stubs of stock certificates as holders of stock held subject to debts of the corporation while their names so remain.-Herrick v. Wardwell (Ohio) 903.

Debt for milk delivered under a contract with a corporation held a liability against the stockholders, who assigned their stock to insolvent parties before such delivery.-Herrick v. Wardwell (Ohio) 903.

2. Officers and agents.

In an action by a corporation creditor to recover of a director the penalty prescribed by Burns' Rev. St. 1894, § 5076, the burden of proving the facts from which the liability arises is on the creditor.-Bachman v. Cooper (Ind. App.) 394.

3. Corporate powers and liabilities. An act done by the president of a corporation, pertaining to its business, will be presumed to have been authorized.-Anderson v. South Chicago Brewing Co. (Ill.) 655.

forced in the distribution of the assets of an insolvent corporation in an equity proceeding under a receiver.-Jones v. Arena Pub. Co. (Mass.) 15.

§ 5. Reorganization.

Where, after satisfaction of a railroad mortgage debt under reorganization, a surplus reit was held to vest in the new corporation as the mained from the proceeds of foreclosure sale, legal successor of the mortgagor, and not in the purchasing committee.-Gray v. Massachusetts Cent. R. Co. (Mass.) 549.

§ 6. Dissolution.

The commencement of proceedings for the voluntary dissolution of a corporation does not prevent one with whom the corporation had made a contract for the purchase of personal property from selling such property, which the corporation had refused to take and pay for, upon notice to the receiver, and holding him for the balance.-Moore v. Potter (N. Y.) 271.

CORRECTION.

Of assessment of taxes, see "Taxation," § 3. Of irregularities and errors at trial, see "Trial,” § 8.

COSTS.

Foreclosure, see "Mortgages," § 9.

§ 1. Extent of right in general. Judgment against the prevailing party for costs in a suit to establish a contract to convey land held not an abuse of discretion.-Scott v. Beach (Ill.) 196.

§ 2. Property liable.

The fee allowed the guardian ad litem of a person claiming under a devisee held properly charged against the whole fund of the estate, on a bill to construe the will.-Arnold v. Alden (Ill.) 704.

§ 3. Taxation.

Discretion in the matter of taxing costs is not

abused by requiring complainant to pay half the costs on an accounting between partners.-Randolph v. Inman (Ill.) 104.

CO-TENANCY.

Knowledge of the president of a corporation derived in a transaction where he deals in his own interest opposed to theirs is not notice See "Tenancy in Common." to the corporation.-Seaverns v. Presbyterian Hospital (Ill.) 1079.

Sale by corporation of its assets of which it

COUNCIL.

had possession at the time, and which were | See "Municipal Corporations," § 2.

50 N.E.-73

« ForrigeFortsett »