Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

POWERS.

Creation by will, see "Wills," § 8.
Of sale in mortgage, see "Mortgages," § 8.

PRACTICE.

See "Account, Action on"; "Appeal and Error"; "Appearance"; "Arrest"; "Assumpsit, Action of"; "Attachment"; "Bail"; "Costs"; "Damages," § 3; "Deposits in Court"; "Discovery"; "Dismissal and Nonsuit"; "Divorce," § 1; "Evidence"; "Execution"; "Habeas Corpus"; "Injunction"; "Intoxicating Liquors," § 4; “Judgment"; "Judicial Sales"; "Jury"; "Limitation of Actions"; "Mandamus," § 2; New Trial"; "Parties"; "Pleading"; "Process"; "Prohibition"; "Quo Warranto." § 2; "Receivers"; "Replevin"; "Review"; "Stipulations"; "Trial"; "Venue."

Condemnation proceedings, see "Eminent Domain," § 2.

In equity, see "Equity."

In insolvency, see "Insolvency," § 1.

PRINCIPAL AND SURETY.

See, also, "Bail"; "Guaranty"; "Indemnity." Liabilities of sureties on bonds for performance of duties of office or trust, see "Guardian and Ward."

in legal proceedings, see "Appeal and Error," § 29; "Injunction," § 4.

§ 1. Discharge of surety.

by an extension of time of payment of the obRule stated as to when a surety is released ligation.-Voris v. Shotts (Ind. App.) 484.

One signing bond on condition that it should not be delivered until others signed held releas ed where it was delivered without such signature.-Spencer v. McLean (Ind. App.) 769.

A bond filed in substitution held not to release the sureties on the first bond, where it was not filed in accordance with Pub. St. c. 143, § 5.— Forbes v. Harrington (Mass.) 641.

PRIORITIES.

In justices' courts, see "Justices of the Peace," Of mechanics' liens, see "Mechanics' Liens,” § 2.

§ 1.

Verdict, see "Trial," § 6.

PREFERENCES.

In fraudulent conveyance, see "Fraudulent Conveyances.'

PREJUDICE.

Ground for reversal in civil actions, see "Appeal and Error," § 24.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.

See "Injunction," § 3.

PREMIUMS.

For insurance, see "Insurance," § 5.

PRESCRIPTION.

Acquisition of rights, see "Adverse Possession," § 1.

PRESENTMENT.

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

PRESUMPTIONS.

In civil actions, see "Evidence," § 2.

PRIVILEGE.

Of married women, see "Husband and Wife,” § 4.

PROCESS.

See, also, "Arrest"; "Execution"; "Injunction"; "Mandamus"; "Prohibition"; "Quo Warranto."

Effect of appearance, see "Appearance."
On appeal, see "Appeal and Error," § 5.

§ 1. Service.

Service by leaving copy at defendant's last and "usual place of business," under statute requiring notice to be left at his "usual or last place of residence," held insufficient, where defendant's residence and place of business are in the same place.-Stout v. Harlem (Ind. App.) 492.

Under Burns' Rev. St. 1894, § 320, stating the grounds for giving notice of pendency of an action by publication, held, that only one of the grounds need be set forth.-Redman v. Burgess (Ind. App.) 825.

PROHIBITION.

Of traffic in intoxicating liquors, see "Intoxicating Liquors."

§ 1. Nature and grounds.

Prohibition will not lie to correct an error

On appeal or error, see "Appeal and Error," made by the circuit court.-People v. Circuit

21.

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.

See, also, "Brokers"; "Factors."

Admissions by agent, see "Evidence," § 7. Agency of partner for firm, see "Partnership," § 1.

Corporate agents, see "Corporations," § 3. Insurance agents, see "Insurance," § 3. Municipal agents, see "Municipal Corporations," § 10.

1. Rights and liabilities as to third persons.

An agent for the sale of property, who took it under a mortgage given to secure the price, held not to have authority to agree to cancel the debt on the mortgagor's surrendering the property.-Robinson v. Nipp (Ind. App.) 408.

A contract made by an agent without authority held, on the evidence, not to be ratified.Merritt v. Bissell (N. Y.) 280.

[blocks in formation]

PROXIMATE CAUSE.

QUO WARRANTO.

Direct or remote consequences of injury, see § 1. Nature and grounds.
"Damages," § 1.

PUBLICATION.

Service of process, see "Process," § 1.

PUBLIC DEBT.

See "Counties"; "Towns," § 1.

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.

See "Municipal Corporations."

Where causes of removal from office are pre-
scribed by statute, which also prescribes a mode
of procedure for removal, quo warranto will not
lie. State v. McLain (Ohio) 907; Same v. Gan-
son, Id.

Quo warranto is not a proper remedy for re-
moval of sheriff or mayor from office for fail-
ure to perform official duties in suppression of
mobs and arrest of offenders.-State v. Mc-
Lain (Ohio) 907; Same v. Ganson, Id.

To maintain quo warranto against a civil of-
ficer, under Rev. St. § 6760, the act complained
of must be a ground of forfeiture of his office.
-State v. McLain (Ohio) 907; Same v. Ganson,

By municipalities, see "Municipal Corporations," Id.
§§ 4-7.

PUBLIC LANDS.

1. Survey and disposal of lands of
United States.

Resurvey of 1875 of lands conveyed to the
state under swamp-land act of 1850 by descrip-
tions of survey of 1834 held invalid.-Mason v.
Calumet Canal & Improvement Co. (Ind. Sup.)
85.

§ 2. Disposal of lands of the states.
Title to lands covered by Lake Michigan in
the state of Illinois is held by the state in trust
for the people, and cannot be alienated except
in aid of commerce.-Illinois Cent. R. Co. v.
City of Chicago (Ill.) 1104.

PUBLIC ROADS.

See "Highways."

PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

See "Schools and School Districts," § 1

PUBLIC USE.

Dedication of property, see "Dedication."
Taking property for public use, see "Eminent
Domain."

PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY.

See "Waters and Water Courses," § 2.

PUNISHMENT.

§ 2. Jurisdiction and proceedings.

Burns' Rev. St. §§ 1145, 1146, considered, and
held to authorize the filing of an information
of quo warranto in the name of the state
against one usurping the office of county super-
intendent by a relator claiming the same.-
State v. Crowe (Ind. Sup.) 471.

RAILROADS.

See, also, "Street Railroads."
Carriage of goods and passengers, see "Car-
riers.'

§ 1. Right of way.

Right of way granted by the state to the
Illinois Central Railroad construed, and held,
that the words "land" and "streams" did not in-
clude lands belonging to the state covered by
the waters of Lake Michigan.-Illinois Cent.
R. Co. v. City of Chicago (I.) 1104.
§ 2. Leases.

A lease of a railroad by the mortgagor held
to pass an equitable or contingent right to
money remaining from proceeds of a foreclosure
sale.-Gray V. Massachusetts Cent. R. Co.
(Mass.) 549.

[blocks in formation]

See "Criminal Law," § 7; "Larceny," § 2; "Pen- gine held to apply to car that has been "kick-
alties."

QUESTIONS FOR JURY.

In civil actions, see "Trial," § 3.

In criminal prosecutions, see "Homicide," § 2.

QUIETING TITLE.

1. Right of action and defenses.
Cross complaint to quiet title held to set up
a cause of action.-Allen v. Adams (Ind. Sup.)
387.

A petition to quiet title, under St. 1893, c.
340, will be dismissed where there is only a
mere apprehension that an adverse claim may
be maintained.-Gilman v. Gilman (Mass.) 452.
Under St. 1893, c. 340, a railroad claiming a
right to an easement, but not yet having pos-
sessed it, cannot be compelled, at the suit of
the owner of the fee, to litigate its rights.-
May v. New England R. Co. (Mass.) 652.

QUI TAM ACTIONS.

See "Penalties."

ed."-Chicago & A. R. Co. v. O'Neil (Ill.) 216.

A railroad company is conclusively presumed
to know the whereabouts of all its trains.-
Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Heck (Ind.
Sup.) 988.

§ 5. Injuries to persons.

Evidence held to justify a finding of gross neg-
ligence in leaving open a swinging door of a
freight car at night, whereby a person beside
the track was injured.-Chicago & A. R. Co. v.
O'Neil (Ill.) 216.

Where a person is injured by a train at a
highway crossing, the fault is prima facie his
own, and he must show affirmatively that by
looking and listening he could not have seen or
heard it in time to avoid the accident.-Pitts-
burgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Fraze (Ind.
Sup.) 576.

Evidence of person passing a crossing in front
of an approaching train, that he heard no bell
rung, held admissible.-Walsh v. Boston & M.
R. Co. (Mass.) 453.

Failure of gatekeeper to give warning of ap-
proach of a train is gross negligence.-Walsh
v. Boston & M. R. Co. (Mass.) 453.

50 N.E.-75

In an action for death on a railroad track, | § 1. Grounds of receivership.
under Pub. St. c. 112, § 212, the administrator
must show exercise of due care, and negli-
gence on the part of the railroad company.—
Walsh v. Boston & M. R. Co. (Mass.) 453.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it
will be presumed that failure to give statutory
signals at crossing contributed to an accident
there.-Walsh v. Boston & M. R. Co. (Mass.)

453.

[blocks in formation]

Under Pub. St. c. 112, § 212, a railroad com-
pany is liable on failing to give the required
signals at grade crossing, where the negli-
gence contributed to the death of plaintiff's in-
testate, without showing by plaintiff that in-
testate exercised due care.-Walsh v. Boston
& M. R. Co. (Mass.) 453.

Evidence held insufficient to show gross neg-
ligence on the part of a person killed at a
railroad crossing.-Walsh v. Boston & M. R.
Co. (Mass.) 453.

No recovery can be had where a person is
killed while crossing a track in front of an
approaching train in plain sight.-Young v.
New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Mass.) 455.

§ 6. Injuries to animals.

A company which runs its trains over another
company's road held liable for all injuries caus-
ed by such trains because of the road not being
fenced, irrespective of contract, under Burns
Rev. St. 88 5312, 5313.-Pittsburg, C., C. & St.
L. Ry. Co. v. Thompson (Ind. App.) 828.

A finding that the road was unfenced at a
certain point, and that plaintiff's horses were
killed by getting on the track at such point,
held sufficient to support a judgment for him.-
Pittsburg, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Thompson
(Ind. App.) 828.

§ 7. Fires.

In an action for property burned by sparks
from defendant's engine, the engine being iden-
tified, evidence of other fires caused by other
engines is inadmissible.-First Nat. Bank v.
Lake Erie & W. R. Co. (Ill.) 1023.

In an action against a railroad company for
burning property, testimony of other fires caus-
ed by defendant's engines held inadmissible in
rebuttal.-First Nat. Bank v. Lake Erie & W.
R. Co. (Ill.) 1023.

A finding that a fire was communicated by a
locomotive throwing sparks held justified.-Wild
v. Boston & M. R. R. (Mass.) 533.

One who suffered a window to remain broken
in a building where hay was stored near a rail-
road track held not negligent, so as to preclude
a recovery for fire set by a locomotive.-Wild
v. Boston & M. R. R. (Mass.) 533.

RATE.

Of interest, see "Interest," § 2.

RATIFICATION.

In the absence of a statute, complainant, in
an action to enforce a mechanic's lien, is not en-
titled to have a receiver appointed pendente
lite. Stone v. Tyler (Ill.) 688.

§ 2. Appointment.

who are such pending litigation resulting in the
Members or stockholders of a corporation,
appointment of a receiver therefor, are irrevoca-
bly bound thereby.-Hatfield v. Cummings (Ind.
Sup.) 817.

The validity of the appointment of a receiv
er by a court of competent jurisdiction cannot
be attacked collaterally.-Hatfield v. Cummings
(Ind. Sup.) 817.

A complaint held sufficient to entitle plaintiff
to the appointment of a receiver without no-
Loan Ass'n v. Moore (Ind. Sup.) 869.
tice, under the statute.-Security Savings &

The fact of a receiver having been appointed
is no objection to the appointment of a receiver
in the domicil state of an insolvent corporation
in Indiana.-Security Savings & Loan Ass'n v.
Moore (Ind. Sup.) 869.

§ 3. Title to and possession of prop-
erty.

A receiver who occupied for three months
premises demised to the insolvents held to have
assumed the lease.-De Wolf v. Royal Trust Co.
(Ill.) 1049.

As to assets not reduced to possession, a re-

ceiver's authority is only co-extensive with the
jurisdiction in which he is appointed.-Security
Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Moore (Ind. Sup.) 869.
§ 4. Management and disposition of
property.

One furnishing goods to a receiver operating
an hotel pending appeal held to have a lien on
the furniture and fixtures which had been sold
on foreclosure to complainant.-Knickerbocker
v. McKindley Coal & Mining Co. (Ill.) 330.

A court, after permitting a party to take
possession of property that had been in a re-
ceiver's hands, held to have power to order
receiver to sell the property to pay for goods
furnished him.-Knickerbocker v. McKindley
Coal & Mining Co. (Ill.) 330.

Where a receiver of an insolvent corporation
was appointed under general equity powers,
held, that the rights of the parties should be ad-
justed from the date the receiver was appoint-
ed.-Jones v. Arena Pub. Co. (Mass.) 15.
§ 5. Actions.

In foreclosure by the receiver of an associa-
tion, held, that the complaint need not show that
it was in debt, or that claims were allowed or
Hatfield v.
judgments rendered against it.
Cummings (Ind. Sup.) 817.

[ocr errors]

In foreclosure by a receiver, a special find-
ing held to show authority to sue.-Hatfield v.
Cummings (Ind. Sup.) 817.

A complaint by a receiver held to sufficiently
allege that he was authorized to sue.-Hatfield
v. Cummings (Ind. Sup.) 817.

§ 6. Foreign and ancillary receiver-
ships.

A receiver of a foreign corporation, appoint-
Of act of agent, see "Principal and Agent," § 1. ed by a court of the foreign state, cannot main-

REBUTTAL.

Evidence, see "Trial," § 2.

RECEIVERS.

Of corporations in general, see "Corporations,"
§ 4.

tain an action in this state against such corpo-
ration, as sole defendant, for the sole purpose
of obtaining the appointment in this state of
an ancillary receiver.-Mabon v. Ongley Electric
Co. (N. Y.) 805.

See "Bail."

RECOGNIZANCES.

[blocks in formation]

See "Chattel Mortgages," § 2; "Deeds," § 2; Of statute, see "Statutes," § 4.
"Mortgages," § 2.

Transcript on appeal or writ of error, see "Ap-
peal and Error," 88 7-14; "Criminal Law,"
6.

REDEMPTION.

From mortgage, see "Mortgages," § 10.

REFERENCE.

See "Arbitration and Award."

REPLEVIN.

§ 1. Right of action.

Where the taking of personalty is unlawful,
no demand need be made before bringing an
action for its recovery.-Ahlendorf v. Barkous
(Ind. App.) 887.

§ 2. Pleading.

Record of circuit court quieting title in the

To master or commissioner in equity, see "Eq- property in dispute to one claimant held admissi-
uity," § 4.

REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENTS.

§ 1. Proceedings and relief.

A declaration of trust will not be reformed
on the ground of mistake, except on full, clear,
and decisive proof of the mistake.-Richardson
v. Adams (Mass.) 941.

Evidence held not sufficiently clear to warrant
the reforming of a trust on the ground of
mistake.-Richardson v. Adams (Mass.) 941.

REGISTRATION.

See "Deeds," § 2.

Of voters, see "Elections," § 2.

REHEARING.

See "New Trial."

On appeal or writ of error, see "Appeal and Er-
ror," § 17.

RELEASE.

See, also, "Mortgages," § 7.

§ 1. Evidence.

Evidence as to whether the plaintiff, who was
an ignorant man, understood the contents of
a receipt for damages he signed by mark, con-

ble as bearing on the question of right and pos-
session.-Fox v. Cox (Ind. App.) 92.

[blocks in formation]

sidered, and held, that the question of whether In deeds, see "Deeds." § 3.
or not he understood was for the jury.-Whit- In wills, see "Wills," § 7.
ney & Starrett Co. v. O'Rourke (Ill.) 242.

Where a release signed by plaintiff differed
from his proposition for a compromise, it was

RESULTING TRUSTS.

held, in the absence of fraud or mistake, that See "Trusts," § 1.

he was presumed to have known the contents of
the instrument, and to have consented to the
variation from the terms proposed.-Phares v.
Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. (Ind. App.) 306.

REMAND.

Of cause on appeal or writ of error, see "Ap-
peal and Error," § 28.

REMOVAL.

From office in general, see "Officers," § 1.

REMOVAL OF CLOUD.

See "Quieting Title."

RENEWAL.

Of lease, see "Landlord and Tenant," § 2.

RENT.

See "Landlord and Tenant," § 5.

REPAIRS.

Of highway, see "Highways," § 2.

[blocks in formation]

Where land taken for a canal is abandoned
by the state for that use, but is leased to a
railroad company, the owner is entitled to com-
pensation for the additional burden and the
damages resulting from the new use.-Vought
v. Columbus, H. V. & A. R. Co. (Ohio) 442;
Walsh v. Same, Id.; Wright v. Same, Id.;
Shotwell v. Same, Id.

Lands acquired by a canal company under a
special act held to revert to the owner, from
whom they were acquired on the abandonment
of the canal.-Vought v. Columbus, H. V. & A.

Of premises demised, see "Landlord and Ten- R. Co. (Ohio) 442; Walsh v. Same, Id.; Wright
ant," § 4.

v. Same, Id.; Shotwell v. Same, Id.

REVIEW.

and pay for it according to contract, does not
act as the agent of the vendee, in a literal sense,
the vendee any title or interest in the property.
-Moore v. Potter (N. Y.) 271.

See, also, "Criminal Law," § 6; "Appeal and nor does his adopting this remedy confer upon

Error."

On petition to vacate judgment, held error to
grant a writ of review. Clarke v. Bacall
(Mass.) 614.

REVOCATION.

Of will, see "Wills," § 2.

RIPARIAN RIGHTS.

See "Waters and Water Courses," § 1.

RISKS.

SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
§ 1. Public schools.

A contract to build a school house held based
on a sufficient consideration though the debt
thereby created exceeded the constitutional lim-
it by one-half of the contract price.-School
Town of Winamac v. Hess (Ind. Sup.) 81.

County superintendent of schools cannot, aft-
er granting, on appeal, petition to build a
school, order trustees of two townships inter-
ested to erect building on land purchased by

Assumed by employé, see "Master and Servant," one of the trustees without the knowledge of
§ 7.

See "Highways."

ROADS.

Streets in cities, see "Municipal Corporations,"
$$ 9, 10.

ROBBERY.

Evidence held insufficient to sustain
tion.-Rippetoe v. People (Ill.) 166.

SALES.

the other.-Henricks v. State (Ind. Sup.) 559.

The acts of a county auditor in refusing to
apportion to a township certain money for
school purposes assessed to and paid by it con-
sidered, and held to be in accordance with
Burns' Rev. St. 1894, § 5973.-State v. Mathews
(Ind. Sup.) 572.

A school township is not liable for an order
convic-issued by its trustee to the payee without any
in the hands of an innocent holder which was
consideration, in pursuance of an agreement to
defraud the township.-Davis v. Steuben School
Tp. of Warren County (Ind. App.) 1.

See, also, "Judicial Sales"; "Vendor and Pur-trustees in failing to defend an action against
chaser."

Of intoxicating liquors, see "Intoxicating Liq-

uors."

[blocks in formation]

Tax sales, see "Taxation," § 5.

§ 1. Requisites and validity of contract.
Correspondence held not to constitute an order
for goods, nor to show the existence of a
standing order.-Moody v. Standard Wheel Co.
(Ind. App.) 890.

§ 2. Construction of contract.

Parol testimony is admissible to show a bill
of sale, absolute in form, was executed as se-
curity.-Raphael v. Mullen (Mass.) 515.

3. Remedies of seller.

A contractor may waive a provision that the
title to the property should not pass until the
price was fully paid.-Shepard v. Mills (Ill.)
709.

Purchasers of corporate property, taking pos-
session and exercising acts of ownership, can-
not defeat recovery of note for the price, on the
ground that the sale was invalid.--Clapp v. Al-
len (Ind. App.) 587.

Evidence as to how goods shipped were di-
rected held admissible in action for price to
show delivery.-Bertha Mineral Co. v. Morrill
(Mass.) 534.

Evidence in action for price of goods sold held
to sustain verdict for plaintiff.-Bertha Mineral
Co. v. Morrill (Mass.) 534.

A township is bound by the negligence of its
it.-Davis v. Steuben School Tp. of Warren
County (Ind. App.) 1.

Town in which a school of a grade correspond-
ing to a high school is maintained, though not
by the town. held not liable for tuition of a
child at a high school of another town, under
St. 1894, c. 436.-Hurlburt v. Inhabitants of
Boxford (Mass.) 1043.

The distance of its residence from the school
of its district, which, under Rev. St. 1897, §
4022a, entitles a child to attend school in an-
other district, is one and a half miles by the
most direct public highway.-Board of Educa-
tion of Butler Tp. v. Board of Education of
Village of Eldorado (Ohio) 812.

Where commissioners are appointed, under
Rev. St. §§ 3946-3948, to determine expediency
of a subdistrict, the decision of such commis-
sioners establishing the district, and selecting a
school-house site, is conclusive.-Moss v. Board
of Education of Special School Dist. No. 1
(Ohio) 921.

SECONDARY EVIDENCE.

In civil actions, see "Evidence," § 5.

SENTENCE.

In criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law,"
§ 5.

SEPARATE ESTATE.

Of married women, see "Husband and Wife,"
§ 5.

SERVANTS.

Contract of sale construed, and parties there- See "Master and Servant."
to determined. - Sercombe-Bolte Mfg. Co. v.
John P. Lovell Arms Co. (Mass.) 535.

In an action to recover price of horses sold,

SERVICE.

statute of frauds is satisfied by evidence of de- Of process, see "Process."
livery and acceptance.-Allin v. Whittemore
(Mass.) 618; Whittemore v. Allin, Id.

SERVICES.

A vendor of personal property, in selling such
property, when the vendee has refused to take See "Work and Labor."

« ForrigeFortsett »