would not support an attachment on the ground of a debt fraudulently contracted.-Kilpatrick v. Inman (Colo.) 1080. I. THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY. II. PROPERTY SUBJECT TO ATTACH- under Code Civ. Proc. § 287, has power to re MENT. Interest of vendor of land after conveyance but V. LEVY, LIEN, AND CUSTODY AND § 164. Civ. Code, §§ 2968, 2969, held to provide that the right to attach mortgaged chattels may be exercised only after payment or tender of the mortgage debt.-Sousa v. Lucas (Cal.) 413. $ 200. Where real estate is attached, and, after judgment sold to plaintiff, such sale may be confirmed and a sheriff's deed issued, even after a lapse of 12 years.-Doty v. Knox (Kan.) 437. $201. A sheriff's deed, under an order of sale of attached real estate, conveys all the title possessed by the judgment debtor when the order of sale was issued or at any time thereafter.-Doty v. Knox (Kan.) 437. VII. QUASHING, VACATING, DISSO- § 246. A denial of a ground for attachment § 249. On a motion to dissolve an attachment, issued on the ground that defendant was about to place his property beyond the reach of creditors, evidence held such that the motion should have been granted.-Nichoson v. Erickson (Wash.) 836. move or suspend an attorney from practice.Baird v. Justice's Court of Riverside Tp. (Cal. App.) 259. § 38. The practicing of law by one occupying a judicial position is not one of the causes. for removal or suspension of an attorney.Baird v. Justice's Court of Riverside Tp. (Cal. App.) 259. $45. If an attorney engages in the practice of his profession while holding a judicial position, in violation of Code Civ. Proc. § 171, his offense is that of a judicial officer, and not Riverside Tp. (Cal. App.) 259. that of attorney.-Baird v. Justice's Court of $ 57. Under Code Civ. Proc. § 1069, defendant in justice's court held not a proper party to bring certiorari to review an order disbarring his attorney from practicing in such coart. Baird v. Justice's Court of Riverside Tp. (Cal. App.) 259. III. DUTIES AND LIABILITIES OF AT. § 123. The relation of attorney and client is confidential, and in view of Civ. Code, § 2235, any contract between the attorney and client while the relation continues, whereby the former obtains an advantage, is presumed to have been made under his undue influence.Cooley v. Miller & Lux (Cal.) 981. § 123. The presumption of an attorney's undue influence in case of a contract with his client does not apply where he openly assumes a hostile attitude to his client, nor to a contract creating the relation and fixing compensation. -Cooley v. Miller & Lux (Cal.) 981. IV. COMPENSATION AND LIEN OF ATTORNEY. (A) Fees and Other Remuneration. X. LIABILITIES ON BONDS OR UN- Attorney fees as costs, see Costs, § 173. $343. The giving of a redelivery bond by defendant in attachment, without moving against the attachment, held a waiver of a right of action on the attachment bond.-Gutter v. Joiner (Wash.) 457. XI. WRONGFUL ATTACHMENT. Irregular attachment of mortgaged chattels as conversion, see Chattel Mortgages, § 170. ATTENDANCE. Of witness, see Witnesses, § 21. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. Attorneys as public officers, see District and Attorneys in fact, see Principal and Agent. sel, estoppel to allege error, see Criminal Law, § 1137. Objections to conduct and remarks of counsel for purpose of review, see Appeal and Error, $230. Attorneys' fees on foreclosure, see Mortgages, $ 581. Recovery in action for slander of title, see Libel Recovery in action on bill or note, see Bills and AUTHORITY. Of agent, see Principal and Agent, §§ 103-136. BAIL. Reduction of bail in habeas corpus, see Habeas II. IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS. $ 89. A complaint on a bail bond held to sufficiently allege the execution of the undertaking, and that in consideration thereof the principal was discharged from custody.-People v. Bellafont (Cal. App.) 426. sufliciently allege a breach of covenant and the attachment of the sureties' liability for the penalty.-People v. Bellafont (Cal. App.) § 89. A complaint on a bail bond held to 428. Embezzlement or larceny by bailee, see Em- Denial of corporate existence and organization bezzlement. on information and belief, see Corporations, $ 514. Particular species of bailments, and bailments incident to particular occupations. See Carriers, §§ 39-164; Livery Stable Keepers; Pledges; Warehousemen. § 2. Evidence held to show defendant a bailee for hire.-Vogel & Son v. Braudrick (Okl.) 197. BENCH WARRANT. See Criminal Law, § 263. BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATIONS. See Associations. Building or loan associations, see Building and Loan Associations. BENEFITS. Acceptance of, as ground of estoppel, see Estop- § 418. A discharge in bankruptcy extinguishes a pre-existing debt, and is not merely See Wills. a bar to the remedy thereof.-Needham v. Matthewson (Kan.) 436. § 434. To revive debt discharged in bankruptcy, there must be an express promise. Needham v. Matthewson (Kan.) 436. BANKS AND BANKING. III. FUNCTIONS AND DEALINGS. BEQUESTS. BEST AND SECONDARY EVIDENCE. In civil actions, see Evidence, §§ 178, 183. See Gaming. BETTING. BIAS. (B) Representation of Bank by Officers Of witness, see Witnesses, §§ 372-374. and Agents. $ 102. The president of a bank being its executive head, the rule that his power is limited BILL OF EXCEPTIONS. to transactions expressly authorized by the di- See Exceptions, Bill of. rectors no longer obtains.-Bartlett Estate Co. v. Fraser (Cal. App.) 130. BILL OF EXCHANGE. BILLS AND NOTES. § 113. A bank, having accepted the proceeds See Bills and Notes. from the rediscount of a note obtained from an assignment of the note made by the president, held estopped to deny the president's authority under Civ. Code, § 3519.-Bartlett Estate Co. v. Fraser (Cal. App.) 130. (C) Deposits. Incorporation of companies guarantying payment of bank deposits, see Insurance, § 32. Uniformity of operation of law relating to drawing of checks with intent to defraud, see Statutes, § 86. (E) Loans and Discounts. § 181. The 8 per cent. interest rate prescribed by Act Cong. Feb. 18. 1901, c. 379, § 8, 31 Stat. 795, does not apply to a domestic corporation doing a banking business in Indian Territory under Arkansas laws extended to the territory by such act.-Sulphur Bank & Trust Co. v. Medlock (Okl.) 321. Notes for corporate stock, see Corporations, § 92. Usury in note, see Usury, § 76. I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. 102. That a wife signed a mortgage note on statement that it did not bind her personally, but only her interest in the land, it was no defense unless the mistake was mutual.-Grant v. Isett (Kan.) 1021. II. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION. § 117. A note executed and delivered by a nonresident while temporarily in the state to a resident thereof is a domestic contract.-Jamieson v. Potts (Or.) 93. § 120. A note which is joint by its express terms must be enforced according to its terms, and Civ. Code, § 1430, providing that an obligation imposed upon several persons may be joint, several, or joint and several, does not apply.-Bartlett Estate Co. v. Fraser (Cal. App.) 130. etc., is joint, and not joint and several.-Bart§ 120. A note in form, "We promise to pay." lett Estate Co. v. Fraser (Cal. App.) 130. V. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES ON INDORSEMENT OR TRANSFER. (D) Bona Fide Purchasers. § 372. Defense of married woman to note that was signed by her through inadvertence or mistake held ineffectual as against bona fide holder.-Grant v. Isett (Kan.) 1021. VI. PRESENTMENT, DEMAND, NO- § 405. An action on an overdue note, payable in money to the payee or his order, brought by the indorsee, is a sufficient demand for payment to authorize a recovery.-Hillman v. Stanley (Wash.) 816. VIII. ACTIONS. Admissions by joint makers, see Evidence, § 226. Allegations on information and belief, see Pleading, § 121. Limitation of action dependent on absence of defendant from state, see Limitation of Actions, $ 84. Set-off or counterclaim in favor of one co-obligor, see Set-Off and Counterclaim, § 44. § 493. Maker of note seeking to avoid it Bonds in judicial proceedings. Appeal from justice's court, see Justices of the II. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION. III. NEGOTIABILITY AND TRANSFER. for want of jurisdiction or for illegal considera- To railroad company, see Railroads, § 64. BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. § 501. Held, that certain evidence in an action on a note should have been stricken.- As documentary evidence, see Evidence, § 376. Rosnagle v. Armstrong (Idaho) 216. § 504. In an action by a bona fide purchaser on a joint and several note, evidence offered in corroboration of defendants' theory that they had not executed a joint note held properly excluded.-Rosnagle v. Armstrong (Idaho) 216. § 504. On an issue whether defendants had executed the joint and several note sued on, they contending that they had merely executed their individual notes, certain evidence held properly admitted.-Rosnagle v. Armstrong (Idaho) 216. § 523. In an action against a maker of a nonnegotiable note by the assignee of the payee, the extent of the maker's right to enforce proof of assignment is his protection from further liability. Bartlett Estate Co. v. Fraser (Cal. App.) 130. § 523. In an action against a maker of a nonnegotiable note by, the assignee of the payee, evidence held to support a finding that the note was assigned to plaintiff.-Bartlett Estate Co. v. Fraser (Cal. App.) 130. § 534. In an action on a note providing for a reasonable attorney's fee, certain evidence held inadmissible on the issue of the reasonableness of an attorney's fee.-Hillman v. Stanley (Wash.) 816. BOARD OF TRADE. BOUNDARIES. Adverse possession of land occupied by mistake I. DESCRIPTION. 3. A deed held made with reference to a section line as shown by stakes on the ground, so that the boundary could not be disturbed by showing the stakes were not on the true section line.-Beall v. Weir (Cal. App.) 133. § 3. While course and distance yield to natural and ascertained objects, in the absence of these, if the course and distance cannot be reconciled, there is no universal rule that one be preferred over the other.-Davies v. Wickstrom (Wash.) 454. II. EVIDENCE, ASCERTAINMENT, AND ESTABLISHMENT. Parol or extrinsic evidence as to boundaries of property conveyed, see Evidence, § 460. § 35. Evidence that after a deed had been executed, and while both parties were claiming under their respective deeds, they agreed by parol that the boundary line between their respective properties should be the fence then existing, was admissible.-Parks v. Baker (Kan.) 439. 36. On appeal from a county surveyor's report establishing boundary lines, record of former survey held admissible, though not showing that it was made on notice to all interested parties.-Dent v. Simpson (Kan.) 542. § 37. Evidence held to sustain a finding that parties located a specified line as their common boundary.-Davies v. Wickstrom (Wash.) 454. § 48. Adjoining owners held to have acquiesced in defendant's adverse possession up to a division fence.-Bayhouse v. Urquides (Idaho) 1066. § 49. Where the location of land is uncertain because of insufficient or inconsistent description, the location of the premises on the ground by the parties may be resorted to to determine their intention.-Davies v. Wickstrom (Wash.) 454. $53. The purpose of a resurvey subsequent bond and mortgage.-Henry Continental to taking title by purchasers and settlers is to Building & Loan Ass'n (Cal.) 960. ascertain the lines of the original survey and the location of the original boundaries as established.-Bayhouse v. Urquides (Idaho) 1066. BREACH. Of contract, see Contracts, § 303; Sales, §§ BREACH OF MARRIAGE PROMISE. Conformity of instructions to pleadings and issues, see Trial, § 251. BRIDGES. Over irrigation canal, see Waters and Water Courses, $244. BRIEFS. Expense of as costs, see Costs, § 258. On appeal or writ of error, see Appeal and Error, § 773. BROKERS. See Exchanges; Principal and Agent. Insurance brokers, see Insurance, § 79. IV. COMPENSATION AND LIEN. § 56. An agent or owner cannot list property with a broker, and, after he has procured a purchaser at the agreed price, sell the land himself to such purchaser, and refuse to divide the commission with the broker.-Dalke v. Sivyer (Wash.) 1031. $73. Where an owner or agent lists property with brokers for sale, the contracts not being exclusive, the broker first finding a purchaser is entitled to the commission.-Dalke v. Sivyer (Wash.) 1031. § 73. A broker held not entitled to share in commissions on a sale made by another broker. -Dalke v. Sivyer (Wash.) 1031. BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIA- See Associations. Conclusiveness of judgment on purchaser pending foreclosure, see Judgment, § 682. 8. False representations by the local agent of a building and loan association as to the time it would take to mature plaintiff's stock, inducing the execution of a mortgage to the association, held unauthorized and immaterial. -Henry v. Continental Building & Loan Ass'n (Cal.) 960. § 34. A borrowing member of a building and loan association held not entitled to have payments made on his stock credited as payments on the debt.-Henry v. Continental Building & Loan Ass'n (Cal.) 960. 41. Evidence held insufficient to sustain a finding that plaintiffs' obligations to defendant building and loan association were induced by the fraudulent representation that the stock would be matured in seven years.-Henry v. Continental Building & Loan Ass'n (Cal.) 960. BURDEN OF PROOF. In civil actions, see Evidence, § 98. In criminal prosecutions, see Criminal Law, § 327. BURGLARY. II. PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT. Joinder of counts, see Indictment and Information, § 129. § 31. Though the gist of burglary is the entry of a building with the intent to commit any of the crimes mentioned in Pen. Code, & 459, yet proof of a larceny or other felony committed in the building by the accused would be proper not only to show the intent, but also the fact, of the entry.-People v. Piner (Cal. App.) 780. $ 41. Evidence held to justify a conviction of burglary.-State v. Sparks (Mont.) 87. $ 41. Evidence held to warrant a finding of burglary.-State v. Sparks (Mont.) 87. § 42. Where the charge is burglary, proof that property taken from the house burglarized is found in the possession of accused held presumptive evidence of burglary.-State v. Sparks (Mont.) 87. CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS. Rescission of contracts, see Vendor and Pur- § 8. Statements by officers or agents of a building and loan association as to the number of payments necessary to mature stock in contradiction of the member's contract cannot be made the basis of an estoppel against the asso-Setting aside fraudulent conveyances, see Fraudciation. Henry v. Continental Building & Loan Ass'n (Cal.) 960. § 8. Statements in the prospecti of a building and loan association that the stock would mature at the end of seven years held mere expressions of opinion, which could not be the basis of alleged fraudulent representations.Henry v. Continental Building & Loan Ass'n (Cal.) 960. § 12. A borrowing member of a building and loan association cannot avail himself of an agreement as to the number of payments that will mature his stock, not contained in his ulent Conveyances, §§ 295-299. II. PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF. Evidence of intent on making conveyance, see Evidence, § 151. Right to open and close, see Trial, § 25. lief of cancellation of an instrument on which an 53. To lay a foundation for affirmative reaction is based, asked for in connection with a separate defense of undue influence in procuring its execution, it is necessary that a finding be made on the facts therein averred.-Cooley v. Miller & Lux (Cal.) 981. CAPITAL. (F) Loss of or Injury to Goods. Of corporations in general, see Corporations, & ing different contracts to show the contract ac66. Laws relating to charges as impairing obligation of contracts, see Constitutional Law, § 154. Laws relating to charges as impairing vested rights, see Constitutional Law, § 101. § 12. Facts held to show an unjust discrimination in fares by an electric railroad company, which the Railroad Commission properly corrected.-Portland Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Railroad Commission of Oregon (Or.) 715. 13. Under Railroad Commission Law (Laws 1907, pp. 70, 82, 93. 94, 98, c. 53, §§ 11. 28. 48, 49, 59, 61) held that the Railroad Commission could correct charges made by an electric railroad company, which were unjustly discriminatory as to a locality, upon complaint by a town, independent of Laws 1909, p. 158, c. 97.-Portland Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Railroad Commission of Oregon (Or.) 709. § 13. Under Railroad Commission Law (Laws 1907, p. 93, c. 53, § 48), the fare charged by an electric railway company on a certain line held an unjust discrimination.-Portland Ry.. Light & Power Co. v. Railroad Commission of Oregon (Or.) 709. § 17. A contract between a street railroad company and its predecessor, fixing the passenger fares on a certain line at a certain sum, will be assumed to be valid until abrogated by law. Portland Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Railroad Commission of Oregon (Or.) 709. § 18. An appeal held to lie to the Supreme. Court from certain acts of the Corporation Commission prescribing railroad rates.-St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. State (Okl.) 351. § 20. An application to a carrier for freight cars, specifying no time, held insufficient under Laws 1905, pp. 570, 571, c. 345, §§ 2, 3, to allow recovery of penalty for noncompliance.-Cox v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. (Kan.) 14. § 21. Railroad Commission Law (Laws 1907, p. 93, c. 53, § 48), making it an offense for any railroad company to collect for carrying one person more than it demands from another for a like service, patterned in part after Interstate Commerce Law (Act Cong. Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, § 2, 24 Stat. 379 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3155]), held to apply to services rendered on other lines of an electric railway company, though the conditions on its several lines. were different.-Portland Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Railroad Commission of Oregon (Or.) 709. II. CARRIAGE OF GOODS. (A) Delivery to Carrier. § 39. Railroad company engaged as common carrier held bound to transport such goods as are tendered under the full common-law liability, in the absence of special contract.-McIntosh v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. (Idaho) 66. § 132. It is incumbent upon a carrier havtually made with the shipper.-McIntosh v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. (Idaho) 66. $132. Burden of proof is on carrier to excuse itself for loss of goods, occurring by an act of God.-Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Logan, Snow & Co. (Okl.) 343. § 134. In an action against a carrier for loss of goods shipped, evidence held to sustain a verdict for plaintiff.-Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Logan, Snow & Co. (Okl.) 343. (H) Limitation of Liability. § 147. A carrier may limit its common-law liability as an insurer.-McIntosh v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. (Idaho) 66. § 147. A limitation of a carrier's liability must be reasonable, be supported by a consideration, and not be opposed to public policy.McIntosh v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. (Idaho) 66. $147. The common-law liability of a carrier may be limited by special contract with the shipper (executed in October, 1904).-Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Wehrman (Okl.) 328. $150. A carrier cannot exempt itself from negligence.-McIntosh v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. (Idaho) 66. $154. Acceptance of goods by a carrier, and agreement to ship them, held not a sufficient consideration for a waiver of the carrier's liability as insurer.-McIntosh v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. (Idaho) 66. 154. Bill of lading held not to show any consideration for exemption of the carrier from liability for fire.-McIntosh v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. (Idaho) 66. $160. Under contract of carriage providing for no suit after six months from accrual of cause of action and that giving of notice shall be a condition precedent, the six months do not begin_to_run until notice is given.-Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. James (Kan.) 40. $ 163. Burden held on carrier to prove special contract. and a consideration therefor, where offered as a defense.-McIntosh v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. (Idaho) 66. § 163. That a shipper accepts a bill of lading limiting the liability of a carrier does not presume a consideration.--McIntosh v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. (Idaho) 66. § 164. Where it is not shown that the carrier's agent or the shipper knew that a special rate would be or was given on a waiver of liability for loss by fire, held not error to refuse to permit a clerk in the general freight department to testify that the carrier had two rates, one of which was less than the other, where there was such a waiver.-McIntosh v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. (Idaho) 66. III. CARRIAGE OF LIVE STOCK. Admissions by replication in action for loss or injuries, see Pleading, § 177. Judgment on pleadings in action for loss or injury, see Pleading, § 345. § 217. It is not negligence for a live stock shipper not to remain in the car with the stock to prevent or extinguish any fire.-Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Wehrman (Okl.) 328. $218. Limitation of a live stock carrier's liability to a maximum valuation in consideration of reduced freight rate held not to violate Wilson's Rev. & Ann. St. 1903, § 706, forbidding a carrier to contract against gross negligence.-Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Wehrman (Okl.) 328. |