Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

(B) Children and Others Under Disability.

NOTES. 85(3) (Ind.App.) Contributory negligence See Bills and Notes. not imputable to child of tender years.-Terre Haute, Indianapolis & Eastern Traction Co. v.

NOTICE. McDermott, 144 N. E. 620.

Om 6 (Ind.App.) Possession of owner's broth(C) Imputed Negligence.

er presumed possession of owner.-Bastin v. 93(1) (Ind.App.) Instruction on imputed Myers, 144 N. E. 425. negligence held not erroneous.-City of Jason- Possession of 'real estate is equivalent to conville v. Griggs, 144 N. E. 560.

structive notice by record.-Id. IV. ACTIONS.

NUISANCE. (A) Right of Action, Parties, Preliminary

II. PUBLIC NUISANCES.
Proceedings, and Pleading.

(A) Nature of Injury, and Liability Therew 13(1) (Ind.) Complaint held not objec

for. tionable for failure to negative contributory m65 (Ohio) Authorized negligence.-Fame Laundry Co. of Indiana v. plant not a public nuisance.-Hecker v. State,

garbage disposal Henry, 144 N. E. 545.

144 N. E. 700. (B) Evidence.

When garbage plant brought within limits of En 121(1) (Ohio) No presumption of negli another corporation, latter cannot declare it gence.--Norris v. Jones, 144 N. E. 274.

public nuisance.-Id. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS.

OFFICERS.

See Public Service Commissions; Receivers; See Bills and Notes.

Sheriffs and Constables.
NEWSPAPERS.

1. APPOINTMENT, QUALIFICATION, AND

TENURE. 5 (2) (Ohio) City cannot agree to pay more than statutory rate for advertisements.-City (G) Resignation, Suspension, or Removal. of Cleveland v. Legal News Pub. Co., 144 N. Om61 (Ohio) Statute authorizing Governor to E. 256.

remove officers in classified service held valid. Om61/2 (Mass.) Statute requiring newspaper -State v. Donahey, 144 N. E. 125. to publish findings of minimum wage commission unconstitutional.-Commonwealth v. Bos- III. RIGHTS, POWERS, DUTIES, AND ton Transcript Co., 144 N. E. 400.

LIABILITIES. Statute requiring publication of proceedings om 103 (Ind.) Officers cannot be given arbiof minimum wage commission not valid as

trary discretion as to permitting act otherwise amendment to charter.-Id.

lawful.-State v. Douglas, 144 N. E. 548. Reasonable regulations authorized.-Id.

PARDON.
NEW TRIAL.

Card (ind.) Supreme Court after affirming See Criminal Law, E915–951.

deatls sentence and denying rehearing without

jurisdiction to stay execution for insanity arisI. NATURE AND SCOPE OF REMEDY.

ing after verdict.-Diamond v. State, 144 N. emm 6 (Mass.) Denial of motion for new trial, E. 250. where no question of law passed on, in sound

PARENT AND CHILD. discretion of judge.-Costello v. Hayes, 144 N. E. 368.

See Infants. 6 (Mass.) Denial of motion for new trial

PARTIES. commonly rests in judicial discretion.-Lonergan v. American Railway Express Co., 144 For parties on appeal and review of rulings as N. E. 756.

to parties, see Appeal and Error. II. GROUNDS.

For parties to particular proceedings or instru

ments, see also the various specific topics. (A) Errors and Irregularities in General. 26 (Mass.) Party cannot as matter of right

PARTITION. first raise question of law on motion for new trial.--Lonergan v. American Railway Express

II. ACTIONS FOR PARTITION. Co., 144 N. E. 756.

(B) Proceedings and Relief. Express company could not for first time 73 (N.Y.) Judgment authorizing sale of on motion for new trial claim nonliability on

property subject to option construed.-McLear ground it was under federal control.-Id.

v. Balmat, 144 N. E. 914. (C) Rulings and Instructions at Trial.

Ci 113 (Mass.) Judge's finding in action for

partition open to review.-Howard v. Smith, Cw40(3) (Mass.). Question whether verdict 144 N. E. 372. should have been directed held not one of jurisdiction of court.--Lonergan v. American Rail

PARTNERSHIP. way Express Co., 144 N. E. 756.

IV. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES AS TO (F) Verdict or Findings Contrary to Law

THIRD PERSONS. or Evidence,

(A) Representation of Firm by Partner. Om75(1) (Ind. App.) Refusal to grant Omo 159 (Mass.) Partners chargeable with grounds not mentioned in statute proper.-Old knowledge of copartner.-Boston Box Co. v. Reliable Paint Co. v. Storey, 144 N. E. 562. Shapiro, 144 N. E. 233. · Cm76(1) (ind. App.) New trial because covery excessive unwarranted, where any evi

PAYMENT. dence sustains recovery.-Old Reliable Paint

II. APPLICATION. Co. v. Storey, 144 N. E. 562.

C38(1) (III.) Rule as to right of debtor to III. PROCEEDINGS TO PROCURE NEW

direct application of payments.-Chicago Title TRIAL.

& Trust Co. v. Central Trust Co. of Ilinois, 151 (Ind.App.) Successful party may file 144 N. E. 165. counter affidavits to motion for new trial for 39(1) (TU.) Rule as to application of pay. newly discovered evidence.-Miller y. Johnson, ments.-Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Central 144 N. E. 37.

Trust Co. of Illinois, 144 N. E. 165.

on

re

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes sec samo topic and KEY-NUMBER

39(5) (11.) Deposit properly applied to VI. AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL oldest note by receiver of bank.-Chicago Title

PLEADINGS AND REPLEADER. & Trust Co. v. Central Trust Co. of Illinois, em 237 (3) (Ind.App.) Permitting amendment 144 N. E. 165.

of complaint during trial as to designation of IV. PLEADING, EVIDENCE, TRIAL, AND

train not error:- Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. R.

Co. v. Cook, 144 N. E. 478. REVIEW. m65(1) (III.) Note presumed paid by parties IX. BILL OF PARTICULARS AND COPY OF primarily liable.-Chicago Title & Trust Co, v.

ACCOUNT. Central Trust Co. of Illinois, 144 N. E. 165.

316 (Mass.) Court may refuse to order

specifications on petition alleging living apart PEDDLERS.

from husband. for justifiable cause.---Gerrish v.

Gerrish, 144 N. E. 235. See Hawkers and Peddlers.

XI. MOTIONS. PERPETUITIES. w8(8) (N.Y.) Stipulation in will against ap- tacking complaint for indefiniteness is by mo

C352 (Ind.App.) Appropriate method in atportionment of income held not to create unlawful accumulation.-In re Juilliard's Will, 1,44 | E. 568.

tion to strike out.-Risley v. Rumble, 144 N. N, E. 772.

C 364 (1) (Ind.App.) Refusal to strike matePLEADING.

rial allegations which were not impertinent or See Equity, 185-330.

scandalous held proper.-Jones v. Roshenber

ger, 144 N. E. 858. For pleadings in particular actions or proceed-w367(1) (ind.) Remedy to confine effect of

ings, see also the various specific topics. general averments to particular facts also For review of rulings relating to pleadings, see stated is by motion to make specific.-Seymour Appeal and Error.

Water Co. v. Lebline, 144 N. E. 30. 1. FORM AND ALLEGATIONS IN GENERAL attacking complaint for indefiniteness is by mo

Om367(1) (Ind. A pp.) Appropriate method in 35 (III.) Surplusage not ground for demur- tion to strike out and not motion to make more rer.-People v. Jacobs, 144 N. E. 349.

specific.-Risley v. Rumble. 144 N. E. 568. II. DECLARATION, COMPLAINT, PETI

ww367(1) (Ind.App.) When motion to make

complaint more definite allowed.-Terre Haute, TION, OR STATEMENT.

Indianapolis & Eastern Traction Co. v. McDerww49 (Ohio) Where relief sought may be mott. 144 N. E. 620. predicated on one or more grounds, pleader 367(6), (Ind.) Refusal to require abstract need not classify operative facts under sucn of title held not abuse of discretion.-Seymour grounds.-Arnold v. Arnold, 144 N. E. 261. Water Co. v. Lebline, 144 N. E. 30. Cm63 (Ind.App.). Party claiming statutory right must bring himself within statute.-Jelic- XIII. DEFECTS AND OBJECTIONS, WAIVic v. Vermillion Coal Co., 144 N. E, 38.

ER, AND AIDER BY VERDICT

OR JUDGMENT.
PLEA
ANSWER, CROSS-COM-

C 406(5) (Ind.) General averment of ad-
PLAINT, AND AFFIDAVIT OF
DEFENSE.

verse possession held good in absence of motion

to make specific.-Seymour Water Co. v. Leb(A) Defenses in General.

line, 144 N. E. 30. ww99 (III.) Plea held not bad for duplicity.-en 409 (1) (!nd.) Objection to answer waived. People v. Jacobs, 144 N. E. 349.

--St. Vincent's Hospital v. Stine, 144 N. E. 537.

Om430 (2) (Mass.) Recovery proper for re(C) Traverses or Denials and Admissions. pairing elevator, though installation of elevator

alleged.--See v. Nesson, 144 N. E. 238. em 129(2) (Mass.) Descriptive allegations of writ respecting defendant were admitted by general appearance. -Lonergan v. American

POLICE POWER. Railway Express Co., 144 N. E. 756.

See Constitutional Law, m81; Municipal

Corporations, 592-633.
IV. REPLICATION OR REPLY AND SUBSE-
QUENT PLEADINGS.

PRACTICE.
176 (Ohio) Reply denying receipt of mon-
ey in judicial sale held demurrable.-Judy v.

For practice in particular actions and proceedTrollinger, 144 N. E. 44.

ings, see the various specific topics. V. DEMURRER OR EXCEPTION.

PRESCRIPTION. aww 194 (5) (Ind.) Overruling demurrer to ar-See Adverse Possession; Limitation of Actions. gumentative denial not error.-Seymour Water Co. v. Lebline, 144 N. E. 30.

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. 201 (Ind.App.) Memorandum to demurrer held too definite to present question of in- See Attorney and Client; Brokers. sufficiency of contracts sued on under statute of frauds.-Indianapolis Abattoir Co. v. Penn 11. MUTUAL RIGHTS, DUTIES, AND LIABeef Co., 144 N. E. 573.

BILITIES. Om204(2) (Mass.) Order overruling demur

(A) Execution of Agency. rer proper, where some counts were valid.Vitagraph, Inc., v. Park Theatre Co., 144 N. E. Em76(1), (Ind.App.) Principal may estop him85.

self from taking advantage of or waive misconEw214(2) (Ind. App.) Only facts well pleaded duct of agent.-H. H. Woodsmall, Inc., v. Steele, are_assumed to be true on demurrer.-Risley

144 N. E. 620. v. Rumble, 144 N. E. 568. Cmos 216(1) (ind.) Rule stated as to effect of

(B) Compensation and Lien of Agent. denial of motion to make more specific on mat-C89(5) (Ind. App.) General denial putting in ters considered on subsequent demurrer. -En- issue validity of contract insufficient to present terprise Printing & Publishing Co. v. Craig, defense of dual agency.-H. H. Woodsmall, Inc., 144 N. E. 542.

v. Steele, 144 N. E. 020. 144 N.E.-61

III.

OR

III. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES AS TO

em? (Ind.App.) Owner of land owns whatever THIRD PERSONS.

lies beneath surface.-Risley v. Rumble, 144 N. (A) Powers of Agent.

E, 568. Om 107(2) (Mass.). Authority of agent to bor.

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. row money for principal stated.-Forgeron v. Corey Hill Garage, 144 N. E. 383.

See Municipal Corporations, m434-513. Om 109(1) (Mass.) Authority of agent to execute notes for principal stated.-Forgeron v.

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONS. Corey Hill Garage, 144 N. E. 383.

Om(Ohio) On question whether rate will (B) Undisclosed Agency.

yield reasonable return, Public Utilities Com

mission required to ascertain and report val2145(2) (Mass.) Suit may be maintained ue.-Lindsey v. Public Utilities Commission of against undisclosed principal.-See y. Nesson, Ohio, 144 N. E. 729. 144 N. E. 238.

Public Utilities Commission bas discretion

whether to report value in greater detail than (C) Unauthorized and Wrongful Acts.

to_show facts required by statute.-Id. @mw 148(4) (Mass.) Agent of limited powers Failure of Public Utilities Commission to cannot stretch them to include subjects not report value in detail not abuse of discretion. within apparent scope.-American Ry. Express -Id. Co. v. Mobawk Dairy Co., 144 N. E. 721. Public Utilities Commission may avail itself

of services of engineers in determining value. (E) Notice to Agent.

-Id. w 181 (Mass.) Knowledge of employee of Our 15 (Ohio) Reports of engineers and assistbis own forgery not imputed to depositor.- ants become evidence analyzed and impeached Grow v. Prudential Trust Co., 144 N. E. 93. as other evidence.-Lindsey v. Public Utilities

Commission of Ohio, 144 N. E. 729.
PRINCIPAL AND SURETY,

Em 1942 [New, vol. 12A Key.No. Series]
See Guaranty; Indemnity.

(ind.) Petition for rehearing, prerequi

site to suit to vacate order of Public Service IV. REMEDIES OF CREDITORS.

Commission does not lie.-McCardle v. Board emw 162 (2) (Mass.) On directing verdict for of_Com'rs of Marion County. 144 N. č. 877.

31 (Ohio) When evidence before Public penal sum of bond, proper to also direct assess

Utilities Commission not in record, Supreme ment of damages.--Brown v. London & Lanca

Court cannot review question of fact.-Lindshire Indemnity Co. of America, 144 N. E. 395.

sey v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, 144

N. E. 729.
PROCESS.

C32 (Ind.) Circuit court cannot grant af-
II. SERVICE.

firmative relief on review of order of Public (A) Personal Service in General.

Service Commission.-McCardle v. Board of

Com'rs of Marion County, 144 N. E. 877. 51 (Ind.App.) Statutes regulating service must be strictly pursued.-Bastin v. Myers, 144 PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATIONS. N. E. 425. (B) Substituted Service.

See Carriers; Railroads; Street Railroads; m83 (Ind.App.) Statutes providing for per

Telegraphs and Telepbones. sonal service out of state must be strictly pursued.-Bastin v. Myers, 144 N. E. 425.

QUIETING TITLE.

I. RIGHT OF ACTION AND DEFENSES. (C) Publication or Other Notice.

Om7(2) (Mass.) Recorded agreement of sale Cu84 (Ind.App.) Statute providing for serv- held cloud on title.-Flaherty v. Goldinger, 144 ice by publication must be strictly pursued.- N. E. 374. Bastin v. Myers, 144 N. E. 425, ww85 (Mass.) Statute permitting service of m15 (Mass.) That seller failed to carry out

agreement no defense to action to remove process against nonresident motorist by mail

cloud on title.-Flaherty v. Goldinger,' 144 N. ing and delivery to registrar held constitution- E. 374. al.-Pawloski v. Hess, 144 N. E. 760.

II. PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF.
PROHIBITION.

www35(2) (Ind.App.) Complaint not alleging See Intoxicating Liquors.

specific defect in title held insufficient.-Bastin

v. Myers, 144 N. E. 425. 1. NATURE AND GROUNDS. CW4 (N.Y.) Issuance of writ discretionary.-

QUO WARRANTO. People ex rel. Cuvillier v. Hagarty, 144 N. E. 917.

II. JURISDICTION, PROCEEDINGS, AND

RELIEF. C10(2) (ind.) Court's attempted appointment of receiver without jurisdiction held to Om50(2) (III.) Plea must allege all conditions present case for writ.-State v. Superior Court precedent to defendant's right to exercise of. of Marion County, 144 N. E. 747.

fice.-People v. Jacobs, 144 N. E. 349. II. JURISDICTION, PROCEEDINGS, AND RELIEF.

RAILROADS. 34 (N.Y.) Appeal lies only when order or See Street Railroads. opinion shows application was denied as matter of law.-People ex rel. Cuvillier v. Hagarty,

I. CONTROL AND REGULATION IN

GENERAL, 144 N. E. 917.

Om51/2 [New, vol. 6A Key-No. Series)
PROMISSORY NOTES.

(Mass.) Director General of Railroads See Bills and Notes.

suable for torts of express company under

federal control.-Lonergan v. American Rail. PROPERTY.

way Express Co., 144 N E. 756.

Express company under federal control may Owl (111.). "Property" defined.-Shedd y. Pat- waive defense Director General was liable for terson, 144 N. E. 5.

tort.--Id. Cum 4 (N.Y.) Maxim quiquid plantatur solo, Superior court had jurisdiction of action solo cedit subject to exceptions.- New York, against express company for tort during fed0. & W. R. Co. v. Livingston, 144 N. E. 589. eral control.-Id.

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
Om51/2, [New, vol. 6A Key-No. Series]

(G) Injuries to Persons on or near Tracks. (Mass.) Director General properly sub; w355(!) (Ind.) More than lawful presence stituted by amendment.-Weiss v. Davis, 144 by permission necessary to protection against N. E. 765.

negligence.-Harmon v. Speer, 144 N. E. 241. Om51/2. [New, vol. 6A Key-No. Series]

ww358(1) (ind.) Modification of instruction (Ohio) Federal Transportation Act held not to supplant state law as to jurisdiction.- cial.-Harmon v. Speer, 144 N. E. 241.

on precautions as to licensee held not prejudiJamieson v. Davis, 144 N. E. 291.

Wrongful detention of personalty by Director Com 368 (Ind.) Ringing of bell did not negative General held “injury" to property within venue -Harmon v. Speer, 144 N. E. 241.

negligence in backing cars without watchman. statute.-Id.

Ordinance requiring watchman on backing

car held violated.-Id. VI. CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND C-385 (ind.) One may rely on railroad's obeEQUIPMENT.

dience to ordinance.-Harmon v. Speer, 144 N. Cm99(4) (N.Y.) Commission's order, requir- E. 241. ing construction of street over railroad, not w396(1) (Ind.) Burden of proof of contribres judicata of party to bear expense.—Mc- utory negligence on defense.-Harmon v. Speer, Aneny v. New York Cent. R. Co., 144 N. E. 144 N. E. 241. 362.

398 (4) (Ind.) Evidence held to support Commission's orders valid only when within finding deceased was rightfully in switchyard. legislative authority.--Id.

--Harmon v. Speer, 144 N. E. 241. Commission may not order construction of a 400(10) (Ind.) Pedestrian in switchyard entire bridge when only portion carries street held not negligent as matter of law.-Harmon over tracks.-Id.

v. Speer, 144 N. E. 241. Om99(5) (Ind.) Section of Grade Crossing Eww 402 (Ind.) Answers to interrogatories held Act held repealed.-McCardle v. Board of not to establish contributory negligence.-HarCom'rs of Marion County, 144 N. E. 877. mon v. Speer, 144 N. E. 241.

'VII. SALES, LEASES, TRAFFIC CON

(1) Fires. TRACTS, AND CONSOLIDATION.

453 (Mass.) No absolute liability for fires. Om 143 (Ohio) Consolidation held to merge - New York Cent. R. Co. v. Wm. Culkeen & constituent corporations into_single organiza- Sons Co., 144 N. E. 96. tion.-Marfield v. Cincinnati, D. & T. Traction Cam469 (III.) Assignee of elevator on right of Co., 144 N. E. 689.

way held to take subject to assignor's lease.-

Atwood v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 144 VIII. INDEBTEDNESS, SECURITIES, N. E. 351. LIENS, AND MORTGAGES.

Covenant in lease releasing railroad from lia

bility for fire held not to run with land.-Id. (A) Nature and Extent of Liabilities.

Omw469 (Mass.) Covenant by warehouse com145 (Mass.) Power to sue and be sued car-pany held to indemnify railroad operating on ries power to compromise.-Codman v. Du- side tracks against damages by negligent fire. inaine, 144 N. E, 408.

-New York Cent. R. Co. y. Wm. Culkeen & Om 147 (Mass.) Loan by railroad to another Sons Co., 144 N. E. 96. held not ultra vires.-Codman v. Dumaine, 144 Contract indemnifying railroad against liaN. E. 408.

bility for fire held valid.--Id. Relinquishment of right to sue held to sup-ww 481(3) (Ind. App.). Evidence locomotives port loan by railroad to another.-Id.

generally emitted sparks held admissible.--ChiBill against directors to recover loan held cago & E. R. Co. v. Barger, 144 N. E. 646. not to state cause of action.-Id.

482(2) (III.) Cause of fire held for jury.163 (Mass.) Security from borrowing rail- Atwood y. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 144 road should be as broad as mortgage.-Codman N. E. 351. v. Dumaine, 144 N. E. 408.

m482(2) (Ind.App.) Circumstantial evidence

as to cause of fire sufficient.-Chicago & E. R. X. OPERATION.

Co. v. Barger, 144 N. E. 646. (B) Statutory, Municipal, and Official Regulations.

REAL ACTIONS. 223 (Ind.) Regulation of operation within See Partition; Quieting Title. police power.-Harmon v. Speer, 144 N. E. 241. Ordinance requiring watchman on backing

RECEIVERS. cars held not ambiguous.-Id.

I. NATURE AND GROUNDS OF RECEIVER

SHIP. (F) Accidents at Crossings.

(A) Nature and Subjects of Remedy. Em 330(4) (Ohio) Reliance on lawful speed of me (Ind.) Mere showing of threatened in. interurban car held not negligence.-Norris v. Jones, 144 N. E. 274.

solvency does not authorize appointment of C331(3) (Ind. App.) Automobile driver may

receiver for individual.-State v. Superior rely on signal of flagman.--Pittsburgh, C., C. Å

Court of Marion County, 144 N. E. 747. St. L. R. Co. v. Cook, 144 N. E. 478. m344(8) (Ind.App.) Complaint for injuries 11. APPOINTMENT, QUALIFICATION, AND from crossing collision held not demurrable as

TENURE. showing contributory negligence.- Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Cook, 144 N. E. 478. Om 35(1) (Ind.) Appointment of receiver to

Complaint for injuries from collision held take charge of property without notice to persufficient on demurrer, though not alleging sons in possession held unwarranted.-State v. driver saw and acted on signals to cro88.-Id. Superior Court of Marion County, 144 N. E.

348(10) (Ind. App.) Evidence flagman sig- 747. paled automobile driver held sufficient.-Pitts

VI. ACTIONS. burgh, C., C. & St. L. R. Co. y. Cook, 144 N. E. 478.

www189 (III.) No costs taxed against receiver 350(19) (N.Y.) Contributory negligence of who recovered decree on its cross-bill.--Chicatruck driver held for jury.-Chamberlain v. Le- go Title & Trust Co. v. Central Trust Co. of bigh Valley R. Co., 144 N. E. 512.

Illinois, 144 N. E. 165.

RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS. Om 14 (Mass.) Wisdom or expediency of reOw9(3) (!!!.). Verdict must find value of moval of church officer not reviewed by court. goods received. People v. Jackson, 144 N. E. -Dittemore v. Dickey, 144 N. E. 57. 314.

Removal of officer according to rules final on

courts.-Id.
Verdict held insufficient to sustain conviction.
-Id.

REMOVAL OF CAUSES.
RECORDS.

11. CITIZENSHIP OR ALIENAGE OF

PARTIES.
See Appeal and Error, em501-694; Criminal
Law, 1120.

(A) Diverse Citizenship. or Allenage REFERENCE.

Om41 (Mass.) Whether suit against state de

termined from entire record.-Commonwealth III. REPORT AND FINDINGS.

v. Norman, 144 N. E. 66. 97 (Mass.) Court erred in not striking out Action by commissioner of corporations and part of report not conforming to pleadings.- taxation to recover income tax suit by state. Boston Box Co. v. Shapiro, 144 N. E. 233. -Id. m99 (2) (Mass.) Inferences of fact reasona-Car 47 (Mass.) State is not citizen as regards bly drawn from evidence, presumed to have been diversity.-Commonwealth v. Norman, 144 N. drawn by auditor.-Grow y. Prudential Trust E. 66. Co., 144 N. E. 93.

VI. PROCEEDINGS TO PROCURE AND EF. ww99(6) (Mass.) Auditor's report prima fa

FECT OF REMOVAL. cie evidence, warranting judgment.-Grow v. Prudential Trust Co., 144 N. E. 93.

w89(2) (Mass.) Duty of state court in passO99 (6) (Mass.) Findings of auditor for ing on petition for removal stated.-Commonplaintiff on account annexed held admissible on wealth v. Norman, 144 N. E. 66. trial before jury.-Boston Box Co. v. Shapiro,

Issues of fact cannot be tried in state court. 144 N. E. 233,

-Id. Om 101(2) (Mass.) Motion to recommit report

Allegation of fact in petition must be accepted to auditor matter of discretion.-Boston Box as true by state court.-Id. Co. v. Shapiro, 144 N. E. 233.

Whether cause for removal made out on face

of record question of law to be decided by state REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENTS. court.--Id. 1. RIGHT OF ACTION AND DEFENSES.

Allegations of law, inserted in petition for

removal, not accepted as sound or binding by On 25 (Ohio) Reformation of contract for pur state court.-Id. chase of coal lands properly refused, mistake Om89(3) (Mass.) Whether cause for removal having been corrected by deed.-Mattucci v. made out on face of record question of law to Sutliff, 144 N. E. 441.

be decided by state court subject to review by

U. S. Supreme Court.-Commonwealth v. NorRELEASE.

man, 144 N. E. 66. 1. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY.

RETROSPECTIVE LAWS. 12(1) (Mass.) Of rights under contract See Constitutional Law, Em190. must be supported by consideration.-Brown v. Grow, 144 N. E. 403. Om 16 (Mass.) What injured party thought

REVENUE, daim agent meant by statements immaterial. See Taxation. --Costello v. Hayes, 144 N. E. 368.

REVIEW. Evidence as to intention, and whether plaintiff would have signed if she had known char-See Appeal and Error; Certiorari. acter of instrument, inadmissible.--Id. Immaterial that signer understood she was

RIPARIAN RIGHTS. precluded "from any further action."-Id.

See Waters and Water Courses, m42–61. That signer could not read or comprehend release immaterial.-Id.

ROADS. w 17(2) (Mass.) Essentials to impeachment of release by showing of false representations See Highways. stated.-Costello v. Hayes, 144 N. E. 368.

ROBBERY. Statement made to induce release held mere expression of opinion.-Id.

Cul (N.Y.) When unlawful taking of propCm19 (Mass.) Procuring by undue influence erty by force and violence in victin's presence imports constructive fraud.-Costello v. Hayes, is felonious robbery.—People v. Emieleta, 144 144 N. E. 368.

N. E. 487.

SALES.
III. PLEADING, EVIDENCE, TRIAL, AND
REVIEW.

See Vendor and Purchaser.
C55 (Mass.) Burden of proof to show inva-
lidity of release stated.-Costello v. Hayes, 144

I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY OF CON

TRACT. N. E. 368. 58 (6) (Mass.) Whether there is any evi

en 4(1) (Mass.) Moving picture contract held dence of fraud in obtaining for court.-Cos- neither sale nor lease, but license and bailment. tello v. Hayes, 144 N. E. 368.

– Vitagraph, Inc., v. Park Theatre Co., 144 N. E. 85.

Cmw 32 (Mass.) Writings held not to show acRELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.

ceptance of order for goods.-Larkin v. Chand09 (Mass.) Board of Directors of First ler & Farquhar Co., 144 N. E. 405. Church of Christ, of five members, may administer trust under deed providing for board

II. CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACT. of four directors.-Dittemore v. Dickey, 144 N. ww66 (Mass.) Contract selling business held E. 57.

joint.-Armstrong Knitting Mills v. Oakes, 144 Directors of First Church of Christ, Scien- N. E. 81. tist, may be removed by majority vote.-Id. Cam79 (ind. App.) Contracts confirmed

and Director could be removed by vote, without consummated in city of buyer's domicile through hearing or notice.-Id.

its agents therein held to require delivery in Removal of director held not malicious, whim- such city.-Indianapolis Abattoir Co. v. Penn sical, or capricious.-Id.

Beef Co., 144 N. E. 573,

« ForrigeFortsett »