Of Cause of Action to Enforce Stock-
holder's Liability, see CORPORA-
TIONS, 9.
2. The test of the identity of causes of
Setting up Defect of Parties by Plea in, action is the identity of the facts essential
see PLEADING, 14.
ABUTTING OWNER.
Liability for Injuries by Defective
Highway, see HIGHWAYS, 5, 6.
Of Contract, What Relief from
sity of, see CONTRACTS, 2.
to their maintenance. Harrison v.
ington Paper Co. (C. C. App. 8th C.)
Splitting.
3. Settlement of an action for loss of
baggage by a carrier will preclude the main-
tenance of another action for mental an-
Neces-guish caused by delay in its delivery.
v. Carolina & W. R. Co. (N. C.)
ACCOMMODATION PAPER.
Waiver of Demand and Notice of Pro-
test, see BILLS AND NOTES, 4.
ACCUMULATED DIVIDENDS.
On Preferred Stock, see CORPORATIONS,
5, 6.
Dismissal, see DISMISSAL.
Election of Remedies, see ELECTION OF
REMEDIES.
Parties to, see PARTIES.
By Member of Mutual Insurance
4. Upon refusal, by the seller, after par-
tial performance, longer to comply with his
contract to sell and deliver a quantity of
articles in instalments, the buyer cannot
keep the contract in force and maintain ac-
tions for breaches as they occur, but must
recover all his damages in one suit. Pakas
1042
v. Hollingshead (N. Y.)
5. The contract of a stockholder to pay
the debts of the corporation is the basis of a
double liability imposed upon him by stat-
ute to pay the corporate debts in the event
of the dissolution of the corporation, or to
pay them in the case of an unsatisfied judg-
Comment against it; and the cause of action to
enforce it is indivisible, whether it is
brought upon one or several of the shares
of stock owned by the stockholder. Har-
rison v. Remington Paper Co. (C. C. App.
8th C.)
pany, see CORPORATIONS, 7.
New Action in Federal Court after Vol-
untary Dismissal in State Court,
see COURTS, 5.
Necessity of Giving Notice of Injury by
Defective Highway, see HIGHWAYS,
11.
Necessity of Refunding Purchase Price
on Discovering Shortage in Grain
Purchased, see SALE, 2.
1. No action can be brought for the
price of goods sold and delivered until the
expiration of the stipulated period of credit,
notwithstanding the purchaser refuses to
accept the goods and repudiates the con-
Tatum v. Ackerman (Cal.)
tract.
By Bank Officer, see EVIDENCE, 4.
ADVERSE POSSESSION.
Prescriptive Right to Water, see WA-
TERS, 5.
Creation of Easement by Prescription.
see EASEMENTS, 2, 3.
Effect on Liability for Voting When
Disqualified, see ELECTIONS, 3.
ADVICE OF COUNSEL.
Effect of, on Liability for Malicious
Prosecution, see MALICIOUS PROSE-
CUTION, 4.
On Motion for New Trial, see NEW
TRIAL. 2.
AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENSE.
See PLEADING, 13.
Of Affections, Conspiracy for, see CON-
Right to Enjoin Erection of Fence
against, see INJUNCTION, 10.
Interest on, see INTEREST.
Validity of Perpetual Annuity to Char-
ity, see PERPETUITIES, 2.
Annexing Condition of Payment of, to
Devise, see WILLS, 8.
ANNULMENT.
Of Marriage, see MARRIAGE, 2.
ANTENUPTIAL AGREEMENT.
Presumption as to Conveyance Being in
Satisfaction of, see EVIDENCE, 9.
APPEAL AND ERROR.
1. The appearance of plaintiffs who are
made defendants in a writ of error sued out
by a coplaintiff, and their declination to as-
sign cross errors or unite in the prosecution
of the writ, operate to create a severance,
and justify the prosecution of the writ by
the coplaintiff alone. Wormley v. Wormley
(Ill.)
481
2. In a suit brought upon a cause of ac-
tion on which a judgment had been recov-
ered in a former action, the defendant, by
pleading the former proceedings and the
Right of Action for Death of, see DEATH. judgment in bar to the maintenance of the
second suit, and thereby recognizing the ex-
istence of the judgment, does not surrender
On Annulling Marriage, see MARRIAGE, his right to a review of the former proceed-
See also supra, 3–5; infra, 10.
6. Error in instructions cannot be pre-
served for review by exceptions to denial of
a new trial on that account, where a consid-
erable part of the charge is set out in the
motion embracing several separate and dis-
tinct propositions, some of which are correct
statements of the law. Koch v. State (Wis.)
1086
What matters reviewable generally.
7. Failure of a jury to accept the theory
of one of the parties as to the cause of an
accident, to recover for injuries from which
the action is brought, is not error of law. | Harvey v. Mason City & Ft. D. R. Co.
Hennessey v. Taylor (Mass.)
345 (Iowa)
14. A charge, although erroneous, is not
ground for reversal when it does not preju-
dice the plaintiff in error. Rogers v. Blouen-
stein (Ga.)
15. Cross-examination as to matter not
testified to in chief does not require re-
versal regardless of its materiality. State
v. Feeley (Mo.)
351
16. Error in changing the finding of the
jury in respect to an issue propounded to
them will not require a reversal of the
judgment if it is supported by the other
findings in the case. Sprinkle v. Wellborn
(N. C.)
174
17. A conviction upon consolidated in-
dictments charging different crimes of the
same general nature will not be reversed
because of a general verdict of guilty as
charged, if it is followed by a sentence that
could have been imposed under either in-
dictment, and all the indictments are suf-
ficient. Lucas v. State (Ala.)
18. Failure to award nominal damages is
reversible error where their recovery would
determine and adjudicate valuable rights.
973
19. The erroneous allowance of $10 as
lost profits for the negligent destruction of
a wagon will not require a reversal of the
judgment, where the interest which might
have been, but was not, allowed on the
principal sum, would have amounted to
more than that. Weick v. Dougherty (Ky.)
348
20. Assigning the wrong reason for sus-
taining a demurrer to a bill which is sub-
ject to demurrer is not ground for reversal.
Gaynor v. Bauer (Ala.)
1082
Judgment.
21. The supreme court will direct an ac-
tion to be dismissed where the complaint
does not state a cause of action, and the
evidence affirmatively shows that no cause
of action exists. Hart v. Evanson (N. D.)
22. Upon the reversal of a judgment by
the supreme court, the case is required to be
remanded for a new trial only when neces-
sary; and that condition is always deemed
to exist, as to a jury case, when, under any
circumstances, a new trial might result
otherwise than in such a judgment being
awarded as would have been rendered before
had the fatal error or errors not been com-
mitted. Hay v. Baraboo (Wis.)
23. On the denial of a motion, made in
the circuit court, to change a verdict which
upon its face is contrary to the undisputed
evidence, to correspond with the established
state of the case, or for a judgment not-
withstanding the same, the supreme court
may, after reversing the judgment rendered
according to the erroneous verdict, remand
the case, with directions to grant the mo-
tion and render judgment accordingly. Id.
of West Virginia has reversed a decree as to
24. After the supreme court of appeals
has remanded the cause with direction to
a matter finally determined thereby, and
enter a particular decree as upon the merits
of the subject-matter thereof, its mandate
is final and conclusive upon all parties as
to all matters and things so directed; and
no new defense existing and known at the
date of the decree so reversed can be enter-
tained or heard in opposition thereto. Bar-
bour v. Tompkins (W. Va.)
25. A decision against plaintiff by an ap-
pellate court for failure of proof is not
conclusive in defendant's favor upon a sub-
sequent appeal, where the missing proof has
been supplied. Terre Haute & I. R. Co. v.
Zehner (Ind.)
277
On Appeal, Severance Created by, see
APPEAL AND ERROR, 1.
APPROPRIATION.
Of Water, see WATERS, 4.
ARREST.
Liability of One Urging, to Action for
Malicious Prosecution, see MALI-
CIOUS PROSECUTION, 1.
|