by the dam to the remaining portion. Nuna-, years before and giving a check for money maker v. Columbia Water Power Co. (S. C.) which constituted all of his personal property

222 in order to defeat his wife's rights as his heir,

after obtaining the full benefit of the property DEATH. See also DAMAGES, 7; HUSBAND | up to the end of his own life. Smith v. Smith AND WIFE, 10. (Colo.)

49 1. A surviving husband as such cannot

NOTES AND BRIEES. maintain a suit for the wrongful killing of his wife, under Mill. & V. (Tenn.) Code, Descent; disposal of property in fraud of $ 3130, preventing the abatement of the suit, wife's rights.

50 although the recovery inures to bis benefit, but he must bring the action as adminis- DIVORCE. See HUSBAND AND WIFE, 11, trator. Chattanooga Electric R. Co. v. John- 12, NOTES AND BRIEFs. son (Tend.)

442 2. The right of action for damages re- DONATION. See Bonds, 4; COUNTIES, 4, sulting from death is exclusive of an ad- 5; PUBLIC MONEY. ministrator's right of action to recover for the pain and expense suffered by the person of his intestate from the injuries which caused DOWER. See also DESCENT AND DISTRIhis death, under R. I. Rev. Stat. 1857, chap. 176, creating a right of action for death, and

NOTES AND BRIEFS. also providing for the survival of actions of “ trespass on the case for damages to the per.

Dower; as affected by ipsanity of husband.

224 son” as the survival applies to cases of injuries not causing death. Lubrano v. Atlantic Mills (R. I.)



The fact that a sewer blows up is enDeath; right of action for death of married titled to consideration upon the question of care woman.


on the part of a municipality in respect to its How many distinct causes of action arise management. Fuchs v. St. Louis (Mo.)

118 from injuries resulting in death:-(I.) Alternative action for death or injury: (a) generally;

NOTES AND BRIEFS. (6) actions for death as affected by release: (1) by injured party; (2) by others; (3) by plain.

Drains; liability of city for dangerous sewers. tiffs; (c) otber actions as a bar: (1) actions for

118 the injury; (2) other actions for the death; (d) multiplicity of actions for death; (e) bar of DRUNKENNESS. See HUSBAND AND other actions by limitation; (f) for death of WIFE, 4, 14, NOTES AND BRIEFS. infants; (II.) concurrent actions for death and injury.



1. A man wbo comes in contact with an

electric ligbt wire on the side of a building DEBTOR AND CREDITOR. See Con. wbile climbing out of a window upon a cornice STITUTIONAL LAW, 13.

wbile at work painting the building is not

guilty of contributory negligence, unless in so DEDICATION, See PUBLIC GROUNDS, doing he fails to exercise the degree of care 1, 3.

which ordinarily careful and prudent persons

usually exercise under such circumstances. NOTES AND BRIEFS.

McLaughlin v. Louisville Electric Light Co. Dedication; acceptance of; nonuser; estoppel (Ky.)

812 as to.

734 2. The apparently proper insulation of elec

tric-light wires on the side of a building is an DEED. See Dams, 3; EVIDENCE, 17; TRUSTS. invitation or inducement to persons painting

the building to risk the consequences of con. DEFINITIONS. See CONSTITUTIONAL tact with them,-especially in the middle of the LAW, 16; HUSBAND AND WIFE, 17; LIENS, day.


3. The utmost care is necessary to keep the

insulation of dangerous electric wires perfect DELEGATION OF POWER. See Con at a place where people have the right to go STITUTIONAL LAW, 10.

for work, business, or pleasure, altbough very DESCENT

great care may be sufficient as to wires at other AND DISTRIBUTION. places.


4. The fact that the insulation of dangerous

electric wires is very expensive or incou venient A fraud upon the rights of a wife is com- is no excuse for failure to make such insulamitted when the husband strips himself of all tion perfect at points where people have the his property just before deaih by delivering right to go for work, business, or pleasure. deeds of real estate that bad been made some


[blocks in formation]

5. The only power of regulation impliedly or freight cars, except trucks, and has never reserved by a city on giving to a telegraph charged passengers any fare,—is a public way company or other such corporation its consent for which eminent domain may be exercised, that electric wires may be laid under the streets where it is not shown that it was intended is such regulation as the safety and welfare of simply as a logging road, and everyone having the public may demand, where the corporation cccasion to use it as a passenger or for the derives its power to place wires underground transportation of freight has a right to require from the state, subject only to the consent of the service. Bridal Veil Lumbering Co. v. the municipality. State, St. Louis Under- Johnson (Or.)

368 ground Service Co. v. Murphy (Mo.) 369

4. Payment into court of an award of view. 6. An ordinance granting to a subway com- ers from which an appeal is taken by the pany and its assigns the right to occupy space property owners is not sufficient to satisfy Pa. under any streets in the city for the period of Const. art. 16, S8, requiring just compensafifty years, to the practical exclusion of all tion to be paid or secured before the taking, otber public uses, with power to select its own injury, or destruction" of property in eminent patrons and dictate its own terms and elect domain cases, and therefore the act of May wbich streets it will use, is void as an attempt 14, 1889, providing that on such payment into to surrender the power to regulate the under-court the right to use the property shall vest ground use of streets by wire-using companies. in the corporation seeking to take it, and that

Id. the money shall remain in court to await the 7. A city bas no power to grant to a corpo- fipal judgment ou appeal, is unconstitutional. ration the right to lay a subway for electric Harrisburg, C. & C. Turnp. Road Co. v. Harriswires under all the ciiy streets, without reserv. burg & M. Elec. R. Co. (Pa.)

439 ing the power of supervision and control, pot only of the work of excavating in the streets,

NOTES AND BRIEFS. but of all matters incident to its location, con

Eminent domain; payment or security of struction, maintenance, and use, although the

439 sole purpose of the subway may be that of just compensation. leasing to public wire-using corporations. Id.

ESTOPPEL. NOTES AND BRIEFS. Electrical uses; grant of franchises to elec- 1. No one may to the damage of another trical subway companies.

369 deny the truth of representations by which be

has purposely or carelessly induced the latter ELECTRIC RAILROADS. See STREET to cbange his situation. İllinois Trust & Sav. RAILWAYS, 1, 2, 4. Bank v. Arkansas City (C. C. App. 8th C.)


2. The payment of interest on town bonds

which were void because issued without auUpmatured crops growing upon land be.

Union Bank v. longing to the owner of the crops are part and thority does not ratify them.

487 parcel of the land for the purpose of jurisdic

Oxford (N. C.) tion of an action for damages to them. Bagley

3. A city is estopped to defeat a recovery V. Columbus S. R. Co. (Ga.)

°286 for rent of hydrants as against bondbolders

who loaned money on a mortgage of the plant EMINENT DOMAIN. See also Dams, and income of waterworks built under the di1, 2.

rection and accepted by formal resolution of

the city council, and completed according to 1. That title to a public improvement when the terms of a defeated ordinance, where the it is completed is to be conveyed to the United city has paid rents without protest for fourteen States will not prevent the state from exercis- months, either on the ground that there was ing its power of eminent domain to acquire no contract or that it had no power for the the necessary land upon which to construct it. term mentioned in the ordinance or to grant Lancey v. King County (Wash.)

817 the exclusive right to the use of its streets for 2. A constitutional right to a remedy for water pipes. [Per Sanborn, J.) Ilinois Trust injury to property does not include the right & sav. Bank v. Arkansas City (C. C. App. to recover for an injury not different in kind, 8th C.)

518 but only in degree, from that suffered by the 4. An equitable estoppel will preclude the community in general from the vacation of a public from claiming as a public park land so remote part of a street, though it causes de designated on a recorded plat, where it makes preciation in the value of property, but leaves no claim to the land except by failing to assess ample means of access thereto. Dantzer v. it for taxes for many years, and then the owner Indianapolis U. R. Co. (Ind.)

769 files a new plat on which the land is described 3. A railroad chartered to extend from a as his own property, after which he continues certain town past a sawmill, through rough, in possession as he always had done, takes mountainous, timbered, and sparsely settled down the old fence and makes a new one, excountry, to the middle of a certain section on pends money in other improvements upon lands of the United States, without going near it, pays taxes for a series of years upon it any other town, city, or settlement or other and builds a sidewalk along one side by order railroad, but which has been built only from of the city authorities, and there is an express the sawmill about 2 miles from the town, for adoption of his new plat about seven years 54 miles into the timbered region, and has no after it was filed by an act incorporating the freight or passenger depots, passenger coaches, city. Reuter v. Läwe (Wis.)

733 581.


5. A state is not estopped from denying the current money of the state. Hendry v. the validity of a contract made without au- Benlisa (Fla.)

283 thority because the contractor has in good faith 7. Destruction by a servant of his emperformed services under it, since he must at ployer's books after the latter's death will not his peril know the authority of those who raise the presumption that they contained seem to act for the state. Mullan v. State charges against the servant, - especially where (Cal.)

262 they were not destroyed until after they had 6. A woman is estopped to claim a share been examined and the servant claimed to have in an estate as widow, although a divorce ob- been executing his employer's orders. Hay v. tained from her in a suit brought by the guar. Peterson (Wyo.) diap for her ipsane husband was absolutely 8. An executor resisting payment of a void, where she has accepted alimony under claim for compensation for services rendered the decree and contracted a subsequent mar. to the testator by a person not related to him, riage. Mohler v. Shank (Iowa)


on the ground that they were rendered in con7. Legatees of full age who demand and sideration of his maintenance, has the burden compel a distribution to them of the proceeds of showing that fact. of a sale by an executor of the interest of a

9. A presumption that a girl became un deceased partner, although protesting at the conscious before a minister summoned by telesame time that they do not admit that this is all graph could bave reached her does not arise that is due, thereby ratify the sale, and cannot from the averment that she became unconafterwards deny the executor's power to make scious after sending the message and died beit or claim anything additional on account of fore he arrived, where in the same action it is the goodwill of the business for which nothing said that if the telegram had been promptly was received. (Per Beatty, Cb. J., Henshaw delivered he would have arrived in time to and Temple, JJ.) Philbrook v. Newman (Cal.) have administered to her spiritual wants. West


ern U. Teleg. Co. v. Robinson (Tenn.) 431 NOTES AND BRIEFS.

10. A mistake in the transmission of a tele

gram makes a prima facie case of negligence, See also DEDICATION.

and casts on the telegraph company the bar. Estoppel; of state.

262 den of disproving negligence. Reed v. Western U. Teleg. Co. (Mo.)

492 EVIDENCE. See also BANKS, 6.

11. No presumption of negligence cac arise Judicial notice.

from the mere fact that a passenger was in. 1. The courts are charged with knowledge jured while attempting to pass from one car to

Mcunder Cal. Code Civ. Proc. $ 1875, subs. 2, 3, another while the train was in motion.

720 of whatever is established by law, and of ali Afee v. Huidekoper (D. C. App.) public as well as private acts of the legislative, 12. The burden of showing that a latent executive, and judicial departments of the defect in the construction of a building might state. Mullan v. State (Cal.)

262 have been discovered and removed by the 2. The court can judicially know that a

owner before the fall of the building by reason certain town is one of the smaller towns of thereof rests upon the party asserting neglithe state. Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Robinson gence in such respect, in the absence of evi. (Teon.)


dence lending to connect such cause with the 3. It is a matter of common knowledge owner's negligence. Ryder v. Kinsey (Min.)

557 that a bicycle under a rider of ordinary strength and experience can attain a much higher rate

13. The falling of a building without any of speed than that of an electric car running apparent cause, in the absence of esplanatory about 10 miles an hour, and by mere pressure circumstances, raises a presumption of failure of the band can be instantly turned aside so as by the owner to exercise ordinary care to keep to leave a street-car track on which it is going. it in a safe condition.

Id. Everett v. Los Angeles Consol. E. R. Co. (Cal.) 14. Proof by one injured by eating un.

350 wholesome food at a public restaurant of the 4. The fact that gases form from crude fact of eating the food and of consequent sickpetroleum oil upon its subjection to heat will ness is not sufficient to make a prima facie case be judicially noticed by the courts. Fuchs v. in his favor against the restaurant keeper, por St. Louis (Mo.) 118 to shift the burden upon the latter to establish

464 Presumptions and burden of proof.

due care. Sheffer v. Willoughby (Ill.) 5. It will be presumed, in the absence of Documents. any decision to the contrary in a sister state, 15. An invalid contract to dissolve a marthat the contractual liability of a stockholder riage between husband and wife is not admisin that state goes to a receiver as assets for the sible in bis favor to show his good faith in conpayment of corporate debts. Cushing v. Perot tracting a later marriage, when charged with (Pa.)

737 bigamy, under a statute which does not re6. An agent will be presumed, in the ab- quire any other criminal intent tban is involved sence of directions to the contrary from a in entering into the probibited marriage. State principal residing in the state, to have been v. Zichfeld (Nev.)

784 authorized to receive Confederate money in 16. A letter in which the writer refers to a payment of a debt or judgment, at a time and man as her husband, and which is banded place when and where such money was gener him to read, and which after he reads he inally received in business transactions and was closes in an envelope and puts in his pocket with other letters apparently for the purpose 26. A witness cannot testify to the general of posting it, may be put in evidence as an ad reputation of a woman for chastity while livmission on his part on an issue as to the fact ing with an alleged husband from whom she of marriage. Re Hulett's Estate (Minn.) 384 has since separated in order to repudiate a pre

17. Conveyances describing the grantor as sumption of marriage. Jackson v. Jackson a single man are inadmissible in evidence after (Md.)

773 his death against a person claiming to be bis 27. A divided reputation in the community widow, in order to disprove the marriage. as to the marriage of persons cannot be proved. Id.

Id. 18. Memoranda of accounts not in regular 28. Evidence as to sparks thrown and fires account books are not admissible as secondary set by unidentified engines is admissible in an evidence in the absence of anything to show action against a railroad company for fires that the items had ever been entered in such charged to have been set by sparks, where books, or if so that they could not be produced. there is evidence that the fire started while two Hay v. Peterson (Wyo.)

581 trains were passing. Van Steuben v. Centra. 19. Memoranda written by a deceased

R. Co. (Pa.)

577 person upon dates on a calendar indicating pay. 29. Evidence that officers of a corporation, ment of money to his creditor but not specify acting in the interest of another company ing the amounts, nor shown to have been made which owned a majority of its stock, declined in regular course of business or to have been to accept business which would produce a fund continuous, are not admissible as evidence that with which to pay interest that was due, and such payments were made.

Id. diverted its income to other and improper pur

poses, whereby a default of the interest was Physical examination.

occasioned, is admissible in defense of a fore20. The measurement in the presence of closure instituted on behalf of such other corthe jury of a woman's foot and her leg 6 inches poration as owner of a majority of the mortabove the ankle, in a suit for injuries to the gage bonds. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. v. New foot and ankle, must be permitted by the court York & N. R. Co. (N. Y.)

76 when there is a direct conflict as to such meas

30. A woman who authorizes her attorney to urements by the medical men called by the respective parties, -at least if the witness her employ detectives to watch her husband, whom self does not object. Hall v. Manson (Iowa) obtaining evidence which will entitle her to a

she suspects of infidelity, for the purpose of

207 Oral, as to writings.

divorce, and who goes with them at a time ap21. Parol evidence is inadmissible to ex- tion with a lewd woman employed by them for

pointed to surprise him in a compromising positend the effect of a written contract to abrogate that purpose, may be found to have known a prior agreement beyond the terms of such that the woman's movements were governed contract where it is complete and there is no by them, so as to show connivance on her part apparent ambiguity therein that requires an which will bar her right to divorce. Dennis explanation. Sandage v. Studebaker Bros. Mfg.

v. Dennis (Conn.)

449 Co. (Ind.)

363 22. Oral evidence that a landlord agreed

NOTES AND BRIEFS. to put the leased premises in safe condition before the contract was made, or that at the time

Evidence; presumption against the destroyer it was made he and his agent represented (spoliator) of evidence:-(I.) Where a party that they had been put in safe condition as fails to produce evidence after demand or nopromised, is admissible where the written con- tice by the party entitled to the production tract relates only to the obligations and under thereof; (II.) where a party fails to introduce takings imposed upon the tenant, and does not documentary (“the best”) evidence which in fact include all of these. Hines v. Willcox would properly be a part of the case: (a) the Tenn.)


rule stated; (b) the substituted evidence; (c) the

rule and evidence in admiralty; (III.) where (Miscellaneous.

a party adversely interested destroys or with23. A lawyer of another state who declares holds evidence to wbich the adversary is enthat he is familiar with the law there may be titled: (a) the rule; (b) the proof; (c) the allowed to prove such law as to the requisites damages.

581 of a valid marriage. Jackson v. Jackson (Md.) 773

774 Of reputation of marriage.

437 24. The statute of limitations of the state in

Of mailing of paper. which a cause of action arose is not available Personal examination of injured party. 209 in an action in anotber state for the enforce- Of pedigree; declarations in course of busiment of such cause of action, unless it is ness; res gestæ.

384 offered in evidence. Eingartner v. Nlinois Steel Co. (Wis.)

EXCAVATION. See HIGHWAYS, 1, 2. 25. What a conductor said after allowing a passenger to get back on the car because he had become convinced that he had paid his EXECUTION. See also ATTORNEYS. fare, although he bad put the passenger off be.

NOTES AND BRIEFS. cause he thought be had not paid the fare, is a part of the res gestæ of the ejection.

Robin Execution; imprisonment on, see IMPRISONson v. Superior Rapid Transit R. Co. (Wis.)

Against railroad.





EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRA. circulars to a debtor threatening to advertise a TORS. See EVIDENCE, 8.

claim against him for sale, which is a threat to

injure bis credit or reputation in violation of EXPLOSION. See also BLASTING; OIL; Mo. Rev. Stat. 1889, $ 3782. State v. McCabe TRIAL, 7, 8. (Mo.)

127 Time for repairs after notice of the FRIGHT. See also DAMAGES, 5; PROXIunsafe condition of a locomotive boiler cannot

E; STREET RAILWAYS, 4. be claimed by a railroad company, so as to excuse it from liability for injury to a person

NOTES AND BRIEFS. near the railroad, caused by an explosion of

See also STREET RAILWAYS. the boiler, if it could have avoided the explosion by discontinuing the use of the locomotive. Fright; action for damages caused by. 782 Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Lynch (Ind.)


Law, 19, 20.
Explosion; liability for negligence in case of.

1. An ordinance prohibiting the collection 294

or transportation of garbage without a license

therefor is authorized by a charter giving EXPORTS. See Taxes, 7.

power to regulate by ordinance the collection

and removal of garbage, although it makes no EX POST FACTO LAWS.

express provision for licenses. State v. Orr (Conn.)


2. The wrongful refusal to a person of a As to habitual criminals.


license for transportation of garbage does not

entitle him to pursue the business without a FENCES,

license in violation of an ordinance, but his

remedy is by mandamus. Fences permanently affixed to land con

3. “Refuse matter" within tbe meaning of stitute a part of the realty for the purpose of an ordinance prohibiting the transportation jurisdiction of an action for damages to them. without a license of “such refuse matter as acBagley v. Columbus S. R. Co. (Ga.) 286 cumulates in the preparation of food for the

table” includes only what is abandoned as FINES.

worthless, but such materials as may be propNOTES AND BRIEFS.

erly utilized for other purposes when they do

not constitute a nuisance remain property Imprisonment for, as imprisonment for debt. which may be sold or otherwise disposed of at

651 | the will of the owner. FIRES. See EVIDENCE, 28; TRIAL, 9, 10.


Garbage; validity of ordinance as to. 279 FOOD. See also EVIDENCE, 14; LICENSE, 2, 3.

GAS. See EVIDENCE, 4; MINES, 1, 2, NOTES A person injured by eating unwhole. AND BRIEFS. some food at a public restaurant must, in order to recover damages from the person

GIFT. See also INCOMPETENT PERSONS, keeping the restaurant, establish carelessness

NOTES AND BRIEFS. or negligence on his part. Sheffer v. Wil

One wbo is placed in possession of land loughby (Ill.)

464 by the owner in anticipation

of a devise thereof

in his will, and who makes improvements FORFEITURE. See MINES, 2.

thereon, will be protected, after the owner bas

become a lupatic, against dispossession by his FORMER JEOPARDY.

guardian. Potter v. Berry (N. J. Err. & Åpp.) NOTES AND BRIEFS.

297 As to habitual criminals.


STATUTES, 5, 18.

Fraud; in inducing marriage.


1. The question of error in an order consoli

dating indictments cannot be re-examined by Imprisonment for debt in case of. 642

writ of habeas corpus, as error in that respect

would not make the judgment and sentence FREE SPEECH.

void as without jurisdiction and authority. The constitutional guaranty of the right Howard v. United States (C. C. App. 6th C.) to speak, write, or publish on any subject,

509 Pies not extend to the sending of letters or 2. An omission in a copy of the mittimus


[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
« ForrigeFortsett »