012 (Ind.) Adoption of one of statutory rem any, held waived.-Southern Ry. Co. v. Wahl,
edies for review of judgment waives other.- 145 N. E. 523.
Talge Mahogany Co. v. Astoria Mahogany Co.,
145 N. E. 495.

(C) Exceptions.

265(1) (Ohio) Defendant taking no excep-

tion, judgment for nominal damages for wrong.
(D) Finality of Determination.

ful refusal to transfer stock is conclusive as to
Cm76(1) (Ind.) Appeal will lie only from conversion.--Cincinnati Finance Co. v. Booth,
"final judgment."-Louden v. Elice, 145 N. E. 145 N. E. 543.

w 265 (2) (Ind. App.) Where neither party ex-
Cw80 (6) (III.) Appeal lies from part of de- cepted to trial court's conclusion of law, er-
cree dealing with particular subject, and op-

ror in stating_it waived.--Sansberry v. Cor.
erates as severance in trial court of parties nelius, 145 N. E. 521.
and questions not concerned in appeal.-Hoier

(D) Motions for New Trial.
v. Kaplan, 145 N. E. 243.

Order of dismissal of petition with respect m300 (Ind.App.) Motion for new trial. not
to certain items held appealable.-Id.

filed within 30 days after filing of court's special
84(1) (Mass.) Appeal from appellate di- findings, too late; “decision.”-People's State
vision, reversing rulings and ordering new Bank v. Buchanan, 145 N. E. 898.
trial, held premature.- Matson v. Sbrega, 145 Cm 301 (Ind.App.) Error in overruling plea in
N. E. 35.

abatement must be presented by motion for

new trial thereof.-Kanouse v. Ballard, 145 X.
(E) Nature, Scope, and Effect of De E. 441.

Motion for new trial not based on any of
em 112 (Ind. App.) Appellate court may as- statutory grounds not considered.-Id.
sume jurisdiction on appeal to set aside judg-302 (5) (Ind.App.) Objection to finding not
ment, void for want of jurisdiction.-Crowell considered, since not assigned as error or rais-
v. Crowell, 145 N. E. 780.

ed in motion for new trial.-Andrews v. Peters,
em 1 13(2)' (Ind.) Expiration of time to appeal 145 N. E. 579.
before suing to review judgment in circuit court,
precludes appeal from judgment in suit to re VII. REQUISITES AND PROCEEDINGS
view.-Talge Mahogany Co. v. Astoria Mahog-

any Co., 145 N. E. 495.

(A) Time of Taking Proceedings.

On 351 (2) (Ind.App.) Steps necessary to per.

fect term-time appeal.- People's State Bank v.

Buchanan, 145 N. E. 898.

Term-tiine appeal held duly taken.-Id.
(A) Issues and Questions in Lower Court.
Om 173(2) (Mass.) Matters not urged before (B) Petition or Prayer, Allowance, and
auditor or at trial not considered on appeal.-

Certificate or Affidavit.
Greenburg v. Stoehrer & Pratt Dodgem Cor 361(1) (Ind.App.) Formal prayer for term-
poration, 145 N. E. 824.

time appeal unnecessary.-People's State Bank
cm 173(9) (III.) Defense of estoppel not made v. Buchanan, 145 N. E. 898.
below cannot be entertained.-People v. Engle,
145 N. E. 231.

em 174 (Ind.App.) Question of plaintiff's right

to maintain action for lack of mental capacity

(A) Matters to be shown by Record.
not considered when not raised below.-South-
ern Ry. Co. v. Wahl, 145 N. E. 523.

Om499 (1) (III.) Objections to rulings cannot

be preserved by mere recitals in judgment or
(B) Objections and Motions, and Rulings order.--Harris v. Chicago House-Wrecking Co.,

145 N. E. 666.
em 187 (3) (III.) Objection that beneficiaries

(B) Scope and Contents of Record.
are not parties to suit respecting trust prop-
erty available on appeal.---Ambos v. Glos, 145518(1) (III.) Declaration, pleas, and repli-
N. E. 639.

cations part of record.-National Can Co. v.
em 193(1) (III.) Insufficiency of declaration Weirton Steel Co., 145 N. E. 389.
for recall of judgment of dismissal not pre-ow 525(1) (111.) Propositions submitted to
sented, in absence of demurrer, plea, or other court and rulings not considered, unless incor.
proper objection.--Harris : Chicago House- porated in bill of exceptions. - National Can
Wrecking Co., 145 N. E. 666.

Co. v. Weirton Steel Co., 145 N. E. 389.
w205 (Mass.) Prejudice by exclusion of evi-mw 525(1) (Ind.App.) Error in giving instruc-
dence not shown, in absence of offer of show- tions not considered, since not properly brought
ing as to expected answer.--Cambridge Motor into record.-Kanouse v. Ballard, 145 N. E.
Co. v. Estabrook, 145 N. E. 465.

w215(1) (Mass.) Question of erroneous in-527(1). (III.) Verdict and findings part of
struction not open for first time in Supreme record.-National Can Co. v. Weirton Steel Co.,
Court.-Kenyon v. Vogel, 145 N. E. 462.

145 N. E. 389.
Ow218(1) (Ind.App.) Error in returning gen: m528(1) (Ind. App.) Error in overruling mo-
eral verdict in action for personal injuries, if tion for new trial not presented by bill of ex-
any, held waived.--Southern Ry. Co. v. Wahl, ceptions presented to trial judge after close of
145 N. E. 523.

term.--Conover v. Cooper, 145 N. E. 779,
Cm 228 (Ohio) Exceptions to entry of rever-w529(I) (111.) Judginent part of record. -
sal and remand held sufficient for review by National Can Có. v. Weirton Steel Co., 115 N.
Supreme Court.-Gibbs v. Scioto Valley Ry. & E. 389.
Power Co., 145 N. E. 854.
Cm233(1). (Ind.) Act of counsel in personal (C) Necessity of Bill of Exceptions, Case,
injury action held not to require new trial, in

or Statement of Facts.
absence of proper objection.-Louisville & N. C.544(1) (Ohio) Errors predicated on alleged
R. & Lighting Co. v. Beck, 145 N. E. 886. bill of exceptions not considered, where no bill
C236(2) (III.) Defendant not requesting or of exceptions taken or filed.-Marriott v. Hawk,
moving for leave to file special pleas after 145 X. E. 287.
amendment of declaration cannot complain of Issues raised held not before court in ab-
court's refusal.--Oberman v. Camden Fire Ins. sence of bill of, exceptions or allowance of
Ass'n, 145 N. E. 351.

Em 237 (6) (Ind.App.) Error in returning gen. Ciw 549(1) (11.) Exceptions to rulings cannot
eral verdict in action for personal injuries, if) be preserved by mere recitals in judgment or

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
order.-Harris v. Chicago House-Wrecking Cow! pages where they and evidence can be found.-
145 N. E. 666.

Trick v. Eckhouse, 145 N. E. 587.

773(5) (Ind.) Appellees' failure to file brief
(F) Making, Form, and Requisites of regarded as confession of error.- Pittsburgh, C.,
Transcript or Return.

C. & St. L, R. Co. v. Linder, 145 N. E. 885.
Em608(1) (III.) Transcript of record not in Cm773(5) (Ind.App.) Failure to controvert
accordance with rules.-Road Dist. No. 4 v.

error assigned in brief can be taken as confes-
Frailey, 145 N. E. 195.

sion of error.-Marion Malleable Iron Works v.

Baldwin, 145 N. E. 559.
(H) Transmission, Filing, Printing, and

Service of Coples.

(A) Scope and Extent in General.
ww628 (2) (Ohio) Nonfeasance of clerk in fur-
nishing transcript not ground for dismissal of Om 842(1), (Ind.App.) When assessments un-
petition in error, where transcript filed im- der Ohio laws were made and when they be-
mediately on discovery_thereof.-Columber v.

came lien held questions of fact for trial court.
City of Kenton, 145 N. E. 12.

-Noffsinger v. Tritt, 145 N. E. 783.
Om 842(1) (Mass.) Remark of judge concern-

ing counsel's argument held not ruling as to
(K) Questions Presented for Review.

pertinent question of law which could be sub-
692(1) (Mass.) Prejudice by exclusion of ject of exception.-O'Neill v. Ross, 145 N. E.
evidence not shown, in absence of offer or show- 60.
ing as to expected answer.-Cambridge Motor Cw843(3) (Ind.App.) On showing that appel-
Co. v. Estabrook, 145 N. E. 465.

lant received substantial justice, consideration
694 (1) (Mass.) Findings not set aside of alleged erroneous rulings as to admission
where evidence not reported.-Gadreault v. of evidence not necessary.-Charters v. Citi-
Sherman, 145 N. E. 49.

zens' Nat. Bank of Peru, 145 N. E. 517.
m694(1) (Mass.) Finding that petitioner for 846(6) (Ind.App.) Decisions of courts of
appointment of conservator was not friend of Illinois not controlling where trial court failed
respondent one of fact, and conclusive, in ab- to make any findings as to law of Illinois.--New
sence of evidence.-Flaherty v. Whitin, 145 N. | York Life Ins. Co. v. Adams, 145 N. E. 499.
E. 51.
m694(1) (Mass.) Facts found by master, (B) Interlocutory, Collateral, and Supple-
unless inconsistent, must stand, where evi mentary Proceedings and Questions.
dence not reported.-Porter v. Spring, 145 N. 874 (1). (III.) Cross-error questioning or-
E, 52.

der of reinstatement, on appeal from subse-
694(1) (Mass.) Master's finding that bro: quent order striking case from docket, not con-
ker was procuring cause of sale must stand, if sidered.-Harris v. Chicago House-Wrecking
based on unreported evidence, but not if mere Co., 145 N. E. 666.
inference from other findings.-Nichols v. Ath-
erton, 145 N. E. 277.

(C) Parties Entitled to Allege Error.
ww694 (1) (Mass.) Findings of fact conclusive, m878(1), (Mass.) Prevailing party without
where evidence not reported.-Roach v. Sturdy,
145 N. E. 429.

concern with requests for ruling.-Davis V.
694(1) (Mass.) Finding of master must Smith-Springfield Body Corporation, 145 N. E.

stand, where evidence unreported.-Pietrzkyow-
ski v. Legault Housing Corporation, 145 N. E.

(E) Presumptions.

en 901 (Ind.App.) Burden appellant to
696(1) (Mass.) General finding for defend- show reversible error.-Trick v. Eckhouse, 145
ant must stand, unless wholly unwarranted as N. E. 587.
matter of law, where evidence not reported.-Cm 907(2) (Ind.A pp.) No presumption of im-
Gorman v. MacPherson, 145 N. E. 421.

proper allowance for attorney fees.-Trick v.
708 (Ind.) Overruling motion to modify Eckhouse, 145 N. E. 587.
judgment held not available as error in absence ww907(2), (Mass.) Intent to elect curtesy held
of special findings.-Louisville & N. R. & Light- not inferable in direct contravention of actual
ing Co. v. Beck, 145 N. E, 886.

intent found by master.--Porter v. Spring, 145

N. E. 52.

w916(1) (Ind.App.) Failure of party to pro-

cure reply to answer is waiver thereof, and
Om719(8) (Ind.App.) Objection to finding not averments of answer will be taken as denied. -
considered, since not assigned as error.-An- Costigan v. Schalk, 145 N. E. 510.
drews v. Peters. 145 N. E. 579.

Cm927(2) (11.) Order reinstating cause after
fw721 (1) (Ind.App.) Joint assignment of er term in which dismissed assumed made in stat-
ror must be good as to all that join therein.-- utory proceeding.-Harris v. Chicago House-
City of Huntingburg v. State, 145 N. E. 443. Wrecking Co., 145 N. E. 666.

721 (2) (Ind.App.) Appellate court preclud-930(1) (Ind.) Appellate Court required to
ed from discussing demurrer on merits where assume that verdict was based on evidence suffi.
assignments of error not good as to all parties cient to sustain it.-Louisville & N. R. & Light-
joining therein.-City of Huntingburg v. State, ing Co. v. Beck, 145 N. E. 886.
145 N. E 443.

Cm931(1) (Ind.) Appellate Court must accept
733 (III.) Whether judgment unsupported as true evidence that trial court believed and
by record, reviewable in Supreme Court on ap acted upon.-Montgomery v. Pierson, 145 N. E.
peal from Appellate Court.-National Can Co. 771.
v. Weirton Steel Co., 145 N. E. 389.

On931 (5) (Mass.) Assumed that trial judge

in making finding considered all material evi-

dence.--Graustein v. Wyman, 145 N. E. 450.
758(2) (Ind. App.) Exclusion of evidence

(F) Discretion of Lower Court.
not considered in absence of showing of objec-
tions and exceptions.-Trick v. Eekhous 145 Cm983 (3) (11.) Chancellor's discretion in re-
N. E. 587.

viewing master's acts not interfered with on
Cm758(3), (Ind.) Mere assertion that request- review, unless abused.-Worden v. Rayburn,
ed instruction stated law correctly on issues, 145 N. E. 101.
without showing particular application, pre-
sents no question.--General American Tank Car (G) Questions of Fact, Verdicts, and

Corporation v. Melville, 145 N. E. 890.

760(2) (Ind.App.) Exclusion of evidence Cww992 (Ind.App.) Proof of loss as basis for
not considered in absence of showing of ob- secondary evidence question for trial court.-
jections and exceptions or reference to record | Kanouse v. Ballard, 145 N. E. 441.


ww994(1) (III.) Supreme Court does not de- Om 1052(5) (Mass.) Verdict for defendant
termine credibility of witnesses.-Phillabaum v. rendered evidence of price paid by defendant
Lake Erie & W. R. Co., 145 17. E. 806. for land as basis of amount of compensation
ww994(3) (Mass.) Denial of rulings for judg- immaterial.-O'Neill v. Ross, 145 N. E. 60.
ment, dependent on credibility of witnesses, not om 1052(8) (III.) Admission in ejectment of
reviewable.--Mantalbano v. Goldman, 145 N. E. proof of dissolution of injunction against

boundary fence held harmless error; judgment
Oma 995 (III.) Supreme Court does not weigh being for right party.-Kesl y. Cobine, 145 N.
evidence.-Phillabaum y. Lake Erie & W. R. E. 148.
Co., 145 N. E. 806.

mm 1052(8) (ind.) Errors in admission of evi-
On 996 (ind.) Where facts showed defendant's dence, in suit to set aside deed for undue in-
negligence and plaintiff's freedom therefrom, fluence, held harmless.-Montgomery v. Pierson,
verdict for plaintiff is binding.-General Ameri- 145 N. E. 771.
can Tank Car Corporation v. Melville, 145 N, E. 1054 (1) (Mass.) Any error in admitting

testimony of plaintiff's statements held harm-
Cm996 (Mass.) Master's finding that broker less, when master considered case independent,
was procuring cause of sale must stand, if ly of such statements.-Jameson v. Hayes, 145
based on unreported evidence, but not if mere N. E. 457.
inference from other findings:-Nichols v. Om 1056(1) (Mass.) Exclusion of evidence
Atherton, 145 N. E. 277.

concerning price paid by defendant for land
Om 1001(1) (111.) Appellate Court is author- held barmless.-O'Neill v. Ross, 145 N. E. 60.
ized to reverse, with finding of facts, only mo 1064(1) (Ohio) Statement in

where evidence is lacking.-Roe v. Roe, 145 N. charge that defendant in cross-petition raised
E. 804.

claim of contributory negligence held without
Om 1002 (N.Y.) Conflicting testimony must prejudicial error-Gibbs v. Scioto Valley Ry.
yield, so far as necessary, to plaintiff's version, & Power Co., 145 N. E. 854.
on appeal from judgment for plaintiff.-Shirley m1064(4), (Ind.) Giving of inaccurate in.
v. Larkin Co., 145 N. E. 751.

struction, which did not affect result, held with-
w 1004 (3) (ind.) $35,000 damages for leg out reversible error.-General American Tank
crushed off and other injuries held not excessive. Car Corporation v. Melville, 145 N. E. S90.
-General American Tank Car Corporation v. Om 1068(3) (Mass.) Plaintiff not harmed by
Melville, 145 N. E. 890.

instructions, unless case one for jury.-Barber
Ow 1009 (4) (III.) Chancellor's finding of dam- v. Rathvon, 145 N. E. 866.
ages from construction of dam not disturbed om 1068(5) (Mass.) Plaintiff not harmed by
unless palpably contrary to weight of testi- instructions, unless case one for jury.-Barber
mony.-Deterding v. Central Illinois Public v. Rath von, 145 N. E. 866.
Service Co., 145, N. E. 185.
Om 1010(1) (Mass.) Finding reversed, where (1) Error Waived in Appellate Court.
evidence does not support it.-Inhabitants of
Lanesborough v. Inhabitants of Ludlow, 145 cm 1078(1) (Mass.). Exceptions not argued
· N. E. 57.

waived.-Davis v. Smith-Springfield Body Cor-
w 1010(1) (Mass.) Findings of fact by trial poration, 145 N. E. 434.
judge held final, if supported by evidence.-Da-m 1078(1) (Mass.) Questions not discussed in
vis v. Smith-Springfield Body Corporation, 145 brief waived.-Gauthier v. Quick, 145 N. E.
N. E. 434.

Om 1011 (1) (ind.) Appellate court cannot re Om 1078(3) (Ind. App.) Objections to
verse judgment on weight of conflicting evi- plaint in memorandum held to present nothing
dence. --Blain v. City of Delphi, 145 N. E. 764. for consideration of appellate court.-Southern
Cm1011(1) (Ind.) Appellate Court cannot dis- Ry. Co. v. Wahl, 145 N. E. 523.
turb trial court's finding supported by evidence. Cm 1078(4) (Mass.) Exceptions to admission
---Montgomery v. Pierson, 145 N. E. 771. of evidence not argued are waived.-Sullivan v.
C 1011(I) (Ind.) Weight of conflicting evi- Northridge, 145 N. E. 460.
dence exclusively for trial court.-Born v. La
Fayette Auto Co., 145 N. E. 833.

(J) Decisions of Intermediate Courts.
Om 1017 (Mass.) Finding of master conclusive
on review of exceptions.-Gamwell v. Bigley, Cm 1083(1) (!!1.) When findings not reviewed
145 N. E. 47.

in Supreme Court on appeal from Appellate
Court.-National Can Co. v. Weirton Steel Co.,

145 N. E. 389.
(H) Harmless Error.

Om 1091(1) (N.Y.) Defendants' evidence
Cam 1026 (Ind.) Judgment not reversed for sumed true on appeal from judgment affirming
harmless error.-Montgomery v. Pierson, 145 judgment on directed verdict for plaintiff. -
N. E. 771.

Broad & Lackawanna Realty Co. v. Breitung,
1030 (Ind.) Judgment affirmed where al- | 145 N. E. 915.
leged irregularities of_practice not shown to Cwm 1094 (1) (N.Y.) Reversal by Appellate Di-
have affected result.-Blain v. City of Delphi, vision on law and facts not disturbed unless,
145 N. E. 764.

conceding all disputed facts finding in appel-
cm 1036(4) (III.) Defendant held not preju- | lant's favor follows as matter of law.-In re
diced by substitution of plaintiffs, and order | Bistany, 145 N. E. 70.
that pleas filed stand to amended declaration.- Cw1094(2) (III.) Judgment based on conflict.
Oberman v. Camden Fire Ins. Ass'n, 145 N. ing evidence, and affirmed by Appullate Court,
E. 351.

cannot be reversed by Supreme Court.-Roe v.
Om 1039(8) (ind.) Judgment not reversed for Roe, 145 N. E. 804.
overruling of motion to make immaterial aver Cm1094 (3) (N.Y.) Court of Appeals cannot
ment more specific.-Baltimore & O. S. W. R. reverse for failure of proof decree which Ap.
Co. v. Berdon, 145 N. E. 2.

pellate Division has unanimously affirmed. -
Cam 1040(7) (Ind.App.) Error, if any, in sus In re Santrucek, 145 N. E. 739.
taining demurrer to paragraph of answer harm-em 1094 (3) (N.Y.) Finding, unanimously af-
less, where material facts alleged provable un firmed by Appellate Division, as to wife's ex-
der other paragraphs.--Charters v. Citizens' pectancy, assumed to be correct by Court of
Nat. Bank of Peru, 145 N. E. 517.

Appeals.-Feldman v. Lisansky, 145 N. E. 746.
1050(1) (Mass.) Master's statement of in- w 1094(5) (11.) Supreme Court's inquiry,
tended conduct toward injured employee, and where case tried by jury and reversed by Ap-
advice as to amputation of hand, held inadmis- pellate Court on facts without remanding, stat-
sible and prejudicial.- Wilson v. Daniels, 145 N. ed.-Phillabaum v. Lake Erie & W. R. Co.,
E. 409.

145 N. E. 806.



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

8 (Ind.) No question determined by original

decree can be litigated on application for writ.-
(B) Affirmance.

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 145 N. E. 493.
Om 1140(2) (Mass.) Error affecting measure

Only question on application for writis
of compensation only cured by remittitur.-Ken- whether decree sought to be enforced has been
yon v. Vogel, 145 N. E. 462.

complied with.-Id.

Parties not entitled to jury trial nor to spe-
(D) Reversal.

cial finding of facts.-Id.
1175(5) (III.) Appellate Court cannot

Writ issued upon proof of demand of posses-
weigh evidence in law case tried by jury, where sion and a refusal.-Id.
evidence conflicting.–Phillabaum v. Lake Erie

Court held justified in finding that defendants
& W. R. Co., 145 N. E. 806.

were in possession of lands involved, and were
C1176(4) (III.) Cause not remanded where refusing to comply with judgment.-Id.
no theory under which plaintiff could recover.
-Brown v. Ray, 145 N. E, 676.

Om 1177(7) (II.) Appellate Court cannot re-
verse on facts without remanding where evi- See Master and Servant, Eww204-217.
dence conflicting.--Wallace v. Odell, 145 N. E.



See Criminal Law, m700_726; Trial, emos

Om62 (N.Y.) Undelivered draft to order of

foreign corporation held not attachable as its
See Militia.

property.-Erskine v. Nemours Trading Cor-

poration, 145 N. E. 273.

Om63(4) (Ind.) Arrest without warrant not
justified by suspicions.-Hart v. State, 145 N. See Criminal Law, Em700–726; Trial, em

E. 492.

See Criminal Law, Om970.

(A) Admission to Practice.

Oml (III.) Act prohibiting practice of law

without license held not void as repugnant to
31 (Mass.) Evidence of defendant's finan- later act... People v. Hubbard, 145 N. E. 93.
cial embarrassment held competent.-Common-himself out as attorney” without license to

ell (III.) Defendant held guilty of "holding
wealth v. Haddad, 145 N. E. 561.
En 35 (Mass.) Evidence of increased tax as- practice.-People v. Hubbard, 145 N. E. 93,
sessment immaterial to meet proof of nonpay-
ment.—Commonwealth v. Haddad, 145 N. E.

(C) Suspension and Disbarment.

Ow38 (III.) Not necessarily unprofessional for

attorney with claim to solicit other claims for

purpose of having creditors sufficient to au-
See Homicide.

thorize petition in bankruptcy.-People v. Edel-

son, 145 N. E. 246.

Reputation of attorneys proceeded against to
See Drains, cm 81-88; Municipal Corpora- be taken into consideration, as well as practice
tions, m505-546; Taxation, Om317-493. of profession generally.-Id.

Attorneys held not shown guilty of unprofes-

sional conduct, requiring their suspension.-Id.

Om 46 (111.) Drunkenness no excuse for attor-

ney's failure to remit collections to client.-
(B) Mode and Sufficiency of Assignment. People v.. Tracey, 145 N. E. 665.
Em32 (Ind.) Interest of party in fund created On 54 (III.) Findings of commissioner in pro-
by contract assignable without consent of other ceeding against attorneys conclusive where
parties.-Irwin's Bank v. Fletcher Savings & evidence not brought up.-People v. Edelson,
Trust Co., 145 N. E. 869.

145 N. E. 246.
On 34 (Ind. App.) Chose in action not evidenc-
ed by writing assignable without writing.-Og III. DUTIES AND LIABILITIES OF AT-
don v. Washington Nat. Bank, 145 N. Ë. 514.


www.17 (III.) Funds collected for client are

trust funds, to be immediately turned over to
Omo 119 (Ind.App.) Assignee may sue on parol client.--People v. Tracey, 145 N. E. 665.
assignment.-Ogdon v. Washington Nat. Bank,
145 N. E. 514.

C 131 (III.) Assignee of nonnegotiable chosem (III.) Appearance of Attorney General
in action must allege statutory facts to sue in after return of indictment not basis of objec-
his own name.-Oberman v. Camden Fire Ins. tion; "trial."-People v. Looney, 145 N. E.
Ass'n, 145 N. E. 351.



See Pledges.

(A) Nature and Essentials of Trusts for See Assignments for Benefit of Creditors.

47 (Mass.) Creditor, not party to trust 11. PETITION, ADJUDICATION, WARRANT,
conveyance, not bound thereby.-Illinois Watch

Case Co. y. Cowan-Myers Co., 145 N. E. 432.

(D) Warrant

Custody of Property.

w 101 (Mass.) Debtor may not lawfully

make payments to bankrupt's creditors, in ab-
el (Ind.) Nature of proceeding stated.- sence of contract or obligation.- Ninth School
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 145 N. E. 493. Dist. of Manchester v. Rogers, 145 N. E. 278.




See Exceptions, Bill of.
(C) Preferences and Transfers by Bank-
rupt, and Attachments and

Other Liens.

Om 165(1) (Mass.) Assertion of right to en-

(D) Acceptance.
force lien on pledge to secure lease not prefer-
ence.-Reed v. Bristol County Realty Co., 145 m 86 (Mass.) Promise to pay drafts held con-
N. E. 455.

ditional on attachment of bills of lading.Citi-

zens' Bank of Fort Valley v. Henry J. Perkins
(D) Administration of Estate.

Co., 145 N. E. 280.
Om 255 (Mass.) Right of lessor of bankrupt

(E) Consideration.
to cash deposited as security not impaired by
lessee's bankruptcy.-Reed v. Bristol County

Ons 92(1), (Ind.) Moral obligation to pay debt
Realty Co., 145 N. E. 455.

not legally collectible sufficient consideration

for note given to secure it.-Born v. La Fay-

ette Auto Co., 145 N. E. 833.


(C) Deposits.
Omw 129 (Mass.) Rule stated as to nature of mobile may be sufficient consideration for note

en 139(3):(Ind.) Obligation to pay for auto-
right arising under deposit by one in name of in renewal of altered note.-Born v. La Fayette
herself and another.-Battles v. Millbury Sav. Auto Co., 145 N. E. 833.
Bank, 145 N. E. 55.
em 138 (111.) Bank with notice that deposit be V. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES ON INDORSE-
longs to another may refuse to honor check of

depositor.–First State Bank & Trust Co. v.

(D) Bona Fide Purchasers.
First Nat. Bank, 145 N. E. 382.
140(3) (Ind. App.) Parol acceptance

of Cm 356 (III.) Bank merely giving credit to

holder of note as depositor does not thereby
check creates no liability thereon.-Mansfield v.
Goldsmith Bank, 145 N. E. 586.

become holder in due course.-First State
Om 147(1) (III.) Generally drawee paying mon-

Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 145 N.
ey on forged check or draft cannot recover

E. 382.
from one, equally innocent, receiving money.-18380 (N.Y.) Makers, intrusting broker with
First State Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat. apparently valid negotiable notes, cannot es-
Bank, 145 N. E. 382.

cape liability to innocent purchaser for value.-
Holder of forged check, not suffering loss, Broad & Lackawanna Realty Co. v. Breitung,
cannot profit by payment to him by drawee. | 145 N. E. 915.

Generally unreasonable delay in discovering
forgery and giving notice will bar recovery by Ow5.8(1) (Ind.) Note prima facie evidence of

sufficient consideration.-Born v. La Fayette
Ono 149. (III.) Defendant bank, crediting to Auto Co., 145 N. E. 833.
payee forged check, drawn on another bank, Emo 527(2), (Ind.) Finding that note was given
held liable to latter for proceeds not with only as evidence of debt, held sustained by evi-
drawn.-First State Bank & Trust Co. v. First dence.-Born v. La Fayette Auto Co., 145 N.
Nat. Bank, 145 N. E. 382.

E. 833.
Defendant paying forged check, drawn on an-m537(6) (N.Y.) Holder of notes held not in-
other bank, held not liable to drawee because of nocent purchaser for value as matter of law.-
delay in discovering forgery.-Id.

Broad & Lackawanna Realty Co. v. Breitung,
Omo i 54 (6) (III.) Delay or negligence in discov- 145 N. E. 915.
ering forgery of_check raises presumption of

loss to others.--First State Bank & Trust Co.

v. First Nat. Bank, 145 N. E. 382.

(F) Exchange, Money, Securities, and In-

Om41 (III.) Instruction on effect of agreement

to line not authorized under evidence.-

Jones v. Scott, 145 N. E. 378.
188!/2 (N.Y.) Liability of bank for amount
deposited in Russian branch held not affected Cw46(1) (III.) Owners cannot transfer land
by acts of Russian government.-Sokoloff v. Na- by oral agreement changing known location. -

Jones v. Scott, 145 N. E. 378.
tional City Bank of New York, 145 N. E. 917.
Liability to repay amount deposited in Russian oral agreement applies stated.-Id.

Conditions under which establishing line by
branch bank held not defeated by mplied con-

Rule for establishment of line by oral agree-
Undisclosed intent that performance of agree: 1 mine true line.-Id.

ment inapplicable where intention is to deter-
ment with depositor should be governed by 46(3) (III.) Line established by parol
decrees of Russian government no defense to
action for restitution.-Id.

agreement binding on parties.-Jones v. Scott,

145 N. E. 378.
Measure of recovery from bank refusing to
pay rubles in amount paid it for deposit in Rus-

Effect of establishing boundary line by oral
sian branch stated.-Id.

Bank's use of money regarded as equivalent of P55 (III.) Complainant held to receive paper
benefit to depositor.-10.

title to lots only after deficiency prorated. -

Nilson Bros. v. Kahn, 145 X. E. 340.

Shortage in platted block prorated among the

several lots.-Id.

3 (Ind. App.) Man marrying a pregnant wo-
man presumed to be father of the child.-Phill (2) (Mass.) Examiner for registrar of

motor vehicles is public officer.-Commonwealth
lips v. State, 145 N. E. 895.
Relatrix's sexual relations with husband prior

v. Tsaffras, 145 N. E. 922.
to marriage assumed.--Id.

Evidence heid insufficient to rebut presump-
tion of legitimacy.--Id.

C-W4 (Ind. App.) Proof required of state in
bastardy_proceedings stated.-Phillips v. State, On7 (III.) Township must build bridge across
145 N. E. 895.

natural water course of sufficient length and


« ForrigeFortsett »