« ForrigeFortsett »
Conway v. Log Cabin etc. Assn., 85.
Council of Pharmaceutical Soc. v.
London &c. Assn., 215.
Cowell v. Colorado Springs Co., 461.
Cumberland Co. v. Pennell, 305.
Fernandes v. Sacramento City R.
Finch v. Boning, 288.
v. Wood, 474.
V. Seligman, 16.
Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 474.
Forbes v. Lee Conservancy Board,
Franklin Ins. Co. v. Cousins, 136.
Freemans Nat. Bk. v. Savey, 116.
Household etc. Ins. Co. v. Grant, 89,
Howe Machine Co. v. Reber, 397.
Ilinois &c. R. Co. v. Decker, 159.
Insurance Building Co. v. National
Gantt v. American Ins. Co. 267.
Gladstone v. Brighton Aquarium
Glavin v. Rhode Island Hospital,
Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v.
Green v. Ratles, 436.
Daniel v. Wood, 323.
v. Carson, 238.
v. Coburn, 236.
Decatur Gaslight Co. v. Howell, 119.
Delaware &c. R. Co. v. Napheys, 158.
Detroit Shoe Works v. Perry, 76.
Dickerson v. llaves, 57.
v. Naper, 260.
Kalamazoo Manfg. Co, v. Macalis
Kane v. Cone, 74.
Kearney y. Chicago, &c. R. Co. 368.
Kinealy v. St. Louis &c. R. Co. 86.
Knecht v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. 297.
Knoxville Nat. Bk. v. Clark, 29.
Earl of Sandwich v. Great Northern
Lawler v. Gorden, 118.
v. Union R. Co. 377.
.v. Woolsey, 122.
Lehigh Valley R. Co. v Mckeen, 187.
Lippincott v. Town of Pana, 428.
Little v. Allington, 399.
v. King, 296.
Longueville v. Western Ass. Co. 292.
Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Brownlee,
Lowe v. Central Pac. R. Co. 139.
V. Murray, 476.
Gregory v. Wendell, 76.
Greve v. First Div. St. Paul R. Co.
Griffin v. Wallace, 319.
Guild v. Hall, 399.
Guille v. Swan, 123.
Gulick v. Gulick, 5.
Gutwillig v. Stumes, 437.
Hainer v. Batdorf, 318.
v. City of Virginia, 159.
Safe & Lock Co. v. Rigby, 356.
Hamburger v. Miller, 295.
Hanger v. City of Des Moines, 478.
Hanover v. Sperry, 439.
Hardy v. Monroe, 56.
Harrall, in re, 295.
Harris y. Waite, 496.
Hart v. Wills, 416,
Hatch v. Jenard, 299.
Hayden v. Dutcher, 324.
Hayes v. Union Mutual Life Ins.
Heiskell v. Farmers' etc. Bk. 141.
Henry v. Estes, 458.
v. State, 398.
Heim v. Vogel, 178.
Hentig v. James, 96.
Henty v. Schroder, 215.
Herbert v. Servin, 474.
Herring v. Skaggs, 229.
Hewitt v. Ontario Copper Co. 197.
Heysham v. Dettre, 157.
Higgins v. Kusterer, 247.
Highway Commrs. v. Van Dusan, 19.
Hill v. Eldridge, 135.
Hiller v. Rullman, 338.
Hilliard v. Phillips, 235.
Hiltabiddle v. State, 19.
Hiort v. London etc. R. Co. 215.
Hoag v. Chicago etc. R. Co. 469.
Hoagland v. City of Sacramento,
Fairfield v. County of Gallatin, 467.
Farber v. Purdy, 117.
Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wenger,
Mason v. Harris, 214.
Merchants Bk. v. Lutterloh, 116,
Mexico Southern Bk. v. Reed, 2.
Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Boyd, 98.
Miller v. Commrs. of Deaborn Co.
Moingona Coal Co. v. Blair, 17.
Morrill y. St. Anthony Falls Water
Mullen v. Old Colony R. Co. 56.
People v. Judge of Superior Court,
People v. Leith, 139.
v. Piepenbrink, 438.
v. Young Mens Soc., 217.
v. Shyrock, 327.
v. Tucker, 478.
Pittsburg, etc. R. Co. v. Brown, 479.
Pottsville Mut. Ins. Co. v. Horan,
Providence Steam Engine Co. v.
Providence, etc. Steamyhip Co.,
Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Taylor,
v. St. Louis, etc. R. Co., 51.
Snitterlin v. Connecticut Mut. Ins.
Sproul v. Atchison Nat. Bk., 115.
Springtield Five Cents Bk. v. South
Somerville v. Dickermann, 277.
Soper v. Harvard College, 323.
Mac, Works, 458.
South Carolina Soc. v. Johnson, 123.
Stackpole v. Seymour, 198.
v. Blair, 386.
v. Board of Railroad Commrs.,
v. California Mining Co., 200.
v. Whitcomb), 478.
v. Wyant, 458.
Stellar v. Chicago etc. R. Co. 131.
Stocker v. Planet Bldg. Soc. 121.
Stowe v. Gerard Fire Ins. Co. 290.
McClosky v. Indianapolis Manfg.
National Bk, of Winterset v. Eyre,
Town of Elkhart v. Ritter, 338.
Rawle v. Phelps, 46.
Redman v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.,
Redmond v. State, 298.
Red Wing Hotel Co. v.Frederick, 97.
Reed v. Wilson, 304.
Reeder v. Moranda, 436.
Reeves v. Stipp, 137.
Reid v. Hood, 123.
Reg. v. Stett, 197.
Reuter v. Sala, 37.
Rice v. Barnard, 277.
Riddel v. Thayer, 336.
Richardson v. Hughitt, 201.
Ricker v. Kelly, 122.
Ricketson v. Giles, 200.
Roach v. Van Riswick, 474.
Robert Dixon, The, 258.
Roberts v. Kelly, 397.
v. Shroyer, 319.
Robinson v. Jones, 147.
Rogers v. McKenzie, 116.
Roper v. Trustees of Sangamon
Rose v. Jackson, 459.
v. Winn, 121.
Rosebrough v. Ansly, 318.
Rosvear Clay Co., ex parte, 37.
Rounsavel v. Wolfe, 416.
Rowland v. Barnes, 116.
Ruffin v Green, 235.
Ryder v. Burlington, etc. R. Co., 18.
v. Wilson, 221.
National Mahaiwe Bk. V. Peck, 369.
Security Bk. v. McDonald,
Necker v. People, 318.
Needham v. Hill, 116.
Nelson v. Bronenberg, 357.
v. Iowa Eastern R. Co. 17.
v. White, 1.
New York Cent. R. Co. v. Fraloff,
Nickerson v. Tirrell, 259.
Nolan v. Grant, 77.
Nortleet v. Hutchins, 136.
Norris v. Spofford, 59.
North v. Phillips, 75.
Noxon v. Smith, 436.
O'Gatton v. Tolley, 475.
Ogden v. Hall, 293.
Olleman v. kelgon, 416.
Oliver v. Kansas City, 279.
Olmstead v. Tarsnay, 117.
Olney v. Howe, 124.
Orr v. Johnston, 37.
Otis v. Town of Janesville, 416.
Osborn v. Kistler, 298.
v. Michigan Air Line Co. 156.
St. Paul, etc. R. Co. v. Minneapolis,
etc. R. Co., 376,
Salamanca Tp. v. Jasper Co. Bk.,
Salma B. & L. Assn. v. Nelson, 475.
Salzenstein v. Mairs, 179.
Sanborn v. Stickney, 299.
Sargent v. Roberts, 324.
Scheuber v. Held, 416.
Schermerhorn v. Conner, 185.
Schmidt v. The Pennsylvania, 75.
Schneider v. Botsch, 237.
Schoening v. Leeds, 158.
Schroeder v. Crawford, 45.
Searle v. Sawyer, 466.
Shaffer v. Pickrell, 338.
v. Roundy, 38.
Pancoast v. Gowen, 495.
Palmer v. Waddle, 96.
Park v. Toledo, etc. R. Co., 217.
Parker v, Jechmere, 497.
v. Portland Publishing Co.
Parry v. Smith, 248.
Patten v. Smith, 122.
Patterson v. Leavitt, 122.
Peagram v. King, 324.
Peirce v. Bent, 299.
Pennock v. Fuller, 276.
People v. Auditor-General, 259.
v. Elliott, 441.
v. Hess, 155.
v. Humason, 155.
v. Johnson, 449.
United States v. Steffens, 449.
v. Wittemann, 449.
Winona etc. R. Co. v. St. Paul eto.
v. Fallon, 479.
Waddell v. Blockey, 435.
v. Queen Ins. Co. 290.
Watertown Fire Ins. Co. v. Grover,
v. Gilmore, 218.
Weeks v. Loy, 478.
Weir v. Day, 398.
Weis v. Tiernan, 260.
Weitsel v. Mayers, 119.
Welch v. Sherer, 417.
Western Building etc. Co. v. Fitz.
Union Tel. Co., 360.
Wheeler v. Johnson, 177.
Whitaker v. Smith, 198.
Whitcomb v. Joslyn, 336.
White v. Brockway, 460.
v. Keokuk etc. R. Co., 497.
Williams v. Niagara Ins. Co., 190.
Wilson v. Cobb, 294.
v. Conlin, 159.
v. Powers, 319.
Sewing Machine Co. V.
The Central Law Journal. definite period beyond the maturity of the
note, can not be set up in bar to an action
brought on the note before the expiration of SAINT LOUIS, JULY 4, 1879. the period. This decision is antagonized by
several decisions of the same court, wbich are CURRENT TOPICS.
not cited in the opinion. In Rhodes v. Thomas, 2 Ind. 638; Ward v. Walton, 4 Ind. 75,
and Billingsly v. Stratton, 11 Ind. 396, it was The Supreme Court of Illinois in Hoecker v.
laid down as a general principle of the common People, decided on the 20th ult., held that to
law that the parties to a written contract, not an indictment for selling liquor without a under seal, may, after its execution, and before license it was no defense that the defendant was breach, dissolve, waive, discharge or qualify a druggist and had sold the liquor upon the pre- the contract, or any part of the same, by a new scription of a physician. CRAIG, C. J., said: verbal contract. In Rhodes v. Thomas, supra, "It was a ground of defense that the sales were the case of Goss v. Lord Nugent, 5 B. & A. made on the prescription of a physician, and it 58, is cited, in which the principle above statis complained that the court refused to give an
ed is limited to contracts which are not reinstruction asked by the defendant to the ef
quired by the statute of frauds to be in writfect that if the sales of the liquor were made
ing. In conformity to these rulings, the case upon a prescription of a practicing physician,
of Rigsbee v. Bowler, 17 Ind. 167, was deand at the time of such sales the purchasers
cided. The holder of two promissory notes, represented to the defendant that the liquor | neither of which was due, agreed with the was wanted to be used as a medieine in case
maker that, if he would pay off one at once, of actual sickness, and that the defendant
he should have a given time after the making made the sale upon such prescription and rep
of the other to pay
off. The maker accordresentation in good faith, to be used as a med
ingly paid the former note. These facts were icine only, then the defendant would not be
held to constitute a defense to a suit brought liable and should not be found guilty in re
on the unpaid note before the expiration of spect to such sales. We do not perceive how
the agreed time of extension. Peck v. Beckthe prescription of a physician and the repre
with, 10 Ohio St. 497, is cited and approved, sentations of a purchaser can be admitted as a
in which it was held that an agreement for justification for making sales of intoxicating value to extend the time of payment, made beliquors contrary to the statute, at least, with
fore the maturity of the note, is a valid and out proof that the representations made were true. The words of the statute are unquali-binding engagement, and a bar to a suit fied; whoever not having a license shall sell,
brought before the expiration of the time. In without any exception or limitation whatever
Conaway v. Dorst, 20 Ind. 426, which was a as to any class of persons or cases. By the
suit against the maker on a promissory note, 46th clause of section 62, chap. 24, p. 220,
he answered an agreement, made before the Rev. Stat., 1874, provision is made for the
commencement of the action, for an extension granting of permits by the authorities of a
of time of payment, which had not expired, city or village to druggists for the sale of in
In support of the answer, to which a demurtoxicating liquors for medicinal, mechanical,
rer had been sustained, the defendant cited sacramental and chemical purposes. Without Rigsbee v. Bowler, supra. The court, howsuch a permit or a license the sales made by
ever, upon the authority of that case, held the the defendant stand without justification.”
answer bad, because it did not appear that the agreement for extension was made before the maturity of the note.
In Nelson v. White, 61 Ind. 139, the Supreme Court of Indiana held that an agree- A question as to how the facts showing ment made by the holder of a promissory jurisdiction in a suit in the Federal Circuit note with the maker, upon a valuable consid- Court, should appear in the record was ruled eration, to extend the time of payment for a
on in the United States Circuit Court for the Vol. 9-No. 1.
Southern District of Ohio in the recent case upon the citizenship of the parties, the deof Mexico Southern Bank v. Reed. The case cisions hold that for the purposes of suit, a was an ordinary suit brought on a promissory corporation is a citizen of the State under
a note, the caption of the petition being “The whose laws it has its existence and being." Mexico Sonthern Bank, a corporation, plaintiff v. Townsend Reed, defendant.” The defendant moved to dismiss “ because the name
COMMON LAW EXEMPTIONS. and designation of the plaintiff, as a corporation in the said caption, without assuming
Although many of the States have made therein its location, character, and kind, are
such provision by statute for an exemption not the same as is averred in the body thereof.
from sale on execution of property of resident
citizens as to include all that was exempt at The averment is, referring to the said caption, 'said plaintiff,' when, in fact, in said
common law, many, perhaps the most of them,
have not. The statutory exemption is generally caption naming the plaintiff, it is not
allowed only to householders or heads of faminamed or described as in the body of
lies; in some cases the exemption is of propthe petition.” The motion ruled, SWING,J.,saying: "The vital point in the
erty of a specified value to be selected by the
debtor, and few or none of the States have exmotion to dismiss the petition, and the only
tended the benefits of their exemption laws to point necessary to be decided by the court, is
non-residents or aliens. whether the caption of the petition is sufficient
These exceptions suggest questions which to give the court jurisdiction in this case. 'It
are important and worthy of examination, the is a settled doctrine of this court that, in cases more especially as the opinion seems to prewhere the jurisdiction of the Federal courts vail that statutory exemptions are in derogadepends upon the citizenship of the parties,
tion of the common law, and because the rule the facts essential to support that jurisdiction is firmly established that all are excluded from must appear somewhere in the record,' says their benefits who are not specially named in Judge Harlan in Robertson v. Cease, 7 Cent.
them. Indeed, the rigorous rule is sometimes L. J. 476. In Railway Company v. Ramsay, asserted to be that even the wearing apparel 22 Wall. 326, the Chief Justice said: They
of a debtor not entitled to the benefit of the need not necessarily, however, be averred in
exemption laws of a State, if found off his the pleadings. It is sufficient if they are in
person or out of his possession, so that no some form affirmatively shown by the record.
trespass would be committed in the taking, That view was approved by the subse- might be lawfully taken on execution for quent case of Bridges v. Sperry, 95 U. S. 403. debt.3 Rut such a rule is certainly neither to In the present case the only record is the pe- be tolerated by humanity or justified by law. tition. Therefore, the necessary allegations In examining these questions we are obliged must be contained somewhere in the petition, to rely very considerably upon general prinand must be distinctly and positively averred, ciples, and can derive very little aid from the but not necessarily in the caption; and it is books, for the reason that the questions have not sufficient that the facts of jurisdiction may very seldom come before the courts for dibe inferred argumentatively from the aver- rect adjudication. In practice the questions ments. Now, though in this case the state- are common enough, but the debtors who ments of the location, character and nature of most need them cannot afford the expense of the corporation, the plaintiff herein, are not claiming the limited privileges granted them set forth in the caption of this petition, yet by the common law; and a creditor would allegations essential to support the jurisdiction seldom find it profitable to appeal in such a of the court, so far as periains to the plaintiff, case from an adverse decision of an inferior appear in the body of the petition, namely, that the plaintiff is a corporation, organized under (1.) Herm. on Executions, 87; Ward v. Kuhn, 16 the laws of the State of Missouri, and is en
(2.) Hill v. Johnson, 29 Penn. St. 362; Corp v. Grisgaged in the business of banking in the City
wold, 27 Iowa 397; Swan v. Stephens, 99 Mass. 7; Finof Mexico, in said State' and, in cases where ley v. Sly, 44 Ind. 266; Bowne v. Witt, 19 Wend. 475. the jurisdiction of the Federal courts depends
(3.) Cook v. Gibbs, 3 Mass. 193; Bowne v. Witt, supra.