Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

287 (N.Y.) Vendor's equitable rights en-[55(1) (III.) Evidence held not to warrant forced by sale of vendee's equitable interest in land, not by sale of contract.-Trembath v. Berner, 148 N. E. 729.

(B) Actions for Purchase Money.

finding that_testatrix lacked mental capacity.-
Buerger v. Euerger, 148 N. E. 274.
~~55 (14) (III.) Mental incapacity not shown
by trusting affairs to confidential agent.-Buer-
ger v. Buerger, 148 N. E. 274.

III. CONTRACTS TO DEVISE OR BE-
QUEATH.

314(1) (N.Y.) Complaint not defective because note is for part of purchase price of lands sold on executory agreement to convey, unless showing on face that vendor deferred 58(2) (III.) Evidence held not to estabaction until time for conveyance.-Trembath v. whereby wife was to devise property to teslish agreement between testator and wife, Berner, 148 N. E. 729. tator's sister.-Parker v. Ruley, 148 N. E. 308. IV. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY.

VERDICT.

See Criminal Law, 878; Trial, 330–344. | (A) Nature and Essentials of Testamenta

WATERS AND WATER COURSES.

See Drains.

IX. PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY. (A) Domestic and Municipal Purposes.

182 (Ohio) Statute requiring municipalities to furnish water to public school without charge valid.-City of East Cleveland v. Board of Education of City School Dist. of East Cleveland, 148 N. E. 350.

WEAPONS.

ry Dispositions.

72 (N.Y.) Instrument propounded as will held not to show testamentary intent.-In re May's Will, 148 N. E. 770.

(C) Execution.

108 (111.) Execution, probate, and contest of wills, and devolution of property, is statutory.-Buerger v. Buerger, 148 N. Ě. 274.

(F) Mistake, Undue Influence, and Fraad.

155(1) (III.) "Undue influence" must deprive testator of free agency.-Cunningham v. Dorwart, 148 N. E. 314.

Influence avoiding will must destroy freedom 17(4) (II.) Evidence sufficient to show of testator's will and render it will of another. weapons were concealed.-People v. Garwood,-Id. 148 N. E. 259.

WHARVES.

Influence resulting from love and affection not controlling will is not undue influence.-Id.

157 (III.) Will in favor of fiduciary not defeated, in absence of showing of actual exercise of undue influence.-Buerger v. Buerger, 148 N. E. 274.

9 (Mass.) Statute and license under authority of which wharf was constructed rightly admitted in evidence.-Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co. v. Salem Terminal Corpora-157 (III.) Proof of fiduciary relationship is tion, 148 N. E. 444. not ground for inferring undue influence.Cunningham v. Dorwart, 148 N. E. 314.

Lease of wharf and extensions thereof held to give lessee all right to dock and lay vessels which lessor could have exercised.-Id.

Rights of lessee of wharf to dock and lay vessels not lost because present exercise of right inexpedient or unnecessary. Id.

Lessee held entitled to channel 75 feet in width for vessels.-Id.

163(2) (III.) Mere existence of fiduciary relation does not raise presumption of undue influence.-Buerger v. Buerger, 148 N. E. 274.

166(I) (III.) Evidence held insufficient to establish undue influence in procurement of will.-Estes v. Clark, 148 N. E. 263.

166 (2) (III.) Evidence held insufficient to show will executed under undue influence of testatrix's brother.-Cunningham v. Dorwart, 148 N. E. 314.

22 (Mass.) Lessee of wharf held entitled to injunctive relief against construction of sea wall, interfering with its right of access to and use of water front.-Philadelphia & Read-166(2) (Ind.) Relationship of confidence ing Coal & Iron Co. v. Salem Terminal Corporation, 148 N. E. 444.

WILLS.

See Descent and Distribution; Executors and
Administrators.

1. NATURE AND EXTENT OF TESTAMENTARY POWER.

~ (III.) Execution, probate, and contest of wills, and devolution of property, is statutory. -Buerger v. Buerger, 148 N. E. 274.

II. TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY.

31 (1.) Reason of testatrix's disposition of her property by will is immaterial.-Buerger v. Buerger, 148 N. E. 274.

between testator and son, who was made executor and beneficiary, not evidence of undue influence.-Crane v. Hensler, 148 N. E. 409.

V. PROBATE, ESTABLISHMENT, AND AN-
NULMENT.

(A) Probate and Revocation in General.
203 (III.) Execution, probate, and contest
of wills, and devolution of property, is statu-
tory.-Buerger v. Buerger, 148 N. E. 274.

(B) Actions to Establish or Determine Validity in General.

222 (III.) Execution, probate, and contest of wills, and devolution of property, is statutory.-Buerger v. Buerger, 148 Ñ. E. 274.

(I) Hearing or Trial.

50 (1) Testatrix held possessed of "tes-316(1) (Mass.) Issue as to lawful executamentary capacity" if, when executing will, she was able to understand business then engaged in.-Buerger v. Buerger, 148 N. E. 274.

53(1)(II.) Exclusion of papers written prior to execution of contested instrument held not error.-Kimber v. Kimber, 148 N. E. 293. 54(5) (1.) When prior will of testatrix is not admissible, on issue of soundness of mind and memory when executing contested will, stated. Kimber v. Kimber, 148 N. E. 293. ~55 (!) (III.) Evidence held insufficient to establish mental incapacity to make will.-Estes v. Clark, 148 N. E. 263.

tion of will not allowed, unless there is contest based on doubtful question of fact.-Allen v. Guarante, 148 N. E. 461.

Court has discretion to refuse to frame issues, where jury cannot consider case without prejudice or impartiality.-Id.

Not presumed in advance that counsel will go beyond established bounds, or jury not restricted to real issues.-Id.'

316(2) (Mass.) Statements of expected evidence of testatrix's family physician held to justify framing issue of soundness of her mind. -Allen v. Guarante, 148 N. E. 461.

[ocr errors]

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

~316(3) (Mass.) Fact that circumstances 1477 (III.) Wife's will held not to show that afford fertile field for appeal to religious prejuit was made pursuant to agreement with testadices held not ground for refusal to frame is- tor that wife would devise property to testasues for jury.-Allen v. Guarante, 148 N. E. tor's sister.-Parker v. Ruley, 148 N. E. 308. 461.

320 (III.) Trial of issue submitted in will contest is governed by same rules as govern trial of issue at law before jury.-Kimber v. Kimber, 148 N. E. 293.

322 (11.) Admission or exclusion, on rebuttal, of documents not introducible in chief, held largely within trial court's discretion.Kimber v. Kimber, 148 N. E. 293.

Proponent must offer in chief all evidence relating to issue of testamentary capacity.-Id. Exclusion of testimony of witnesses as to soundness of mind of testatrix, offered as rebuttal, held not abuse of discretion.-Id.

478 (III.) Devises by implication must be so strong that contrary intention cannot be presumed.-Pontius v. Conrad, 148 N. E. 17. Gift by implication not inferred from silence. -Id.

488 (III.) Oral and written declarations of testator held incompetent, where will unambiguous.-Parker v. Ruley, 148 N. E. 308.

(B) Designation of Devisees, and Lega-
tees and Their Respective Shares.
506 (4) (Mass.) Interests of cestuis que
trust and remaindermen held vested; "heirs;"
"after decease of my children."-Richardson v.
Warfield, 148 N. E. 141.

(D) Description of Property.

323 (Mass.) Inquiry into religious affiliations of parties to will contest does not justify appeal to religious bias or passion, or warrant sarcasm as to sectarian views.-Allen v. Guar-581 (III.) Words of false description in ante, 148 N. E. 461. particular devises may be rejected, where property intended to be devised is sufficiently identified by words remaining.-Leininger v. Reichle, 148 N. E. 384.

324(2) (III.) Whether testatrix was of sound mind and memory held for jury.-Kimber v. Kimber, 148 N. Ē. 293.

324(3)(III.) Whether will was procured by undue influence held for jury.—Buerger v. Buerger, 148 N. E. 274.

324(3) (III.) Submission of issue of undue influence held justified.-Kimber v. Kimber, 148 N. E. 293.

[blocks in formation]

332 (III.) Instruction on evidence necessa-629 (Mass.) Estates are considered vested ry to establish undue influence held erroneous unless contrary intent plain.-Richardson v. under the evidence.-Buerger v. Buerger, 148 Warfield, 148 N. E. 141. N. E. 274.

(K) Review.

630 (8) (III.) Condition in will requiring devisee to pay designated amount to estate in 384 (111.) Appellants held not entitled to three years held not to affect vesting of title to complaint of admission of hospital record, in land. Leininger v. Reichle, 148 N. E. 384. absence of showing of injury.-Kimber v. Kim-635 (Mass.) When devise opens to let in ber, 148 N. E. 293. after-born grandchildren up to time fixed for distribution stated.-Richardson v. Warfield, 148 N. E. 141.

386 (III.) That evidence does not sustain charge of undue influence held not ground for reversal and new trial, where evidence supports finding of mental incapacity.-Kimber v. Kimber, 148 N. E. 293.

400 (II.) Explanatory evidence in proponent's favor excluded, in considering whether refusal to direct finding on issue of undue influence was error.-Buerger v. Buerger, 148 N. E.

274.

[blocks in formation]

WITNESSES.

Refusal to take from jury issue of mental incapacity, not sustained by evidence, held rever- See Depositions; Evidence. sible error, though there was evidence to support charge of undue influence.-Id.

(M) Operation and Effect.

423 (111.) Probate of will has no effect, where will is contested within year thereof.Buerger v. Buerger, 148 N. E. 274.

(C)

II. COMPETENCY.

Testimony of Parties or Persons In-
terested, for or against Representa-
tives, Survivors, or Successors in Ti-
tle or
Interest of Persons Deceased
or Incompetent.

427 (II.) Probate, in which charges of un-128 (Ind.App.) Partition suit within statdue influence were litigated, held not a conclu- ute prohibiting evidence by party as to matsive adjudication to a trial of such charges in ters occurring prior to ancestor's death.-Casproceedings to contest will.-Buerger v. Buertor v. McDole, 148 N. E. 643. ger, 148 N. E. 274.

VI. CONSTRUCTION. (A) General Rules. 435 (11.) Courts cannot guess at provision testator would probably have made and read it into will.-Pontius v. Conrad, 148 N. E. 17. 440 (III.) Intention to be sought is that expressed by words used in will.-Pontius v. Conrad, 148 N. E. 17.

141 (Ind.App.) Employees of insurer not precluded from testifying as to conversations with insured, where having nothing to do with making or continuing contract of insurance.Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U. S. v. Campbell, 148 N. E. 505.

167 (Ind.App.) Witness claiming from deceased ancestor not competent to impeach other witness as to ancestor's statements in her presence.-Castor v. McDole, 148 N. E. 643. 449 (I.) Testator presumed to have in-171 (III.) Testimony of legatees against tended by will to dispose of all his property. Pontius v. Conrad, 148 N. E. 17.

Courts adopt any reasonable construction of will, rather than hold testator intended to die intestate. Id.

their interest held competent.-Kimber v. Kimber, 148 N. E. 293.

175(1) (III.) Defendant held competent to testify as to accident resulting in death, where occurrence witness, a real party in interest, tes452 (III.) Presumption is against construc- tified for party bringing action; "transaction." tion which will disinherit heir.-Pontius v. Con--Van Meter v. Goldfarb, 148 N. E. 391. rad, 148 N. E. 17.

Intention to disinherit heirs must be indicated clearly.-Id.

Heir not disinherited except by express devise or clear implication.-Id.

(D) Confidential Relations and Privileged

Communications.

219(5) (Ind.App.) Plaintiff did not waive right to claim statutory privilege as to physi

cian testifying for defendant by calling other 389 (Ill.) Redirect examination of witness, attending physicians of insured.-Travelers' Ins. as to supposed contradictory answers made at Co. v. Fletcher American Nat. Bank of Indian- previous trial, held erroneous, where she denied apolis, 148 N. E. 501. making them.-Buerger v. Buerger, 148 N. E. 274.

III. EXAMINATION,

(E) Contradiction and Corroboration Witness.

of

(A) Taking Testimony in General. 240 (2) (Mass.) Trial judge has discretion414(1) (Mass.) Evidence contradicting testo permit leading questions on direct examina- timony of commonwealth's witness held adtion. Banca Italiana Di Sconto v. Columbia missible to rebut inference that latter's change Counter Co., 148 N. E. 105, of testimony was echo from district attorney's office. Commonwealth v. Nason, 148 N. E. 110.

(B) Cross-Examination and Re-examina

tion.

267 (Mass.) Extent of cross-examination matter largely within discretion of court. Commonwealth v. Corcoran, 148 N. E. 123.

268 (1) (Mass.) Exclusion of question asked state's witness on cross-examination as to date of her marriage held within court's discretion.-Commonwealth v. Gettigan, 148 N. E.

113.

268 (8) (Mass.) Exclusion of question asked witness on cross-examination held within court's discretion and not_error.-Commonwealth v. Gettigan, 148 N. E. 113.

270(2) (Mass.) In prosecution for murder, exclusion of question asked on cross-examination of state's witness relating to matters collateral or immaterial held not error.-Commonwealth v. Gettigan, 148 N. E. 113.

Question asked for purpose of showing state's witness father of illegitimate child properly excluded.-Id.

Exclusion of question on cross-examination whether state's witness was well known in police circles held proper.-Id.

Questions as to conversations had when warrant for defendant's arrest was applied for held properly excluded as immaterial.-Id.

277(1) (Mass.) In cross-examination of adverse parties, great latitude of inquiry is allowed. Commonwealth v. Gettigan, 148 N. E.

113.

IV. CREDIBILITY, IMPEACHMENT. CONTRADICTION, AND CORROBORATION. (B) Character and Conduct of Witness.

337 (6) (Mass.) Evidence of extraneous offenses held admissible as affecting credibility of defendant.-Commonwealth v. Corcoran, 148 N. F. 123.

340 (2) (Mass.) Credibility affected only by evidence of witness' disbelief in God.-Allen v. Guarante, 148 N. E. 461.

C) Interest and Bias of Witness. 376 (Mass.) Statement of witness corroborating his testimony properly received.-Commonwealth v. Nason, 148 N. E. 110.

377 (Mass.) Records of district court in abortion charge held inadmissible as affecting credibility of witness.-Commonwealth v. Nason, 148 N. E. 110.

(D) Inconsistent Statements by Witness.

379(1) (Mass.) Evidence of prior contradictory statements of witness held admissible under statute.-Commonwealth v. Gettigan, 148 N. E. 113.

379(2) (Ind.) Cross-examination of accused's wife as to telephone conversation incriminating to accused proper.-Blum v. State, 148 N. E. 193.

on

379(2) (N.Y.) Accused's testimony cross-examination, as to having pleaded guilty to larceny, held admissible, as bearing upon his credibility. People v. Steinmetz, 148 N. E. 597. 380(5) (Ind.) State could impeach its own witness where testimony was prejudicial.— Blum v. State, 148 N. E. 193.

383 (Ind.) Witness can only be impeached by proof of statements out of court, contrary to testimony given on cross-examination, when facts of impeaching statements would be competent.-Blum v. State, 148 N. E. 193.

[blocks in formation]

"Any interest in real estate."-Baker v. Commissioner of Corporations and Taxation (Mass.) 148 N. E. 593.

V.

"Arising out of employment."--McCarter v. La Rock (N. Y.) 148 N. E. 523. "Arrangements."-McCoy v. Jordan (N. Y.) 148 N. E. 793. "Association."-Bouchard First People's Trust (Mass.) 148 N. E. 895. "Attempt to commit crime."-People v. Werblow (N. Y.) 148 N. E. 786. "Award."-Bruce v. Stutz Motor Car Co. of America (Ind. App.) 148 N. E. 161. "Bribery."-Curtis v. State (Ohio) 148 N. E. 834.

"Bucket shop."-Sawers Grain Co. v. Teagarden (Ind. App.) 148 N. E. 205. "Casual employee."-Bailey v. Humrickhouse (Ind. App.) 148 N. E. 428. "Cause of action."-Zenith Bathing Pavilion v. Fair Oaks S. S. Corporation (N. Y.) 148 N. E. 532. "Cocotte."-Rovira v. Boget (N. Y.) 148 N. E.

534.

V.

"Compensation."-Banner Milling Co. v. State (N. Y.) 148 N. E. 668. "Confirmed credit."Lamborn National Park Bank of New York (N. Y.) 148 N. E. 664. "Confirmed irrevocable letter of credit."Lamborn v. National Park Bank of New York (N. Y.) 148 N. E. 664. "Constitutional question."-People v. Cermak (Ill.) 148 N. E. 382.

"Constructive willfulness."-Bremer v. Lake Erie & W. R. Co. (Ill.) 148 N. E. 862. "Current expenses."-State v. Brown (Ohio) 148 N. E. 95.

"Damages."-Banner Milling Co. v. State (N. Y.) 148 N. E. 668. "Dealer." ."-State v. Brown (Ohio) 148 N. E. 95. "Debt."-Gilchrist v. Cotton (Ind. App.) 148 N. E. 435. "Defect."-Gregoire v. City of Lowell (Mass.) 148 N. E. 376; Lamberti v. Neal (Mass.) 148 N. E. 463. "Defect in condition of machinery."-Lamberti v. Neal (Mass.) 148 N. E. 463. "Delinquency."-Robinson v. Miller (Ill.) 148 N. É. 319. "Discretion."-State v. Ferranto (Ohio) 148 N. E. 362.

"Distinguishing mark."-Werber V. Hughes (Ind.) 148 N. E. 149.

"Double jeopardy."-People v. Snyder (N. Y.) 148 N. E. 796.

350.

"Remedy."-Lamberti v. Neal (Mass.) 148 N. E. 463.

"Reproduction value."-City of Cincinnati v. Public Utilities Commission (Ohio) 148 N. E. 817.

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER "Employee." Sinclair Refining Co. v. Indus- City of East Cleveland (Ohio) 148 N. E. trial Commission (Ill.) 148 N. E. 291; State v. Duffy (Ohio) 148 N. E. 572. "Equitable interest."-Baker v. Commissioner of Corporations and Taxation (Mass.) 148 N. E. 593. "Excise."-State v. Brown (Ohio) 148 N. E. 95. "Excise tax."-Firestone v. City of Cambridge (Ohio) 148 N. E. 470. "Express trust."-Bouchard v. First People's Trust (Mass.) 148 N. E. 895. "Factor."-Shoyer v. Edmund Wright-Ginsberg Co. (N. Y.) 148 N. E. 328. "Final and conclusive."-McLaughlin v. Quinn (Mass.) 148 N. E. 458. "Final decision."-Wyman v. Hageman (Ill.) 148 N. E. 852.

"Final judgment."-Security Trust Co. v. Jaqua
(Ind.) 148 N. E. 148; Woodward v. Killen
(Ind.) 148 N. E. 195; Cherry v. Cherry
(Mass.) 148 N. E. 570.

"Former common school district."-People v.
Madison (Ill.) 148 N. E. 247.
"Franchise."-People v. Cermak (Ill.) 148 N.
E. 382.

"Free schools."-Segar v. Board of Education
of School Dist. of City of Rockford (Ill.)
148 N. E. 289.

"Going value."-City of Cincinnati v. Public
Utilities Commission (Ohio) 148 N. E. 817.
"Gross negligence."-Bremer v. Lake Erie &
W. R. Co. (Ill.) 148 N. E. 862.
"Hedge."-Sawers Grain Co. V. Teagarden
(Ind. App.) 148 N. E. 205.
"Heir."-Richardson v. Warfield (Mass.) 148

N. E. 141.

"Interested."-People v. Mitchell (Ill.) 148 N. E. 242.

"Irrevocable letter."-Lamborn

V.

National

Park Bank of New York (N. Y.) 148 N. E.
664.
"Issue."-Wyman v. Hageman (Ill.) 148 N. E.
852.

"Judgment establishing road."--State v. Board
of Com'rs of Dubois County (Ind.) 148 N.
E. 198.
"Judgment in civil action."-New York Cent.
R. Co. v. Ayer (Mass.) 148 N. E. 567;
Cherry v. Cherry (Mass.) 148 N. E. 570.
"Jurisdiction."-State v. Industrial Commission
of Ohio (Ohio) 148 N. E. 100.
"Jurisdiction of subject-matter."-Wyman v.
Hageman (Ill.) 148 N. E. 852.
"Larceny."-Royal Ins. Co. v. Jack (Ohio) 148

N. E. 923.

[blocks in formation]

265.

"Res ipsa loquitur doctrine."-Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. v. Hill (Ind. App.) 148 N. E. 489.

"Retirement reserve."-City of Cincinnati v. Public Utilities Commission (Ohio) 148 N. E. 817.

"Revenue."-People v. Cermak (Ill.) 148 N. E. V. Neal

382.

"Safety ground wire."-Lamberti
(Mass.) 148 N. E. 463.

"Scintilla.' -Cleveland-Akron Bag Co. v. Jaite
(Ohio) 148 N. E. 82.
"Sentence."-Cherry v. Cherry (Mass.) 148 N.
E. 570.

"Street."-Rippinger v. Niederst (Ill.) 148 N.
E. 7.

"Subject of action."-Ader v. Blau (N. Y.) 148 N. E. 771.

"Tender."-Mondello v. Hanover Trust Co.
(Mass.) 148 N. E. 136.

"Testamentary capacity."-Buerger v. Buerger
(Ill.) 148 N. E. 274.
"Theft."-Royal Ins. Co. v. Jack (Ohio) 148
N. E. 923.

"Transaction."-Van Meter v. Goldfarb (Ill.)
148 N. E. 391.

E. 143.

"Transporting."-Berry v. State (Ind.) 148 N. "Transporting passengers for hire as a business between fixed and regular termini."New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Deister (Mass.) 148 N. E. 590.

"Trust fund."-Baker v. Commissioner of Corporations and Taxation (Mass.) 148 N. E. 593.

"Undue influence."-Cunningham v. Dorwart (Ill.) 148 N. E. 314.

V. Bashore

"Unknown heirs or devisees."-Mortimore v.
Bashore (Ill.) 148 N. E. 317.
"Unknown owners."-Mortimore
(Ill.) 148 N. E. 317.
"Voluntary association."-Bouchard v. First
People's Trust (Mass.) 148 N. E. 895.
"Want of repair."-Gregoire v. City of Lowell
(Mass.) 148 N. E. 376.

"Wholly or partly within the state."-People v.
Werblow (N. Y.) 148 N. E. 786.
"Willful injury."-Bremer v. Lake Erie & W.
R. Co. (Ill.) 148 N. E. 862.

WORK AND LABOR.

6 (Ohio) Beneficiary of duty imposed, intervening to discharge another's duty thereunder, is entitled to compensation.-Sommers v. Putnam County Board of Education, 148 N. E. 682.

12 (Mass.) If contract substantially performed, with intention completely to perform, contractor may recover on quantum meruit.De Vito v. Uto, 148 N. E. 456.

Intentional departure from contract in material matter prevents recovery.-Id.

Absence of finding that contractor acted in good faith or intended to perform held bar to recovery for work done and materials furnished. -Id.

14(2) (Mass.) Contractor, if justified in abandoning contract, may recover full value of services or material supplied.-De Vito v. Uto, 148 N. E. 456.

"Property within the commonwealth."-Baker v. Commissioner of Corporations and Tax-26 (Mass.) Burden of proving substantial ation (Mass.) 148 N. E. 593. performance and good faith on contractor.-De "Public officers."-Gregoire v. City of Lowell Vito v. Uto, 148 N. E. 456. (Mass.) 148 N. E. 378.

29(1) (Mass.) Contractor entitled to re"Quasi corporation."-City of East Cleveland cover what extra work and materials were fairv. Board of Education of School Dist. ofly worth.-De Vito v. Uto, 148 N. E. 456.

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

29(2) (Ind.App.) Measure of recovery, if defendant was warranted in canceling contracts for erection and rental of advertising boards for plaintiff's breach, stated.-Gibson Co. v. Morton, 148 N. E. 430.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS. See Master and Servant,

347-419.

WRIT OF ERROR.

29(2) (Mass.) Measure of damages in con- See Appeal and Error. tractor's suit on quantum meruit stated.De Vito v. Uto, 148 N. E. 456.

29(2) (N.Y.) Contractor may recover for work after date for completion of work, subject to set-off for delay.-General Supply & Construction Co. v. Goelet, 148 N. E. 778.

WRITS.

See Attachment; Certiorari; Garnishment;
Habeas Corpus; Injunction; Mandamus;
Process; Prohibition; Quo Warranto; Re-
plevin.

« ForrigeFortsett »