But the cost of improvement and inclosure of burial lot will not be allowed an exe utor as re spects objecting parties in interest.
ib.
A delivery by testator to his executor of cer- tain money to be distributed among his servants, which was so distributed after his death, eon-
stitutes valid donationes causa mortis.
1b
Where an executor is likewise trustee he is allowed but one commission for both capacities. Ib.
Where an executor is allowed by the terms of the will 6 per cent. commission for all money collected by him, the term collection will be construed in its strict and distinctive sense, and will not be held to include moneys received by the executor as the proceeds of a sale of proper- ty belonging to the estate, unless it plainly ap- pears that such was the intention of the tes- tator. Ireland v, Corse et al.
394
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.no/books/content?id=b6sPAAAAYAAJ&hl=no&output=html_text&pg=PA621&img=1&zoom=3&q=%22butter+or+cheese+is+kept+for+sale,+nor+at+any+place,+offer+or+have+for+sale,+nor+shall+%27%E2%80%A2+any%22&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U3Q-d0hp-TVdJGbyyBz3ROFROD0EQ&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=96,586,403,872)
An insurance policy containing a provision that "if the building shall fall, except as the result of fire, all insurance by this company shall im- mediately cease and determine," continues in full force where the building, although removed from its foundation by the violence of a tem- pest, and greatly damaged, is stil! intact as a building. The Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. The Con- gregation of Rodeph Sholem.
99
FALSE IMPRISONMENT.
As to what proot is admissible in actions for, Bedford.
see EVIDENCE.
Where a party accepts a policy containing the words "Occupied as a dwelling," it amounts to a warranty that the premises are occupied, and if the policy provided "if the premises became vacant and unoccupied the policy should be void," and they were actually unoccupied when the insurance was effected, it avoids the policy, and knowledge upon the part of the company's age at that the premises were vacant, does not affects its validity. Alexander v. Germania Ins. Co. 175
An agreement in a policy that any person other than the assured, who procures the insur- ance, should be deemed the agent of the assured is operative. Ib.
A general agent may waive by parol a con i- tion of a policy even where the policy provides that the waiver must be in writing. Arkell v. Commerce Ins. Co. 372
A company held to be bound by acts of an agent after surrender of his agency, the insured being ignorant of such surrender. Ib.
Where a policy in its terms requires that in case of loss notice of loss shall be given forth- with, a notice given twenty-three days after the loss is in time. Lycoming Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. 444
An owner of personal property cannot, against his will, be deprived of the title to the same, by having it attached without his consent, to the real estate of another, by a third person, where such personal property can be removed from such real estate without any great inconvenience, and without any subtantial injury to the real es tate. Shoemaker et al. v. Simpson.
93
Gas fixtures, chandeliers and brackets, do not pass with the sale of a house to the purchaser. Jarechi et al. v. The Philharmonic Society. 153 FORECLOSURE. See MORTGAGE.
FOREIGN JUDGMENT.
Prima facie a Superior Court of another State has jurisdiction over the subject matter of a judgment pronounced by it. Lowry v. Guthrie.
153
FRAUDS.
In exchange of chattels, if one party make false representations as to condition of his prop- erty, the other in action for fraud is entitled to recover damages, although he has received full value for his article Murray v. Jennings. 14
Measure of damage, the difference between actual value and value as represented. Ib.
Where one of two innocent persons must suf- fer by the frand of the third, whichever has ac- credited him must bear the loss. Aull et al. v. Coiket et al.
30
FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE.
59
In setting aside a conveyance procured by fraud, equity will allow the purchaser to receive back only the identical property by which he When the record of such a court shows juris- effected the bargain, whether it has greatly de- diction, e. g., that the party against whom judg-preciated in value or not; and even if it has be- ment was finally pronounced had himself pre- come worthless. Neblett v. Macfarlana. viously instituted proceedings by filing a bill against other parties, and that all parties ap peared before the court by counsel, it is (in the absence of any allegation of fraud) conclusive, and cannot be contradicted by parol evidence in a collateral proceeding in this State. Ib.
See DEEDS; FRAUDS.
A party induced by fraud to make a purchase of property, and to take a warranty therefor in writing, and under seal, may disregard the lat- ter, sue directly for the fraud, and give parol evi- dence of the fraudulent representations. India- napolis P. & C. R.R. Co. v. Tyng. 80
In fixing the value of such property as a loco motive engine, the whole country is but a single
market.
Ib.
Where the grounds of the action are false statements made by defendant, with intent to deceive, it is necessary that it should appear by affirmative proof that the defendants knew the --representations to be false. Marshall v. Fowler et al. 274
Fraud will not be presumed or conjectured.
Seller may terminate the credit and sue on the debt at once. Ib.
lb.
Where sale is influenced by fraudulent repre. sentations, even though on credit, it is unneces sary to allege fraud in complaint. Claflin et al. v. Taussig et al. 317
Equity may decree the delivery up and cancel- lation of deeds and other writings procured by fraud, and will enjoin their transfer or disposi- tion pending the suit. The Globe Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Reals et al.
360
A mere purchase of goods, unaccompanied by any fraudulent representations, is not of itself fraudulent, although the purchaser is insolvent at the time, and has knowledge of the fact. Fish et al. v. Payne. 477
As to effect of fraud in obtaining renewal of policy, see LIFE INSURANCE.
As to evidence in cases of, see EVIDENCE.
GARNISHMENT.
That a foreign attachment issued out of a court of another State, and the garnishee under its judgment has actually paid the money to an attaching creditor, does not discharge the garn- ishee, if it appear that the court has no jurisdic- tion over the subject matter, and that the gara ishee might under the law of such State, have protected himself, but neglected to do so. such a case, article 4, section 1 of the Federal Constitution, providing that full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the judicial pro- ceedings of every other State, is not applicable. Noble et al. v. The Thompson Oil Co.
In
121
If a person is overpaid by mistake, and at the time of discovering the error, whether that be at the moment of payment, or afterwards, forms the intention of defrauding the rightful owner as to such overpayment, it is larceny. Wolfstein v. The People.
184
Such a guaranty covers the defect in the rants of the want of a proper seal, without which they would be invalid.
lb.
To recover upon & guaranty it is not necessary to return, or offer to return, the property pur chased upon its faith. lb.
GUARANTY.
A guaranty that certain county warrants are Where a physician is employed in attendance "genuine and regularly issued," means that they upon a sick person, his employment continues are valid, legal claims against the county. while the sickness lasts, and the relation of Smeltzer v. White. 106 physician and patient continues unless it is put an end to by the assent of the parties, or the war-express dismissal of the physician. Potter v. Virgil.
243
a certain sum in lieu of support, in an action to recover for the wife's board evidence of cohabita- tion after the separation is competent to do away with the effect of the separation. In such case proof of cruel or inhuman treatment by the husband is not necessary. Holt v. Des- brough. 129
and home and bind him for necessaries. pro- A wife cannot abandon her husband's house visions, clothing, medical attendance &c., ex- cept on proof of gross abuse, neglect and mis- conduct on the part of the husband. Ib.
In the absence of the husband the wife may act as his agent and rent a house, and bind him for rent, &c. Roberts v. Heap. 292
IMPLIED OBLIGATION.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
INDICTMENTS.
As to organization of Grand jury, see JURIES. As to practice on the trial of, see CRIMINAL
PRACTICE.
As to the requisites and sufficiency of indict- ments for any particular offence. see the title of the crime in question, such as BIGAMY, GRAND LARCENY &c.
INJUNCTION.
A Court of Equity will not restrain proceed- ings at law upon a note which contains, as liquidated damages, a clause which provides that after maturity it shall bear interest in ex- cess of the legal rate. Downey v. Beach. 72
An injunction will not be granted unless a reasonably clear case is made out. Clark v. The N. Y. Life Ins. & Trust Co., et al.
269
Neither illegality or irregularity in the pro- ceedings, nor error, or excess in the valuation, nor the hardship or injustice of the law, pro- vided it be constitutional, nor any grievance which can be remedied by a suit at law, either before or after its payment, will authorize an injunction restraining the collection of a tax. Taylor, Collector, v. Secor et al. 317
The rule as to courts of equity interfering with the collection of taxes stated and applied to a peculiar case.
Ib.
INNKEEPERS.
In an action against an innkeeper for loss of a guest's property by fire, when the defense, under chapter 638 laws of 1866, was that the fire was of incendiary origin, and defendant's witnesses had given testimony tending to estab- lish, and plaintiff's witnesses testimony tending
The acts of a de facto officer are valid as to the public and the validity of his title to office Ib. cannot be drawn in question collaterally.
JURISDICTION
A judgment recovered against co partners in one State cannot be enforced in another against a partner not personally served with process and not residing in the State where the judg ment was obtained, though his co-partner, after dissolution, may have authorized an appearance by attorney for the firm in the suit in which the judgment was recovered. Hall et al v. Lanning et al. 16
In an action on a foreign judgment, the record of which discloses an appearance, it is compe- tent for the defendant to show the appearance was unauthorized. Ib.
After the dissolution of a co-partnership, one of the partners in a suit brought against the firm has no authority to enter an appearance for the other partners who do not reside in the State where the suit is brought and have not been served with process. Ib.
In an action for the recovery of property, it is not sufficient to give this court jurisdiction to review, on a writ of error, the decision of the highest court of a State, that title in a third party, acquired under a United States statute, fendant himself must claim title under a statute. is set up to defeat the paintiffs claim; the de- (R. S., 709.) Long et al v. Converse et al. 33
The U. S. Supreme Court cannot re-examine the judgment or decree of a State Court simply because a Federal question was presented to that court for determination. It must appear that such a question was in fact decided, or that its decision was necessarily involved in the judg ment or decree as rendered. Bolling v. Lersner. 63
Due notice, actual or constructive, to the de- fendant, is essential to the jurisdiction of all courts. Earle et al v. McVeigh. 81
What is a good notice under a statute pro- viding for constructive process, decided. Ib.
A claim by a trustee, that he was compelled to pay over the trust funds to the Confederate States, when the country was under military rule, is not a Federal question, and will not give this court jurisdiction to review a decision of the State court. Rockhold v. Rockhold et al. 82
A court will not be deprived of jurisdiction unless it appears affirmatively in the declaration that the "matter in demand" is beyond its jurisdiction. Sullivan v. Vail. 110
Before the jurisdiction of the Orphans Court has attached, a proceeding to declare void and alleged, release of dower is properly brought on the equity side of the Common Pleas Camp- bell et al v. Hammett.
204
The Commissioners of Central Park bad full jurisdiction to alter the grade of 123d St. be- tween 6th and 7th Avenues. The People ex rel. Kurzman v. Green et al.
208
To give the United States Supreme Court juris diction to review the decision of a State Court, As to manner of arriving at verdict, see PRAC-the judgment of the latter must be final Zeller et al v. Switzer.
TICE.
207
Said Sections 1, 2 and 3 are not applicable to proceedings before the Surrogate, and do not relieve him from requiring strict conformity to the requirements of the Revised Statutes govern ing such proceedings. To hold otherwise would nullify Sec. 4 of same act. That section pro hibits the Surrogate from confirming a sale "unless upon due examination he shall besatis- fied that the provisions of the title of the Re- vised Statutes (governing such proceedings) have been complied with, as if this act had not been passed." Ib.
The United States courts have exclusive jurisdiction of an action for the infringement of a patent. De Witt v. Elmira Nobles Mfg. Co. 589
As to effect of filing of petition in involuntary bankruptcy on jurisdiction of state court over pending cause, see BANKRUPTCY.
As to presumption in favor of, see FOREIGN JUDGMENT.
Where a lessee agrees to and does make re- pairs, under an agreement with the lessor that State courts have jurisdiction in actions in his lease shall be renewed and the amount ex- which patent rights come in question collater-pended in repairs shall be applied to the rents. ally. Ib. and the demised premises are destroyed before the new lease is delivered, he may recover the the commencement of the new term and before amount so expended in repairs. Smith v. Farns- worth. 65
A lessee cannot dispute his lessor's title. Ib. Acceptance of new tenants operates as a sur- render of a lease. Fobes v. Lewis. 65
A board of Supervisors have no power to enter into a lease of a building for armory and drill purposes, until they have complied with all the requirements of section 120 of the Mili-
Code of 1870.
Ford v. The Mayor &c. of
191 The Military Code of 1862, is repealed by the Military Code of 1870, except as to certain legal proceedings, Ib.
JUSTICES COURTS.
An answer alleging that a note was of no
N. Y.
legal force, held a sufficient allegation to justi-tary fy the defendant in insisting upon his right to amend by pleading the statute of limintations. Leonard v. Forster
508
As to justice's return, see PRACTICE,
« ForrigeFortsett » |