« ForrigeFortsett »
et (Mass.) Appeals from interlocutory de VII. REQUISITES AND PROCEEDINGS crees confirming master's report properly en
FOR TRANSFER OF CAUSE. tered.-Selwyn v. Harris, 146 N. E. 248.
(A) Time of Taking Proceedings. w14(2), (Ohio) On trial court's misconstruc-On 357 (2) (Mass.) Appeal from final decree tion of directions of Court of Appeals, new held properly before court whether appeal from review is appropriate. -Gohman v. City of St. interlocutory decree permitting amendment of Bernard, 146 N. E. 291.
declaration was good or not.-Weinstein v.
Miller, 146 N. E. 902.
(B) Petition or Prayer, Allowance, and
Certificate or Affidavit. cm 66 (III.) Final judgment essential to ju- 358 (N.Y.) Final judgment dismissing com, risdiction of Supreme Court on appeal.-Mur- plaint after severance from counterclaims held ray v. Hagmann, 146 N. E. 472.
appealable, without permission.-American UnOm66 (Mass.) Bill of exception taken by ion Line v. Oriental Nav. Corporation, 146 N. plaintiff in review to rulings of court treated E. 338. as interlocutory, in absence of showing whether trial proceeded to final conclusion.-Whitney X. RECORD AND PROCEEDINGS NOT IN v. Porter, 146 N. E. 771.
RECORD. Ons 66 (Mass.) Appeal from interlocutory mat
(A) Matters to be Shown by Record. ter cannot be entered in Supreme Judicial Court, except by report of judge, until there Om 501(1) (III.) Supreme Court does
Dot is a final decree.-McCracken's Case, 146 N. E. search record to ascertain issues.-People y. 904.
Raboin, 146 N. E. 538. 678(3) (III.) Order overruling demurrer and en 511(1). (Ind.App.) Record entry held for decree pro confesso held not "final decree” show bill of exceptions properly in record.nor appealable.—Trebbin v. Thoeresz, 146 N. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co. v. E. 542.
State, 146 N. E. 116.
Om515(2) (III.) Certificate of evidence not (E) Nature, Scope, and Effect of De
part of record, where not filed with clerk of cision,
court.-Williams v. De Roo, 146 N. E. 470. Om 107 (Mass.) Appeal from order entering judgment on auditor's finding properly brings
(B) Scope and Contents of Record. case for review.-Norcross v. Haskell, 146 N. Em520(3) (III.) Affidavit supporting motion E. 239.
for change of venue, not preserved by certificate of evidence, held not part of record for
review.-Williams v. De Roo, 146 N. E. 470. V. PRESENTATION AND RESERVATION IN LOWER COURT OF GROUNDS OF REVIEW.
(C) Necessity of Bijl of Exceptions, Case,
or Statement of Facts. (B) Objections and Motions, and Rulings
Ow554(2) (Ind.App.) Absence of bill of ex. w 197 (3) (Mass.) Question of variance be where questions not involving bill are pre
ceptions does not warrant dismissal of appeal tween evidence and allegations of count cannot sented.-Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance be raised for first time in Supreme Judicial Co. v. State, 146 N. E. 116. Court.--Gifford v. Eastman, 146 N. E. 773. 197 (7) (Mass.) Objection that bankruptcy
(E) Abstracts of Record. was not pleaded as defense cannot first be urged on appeal.-Lowenstein v. Silton, 146 N. Om586(1), (III.) Appellant must furnish abE. 779.
stract fully presenting every error and ex203(3) (Mass.) Party dissatisfied with ception relied on.-People v. Raboin, 146 N. qualifications of expert witness should object, E. 538. and obtain rulings on sufficiency of his knowledge.-Olsen v. New England Fuel & Trans
(G) Authentication and Certification. portation Co., 146 N. E. 656.
Om612(4) (Ind.) Part of transcript in first of Oma 204 (1) (Ind.App.) Errors in admission of two volumes held sufficiently identified by evidence waived where no objection made or clerk's certificate.-Crane v. Hensler, 146 N. exception taken.-Mancourt v. Wissel, 146 N. E. 577. E. 423. Om 236(2), (Ind.) Question whether aver (K) Questions Presented for Review. ments would withstand motion to make com
en 671(3) (Ind.App.) Questions depending on plaint more specific 'held not presented for re
evidence not considered in absence of evidence. view.-Rich y. Fry, 146 N. E. 393.
Maxwell Implement Co. v. Fitzgerald, 146
N. E. 883. (C) Exceptions.
Om694 (1) (Mass.) Consistent findings of masOm 262 (2) (Mass.) Assignment of error as to
ter on conflicting evidence, not reported, are procedure not reviewed, where no exception conclusive.-Strachan v. Beacon Oil Co., 146 N. taken thereto.-Buono v. Cody, 146 N. E. 703, 701(!) (Ohio) In absence of evidence, lowance of motion to enter verdict for defend charge that, if plaintiff's failure to use ordinary
care contributed to injury, she could not reant presents question whether evidence supported verdict for plaintiff.-Buono v. Cody, 146 Cleveland Ry. Co., 146 N. E. 805.
cover, held not prejudicial error:-Bradley . N. E. 703. Em 274(5) (Ohio) General exception to charge, Em ?02 (2) (Ind.). All instructions held embracpart of which is correct, does not bring un for ed in record.—Crane v. Hensler, 146 N. E. review failure to charge on burden of proof.-705 (Mass.) Where evidence not reported, Bradley v. Cleveland Ry. Co., 146 N. E. 805.
claim of right to substantial damages cannot be
sustained.-Jarvis v. De Peza, 146 N. E. 602. (D) Motions for New Trial. 297 (Ohio) No motion for new trial being
XI. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS. filed in Court of Appeals nor agreed statement 733 (Ind. App.) Error not assignable on or finding of fact, Supreme Court cannot piss trial court's action in rendering judgment on on alleged errors of law.--State v. Clark, 146 cross-complaint.-Mancourt v. Wissel, 146 N. N. E. 815.
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
pertinent, and those not given not applicable. 758(1) (Ind.App.) Appellate Court pot re
-Ferguson v. Bilsland, 146 N. E. 326. quired to pass on question as to which no
Where evidence not in record, instructions claim made.-Davis v. Steele, 146 N. E. 425.
correct under any evidence admissible under Ow758(2) (Ind.) Failure to show offer to in- issues will not be held erroneous.-Id. troduce evidence, its exclusion, or exception Em928 (3) (Ind.App.) Instruction presumed to thereto, precludes review of objection to its ex
have correctly stated law as pertinent to eviclusion.-D'Arcy Spring Co. v. Ansin, 146 N. dence, where evidence is not in record. --JenE. 214.
kins v. Vincennes Bridge Co., 146 N. E. 863. Om760(2) (Ind.App.) Exclusion of answer to Ow930(1) (ind. App.) Evidence construed impeaching question for failure to lay foun
most favorably to appellee in considering suffidation need not be considered, where brief ciency of evidence to sustain verdict.-Nolte v. does not show where foundation can be found Eyden, 146 N. E. 866. in record. -Hutchens v. State, 146 N. E. 413. On930 (2) (Ind.) Jury assumed to have relied Om768 (Ind.) Appellee's statement that re- instructions in choosing among forms of verdict
on recollection of what court said in reading fused instructions not set out in appellant's submitted.-Crane v. Hensler, 146 N. E. 577. brief were covered by instructions given, accepted as correct.-Crane v. Hensler, 146 N. trolling in determining whether verdict is sus
Instruction as to form of verdict not conE. 577. C768 (Ind.App.) Appellate court justified in tained by evidence.-Id. assuming that testimony set out in appellee's brief correct where not challenged by appellant.
(F) Discretion of Lower Court. -Nolte v. Eyden, 146 N. E. 866.
Em959 (2) (Mass.) Denial of motion to sub
stitute declaration held not available to plainXIII. DISMISSAL, WITHDRAWAL, OR tiff.-Blaufarb v. Drooker, 146 N. E. 242.
w960(1) (Ohio) Discretion-abused when pe781 (4) (Mass.) Certificate of election hay.tition dismissed because of allegations not ing genuine value to petitioner, question raised well pleaded. -Walters v. Baltimore & 0. 8. thereon was not moot.-Madden v. Board of W. Ry. Co., 146 N. E. 75. Election Com’rs of City of Boston, 146 N. E. Om967(2) (Mass.) Appeal from order refus280.
ing to recommit to master presents no question Om792 (III.) Attempted appeal from nonap- of law. Selwyn v. Harris, 146 N. E. 248. pealable orders dismissed on court's own mo- ww977(1) (Mass.) When ruling on motion for tion.-Trebbin v. Thoeresz, 146 N. E. 542. new trial set aside stated.--W. R. Grace & Co.
v. Shaghalian's, Inc., 146 N. E. 799. XVI. REVIEW.
ww978(1) (Mass.) Denial of new trial for in(A) Scope and Extent in General.
sufficiency of evidence to show conformity of
goods with sample was not error of law, where Om842(1) (Ind.App.) Whether broker broke no request was made for instruction.--W. R. contract to procure credit on purchasers' con-| Grace & Co. v. Shaghalian's, Inc., 146 N. E. tract held fact question for trial court.-Fur- 799. man v. Glueck, 146 N. E. 586.
Denial of new trial, because there was no 858 (Mass.) Appeal in law proceeding evidence that peanuts delivered corresponded to brings up record only.-Jones v. Benjamin, 146 sample, held to present no question of law. --Id. N. E. 359.
On979(5) (Mass.) Exception that denial of mw861 (Mass.) Finding set aside and new new trial on condition of remittitur was against trial ordered, where on report it could not be weight of evidence, and against the law, raised determined whether finding was right.-Kauf- no question of law.-W. R. Grace & Co. v. man v. Sydeman, 146 N. E. 365.
Shaghalian's, Inc., 146 N. E. 799. Omw863 (III.) No review of case on merits until trial court has decided case on merits.
(G) Questions of Fact, Verdicts, and Runyan v. Williams, 146 N. E. 497.
Findings. Om 865 (Ind.App.) Denial of motion for continuance not reviewable on appeal in statutory Cw987 (2) (Mass.) Finding of fact by trial action to set aside default.-Cooper v. Farm- judge cannot be reviewed.-J. G. Pierce Co. v. ers' Trust Co., 146 N. E. 336.
Wallace, 146 N. E. 658.
Om994(3) (Mass.) Conclusions of trial judge (C) Parties Entitled to Allege Error.
in passing on testimony not subject to review.
-Bar Ass'n of City of Boston v. Sleeper, 146 877 (2) (ind.) Verdict and finding on note N. E. 269. not open to question by defendant where not
mw 1001 (1) (Ohio) Requested special verdict, rendered against him.-Rich v. Fry, 146 N. E. supported by evidence, not set aside: --Portage 393.
Markets Co. v. George, 146 N. E. 283. (E) Presumptions.
Om 1002 (VI.) Sufficiency of contradictory eviww907 (3) (11.) Evidence presumed to sup-dence not open to question where Appellate port findings, where certificate was not incor- | Court has passed on it.-George J. Cooke Co. porated in record. --Williams v. De Roo, 146 N. v. Fred Miller Brewing Co., 116 N. E. 459. E. 470.
Om 1002 (III.) Verdict and judgment concluww907(3) (Ohio) Where record discloses sive on conflicting evidence of lessor's waiver judgment rendered on evidence by both parties, of timely notice of exercise of renewal option. presumption is that evidence was sufficient to -Fuchs v. Peterson, 146 N. E. 556. sustain judgment.-Butterick Pub. Co. v. Smith, Own 1003 (Ind.App.) Appellate Court will not 146 N. E. 898.
weigh evidence, where jury's finding on question Cm 907(4) (Mass.) All inferences made to sup- of fact is supported by some evidence.-Amos port findings, where all evidence not reported. v. Daggett, 146 N. E. 583. -Kaufman v. Sydeman, 146 N. E. 365. Om 1003 (Mass.) Weight of evidence was for www.909(5) (Ind. App.) One contracting with jury.-Buono v. Cody, 146 N. E. 703. husband presumed in absence of allegation to Cos 1004 (3) (Mass.) Inclusion of unauthorized contrary to have known that title was in hus- | items in verdict held not to taint validity of band and wife by the entireties.-General Real- jury's action.-W. R. Grace & Co. v. Shaghalty Co. v. Silcox, 146 N. E. 408.
ian's, Inc., 146 N. E. 799. Om927(7) (II.) Evidence favorable to plain-w1010(1) (Ind.) Finding as to legality of intiff only considered, in reviewing action of surance contract not disturbed.-S. S. Kresge court in directing verdict for defendant.-Hunt Co. v. Union Ins. Co. of Indiana, 146 N. E. 851. er v. Troup, 116 N. E. 321.
Cam 1010(1) (Ohio) Finding on fact issues supCwm928 (3) (Ind.) Where evidence not in tran- ported by competent evidence not disturbed. script or brief, instructions given presumed Katz v. American Finance Co., 146 N. E. 811.
1011(1) (ind.) Reversal not ordered C1056(2) (Mass.) Possible harm from reconflicting evidence.-Kegerreis v. State, 146 fusal of offered evidence rot shown.-Winslow N. E. 390.
Bros. & Smith Co. v. Universal Coat Co., 146 Om 1011(1) (Ind.) Finding for insurer not dis- N. E. 713. turbed, where evidence was conflicting.-S. S. w 1061(2) (Mass.) Appeal from order of disKresge Co. v. Union Ins. Co. of Indiana, 148 missal not sustained, though order erroneous N. E. 851.
when plea of abatement sustained.–Finance Om 1011 (1) (Mass.) Decision conflicting Corporation of New England v. Parker, 146 N. oral testimony not reversed, unless plainly E. 696. wrong. - Needham Trust Co. v. Cookson, 146 cm 1064(1)(III.) Substantial error in instrucN. E. 268.
tions ground for reversal, where evidence was (H) Harmless Error.
conflicting.–Seavey v. Glass, 146 N. E. 536. Om 1033(5) (Ind.App.) Appellant cannot com
Om 1068 (3) (Ind. App.) Where it is apparent plain of favorable instruction.-Maxwell Im- both on law and facts that right result has been plement Co. v. Fitzgerald, 146 N. E. 883. reached, judgment will not be reversed for erCm 1039(2) (Ind.) Overruling motion to sep
roneous instructions.-Allen Realty Co. v. Uharate complaint into paragraphs no cause for ler, 146 N. E. 766. reversing judgment.---Rich v. Fry, 146 N. E. 1068(5) (Mass.) Under finding of no neg393.
ligence, refusal to instruct that defendant was Om 1039(13) (Mass.) Verdict for plaintiff not responsible for negligent treatment by second upset, though cause of action not precisely set physician held without error.–Kos v. Brault, forth in declaration.-Gifford v. Eastman, 146 146 N. E. 16. N. E. 773.
Om 1068(5) (Mass.) Exception to denial of reOm 1040(1) (Ind.App.) Antecedent overruling quest held. immaterial, in view of verdict.-Lowof demurrer, though erroneous, becomes harm- enstein v. Silton, 146 N. E. 779. less, where special findings of fact and conclu- Oms! 070(1) (Ind.) Buyer's specification that sions of law are within issues and valid.-Saw- verdict not sustained by evidence presents no ers Grain Co. v. Goodwin, 146 N. E. 837. error, where defendant admitted partial liaCw1040(8) (Ind.App.) Error, if any, in sus bility.-D'Arcy Spring Co. v. Ansin, 146 N. E. taining demurrer_to paragraph of reply, held 214. harmless.-Allen Realty Co. v. Uhler, 146 N. Cw1071(!), (Ind.App.) Finding that court reE. 766.
porter's claim satisfied by payment held. errone- 1040(13) (Ind. App.) Overruling of demur- ous, , but not prejudicial.- Etzold v. Board of rer to answer not reversible error, where ver Com’rs of Huntington County, 146 N. E. 842. dict returned entirely on counterclaim.-Maxwell Implement Co. v. Fitzgerald, 146 N. E. (I) Error Walved in Appellate Court. 883. Cm.1040(14) (Ind. App.) Overruling demurrer raised and argued, not discussed.-Miller v.
Om 1078(1) (III.) Questions of procedure, not to paragraph of answer which does not state Miller, 146 N. E. 469. good defense is error, though matter covered Cm1078(4) (Mass.) Exceptions not argued by such defense may be provable under an
are waived.-West v. State Street Exchange, other paragraph.-Allen Realty Co. v. Uhler, 146 N. E. 37.' 146 N. E. 766. Cm 1046(3) (Ind.App.) Error in instruction evidence, not argued, is waived.-Sullivan v.
Ono 1078(4) (Mass.) Exception to admission of that plaintiff had burden under denial of affirm- Manhattan Market Co., 146 N. E. 673. ative defense held harmless.-Jenkins v. Vincennes Bridge Co., 146 N. E. 863.
(J) Decisions of Intermediate Courts. Am 1046(3) (Ind.App.) Refusal to award plaintiffs right to open and close, if error, held
1088 (Ohio) No motion for new trial being harmless, in view of instruction.-Maxwell Im- filed in Court of Appeals nor agreed statement plement Co. v. Fitzgerald. 146 N. E. 883. or finding of fact, Supreme Court canuot pass Cum 1048 (7) (Ind. App.) Exclusion of testi on alleged errors of law.-State v. Clark, 146 mony, if error, held harmless in view of sub- N. E. 815. sequent testimony as to same fact by same
Om 1094 (2) (III.) Supreme Court cannot rewitness.-Hutchens v. State, 146 N. E. 413. verse judgment affirmed by Appellate Court, as Cm 1050(1) (III.) Admission of self-serving contrary to preponderance of testimony.-Chideclarations that seller is performing contract, cago German Hod Carriers' Union and Benevonot being part of res gestæ, held prejudicial.
lent Soc. v. Security Trust & Deposit Co., 146 George J. Cooke Co. v. Fred Miller Brewing N. E. 135. Co., 146 N. E. 459. 1050(1) (Mass.) Answer having no proba
(K) Subsequent Appeals. tive value held harmless.-Walsh v. Feinstein, C 1097(1) (III.) Decision on former appeal is 146 N. E. 355.
law of case on subsequent appeal, where evi1050(3) (Mass.) Any error in admitting dence on two trials was substantially the same. cumulative evidence of conversations in plain -City of Chicago v. Collin, 146 N. E. 741. tiff's absence held without harm to defendant. 1097(2) (Ohio) When former determina-Perivoliotis v. Eveleth, 146 N. E. 724. tion of Court of Appeals on reversal and re. Cw1052(5) (Mass.) Master's admission in evi- mand not questioned on second review. stated. derce of letter from commissioner of public -Gohman v. City of St. Bernard, 146 N. E. health held not prejudicial.--Strachan v. Beacon 291. Oil Co., 146 N. E. 787.
Como 1097(6) (Ohio) Unquestioned determinaCm 1052(8) (111.) Admission of testimony tion of Court of Appeals on reversal and reharmless where Supreme Court reached con- mand becomes law of case as rule of practice.clusion independently thereof.-Cales v. Dress- Gohman v. City of St. Bernard, 146 N. E. 291. ler, 146 N. E. 162. Cam 1056(1) (Mass.) Excluding evidence as to XVII. DETERMINATION AND DISPO. time necessary to start motor and drive auto
SITION OF CAUSE. mobile off crossing 'held without error.-Hunt v.
(A) Decision in General. Boston & M. R. Co., 146 N. E. 30. Excluding evidence whether defendant would rectness of decree disinissing appeal, Appel
Cil14 (III.) Where only question was corhave had difficulty in driving stalled automobile off crossing held without error.-Id.
late Court should have remanded cause for Ciw 1056(1) (Mass.) In action for water dam- N. E. 497.
hearing on merits.-Runyan v. Williams, 146 age to flour, book entry of deceased inspector held improperly excluded, and error prejudicial.
(C) Modification. Gentile Flour & Products Co. v. Moschella, C1149 (III.) Finding in decree, which appel146 N. E. 721.
lee concedes is not necessary to decision, will
For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. (D) Reversal.
(A) Property, Estates, and Rights Asem 1 175(5) (Mass.) Where motion for direct
signable. ed verdict should have been allowed, judgment Cw3 (Mass.) Remedial act giving assignee of will be entered for movant.-Clark v. Mutual nonnegotiable chose in action right to sue in Life Ins. Co. of New York, 146 N. E. 43. own name is to be fairly construed.-Commonem 1 175(5) (Mass.) Where it was error to wealth v. Market Warehouse Co., 146 N. E. submit case to jury, judgment will be entered 29. for defendant.-Hurley v. New York, N. H. & 24(1), (Mass.) Right of action for wareH, R. Co., 146 N. E. 235.
houseman's failure properly to care for wool Om 1175(7) (Mass.) Judgment to be entered stored was assignable.-Commonwealth on finding of judge on report of auditor where Market Warehouse Co., 146 N. E. 29. clearly right.---Vigilante v. Old South Trust Co..
Claims and demands of assignors for ware146 N. E. 670.
houseman's negligence in storing wool passed
en 121 (Mass.) Assignee may in own
name.-Commonwealth v. Market Warehouse (F) Mandate and Proceedings in Lower
Co., 146 N. E. 29.
Act giving assignee right to sue in own name
See Insurance, Cw687.
ASSUMPSIT, ACTION OF.
See Work and Labor.
ASSUMPTION OF RISK.
See Master and Servant, 204-219.
ATTORNEY AND CLIENT.
I. THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY.
(C) Suspension and Disbarment. 146 N. E. 506.
38 (III.) Effect of canons of ethics of the Omar 1201 (1) (III.) Stipulation as to pleadings American Bar Association stated.-Hunter v. binding on second hearing after remand.-Peo- Troup, 146 N. E. 321. ple v. Lord, 146 N. E. 506.
mw38 (III.) Not unethical for attorney to inO 1201 (6)' (Mass.) Amendment of declara- sist on payment of reasonable charges.-Peotion in accordance with rescript of Supreme ple v. A'Brunswick, 146 N. E. 483. Court after notice to surety on defendant's Ow38 (Mass.) Want of common honesty is bond held binding on surety.-Weinstein v. Mil- adequate ground for disbarment.—Bar Ass'n of ler, 146 N. E. 902.
City of Boston v. Sleeper, 146 N. E. 269. Cam 1203(1) (III.) Further proceedings con- E39 (Mass.) Perjury by attorney is ground sistent with Supreme Court's opinion must be' for disbarment.-Bar Ass'n of City of Boston determined from nature of case, in absence of v. Sleeper, 146 N. E. 269. specific directions.-People v. Lord, 146 N. E. 43 (III.) Attorney held not subject to dis506.
barment for refusal to abide by court order ARBITRATION AND AWARD.
fixing fee.--People v. A'Brunswick, 146 N. E.
483. III. AWARD.
Belligerent attitude, temper, and disposition Emo 64 (N.Y.) Arbitrator making personal in- of attorney not cause for disbarment.-Id. vestigation, without notice to parties, held Cm 49 (Mass.) Gross misconduct in open court guilty of prejudicial misbehavior.-Stefano may justify suspersion or removal.-Bar Ass'n Berizzi Co. v. Krausz, 146 N. E. 436.
of City of Boston v. Sleeper, 146 N. E. 269. Evidence gathered without notice to parties Cw52 (Mass.) Even though disbarment was may not be made basis of award.-Id.
based on perjury in disbarment trial, attorney
should have opportunity to be heard thereon. ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL.
-Bar Ass'n of City of Boston v. Sleeper, 146
N. E. 269.
5312) (111.) Relator in disbarment pro
ceedings held required to establish truth of ARREST.
serious charges beyond reasonable doubt.--
People v. Kerker, 146 N. E. 439.
Om53(2) (11.) Fraudulent or dishonest mo-
Attorney may be disbarred only on clear
proof of misconduct and fraudulent or dishonARREST OF JUDGMENT,
est motives.--Id. See Criminal Law, Em969, 970.
54 (III.) Commissioner's report in disbar
ment proceedings held sufficient finding that ASSAULT AND BATTERY,
respondent was not guilty.-People v. Kerker,
146 N. E. 439. See Homicide.
ww54 (III.) Laudatory letters stricken from ASSESSMENT.
respondent's briefs in disbarment proceedings.
- People v. A’Brunswick, 146 N. E. 483. See Drains, cm 76-89; Municipal Corpora-54 (Mass.) Denial of request for ruling
tions, C105-508; Taxation, E376-496. that evidence did not show deceit, malpractice,
or other gross misconduct, held proper.-Bar (“mutual credits.”—Putnam v. Handy, 146 N. E. Ass'n of City of Boston v. Sleeper, 146 N. E. 264. 269.
mw 154 (Mass.) Member of stock exchange held Request for ruling, that attorney had been entitled to set off balance due insolvent memfaithful to all his duties to client and as attor- ber against overdue notes of such member.ney properly refused.-Id.
Brickley v. Wrenn, 146 N. E. 797. Exclusive province of trial judge to follow Brokers not required to realize on collateral own convictions in believing or discrediting tes- securing pote before applying on such debt baltimony.-10.
ance in his hands due maker.-Id. Denial of request for ruling that disbarment was not method of eliciting information sought (C) Preferences and Transfers by Bankheld proper.-Id.
rupt, and Attachments and
Other Liens. Finding that attorney, in giving testimony, was knowingly guilty of perjury held without am 165(1). (Mass.) Brokers' application of .error-Id.
proceeds of stock purchased on margin to overGross, misconduct in open court may justify due notes of bankrupt held, not preference. suspension or removal, but attorney should be Brickley v. Wrenn, 146 N. E. 797. heard thereon.-Id.
Omw 184 (2) (Mass.) Unrecorded mortgage of m57 (Mass.) Findings of fact on review of association practically owned by bankrupt held disbarment proceedings stand if supported by invalid as against receiver in bankruptcy.-Medirect testimony or inference from evidence. - Glue v. Loudon, 146 N. E. 255. Bar Ass'n of City of Boston v. Sleeper, 146 N. 192. (Ind.App.) Lien for material was not E. 269.
divested by sale of building in subsequent bank
ruptcy proceedings against owner.-New Union III. DUTIES AND 'LIABILITIES OF AT Lumber Co. v. Good, 146 N. E. 584.
TORNEY TO CLIENT. Om113 (11.) Attorney required to disclose ad-(F) Claims Against and Distribution of
Estate, verse retainers to prospective client.-Hunter v. Troup, 146 N. E. 321.
316 (3) (Mass.) Subrogation statute held
inapplicable where creditor proved claim IV. COMPENSATION AND LIEN OF
against bankrupt's estate.-Westinghouse ElecATTORNEY.
tric & Mfg. Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of (A) Fees and Other Remuneration. Maryland, 146 N. E. 711. C-130 (111.) Attorney's undisclosed posses
w 318(1) (Mass.) Broker's claim growing out sion of invalid deed from testator held not to of marginal account is provable in bankruptcy. preclude recovery of compensation.-Hunter V. --Brickley v. Wrenn, 146 N. E. 797. Troup, 146 N. E. 321.
V. RIGHTS, REMEDIES, AND DISCHARGE 166 (3) (III.) Evidence held to establish
OF BANKRUPT. prima facie case for attorney, in action for compensation.-Hunter v. Troup, 146 N. E. 433(4) (Ind.App.) Discharge does not re321.
lease mechanic's lien created before bankrupt. AUCTIONS AND AUCTIONEERS.
cy proceedings.-New Union Lumber Co. v.
Good, 146 N. E. 584. 2 (N.Y.) Enactment of public auction laws held attempt to meet present conditions.-Bid
BANKS AND BANKING. dles, Inc., v. Enright, 146 N. E. 625.
II. BANKING CORPORATIONS AND Act prohibiting auction sale at night held
ASSOCIATIONS. valid.-Id. AUTOMOBILES.
(E) Insolvency and Dissolution, See Livery Stable and Garage Keepers.
Om634/2 (Mass.) Assets of bank or trust com
pany not to be depleted when in hands of bank. BAIL,
ing commissioner.- Vigilante Old South
Trust Co., 146 N. E, 670.
Banking commissioner alone can subject cred.
III. FUNCTIONS AND DEALINGS. BAILMENT.
(F) Exchange, Money, Securities, and inSee Pledges.
vestments. ww21 (III.) Bailor for hire not responsible to Com 188/2 (Mass.) Express company had imthird person for bailee's negligence.-City of plied assent of plaintiff to transmit rubles Rockford v. Nolan, 146 N. E. 564.
through its correspondent.--Skopetz v. Ameri
can Express Co., 146 N. E. 262. BANKRUPTCY.
Express company held not liable for its corII. PETITION, ADJUDICATION, WARRANT, respondent's default, after it became plaintiff's AND CUSTODY OF PROPERTY.
agent to transmit funds.--Id. (C) Involuntary Proceedings.
Ca 191 (Mass.) Bank held. bound by letter of
credit, notwithstanding letter to person in Cum 61 (N.Y.) Solvency no defense to proceed whose favor credit
issued.-National ings based on mere act of bankruptcy.--Adams Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Mann, 146 V. E. 791. v. Clark, 146 N. E. 642.
Seller of sugar held, not to have violated conIII. ASSIGNMENT, ADMINISTRATION, AND rival of shipment.-Id.
tract by collecting on letter of credit before ar. DISTRIBUTION OF BANKRUPT'S
Omw 191 (N.Y.) Bank which transgresses limiESTATE.
tations prescribed in letter of credit pays draft (B) Assignment, and Title, Rights, and Remedies of Trustee in General.
at own peril.-Laudisi v. American Exch. Nat.
Bank, 146 N. E. 347. 140 (3) (N.Y.) Lien of corporation whose Rule as to construction of letter of credit, treasurer wrongfully deposited securities with stated.-Id. firm of which he was member held not supe
Bank held warranted in payment of draft rior, on bankruptcy of firm, to that of owners under letter of credit on presentation of draft who had voluntarily deposited securities with with bill of lading describing merely "grapes," firm.-Asylum of St. Vincent De Paul v. Mc- and not particular kind purchased.-Id. Guire, 146 N. E. 632.
Contract between customer and bank under Om 154 (Mass.) Defendant could not set off which bank issues irrevocable letter of credit indebtedness from bankrupt in suit by trustee distinct from customer's contract with his venfor violation of fiduciary duty; "mutual debt;" | dor'.-Id.