Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

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

tent to revoke will as originally made.-Cant-
way v. Cantway, 146 N. E. 148.

Presumption that destruction by heir was
beneficial to such heir is presumption of fact
only.-Id.

292 (III.) Source of testatrix's title held
immaterial in will contest.-Britt v. Darnell,
146 N. E. 510.

294 (III.) Competency of attesting witness-
es is tested as of date of execution of will.
Britt v. Darnell, 146 N. E. 510.

Sustaining objection to question, answer to
which would have been cumulative only, not
prejudicial error.-Id.

VI. CONSTRUCTION.
(A) General Rules.

440 (Mass.) Intention as disclosed by will
must prevail, unless inconsistent with law.-
Bemis v. Fletcher, 146 N. E. 277.

441 (111) Main object in construing will is
294 (III.) Certified transcript of subscrib- intention of testator to be ascertained from
ing witnesses' testimony before probate judge will in light of surrounding circumstances.—
held admissible in circuit court.-Harris v Eti-Fuller v. Fuller, 146 N. E. 174.
enne, 146 N. E. 547.

297 (3) (III.) Declarations of testator com-
petent to corroborate witnesses testifying as to
contents of destroyed or lost will.-Cantway v.
Cantway, 146 N E. 148.

302 (5) (III.) That will contains perfect at
testation clause may be considered on ques-
tion of legality of its execution.-Harris v.
Etienne, 146 N E. 547

303(2)(III.) Execution and competency of
testatrix are established prima facie by cer-
tificate of sworn declaration of witnesses.-
Britt v. Darnell, 146 N. E. 510.

441 (Ind.App.) Testator's intent given ef-
fect.-Billings v. Deputy. 146 N. E. 219.

449 (Ind.) Testator held to have disposed
of all his property, such being his intention.—
Burrell v. Jean, 146 N. E. 754.

449 (Mass.) Intent to dispose of all prop-
erty presumed, and will so construed, if pos-
sible.-Hedge v. State St. Trust Co., 146 N. E.

802.

450 (Ind.App.) Construction giving effect
to instrument rather than destroying it must
be adopted.-Billings v Deputy, 146 N. E. 219.
453 (Ind.App.) Intent, when obscured, is to
be sought in rational and consistent purpose.—
Billings v. Deputy, 146 N. E. 219.

Subscribing witnesses' oath as to belief that
testatrix was competent when oath was taken
does not make prima facie case in favor of will.455 (III.) Words cannot be added to or
-Id.

Witnesses must swear to belief, at time of
attesting will, that testator was of sound mind
and memory, though not necessarily in words
of statute.-Id.

305.) Rule as to competency of decla-
rations of testator in proving contents of de-
stroyed or lost will stated.-Cantway v. Cant-
way. 146 N. E. 148.

306 (111.) Will with name following "my
nephew" erased not probated.-Cantway v.
Cantway, 146 N. E. 148.

Evidence held insufficient to prove name of
original devisee erased by testator.-Id.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

316(2) (Mass.) Issue of testamentary ca-
pacity properly allowed.-Angell v. Lighthipe,
146 N. E. 692.

taken from will changing meaning of testator
expressed therein.-Fuller v. Fuller, 146 N. E.
174.

455 (Ind.App.) That will is crudely drawn
and prepared by unskilled person may be con-
sidered in construing it.-Billings v. Deputy,
146 N. E. 219.

Intention controls words, and not words in-
tention as in case of deeds.-Id.

To effectuate intent courts may transpose,
insert, or leave out words, phrases, or provi-
sions.-Id.

456 (Ind.App.) Words given their usual
and customary meaning, unless contrary intent
evident.-Casper v. Helvie, 146 N. E. 123.

456 (Ind.App.) Words used in inexact and
ambiguous sense read in sense used.-Billings
v. Deputy. 146 N. E. 219.

470 (1.) Interpreted as a whole.-Cales v.
Dressler, 146 N. E. 162.

470 (Ind.App.) Will construed as whole to
give effect to testator's intent, which governs
inaccurate and inconsistent expressions.—Bill-
ings v. Deputy, 146 N. E. 219.

316(3) (Mass.) Granting issue of undue in-471 (III.) Manner of construing will con-
fluence held proper.-Angell v. Lighthipe, 146 N. taining false or repugnant description stated.
-Fuller v. Fuller, 146 N. E. 174.

E. 692.

317 (Mass.) Refusal to frame issue for tri-
al by jury, designed to establish status of
one claiming to be widow of deceased, held not
error.-Wellington v. De Cordova, 146 N. E.
690.

324 (3) (Ind.) Evidence of undue influence
held insufficient for jury.-Crane v. Hensler,

146 N. E. 577.

324(4) (II.) Due execution of will held for
jury.--Harris v. Etienne, 146 N. E. 547.

330(1) (II.) Instruction as to mental com-
petency held erroneous.-Seavey v. Glass,

N. E. 536.

472 (Ind.App.) The posterior of conflicting
and inconsistent provisions, if clear, must be
taken to denote testator's intent.-Billings v.
Deputy, 146 N. E. 219.

473 (III.) Manner of construing will con-
taining false or repugnant description stated.-
Fuller v. Fuller, 146 N. E. 174.

477 (Mass.) Testatrix's will held to create
independent trust fund, though administered
by trustees of husband's estate.-Bemis V.
Fletcher, 146 N. E. 277.

146487 (I) (I.) Extrinsic evidence not admis-
sible to vary intent of testator as expressed
in will.-Fuller v. Fuller, 146 N. E. 174.

333 (Ind.) Verdict for contestants not set
aside because of unwarranted finding of undue
influence.-Crane v. Hensler, 146 N. E. 577.

(K) Review.

400 (III.) Decree dismissing contest on
verdict in favor of mental competency of testa-
trix will be affirmed, in absence of substantial
error on trial.-Britt v. Darnell, 146 N. E.
510.

Instruction on burden of proof held not harm-
ful, though based on erroneous instruction as
to sufficiency of affidavits to make prima facie
case. Id.

Instruction submitting legal question wheth-
er witnesses stated facts justifying formation
of opinion held not reversible error.-Id.

(B) Designation of Devisees, and Lega-
tees and Their Respective Shares.

497 (1) (Ind.App.) Words "child" and
"children" defined.-Casper v. Helvie, 146 N.
E. 123.

Word "children" not construed as embracing
more than first generation of offspring.-Id.

497 (5) (Ind.App.) Adopted child not in-
cluded in devise to "children," unless testator's
intent manifest.-Casper v. Helvie, 146 N. E.
123.

Adopted child of testator included in devise
to child or children, unless contrary intent
shown; rule otherwise where provision is for
child or children of another.-Id.

[ocr errors]

Adopted child held not included in devise to 635 (Ind.) Uniting of estates in possession children.-Id. and remainder, held to vest fee, subject to con498 (Mass.) Adopted children not "issue," tingency.-Burrell v. Jean, 146 N. E. 754. within provisions of will creating trust.-Galla-637 (III.) Devise construed to give first gher v. Sullivan, 146 N. E. 769. taker life estate with alternative contingent remainders, and to vest reversion in fee in heirs of testatrix.-Fuller v. Fuller, 146 N. E. 174. Vesting of reversion in fee not affected by fact that life tenant was also reversioner.-Id.

523 (Mass.) Gift of residue to several legatees named, to be divided equally, is gift to them as individuals.-Hobbs v. Chesley, 146 N. E. 261.

529 (Ind.App.) Devise to testator's adopted daughter, brothers and sisters, and heirs of deceased brothers construed.-Billings v. Deputy, 146 N. E. 219.

(H) Estates in Trust and Powers.

534 (Mass.) Existence of life estate in tes-675 (Mass.) Gift to legatee held subject to tatrix's daughter held not to deprive her of precatory trust to charity; "will and wish."vested remainder.-Hedge v. State St. Trust Temple v. Russell, 146 N. E. 679. Co., 146 N. E. 802.

Will creating life estate with remainder to testatrix's three children held to create vested interest in such children, though one of them was life tenant.-Id.

(D) Description of Property.

692, 693 (5) (III.) Life tenant given power to sell could not cut off remainder by conveying land to grantee, who immediately reconveyed to life tenant.-Cales v. Dressler, 146 N. E. 162.

Life tenant, with power of sale, could convey land reserving right to use in consideration of services to be rendered.-Id.,

561 (2) (III.) Devise of hotel held to carry with it land adjacent thereto and used in VII. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF DEVconnection therewith.-Fuller v. Fuller, 146 ISEES AND LEGATEES. N. E. 174.

[blocks in formation]

(C) Advancements, Ademption, Satisfaction, and Lapse.

758 (1.) Statute as to advancements inapplicable in suit for partition by devisees.Alward v. Woodard, 146 N. E. 154.

759(1)(III.) Testator may make more favorable provision in will than provided for by prior advancement.-Alward v. Woodard, 146 N. E. 154.

601(2)(III.) Will held to give testator's wife merely life estate with power to sell.-759 (3) (II.) Provision in will for deducCales v. Dressler, 146 N. E. 162. tion of "advancements" enforced.-Alward v. Woodard, 146 N. E. 154.

610(2) (Mass.) Testatrix intended to create life interest, with power in legatee to consume and dispose of.-King v. Walsh, 146 N. E. 33.

760 (III.) Value of land advanced determined as of date of possession by child.-Alward v. Woodard, 146 N. E. 154.

616(4) (III.) Gift over after life estate not 761 (III.) Parol evidence admissible to deinvalid because of uncertainty of quantity of termine amount of advancement to be deducted. residuary estate.-Cales v. Dressler, 146 N. E.-Alward v. Woodard, 146 N. E. 154. 162.

Agreement at time of advancement provable, where later will provided for deductions for

(F) Vested or Contingent Estates and In- advancements.-Id. terests.

629 (Ind.) Postponing estates disfavored.Burrell v. Jean, 146 N. E. 754.

Will providing for deductions for advancements admissible to prove testator's final intention. Id.

Remainders will be regarded as vested, rath-775 (Mass.) Legacy to one of class of leger than contingent or conditional, so as to avoid atees lapses, if legatee predeceases testator.possibility of partial intestacy.-Id. Hobbs v. Chesley, 146 N. E. 261.

(D) Election.

629 (Ind.App.) Where testator created contingent remainder by unambiguous language, court must uphold it.-Hackleman v. Hackle-781 (III.) Provision in will as to deductions man. 146 N. E. 590. for advancement, held to govern prior agree629 (Mass.) Law favors vested rather than ment.-Alward v. Woodard, 146 N. E. 154. contingent estates in construction of wills.800 (Ill.) Devisee cannot take under will Hedge v. State St. Trust Co., 146 N. E. 802. and dispute advancement.-Alward v. Woodard, 634 (9) (II.) Devise to heirs of body of 146 N. E. 154.

life tenant held contingent until birth of heir Beneficiaries must accept will in its entirety. and destructible by merger of estates.-Fuller-Id.

v. Fuller, 146 N. E. 174.

Devise construed to create estate in legal (H) Void, Lapsed, and Forfeited Devises heirs of testatrix to take effect only in case estate in heirs of body of life tenant did not. -Id.

Devise construed to give first taker life estate with alternate contingent remainders.-Id. 634 (12) (Ind.App.) Will held to create a contingent remainder in testator's children living at death of wife.-Hackleman v. Hackleman. 146 N. E. 590.

and Bequests, and Property and Interests Undisposed of.

858(1) (Mass.) Residuary estate held not intended to go to nephews as a class.-Hobbs v. Chesley, 146 N. E. 261.

See Evidence.

WITNESSES.

II. COMPETENCY.

634 (17) (Ind.) Devise to daughter for life. and after her death to her children, held to vest remainder in child living at testator's death. (A) Capacity and Qualifications in GenBurrell v. Jean, 146 N. E. 754.

634(18) (Ind.) Devise held to vest determinable remainder in heirs, as purchasers, contingent on one of two happenings.-Burrell v. Jean. 146 N. E. 754.

634(19) (Ind.) Word "after" in devise to one for life, and after her death, to others, held to pertain to time of enjoyment, not time of vesting.-Burrell v. Jean, 146 N. E. 754.

eral.

40(2) (III.) Competency of small child discretionary with court.-People v. Schladweiler, 146 N. E. 525.

Admission of testimony of small children held not abuse of discretion.-Id.

44 (.) Test as to competency of small child stated.-People v. Schladweiler, 146 N. E.

525.

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER (C) Testimony of Parties or Persons In- 267 (Ind.) Extent of cross-examination terested, for or against Representa- permitted is within sound discretion of trial tives, Survivors, or Successors in Title or Interest of Persons Deceased court.-Henry v. State, 146 N. E. 822. or Incompetent.

268(2) (Ind.) Unfavorable inference, drawn from facts elicited from witness, opens door 139 (9) (II.) Parties in partition, not suing for admission on cross-examination of knowlas heirs, not incompetent as parties in inter- edge of witness tending to rebut such inferest.-Alward v. Woodard, 146 N. E. 154. ence. Henry v. State, 146 N. E. 822. 140(2) (11.) Interest disqualifying witness 269(1) (Ind.) Opening of subject on must be such that pecuniary gain or loss will amination in chief opens it to full and detailed result from judgment or decree.-Britt v. Darinvestigation on cross-examination.-Henry nell, 146 N. E. 510. State, 146 N. E. 822.

Attorney for executor held not disqualified to testify for him by interest in litigation.-Id.

140 (9) (III.) Husband of testatrix's heir held incompetent to testify for contestants.Britt v. Darnell, 146 N. E. 510.

149(2) (III.) Devisees suing in partition incompetent as to conservator for one of defendants.-Alward v. Woodard, 146 N. E. 154.

149(2) (III.) Grantee, son of deceased grantor, is not competent witness for himself, in action by grantor's executor to set aside deed.-Standard Trust & Savings Bank Carlson, 146 N. E. 446.

V.

150(3) (Ill.) Devisees in suit for partition cannot dispute rights under will of other devisees. Alward v. Woodard, 146 N. E. 154.

Devisees competent to testify as to agreement and declarations of father when making advancement to son.-Id.

ex

v.

271 (3) (Mass.) Exception to refusal to permit letters to be read in evidence not well

taken.-Hall v. Kotowski, 146 N. E. 717.

276 (Mass.) Permitting cross-examination of defendant as adverse witness as to statements made by chauffeur held not abuse of discretion. Walsh v. Feinstein, 146 N. E. 355. Cross-examination of party called as witness rests in court's discretion.-Id.

[blocks in formation]

159(2) (11.) Coheir, suing in partition, not (D) Inconsistent Statements by Witness. competent witness as to his release of expect-379 (2) (Mass.) Evidence of inconsistent ancy.-Alward v. Woodard, 146 N. E. 154.

(D) Confidential Relations and Privileged Communications.

221 (Ohio) When husband waived statute prohibiting privileged testimony, stated.-Ruch v. State, 146 N. E. 67.

III. EXAMINATION.

statements by commonwealth's witnesses as eyewitnesses of killing properly admitted by commonwealth to impeach them.-Common- ' wealth v. Festo, 146 N. E. 700.

388 (10) (Ind.App.) Foundation for impeachment of witness held insufficient.-Hutchens v. State, 146 N. E. 413.

WORDS AND PHRASES. "Accident."-Industrial Commission of Ohio v. Russell (Ohio) 146 N. E. 305.

(A) Taking Testimony in General. 236(1)(III.) Question if witness knew whether alleged incompetent testatrix had mort-"Action at law."-McBride v. University Club gage on home which she threatened to take away from owner, held permissible.-Britt v. Darnell, 146 N. E. 510.

240(1) (III.) Leading questions to be incompetent must refer to material matters, and occur where no necessity for them appears.People v. Schladweiler, 146 N. E. 525.

240(2) (1.) Whether necessity exists for leading question is largely discretionary with trial court.-People v. Schladweiler, 146 N. E. 525.

Abuse of discretion in permitting leading questions prejudicial error.-Id.

240(3) (Ill.) Test as to "leading question" stated.-People v. Schladweiler, 146 N. E.

525.

242 (III.) Questions merely directing attention of witness to subject-matter not suggestive or leading.-People v. Schladweiler, 146 N. E. 525.

243 (III.) Permitting children to answer questions over objections that they were leading held not prejudicial error.-People V.

Schladweiler, 146 N. E. 525.

255(1) (II.) Witness may refresh memory by use of written memorandum or entry in book-People v. Krauser, 146 N. E. 593.

257 (.) Permitting reading of stenographic notes of questions to accused at police station, held without error.-People v. Krauser, 146 N. E. 593.

(B) Cross-Examination and Re-examina

tion.

266 (Ind.) Cross-examination of witness is absolute right, denial of which on material matter is reversible error.-Henry v. State, 146 N. E. 822.

Refusal to permit cross-examination as to matters pertaining to investigation of accused's connection with larceny held reversible error. -Id.

(Ohio) 146 N. E. 804.

"Additional."-People v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.
(Ill.) 146 N. E. 567.
"Adulterated food."-Longbrake v. State (Ohio)
146 N. E. 417.

"Advancements."-Alward v. Woodard (Ill.)
146 N. E. 154.
"After."-Burrell v. Jean (Ind.) 146 N. E. 754.
"Alibi."-People v. Schladweiler (Ill.) 146 N.
E. 525.

"All others pursuing like occupations."-City
of Rockford v. Nolan (Ill.) 146 N. E. 564.
"Arising out of and in course of employment."
--Solar-Sturges Mfg. Co. v. Industrial Com-
mission (Ill.) 146 N. E. 572; National Bis-
cuit Co. v. Roth (Ind. App.) 146 N. E. 410.
"Arraignment."-Andrews v. State (Ind.) 146
N. E. 817.
"Certified, audited, and paid."-Etzold v. Board
of Com'rs of Huntington County (Ind.
App.) 146 N. E. 842.
"Chancery

case."-In re Gurnea's Estate
(Ohio) 146 N. E. 308; McBride v. University
Club (Ohio) 146 N. E. 804.
"Child."-Casper v. Helvie (Ind. App.) 146

N. E. 123.

"Children."-Casper v. Helvie (Ind. App.) 146
N. E. 123.
"C. i. f."-National Wholesale Grocery Co. v.
Mann (Mass.) 146 N. E. 791.
"Civil actions."-Herman v. City of New Bed-
ford (Mass.) 146 N. E. 41.
"Commercial car."-Fisher Bros. Co. v. Brown
(Ohio) 146 N. E. 100.
"Common carrier."-Hissem v. Guran (Ohio)
146 N. E. 808.
"Confession."-People v. Rupert (Ill.) 146 N.

E. 456.

"Conviction."-Commonwealth v. Baldi (Mass.) 146 N. E. 11.

"Copy."-People v. Chicago & E. I. Ry. Co. (Ill.) 146 N. E. 499.

"Culpable neglect."-Haven v. Smith (Mass.) | "Owner."-Brush v. City of New Bedford 146 N. E. 18. (Mass.) 146 N. E. 9; State v. Davis (Ohio) 146 N. E. 82.

"Defect of parties."-Rich v. Fry (Ind.) 146 N. E. 393.

"Delivery order."-National Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Mann (Mass.) 146 N. E. 791. "Disability."-Northern Indiana Power Co. v. Hawkins (Ind. App.) 146 N. E. 879. "Drivers, chauffeurs, and riggers."-Palotta's Case (Mass.) 146 N. E. 235. "Embezzlement."-People

V. Schrager (Ill.)

146 N. E. 151. "Employer."-Trumbull Cliffs Furnace Co. v. Shachovsky (Ohio) 146 N. E. 306. "Entrails."-Commonwealth v. Cohen (Mass.) 146 N E. 228.

"Equitable defenses."-Susquehanna S. S. Co. v. A. O. Andersen & Co. (N. Y.) 146 N. E. 381. "Estates less than freehold."-Fowler v. Marion & Pittsburg Coal Co. (Ill.) 146 N. E. 318.

"Estoppel."-General Realty Co. v. Silcox (Ind. App.) 146 N. E. 408.,

"Extension."-Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Commerce Commission (Ill.) 146 N. E. 606. "Final decree."-Trebbin v. Thoeresz (Ill.) 146 N. E. 542.

"Final judgment."-In re Elm St. in City of New York (N. Y.) 146 N. E. 342. "Freehold estate."-Fowler v. Marion & Pittsburg Coal Co. (Ill.) 146 N. E. 318. "General law."-Hess v. Devou (Ohio) 146 N. E. 311.

"Good will."-Jones v. Stevens (Ohio) 146 N. E. 894. "Horse-power."-Foltz Grocery & Baking Co. v. Brown (Ohio) 146 N. E. 97; Fisher Bros. Co. v. Brown (Ohio) 146 N. E. 100. "Immediately."-Hall V. American Bankers' Ins. Co. (Ill.) 146 N. E. 137. "Impairment."-Northern Indiana Power Co. v. Hawkins (Ind. App.) 146 N. E. 879.

"Implied powers."-City of Rockford v. Nolan (I.) 146 N. E. 564. "Insurance."-Brownell v. Board of Education of Inside Tax Dist. of City of Saratoga Springs (N. Y.) 146 N. E. 630. "Intent."-People v. Tate (Ill.) 146 N. E. 487. "Interested in estate."-Talbot v. Bush (Mass.) 146 N. E. 223.

"Issue."-Gallagher v. Sullivan (Mass.) 146 N. E. 769.

"Larceny."-Van Vechten v. American Eagle

Fire Ins. Co. (N. Y.) 146 N. E. 432. "Law of the case."-McCracken's Case (Mass.) 146 N. E. 904; Gohman v. City of St. Bernard (Ohio) 146 N. E. 291. "Leading question." People v. Schladweiler (Ill.) 146 N. E. 525. "Licensee."-Pennsylvania

R. Co. V. Vitti

(Ohio) 146 N. E. 94. "Lien."-State v. Davis (Ohio) 146 N. E. 82. "Liquidated damages."-Miller v. Blockberger (Ohio) 146 N. E. 206; Jones v. Stevens (Ohio) 146 N. E. 894.

"Maintenance and repair."-Fisher Bros. Co. v. Brown (Ohio) 146 N. E. 100. "Mandamus."-State v. Nolte (Ohio) 146 N. E. 51. "Marketable title."-McCarty V. Lingham (Ohio) 146 N. E. 64.

"Motor transportation company."-Hissem v. Guran (Ohio) 146 N. E. SOS.

"Mutual credits."-Putnam v. Handy (Mass.) 146 N. E. 264.

"Mutual debts."-Putnam

v. Handy (Mass.)

146 N. E. 264. "Nurse."-Phillips v. Buffalo General Hospital (N. Y.) 146 N. E. 199. "Official acts."-American Guaranty Co. v. MeNiece (Ohio) 146 N. E. 77. "Option to renew."-Fuchs v. Peterson (Ill.) 146 N. E. 556. "Orderly."-Phillips v. Buffalo General Hospital (N. Y.) 146 N. E. 199.

"Partnership."-Mitchell v. Gruener (Mass.) 146 N. E. 252.

"Passenger car."-Fisher Bros. Co. v. Brown (Ohio) 146 N. E. 100. "Passengers."-Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Jones (Ind. App.) 146 N. E. 864. "Payment."-People v. Westerdahl (Ill.) 146 N. E. 737.

"Penalty."-Miller v. Blockberger (Ohio) 146 N. E. 206.

"Perjury."-Ruch v. State (Ohio) 146 N. E. 67. "Permanent abode."-Anderson v. Pifer (Ill.) 146 N. E. 171.

"Permission of town."-Inhabitants of Canton V. Westbourne Cemetery Corporation of Boston (Mass.) 146 N. Ě. 258. "Person."-Madden V. Board of Election Com'rs of City of Boston (Mass.) 146 N. E. 280. "Proceeding."-Ruch v. State (Ohio) 146 N. E. "Proceeding at law."-Petition of Forbes (Ill.) 146 N. E. 448.

67.

"Public officer."-Hodsdon v. Weinstein (Mass.) 146 N. E. 675.

"Public utility."-Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Commerce Commission (Ill.) 146 N. E. 606.

"Purpose."-People v. Tate (Ill.) 146 N. E.

487.

"Residence."-Anderson v. Pifer (Ill.) 146 N. E. 171.

"Res judicata."-Burrell v. Jean (Ind.) 146 N. E. 754; Gohman v. City of St. Bernard (Ohio) 146 N. E. 291.

"Resulting trust."-Rolofson v. Malone (Ill.) 146 N. E. 169.

"Return."-Maxwell Implement Co. v. Fitzgerald (Ind. App.) 146 N. E. 883.

"Same offense."-Duvall v. State (Ohio) 146 N. "Severally."-City of Momence v. Kirby (Ill.) E. 90.

146 N. E. 142.

"Some person other than employer."—Artificial Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. Waltz (Ind. App.) 146 N. E. 826.

"Soundness of mind."-Needham Trust Co. v. Cookson (Mass.) 146 N. E. 268. "Special assessments."-Carlyle

(Ill.) 146 N. E. 192.

V. Bartels

"Special franchise." People ex rel. New York

Cent. R. Co. v. State Tax Commission (N. "Spur track."-Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Y.) 146 N. E. 197. Co. v. Commerce Commission (Ill.) 146 N. E. 606.

"Subject to."-America Mfg. Co. v. Commonwealth (Mass.) 146 N. E. 801. "Subrogation."-Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Brass Goods Mfg. Co. (N. Y.) 146 N. E. 377. "Suit in equity."-Petition of Forbes (Ill.) 146 N. E. 448. "Taxes."-Carlyle v. Bartels (Ill.) 146 N. E.

192.

"Tender."-Maxwell Implement Co. v. Fitzger"Theft."--Van Vechten v. American Eagle Fire ald (Ind. App.) 146 N. E. 883. Ins. Co. (N. Y.) 146 N. E. 432. "Towns."-Decatur v. Auditor of City of Peabody (Mass.) 146 N. E. 360.

"Undue influence."-Crane v. Hensler (Ind.) 146 N. E. 577.

"Way."-Commonwealth v. Leone (Mass.) 146 N. E. 26.

"When."-Commonwealth v. Cohen (Mass.) 146 N. E. 228.

V. Cohen

"When dressed."-Commonwealth (Mass.) 146 N. E. 228. "Will and wish."-Temple v. Russell (Mass.) 146 N. E. 679.

"Willful misconduct."-Durgin's Case (Mass.) 146 N. E. 694.

"Wrecking."- Aurnhammer v. Brotherhood Acc. Co. (Mass.) 146 N. E. 47.

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

WORK AND LABOR.

WRIT OF ERROR.

24(2) (N.Y.) Part payment cannot be prov- See Appeal and Error. ed under a general denial.-Curry v. Mackenzie, 146 N. E. 375.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS. See Master and Servant,

348-419.

WRITS.

See Certiorari; Execution; Injunction; Mandamus; Prohibition; Quo Warranto; Replevin.

« ForrigeFortsett »