Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

from riparian right; Gilbert v. Eldridge, 47 Minn. 214, 13 L. R. A. 413, 49 N. W. 679, holding where land platted beyond shore line, conveyance of inland block with reference to plat does not carry with it right to submerged blocks and streets; Concord Mfg. Co. v. Robertson, 66 N. H. 20, 18 L. R. A. 690, 25 Atl. 718, holding abutter's private right of use and occupation in public water is severable from estate in upland; Northern P. R. Co. v. Scott & H. Lumber Co. 73 Minn. 32, 75 N. W. 737, holding riparian rights originally belonging to shore block marked on plat, may be severed therefrom and attached to submerged land; Duluth v. St. Paul R. Co. 49 Minn. 209, 51 N. W. 1163, holding riparian proprietor may convey fee in land above shore line, and reserve private rights in land under water originally appurtenant to estate; Gibson v. Kelly, 15 Mont. 424, 39 Pac. 517, holding riparian proprietor may maintain action for recovery of land between high and low water mark from one in possession without right.

Cited in note (40 L. R. A. 394) on separation of riparian rights from upland. Distinguished in State v. St. Paul & D. R. Co. 81 Minn. 424, 84 N. W. 302, holding riparian rights are incident to shore property, having no separate existence until severed from paramount estate by act of owner; Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Platt, 53 Ohio St. 267, 29 L. R. A. 55, 41 N. E. 243, holding alvean rights are incapable of separation from riparian title to which they are incident. Riparian rights follow conveyance of riparian estate.

Cited in Minneapolis Trust Co. v. Eastman, 47 Minn. 304, 50 N. W. 82, holding conveyance of submerged land above low-water mark carries with it right to subsequent alluvial deposits; Mills v. Evans, 100 Iowa, 716, 69 N. W. 1043, holding riparian owner on navigable lake may construct pier below high-water mark.

Cited in footnote to Prior v. Swartz, 18 L. R. A. 668, which holds riparian right to build wharves not destroyed by statute designating land for planting oysters.

Distinguished in St. Anthony Falls Water Power Co. v. St. Paul Water Comrs. 168 U. S. 367, 42 L. ed. 504, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 157, holding grant of right to maintain dams and sluices in river subject to rights of navigation, and right of public to divert waters for public use.

7 L. R. A. 729, GARDNER v. BUNN, 132 Ill. 403, 23 N. E. 1072. Proof of execution of power of attorney or confession.

Cited in Desnoyers Shoe Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 188 Ill. 316, 58 N. E. 994, Affirming 89 Ill. App. 585, and Oppenheimer v. Giershofer, 54 Ill. App. 41, holding judgment by confession invalid without proof of execution of power of attorney; First Nat. Bank v. Havens & G. Co. 61 Ill. App. 225, stating proof of execution of power of attorney was filed in compliance with rule announced in main case; Epstein v. Ferst, 35 Fla. 514, 17 So. 414, holding judgment entered without proof of execution of confession of judgment invalid; Matzenbaugh v. Doyle, 156 Ill. 335, 40 N. E. 935, Affirming 56 Ill. App. 345, holding authority of attorney to execute cognovit and of clerk to enter judgment should fully appear from papers, and cannot be supported by evidence aliunde.

What must be filed.

Cited in People v. Whitehead, 90 Ill. App. 620, holding there must be filed with clerk declaration, original warrant of attorney, affidavit verifying it, and plea confessing amount for which judgment is entered; Snyder Bros. v. Bailey, 165

Ill. 453, 46 N. E. 452, holding clerk authorized to enter judgment on declaration. warrant of attorney valid on its face, proof of its execution and plea of confession. Cited in note (13 L. R. A. 800) on proof necessary to authorize entry of judgment confessed on warrant of attorney.

Strict construction of power.

Cited in Graves v. Whitney, 49 Ill. App. 442, holding authority to confess judg ment without process must be clearly given and strictly pursued; J. W. Butler Paper Co. v. Robbins, 151 Ill. 624, 38 N. E. 153, holding power conferred by resolution on president of corporation to borrow money and secure its repayment should be strictly construed.

Appearance by attorney as conferring jurisdiction.

Cited in Ward v. White, 66 Ill. App. 157, holding jurisdiction of person acquired by entry of appearance by attorney in fact.

Confession statutory proceeding.

Cited in Pond v. Simons, 17 Ind. App. 87, 45 N. E. 48, as holding confession of judgment in vacation statutory proceeding in derogation of common law.

Replevin.

Cited in note (55 L. R. A. 281) on right to replevy property from levying cfficer.

7 L. R. A. 731, MOORE v. THORP, 16 R. I. 655, 19 Atl. 321. Allowance for improvements.

Followed in Langley v. Langley, 19 R. I. 506, 36 Atl. 1133, holding cotenant may be allowed value of improvements in case of sale or division of property. Cited in Carson v. Broady, 56 Neb. 654, 71 Am. St. Rep. 691, 77 N. W. 80, holding on partition improvements should be allotted to tenant making them; and on sale proceeds should be divided after deducting sum in which saleable value increased by improvements; Ward v. Ward, 40 W. Va. 621, 29 L. R. A. 461, 52 Am. St. Rep. 911, 21 S. E. 746, holding on sale coparcener making improvements should receive amount by which value of property is enhanced and balance should be divided; Pulse v. Osborn, 30 Ind. App. 636, 64 N. E. 59, raising, but not deciding, question whether cotenant entitled, upon partition sale, to be recompensed for actual amount of present value due to improvements.

Cited in notes (8 L. R. A. 290) on allowance for improvements; (29 L. R. A. 449, 450, 452) liability of cotenants for improvements.

7 L. R. A. 733, STATE ex rel. TAYLOR v. EIDSON, 76 Tex. 302, 13 S. W. 263. Incorporation as affected by inclusion of farming on vacant land.

Followed in Ewing v. State, 81 Tex. 177, 16 S. W. 872, holding incorporation invalid which embraced area of 10 square miles, 8 of which was farming and unoccupied land.

Cited in State v. Baird, 79 Tex. 64, 15 S. W. 98, holding incorporation of town will not be dissolved because small strip of agricultural land included within its limits; McClesky v. State, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 323, 23 S. W. 518, holding attempt to include unreasonable amount of vacant land will annul attempted incorporation; Copeland v. St. Joseph, 126 Mo. 433, 29 S. W. 281, holding inclusion of reasonable amount of agricultural land permissible; State ex rel. Perrin v. Hoard.

*94 Tex. 529, 62 S. W. 1054, holding Tex. Rev. Stat. art. 580, prohibiting the inclusion for taxation of lands not used for town purposes embodies rule expressed in main case; Junction City School v. School Dist. No. 6 Trustees, 81 Tex. 152, 16 S. W. 742, holding question whether incorporated territory excessive and unreasonable in its limits depends on facts of each case.

Cited in note (25 L. R. A. 756) on physical characteristics necessary to municipal recognition.

Distinguished as relating to incorporation for general municipal purposes in Pinson v. Vesey, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 93, 56 S. W. 593, which related to incorporation for school purposes only.

7 L. R. A. 734, STATE ex rel. HENDERSON v. LE SUEUR, 99 Mo. 552, 13 S. W. 237.

7 L. R. A. 736, CALLEN v. JUNCTION CITY, 43 Kan. 627, 23 Pac. 652. Delegation of legislative power.

Followed in Huling v. Topeka, 44 Kan. 579, 24 Pac. 1110; Emporia v. Randolph, 56 Kan. 118, 42 Pac. 376; Eskridge v. Emporia, 63 Kan. 369, 65 Pac. 694, holding finding of district judge as to extension of city limits a judicial duty.

Cited in Hurla v. Kansas City, 46 Kan. 745. 27 Pac. 143, holding power to approve, disapprove, or modify ordinance extending city limits, not a delegation of legislative power; Pelletier v. Ashton, 12 S. D. 372, 81 N. W. 735, upholding right of court to exclude from proposed city limits large tracts of cultivated land; State ex rel. Godard v. Johnson, 61 Kan. 841, 49 L. R. A. 674, 60 Pac. 1068 (dissenting opinion), majority holding statute creating court of visitation unconstitutional as commingling legislative, judicial, and executive functions; Re North Milwaukee, 93 Wis. 629, 631, 33 L. R. A. 643, 67 N. W. 1033 (dissenting opinion), majority holding determination of what territory should be included in extending city limits exercise of legislative power; Hutchinson v. Leimbach (Kan.) 63 L. R. A. 631, footnote, p. 630, 74 Pac. 598, holding act permitting removal of territory from corporate limits of city, upon petition, unconstitutional. Cited in footnote to Re North Milwaukee, 33 L. R. A. 638, which holds void act requiring court to determine whether or not territory should be incorporated as village.

Cited in note (11 L. R. A. 779) on extension of city limits.

Disapproved in Re North Milwaukee, 93 Wis. 625, 33 L. R. A. 642, 67 N. W. 1033, holding act of determining the advisability of incorporation and fixing boundaries not determination of question of fact, but exercise of legislative discretion.

General laws.

Cited in Conklin v. Hutchinson, 65 Kan. 584, 70 Pac. 587, conceding that provisions for organization of cities must, under state Constitution, be made by general law; Paul v. Walkerton, 150 Ind. 570, 50 N. E. 725, to point general laws imposing conditions on annexation of territory, and vesting power in boards or courts to determine question, are valid.

Cited in note (27 L. R. A. 743) on annexation by special law.

Due process of law.

Cited in note (27 L. R. A. 743) on taking property without due process of law.

7 L. R. A. 740, BROCKWAY v. PETTED, 79 Mich. 620, 45 N. W. 61. Liability of surety on liquor bond.

Cited in Coleman v. People, 78 Ill. App. 215, holding liability of sureties on liquor dealer's bond continues during time mentioned in bond; Wright v. Treat, 83 Mich. 115, 47 N. W. 243, holding surety on liquor bond not discharged by removal from corporation limits, nor because principal notified to file new bond and discontinue business in meantime.

Cited in note (10 L. R. A. 81, 82) as to liquor bonds.

Recital as covenant or promise.

Distinguished in Monks v. Provident Inst. for Savings, 64 N. J. L. 89, 44 Atl. 968, holding recital will not constitute covenant or promise unless such was intention of parties, and it must contain all the elements of a contract.

Estoppel.

Cited in Lyon Bros. & Co. v. Stern, K. & B. 110 La. 478, 34 So. 641, holding corporation and surety, in action on auctioneer's bond, estopped from asserting that corporation could act as auctioneer.

7 L. R. A. 743, SANDERS v. BAGWELL, 32 S. C. 238, 10 S. E. 946.

Effect of material alteration.

Approved in Richardson v. Fellner, 9 Okla. 521, 60 Pac. 270, holding note vitiated by material alteration; Sloan v. Latimer, 41 S. C. 219, 19 S. E. 491, holding surety discharged by extension of payment with privilege of payment before maturity.

Cited in footnotes to Gleason v. Hamilton, 21 L. R. A. 210, which holds mortgage not invalidated by alteration by attorney drawing same without mortgagee's knowledge; Brown v. Johnson Bros. 51 L. R. A. 403, which holds maker released by payee's addition of name of other person as comaker; Rochford v. McGee, 61 L. R. A. 335, which holds removal of note written below perforated line on application for insurance material alteration rendering it void; Simmons v. Atkinson & L. Co. 23 L. R. A. 599, which holds insertion of words "or bearer" and place of payment a material alteration; Foxworthy v. Colby, 62 L. R. A. 393, which holds insertion of word "gold" before word "dollars" material alteration. Cited in note (13 L. R. A. 314) that party producing instrument must account for alterations.

Original consideration as supporting addendum.

Approved in Harrell v. Parrott, 50 S. C. 23, 27 S. E. 521, holding new promise to pay increased rate of interest supported by original consideration.

7 L. R. A. 745, FOWLER v. ALLEN, 32 S. C. 229, 10 S. E. 947. Liability of conditional sureties.

Approved in Greenville v. Ormand, 51 S. C. 71, 39 L. R. A. 853, 64 Am. St. Rep. 663, 28 S. E. 50, holding absence of sureties on note given to maker for negotiation will not preclude evidence by one who, after payee's refusal to discount it, advanced money thereon; Carter v. Moulton, 51 Kan. 15, 20 L. R. A. 311, 37 Am. St. Rep. 259, 32 Pac. 633, holding one of several makers of negotiable note perfect in form, executed by several persons, presumed authorized to deliver; Sullivan v. Williams, 43 S. C. 512, 21 S. E. 642, holding sureties on attachment

bond delivered by principals to innocent obligee estopped to show forgery of subsequent signatures.

7 L. R. A. 747, MOYER v. DRUMMOND, 32 S. C. 165, 17 Am. St. Rep. 850, 10 S. E. 952.

"Family" within homestead laws.

Approved in Scott v. Mosely Bros. 54 S. C. 378, 32 S. E. 450, holding son caring for widowed mother head of family under homestead law, as against his own creditors; Holloway v. Holloway, 86 Ga. 579, 11 L. R. A. 519, 22 Am. St. Rep. 484, 12 S. E. 943, holding widow supporting husband's children by former wife head of family under homestead law, although such support is voluntary; Re Morrison, 110 Fed. 735, holding single man residing with and supporting widowed mother and minor brother entitled to homestead exemption in bankruptcy as head of family; Fant v. Gist, 36 S. C. 578, 15 S. E. 721, holding man supporting his deceased wife's niece, who spends part of her time out of school with him, entitled to homestead as head of family; Cross v. Benson (Kan.) 64 L. R. A. 567, footnote, p. 560, 75 Pac. 558, holding grandchild living with grandparents, and dependent upon them for support, member of their family.

Cited in footnotes to Bosquett v. Hall, 9 L. R. A. 351, which refuses homestead exemption because of residence of children strangers in blood; Wilkinson v. Merrill, 11 L. R. A. 632, which holds householder not deprived of homestead right by death of entire family.

Cited in note (9 L. R. A. 804) as to homestead exemption.

Exemption in partnership property.

Approved in Dennis v. Kass, 11 Wash. 356, 48 Am. St. Rep. 880, 39 Pac. 656, holding partner entitled to exemption out of partnership property when no partnership debts remain unpaid; Adams v. Church, 42 Or. 274, 59 L. R. A. 785, 95 Am. St. Rep. 740, 70 Pac. 1037, holding land acquired under timber-culture claim, and conveyed to partnership, not liable for partnership debts contracted prior to issuance of final certificate.

Distinguished in Ex parte Xarish, 32 S. C. 438, 11 S. E. 298, holding partners. not entitled to exemption out of firm assets until partnership creditors satisfied.

7 L. R. A. 749, WHITAKER v. RICHARDS, 134 Pa. 191, 19 Am. St. Rep. 684, 19 Atl. 501.

Sureties; instrument signed by part only of obligors named.

Cited in Gleeson's Estate, 192 Pa. 283, 44 W. N. C. 325, 73 Am. St. Rep. 808, 43 Atl. 1032, holding omission of one of several obligors named in bond to join in execution not defense as to obligors who do sign; Snyder's Estate, 7 Kulp, 415, holding no condition implied to execution by each of several obligors in bond that same shall be executed by all persons named in it, before it becomes binding upon any; Weissport v. Welsh, 6 Northampton Co. Rep. 246, holding omission of tax collector to sign official bond with sureties not release of parties signing; Hall v. Kintz, 13 Pa. Co. Ct. 27, 2 Pa. Dist. R. 617, holding attachment bond signed with firm name and by one partner individually, with name of one surety, sufficient; Reed v. McGregor, 62 Minn. 97, 64 N. W. 88, holding surety signing under belief that another person named in bond will sign, but without making signature conditioned on such person signing, is bound; Winters v. Robison, 14

« AnteriorContinuar »