« AnteriorContinuar »
man and his family annually for ten years not within statute of frauds; Brown v. Throop, 13 L. R. A. 646, which holds parol agreement in March for lease of ice house for one year from April to be left full on surrendering possession valid; Hand v. Osgood, 30 L. R. A. 379, which holds oral lease for year with privilege of three at annual rent, void.
Cited in notes (9 L. R. A. 129) on promises not to be performed within a year; (10 L. R. A. 727) on lease within statute of frauds.
Effect of part performance.
Cited in Murphy v. De Haan, 116 Iowa, 63, 89 N. W. 100, holding oral contract for labor, to the extent of performance, taken out of statute; Riley v. Haworth, 30 Ind. App. 381, 64 N. E. 928, holding oral contract for conveyance of land not taken out of statute by part payment of purchase price.
Contracts voidable only.
Cited in Cochran v. Ward, 5 Ind. App. 93, 51 Am. St. Rep. 229, 29 N. E. 795, holding contracts within statute of frauds not void, but power of enforcement merely withheld and recovery of damages for nonperformance prevented.
Distinguished in Pierce v. Clarke, 71 Minn. 121, 73 N. W. 522, overruling Hagelin v. Wacks, 61 Minn. 216, 63 N. W. 624, holding oral contracts relating to land absolutely void. Enforceability of contracts void in part.
Cited in Gibson County v. Cincinnati Steam Heating Co. 128 Ind. 248, 12 L. R. A. 505, 27 N. E. 612, holding valid part of contract severable from void part enforceable. Partner's right to dispose of firm property.
Cited in Huey v. Fish, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 462, 40 S. W. 29, holding member of nontrading partnership cannot mortgage firm assets without copartner's consent; Callahan v. Heinz, 20 Ind. App. 365, 49 N. E. 1073, holding one partner cannot, without consent of others, assign for creditors property used in firm business. Declarations of possessor as to title.
Distinguished in Robbins v. Spencer, 140 Ind. 497, 38 N. E. 522, holding declarations of vendor retaining life estate, made after executing deed, inadmissible against vendee. Cotenant's liability for conversion.
Cited in Robinson v. Dickey, 143 Ind. 208, 52 Am. St. Rep. 417, 42 N. E. 679, holding cotenant's exclusive possession of personalty not conversion.
7 L. R. A. 788, VALENTINE v. WYSOR, 123 Ind. 47, 23 N. E. 1076. Partnership; interests of heirs and devisees in share of deceased part
Cited in Bollenbacher v. First Nat. Bank, 8 Ind. App. 18, 35 V. E. 403, holding rights of heirs and legatees of deceased partner attach only to surplus of latter's interest after partnership debts are paid. Right of survivor to control of firm property.
Cited in Melntosh v. Zaring. 150 Ind. 312, 49 N. E. 164, holding upon death of partner right to collection of debts and assets is vested exclusively in survivors; Rand v. Wright, 141 Ind. 234, 39 N. E. 447, holding on death or retire ment of partner, survivors succeed to full right of disposing of partnership property, and closing up of business; Bollenbacher v. First Nat. Bank, 8 Ind. App. 16, 35 N. E. 403, holding on death of partner law constitutes survivors trustees to wind up concern for benefit of all persons interested.
Cited in footnote to Philbrook v. Newman, 34 L. R. A. 265, which holds good will passes to surviving partners on purchase of interest of deceased.
Distinguished in Shrum v. Simpson, 155 Ind. 162, 49 L. R. A. 793, 57 N. E. 708, holding agreement between owner and another for cultivation of land on shares not partnership giving survivor right of possession of property until business settled. Satisfaction of individual liability of partners.
Cited in footnotes to Kincaid v. National Wall Paper Co. 54 L. R. A. 412, which sustains right of partners to appropriate, with other partners' consent, interest in firm to pay individual, in preference to firm, debts; Hundley v. Farris, 12 terest in firm to pay individual, in preference to firm, debts; Hundley v. Farris, 12 of deceased partner's estate; Re Baldwin, 58 L. R. A. 122, which holds individual liability of member of banking firm, signing name to certificate of deposit, enforceable against estate in preference to claims against firm. Purchase by trustees at own sale.
Cited in Comegys v. Emerick, 134 Ind. 153, 39 Am. St. Rep. 245, 33 N. E. 899. hoiding purchase of real estate by executor at his own sale, void; Tennant v. Dunlop, 97 Va. 242, 33 S. E. 620, holding surviving partner is trustee as to disposition of firm property, and purchase of deceased partner's interest regarded with suspicion, and jealously scrutinized; Holladay v. Land & River Improv. Co. 6 C. C. A. 571, 18 U. S. App. 308, 57 Fed. 785, holding settlement between executor and surviving partner, involving transfer of interest of deceased in firm real estate to survivor, conclusive in absence of fraud or mistake.
Cited in Matthews v. Wilson, 31 Ind. App. 97, 67 N. E. 280, holding lien against real estate to secure payment of allowance for support of child barred after ten years.
Cited in note (10 L. R. A. 126) on doctrine of laches.
7 L. R. A. 797, NEWSON v. GALVESTON, 76 Tex. 559, 13 S. W. 368. Powers of municipal corporations respecting markets.
Cited in notes (24 L. R. A. 585) on prohibition of sales except at markets; (24 L. R. A. 584) on market regulations and ordinances affecting contracts; (9 L. P.. A. 69) on regulation of markets and market houses. Statutes regulating sale of articles of food.
Cited in footnote to State v. Layton, 62 L. R. A. 164, which holds constitutional, act prohibiting manufacture of baking powder containing alum.
7 L. R. A. 799, WHITE v. WHITE, 82 Cal. 427, 23 Pac. 276. When marriage relation exists.
Cited in Eldred v. Eldred, 97 Va. 610, 34 S. E. 477, holding presumption of marriage, raised by declaration that it was in certain city, rebutted where license required not issued and banns not published; Williams v. Herrick, 21 R. I, 403,
79 Am. St. Rep. 809, 43 Atl. 1036, holding ceremonial marriage to enable woman and children to receive property strong evidence against existence of prior marriage; Barker v. Valentine, 125 Mich. 343, 5) L. R. A. 790, 84 Am. St. Rep. 578, 84 N. W. 297, holding marriage presumed between man and woman who continued to cohabit under circumstances of general repute of marriage after death of first wife; Quackenbush v. Swortfiguer, 136 Cal. 152, 68 Pac. 590, holding the repute of marriage divided, and sustains finding of no marriage; Re Richards, 133 Cal. 527, 65 Pac. 1034, holding evidence by woman of solemnization of marriage with intestate, followed by cohabitation and residence, admissible to determine which of two widows entitled to estate; People v. Hartman, 130 Cal. 490, 62 Pac. 823, holding evidence of general repute of marriage admissible in trial for bigamy; Harron v. Harron, 128 Cal. 310, 60 Pac. 932, holding divorce cannot be granted from marriage never solemnized, the existence of which was evidenced only by illicit relations, and unsupported statement of woman; Summerville v. Summerville, 31 Wash. 416, 72 Pac. 84, holding marriage established by proof of cohabitation as man and wife and testimony as to service supposed by wife to have been performed by clergyman; Hinckley v. Ayres, 105 Cal. 360, 38 Pac. 735, holding marriage not proved, where parties living together were not shown to have treated the relation as that of husband and wife.
Cited in footnotes to Re McLaughlin, 16 L. R. A. 699, which holds common-law marriage invalid under statute; Nims v. Thompson, 17 L. R. A. 847, which holds finding of marriage justified by evidence; Re Hurlburt, 35 L. R. A. 794, which holds general reputation in family as to death of member, not derived from deceased members of family, inadmissible.
Cited in notes (14 L. R. A. 364) on cohabitation as proof of marriage where it begins unlawfully; (41 L. R. A. 449) on entries in family Bible or other religious book as evidence.
When reversal allowed because of leading question.
Cited in Casey v. Leggett, 125 Cal. 673, 58 Pac. 264; Kyle v. Craig, 125 Cal. 113, 57 Pac. 791, holding case will not be reversed because of allowance of leading question, unless discretion abused.
Failure to find on issue.
Cited in Smith v. Smith, 119 Cal. 190, 48 Pac. 730, holding omission to find upon facts alleged in answer immaterial, where evidence not sufficient to support finding of facts as alleged.
7 L. R. A. 809, ASHTON v. DASHAWAY ASSO. 84 Cal. 61, 22 Pac. 660, 23
7 L. R. A. 812, BENTON v. SHAFER, 47 Ohio St. 117, 24 N. E. 197. Notice of pendency of action.
Cited in footnote to Mach v. Blanchard, 58 L. R. A. 811, which holds mortgagee of land restored to mortgagor by default judgment against his grantee, takes subject to having title defeated by opening of judgment.
Cited in note (8 L. R. A. 553) on effect of notice of pendency of suit.
7 L. R. A. 817, MOLETOR v. SINXEN, 76 Wis. 308, 20 Am. St. Rep. 71, 44 V.
Cited in footnote to Re Little, 57 L. R. A. 295, which holds prisoner transferred to other state for trial in Federal court may be turned over to state authorities.
Cited in notes (14 L. R. A. 129) on extradition from sister state, right to try prisoner for other crime than that for which he was surrendered; (25 L. R. A. 722, 723, 724, 727, 728, 731) on privilege of nonresident from suit. Privilege from arrest or process.
Cited in footnote to Murray v. Wilcox, 64 L. R. A. 534, which holds defendant in criminal case attending trial exempt from service of civil process.
7 L. R. A. 819, WEBER v. KANSAS CITY CABLE R. CO. 100 Mo. 194, 18 Am.
St. Rep. 541, 12 S. W. 804, 13 S. W. 587. Violation of ordinance.
Cited in l. eller v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 120 Mo. 654, 23 S. W. 1061, holding driving horse at speed prohibited by ordinance negligence per se. Negligence of defendant.
Cited in Van Natta v. People's Street R. Electric Light & P. Co. 133 Mo. 22, 34 S. W. 505, reversing because of instruction imposing upon carrier higher degree of care than required by law. Recovery defeated by contributory negligence.
Cited in Corcoran v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. 105 Mo. 40G, 24 Am. St. Rep. 394, 16 S. W. 411, holding act of climbing over stationary cars contributory negligence. Direction of verdiet.
Cited in Weaver v. Benton-Bellefontaine R. Co. 60 Mo. App. 208. reversing judgment without remanding, on ground trial court should have directed verdict for defendant; Moore v. Kansas City, St. S. & M. R. ('o. 146 Mo. 580, 48 S. W. 487, holding voluntary choice of dangerous course when safer one was open, contributory negligence as matter of law.
Cited in footnote to Hopkins v. Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. 32 L. R. A. 354, which sustains practice of demurring to evidence. When contributory negligence a question for jury.
Cited in Kreis v. Missouri P. R. Co. 131 Mo. 545, 30 S. W. 310, holding on conllicting evidence contributory negligence question for jury; Church v. Chicago & A. R. ('0. 119 Mo. 214, 23 S. W. 1056, holding questions for jury where facts though undisputed would lead sensible men to different conclusions; Eikenberry v. St. Louis Transit Co. 103 Mo. App. 451, SO S. W. 360; Dawson v. St. Louis Transit ('o. 102 Mo. App. 283, 76 S. W. 689, holding it mixed question of law and fact whether passenger boarding or alighting from slowly moving car guilty of contributory negligence; Hornstein v. United Railways Co. 97 Mo. App. 278, 70 S. W. 1105, holding it question for jury whether crossing street car tracks without stopping to see whether car approaching, contributory negligence; Root v. Des Moines City R. Co. 113 Iowa, 680, 83 N. W. 904, and Fulks v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. 111 Mo. 340, 19 S. W. 818, holding that getting upon slowly moving train, especially
at platform, is not negligence as matter of law; Hansberger v. Sedalia Electric R. Light & Power Co. 82 Mo. App. 579, holding question whether person was guilty of contributory negligence in ge
wly moving car, for jury; Eberly v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 96 Mo. App. 369, 70 S. W. 381, holding that where inference to be drawn from evidence is uncertain, question of negligence cannot be passed upon by court; McDonald v. Kansas ('ity & I. Rapid Transit R. Co. 127 No. 43, 29 S. W. 848, holding passenger not guilty of contributory neg. ligence per se in getting off slowly moving train, under conductor's direction, without looking to see if a train is approaching.
Cited in notes (11 L. R. A. 396) on passenger alighting from moving train; (38 L. R. A. 787) on negligence in getting on or off moving train. Determination of contributory negligence per
Cited in Citizens' Street R. Co. v. Spahr, 7 Ind. App. 31, 33 N. E. 446, holding whether person is guilty of negligence in boarding street car depends upon facts of each particular case; Dewald v. Kansas City, Ft. S. & G. R. Co. 44 Kan. 590, 24 Pac. 1101, holding person jumping from moving train before reaching station guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law; Hughes v. Fagin, 46 Mo. App. 47 (dissenting opinion), majority holding carpenter not guilty of contributory negligence per se, leaning part of his body in elevator shaft while elevator in use above him. Proceeding after overruling of demurrer to evidence.
Cited in Storck v. Mesker, 55 Mo. App. 32, holding demurrer to evidence waived by defendant by introduction of evidence; Cain v. Gold Mountain Min. Co. 27 Mont. 535, 71 Pac. 1004, holding defendant assumes risk of supplying defects, by offering evidence after refusal of nonsuit; Fuchs v. St. Louis, 167 Mo. 631, 57 L. R. A. 139, 67 S. W. 610, considering whole evidence upon defendant's saving point of court's refusal to find for defendant at close of case.
Cited in note (8 L. R. A. 5:39) on electric railways in city streets. Carrier's duty as to safety of passengers.
Cited in Fillingham v. St. Louis Transit Co. 102 Mo. App. 582, 77 S. W. 314, holding carrier's duty as to safety of passenger requires latter to be put off at reasonably safe place. Proximate cause.
Cited in Shareman v. St. Louis Transit Co. 103 Mo. App. 529, 78 S. W. 846, holding woman's conduct, in stepping off of moving car, without peril to confuse her, proximate cause of injury.
7 L. R. A. 822, DOUGLASS v. MERCHANTS' INS. CO. 118 X. Y. 484, 23 N. E.
806. Accounting by corporation officers.
Cited in footnote to Eaton v. Robinson, 29 L. R. A. 100, which requires officers to account for salaries voted and paid to deprive stockholders of rights. Presumption of continuance of contract of employinent.
Cited in Mason v. Secor, 76 Hun, 179, 27 X. Y. Supp. 570, holding continuation of employee in service of new partnership raises no presumption of continuation