Imágenes de páginas

the vouchers withdrawn from the package BIBLE. and destroyed before the genuine ones are Reading of, in public schools, see Condelivered to him, which he does not dis

stitutional Law, 19; Schools, 3. cover, he cannot charge the bank with the loss if it was not negligent in paying the BILL OF REVIEW. checks. Morgan v. United States Mortg. & See Review. T. Co. L.R.A.1915D, 741, 101 N. E. 871, 208 N. Y. 218.

(Annotated) BILL OF SALE. Insolvency.

As violation of condition in insurance Officer's liability on bond for loss of

policy, see Insurance, 8, 9.
money by failure of bank, see

Fraudulent sale by insolvent bank of
shares of its capital stock, see Cor-

Recovery of money paid on forged

draft against United States Treasporations, 11. Estoppel of bank to deny statements

ury, see Assumpsit, 2. concerning deposit to credit of an- Negotiability. other insolvent bank, see Estoppel, 1. Uncertainty as to the rate of inter2.

est in a note, so as to render it non-negotiSet-off in case of, see Set-Off and Coun- able, is not created by drawing with a pen a terclaim, 2.

ring around the figures representing such 5. One who has deposited checks on ac- rate as inserted by a typewriter in a printed count in an insolvent bank is not prevented note blank, and placing a figure above it from having payment on them stopped and with a pen, where the statute provides that reclaiming them from the bank's receiver, where there is a conflict between the writby the fact that they have been forwarded ten and printed provisions in a contract, to a correspondent bank and credited to the the written ones must prevail, since the account of the insolvent one, if the corres-typewritten figures must be regarded as pondent makes no claim to them. Knafil printed. Acme Coal Co. v. Northrup Nat. v. Knoxville Bkg. & T. Co. L.R.A.1915D, Bank, L.R.A.1915D, 1084, 146 Pac. 593, 402, 170 S. W. 476, 130 Tenn. 336. Wyo.

(Annotated) (Annotated) | Indorsement and transfer.

2. The defense of failure of consideraBATHING RESORT.

tion is not available under the negotiable 1. The ownership of premises is not es- instrument law against an indorsee of a sential to the liability of a person who op- negotiable note, unless prior to or at the erates or maintains a bath house where time of his purchase he had notice of inbathing suits are furnished for hire, at a firmity in the note, or knowledge of such seaside resort, for injuries due to his neg- facts that taking the instrument amounted ligence in failing to maintain proper and to bad faith. Acme Coal Co. v. Northrup safe life lines and life rafts for the pro- Nat. Bank, L.R.A.1915D, 1084, 146 Pac. 593, tection of his patrons. McKinney v. Adams, Wyo. L.R.A.1915D, 442, 66 So. 988, Fla.

3. The payee of a note unenforceable 2. An action may be maintained against because of lack of consideration cannot, by a person who operates or maintains a bath repurchasing the paper after transferring house where bathing suits are furnished for it to a bona fide purchaser for value, withhire, at a seaside resort, for negligence in out notice, acquire the rights of such purfailing to maintain proper and safe life chaser, so as to hold the paper free from lines and rafts for the protection of his equities. Shade v. Hayes, L.R.A.1915D, 271, patrons, by a patron not guilty of con- 151 N. W. 42, S. D. tributory negligence who is injured as Who are bona fide purchasers. proximate result of the negligence of such 4. A director of a corporation to whom operator or his agents, where the statute a note payable to the corporation has been makes it the duty of a person operating or transferred by vote of its board of directors, maintaining such a bath house to maintain for value and before maturity, but after at all times proper and safe life lines and the consideration therefor had failed and life rafts for the protection of bathers, and the company had been notified of that fact, prescribes a fine or imprisonment or both is not a purchaser in good faith so as to for failure to comply with the duty. Mc-entitle him to maintain a suit on the note Kinney v. Adams, L.R.A.1915D, 442, 66 So. against the makers notwithstanding the fail988, Fla.

(Annotated) ure of consideration. Hardin v. Dale, L.R.A. 1915D, 1099, 146 Pac. 717, Okla

(Annotated) BENEVOLENT SOCIETIES. Insurance by, see Insurance,


Injury through fright caused by, see BETTING.

Fright, 2. See Gaming

One blasting out a trench under mu

nicipal authority in a publie street in which BIAS.

to lay a gas pipe is not, in the absence of Of juror, see Appeal and Error, 12. negligence, liable in tort for the flow of


water into a cellar on one side of the street, unless it is made bona fide, and unless, from a pond on the opposite side, because also, the plaintiff has not signified an inof the disturbance of the earth by the blasts. tention to regard the contract as at an end. McGinnis v. Marlborough-Hudson Gas Co. Corduan v. McCloud (N. J. Err. & App.), L.R.A.1915D, 1080, 108 N. E. 364, 220 Mass. L.R.A.1915D, 1190, 93 Atl. 724, N. J. 575.



BREAKING. Of note, see Bills and Notes, 4.

Sufliciency of, to constitute burglary,

see Burglary. BONDS. Recovery of unearned premium upon

BRIDGES. bond of public officer, see Assump

The cost of the construction of sit, 1.

bridges on the public highway across a Right of legislature to divert proceeds drainage ditch constructed by a drainage

of county bonds, see Counties. district must be borne by the county, and By person engaging in messenger busi- not by the drainage district, where the ness, see License, 1.

bridges are a public necessity and convenContribution between sureties on bond ience, and where the estimated cost of such

of public oflicer, see Principal and construction was deducted from the share Surety.

levied upon the county as its portion of the Set-off in action on official bond, see cost of the improvement, on the theory that Set-Off and Counterclaim, 1. the county was damaged to the extent of

such cost of construction, and no appeal A town treasurer who, upon re-elec- was taken from such action. Wilkins v. tion to office, continues a deposit account of Hillman, L.R.A.1915D, 249, 145 Pac. 1111, the town's money in a bank so insolvent Okla. that it cannot pay the amount, does not, although he is ignorant of the true conditions, BROKERS. account for it within the meaning of his official bond satisfying its obligation in benefits of a contract for sale negotiated

1. A property owner cannot accept the case of such accounting, so to relieve the by a broker finally compensated by him, surety from liability in case the account is although he acted originally for the purlost because of the bank's insolvency. chaser without ratifying the statements as Yawger v. American Surety Co. L.R.A.

to the income of the property made by 1915D, 481, 106 N. E. 64, 212 N. Y. 292.

the broker to effect the sale. Whitney v.

Bissell, L.R.A.1915D, 257, 146 Pac. 141, BOOKS.

Or. Right to inspect books of corporation, 2. The agreement by a property owner see Corporation, 7, 7a, 24.

to pay a broker a commission for selling

the property, knowing that he was employed BREACH.

by the buyer, is a fraud upon the rights of Of covenant, see Covenants and Con- the buyer, if the agreement was not assentditions, 3.

ed to by him. Whitney v. Bissell, L.R.A.

1915D, 257, 146 Pac. 141, Or. BREACH OF PROMISE.

BROTHER. Prematurity of action for, see Action or Suit, 1.

Right to appointment as administrator, Oral promise to marry, see Contracts,

see Executors and Administrators, 3.

la. Validity of contract of marriage, see Contracts, 6.

BUILDINGS. Presumptions and burden of proof in

Denial of equal protection of laws by action for, see Evidence, 10.

building regulations, see Constitu. Good faith of tender of performanc

tional Law, 2. of promise as question for jury,

Police power as to, see Constitutional see Trial, 3.

Law, 17.

Restrictions in covenants, see Covenants 1. A right of action for breach of prom

and Conditions, 2. ise of marriage is not affected by an at- Injunction to prevent destruction of, tempted contract of settlement which is

under void municipal ordinance, invalid because in restraint of marriage.

see Injunction, 4. McCoy v. Flynn, L.R.A.1915D, 1064, 151 Lien on, see Mechanics' Liens. N. W. 465, Iowa,

Delegation of power as to, see Munici2. Defendant's offer of marriage after

pal Corporations, 4. breach is as a rule no defense. Corduan Forbidding storage of inflammable subv. McCloud (N. J. Err. & App.) L.R.A.

stances in garage in certain loca19151, 1190, 93 Atl. 724, N. J.

tions, see Municipal Corporations, 3. An offer on the part of the defend

11. ant to fulfil the promise of marriage after Partial invalidity of ordinance estabhis refusal to do so, or a renewed offer in,

lishing fire limits, see Municipal his answer or in open court, is not a defense

Corporations, 5.


1. Power to forbid the construction of 3. The opening wider of a chicken house a public garage in a city block without the door which had been left partly open by the consent of a majority of the property own-owner, and was held in position by means ers is conferred upon a municipal corpora- of a fence post placed on one side thereof tion by statutory authority to direct the and a brick on the other, by removing the location and regulate the use and construc-post and brick, without which removal no tion of garages, inter alia, within the city entry could have been made into the buildlimits. People ex rel. Busching v. Ericsson, ing, constitutes a forcible breaking within L.R.A.1915D, 607, 105 N. E. 315, 263 Ill. the meaning of a burglary statute. Goins 368.

v. State, L.R.A.1915D, 241, 107 N. E. 335, 2. Power to direct the location and Ohio St. reguate the use and construction of garages does not authorize a municipal corporation BURIAL INSURANCE. to forbid their location within the city See Insurance, 1. limits. People ex rel. Busching v. Ericsson, L.R.A.1915D, 607, 105 N. E. 315, 263 Ill. BY-LAWS. 368.

Of insurance company, see Insurance, 3. 3. Requiring one who desires to operate a public garage in or within 100 feet of a

CABOOSE. city block in which two thirds of the buildings on both sides of the street are used

Statute as to remodelling or construc

tion of, see Action or Suit, 2; Comexclusively for residences, to secure sent from a majority of the property own.

merce; Evidence, 3; Statutes, 4.

Judicial notice as to safety of, see Eviers, is not unreasonable. People ex rel. Busching v. Ericsson, L.R.A.1915D, 607, 105

dence, 3. N. E. 315, 263 lll. 368. 4. Forbidding the location of a public

CANALS. garage within 200 feet of a church is not Jurisdiction of railway commission unreasonable. People ex rel. Busching v.

over question of ownership of irriEricsson, L.R.A.1915D, 607, 105 N. E. 315,

gation canal, see Public Service 263 111. 368.

Commissions, 1. 5 Statutory power to establish limits within which no building composed of com. CANCELATION OF INSTRUMENTS. bustible material shall be erected does not Of stock subscription, see Corporations, authorize an ordinance establishing limits

11. within which no such building shall be erected without permission of the mayor and | CARRIERS. council. Hays v. Poplar Bluff, L.R.A. Statute as to construction or remodel1915D, 595, 173 S. W. 676, Mo.

ling of caboose, see Action or Suit,

2; Commerce; Evidence, 3; StatBURDEN OF PROOF.

utes, 4. In general, see Evidence, 4-20.

Forbidding person to act as conductor

without having previously served BURGLARY.

as freight conductor or brakeman, Loss of passenger's baggage by, see Car

see Constitutional Law, 11. riers, 7.

As to elevators, see Elevators. Evidence in prosecution for, see Evi

Injury to employee, see Master and dence, 25, 33.

Servant. Competency of witnesses in prosecu.

Irrigation company as a common cartion for, see Witnesses, 1.

rier, see Waters, 4. 1. An employee's opening a building at Measure of care required; negligence a time when his duties did not require him

generally. to do so, by means of a key furnished him

Measure of damages for injury to pasby the employer for the limited purpose of

senger, see Damages, 5. opening the store for business in the morn

1. A carrier which, after injury to a ing, followed by his taking property of his boy upon its car, takes him, against the employer therefrom with intent to convert protest of his guardian, to its own surgeon it to his own use, is a sufficient breaking to for treatment, is liable for any injury constitute burglary.

State v. Corcoran, which the surgeon may inflict upon him L.R.A.1915D, 1015, 143 Pac. 453, 82 Wash. through malpractice, whether it used care 44.

(Annotated) in the selection of a surgeon or not. Eas2. Burglary may be established by ler v. Columbia Railway, G. & E. Co. L.R.A. proof of the breaking out as well as break. | 1915D, 883, 84 S. E. 417, S. C. ing in, under statutes providing punish

(Annotated) ment for anyone who shall feloniously break 2. The negligence of a person in peril any dwelling house and take away anything on a highway crossing, which requires the of value, and requiring statutes in deroga application of the emergency brake to the tion of the common law to be liberally con- train, does not relieve the carrier from liastrued with a view to promote their objects. bility for consequent injury to a passenger Lawson v. Com. L.R.A.1915D, 972, 169 S. W. if the necessity of resort to such brake was 587, 160 Ky. 180.

(Annotated) 'due to its own negligence. Dorr v. Lehigh

causes, one

Valley R. Co. L.R.A.1915D, 368, 105 N. E. Negligence as question for jury, see 652, 211 N. Y. 369.


Trial, 4. 3. A railroad company cannot avoid Question for jury as to fairness of conliability for injury to a passenger by the

tract limiting liability, see Trial, 6. application of the emergency brake to avoid 8. In order that a carrier may relieve collision with a traveler on a highway cross- itself from liability for loss of, or damage ing on the theory that it might assume to, goods while in transit, it is necessary that he would leave the track in time to for it to show that the loss or damage escape injury, if he was manifestly uncon- arose solely from one or more of the exceptscious of the approach of the train. Dorr ed causes; it is not sufficient for it merely v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. L.R.A.1915D, 368, to show that the shipper was negligent, if 105 N. E. 652, 211 N. Y. 369.

the loss or damage would not have resulted 4. A railroad company is liable for in- except for the concurring fault of the carjury to a passenger by the sudden applica- rier. Northwestern Marble & Tile Co. v. tion of the emergency brake to avoid strik Williams, L.R.A.1915D, 1077, 151 N. W. ing a traveler at a highway crossing if it 419, 128 Minn, 514. was negligent in failing to warn him or to 9. A common carrier is at common observe his danger in time to avoid the ac- law an insurer of the goods shipped, and cident without resort to the emergency is responsible for all losses except those brake. Dorr v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. L.R.A. arising from certain exce 1915D, 368, 105 N. E. 652, 211 N. Y. 369. of which is improper packing by the shipper. Leaving at destination.

Northwestern Marble & Tile Co. v. Wil5. A railroad company is not liable for liams, L.R.A.1915D, 1077, 151 N. W. 419, carrying past his destination a passenger 128 Minn. 514. who knowingly boards a train not scheduled 10. If improper packing in a shipment to stop there, although the gateman and offered to a carrier is apparent to the carbrakeman made no objection to his boarding rier or his servants, he may refuse to rethe train, if the conductor, upon ascertain-ceive the shipment, but if he receives it he ing his destination, informed him that the assumes to carry the goods as they are, train would not stop, and advised him to and the full common-law liability as carleave it at a suitable intermediate stopping rier attaches. Northwestern Marble & Tile place and wait for another train. Louis- Co. v. Williams, L.R.A.1915D, 1077, 151 N. ville & N. R. Co. v. Gaddie, L.R.A.1915D, W. 419, 128 Minn. 514. 705, 172 S. W. 514, 162 Ky. 205.

11. Although a carrier has knowledge of

(Annotated) defective packing in goods shipped, yet, if Limitation of liability.

it is not apparent to the ordinary observaEffect of Federal employer's liability tion of the carrier or his servants that the

act to invalidate contract exempt goods cannot be safely carried in the coning carrier from liability for in- dition in which they are presented, the jury to Pullman porter, see Mas- carrier should not be held to take the ter and Servant, 1.

chances of injury from improper packing. 6. One who, when employed as a Pull- Northwestern Marble & Tile Co. v. Wil. man porter, agrees to protect the Pullman liams. L.R.A.1915D, 1077, 151 N. W. 419,

(Annotated) Company in its contracts by which it under- | 128 Minn. 514. takes to indemnify railroad companies

12. An act of God, such as against liability for injuries to Pullman blizzard and snowstorm, which will excuse employees, deprives himself of the right to a carrier from liability for loss, must not maintain an action against the railroad only be the proximate cause of the loss, company for injuries received in the course but it must be the sole cause, and though of his employmentt. Robinson v. Baltimore the loss may have been caused by an act & 0. R. Co. L.R.A.1915D, 510, 40 App. D. C. of God, yet, if the negligence of the de169.

fendant commirgles with such act of God Baggage or property of passenger.

an efficient, contributing, concurrent 7. A passenger who does not claim his cause, and it appears from the evidence and baggage at destination until forty-eight the circumstances of the case that such inhours after its arrival cannot hold the car. jury would not have occurred except for rier liable as insurer for loss of the bag. such negligence, the company will be liable. gage twenty-four hours before by burglary, St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Dreyfus, L.R.A. although he failed to reach destination ear- 1915D, 547, 141 Pac. 773, 42 Okla. 401. lier because of inability to procure sleeping car accommodations, if he did not notify the while in the hands of a common carrier,

13. Where property is injured or lost carrier that he would not accompany the baggage. Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Doyle,

the shipper may sue the carrier upon the L.R.A.1915D, 113, 145 Pac. 688, Colo.

latter's common-law liability, without reFreight carriers.

gard to the existence of any special conLiability of carrier for injury by live tract of shipment that may have been

stock escaping from cars, see Ani- entered into limiting the carrier's liability, mals.

thus leaving it to the defendant to plead Presumption and burden of proof as to such contract by way of defense. McGrath negligence, see Evidence, 14, 15;

v. Northern P. R. Co. L.R.A.1915D, 644, 141 Trial, 11.

N. W, 164, 121 Minn. 258.




Governmental control; rates: discrimi- , stations, although the order must be executnation.

| ed by the receivers, and the statute is not Regulation of interstate business of, see | made expressly applicable to them, where, Commerce, 1.

by statute, a railroad company includes any Due process in regulations as to depots, person operating a railroad. Railroad Comsee Constitutional Law, 9.

mission v. Alabama G. S. R. Co. L.R.A. Police power as to depots, see Constitu- 1915D, 98, 64 So. 13, 185 Ala. 354. tional Law, 18.

20. A requirement under statutory auPresumption in support of order of thority that a union depot be constructed

Railroad Commission, see Evidence, by several railroads, one of which is in 4.

possession of receivers, is within the operMandamus to compel receivers to obey ation of the Federal statute requiring re

order to join in construction of ceivers appointed by Federal courts to obey

union depot, see Mandamus, 1. the valid laws of the states in which the Review by courts of order of Railroad property under their control is located.

Commission as to union depot, see Railroad Commission v. Alabama G. S. R.

Public Service Commissions, 2. Co. L.R.A.1915D, 98, 64 So. 13, 185 Ala. 354. 14. A Railroad Commission has author- 21. An order of a Railroad Commission ity to change the location of depots former requiring the construction and maintely established, under statutory power to nance of a union depot by several railroad hear petitions for the establishment, en companies is not invalid in not fixing the largement, equipment, and discontinuance exact spot where it is to be located, if the of depots, and determine the character of general location is designated. Railroad construction, equipment, change or enlarge Commission v. Alabama G. S. R. Co. L.R.A. ment of depots which shall be supplied. St. 1915D, 98, 64 So. 13, 185 Ala. 354. Louis, I. & M. & S. R. Co. v. Bellamy, L.R.A. 22. An order of a Railroad Commission 1915D, 91, 169 S. W. 322, 113 Ark. 384. requiring the construction of a union depot

(Annotated) is not invalid because it does not furnish 15. The Railroad Commission, in locat- the plans and specifications. Railroad Coming a railroad depot, is not bound to adopt mission v. Alabama G. S. R. Co. L.R.A. the exact location set forth in the petition 1915D, 98, 64 So. 13, 185 Ala. 354. therefor, where the statute does not require the petition to define the place of location CASE. or require the Commission to adopt the Conspiracy to secure discharge of emspot which may be designated by petition.

ployee, see Conspiracy. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Bellamy, Evidence in action for damages for seL.R.A.1915D, 91, 169 S. W. 322, 113 Ark.

curing discharge of employee, see 384.

Evidence, 21. 16. Authority to require the abandon. ment of present facilities is included in a CASES CERTIFIED. grant of power to a Railroad Commission to

The appellate division, in allowing an require railroad companies to maintain a appeal in a criminal case to the court of union station. Railroad Commission v. Ala- appeals, is not bound to formulate and cerbama, G. S. R. Co. L.R.A.1915D, 98, 64 So. tify a specific question. People On. Com13, 185 Ala. 354.

plaint of Pugliese v Ekerold, L.R.A.1915D, 17. Locating a depot at a place where 223, 105 N. E. 670, 211 N. Y. 386. the main line of the railroad will be upon a curve and a branch line upon a grade is CASHIER. not so unreasonable and arbitrary as to Refusal to answer question propounded make the order of location void where the

by grand jury, see Contempt, 3, 4. curve is not greater than that upon which other depots are located, and the railway CAUSE. company owns land sufficient to enable it

Presumption and burden of proof as to, to straighten the tracks for several hundred

see Evidence, 12, 13. feet at the place of location. St. Louis, I. Of death or injury of insured, see InM. & S. R. Co. v. Bellamy, L.R.A.1915D, 91,

surance, 22, 23. 169 S. W. 322, 113 Ark. 384,

18. Arbitrary power is not conferred | CERTIFICATE. upon a Railroad Commission by granting Presumption as to truth of certificate it authority to require railroad companies

of public officer, see Evidence, 19. within a particular city to construct and Certificate of redemption, see Mortgage, maintain union stations when the necessi

4. ties of the case, in its judgment, requires it, so as to make the statute unconstitu- CERTIFIED QUESTION. tional. Railroad Commission V. Alabama, See Cases Certified. G. S. R. Co. L.R.A.1915D, 98, 64 So. 13, 185 Ala. 354.

(Annotated) | CERTIORARI. 19. That a railroad company is in pos. l'pon certiorari to review the action session of receivers does not take it out of of a municipal council in reassessing the the operation of a statute providing that cost of a special improvement upon abutting railroad companies may be required, under property the court is confined to an examipenalty, to construct and maintain union ' nation of the records and the proceedings

« AnteriorContinuar »