« AnteriorContinuar »
of the council resulting in the assessment. I A state may, without interfering Reiff v. Portland, L.R.A.1915D, 772, 141 Pac. with the commerce clause of the Federal 167, 142 Pac. 827, 71 Or. 421.
Constitution, prescribe the length of and
form of running gear upon caboose cars CHANGE.
used in the state; at least in the absence of Of judge, see Judges.
any legislation by Congress or attempted
regulation by the Interstate Commerce ComCHARACTER.
upon the subject. Pittsburgh, C. Presumption as to, see Evidence, 6. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. State, L.R.A.1915D,
458, 102 N. E. 25, 180 Ind. 245. CHATTEL MORTGAGE. Priority over chattel mortgage of lien | COMMERCIAL TRAVELERS. for repairs, see Liens, 2, 3.
Right to discharge, see Master and Right to question statute existing
Servant, 4, 5.
Public Service Commissions, see Public
Service Commissions. Under a statute making all taxes upon personal property a first lien on all
COMMON CARRIERS. personal property of the person against
See Carriers. whom they are assessed, an assessment of a personal property tax will take precedence,
COMMON LAW. as to the entire tax on the owner's personalty, of an existing chattel mortgage given
Right of shipper to sue carrier on com
mon-law liability and ignore conto secure the purchase price of a particular article of machinery. Minneapolis Thresh
tract limiting liability, see Car
riers, 13. ing Mach. Co. v. Roberts County, L.R.A. 1915D, 886, 149 N. W. 163, - S. D.
Presumption as to alteration of, by (Annotated)
statute, see Statutes, 6.
Consideration of, in construction and CHURCHES.
application of statutes declaratory Forbidding location of garage near, see
thereof, see Statutes, 7. Buildings, 4; Municipal Corpora
Revival of, by repeal of statute, see
Statutes, 9. tions, 6.
The common law, in general terms, CITIES.
is the law in Tennessee. Moss v. State, See Municipal Corporations.
L.R.A.1915D, 361, 173 S. W. 859, Tenn.
white and colored persons, see Con- Of plaintiff, see Pleading, 3, 4.
Of decree, see Judgment. Against decedent's estate, see Executors and Administrators.
CONDEMNATION. Against municipality, moral obliga
Of property, see Eminent Domain. tion to pay, see Municipal Corporations, 2, 3.
CONDITION. Against city, presentation of, see Municipal Corporations, 16.
To taking of appeal, see Appeal and Er.
Relating to real property, see Covenants CLOUD ON TITLE.
and Conditions. Conclusiveness in action to quiet title
In insurance policy, see Insurance. against one redeeming from mort
Precedent to mandamus proceeding, see gage sale, of foreclosure decree, see Judgment, 2.
Mandamus, 1. CLUBS.
CONDITION SUBSEQUENT. Forbidding keeping of intoxicating li- In insurance policy, see Insurance, 5.
quor in, see Constitutional Law, 6;
See Privileged Communications.
See Trial, 9.
state railroad company, see Gar- of property owners to construction of ga.
rage, see Buildings, 1, 3.
Of property owner to erection of non- granting exclusive privileges. Rochester v.
fireproof building, see Municipal Gutberlett, L.R.A. 1915D, 209, 105 N. E. Corporations, 4.
548, 211 N. Y. 309.
4. A provision in a statute for the liCONSIDERATION.
censing of dentists preserving the rights of For note, see Bills and Notes, 2-4. those licensed and registered at the time of
its passage does not affect the constitutional CONSPIRACY.
rights of one licensed at the time in anEvidence in action securing discharge
other state, who, under the statute, must of employee, see Evidence, 21.
comply with its terms to secure a license to Evidence to show, see Evidence, 41.
practise in the state after the passage of
the statute. People v. Griswold, L.R.A. 1. Workmen cannot lawfully combine 1915D, 538, 106 N. E. 929, 213 N. Y. 92. to secure the discharge of a fellow work- 5. A provision authorizing the granting man by notifying the employer that they of a license to practise dentistry to persons will quit if he is not discharged, merely holding a license in other states, granted because he makes conditions so unpleasant by a state board of dental examiners "infor them that they do not care to work dorsed by the dental society of the state” with him. Bausbach v. Reiff, L.R.A.1915D, passing the statute, is not unconstitutional 785, 91 Atl. 224, 244 Pa. 559.
as granting an exclusive privilege or fran2. Neither a labor union nor the memchise to a private corporation, since the bers thereof are liable to a nonmember who grant is not a privilege, but a duty to dewas discharged from his employment be- termine the standard exacted by other states cause of a demand therefor made by the for dental licenses. People v. Griswold, authorized agents and committees of the L.R.A.1915D, 538, 106 N. Ê. 929, 213 N. Y. labor organization, who informed the com- 92. mon employer that if such nonunion man 6. A state does not unconstitutionally was not discharged, the union men would deprive one of equal protection of the laws strike. Roddy v. United Mine Workers of by forbidding the keeping of intoxicating America, L.R.A.1915D, 789, 139 Pac. 126, liquor in any locker or other place in any 41 Okla. 621.
social club, or carrying it to such club,
although a property right in such liquors CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. is recognized by the law. State v. Phillips, Who may maintain action to determine L.R.A.1915D, 530, 67 So. 651, Miss.
constitutionality of act providing Due process of law; right to life, libfor, see Parties, 5.
erty, and property. Who may maintain suit to determine 7. “Due process of law” implies the ad
result of election on question of, see ministration of laws which apply equally Parties, 6.
to all persons according to established rules,
and which are "not violative of the fundaCONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
mental principles of private right, by a Who may question constitutionality of competent tribunal having jurisdiction of statute, see Action or Suit, 2.
the case and proceeding upon notice and Refusal to pass upon constitutionality
hearing.” Frank v. State, L.R.A.1915D, of statute not necessary to decision 817, 83 S. E. 645, 142 Ga. 741.
8. No constitutional property rights of of case, see Courts, 2. Relation of courts to other departments
one desiring to procure garbage for stock of government, see Courts, 3.
are infringed by limiting the right to colVested right of beneficiary in insurance
lect it in a particular city to one licensed
collector. Rochester v. Gutberlett, L.R.A. policy, see Insurance, 5, 25, 26. Right to trial by jury, see Jury.
1915D, 209, 105 N. E. 548, 211 N. Y. 309. Vested right to practise law, see Jury,
9. Requiring the rebuilding of a rail
road depot which has been destroyed by fire, Separation of powers.
upon a new location the title to which must 1. The constitutional provision distrib. be acquired and which will require an abanuting the power of government into depart- donment of the old location, is not an unments is not violated by a statute exclud constitutional taking of property if the difing Greek letter fraternities from state ference in cost of the establishment and schools. University of Mississippi v. Waugh, maintenance of the depot upon the respecL.R.A.1915D, 588, 62 So. 827, 105 Miss. 623. tive locations is not unreasonable. St. Equal protection and privileges. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Bellamy, L.R.A.
2. A municipal ordinance prohibiting 1915D, 91, 169 S. W. 322, 113 Ark. 384. the erection of buildings composed of com
10. No constitutional privileges or propbustible materials within certain limits erty rights are denied by making renunciawithout permission of the mayor and coun- tion of allegiance to Greek letter fraternities cil is unconstitutional as granting special a condition to becoming students in schools privileges. Hays v. Poplar Bluff, L.R.A. supported by the state. University of Mis1915D, 595, 173 S. W. 676, — Mo.
sissippi v. Waugh, L.R.A.1915D, 588, 62 So. 3. An ordinance limiting the collection 827, 105 Miss. 623.
(Annotated) of garbage in a particular city to one li- | 11. An unconstitutional infringement of censed collector is not unconstitutional as the liberty of contract without due process of law results from a provision of a state | v. State, L.R.A.1915D, 817, 83 S. E. 645, 142 statute which makes it a misdemeanor for Ga. 741. any person to act as a conductor on a rail. Police power. way train in that state without having pre- 17. The police power extends to the forviously served for two years as a freight bidding of the construction of a public conductor or brakeman. Smith v. State, garage within a city block without consent L.R.A.1915D, 677, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 681, of a majority of the owners of property in 233 U. S. 630, 58 L. ed. 1129.
such block, without depriving the one seeko
(Annotated) ing to do so of any right of liberty or prop12. A statute requiring a print or pack- erty. People ex rel. Busching v. Ericsson, age to contain 16 oz. avoirdupois, or, in L.R.A.1915D, 607, 105 N. E. 315, 2.3 III. case of a less weight, the weight to be dis- 368. closed by the seller to the buyer, or a state- 18. The police power extends to requirment of the net weight to be made upon a ing railroad companies entering a particular label attached thereto, is not violative of city jointly to acquire the necessary prop8 17, art. 2, of the Constitution of the state erty and construct and maintain a union of Kansas, nor of the 14th Amendment to passenger station. Railroad Commission v. the Constitution of the United States, in Alabama G. S. R. Co. L.R.A.1915D, 98, 64 that it deprives persons of liberty or prop- So. 13, 185 Ala. 354.
(Annotated) erty without due process of law. State v. Religious freedom. Belle Springs Creamery Co. L.R.A.1915D, 19. The reading of the Bible, including 515, 111 Pac. 474, 83 Kan. 389.
the Old and New Testaments, in the public 13. A statute imposing a fine or im schools of a state, is a preference given to prisonment or both for the use of a false Christians, and a discrimination against weight, measure, balance, or measuring de- Jews, and a resolution directing this to be vice, and making the one guilty of the use done is invalid under a Constitution prothereof liable to the injured party in double viding that every person has a natural right the amount of the property wrongfully to worship God according to the dictates taken or not given, and for $10 in addition of his conscience, and that no preference thereto, and making the selling and deliv- shall ever be given to or any discrimination ery of any commodity or article of mer- made against any church, sect, or creed of chandise prima facie evidence of represen- religion or any form of religious faith or tations on the part of the vendor that the worship. Herold v. Parish Board of School quantity sold and delivered is the quantity Directors, L.R.A.1915D, 941, 68 So. 116, bought by the vendee, is not violative of La.
(Annotated) § 17, art. 2, of the Constitution of the Impairing obligation of contracts. state of Kansas, nor of the 14th Amendment 20. Chapter 127 of the N. Dak. Laws of to the Constitution of the United States, 1907, amending § 7142, Rev. Codes 1905, in that it deprives persons of liberty and and providing that notices of redemption property without due process of law. State / shall be recorded with the register of deeds, v. Belle Springs Creamery Co. L.R.A.1915D, rather than filed, is not unconstitutional, 515, 111 Pac. 474, 83 kan. 389.
though applied to mortgages which were 14. Sections 1 and 2 of the ordinance of executed before its enactment; the requirethe city of Atlanta, adopted June 16, 1913, ment that such notice shall be recorded and the corresponding sections of an amend rather than tiled in no way impairs the obment thereto, adopted November 3, 1913, ligation of the contract of the mortgagor, prohibiting white persons and colored per- or deprives him of property without due sons from residing in the same block, deny process of law. Heitsch v. Minneapolis the inherent right of a person to acquire, Threshing Mach. Co. L.R.A.1915D, 349, 150 enjoy, and dispose of property, and for this N. W. 457, 29 N. D. 94. reason are violative of the due process clause of the Federal and state Constitutions. CONSTRUCTION. Carey v. Atlanta, L.R.A.1915D, 684, 84 S. Of insurance policy, generally, see InE. 456, Ga.
surance, 6, 7. 15. A statute prohibiting the keeping of Of statute, see Statutes, 6-8. intoxicating liquors which are not intended for sale at places other than private resi- CONSUL. dences is an unconstitutional interference See Diplomatic and Consular Officers. with property rights. Com. v. Smith, L.R.A. 1915D, 172, 173 S. W. 340, Ky.
(Annotated) | Criminal contempt. 16. One indicted for murder who has 1. That one who assaults a prospective had full opportunity under the Constitution witness against him does not know that he and laws of the state to defend his case in has been supænaed is immaterial to the the courts of the state having jurisdiction question of his liability for contempt. Branthereof. either in person, by attorney, or non 1. Com. L.R.A.1915D, 569, 172 S. W. both, according to established constitutional 703, 162 Kv. 350. rules of procedure, has been afforded due 2. It is a criminal contempt for one unprocess of law under the state and Federal der several indictments in one of which the Constitutions, which provide that no per-jury is out but eventually returns a verdict son shall be deprived of life, liberty, or of guilty, with another yet to be tried, to property without due process of law. Frank commit a battery on a witness who testified
against him in the pending case and is to for flooring, orders a quantity with an irbe called in a subsequent one, for the pur- regular matching to which the quotation pose of punishing him for the testimony did not apply, which the seller declines to given and intimidating him for the future. I fill, cannot perfect a contract by merely Brannon v. Com. L.R.A.1915D, 569, 172 S. notifying the seller that regular matching W. 703, 162 Ky. 350. (Annotated) will be satisfactory, since, having rejected Disobedience.
the original offer, his power to accept it 3. A cashier of a bank cannot refuse to without renewal was gone. Shaw v. Inanswer questions propounded to him by the gram-Day Lumber Co. L.R.A.1915D, 145, 153 grand jury which will require his examina- S. W. 431, 152 Ky. 329. (Annotated) tion of the books of the bank, on the ground 2. Tender of the money is sufficient to that it constitutes an unconstitutional de- make an option to purchase real estate bindmand for the performance of particular ing upon both parties, and written acceptservices. Baker v. State, L.R.A.1915D, 1061, ance is not necessary. Agar v. Streeter, 108 N. E. 7, - Ind.
L.R.A.1915D, 196, 150 N. W. 160, Mich. 4. A cashier of a bank cannot refuse to answer a question propounded by a grand Formal requisites; statute of frauds. jury as to the state of the account of a 3. It is presumed that a marriage conparticular depositor, on the theory that it tract, where no time is fixed, is not inwas abusing its inquisitorial power, where tended to be performed more than a year it knew that the deposits in the bank great after its making, and therefore it does not ly exceeded the deposits returned for taxa- fall within the statute of frauds, requiring tion, and was seeking to ascertain who had a promise not to be performed within a falsified his tax returns, although it knew year to be in writing; and, as such a conof no one who had done so, and was inquir- tract is possible of performance within a ing as to the accounts of persons whose year, a jury would have a right to infer names were taken at random from the tax that the defendant did not intend to perduplicates of the county. Baker v. State, form it, when in fact he permitted five L.R.A.1915D, 1061, 108 N. E. 7, — Ind.
Corduan years to elapse without doing so. (Annotated)
v. McCloud (N. J. Err. & App.) L.R.A. Procedure.
N. J. 5. A court whose power summarily to 1915D, 1190, 93 Atl. 724,
(Annotated) panish for contempt is not adequate to in.
4. Abandonment of real property must ilict a suitable punishment for a criminal contempt may submit the matter to the de- be in writing. Quaker Realty Co. v. Star
La. termination of a jury. Brannon v. Com. key, L.R.A.1915D, 176, 66 So. 386, L.R.A.1915D, 569, 172 S. W. 703, 162 Ky. land by a prospective vendor, being rejected
5. An offer in writing for the sale of 350. 6. In passing upon a motion to quash a
by the prospective vendee, cannot therereturn to a rule to show cause why one vendor's assent thereto is in writing. Lewis
after be accepted by the vendee unless the shall not be punished for contempt, all facts well pleaded in the return must be
v. Johnson, L.R.A.1915D, 150, 143 N. W.
(Annotated) taken as true, and facts stated in the mo
1127, 123 Minn. 409.
Validity and effect. tion to quash which attempt to deny, or
Effect of contract invalid because in confess and avoid, those stated in the return, must be disregarded. Baker v. State,
restraint of marriage on right of L.R.A.1915D, 1061, 108 N. E. 7,
action for breach of promise, see - Ind.
Breach of Promise, 1. Judgment; punishment.
Contracts limiting liability of carrier, 7. A fine of $1,000 and six months' im
see Carriers, 6, 13. prisonment in jail is not excessive to inflict upon one convicted of criminal con
By corporation, see ('orporations.
Effect of duress, see Duress. tempt in committing a battery upon one
Validity of married woman's contract, who testified against him in a criminal case,
see Ilusband and Wife, 2. to intimidate him from giving evidence in another case yet to be tried in which he is
Contracts exempting master from liaa prospective witness. Brannon v. Com.
bility to employees, see Master and
Servant, 1. L.R.A.1915D, 569, 172 S. W. 703, 162 ky. 350.
Right to maintain action for breach of
contracts made under assumed
name, see Tradename, 1. CONTRACTS.
6. A provision in a contract to settle an Impairing obligation of, see Constitu
action for breach of promise of marriage, tional Law, 20. Custom as guide in construction of, see
to pay plaintiff a specified amount three
years after date if she is then alive and unCustom. Right of action on generally, see Par- married, is void as in restraint of marriage. ties, 1-3.
VcCoy v. Flynn, L.R.A.1915D, 1064, 151 N.
W. 465, Iowa,
7. Contracts by which one issues trading stamps to merchants, wh
for the purOffers and their acceptance or with-pose of suppressing competition, prohibit drawal.
them from using the stamps of others, and 1. One who, in response to a quotation 'which enable him to control nearly 90 per cent of the trading stamp business in the 4. Stockholders cannot ratify an act of locality, are within the operation of a stat- the directors which is ultra vires the corute declaring unlawful and void every agree poration, or which is in manifest disregard ment in violation of common law, if thereby of the legal rights of minority stockholders. a monopoly in the production or sale of Hyams v. Old Dominion Co. L.R.A.1915D, any article or commodity tends to be 1128, 93 Atl. 747, Me. created. Merchants' Legal Stamp Co. v. Criminal liability. Murphy, L.R.A.1915D, 520, 107 N. E. 968, 5. A statute providing for a fine or 220 Mass. 281.
(Annotated) imprisonment or both, for a "person" who 8. Persons who carry on business un- uses a false weight, measure, balance, or der an assumed name without complying measuring device, applies to a corporation with a statute requiring them under penalty | as well as to an individual. State v. Belle to file their true names in the office of the Springs Creamery Co., L.R.A.1915D, 515, 111 clerk of the county cannot maintain actions Pac. 474, 83 Kan. 389. in the courts to enforce payment for goods 6. That the punishment by imprisonsold by them. Hunter v. Patterson, L.R.A. ment cannot be inflicted upon a corporation 1915D, 987, 173 S. W. 120, 162 Ky. 778. under a statute prescribing a fine or im
(Annotated) prisonment or both for a person who uses a
false weight, measure, balance, or measurCONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNITY. ing device is not sufficient ground to hold Between sureties, see Principal and the statute applicable only to individuals, Surety.
and not to corporations, on the theory that
the statute, if applied to corporations, canCONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. not have a uniform operation in the state. See Negligence.
State v. Belle Springs Creamery Co. L.R.A.
Raising objection for first time on ap
peal in action against directors, see
Appeal and Error, 16. CORONER.
Director as bona fide purchaser of note Right of coroner selling property of
from corporation, see Bills and decedent to allowance for funeral
Notes, 4. expenses in action by administra
Evidence on question of liability of ditor, see Executors and Administra
rectors, see Evidence, 42. tors, 5.
Mandamus to compel corporation to
permit director to inspect books, CORPORATIONS.
see Mandamus, 2, 6, 7. Situs of shares of stock for purpose of Charging director with knowledge of administration of decedent's es
corporation, see Notice, 1. tate, see Executors and Adminis
Pleading in action against directors, trators, 1.
see Pleading, 1, 4. Liability of municipality for costs and
7. A director is entitled to have the asattorneys' fees in suit by state to sistance of his attorney or agent in the exforfeit charter of private corpora-ercise of his right to inspect the books, tion, see Municipal Corporations, papers, and records of the corporation, pro2.
vided the agent has no interest adverse to Mode of corporate action.
the corporation, rendering his employment 1. Mutual understanding of the direc- therein improper. State ex rel. Aultman tors of a corporation, that property belong. v. Ice, L.R.A.1915D, 288, 84 8. E. 181, ing to it shall stand in the names of certain W. Va. of their number, is sufficient to make the 7a. That the inspection sought by a diholding of the property in that manner the rector may disclose a right of action in him act of the board. Hvams v. Old Dominion against the corporation or some of its agents Co. L.R.A.1915D, 1128, 93 Atl. 747, Me. does not preclude his right to inspect the
books, papers, and records of the corpo Contracts; ultra vires acts.
tion. State ex rel Aultman v. Ice, L.R.A. 2. Knowledge and approval by stock- 1915D, 288, 84 S. E. 181, W. Va, holders of a corporation of a course of ac- 8. Directors of a corporation who attion by the directors are not sufficient to tempt to close the business do not discharge effect à ratification of the act on the part of their fiduciary duties simply by accounting the corporation. Hyams v. Old Dominion for its tangible assets if it possesses a valuCo. L.R.A.1915D, 1128, 93 Atl. 747, Me. able good will. Godley v. Crandall & God
ley Co. L.R.A.1915D, 632, 105 N. E. 818, 3. A general vote ratifying the acts of 212 N. Y. 121. directors of a corporation does not ratify 9. Directors of a corporation may be the holding of corporate property in the compelled to account for money improperly names of individual directors, of which paid out with their consent while they were fact the stockholders had no knowledge. directors, although the payments were made Hyams v. Old Dominion Co. L.R.A.1915D, under resolutions adopted before they be1128, 93 Atl. 747, - Me.
came such. Godley v. Crandall & Godley