« AnteriorContinuar »
tion of the subject matter and the parties Exemption from, see Exemptions. in an action by an administrator against a Levy on, see Levy and Seizure. coroner, who had sold property of the de.
cedent, and applied the proceeds in payEXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRA- ment of funeral expenses, and the surety on TORS.
his official bond, it should adjudicate and Effect of discharge of administrator in determine th whole matter instead of ren
one state upon liability for inherit- dering judgment against the defendants, and ance tax imposed in another state, then sending the coroner to the county court see Judgment, 3.
to file claims against the estate, thereby Attachment of property in hands of unnecessarily increasing the expenses of the
executors, see Levy and Seizure, 1. litigation. Lenderink v. Sawyer, L.R.A. Set-off by or against, see Set-Off and 1915D, 948, 138 N. W. 744, 92 Ñeb. 587. Counterclaim, 1.
6. The statute of limitations or of nonLiability for inheritance tax, see Taxes, claim is not involved in an action by a 6.
principal administrator to sell real estate
in a state other than that of his appointAppointment. Appealability of decree refusing to ap; from for the payment of claims properly
ment, and transmit the funds derived there. point administrator, see Appeal and Error, 2.
proved and allowed in the state of his apRight of consul to take charge of ad- pointment, although the claims, to pay ministration of estate, see Diplo- ancillary administration in the state where
which the sale is sought, were filed in the matic and Consular Officers. 1. The situs of shares of capital stock the real estate is situated, but were not al.
action in a corporation of one state, owned by one
lowed by the administrator nor who was a resident of another state at the brought thereon within the time limited, time of his death, is, for the purpose of ad. the state of the principal administration.
but they were properly filed and allowed in ministration, at the domicil of the decedent, Dow v. Lillie, L.R.A.1915D, 754, 144 N. W. rather than in the state in which the corporation is organized and has its place of 1082, 26 N. D. 512. business. Re Miller L.R.A.19150, 856, 136
7. An administrator is bound by the Pac. 255, 90 Kan. 819.
act of an executor de son tort in paying la. A resident brother of a resident for- lawful funeral expenses, such as the admineigner is entitled to administer upon his istrator of the estate of the deceased would estate under a statute providing that admin. be bound to pay if they had not thus al. istration in case of intestacy must be grant. L.R.A.1915D, 948, 138 N. W. 744, 92 Veb.
ready been paid. Lenderink v. Sawyer, ed to the representatives of decedent entitled to succeed to his personal property Creditors' rights against land; sale of
(Annotated) who will accept same, in the following order: Husband or wife, child, father, mother,
land for debts. brothers - where those having priority to Appeal from order refusing to grant him under the statute are nonresidents and
petition for sale of land, see Aptherefore disqualified. Re D'Adamo, L.R.A.
peal and Error, 1, 5. 1915D, 373, 106 N. E. 81, 212 N. Y. 214. 8. Sec. 8134, Revised Codes of North Indebtedness; distribution.
Dakota 1905, which provides that any local Right of coroner sued for property of creditor may make an application for the
deceased to set off funeral expenses, sale of real estate of a decedent, if the
see Set-Off and Counterclaim, 1. administrator neglects to do so, does not 2. Sections 8225 and 8226 of the North cover local creditors merely, to the excluDakota Revised Code, which impress the sion of creditors in a foreign jurisdiction. estate of a decedent with a trust in favor Dow v. Lillie, L.R.A.1915D, 754, 144 N. W. of creditors, and provide for the transmis- 1082, 26 N. D. 512. sion of the residue of the estate to the execu- 9. Under the Code of North Dakota the tor or administrator in the state or county sale of real estate of a nonresident dece. of the decedent's domicil, do not relate sole. dent located in that state is authorized to ly to cases in which the decedent has left pay debts of the estate duly proved in the
Dow v. Lillie, L.R.A.1915D, 754, domiciliary jurisdiction, to the exclusion 144 N. W. 1082, 26 N. D. 512.
of the heirs of the decedent in North Da3. In allowing or rejecting a claim, an kota. Dow v. Lillie, L.R.A.1915D, 754, 144 administrator acts merely as an auditor, N. W. 1082, 26 N. D. 512. (Annotated) and his refusal to allow such claim is not 10. Under statutory provisions authorres judicata. Dow v. Lillie, L.R.A.1915D, izing the sale of real estate of a nonresi754, 144 N. W. 1082, 26 N. D. 512. dent decedent to pay debts approved in
4. Where there are both a principal the administration of the decedent's estate and an ancillary administration, creditors in a foreign jurisdiction, and the transmay prove their claims in either jurisdic- mission of the proceeds there for distribution, and it is not always necessary that tion, a sale will be ordered where the claim they should be proved in both.
to pay which the sale asked has Lillie, L.R.A.19151, 754, 144 N. W. 1082, duly proved in the foreign court, which was 26 N. D. 512.
the domiciliary court of the decedent, and 5. Where a district court has jurisdic-' there are not assets in such jurisdiction
sufficient to pay the same, and the peti- 2. A patient of full age who is detained tion asking for the sale of real estate is in a hospital against her will, denied comfiled in an ancillary administration had in munication with her friends, and subjected the state where the real estate is thus to compulsory physical treatment when she situated, in which there is no money or might have been released without danger to personal property and no debts, and the herself, is entitled to damages as for false contestants of the sale are the heirs, who imprisonment, although the hospital authorhad knowledge of the foreign administra- | ities acted in good faith and the patient tion and opportunity to defend against the contracted to be subject to the rules, which claims. Dow v. Lillie, L.R.A.1915D, 754, jusified such action. Cook v. Highland Hos144 N. W. 1082, 26 N. D. 512.
pital, L.R.A.1915D, 611, 84 S. E. 352, N. C.
Homestead exemptions, see Homestead. FEDERAL EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY
on to select exempt property, see
Insufficiency of fence around reservoir, the right, of an officer holding an execu
see Negligence, 4. tion, to select and set apart the judgment The owner of a lot used to pasture debtor's exempt property, but such right horses, adjoining another lot used for the rests wholly with, and can be exercised same purpose, between which the respective only by, the judgment debtor. Parsons v. owners maintain wire fences on their own Evans, L.R.A.1915D, 381, 145 Pac. 1122, land several feet from the boundary line, Okla.
(Annotated) for the purpose of preventing the horses in 2. It is the duty of a judgment debtor the respective pastures from quarreling, is having more property of a certain class liable for the resulting injury in case he than is exempt by statute, who desires to permits his fence to get out of repair so claim his exemptions out of the whole, to that his horses enter the intervening line, promptly inform the officer holding execu- reach the land of the adjoining owner, and tion of the particular property selected and attract to the fence one of his horses, claimed as exempt from levy. Parsons v. which, in attempting to strike or kick Evans, L.R.A.1915D, 381, 145 Pac. 1122, through or over the fence at the visiting Okla.
horses, becomes entangled in the wire.
Houska v. Hrabe, L.R.A.1915D, 1074, 151 EXPERT TESTIMONY.
N. W. 1021, · S. D.
Warranty on sale of, see Damages, 2;
Evidence, 40; Sale, 2, 3.
Transaction of business under, see Con-
tracts, 8; Tradename. Fright. Of gas, see Gas.
FINALITY OF DECISION.
For purpose of appeal, see Appeal and FACTS.
Error, 1, 2.
As punishment for contempt, see Con. FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION.
tempt, 7. For note, see Bills and Notes, 2-4.
See Buildings, 5; Municipal CorporaMeasure of damages for, see Damages,
tions, 4, 5. 3, 4. Review of damages on appeal, see Ap- FIRES. peal and Error, 18.
Criminal liability for setting, see Arson. 1. A police officer who arrests without warrant a person whom the police officials FIXTURES. desired to interview, is answerable in dam
Allowance for, on condemnation of ages for mistreatment of the prisoner by! property, see Damages, 7. such officials while they are subjecting him to examination in the absence of the officer. | FLOOD. Ross v. Kohler, L.R.A.1915D, 621, 174 S. W. Injury to property in warehouse by, see 36, — Ky.
GAMING. See Judgment, 3.
One with whom bet is made as accom
plice of other party, see Evidence, FOREMAN.
49. Assumption of risk by, see Master and Servant, 8.
Regulating use and construction of, see
Buildings, 1-4; Constitutional Recovery of money paid on forged draft against United States Treasury,
Law, 17; Municipal Corporations,
Grant of monopoly in collection of, see FRATERNITIES.
Constitutional Law, 3, 8; Munici.
pal Corporations, 10.
Of bank deposit, see Banks, 1.
Cars of a foreign railroad company Secret commission by owner of prop- engaged in interstate commerce are not sub
erty to broker employed by puroject to garnishment when in possession of
chaser, see Brokers, 2. In securing subscription to corporate commerce, under an agreement by which
a local company also engaged in interstate stock, see Corporations, 11. Estoppel by, see Estoppel, 2.
the local company might transport to desti
nation loaded cars coming into its possesIn application for insurance, see In-sion, and employ the cars in its business for Rescission of contract for, see Vendor a per diem compensation, where it would be and Purchaser.
practically impossible for the local com
pany to carry on its business independently FRAUDS, STATUTE OF.
of the arrangement. Koontz v. Baltimore
& O. R. Co. L.R.A.1915D, 838, 107 N. E. See Contracts.
973, 220 Mass. 285.
(Annotated) FREEDOM OF WORSHIP. See Constitutional Law, 19.
negligence in case of explosion of, FREIGHT CARRIERS.
see Evidence, 16. See Carriers.
As to gas in mines, generally, see Mines. FRIGIIT.
One is not liable for injuries caused Evidence in action for injury caused by an explosion of a tank of gas upon his by, see Evidence, 34, 35,
premises, if it was not at the time in his
Conley v. United Of horse, see Highways, 6, 7; Pleading custody and control. 5; Proximate Cause.
Drug Co. L.R.A.1915D, 830, 105 N. E. 975,
218 Mass. 238. 1. The rule disallowing damages for fright does not apply where physical in
GASOLENE. juries are caused by a fall consequent upon
Use of, on insured premises, see Ina faint caused by an explosion due to an
surance, 11, 14. other's negligence. Conley v. United Drug Co. L.R.A.1915D, 830, 105 N. E. 975, 218 Mass. 238.
GIFT. 2. One who negligently explodes a
Of corporate stock, necessity of transheavy blast in close proximity to and casts
fer on books, see Corporations, 12. débris upon
a dwelling occupied by woman, when he could have foreseen that GOOD CHARACTER. some injury was likely to happen to the Presumption as to, see Evidence, 6.
Proximate cause of injury, see ProxiQuestion for jury as to, see Trial, 3.
3. It is the duty of a municipal corGOOD WILL.
poration to keep its streets in a reasonably Of corporation, fraudulent appropria safe condition for ordinary travel by the
tion of, by other company, see Cor- public. Muskogee v. Miller, L.R.A.1915D, porations, 19.
243, 145 Pac. 782, Okla.
4. In establishing, caring for, and GOVERNMENT.
maintaining streets, highways, and public Separation of powers of, see Constitu- parks, municipalities act in their governtional Law, 1.
mental, and not in their proprietary, ca
pacity. Ackeret v. Minneapolis, L.R.A. GRAND JURY.
1915Ď, 1111, 151 X. W. 976, 129 Minn. 190. Refusal of witness before, to answer 5. Cities and villages are liable for inquestions, see Contempt, 3, 4. juries resulting from dangerous conditions
in their streets; but, with this single exGREEK LETTER FRATERNITIES. ception, municipalities are not liable in Excluding from public schools, see Con- damages for negligence in performing their
stitutional Law, 1, 10; Injunction, governmental functions, unless such liabil3; Schools, 1; State Uni ersities. ity has be imposed by statut Ackeret
v. Minneapolis, L.R.A.1915D, 1111, 151 N. GROCERIES.
W. 976, 129 Minn. 190. Wife's liability for, see Husband and
6. Where a person is riding upon a wellWife, 2.
broken horse ordinarily sure of foot, not at
an unusual speed, and such animal, without HAND.
fault on the part of the rider, becomes Extent of recovery by insured for loss frightened and temporarily unmanageable, of, see Insurance, 24.
and, by reason of coming in contact with a
defect in a street negligently created or perHARMLESS ERROR.
mitted to remain therein by a city, falls See Appeal and Error, 20–26.
and injures such rider, the municipality is
liable therefor Muskogee v. Miller, L.R.A. HIGHWAYS.
1915D, 243, 145 Pac. 782, Right of legislature to divert proceeds
(Annotated) of bonds issued by county for con
7. The proprietor of a business house struction of highway, see Counties. who places on the sidewalk in front of his Municipal regulations as to, see Mu: place of business, without confining in a renicipal Corporations, 8, 9.
ceptacle, at a time when a high wind is
blowing, trash and loose sheets of paper, Obstruction generally.
which are easily blown about in such a 1. One who has occasion to pass over manner as to frighten horses, may be liable a highway more frequently than others to a traveler on the street who is injured does not sustain special damage peculiar to through the fright and consequent runaway himself, beyond that of the general public, of his horses, which are reasonably well which would entitle him to relief by in- broken, steady, and roadworthy, and which junction against an obstruction of the high- are frightened by paper blown from the pile. way. Borton v. Mangus, L.R.A.1915D, 142, Bowen v. Smith-Hall Grocery Co. L.R.A. 145 Pac. 835, 93 Kan. 719. (Annotated) 1915D, 617, 82 S. E. 23, 141 Ga. 721. Use and occupation by railroads.
(Annotated) 2. The lien for compensation provided by the Constitution for injury to abutting HOLOGRAPHIC WILLS. property by the location of a railroad in a See Wills, 3. street may be enforced against the property in the hands of a successor in title of HOMESTEAD. the corporation which located the road, if 1. An attempted conveyance by deed of it undertakes to operate the same, without the homestead of the family by a married making the predecessor a party to the pro- man, given without the wife's consent in ceeding. Appel v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. the manner prescribed by law, is void, and ('0. L.R.A.1915D, 397, 148 N. W. 513, this is true notwithstanding the fact that S. D.
(Annotated) the husband and wife may be living sepaLiability for injuries on.
rate and apart, or even though the wife Liability for injury by animal on, see may have, without justifiable cause, abanAnimals.
doned the husband, under a constitutional Injury to property by blasting in street, provision prohibiting the sale of the homesee Blasting.
stead of the family where the owner is a Liability for injury by electric wires in married man, without the consent of the high way, see Electricity.
wife given in such manner as may be preLiability as to parks, see Parks and scribed by law. Whelan v. Adams, L.R.A. Squares.
1915D, 551, 145 Pac. 1158, - Okla. Demurrer to complaint in action for
(Annotated) injuries caused by fright of horse, 2. The purchaser at a foreclosure sale see Pleading, 5.
under a mortgage on a homestead, given by
a husband to his wife to secure the payment Evidence in action from death of paof a postnuptial settlement, succeeds to the
tient resulting from negligence, see rights of the wife, and may attack as void
Evidence, 30. a deed of the homestead given by the hus- Liability of physician for negligence of band without the wife's consent. Whelan v.
nurse, see Physicians and SurAdams, L.R.A.1915D, 551, 145 Pac. 1158,
Negligence as question for jury, see 3. Section 883, Wilson's Rev. & Anno.
Trial, 5. Stat. of Oklahoma, 1903, providing that an instrument executed by the husband or wife, gain is liable to a patient for the negli
1. A hospital conducted for private relating to the homestead, without being
gence of nurses while acting within the joined by the other, could be avoided only
of their employment. Broz v. Omaha by the one not joining, is repugnant to $ 2, Maternity & G. H. Asso. L.R.A.1915D, 334, art. 12, Oklahoma Constitution, providing 148 X. W. 575, 96 Neb. 648. (Annotated) that the homestead of the family shall not be sold by the owner if married without the hospital conducted for private gain, under
2: A patient is generally admitted to a consent of his or her spouse given in such may be prescribed by law. such reasonable care and attention for his
an implied obligation that he shall receive Whelan v. Adams, L.R.A.1915D, 551, 145 safety as his mental and physical condition, Pac. 1158, — Okla.
if known, may require. Broz v. Omaha Ma4. Section 882, Wilson's Rev., & Anno; ternity & G. H. Asso. L.R.A.1915D, 334, 148 Stat. of Oklahoma, 1903, providing that where the title to the homestead is in the v. W. 575, 96 Neb. 648. husband, and the wife voluntarily abandons ducted without stock or profit, in which
3. A paying patient in a hospital conhim for the period of one year, or for any indigent patients are treated without cost, cause takes up her residence outside of the and the fees exacted from patients who can state, he may convey, mortgage, or make any contract relating thereto without being pay are used in promoting the work may joined therein by her, is unconstitutional
damages for injury done him under a Constitution providing that the
through the negligence of an attending homestead of the family shall not be sold L.R.A.1915D, 1167, 68 So. 4,
Tucker v. Mobile Infirmary Asso.
Ala. by the owner if married without the consent of his or her spouse given in such man
HOTELS. ner as may be prescribed by law. Whelan
Forbidding location near, of garage V. Adams, L.R.A.1915D, 551, 145 Pac. 1158,
storing intlammable substances, see Okla.
Municipal Corporations, 11. 5. A wife who has abandoned her husband, with whom she has eflected a settle- | HOURS OF LABOR. ment purporting to be in full of property See Master and Servant. rights, which settlement she sought to and did enforce in a subsequent judicial pro- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. ceeding, is not entitled to a judgment for
See Legislature. rents and profits against the occupant of the homestead, to whom the husband alone HUSBAND AND WIFE. conveyed. Whelan v. Adams, L.R.A.1915D,
As to adultery, see Adultery, 551, 145 Pac. 1158,
Joint deposit of husband and wife, see HOMICIDE.
Banks, 2. Admissibility of dying declarations, see
As to breach of promise, see Breach
of Promise. Evidence, 31. Indictment for, see Indictment, etc., 1.
As to divorce or separation, see Divorce
and Separation. A physician, or a person acting in Admissibility of statements between, that capacity, will be held guilty of “cul
see Evidence, 28. pable negligence” within the meaning of Rights in homestead, see Homestead. Minnesota Gen. Stat. 1913, S 8612, subd. 3, Wife of one of two persons indicted for defining manslaughter in the second degree
burglary as competent witness in as homicide committed without design to
behalf of the other, see Witnesses, effect death, "by any act, procurement, or
1. culpable negligence” not constituting a
Husband's liabilities. higher crime, where he has exhibited gross incompetency or inattention, or wanton in
1. A man is not, under statutes giving
his wife the right to manage her separate difference to his patient's safety. State v. Lester, L.R.A.1915D, 201, 149 N. W. 297, property, liable for torts committed in the 127 Minn. 282.
management of her statutory separate es
tate, such as injuries to a tenant by the HORSES.
operation of an elevator in her apartment Fright of, see Highways, 6, 7; Plead house, where he was not present, and did ing, 5; Proximate Cause.
not direct or otherwise participate in the
management, although his express statutory HOSPITAL,
exemption extends only to liability for Liability for retaining patient against debts and liabilities contracted by the wife
her will, see False Imprisonment, 2.' before marriage. Boutell v. Shellaberger,