« AnteriorContinuar »
Foreclosure of mortgage, see Mortgage, | LEASE. 3.
For oil or gas, see Mines. For taxes, see Taxes, 3.
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES. JURISDICTION.
See Executors and Administrators. To appoint administrator, see Executors and Administrators, 1.
Right to divert proceeds of county JURY.
bonds, see Counties. Review of discretion in refusing to Power of, over municipality, see Muset aside verdict for bias of juror,
nicipal Corporations, 3. see Appeal and Error, 12.
Enactment of statutes by, see Statutes. Submitting question of punishment for
A constitutional grant of power to contempt to, see Contempt, 5. Slander by charge against juror, see
the legislature to raise revenue by certain Libel and Slander.
specified methods does not interfere with its New trial for matters pertaining to, see
inherent power to employ other methods New Trial, 2.
for that purpose. Re Kessler, L.R.A.1915D, Testimony or affidavits by member to 322, 146 Pac. 113, 26 Idaho, 764.
impeach verdict, see Ne Trial,
As evidence, see Evidence, 21.
As to exemptions, see Exemptions. 1. The right to practise law is not a
Garnishment of foreign railway cars, vested right, but a mere privilege, and an
see Garnishment. action to disbar an attorney under § 267, Comp. Laws 1909 of Oklahoma, is a civil 1. After a decedent's estate has passed proceeding, and the accused is not entitled to executors for administration under his to a trial by a jury as a matter of right. will, no attachment lies at the suit of State Bar Commission ex rel. Williams v. creditors to reach property alleged to have Sullivan, L.R.A.1915D, 1218, 131 Pac. 703, been transferred by decedent in fraud of 35 Okla. 745.
their rights. McCoy v. Flynn, L.R.A.1915D, 2. There is no right to a jury trial in 1064, 151 N. W. 465, Iowa, a proceeding to enjoin the violation of a 2. Where only a part of property levied municipal ordinance. Rochester v. Gutber. upon is claimed as exempt, a demand by lett, L.R.A.1915D, 209, 105 N. E. 548, 211 the execution defendant for the return of N. Y. 309.
his exempt property, unaccompanied by any
effort to make a selection of a part out JUSTICE OF THE PEACE.
of the entire lot, will not, in an action in Vacation of judgment entered by, see replevin for possession of the exempt propJudgment, 4.
erty subsequently selected and claimed, en
title such party to damages against the KNOWLEDGE.
officer for the detention of such exempt See Notice.
property; the officer making no further de.
fense to the action than to resist plaintiff's LABORERS.
right to recover damages. Parsons Lien of, see Liens.
Evans, L.R.A.1915D, 381, 145 Pac. 1122,
LIBEL AND SLANDER.
Effect of proceeding against attorney LAND CONTRACT.
for criminal libel on right to disSee Vendor and Purchaser.
bar him for the same offense, see
Attorneys, 8. LANDLORD AND TENANT.
Liability of master for libel by servant, Estoppe) by lease, see Estoppel, 1.
see Master and Servant, 9. Lease for oil or gas, see Mines. Husband's liability for injury to tenant verdict which he knew to be wrong is not
1. To charge a juror with returning a of wife by negligence as to eleva actionable per se. Smallwood v. York, tor, see Husband and Wife, 1.
L.R.A.1915D, 578, 173 S. W. 380, — Ky.
2. The position of juror is not an office LARCENY.
or employment within the rule that it is Insurance against loss by theft, see slanderous to impute unfitness to perform Evidence, 47.
the duties of an office or employment. Probable cause for prosecution for, see Smallwood v. York, L.R.A.1915D, 578, 173 Malicious Prosecution, 3.
S. W. 380, Ky.
3. A statement by an attorney in open LAW OF THE CASE.
court that the jury in another case had Decision on former appeal as, see Ap-turned in a verdict which they knew to be peal and Error, 28.
wrong is not privileged. Smallwood v.
York, L.R.A.1915D, 578, 173 S. W. 380, priority existing at common law to the lien Ky.
so defined, but will be limited in applica
tion to the definition of the lien, and the LIBERTY.
common-law priority considered as continuGuaranty of right of, see Constitutional ing in force and applicable thereto. Reeves Law, 7-16.
& Co. v. Russell, L.R.A.1915D, 1149, 148 N.
W. 654, 28 N. D. 265. LICENSE.
2. The fact that mortgaged chattel Effect of operating automobile without property was sold by the mortgagor with
license on right to recover for in-out written consent of the mortgagee, does jury, see Automobiles, 1.
not affect the title of the purchaser so as Sufficiency of proof in action for penal to prevent him from authorizing repairs
ty for transacting business without thereto and subjecting the same to an arlicense, see Evidence, 48.
tisan's lien therefor, superior to the chattel 1. Under charter authority to regulate mortgage, since the purchaser is, for such occupations within its limits, a municipal purposes, considered in law as the agent of
the mortgagee. Reeves & Co. v. Russell, corporation may require one undertaking to transact a messenger business within L.R.A.1915D, 1149, 148 N. W. 654, 28 N. D.
265. the city to secure a license and furnish a bond for the faithful performance of the
3. A chattel mortgage taken by the venduties incident to such business. Portland dor of personal property to secure unpaid v. Western U. Teleg. Co. L.R.A.1915D, 260, purchase money is, at common law, sub
ordinate to an artisan's lien for work there. 146 Pac. 148, Or.
after done upon the property, where the arOn what business. Of dentists, see Constitutional Law, 4, after completion of the work; and this is
tisan has retained possession at all times 5; Dentists. 2. A telegraph company which has, in. tisan's lienis silent as to its priority.
true although a statute granting an cident to its business, undertaken to furnish messengers to carry notes, packages, and Reeves & Co. v. Russell, L.R.A.1915D, 1149,
148 N. W. 654, 28 N. D. 265. similar matter for patrons, transacts a mes.
4. A vendor of an automobile, who senger business within the meaning of a municipal ordinance requiring the procure
takes notes for unpaid purchase money, rement of a license therefor, although its taining title to the machine as security, by offer to transact such business states that placing the machine in the purchaser's pos
session for use, its sole undertaking is to furnish messen
impliedly authorizes the gers and not to deliver the packages. Port- making of necessary repairs upon the maland v. Western U. Teleg. Co. L.R.A.1915D, takes precedence of his lien, at least, if he
chine, so that the lien for such repairs 260, 146 Pac. 148, - Or.
knew without protest that the repairs were Uniformity and equality. 3. A license tax on motor vehicles for being made. J. A. Broom & Son v. Polk,
L.R.A.1915D, 1146, 67 So. 659, Miss. revenue purposes, graduated according to the power of the machines, does not violate without the knowledge or consent of the
5. The claimed lien of one who has, a constitutional provision that all taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of sub- vendor, made repairs on an automobile conjects, since that provision does not apply under a statute providing therefor in case
ditionally sold to a vendee in possession, to license fees. Re Kessler, L.R.A.1915D, 322, 146 Pac. 113, 26 Idaho, 764.
of repairs made at the request of the owner (Annotated)
or his agents, is subordinated to the title Reasonableness; amount.
of the vendor, which is retained in the pur4. That a tax upon the right to use the had no notice of the vendor's title. Shaw
chase-money notes, although the mechanic highways with motor vehicles is in excess
v. Webb, L.R.A.1915D, 1141, 174 S. W. 273, of the cost of policing the highways, and is
131 Tenn. 173.
(Annotated) not graduated according to the value of the cars, does not bring it into conflict with a constitutional provision that the legislature LIFE INSURANCE. shall provide revenue by levying a tax by
See Insurance. valuation. Re Kessler, L.R.A.1915D, 322, 146 Pac. 113, 26 Idaho, 764.
Admissibility in evidence, see Evidence, LIENS. For compensation for injury to abut
ting property by location of rail- LIGHT.
road in street, see Highways, 2. Easement of, see Easements, 2; Taxes, Of mechanics or materialmen, see Me
3. chanics' Liens. For taxes, see Taxes.
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. For repairs.
Time to present claim against deced
ent's estate, see Executors and Ad1. A statute declaratory of the common
ministrators, 6. law as to the existence of an artisan's lien, but silent on its priority, will not be en- 1. A proceeding to disbar an attorney larged by negative construction to deny for conduct disrespectful to a constitutional L.R.A.1915D.
court cannot be barred by a statute of limi- frequently with another employee who has tations. State Bar Commission ex rel. Wil- a key to a room containing slot machines, liams v. Sullivan, L.R.A.1915D, 1218, 131 and both of them play into machines about Pac. 703, 35 Okla. 745.
(Annotated) | town slugs of a peculiar pattern identical 2. The statute of limitations begins to with those taken from machines in the room run against an action to recover damages which have been forced open, where the from a sheriff for failure to return an at. facts were stated to a reputable attorney tachment, when the return is due, although who advised a prosecution. Simmons v. the full amount of injury cannot be ascer- Gardner, L.R.A.1915D, 16, 89 Pac. 887, 46 tained until the release some time later of Wash. 282. prior liens on a portion of the property. Johnson v. Beattie, L.R.A.1915D, 1163, 93 | MANDAMUS. Atl. 250, - Vt.
1. Previous leave of court is not necesLIMITATION OF INDEBTEDNESS. sary to the maintenance of a mandamus Of town or city, see Municipal Corpo proceeding to compel receivers of a railroad rations, 14.
to obey an order requiring it to join with
other roads in the construction and mainLIMITATION OF LIABILITY.
tenance of a union depot, in view of the For carriage of passenger, see Carriers, Federal statute providing that every re6.
ceiver appointed by a Federal court may be As to freight, see Carriers, 13.
sued in respect of any act or transaction of
his in carrying on the business connected LOAN.
with the property in his care, without prePayment of, see Payment.
vious leave of court. Railroad Commission
v. Alabama G. S. R. Co. L.R.A.1915D, 98, 64 LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS.
So. 13, 185 Ala. 354. See Public Improvements.
2. In a proceeding to compel the officers LOCATION.
of a private corporation to allow one of its Of depot, see Carriers, 14, 15, 17; Con- directors to inspect its books, papers, recstitutional Law, 9.
ords, and correspondence, the corporation
. Of insured property, see Insurance, 12, | itself is not a necessary party. State ex rel. 13.
Aultman v. Ice, L.R.A.1915D, 288, 84 S. E.
181, W. Va. LORD'S PRAYER.
Pleading; writ and return. Repeating of, in schools, see Schools, 3. 3. A motion for the award of a peremp
tory writ of mandamus, unaccompanied by MAIL CARRIERS.
a replication to the return of the alternative Giving mail carrier right of way in writ, is equivalent to a demurrer to the restreet, see Evidence, 36; Municipal | turn. State ex rel. Aultman v. Ice, L.R.A.
4. An alternative writ of mandamus need not recite the filing of a petition for
award thereof. State ex rel. Aultman v. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.
Ice, L.R.A.1915D, 288, 84 S. E. 181, W. Instruction as to probable cause, see
5. A clerical error in the date of is. Evidence of privileged communications, see Evidence, 27.
suance of a mandamus nisi may be cured by
an amendment. State ex rel. Aultman v. As to false imprisonment, see False Imprisonment.
W. Ice, L.R.A.1915D, 288, 84 S. E. 181, Question for jury, see Trial, 1, 2.
6. An alternative writ of mandamus 1. For “probable cause” for an arrest sued out for the purpose of compelling the to exist, it is not necessary that the ac- officers of a private corporation to allow cuser shall believe that he has sufficient evi. one of its directors to inspect its books, dence to procure a conviction of the accused. papers, records, and correspondence is not Matson v. Michael, L.R.A.1915D, 1, 105 Pac. vitiated by a recital of the relator's dual 537, 81 Kan. 360.
status of stockholder and director, and fail. 2. If a complaining witness believed ure formally to claim the right of inspecupon reasonable grounds that the accused tion in one of the two capacities indicated by was guilty, it is not material, in an action the recitals. State ex rel. Aultman v. Ice, against him for malicious prosecution, L.R.A.1915D, 288, 84 S. E. 181, W. Va. whether he believed that probable cause existed in a legal sense, unless as bearing Defenses, upon the question of malice.
Matson v. 7. An averment in general terms by Michael, L.R.A.1915D, 1, 105 Pac. 537, 81 the respondents in an action in mandamus Kan. 360.
to compel the officers of a corporation to 3. Probable cause for a prosecution for allow one of its directors to inspect its larceny exists as matter of law against an books, papers, records, and correspondents, employee of a storage company, where he is that the respondents are advised that one
of the purposes of the relator in seeking | Hours of labor. such inspection is to enable him to obtain Presumption and burden of proof in knowledge of the corporate business for
prosecution for violation of statute communication to rival or competing con
as to, see Evidence, 5. cerns, unsupported by any allegation of Evidence in action for violation of facts indicating the source of such informa
hours of service act, see Evidence, tion, the identity of such rival concerns, or
50. the connection of the relator therewith, is 2. The time during which a fireman is too indefinite, and therefore insufficient as required to watch his engine after the train a defense to the writ. State ex rel. Ault is tied up because it cannot complete its man v. Ice, L.R.A.1915D, 288, 84 S. E. 181, run within the sixteen hours provided, beW. Va.
fore he is relieved from duty, must be con
sidered in determining whether or not he MANSLAUGHTER.
has been kept on duty longer than the stat. See Homicide.
ute permits. Great Northern R. Co. v.
United States, L.R.A.1915D, 408, 218 Fed. MANUFACTURER.
C. C. A.
(Annotated) Liability of, on warranty to retailer, 3. Hot journals, unusual traffic, head see Sale, 2.
winds, or the imperfect working of an en.
gine because recently overhauled, are not MARRIAGE.
within the proviso to the Federal hours of Breach of promise to marry, see Breach service act, that it should not apply in case of Promise.
of casualty, unavoidable accident, or the Contract in restraint of, see Contracts, act of God, nor where the cause of delay 6.
was not known to the carrier at the time As to divorce or separation, see Di. the employee left the terminal, and could vorce and Separation.
not have been foreseen. Great Northern R. Effect of marriage of mortgagee to Co. v. United States, L.R.A.1915D, 408, 218
mortgagor to extinguish debt, see Fed. 302, — C. C. A.
Termination of relation; discharge.
Conspiracy to procure discharge, see MARRIED WOMEN.
Conspiracy. See Husband and Wife.
Evidence in action for damages for
securing discharge of employee, see MASTER AND SERVANT.
Evidence, 21. Statute as to remodelling or construction of caboose, see Action or Suit,
4. An employer who has failed to ac2; Commerce; Evidence, 3; Stat? cept a conditional offer to resign made by
a traveling salesman cannot discharge the utes, 4. Burglary by employee, see Burglary, damages, unless the employee is guilty of
employee thereafter without responding in 1; Evidence, 33.
some misconduct subsequently to the makForbidding person to act as conductor without having previously served Nesbit v. Giblin, L.R.A.1915D, 477, 148 N.
ing of his conditional offer of resignation. as freight conductor or brakeman, W. 138, 96 Neb. 369. (Annotated)
see Constitutional Law, 11. Action by stockholder to compel di
5. An employer who continues a travelrectors to account for money dis- than thirty days, and accepts the benefit
ing salesman in his employment for more tributed to employees, see Corpora- of his services for this time, after a condi
tions, 15. Burden of proving that servant violat- tional offer of resignation which the eming rules did so in performance of avail himself of the conditional offer to
ployer fails to accept, cannot thereafter duty, see Evidence, 20. Presumption from withholding of evi- withdrawal of such offer. Nesbit v. Giblin,
resign, although there has been no formal dence in action for injury to em
L.R.A.1915D, 477, 148 N. W. 138, 96 Neb. ployee, see Evidence, 11.
369. Evidence of statements by injured em
Federal employers' liability act. ployee, see Evidence, 29.
See also supra, 1. Sufficiency of proof in action for injury
6. Liability under the Federal employ. to employee, see Evidence, 45.
ers' liability act does not extend to injury Probable cause for prosecution of employee, see Malicious Prosecution, the injury acting within the scope of his
to an employee who is not at the time of 3.
employment, or performing some act which When relation exists.
is incidental to his employment. Hobbs v. 1. A Pullman porter is not an employee Great Northern R. Co. L.R.A.1915D, 503, of the railroad hauling the car on which he 142 Pac. 20, 80 Wash. 678. is employed, so as to come within the pro- 7. To entitle a brakeman who is a vision of the Federal employers' liability member of a shifting crew in a freight act invalidating contracts by which carriers yard to hold the railroad company liable for attempt to exempt themselves from the lia- personal injuries under the Federal employ. bility to their employees created by that ers' liability act or safety appliance act, act. Robinson v. Baltimore & 0. R. Co. he must show that at the time of the inL.R.A.1915D, 510, 40 App. D. C. 169. jury he was engaged in interstate com
merce or with its instrumentalities, and 9. Respondeat superior. Winter this burden is not met merely by showing American Radiator Co. L.R.A.1915D, 476, that in the yard where he was employed cars 151 N. W. 277, 128 Minn. 508. containing interstate as well as intrastate 10. Sic utere tuo ut alienum non lædas. shipments were handled. Hench v. Penn- | Packwood V. Mendota Coal & Coke Co. sylvania R. Co. L.R.A.1915D, 557, 91 Atl. L.R.A.1915D, 911, 146 Pac. 163. Wash. 1056, 246 Pa. 1. Servant's assumption of risks.
8. The foreman of a roofing gang as- MEASURES. sumes the risk of injury from falling from See Weights and Measures. a roof upon which he is at work, because of the absence of gutters or hangers thereon to MECHANICS' LIENS. protect employees from falls. Daisey v. 1. An architect who, under contract Wagner, L.R.A.1915D, 157, 172 S. W. 942, with the owner of land, furnishes plans and 162 Ky. 554.
specifications for the construction of a conMaster's liability for acts of servant. templated building thereon, is entitled to a
9. An employer is not responsible for a lien upon the land, although the owner, libel perpetrated as a joke by his book after the plans are furnished, of his volikeeper in stating an account with an em- tion and without fault of the architect, ployee on blank furnished for that abandons the construction of the building, purpose, which consists of a pencil memo- even though the lien statute does not exrandum of an item implying bestiality, pressly give a lien when no improvement is which is not carried into the footings, and begun on the ground. Lamoreaux v. Anfor which there is no heading in the blank, dersch, L.R.A.1915D, 204, 150 N. W. 908, since the act is not within the scope of the 128 Minn. 261.
(Annotated) bookkeeper's employment. Case v. Steele 2. The lien statement of an architect Coal Co. L.R.A.1915D, 867, 171 S. W. 993, who was under contract with the owner of 162 Ky. 68.
(Annotated) | land to furnish plans and specifications for, 10. A transfer company which delivers and supervise the construction of, a congoods under a contract with a manufactur-templated building for an entire considerer at so much per hundred weight, along ation based on a percentage of the total with the goods of other customers of the cost, a project which was subsequently transfer company, the transfer company abandoned by the owner of the land, may routing its delivery so as to make an eco- be filed within ninety days after the repunomical transfer of all goods of its custo- diation of the contract by the owner, almers going in that vicinity, is an independ though the last work on the plans and ent contractor, and not the servant of the specifications was done more than ninety manufacturer, and therefore the manufac- days prior to the filing. Lamoreaux v. turer is not liable for the negligence of the Andersch, L.R.A.1915D, 204, 150 N. W. 908, transfer company in making a delivery. 128 Min. 261. Winter V. American Radiator Co. L.R.A. 1915D, 476, 151 N. W. 277, 128 Minn. 508. MESSENGER BUSINESS.
License for, see License, 1, 2.
Liability of owner for drowning of MAXIMS.
child in reservoir, see Negligence, 4. 1. Cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex. Cottingham v. Maryland Motor Car
Pollution of water by, see Waters, 1.
lessor should be paid "three hundred ($300) 3. Dies dominicus non est juridicus. dollars per year for the gas from each and Moss v. State, L.R.A.1915D, 361, 173 S. W. every gas well drilled on said premises; Tenn.
said payment to be made on each well 4. Equity must follow the law. Farm. within sixty days after completion, and to ers' Security Bank v. Martin, L.R.A.1915D, be paid yearly thereafter while it is a gas 432, 150 N. W. 572, N. D.
well,” interpreted in the light of all the 5. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. facts and circumstances, mean a gas well Boutell v. Shellaberger, L.R.A.19150, 847, which, considering its location with refer174 S. W. 384, Mo.
ence to any market for gas and its capacity 6. Personal property follows the per- as a gas producer, can be profitably oper
People v. Union Trust Co. L.Å.A. ated as such, and not a well producing oil 1915D, 450, 99 N. E. 377, 255 Ill. 168. in large quantities and some gas, and oper: 7. Qui, facit per alium, facit per se. ated for many years by lessee as an oil
1 Tucker v. Mobile Infirmary Asso. "L.R.A. well, without demand for gas rental by 1915D, 1167, 68 So. 4, –
lessor. Prichard v. Freeland Oil Co. L.R.A. 8. Res ipsa loquitur. Conley v. t'nit. 1915D, 1186, 84 S. E. 945, W. Va. ed Drug Company, L.R.A.1915D, 830, 105 N.
(Annotated) E. 975, 218 Mass. 238.
2. The fact that some gas is found in