« AnteriorContinuar »
MINORITY STOCKHOLDERS— MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
one or more of the sands penetrated in drill- 3. A mortgagor who has allowed taxes ing an oil well, and is afterward run from on the mortgaged land to become delinquent the casing head into a gas line from wells cannot defend a foreclosure action brought on an adjoining lease operated by the same by the mortgagee, who has paid the taxes lessee, and the gas from all utilized in op- and declared the entire debt due under the erating the wells on both properties, accord. terms of the mortgage, on the ground that ing to a custom prevailing among oil oper. the taxes thus paid were invalid. Farmers' ators, does not render the lessee in such Security Bank v. Martin, L.R.A.1915D, 432, lease liable to the lessor for annual gas 150 N. W. 572, – N. D. (Annotated) rentals provided for in such lease. Prich. Redemption. ard v. Freeland Oil Co. L.R.A.1915D, 1186, Impairment of obligations by statute 84 S. E. 945, W. Va.
as to recording notice of redemp
tion, see Constitutional Law, 20. MINORITY STOCKHOLDERS.
4. A certificate of redemption issued by Rights of, see Corporations, 14-23. the sheriff to the owner of mortgaged prem
ises which had been foreclosed is not valid MISTAKE.
as against a purchaser for value of the Parol evidence as to, see Evidence, 23. sheriff's certificate issued to the mortgagees In name, see Name.
who had purchased at their foreclosure
sale, where the certificate of redemption MONOPOLY AND COMBINATIONS. was wrongfully issued, in that certain taxes In collection of garbage, see Constitu- and liens which were necessary to the re
tional Law, 3, 8; Municipal Corpo- demption were not paid by the owners. rations, 10.
Heitsch v. Minneapolis Threshing Mach. Co. Contracts between two persons in re- L.R.A.1915D, 349, 150 N. W. 457, 29 N. D.
straint of trade, see Contracts, 7. 94.
MOTIONS AND ORDERS. See Courts, 2.
To quash return in contempt proceed.
ing, see Contempt, 6. MORTALITY TABLES. See Life Tables.
Of stockholder desiring to inspect books, As 'to chattel mortgage, see Chattel
see Corporations, 24. Mortgage.
MOTOR VEHICLES. Effect of, on insurance, see Insurance,
paying taxes on the property, see MULTIPLE STRUCTURES.
Effect of covenant to prevent erection
of, see Covenants and Conditions, Taxes.
2. 1. A mortgagee who is authorized by the mortgage to pay taxes which have been allowed by the mortgagor to become delin
License by, see License. quent may pay a tax after its delinquency and without actual notice of its invalidity,
Duty as to parks, see Parks and although the assessment is fatally defec
Squares. tive, since, the land being subject to tax
Joinder of parties in action against, see
Parties, 8. ation, the payment made by the mortgagee discharged it from liability for tax
Exemption of municipal waterworks ation for that year, while otherwise it
from taxation, see Taxes, 2. would have been subject to reassessment Powers and liabilities generally. and retaxation, and therefore the security 1. One who deals with a municipality of the mortgage was preserved. Farmers' does so with notice of the limitation on its Security Bank v. Martin, L.R.A.1915D, 432, or its agent's powers. Re Afton, L.R.A. 150 N. W. 572, - N. D.
1915D, 978, 144 Pac. 184, 43 Okla. 720. Satisfaction; release.
2. A municipal corporation incurs no 2.
The marriage to the mortgagee of obligation, legal, moral, or equitable, with one who has executed a mortgage on her respect to the costs and attorneys' fees in real estate to secure repayment of a loan a suit instituted by the state to forfeit the from him does not extinguish the debts un charter of a private corporation and to der constitutional and statutory provisions withdraw a monopolistic franchise which it making the property of a married woman had granted, the holder of which it her separate estate, which she may transfer, found violating the terms of the grant and and giving her the power to carry on busi-, using the franchise for the oppression of ness and sue and be sued. McKie v. McKie, those whom it was intended to benefit, even L.R.A.1915D, 1126, 172 S. W. 891, Ark, though, as a result of the suit, the munic
(Annotated) | ipal corporation obtained without expense Enforcement.
a privilege (of establishing a water, sewerMatters concluded by foreclosure de age, and drainage system) for which othercree, see Judgment, 2.
wise, in expropriating the franchise in
question, it would have had to pay heavily. People ex rel. Busching v. Ericsson, L.R.A. Forman v. Sewerage and Water Board 1915D, 607, 105 N. E. 315, 263 Ill. 368. L.R.A.1915D, 927, 66 So. 351, 135 La. 1031. 8. A city ordinance which, in effect, Legislative control over.
prohibits one who owns and operates a 3. The legislature may compel a munic- machine shop from using the streets in ipal corporation to pay a debt which is bringing and taking traction engines and equitable in character, though not binding heavy vehicles to and from his shop, and in law, but it has no power to compel such thereby arbitrarily deprives him of an opa corporation to pay a claim which it is portunity to carry on his business, is ununder no obligation to pay, moral or equi- reasonable and void. Brown v. Nichols, table; and the less so where the issue of L.R.A.1915D, 327, 145 Pac. 561, 93 Kan. obligation vel non has been finally decided | 737. between the parties, by a court of last re- 9. A municipality which has not resort, and where the fund from which the served, in granting a street railway franpayment is claimed has been placed, by the chise, the right to create liability to indiConstitution, under a particular control, viduals for injuries arising from its acts, and dedicated to particular uses, which do cannot, by enacting an ordinance giving not include the payment of the claim in mail carriers a right of way in the street question. Forman v. Sewerage and Water superior to street cars, create a right of Board, L.R.A.1915D, 927, 66 So. 351, 135 action in favor of a mail carrier for inLa. 1031.
(Annotated) juries due to a breach of the ordinance by Delegation of power.
the railway company. Bain v. Fort Smith 4. A provision in a municipal ordi- Light & Traction Co. L.R.A.1915D, 1021, 172 nance requiring consent of neighboring prop. S. W. 843, — Ark.
(Annotated) erty owners to the erection of nonfireproof 10. An ordinance limiting the collecbuildings within fire limits is invalid as a tion of garbage in the city to one licensed delegation of the legislative power of the collector is not void for unreasonableness. municipality to such property
Rochester v. Gutberlett, L.R.A.1915D, 209, Hays v. Poplar Bluff, L.R.A.1915), 595, 173 105 N. E. 548, 211 N. Y. 309. (Annotated) S. W. 676, Mo.
11. No constitutional property rights Ordinances.
are interfered with, even with respect to Regulations as to building, see Build- existing plants, by forbidding the issuance ings.
of any garage permit allowing the storage Sufficiency of proof of violation of or- of volatile inflammable oil, for a building dinance, see Evidence, 48.
within a prescribed distance of any school, Injunction against enforcement of or- place of public amusement, or assembly,
dinance, see Injunction, 1, 4. tenement house, or hotel. Re McIntosh, Right to jury in proceedings to enjoin L.R.A.1915D, 603, 105 N. E. 414, 211 N. Y. violation of ordinance, see Jury, 2.265.
(Annotated) Negligence in violating ordinance en- 12. A municipal ordinance giving wagons
acted as a sanitary measure, see carrying United States mail the right of Negligence, 1.
way in the street superior to street cars is As to denying equal protection of the to be enforced merely by fine for its viola
laws and abridging privileges and tion, and not by private action by a mail immunities,
Constitutional carrier injured by its nonobservance. Bain Law, 2, 3.
v. Fort Smith Light & Traction Co. L.R.A Denial of due process of law or prop. 1915D, 1021, 172 S. W. 843, Ark.
erty rights by, see Constitutional Borrowing money; indebtedness.
13. Indebtedness of a town, which unEvidence of violation of ordinance to der the Constitution can be contracted only
show negligence, see Evidence, 36. by the assent of three fifths of the voters 5. A provision in an ordinance estab. thereof, which was actually contracted withlishing fire limits within which buildings out such assent, cannot thereafter be raticomposed of combustible materials cannot fied by the voters so as to make it a valid be erected, which permits the mayor and obligation of the town. Re Afton, L.R.A. council to permit such buildings within the 1915D, 978, 144 Pac. 184, 43 Okla. 720. prohibited limits, cannot be eliminated, so 14. Section 1, chap. 116, p. 244, Sess. as to permit the ordinance to be enforced Laws of Okla. 1910, authorizing a court to as an absolute prohibition of such build validate warrants issued for debts in excess ings. Hays v. Poplar Bluff, L.R.A.1915D, of the annual revenue and income of a 595, 173 S. W. 676, Mo.
city or incorporated town, is in conflict 6. One seeking to locate a public gar- with § 26, art. 10, of the Constitution, proage near a church cannot attack the ordi- viding that the indebtedness of a city or nance forbidding it because it also forbids incorporated town shall not in any manner such location near a public school without or for any purpose exceed in any year the forbidding it near a private one. People income and revenue provided for such year, ex rel. Busching v. Ericsson, L.R.A.1915D, without consent of three fifths of the voters 607, 105 N. E. 315, 263 Ill. 368.
thereof. Re Afton, L.R.A.1915D, 978, 144 7. A police ordinance passed by a mu- Pac. 184, 43 Okla. 720. nicipal corporation under general author. Liability for damages. ity from the legislature, which does not Liability for defects or obstructions in prescribe its details, must be reasonable.
street, see Highways, 3-6.
15. A municipal corporation is not As to highway, see Highways. liable for injury to a child by negligent use As to negligent homicide, see Homiby other children of a swing on a park
cide. playground which it maintains for the pub- Of hospital, see Hospitals. lic welfare, and for the maintenance of Of master or servant, see Master and order in which it assigns policemen, al
Servant. though lack of care on the part of munic- Of municipal corporation, see Municipal employees may have contributed to
ipal Corporations, 15, 16. the injury. Nashville v. Burns, L.R.A. Proximate cause of injury by, see Proxi. 1915D, 1108, 174 S. W. 1111, 131 Tenn. 281.
mate Cause. 16. A notice given by a parent of a Of railroad, see Railroads. claim for injuries sustained by his minor In operation of street railway, see child, which contains the essential infor
Street Railways. mation required by the statute, is sufficient, As question for jury, see Trial, 4, 5. although it fails to state specifically that Instructions as to, see Trial, 12, 13. the parent claims damages on his own ac- Of warehouseman, see Warehousemen. count and also as the statutory representa- Of irrigation company, see Waters, 2, tive of his child, and fails to make an ap
3. portionment between the two of the amount claimed.
1. The fact that an ordinance requiring Ackeret v. Minneapolis, L.R.A. 1915D, 1111, 151 N. W. 976, 129 Minn. 190, the proprietor of a business house to keep
a covered garbage can outside his place of
business, in which to place all refuse, garMURDER. See Homicide.
bage, and trash, to be called for by the
proper city oflicers, was enacted as a saniMUTILATION.
tary measure, does not prevent the placing Revocation of will by, see Wills, 2.
of trash and loose sheets of paper in front
of a business place from being held negliMUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY.
gence as a matter of fact, although it may See Insurance.
prevent it from being held negligence per se.
Bowen v. Smith-Hall Grocery Co. L.R.A. NAME.
1915D, 617, 82 S. E. 23, 141 Ga. 721. Effect of mistake in name on records Injuries to children; dangerous attracon liability of abstracter, see Ab
2. The act of coupling two wagons As to tradename, see Tradename. together, and thus driving them on the
street without a guard or outlook on or NATURAL GAS.
about the rear wagon in order to warn In mines, see Mines.
children who might attempt to climb there
on, does not of itself constitute negligence on NECESSARIES.
the part of the owner of the wagon, so as Wife's liability for, see Husband and to render him liable in damages for the Wife, 2.
death of a child who climbed on the con
necting pole, from which he afterward fell, NEGATIVE.
and was run over by the rear wagon, the Negation of defenses or exceptions in doctrine of the “Turntable Cases" not being indictment, see Indictment, etc. 2. applicable to such facts. Zigman v. Beebe
& Runyan Furniture Co. L.R.A.1915D, 536, NEGLIGENCE.
151 N. W. 166, 97 Neb. 689. Of abstracter, see Abstracts.
3. A railroad company which maintains In use of automobile, see Automobiles, without barriers an inclined retaining wall 3-7.
with a wide, smooth top, along the side of Of owner of bathing resort, see Bath- a viaduct lawfully constructed over a city ing Resorts.
street, is not, although the top is some disIn blasting, see Blasting.
tance from the surface of the street, liable Of carrier or passenger, see Carriers.
for injury to a child who climbs upon the Measure of damages for negligence theory of attractive nuisance. Coon : Ken
wall and falls off onto the street, upon the causing personal injury or death, tucky & I. Terminal R. Co. L.R.A.1915D, see Damages, 5.
160, 173 S. W. 325, As to electricity, see Electricity.
(Annotated) As to elevators, see Elevators.
4. A mill owner is negligent in permitPresumption and burden of proof as ting a fence inclosing a reservoir with perto, see Evidence, 14-18.
pendicular sides, and filled with 7 to 8 feet Evidence of custom as to, see Evidence, of water, to the top of which a sloping 32.
embankment leads on the outside, to become Relevancy of evidence as to, generally, dilapidated, when the reservoir adjoins the see Evidence, 34–36.
playground of the children of the mill operaViolation of ordinance as evidence of, tives, so as to be liable for the death of a see Evidence, 36.
five-year-old boy who, while at play, crawls Sufficiency of proof of, see Evidence, 45. through the fence for a drink and is As to gas, see Gas.
drowned. Starling v. Selma Cotton Mills,
L.R.A.1915D, 850, 84 S. E. 388, 168 N. C., set aside the verdict on the ground of such 229.
absence. Frank v. State, L.R.A.1915D, 817, Contributory.
83 S. E. 645, 142 Ga. 741. Of person injured by automobile, see 4. Upon the question whether or not a Automobiles, 8.
juror was so biased against accused as to Of bank depositor as to forged checks, justify setting aside a verdict against him, see Banks, 4.
his atlidavit to the effect that he used his Effect of contributory negligence of influence to reduce the punishment fixed by
shipper on carrier's liability for the jury is admissible. Brannon v. Com. loss of or damage to goods, see L.R.A.1915D, 569, 172 S. W. 703, 162 Ky. Carriers, 8, 10, 11.
to contributory negligence,
Statute of, see Executors and AdminisNEGOTIABILITY.
trators, 6. Of note, see Bills and otes, 1.
NONRESIDENTS. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS.
Judgment against, see Attachment. See Bills and Notes.
NOTICE. NEW TRIAL.
To attorney before disbarment, see AtEffect of appeal from judgment refusing
torneys, 3. second new trial to bring before ap- Imputing to officer knowledge of corpellate court order granting the
poration, see Bills and Notes, 4. first new trial, see Appeal and Er- Of redemption, see Constitutional Law, ror, 8.
20. Review of discretion as to, see Appeal Allegation as to, in indictment, see Inand Error, 11, 12.
dictment, etc., 1. Waiver of error giving right to, see Of loss or death, see Insurance, 21. Appeal and Error, 17.
Of limitation upon powers of munici1. Withdrawing from the jury the ques
pality, see Municipal Corporations,
1. tion whether or not defendant in an action to recover damages for injuries inflicted by
To city of claim, see Municipal Corpora
tions, 16. a moving automobile was exceeding the speed limit is ground for new trial at the
A director of an industrial corporainstance of plaintiff, whose award of com- tion is chargeable with knowledge of everypensatory damages was small, even though thing it is his duty to know concerning comhe was found to be guilty of contributory mercial paper belonging to the corporation, negligence, since the withdrawal of such is- which he undertakes, as a director, to sell. sue would deprive plaintiff of the benefit Hardin v. Dale, L.R.A.1915D, 1099, 146 Pac. of evidence in support of it in determining 717, Okla. the question of his negligence. Ludke v. Burck, L.R.A.1915D, 968, 152 N. W. 190, 160 NURSE. Wis. 440.
Liability for negligence of, see Hospi2. A writen answer to a written ques.
tals, 1, 3; Physicians and Surtion sent by a jury which has retired, to the
geons. judge, who is waiting in the lobby of the court to receive the verdict, without requir- OBJECTIONS. ing the attendance in court of the parties To raise questions on appeal, see Apand their counsel, is, although the answer is
peal and Error, 6, 7. accompanied by a statement that the ques. tion and answer are immaterial, ground | OBSTRUCTION. for new trial, where the nature of the com- Of highway, see Highways, 1. munication is never disclosed to the contend. ing party, notwithstanding a statute re: OFFER. quiring errors relating to pleading and In general, see Contracts, 1, 2. procedure to be disregarded which do not in. juriously affect the substantial rights of the OFFICERS. parties. Lewis v. Lewis, L.R.A.1915D, 719, Bonds of, see Bonds. 107 N. E. 970, 220 Mass. 364. (Annotated) Of corporation, see Corporations, 7–10.
3. Where a motion for new trial is Presumption and burden of proof as to made by one convicted of murder, with
acts of, see Evidence, 19. knowledge of the fact that the verdict was Liability for false imprisonment, see rendered in his absence, and such motion
False Imprisonment, 1. does not contain that fact as ground for Injunction against, see Injunction. new trial, though it is recited therein, it Judges, see Judges. is too late, after the motion for new trial Liability of officer making levy, see has been denied and the judgment affirmed
Levy and Seizure. by the supreme court, to make a motion to Mandamus to, see Mandamus.
2. One leasing land under a ditch conAs to oil in mines generally, see Mines. structed by a mutual irrigation ditch com
pany, from a holder of shares in the comOPINION.
pany, by an instrument providing that he As evidence, see Evidence, 24, 25. will accept as full water right for said land
a definite fraction of the water right held OPTION.
by the lessor, is in such privity with the Option contract generally, see Con- ditch company as to enable him to maintain tracts, 1, 2.
an action against it for negligent failure
to maintain the ditch, in consequence of ORDINANCES.
which he is deprived of the water to which In general, see Municipal Corporations, he is entitled, to his injury. Berg v. Ya5-12.
kima Valley Canal Co. L.R.A.1915D, 292,
145 Pac. 619, Wash. OWNERSHIP.
3. A consumer may maintain an action Of property insured, see Insurance, 8- to enforce the rates provided in a contract 10.
between a municipal corporation and a corJurisdiction of Railway Commission poration for supplying water to the inhab
over question of, see Public Serv- | itants. Walton v. Proutt, L.R.A.1915D, 917, ice Commissions, 1.
174 S. W. 1152, Ark.
(Annotated) PARENT AND CHILD.
4. State election officials are not within Action by father for loss of services of the operation of a statute permitting a tax
minor child, see Husband and Wife, payer's action to prevent waste of funds of 4.
a county, town, city, or incorporated village Sufficiency of notice by parent to city to be maintained against any officer there
of claim for injury to child, see of, or any agent, commissioner, or other perMunicipal Corporations, 16. son acting in its behalf, or to prevent an
illegal official act on the part of officers, PARKS AND SQUARES.
agents, commissioners, or other persons actMaintenance and care of, by municipal ing for any county, town, village, or mu
ity in governmental capacity, see nicipal corporation. Schieffelin v. Komfort, Highways, 4.
L.R.A.1915), 485, 106 N. E. 675, 212 N. Y.
520. A city that contracts and maintains
5. A court has authority to determine walks and footpaths in its parks, which are
the constitutionality of acts of the legisused as thoroughfares in passing from one part of the city to another, is liable for lature only in proceedings by a person whose injuries resulting from dangerous conditions fected thereby, and cannot, therefore, at the
special, peculiar, personal rights are afin such walks caused by the negligence of instance of a taxpayer, pass upon the conits employees. Ackeret v. Minneapolis, L.R.A.19150, 1111, 151 N. W. 976, 129 Minn. in providing for a revision of the Constitu
stitutionality of the act of the legislature 190.
tion. Schieffelin v. Komfort, L.R.A.1915D,
485, 106 N. E. 675, 212 N. Y. 520. PAROL EVIDENCE. See Evidence, 23.
6. An individual taxpayer cannot main
tain a suit in equity to determine the rePARTIAL INVALIDITY.
sult of an election at which the question
was submitted to the voters whether or not Of ordinance, see Municipal Corpora
a constitutional convention should be held. tions, 5.
Schieffelin v. Komfort, L.R.A.1915D, 485,
106 N. E. 675, 212 N. Y. 520. PARTIES. To criminal offense, see Criminal Law, no standing as such to contest the expendi
7. A citizen and taxpayer of a state has 1.
ture of funds under an alleged unconstituPlaintiffs.
tional statute. Sutton v. Buie, L.R.A.1915D, Action by stockholder of corporation, 178, 66 So. 956, — La. see Corporations, 15–23.
(Annotated) Husband, see Husband and Wife, 4-6. 8. Where an owner of a city lot makes Who may question validity of ordinance, a contract of sale, and, upon payment of a
see Municipal Corporations, 6. part of the purchase money, executes a bond Private action for violation of ordi- j for title, and places the purchaser in posses.
nance, see Municipal Corporations, sion, the obligor and the obligee are proper 9, 12.
parties in a suit against the city to enjoin Who may question validity of statute, an illegal interference with the possessee Statutes, 2.
sion of the property. Carey v. Atlanta, 1. One who has sold and received pay. L.R.A.1915D, 684, 84 S. E. 456,
Ga. ment for goods deposited in a warehouse Defendants. and identified so that the title has passed
In action to enforce lien for compensacannot hold the warehouseman liable for
tion to abutting owner for location negligently permitting the property to be
of railroad in street against properinjured. Hecht v. Boston Wharf Co. L.R.A.
ty in hands of successor, see High1915D, 725, 107 N. E. 990, 220 Mass. 397.