« AnteriorContinuar »
SEPARATION OF POWERS. Statutes excluding fraternities from, as Of government, see Constitutional Law, violating constitutional provision
fraternities from schools, see Constitutional Law, 10. SET-OFF AND COUNTERCLAIM. Reading of Bible in public schools, see 1. Where a coroner, at the request of Constitutional Law, 19.
relatives of a deceased person, takes charge Forbidding location near, of garage of the body for the purpose of burial, and,
storing inflammable substances, see to defray the expenses thereof, sells certain
Municipal Corporations, 11. personal property belonging to the deceased, 1. A legislature which has power
and applies the proceeds in payment of the create and abolish institutions of learning to set off the amount thus expended in an
necessary funeral expenses, he is entitled to be supported by the state has authority action against him and the surety on his to forbid the existence of Greek letter fra- official bond, by the administrator, for the ternities in such institutions and deprive value of the property thus sold. Lenderink members in them of the right to receive honors or diplomas from such institution. 744, 92 Neb. 587.
v. Sawyer, L.R.A.19151, 948, 138 N. W. University of Mississippi
(Annotated) Waugh, L.R.A.1915D, 588, 62 So. 827, 105 Miss. 623.' has indorsed a note discounted ly it cannot,
2. A depositor in an insolvent bank who 2. The exclusion of a child 'from school, after he has been indemnified by the maker, because of failure to comply with the law set off his liability against the deposit ac making vaccination a condition to admis- Knafi v. Knoxville Bkg. & T. Co. L.R.A.
count, although the maker is insolvent. sion does not justify the parent's neglect 1915D, 403, 170 S. W. 476, 130 Tenn. 336. to comply with the compulsory education law. People On Complaint of Pugliese v.
SEVERABILITY. Ekerold, L.R.A.1915D, 223, 105 N. E. 670,
Of insurance contract, see Insurance, 211 N. Y. 386.
15. 3. As a court will not concern itself with differences or alleged errors in the
SEWERS. different translations of the Christian Bible,
See Drains and Sewers. it cannot be said that a person of Catholic faith or his children would have their con
SHELLEY'S CASE. sciences violated by the reading of the Bible or the offering of the Lord's Prayer in
Rule in, see Wills, 5. the public schools of the state. Herold v.
SHERIFF. Parish Board of School Directors, L.R.A.
Limitation of time of action against 1915D, 941, 68 So. 116, La.
sheriff for failure to return attach(Annotated)
ment, see Limitation of Actions, 2. SEAL.
SIGNALS. Effect of lease invalid because not under seal to create estoppel, see
Duty as to, at highway crossing, see
To enrolled bill, see Statutes, 1.
search of premises was not sup:
Of assets for purpose of administration,
see Executors and Administrators,
See Libel and Slander.
As to vaccination of school children, see Of white and colored races, see Consti
Schools, 2. tutional Law, 14.
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. SEPARATE PROPERTY.
1. Specific performance of a contract Of married woman, see Husband and be had at the suit of the seller, if it is Bartlett, L.R.A.1915D, 300, 83 S. E. 1001, the office of the secretary of state, of the - W. Va.
for the sale of stock in a corporation may Wife, 6.
made to appear that such stock is not for
sale in the general market and is of uncerSEPARATION.
tain value, since in such case an action at See Divorce and Separation.
law for damages is inadequate. Morgan v.
(Annotated) signature of the speaker of the house of 2. Proof that stock in the same cor- | representatives, renders the statute void poration was sold by the individual holders where the Constitution provides that every thereof about the time the sale in question bill, having passed both houses, shall be was to have been consummated, at widely signed by the speaker and president of their variant prices, is evidence of its uncertain respective houses. State ex rel, Hammond v. value, so as to justify specific performance Lynch, L.R.A.1915D, 119, 151 N. W. 81, of a contract for the sale of stock. Morgan Iowa, v. Bartlett, L.R.A.1915D, 300, 83 S. E. 1001, Who may question validity. W. Va.
Unconstitutionality of statute as to
third person as defense, see Action SPEED.
or Suit, 2. Oi automobiles, see Automobiles, 8; Who may question validity of ordinance, New Trial, 1.
see Municipal Corporation, 6.
Right of taxpayer to maintain action SPIKE.
to determine constitutionality of Injury by spike hurled through air by
statute, see Parties, 5, 7. railroad train, see Railroads, 2. 2. A chattel mortgagee cannot complain
of a statute existing when his mortgage was SQUARES.
taken, which makes all personal taxes a lien See Parks and Squares.
on all personal property of the taxpayer.
Minneapolis Threshing Mach. Co. v. Roberts STATE.
County, L.R.A.1915D, 886, 149 N. W. 163, Liability of municipality for costs and - S. D.
attorneys' fees in suit instituted by Judicial examination.
rolled bill to determine whether or not the
requirements of the Constitution were comSTATE INSTITUTIONS.
plied with in the enactment of a statute. Injunction against trustees of, see In- State ex rel. Hammond v. Lynch, L.R.A. junction, 3.
1915D, 119, 151 N. W. 81, - Iowa,
4. Evidence is not admissible to show STATEMENT.
that a statute requiring caboose cars to be Of mechanics' lien, see Mechanics' Liens, of a certain length and to be mounted on 2.
certain running gear is unreasonable be
cause cars corresponding to those specified STATE UNIVERSITIES.
are not required for safety, and therefore Injunction against trustees of, see In- that the statute which places additional junction, 3.
expense on railroad companies is void as The trustees of a state university taking property without due process of law. may, under legislative authority, prohibit Pittsburgh, c. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. State, persons desiring to become students in that L.R.A.1915D, 458, 102 N, E. 25, 180 Ind! institution from holding allegiance to any Entitling; expression of subject.
(Annotated) Greek letter fraternity wherever it may be located. University of Mississippi v.
5. A provision prohibiting the carrying Waugh, L.R.A.1915D, 588, 62 So. 827, 105 of intoxicating liquors into a club room is Miss. 623.
within a title indicating that the statute is
to prohibit the sale of such liquors. State STATUTE OF FRAUDS.
v. Phillips, L.R.A.1915D, 530, 67 So. 651,
Miss. See Contracts, 3–5.
Construction; operation; effect. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
6. A statute will not be presumed to See Limitation of Actions.
alter the common law, "other than what
has been specified and besides what has been STATUTE OF NONCLAIMS.
plainly pronounced.” Reeves & Co. v. RusSee Executors and Administrators, 6. sell, L.R.A.1915D, 1149, 148 N. W. 654, 28
N. D. 265. STATUTES.
7. The common law must, as to civil Effect of violation of, to deprive one of rights and remedies, be considered in the
defense of contributory negligence, construction and application of statutes de. see Automobiles, 8.
claratory thereof, and such statutes conConstitutionality of, generally, see Con- strued and applied as continuations of or stitutional Law,
legislative declarations of the common law, Refusal to pass upon constitutionality so far as covered by such statutes. Reeves
of statute not n-cessary to decision & Co. v. Russell, L.R.A.1915D, 1149, 148 N. of case, see Courts, 2.
W. 654, 28 N. D. 265. Review of, by courts, see Courts, 3.
8. The adoption of a statute from anEnactment.
other state is presumed to carry the conSee also infra, 3.
struction which has been given it by the 1. The absence from the enrolled bill in'courts of the state of origin. People v. 859,
Union Trust Co. L.R.A.1915D, 450, 99 N. E. SUBSCRIPTION. 377, 255 Ill. 168.
To corporate stock, see Corporations, 11. Repeal; amendment.
9. The repeal of a statute either de- SUCCESSION TAX. claratory of or changing the common law, See Taxes, 4-6. without express provisions against the revivor of the common law, ipso facto revives SUICIDE. the common law, since such repeal will be Presumption of insanity from, see Eviregarded, in the absence of a contrary legis
dence, 8. lative intent appearing, as an affirmance of By-law of insurance company as to, see the common law. Reeves & Co. v. Russell,
Insurance, 3. L.R.A.1915D, 1149, 148 N. W. 654, 28 N. D. 265.
Charging the jury in a criminal case
on Sunday renders the proceeding void, STOCK AND STOCKHOLDERS.
although court was not adjourned at the See Corporations.
close of the arguments on Saturday, but
merely took a recess, so that the charge STOPPING PAYMENT.
could be delivered without the necessity of On check, see Banks, 5.
a formal opening of the court on Sunday. Moss v. State, L.R.A.1915D, 361, 173 S. W. Tenn.
(Annotated) STREET RAILWAYS. Relevancy of evidence in action for in- SURETIES. jury, see Evidence, 36.
See Principal and Surety.
jured by violation of ordinance, see SURGEONS.
See Physicians and Surgeons.
SURRENDER. Crossing of railroad track by, see Rail
Of insurance policy, see Insurance, 5. roads, 1. 1. Notwithstanding an ordinance giving TAXES. wagons carrying United States mail a right Priority between tax lien and chattel of way over street cars on the public streets,
mortgage, see Chattel Mortgage, 1. the one in charge of such wagon, who, License tax, see License. while looking at an approaching car, drives Foreclosure of mortgage for default in in front of it, cannot hold the railroad com
payment of, see Mortgage, 3. pany liable for the resulting injury unless Provision as to, in mortgage, see Mortthe motorman was negligent in failing to use due care in endeavoring to stop the car Who may question statute as to lien of, after discovering his peril. Bain v. Fort
see Statutes, 2. Smith Light & Traction Co. L.R.A.1915D, Subrogation of one paying taxes to 1021, 172 S. W. 843, Ark.
rights of public, see Subrogation. (Annotated)
Assessment. 2. One who negligently drives onto a street car track in front of an approaching ment for taxation, viz., “Cleveland town
1. A description of land in an assesscar cannot hold the railroad company liable for injuries due to the resulting collision, ship, county of Walsh, North Dakota; name although the motorman was negligent in of owner, Florence B. Martin; description, failing to keep a proper lookout, unless N. W. 4, Sec. 1, Twp. 155, Rng. 57,” is void the motorman" might, by the exercise of as the basis of an assessment for taxation, proper care, have avoided the collision after in a direct attack by a party in a situation
Farmers' Security Bank v. discovering his peril. Bain v. Fort Smith to assail it. Light & Traction Co. L.R.A.1915D, 1021, 172 Martin, L.R.A.1915D, 432, 150 N. W. 572,
- N. D. S. W. 843, Ark.
2. A municipal corporation which supSUBROGATION.
plies at a profit water from its plant to a 1. In the absence of a statute permit- neighboring town is not exempt from an ad ting tax officials to assign tax claims, a valorem tax by the latter on the mains property owner cannot by contract confer a
and hydrants within its limits, nor from a right of subrogation to the claims of the privilege tax there, by a provision exempt. publie upon a stranger who pays his taxes ing municipal property used exclusively for at his request , which will preserve a lien public or municipal corporation purposes
Knoxville v. Park City, superior to that of existing mortgages on L.R.A.1915D, 1103, 172 S. W. 286, 130 Tenn. the property, although the tax collector at- 626. tempted to preserve the lien by an assign- Sale; deed; rights of purchasers. ment on the tax books. Gibson v. Western Effect of tax sale to cut off easements & Southern L. Ins. Co. L.R.A.1915D, 697,
of adjoining property owners, see 171 S. W. 390, 161 Ky. 810. (Annotated)
3. A purchaser at tax sale is not bound | TIMBER. to comply with his bid if the property is Husband's right of action for cutting of subject to easements of light, air, and
timber on wife's property, see Husaccess which materially affect its value.
band and Wife, 6. Tax Lien Co. v. Schultze, L.R.A.1915D, 1115, 106 N. E. 751, 213 N, Y. 9.
TIME. Succession or transfer tax.
For taking exception, see Appeal and Allowance by courts of testator's domi
Error, 6, 7. cil of inheritance tax after decree To present claims against decedent's of other state discharging admin
estate, see Executors and Administrator, see Judgment, 3.
istrators, 6. 4. The imposition of a succession tax Of demand for autopsy by insurance by a state in which personal property is
company, see Insurance, 18, 19. found will not prevent the imposition of For filing mechanics' liens, see Mechananother by the state in which the testator
ies' Liens, 2. was domiciled. People v. Union Trust Co. To move for new trial, see New Trial, 3. L.R.A.1915D, 450, 99 N. E. 377, 255 Ill. 168.
5. The inheritance tax against a widow TITLE. who is entitled to a certain sum under an Liability for defective abstract of, see antenuptial agreement and an additional
Abstracts. sum under the will will be assessed against Of insured, see Insurance, 8–10. the aggregate to which she is so entitled if Of personal property, passing of, see the contract and will are not set aside, al
Sale, 1. though, because of her contest, a compro- Of statute, see Statutes, 5. mise is effected by which she receives a much larger share of the estate. People v. TORTS. Union Trust Co. L.R.A.1915D, 450, 99 N. E. Of married women, husband's liability 377, 255 Ill. 168.
for, see Husband and Wife, 1. 6. An executor or trustee may be re. Master's liability for, see Master and quired to pay the inheritance tax only on
Servant, 9, 10. the funds sent to him by the courts of a sister state for distribution, and not upon TOWNS. those distributed by the local administrator Indebtedness of, see Municipal Corpo. by direction of such courts, where the stat
rations, 13, 14. ute of testator's domicil, where such executor or trustee resides, provides that he | TRACTION ENGINE. shall deduct the tax from legacies or prop- Forbidding use of, on highways, see erty in his hands for distribution, which is
Municipal Corporations, 8. construed to apply only to the beneficial interests of legatees. People v. Union Trust TRADE. Co. L.R.A.1915D, 450, 99 N. E. 377, 255 III. Validity of agreement in restraint of, 168.
see Contracts, 7.
TRADENAME. Right to maintain action, see Parties, Validity of contracts by person carry; 4-7.
ing on business under assumed
name without complying with statTELEGRAPHS.
ute, see Contracts, 8. Duty of telegraph company to take out
1. A person, being the sole owner and license for messenger business, see
manager of a business, has, in the absence License, 2.
of a statute to the contrary, the right to
assume any name under which he chooses to TELEPHONES.
conduct his business so long as such busiService of summons by, see Writ and ness is conducted under such name in good Process.
faith, and he may maintain an action for
breach of contracts made under such busi. TENDER.
name. Robinovitz v. Hamill, L.R.A.
Okla. Of purchase price as acceptance of of- 1915D, 981, 144 Pac. 1024, fer, see Option, 2.
2. Section 2444, Okla. Comp. Laws 1909, TENEMENT HOUSE.
providing that “every person transacting
business in the name of a person as a partForbidding location near, of garage
ner who is not interested in his firm, or storing inflammable substances, see Municipal Corporations, 11.
transacting business under a firm name in which the designation ‘and Company' or '&
Co.' is used without representing an actual THEFT.
partner, except in the cases in which the See Larceny.
continued use of a copartnership name is au
thorized by law, is guilty of a misdemeanTHREATS.
or,” does not apply to one person who, As duress, see Duress.
being the sole person interested in a business, adopts a business or tradename under crime, in an action for malicious prosecuwhich the business is conducted. Robino- tion, is one of unmixed law. Matson v. vitz v. Hamill, L.R.A.1915D, 981, 144 Pac. Michael, L.R.A.1915D, 1, 105 Pac. 537, 81 1024, Okla.
(Annotated) 3. Section 5023, Okla. Comp. Laws 2. The question of the existence of 1909, requiring every partnership transact- probable cause for a prosecution is one of ing business in the state under a fiotitious law where the prosecutor made a full, truthname, or a designation not showing the ful, and complete statement of facts to a names of the persons interested as part-reputable attorney and acted upon his adners in such business, to file a certificate vice. Simmons v. Gardner, L.R.A.1915D, stating the names in full of all the members 16, 89 Pac. 887, 46 Wash. 282. (Annotated) of such partnership and their places of resi. 3. A tender of performance of a promise dence, and publish the same for a stated of marriage must be made in good faith, period, and § 5025, Okla. Comp. Laws 1909, and if, in any view of the testimony, the providing that persons doing business as good faith of the tender is questionable, partners contrary to the provisions of this then it is a question of fact for the jury. article shall not maintain any action on or Corduan v. McCloud (N. J. Err. & App.) on account of any contracts made in the L.R.A.1915D, 1190, 93 Atl. 724, N. J. partnership name, relate to partnerships composed of two or more persons, and do 4. Where a carrier seeks to avoid lianot apply to one person who, being the bility to a shipper for loss on account of a sole person interested in a business, adopts snowstorm, and there is conflicting testia business or trade name under which the mony as to whether such carrier, notwithbusiness is conducted. Robinovitz v. Ham- standing such snowstorm, could, by the ill, L.R.A.1915D, 981, 144 Pac. 1024, — Okla. exercise of ordinary care or reasonable ef
forts, have prevented the loss, it is proper
to submit such issue of fact to the jury. TRADING STAMPS.
St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Dreyfus, L.R.Å. Creation of monopoly by contract as 1915D, 547, 141 Pac. 773, 42 Okla. 401. to, see Contracts, 7.
5. Whether a hospital was negligent
in allowing a patient, while suffering from TRANSFER COMPANY.
fitful mental disorder, access to a sinkroom As independent contractor, see Master where poison was kept, in the nighttime and Servant, 10.
without an attendant, is a question for the
jury, although the private physician of the TRANSFER TAX.
patient instructed the hospital attendants See Taxes, 4-6.
to allow the patient freedom of his room
and the halls. Broz v. Omaha Maternity & TRAVELING SALESMEN.
G. H. Asso. L.R.A.1915D, 334, 148 N. W. See Commercial Travelers.
575, 96 Neb. 648.
6. Where the circumstances surroundTREATIES.
ing the execution of a contract limiting a Effect of, to supersede statutory pro- common carrier's liability for the loss of
visions for administration of de- stock to a certain sum per head are such cedent's estate, see Diplomatic and as could not be held to be just, fair, and Consular Officers.
reasonable, there is no error in excluding
the contract from the consideration of the TRESPASS.
jury in an action wherein the shipper sought In making public improvements, see a recovery upon the carrier's common-law Public Improvements, 1.
liability. McGrath v. Northern P. R. Co. L.R.A.1915D, 644, 141 N. W. 164, 121 Minn.
258. TRIAL. Review of discretion as to order of
7. Whether or not an insurer waived proof, see Appeal and Error, 10.
proof of loss by denying liability on the Review of discretion in refusing to set policy is a question for the jury. Bouchard aside verdict, see Appeal and Er
v. Dirigo Mut. F. Ins. Co. L.R.A.1915D, 187, 92 Atl. 899,
Me. Time for objection to language of coun.
Taking case from jury. sel, see Appeal and Error, 7.
Voluntary nonsuit as res judicata, see Prejudicial error in argument of coun
Judgment, 1. sel, see Appeal and Error, 25.
8. Refusal to direct a verdict is not Sufficiency of evidence to sustain ver
error unless a request for such instruction dict, see Evidence, 44.
is offered in writing. Ross v. Kohler, L.R.A. Charging juror with knowingly return- 1915D, 621, 174 S. W. 36. — Ky.
Time for objections to, see Appeal and
Error, 6. New trial, see New Trial.
Prejudicial error as to, see Appeal and Questions of law and fact.
Error, 23, 24. 1. The question of vhat information 9. Instructions should not be considis sufficient to warrant a reasonably pru- ered as in conflict if they can be harmon. dent man in believing another guilty of a'ized. Bain v. Fort Smith Light & Trac