SITUS.

SLANDER.

See Libel and Slander.

SMALLPOX.

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

1. Specific performance of a contract

Of married woman, see Husband and for the sale of stock in a corporation may Wife, 6.

be had at the suit of the seller, if it is made to appear that such stock is not for sale in the general market and is of uncertain value, since in such case an action at law for damages is inadequate. Morgan v.

the office of the secretary of state, of the signature of the speaker of the house of representatives, renders the statute void where the Constitution provides that every bill, having passed both houses, shall be signed by the speaker and president of their respective houses. State ex rel. Hammond v. Lynch, L.R.A.1915D, 119, 151 N. W. 81, Who may question validity.

Bartlett, L.R.A.1915D, 300, 83 S. E. 1001,
W. Va. -
(Annotated)
2. Proof that stock in the same cor-
poration was sold by the individual holders
thereof about the time the sale in question
was to have been consummated, at widely
variant prices, is evidence of its uncertain
value, so as to justify specific performance
of a contract for the sale of stock. Morgan | Iowa,
v. Bartlett, L.R.A.1915D, 300, 83 S. E. 1001,
W. Va. -.

SPEED.

Of automobiles, see Automobiles, 8;
New Trial, 1.

SPIKE.

Injury by spike hurled through air by railroad train, see Railroads, 2.

SQUARES.

See Parks and Squares.

STATE.

Liability of municipality for costs and attorneys' fees in suit instituted by state, see Municipal Corporations, 2.

STATE INSTITUTIONS.

Unconstitutionality of statute as to
third person as defense, see Action
or Suit, 2.

Who may question validity of ordinance,
see Municipal Corporation, 6.
Right of taxpayer to maintain action
to determine constitutionality of
statute, see Parties, 5, 7.

2. A chattel mortgagee cannot complain of a statute existing when his mortgage was taken, which makes all personal taxes a lien on all personal property of the taxpayer. Minneapolis Threshing Mach. Co. v. Roberts County, L.R.A.1915D, 886, 149 N. W. 163, S. D.-.

Judicial examination.

3. The courts cannot go behind the enrolled bill to determine whether or not the requirements of the Constitution were complied with in the enactment of a statute. 1915D, 119, 151 N. W. 81, - Iowa, -. 4. Evidence is not admissible to show that a statute requiring caboose cars to be

Injunction against trustees of, see In- State ex rel. Hammond v. Lynch, L.R.A. junction, 3.

STATEMENT.

Of mechanics' lien, see Mechanics' Liens, of a certain length and to be mounted on

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

See Limitation of Actions.

Entitling; expression of subject.

5. A provision prohibiting the carrying of intoxicating liquors into a club room is within a title indicating that the statute is to prohibit the sale of such liquors. State v. Phillips, L.R.A.1915D, 530, 67 So. 651, Miss.

Construction; operation; effect.

6. A statute will not be presumed to alter the common law, "other than what has been specified and besides what has been plainly pronounced." Reeves & Co. v. RusSee Executors and Administrators, 6. sell, L.R.A.1915D, 1149, 148 N. W. 654, 28

STATUTE OF NONCLAIMS.

7. The common law must, as to civil rights and remedies, be considered in the construction and application of statutes declaratory thereof, and such statutes construed and applied as continuations of or legislative declarations of the common law, so far as covered by such statutes. Reeves & Co. v. Russell, L.R.A.1915D, 1149, 148 N. W. 654, 28 N. D. 265.

8. The adoption of a statute from another state is presumed to carry the construction which has been given it by the 1. The absence from the enrolled bill in courts of the state of origin. People v.

See also infra, 3.

Union Trust Co. L.R.A.1915D, 450, 99 N. E. | SUBSCRIPTION.
377, 255 Ill. 168.
Repeal; amendment.

9. The repeal of a statute either declaratory of or changing the common law, without express provisions against the revivor of the common law, ipso facto revives the common law, since such repeal will be regarded, in the absence of a contrary legislative intent appearing, as an affirmance of the common law. Reeves & Co. v. Russell, L.R.A.1915D, 1149, 148 N. W. 654, 28 N. D.

265.

STOCK AND STOCKHOLDERS.
See Corporations.

STOPPING PAYMENT.

On check, see Banks, 5.

STREET RAILWAYS.

To corporate stock, see Corporations, 11.
SUCCESSION TAX.
See Taxes, 4-6.

SUICIDE.

Presumption of insanity from, see Evi-
dence, 8.

By-law of insurance company as to, see
Insurance, 3.

See Principal and Surety.

Relevancy of evidence in action for in- SURETIES.
jury, see Evidence, 36.
Private action in favor of person in-
jured by violation of ordinance, see
Municipal Corporations, 9, 12.
Instruction as to negligence, see Trial,
12, 13.

Crossing of railroad track by, see Rail-
roads, 1.

1. Notwithstanding an ordinance giving wagons carrying United States mail a right of way over street cars on the public streets, the one in charge of such wagon, who, while looking at an approaching car, drives in front of it, cannot hold the railroad company liable for the resulting injury unless the motorman was negligent in failing to use due care in endeavoring to stop the car after discovering his peril. Bain v. Fort Smith Light & Traction Co. L.R.A.1915D, 1021, 172 S. W. 843, Ark.

SUBROGATION.

1. In the absence of a statute permitting tax officials to assign tax claims, a property owner cannot by contract confer a right of subrogation to the claims of the public upon a stranger who pays his taxes at his request, which will preserve a lien superior to that of existing mortgages on the property, although the tax collector attempted to preserve the lien by an assignment on the tax books. Gibson v. Western & Southern L. Ins. Co. L.R.A.1915D, 697, 171 S. W. 390, 161 Ky. 810. (Annotated)

SURGEONS.

See Physicians and Surgeons.

SURRENDER.

Of insurance policy, see Insurance, 5.

TAXES.

Priority between tax lien and chattel
mortgage, see Chattel Mortgage, 1.
License tax, see License.
Foreclosure of mortgage for default in
payment of, see Mortgage, 3.
Provision as to, in mortgage, see Mort-
gage, 1.

Who may question statute as to lien of,
see Statutes, 2.

Subrogation of one paying taxes to rights of public, see Subrogation.

Assessment.

ment for taxation, viz., "Cleveland town1. A description of land in an assessship, county of Walsh, North Dakota; name of owner, Florence B. Martin; description, N. W. 4, Sec. 1, Twp. 155, Rng. 57," is void as the basis of an assessment for taxation, in a direct attack by a party in a situation to assail it. Farmers Security Bank v. Martin, L.R.A.1915D, 432, 150 Ñ. W. 572,

N. D. -.
Exemptions.

2. A municipal corporation which supplies at a profit water from its plant to a neighboring town is not exempt from an ad valorem tax by the latter on the mains and hydrants within its limits, nor from a privilege tax there, by a provision exempting municipal property used exclusively for public or municipal corporation purposes from taxation. Knoxville v. Park City, L.R.A.1915D, 1103, 172 S. W. 286, 130 Tenn. 626.

Sale; deed; rights of purchasers.

Effect of tax sale to cut off easements of adjoining property owners, see Easements, 2.

Husband's right of action for cutting of timber on wife's property, see Husband and Wife, 6.

3. A purchaser at tax sale is not bound | TIMBER. to comply with his bid if the property is subject to easements of light, air, and access which materially affect its value. Tax Lien Co. v. Schultze, L.R.A.1915D, 1115, 106 N. E. 751, 213 N. Y. 9. Succession or transfer tax.

Allowance by courts of testator's domicil of inheritance tax after decree of other state discharging administrator, see Judgment, 3.

4. The imposition of a succession tax by a state in which personal property is found will not prevent the imposition of another by the state in which the testator was domiciled. People v. Union Trust Co. L.R.A.1915D, 450, 99 ̊ N. E. 377, 255 Ill. 168.

5. The inheritance tax against a widow who is entitled to a certain sum under an antenuptial agreement and an additional sum under the will will be assessed against the aggregate to which she is so entitled if the contract and will are not set aside, although, because of her contest, a compromise is effected by which she receives a much larger share of the estate. People v. Union Trust Co. L.R.A.1915D, 450, 99 N. E. 377, 255 Ill. 168.

6. An executor or trustee may be required to pay the inheritance tax only on the funds sent to him by the courts of a sister state for distribution, and not upon those distributed by the local administrator by direction of such courts, where the statute of testator's domicil, where such executor or trustee resides, provides that he shall deduct the tax from legacies or property in his hands for distribution, which is construed to apply only to the beneficial interests of legatees. People v. Union Trust Co. L.R.A.1915D, 450, 99 N. E. 377, 255 Ill. 168.

TAXPAYER.

Right to maintain action, see Parties, 4-7.

TELEGRAPHS.

Duty of telegraph company to take out license for messenger business, see License, 2.

TELEPHONES.

Service of summons by, see Writ and
Process.

TENDER.

TIME.

For taking exception, see Appeal and
Error, 6, 7.

To present claims against decedent's
estate, see Executors and Admin-
istrators, 6.

Of demand for autopsy by insurance company, see Insurance, 18, 19. For filing mechanics' liens, see Mechanics' Liens, 2.

To move for new trial, see New Trial, 3.

TITLE.

Liability for defective abstract of, see
Abstracts.

Of insured, see Insurance, 8-10.
Of personal property, passing of, see
Sale, 1.

Of statute, see Statutes, 5.

TORTS.

Of married women, husband's liability
for, see Husband and Wife, 1.
Master's liability for, see Master and
Servant, 9, 10.

TOWNS.

Indebtedness of, see Municipal Corporations, 13, 14.

TRACTION ENGINE.
Forbidding use of, on highways, see
Municipal Corporations, 8.

TRADE.

Validity of agreement in restraint of, see Contracts, 7.

TRADENAME.

Validity of contracts by person carrying on business under assumed name without complying with statute, see Contracts, 8.

1. A person, being the sole owner and manager of a business, has, in the absence of a statute to the contrary, the right to assume any name under which he chooses to conduct his business so long as such business is conducted under such name in good faith, and he may maintain an action for breach of contracts made under such business name. Robinovitz v. Hamill, L.R.A.

Of purchase price as acceptance of of- 1915D, 981, 144 Pac. 1024, fer, see Option, 2.

TENEMENT HOUSE.

Forbidding location near, of garage storing inflammable substances, see Municipal Corporations, 11.

THEFT.

See Larceny.

THREATS.

As duress, see Duress.

Okla.
(Annotated)

2. Section 2444, Okla. Comp. Laws 1909, providing that "every person transacting business in the name of a person as a partner who is not interested in his firm, or transacting business under a firm name in which the designation and Company' or '& Co.' is used without representing an actual partner, except in the cases in which the continued use of a copartnership name is authorized by law, is guilty of a misdemeanor," does not apply to one person who, being the sole person interested in a busi

Okla. -.

ness, 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, Kan. 360. (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 fictitious 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 not apply to one person who, being the sole person interested in a business, adopts a business or trade name under which the business is conducted. Robinovitz v. Hamill, L.R.A.1915D, 981, 144 Pac. 1024, — Okla.

4. Where a carrier seeks to avoid liability to a shipper for loss on account of a snowstorm, and there is conflicting testimony as to whether such carrier, notwithstanding such snowstorm, could, by the exercise of ordinary care or reasonable efforts, have prevented the loss, it is proper to submit such issue of fact to the jury. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Dreyfus, L.R.Å. Creation of monopoly by contract as 1915D, 547, 141 Pac. 773, 42 Ökla. 401. to, see Contracts, 7.

TRADING STAMPS.

TRANSFER COMPANY.

5. Whether a hospital was negligent in allowing a patient, while suffering from fitful mental disorder, access to a sinkroom

As independent contractor, see Master where poison was kept, in the nighttime and Servant, 10.

TRANSFER TAX.

See Taxes, 4-6.

TRAVELING SALESMEN.

See Commercial Travelers.

TREATIES.

Effect of, to supersede statutory provisions for administration of decedent's estate, see Diplomatic and Consular Officers.

TRESPASS.

In making public improvements, see
Public Improvements, 1.

TRIAL.

Review of discretion as to order of
proof, see Appeal and Error, 10.
Review of discretion in refusing to set
aside verdict, see Appeal and Er-
ror, 12.

Time for objection to language of coun-
sel, see Appeal and Error, 7.
Prejudicial error in argument of coun-
sel, see Appeal and Error, 25.
Sufficiency of evidence to sustain ver-
dict, see Evidence, 44.
Charging juror with knowingly return-
ing wrong verdict, see Libel and
Slander, 1.

New trial, see New Trial.

Questions of law and fact.

without an attendant, is a question for the jury, although the private physician of the patient instructed the hospital attendants to allow the patient freedom of his room and the halls. Broz v. Omaha Maternity & G. H. Asso. L.R.A.1915D, 334, 148 N. W. 575, 96 Neb. 648.

6. Where the circumstances surrounding the execution of a contract limiting a common carrier's liability for the loss of stock to a certain sum per head are such as could not be held to be just, fair, and reasonable, there is no error in excluding the contract from the consideration of the jury in an action wherein the shipper sought a recovery upon the carrier's common-law liability. McGrath v. Northern P. R. Co. L.R.A.1915D, 644, 141 N. W. 164, 121 Minn.

1. The question of what information is sufficient to warrant a reasonably pru- ered dent man in believing another guilty of a ized.

Time for objections to, see Appeal and
Error, 6.

Prejudicial error as to, see Appeal and
Error, 23, 24.

9. Instructions should not be consid-
as in conflict if they can be harmon-
Bain v. Fort Smith Light & Trac-