Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

tion Co. L.R.A.1915D, 1021, 172 $. W. 843, of conversion of a millinery stock belonging Ark.

to the wife of the assignor and kept in the 10. Complaint cannot be made of a fail store, where it was left after the assignment ure of the trial court to give instructions with the consent of the assignee, on account requested by a defendant on the subject of of his failure to notify the wife of a sale of contributory negligence where the instruc- the assigned goods, as he had promised to tions which were given fairly covered those do, where the wife received actual notice requested and a special interrogatory was prior to the sale from another source, alsubmitted to the jury on the question and though the purchaser of the stock mistakena special verdict returned negativing such ly believed that the millinery stock belonged negligence. McGrath v. Northern P. R. Co. to the stock purchased and advertised it L.R.A.1915D, 644, 141 N. W. 164, 121 Minn. with the other for sale, but subsequently, 258.

and before the sale commenced, discovered 11. An instruction in an action by a his error and thereafter made no claim to shipper against a carrier for damages suf- the millinery stock. Brandenburg v. Northfered through the alleged negligence of the western Jobbers' Credit Bureau, L.R.A.1915carrier in delivering goods, that the bur- | D, 474, 151 N. W. 134, 128 Minn. 411. den of proof is upon the defendant to satisfy the jury by its evidence not only that TRUSTEE PROCESS. the loss sustained by the plaintiff” was oc- See Garnishment. casioned by the act of God, but also that “the defendant exercised due care and dili- | ULTRA VIRES. gence in the performance of its duty, and Ultra vires acts of corporation, see was not in any manner negligent in doing

Corporations, 2-4. or omitting to do any act that might have averted the loss," such instruction being | UNIFORMITY. unqualified or unmodified by other instruc- Of license tax, see License, 3. tions, is erroneous. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Dreyfus, L.R.A.1915D, 547, 141 Pac. UNION DEPOT. 773, 42 Okla. 401.

Requiring carriers to maintain, see Car. 12. A requested instruction in an action

riers, 16, 18-22; Constitutional by a mail carrier injured by collision with

Law, 18; Evidence, 4; Mandamus, a street car that the city ordinance gave

1; Public Service Commission, 2. the mail wagon the right of way, and that plaintiff, as the driver of the wagon, had UNITED STATES. the right to assume that the motorman, if

Assumpsit by, to recover money paid on he discovered, or, by the exercise of ordi

forged draft, see Assumpsit, 2. nary care, could have discovered, the approach of the wagon, would accord the right

USAGE. of way to the wagon, is argumentative and

See Custom. calculated to mislead the jury. Bain v. Fort Smith Light & Traction Co. L.R.A. 1915D, 1021, 172 S. W. 843, Ark.

USURY. 13. An instruction in an action to re- Right to raise question of, in action to cover damages for injury by collision with

quiet title against one redeeming a street car, that the verdict should be for

from mortgage sale, see Judgment, defendant if the motorman used ordinary

2. care in the management of the car at and

1. The reserving of interest in advance near the place of the injury, includes a re

by a bank, at the highest legal rate of inquirement of constant lookout for persons terest on a loan, is usurious whether it be on the track. Bain v. Fort Smith Light &

a short or a long term loan. Loganville Traction Co. L.R.A.1915D, 1021, 172 S. W. Banking Co. v. Forrester, L.R.A.1915D, 843, Ark.

1195, 84 S. E. 961, Ga. (Annotated)

2. A deed to land given to secure a TROVER.

usurious loan is void, under a statute proA purchaser of a stock of goods at , viding that all titles to property made as an assignee's sale is not guilty of conversion

a part of an usurious contract, or to evade of a millinery stock belonging to another the laws against usury, are void. Loganville kept in the store in which the assigned Banking Co. v. Forrester, L.R.A.1915D, 1195, stock was kept, because of the fact that he 84 S. $. 961, Ga. mistakenly believed the millinery stock belonged to the stock purchased, and adver

VACATION. tised the same for sale, where, upon discover

Of judgment, see Judgment, 4.
ing his error, and before the sale commenced,
he instructed his clerk not to touch the mil-
linery stock, and thereafter made no claim | VACCINATION.
of ownership to the same. Brandenburg v.

Of school children, see Schools, 2.
Northwestern Jobbers' Credit Bureau,
L.R.A.1915D, 474, 151 N. W. 134, 128 Minn. | VENDOR AND PURCHASER.
411.

Oral contracts for land, see Contracts, 5. 2. An assignee of a stock of merchan- Option to purchase real estate, see Condise for the benefit of creditors is not guilty

tracts, 2.

[ocr errors]

Covenants between, see Covenants and | WARRANTY.
Conditions.

Damages for breach of, see Damages, 2. Sale of homestead, see Homestead.

In insurance policy, see Insurance. A delay of two and one-half years

On sale of personalty, see Sale, 2, 3. after taking possession of real estate which

WASTE. was bought upon the faith of a representation that the income had been a certain

Who may maintain action to prevent

waste of public money, see Parties, sum for a year before the transfer, before

4, 7. seeking a rescission, is unreasonable, where the exercise of due diligence would have

WATERS. disclosed the fraud during the first season

As to canals, see Canals. after the purchaser entered into possession of the property. Whitney v. Bissell, L.R.A.

Injury to property by flow of water into

cellar due to blasting in street, see 1915D, 257, 146 Pac. 141, - Or.

Blasting

Pollution, VERIFICATION. Of specification of charges in disbar- of water from the stream to wash for

1. The use by an upper riparian owner ment proceedings, see Attorneys, the market coal taken from his mine, which 5, 6.

is then turned back into the stream and pol

lutes it to such an extent as to render it VESTED RIGHTS.

unfit to water stock on a lower riparian Of beneficiary in insurance, see Insur- farm, gives the owner of the latter a right ance, 5, 25, 26.

of action. Packwood v. Mendota Coal & Coke Co. L.R.A.1915D, 911, 146 Pac. 163, Wash.

(Annotated) WAIVER.

Irrigation. Of error in trial court, see Appeal and

Refusal of irrigation company to deError, 17. Of rights by accused, see Criminal Law,

liver water to purchaser of stock

not transferred on books, see Cor2. By insurer, see Insurance, 21.

porations, 13. Of objection to assessment for public

Damages for injury to crop by failure

to furnish water, see Damages, 6. improvement, see Public Improve

Who may maintain action for negligent ment, 4, 5.

failure to maintain irrigation Of cash payment for goods, see Sale, 1.

ditch, see Parties, 2. As question for jury, see Trial, 7.

2. Failure of an irrigation ditch com

pany to clean the ditch during the fall and WAREHOUSEMEN.

winter when the water is not needed, and Evidence of custom on question of neg- their deliberate performance of the necesligence, see Evidence, 32.

sary work in the spring, so that stockholdWho may maintain action for injury to ers are deprived of water when needed for property, see Parties, 1.

their crops, is negligence Berg v. Yakima 1. That a tide which injured property

Valley Canal Co. L.R.A.1915D, 292, 145 Pac.

619, Wash. in a warehouse was the highest for a period

3. A mutual irrigation ditch company of nearly sixty years does not alone relieve is liable to holders of its stock and their the warehouseman from liability for the tenants for negligent failure to maintain injury, if the floor of the warehouse was be the ditch in repair, so that water cannot be low the height reached by the tides several delivered to them, to their injury. Berg times during that period, and lower than

v. Yakima Valley Canal Co. L.R.A.1915D, was regarded as safe by experts in the lo

292, 145 Pac, 619, Wash. cality. Hecht v. Boston Wharf Co. L.R.A.

Public water supply. 19150, 725, 107 N. E. 990, 220 Mass. 397.

Who may maintain action to enforce

(Annotated) 2. Mere knowledge of one depositing

rates provided in contract with mu

nicipality, see Parties, 3. goods for storage in a warehouse of the location and condition of the place where

Exemption of municipal waterworks

from taxation, see Taxes, 2. the goods are kept does not place upon him an assumption of risk of injury from a high carrier" of water to a limited degree, and

4. An irrigation company is a “common tide, or relieve the warehouseman of lia- its rates and charges are subject to regulability for negligence in leaving the property tion and control. McCook Irrigation & W. in danger therof. Hecht v. Boston Wharf P. Co. v. Burtless, L.R.A.1915Ď, 1205, 152 Co. L.R.A1915D, 725, 107 N. E. 990, 220 N. W. 334, P. U. R. 1915C, 587, Neb. Mass. 397.

(Annotated)

5. Jurisdiction to inquire into the reaWARRANTS.

sonableness of water rates, and to regulate Time for objection that warrant for and fix the same, has, by the Constitution

search of premises was not sup- and statutes, been conferred upon the State ported by affidavit, see Appeal and / Railway Commission. McCook Irrigation & Error, 13.

W. P. Co. v. Burtless, L.R.A.1915D, 1205,

[ocr errors]

152 N. W. 334, P. U. R. 1915C, 587, Neb. , Revocation.

1. A will is not revoked by the unex6. Contracts between an irrigation com- executed draft of a later one. Pilcher v. Pilpany and water users under its ditch, pro- cher, L.R.A.1915D, 902, 84 S. E. 667, Va. viding for the use of water and for the maintenance of the ditch, are entered into 2. A will from which testator tore his with the law as to the right of the state signature, and by so doing mutilated a por: to regulate rates forming a part of the i tion of a codicil, is properly admitted to contract, and such rates are subject to con- probate together with the codicil if it was trol. McCook Irrigation & W. P. Co. v. originally duly executed and he restored Burtless, L.R.A.1915D, 1205, 152 N. W. 334, the portion of the paper torn off, rewrote P. U. R. 1915C, 587, Neb.

his signature and the mutilated portion of 7. A contract establishing meter rates the codicil, and left it among his papers for water for a certain amount of consump- at the time of his death. Re Brock, L.R.A. tion or less per month, a less rate for a 1915D, 1140, 93 Atl. 487, 247 Pa. 365. consumption between the amount specified Holographic wills. and a larger maximum quantity, and so on 3. Signature by initials is sufficient to until a rate is fixed for all consumption , validate a holographic will under a statute over the final maximum specified, with a providing that no will shall be valid unless provision that the minimum amount of bill signed in such manner as to make it maniunder one rate shall not be less than the fest that the name is intended as a signamaximum under the preceding rate, does ture. Pilcher v. Pilcher, L.R.A.19150, 902, not require payment of the rate fixed for 84 S. E. 667, Va.

(Annotated) all consumption between the divisions speci- Nature of estate or interest created. fied, but fixes classes of consumers to be 4. A life estate only which the life charged a single rate according to the total tenant cannot take out of the possession of amount of their consumption. Walton v. the trustee is created by a devise to be held Proutt, L.R.A.1915D, 917, 174 S. W. 1152, in trust for the use and benefit of a person Ark.

specified “during her life, with power to dis8. A water company which has con- pose of the same by her last will and testatracted with a municipal corporation to ment.”. Louisville Trust Co. v. Snively, furnish water to its inhabitants at a flat L.R.A.1915D, 153, 172 S. W. 911, 162 Ky. maximum rate for dwellings cannot make 461. a special contract for meter rates with a 5. Since in a will the word "end" is particular householder, and even though it equivalent to "give” or devise," a loan in undertakes to do so, it may cut the supply such an instrument of land to one for life, off from his residence upon his refusal to with a devise of it in fee to his heirs at pay the uniform flat rate. Birmingham his death, passes the fee to him. Roberson Waterworks Co. v. Brown, L.R.A.1915D, v. Moore, L.R.A.1915D, 496, 84 S. E. 351, 1086, 67 So. 613, Ala.

- N. C. —

(Annotated) (Annotated)

WITNESSES. WAY OF NECESSITY.

Error in refusing to admit evidence diSee Easements, 1.

rected at credibility of witness who

has not been introduced, see ApWEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

peal and Error, 20. Due process in statute as to, see Con

Contempt by, see Contempt, 3, 4.

Contempt by assault on, see Contempt, stitutional Law, 12, 13.

1, 2, 7. Criminal liability of corporation for

Privileged communications to, see Eviuse of false weight or measure, see

dence, 27, 28. Corporations, 5, 6. Indictment for use of false weights or Competency.

measures, see Indictment, etc., 2, i. The wife of one of two persons in3, 5.

dicted for burglary should be permitted to testify in behalf of the other, with a cau

tion that the evidence is not to be considWHITE SLAVE ACT. See Prostitution.

ered as affecting the case of her husband. Lawson v. Com. L.R.A.1915D, 972, 169 S. W.

587, 160 Ky. 180. WIDOW.

Examination. As proper person upon whom to make Prejudicial error as to, see Appeal and demand for autopsy provided for

Error, 22. in insurance policy, see Insurance,

2. When a witness has denied hostility 16.

to defendant in a criminal cause, counsel for accused should be permitted to state

his questions to another witness, called to WILLS.

prove hostility, so as to show whether or Matters concerning executors and ad- not they are within the rule admitting evi

ministrators, see Executors and dence of that character. People v. Grutz, Administrators.

L.R.A.1915D, 229, 105 N. E. 843, 212 N. Tax on gifts by, see Taxes, 4-6.

Y. 72.

WRIT AND PROCESS.

as a general means of communication. S. Reading a summons to defendant Lowman & Co. v. Ballard, L.R.A.1915D, 427, over the telephone is not a sufficient service 84 S. E. 21, N. C.

(Annotated) under a statute providing that summons shall be served by reading the same to de- X-RAY. fendant, where at the time the statute was Judicial notice as to danger in use of, enacted the telephone was not in existence

see Evidence, 2. L.R.A.1915D.

« AnteriorContinuar »