(E) Condition or Use of Public Buildings and Other Property.
§ 847. A municipal corporation holding prop- erty for its profit is liable for negligence in the management thereof as an individual would be. -Libby v. City of Portland (Me.) 805.
XIII. FISCAL MANAGEMENT, PUB- LIC DEBT, SECURITIES, AND TAXATION.
Of towns, see Towns, § 46.
(B) Administration in General, Appro- priations, Warrants, and Payment. Mandamus to compel signature to warrant by mayor, see Mandamus, § 102.
I. RIGHTS OF PUBLIC. Deprivation of property without due process Floatage of logs and rafts in nonnavigable wa- of law, see Constitutional Law, § 278. ters, see Logs and Logging, § 14.
1. Where a body of water is sufficiently large and deep to serve the public to any con- siderable extent, held sufficient to give the pub- lic an easement therein for the purpose of trans- portation.-Conneaut Lake Ice Co. v. Quigley (Pa.) 648.
§ 1. A lake navigable in fact is to be so con- sidered in law.-Conneaut Lake Ice Co. v. Quig- ley (Pa.) 648.
§ 9. In an action against a company incor- porated under Priv. & Sp. Laws 1893, p. 740,
(D) Taxes and Other Revenue, and Ap-c. 481, to improve a river for navigation for
§ 957. Act March 30, 1886 (Gen. St. p. 3370, $$ 410-423), commonly called the "Mar- tin Act," and Act April 8, 1903 (P. L. p. 394), commonly called the general tax act, are not repugnant, and the latter does not repeal by implication the former, which provides only for the collection of taxes, and does not apply to water rates.-Title Guarantee Land Co. v. City of Paterson (N. J. Ch.) 794.
$958. Supplement to Act March 30, 1896 § 958. Supplement to Act March 30. 1896 (P. L. p. 190), does not repeal by implication prior supplement of 1891 (Act April 16, 1891 [P. L. p. 450]), with reference to sale at pri- vate sale by a municipality of tax certificate under said first act.-Woglom v. City of Perth Amboy (N. J. Sup.) 257.
§ 966. Farming land within the limits of an incorporated village may be taxed for general village purposes, though no benefit accrues to the owner.-Atherton v. Village of Essex Junc- tion (Vt.) 1118.
damage sustained by the company's failure to sufficiently improve navigation, held, that cer- tain evidence offered by the company should have been admitted.-Songo Lake, S. R. & B. of N. Steamboat Co. v. Sebago Improvement Co. (Me.) 483.
§ 9. Priv. & Sp. Laws 1893, p. 740, c. 481, incorporating a company to improve a river for navigation and receive tolls, held not to require that it expend for improvements a sum great- er than its authorized capital stock and net income.-Songo Lake, S. R. & B. of N. Steam- boat Co. v. Sebago Improvement Co. (Me.) 483.
II. LANDS UNDER WATER.
§ 36. Lands under lakes held to belong to the state in trust for the public as lands under nav- igable waters at common law.-Conneaut Lake Ice Co. v. Quigley (Pa.) 648.
$37. Riparian patentee upon lake, navigable in fact, held to take only to the water's edge.- Conneaut Lake Ice Co. v. Quigley (Pa.) 648. NAVIGATION.
§ 980. A sale of land by the city of Pater- son under the provisions of the Martin act (Gen. St. p. 3370, §§ 410-423), as amended by the supplement of June 2. 1905 (P. L. p. 497). is valid. Title Guarantee Land Co. v. City See Ferries; Navigable Waters, §§ 1, 9. of Paterson (N. J. Ch.) 794.
Substitution of names in affidavit for attach- ment, see Attachment, § 122.
NATIONAL BANKS.
See Banks and Banking, § 262.
NAVIGABLE WATERS.
NEGATIVE EVIDENCE.
Weight and conclusiveness, see Evidence, § 586.
Causing death, see Death, §§ 77-103.
By particular classes of persons.
See Carriers, §§ 105, 117, 123, 155-163, 296- 305 Municipal Corporations. §§ 751-847; Physicians and Surgeons, § 15; Railroads, §§ 282, 305-350, 359-400, 454-485; Street Railroads, §§ 74-118.
Employers, see Master and Servant, §§ 90-289. Employés, liability for injuries to third per- sons, see Master and Servant, §§ 301-322. Fellow servants, see Master and Servant, §§ 177-201.
Gas companies, see Gas, § 20.
Condition or use of particular species of prop- erty, works, machinery, or other instru- mentalities.
See Bridges, § 46: Explosives, §7; Gas, § 20; Railroads, §§ 282, 305-350, 359-400, 454- 485; Street Railroads, §§ 74-118. Automobiles, see Highways, §§ 172, 184. Conveyances and other means for transportation of passengers, see Carriers, § 296.
Public buildings or other public property, see Municipal Corporations, § 847.
Streets and highways, see Highways, § 215; Municipal Corporations, §§ 762-821. Tools. machinery, appliances, and places for work, see Master and Servant, §§ 101-125. Nonnavigable waters, see Waters and Water Use of highway by traveler, see Highways, §§ Courses.
Use of street by traveler, see Municipal Corpo- | ed the consequences of plaintiff's negligence.- rations,
Injuries to particular species of property. Goods shipped, see Carriers, §§ 117, 123.
I. ACTS OR OMISSIONS CONSTITUT- ING NEGLIGENCE.
(A) Personal Conduct in General.
§ 1. Negligence is the want of such care as a reasonably prudent person would exercise under similar circumstances.-Lenkewicz v. Wilmington City Ry. Co. (Del. Super.) 11.
Substances, Machinery,
and Other Instrumentalities. Electricity, see Electricity, § 16. Explosives, see Explosives, § 7.
(C) Condition and Use of Land, Buildings, and Other Structures.
Bridges, see Bridges, § 46. Master's liability for acts or omissions of inde- pendent contractor in general, see Master and Servant, $322.
Public buildings or other public property, see Municipal Corporations, § 847. Streets and highways, see Highways, § 215; Municipal Corporations. §§ 762-821. Tools, machinery, appliances, and places for work, see Master and Servant, §§ 101-125.
II. PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INJURY.
Stone v. Forest City Express Co. (Me.) 23.
Damages, measure, see Damages, §§ 100, 103. (A) Right of Action, Parties, Preliminary Proceedings, and Pleadings.
§ 104. Gen. St. 1902, § 1130, requiring no- tice of the injuries as a condition precedent to an action for personal injuries against a rail- road company, held not to apply to a husband's action for damages by personal injuries to his wife while a passenger.-Cronan v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Conn.) 881.
Acts and statements accompanying or connected with transaction as constituting part of res gestæ, see Evidence, § 123.
In action for injuries to servant, see Master and Servant, § 270.
§ 121. Negligence is not presumed, and the burden of proving it is upon plaintiff.-Lenke- wicz v. Wilmington Ry. Co. (Del. Super.) 11.
§ 121. The burden of proving negligence is upon plaintiff; it not being presumed.-Sche- lich v. City of Wilmington (Del. Super.) 367.
§ 122. There is no presumption of contribu- tory negligence.-Lenkewicz v. Wilmington City Ry. Co. (Del. Super.) 11.
§ 134. Plaintiff must prove negligence to the jury's satisfaction by preponderance of evi- Injuries from fire on or near railroad right of dence.-Lenkewicz v. Wilmington City Ry. way, see Railroads, § 465. Co. (Del. Super.) 11. Injuries to passengers, see Carriers, § 305. Loss of or injury to goods shipped, see Carriers, § 123.
§ 56. The proximate cause of an injury is the efficient cause.-Comer v. Meyer (N. J.) 497.
$ 59. Where the circumstances concurring with the negligent act might reasonably have been foreseen, the master guilty of such neg- ligent act held liable.-Stehle v. Jaeger Auto- matic Mach. Co. (Pa.) 215.
§ 59. One negligently setting out a fire held liable for the consequent injuries, though caused by changes in the direction of the wind.-E. T. & H. K. Ide v. Boston & M. R. R. (Vt.) 401. $61. An act of a third party concurring with the negligence of defendant in causing the injury, held not to relieve defendant from lia- bility. O'Brien v. J. G. White & Co. (Me.) 721.
III. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. Of owners of property damaged by fire caused by operation of railroad, see Railroads, §§ 459, 461.
Of passengers, see Carriers, § 347.
Of person injured by defects or obstructions in street, see Municipal Corporations, § S06. Of person injured by operation of railroad, see Railroads, §§ 327-335.
Of person injured on or near street railroad tracks, see Street Railroads, §§ 98-101. Of servants, see Master and Servant, §§ 228- 243, 289.
(A) Persons Injured in General.
§ 66. In an action for injuries to an em- ployé, plaintiff held guilty of contributory negli- gence. Gillespie v. John W. Ferguson Co. (N. J.) 460.
§ 66. An injured servant held negligent as matter of law.-Coleman v. Benjamin F. Smith Co. (R. I.) 915.
§ S2. Plaintiff's negligence when preceding defendant's held not the proximate cause if defendant by ordinary care could have avoid-
§ 135. The rules as to determining the suffi- ciency of the evidence to show due care on the part of a person injured stated.-Fay v. Hart- ford & S. St. Ry. Co. (Conn.) 779.
(C) Trial, Judgment, and Review. § 136. Whether negligence exists in a giv- en case is a question for the jury.-Lenkewicz v. Wilmington City Ry. Co. (Del. Super.) 11.
§ 136. It is never a question for the jury whether one violating a positive statute exercis- ed reasonable care in so doing. Stehle v. Jaeger Automatic Mach. Co. (Pa.) 215.
§ 136. Whether the driver of a team was negligent in starting the team, whereby he in- jured another, and whether such other was neg- ligent, held, under the evidence, a jury ques- tion.-Morris v. Trudo (Vt.) 387.
V. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. Negligence in performance of lawful act as con- stituting manslaughter, see Homicide, § 74. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS.
Opening or vacating judgment, see Judgment, § 370. Review of proceedings on motion involving dis- cretion of court, see Appeal and Error, §§ 977, 979.
I. NATURE AND SCOPE OF REMEDY. 8. Where a verdict for false imprisonment was rendered against the chief of police of a town, and a patrolman under him, the court held authorized to set aside the verdict as against the patrolman and render judgment on the verdict against the chief of police.-Sparrow v. Bromage (Conn.) 1070.
§ 8. Where a verdict is rendered against sev- eral for a joint tort, the court may set aside the verdict as to some, and render judgment there- on as against the others.-Sparrow v. Bromage (Conn.) 1070.
there was a reasonable probability that a re- trial would produce a different result requir- ing a new trial.-Bristol Mfg. Co. v. Palmer (Vt.) 76.
$ 159. Where there is no evidence from which it can be concluded, as a matter of law, that a verdict is clearly against the evidence, the rule to show cause will be discharged.- Goldman v. Central R. of New Jersey (N. J. Sup.) 261.
§ 162. On appeal from verdict including dam- ages to future earning capacity, where plaintiff dies, the law court cannot reduce the verdict. -Hubbard v. Marine Hardware & Equipment Co. (Me.) 924.
§ 163. A notice of intent to prosecute a bill of exceptions is not a sufficient exception to de- nial of a motion for a new trial, within Court and Practice Act 1905, § 483.-Vassar v. Lan- caster (R. I.) 711.
§ 167. A party in an action at law, who ap- plies therein for a new trial, and who is de- feated, held not entitled to subsequently apply in equity for a new trial on the same grounds.
(C) Rulings and Instructions at Trial. $ 41. The error, if any, in admitting testimony to establish a fact shown by the cross-examina- tion of the party complaining, is not ground for-Stein v. Cuff (N. J.) 517. a new trial.-Halper v. Wolff (Conn.) 890.
(F) Verdict or Findings Contrary to Law or Evidence.
SGS. Where defendants urged two complete defenses and corresponding counterclaims, the court could not grant a new trial after a ver- dict in their favor, unless the jury could not have reasonably come to the conclusion that one of the defenses was supported by proof.-Board of Water Com'rs of City of New London v. Rob- bins & Potter (Conn.) 938.
$76. Where, in an action for personal inju- ries, motion is made for new trial on verdict for plaintiff, and. pending the motion plaintiff dies, the law court cannot order a new trial. Hubbard v. Marine Hardware & Equipment Co. (Me.) 924.
§ 76. Where a verdict is clearly excessive, it should be set aside or reduced.-Hollinger v. York Rys. Co. (Pa.) 344.
(G) Surprise, Accident, Inadvertence, or Mistake.
$95. A new trial will not be awarded de- fendant not represented at the trial, where notice of trial was duly served on his attorney. -Morris & Cummings Dredging Co. v. Wil- liams (N. J. Sup.) 271.
(H) Newly Discovered Evidence.
§ 100. A party held not entitled to a new trial for newly discovered evidence.-Lawson v. Crane & Hall (Vt.) 641.
$ 102. Where affidavits of newly discovered cumulative evidence fail to disclose due dili- gence, a new trial is properly refused.-Mona- han Vehicle Co. v. Seymour (R. I.) 1096.
$108. A new trial will not be granted for newly discovered evidence which would not be likely to change the result.-Reagan v. Tink- ham (R. I.) 1096.
III. PROCEEDINGS TO PROCURE NEW TRIAL.
Necessity and sufficiency of statement of grounds for purpose of review, see Appeal and Error, § 301.
§ 140. On a petition for a new trial, affi- davits held insufficient.-IIolman v. Flint (Vt.) 232.
$150. The showing in support of a motion for a new trial in a suit involving the loca- tion of a disputed boundary on the ground of newly discovered evidence held to show that
§ 167. Equity will entertain a bill for an injunction and for a new trial in an action at law only when the grounds on which the new trial is sought are not cognizable by the court at law.-Stein v. Cuff (N. J.) 517.
of counsel is such as can be cured is to be de- $ 168. Whether impropriety in the argument termined by the court considering the excep- tions, or motion for new trial.-Stone v. Forest City Express Co. (Me.) 23.
§ 168. Failure to object at the time to im- propriety in the argument of counsel which may be cured by retraction or instructions held fatal on either exceptions or motion for new trial.- Stone v. Forest City Express Co. (Me.) 23.
§ 168. A petition for new trial, under Court and Practice Act 1905. §§ 2. 472. 473, held in-
sufficient, where the mistake relied on is one of tice requires a revision.-Pezzucco v. Gautieri law, and where it does not appear that jus- (R. I.) 626.
NEXT OF KIN.
See Descent and Distribution.
NON OBSTANTE VEREDICTO. Judgment in general, see Judgment, § 199.
Affecting limitation of actions, see Limitation of Actions, § 87.
Appearance by nonresident, see Appearance, § NONSUIT.
At trial, see Trial, § 165. Involuntary nonsuit before trial, see Dismissal and Nonsuit, § 67.
Of easement, see Easements, § 30. NOTES.
Promissory notes, see Bills and Notes. NOTICE.
Judicial notice, see Evidence, $$ 5-23. Laws relating to notice of civil proceedings as depriving of property without due process of law, see Constitutional Law, § 309.
As affecting particular classes of persons. See Building and Loan Associations, § 23; Car- riers, 180; Landlord and Tenant, § 297; Municipal Corporations, §§ 353, 788. Assignees, see Assignments. § 102. Connecting carriers, see Carriers, § 180. Purchasers of bills or notes, see Bills and Notes, § 339.
Purchasers of land, see Vendor and Purchaser, §§ 228-232.
As affecting particular rights, duties, and liabili- ties.
Damages for breach of transportation contract by connecting carriers, see Carriers, § 180. Liability for injuries from defects or obstruc- tions in street, see Municipal Corporations, §
§ 33. Evidence held to show that a render- ing plant operated by defendant was a private nuisance, entitling plaintiff to have the same abated.-Rausch v. Glazer (N. J. Ch.) 39.
(D) Actions for Damages.
§ 43. If a nuisance is maintained, a person suing for damages therefrom must have done what he could to save himself from the conse- quences of the wrong, and all damages which result from the failure to discharge that duty must be borne by him, but such damages can- not defeat his right to sue.-Carroll Springs Distilling Co. of Baltimore City v. Schnepfe (Md.) 828.
$ 50. In an action for damages from a nui- sance, a charge held erroneous as failing to time of the institution of the suit, and for ig- confine recovery to damages accruing to the mize such damages.-Carroll Springs Distilling improve-noring the question of plaintiff's duty to mini- Co. of Baltimore City v. Schnepfe (Md.) 828.
Liability on bill or note, see Bills and Notes, §§ 339, 416.
Lien of subcontractor for cost of public improve- ment, see Municipal Corporations, $ 373. Rights and liabilities of bona fide purchasers of real property, see Vendor and Purchaser, §§ 228-232.
Right to redeem from tax sale, see Taxation, § 704.
Of particular facts, acts, or proceedings not judicial,
Application for liquor license, see Intoxicating Liquors, $ 65.
Assignment of money due under contract for public improvement, see Municipal Corpora- tions, $$ 353, 373.
Defects in title of vendor of land, see Vendor and Purchaser, $§ 228-232. Defects or obstructions in streets, see Municipal Corporations. § 7S8.
Defenses to bill or note, see Bills and Notes, 8
Expiration of period of redemption, see Taxa- tion, 704.
Nonpayment or protest of bill or note, see Bills and Notes, § 416.
Of injury as condition precedent to action, see Negligence, § 104.
Transfer of shares of stock in building and loan association, see Building and Loan Associa- tions, § 23.
Of particular judicial proceedings. See Divorce, § 76; Trial, § 6.
Summary proceedings by landlord to recover pos- session of demised premises, see Landlord and Tenant, § 297.
Modification of contracts in general, see Con- tracts, §§ 238, 244.
§ 5. Evidence held insufficient to show a no- vation.-Staples & Bell v. Davis (N. H.) S72.
I. PRIVATE NUISANCES.
(A) Nature of Injury, and Liability There- for.
§ 3. A rendering plant is not a nuisance per se.-Rausch v. Glazer (N. J. Ch.) 39.
§ 5. Considerable hesitation in respect to the process of injunction is shown when it is sought to forbid a person the use of his own property in the prosecution of a lawful industry in a careful manner, on the ground that such use is nevertheless a nuisance to another.-Town of Bristol v. Palmer (Vt.) 332.
(C) Abatement and Injunction. Weight and sufficiency of positive and negative testimony as to annoyance, see Evidence, § 586.
§ 54. In an action for damages from nui- sance, a prayer held properly refused as mis- leading.-Carroll Springs Distilling Co. of Bal- timore City v. Schnepfe (Md.) 828.
§ 54. In an action for damages from a nui- sance, a prayer held properly refused as fail- ing to define the duty imposed by law upon plaintiff to minimize the damages and the con- sequences resulting from his breach thereof.- Carroll Springs Distilling Co. of Baltimore City v. Schnepfe (Md.) 828.
§ 54. In an action for damages from a nui- sance, held that the jury should be explicitly instructed as to the rules by which they are to be governed in estimating damages.-Carroll Springs Distilling Co. of Baltimore City v. Schnepfe (Md.) 828.
Necessity and sufficiency for purpose of review In judicial proceedings. in civil actions, see Appeal and Error, §§ 185-231.
Necessity and sufficiency for purpose of review in criminal prosecutions, see Criminal Law, § 1036.
To assignment of errors, see Appeal and Error, § 748.
To competency of witness, see Witnesses, § 75. To evidence at trial, see Trial, §§ 85, 105. To instructions, see Trial, § 281.
To parties, see Parties, § 92.
To record on appeal or writ of error, see Ap- To report on reference, see Equity, § 410. peal and Error, §§ 635-648.
OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS.
Laws impairing, see Constitutional Law, § 145.
Of streets, see Municipal Corporations, §§ 671, 762-821. Of waters, see Waters and Water Courses, §§ 53, 63.
License tax on occupations in general, see Li- censes, § 1, 7.
Of real property, see Use and Occupation. Subjects and titles of acts relating to occupa- tions and employments, see Statutes, § 114.
Bids for contracts with municipal corporation, see Municipal Corporations, § 332.
Certiorari to review acts and proceedings of public officers, see Certiorari, § 21. Fraudulent presentation of claim to public offi- cer, see False Pretenses, § 18. Injunction involving officers or official acts, see Injunction, § 77.
Liability of municipal corporation for torts of officers, see Municipal Corporations, § 751. Mandamus to public officers in general, see Mandamus, § 102.
Parol or extrinsic evidence to contradict or vary official records, see Evidence, § 387. Presumptions as to official proceedings and acts, see Evidence, § 83.
Quo warranto to determine rights in respect to exercise of public office, see Quo Warranto, §§ 10, 12.
Regulation and conduct of elections in general, see Elections.
Right of review by parties in official capacity, see Appeal and Error, § 141. Supervision of railroads by public officers, see Railroads, § 9.
Particular classes of officers. See Judges; Justices of the Peace; Receivers. Attorneys, see Attorney and Client. Commissioners in equity, see Equity, §§ 401-
Corporate officers in general, see Corporations,
Deputy building inspectors, see Municipal Cor- porations, § 126.
Health officers, see Health, § 19.
Masters in chancery, see Equity. §§ 401-410. Municipal officers, see Municipal Corporations, $$ 85, 124-164, 176, 178.
Of building and loan associations, see Building and Loan Associations, § 23. Referees, see Reference, § 58.
§ 3. An office created or authorized by the Legislature should be treated as de jure until otherwise declared.-State v. Poulin (Me.) 119.
(D) De Facto Officers.
§ 39. To protect those dealing with officers apparently holding office under color of law, the law validates their acts as to the public and third persons.-State v. Poulin (Me.) 119.
$39. The de facto doctrine held adopted to protect the interests of the public and individu- als where involved in the official acts of per- sons exercising the duty of an office without being lawful officers.-State v. Poulin (Me.) 119.
$39. De facto acts of binding force may be performed under presumption of law.-State v. Poulin (Me.) 119.
(E) Deputies and Assistants. Creation of office of deputy building inspector, see Municipal Corporations, § 126. (G) Resignation, Suspension, or Removal. ficers elected by the people may be removed held $70. Constitutional direction as to how of- exclusive and prohibitory of any other mode.-In re Bowman (Pa.) 203; In re Snowden, Id.
III. RIGHTS, POWERS, DUTIES, AND LIABILITIES.
Compensation of justices of the peace, see Jus- tices of the Peace, §§ 15, 18. Compensation of municipal officers, see Munic- ipal Corporations, § 164.
Of judges, see Judges, § 32.
Of justices of the peace, see Justices of the Peace, §§ 15, 18.
$ 100. Const. art. 3. § 13, forbidding an in- crease in a public officer's salary during his term, held to extend to all officers exercising public functions, and not limited to constitution- al officers.-Richie v. City of Philadelphia (Pa.)
School officers, see Schools and School Dis- 430. tricts, § 63.
State officers, see States, §§ 57. 64. Tax assessors, see Taxation, § 319. Town officers, see Towns, § 31. Trustees, see Trusts.
$ 100. Real estate assessor held a public offi- cer, within Const. art. 3, § 13, forbidding an increase in salary during term of office.-Richie v. City of Philadelphia (Pa.) 430.
$103. The acts of an officer intrusted with QUALIFICATION, a duty requiring the exercise of discretion held not reviewable.-State v. Howard (Vt.) 392.
Of justices of the peace, see Justices of the Peace, § 10.
Of municipal officers, see Municipal Corpora- tions, $$ 131-136, 159. Regulation and conduct of elections in general, see Elections.
(A) Offices, and Power to Appoint to and Remove from Office.
§ 1. "Public office" defined.-State v. Mackie (Conn.) 759.
§ 1. The source of public office is found in the sovereign authority, speaking through Con- stitution and statute, and the creations of the sovereign power cannot, in the absence of dele- gated authority, create one.-State v. Mackie (Conn.) 759.
§ 1. The position of a deputy building in- spector, having attached to it important powers and functions of government belonging to the sovereignty, is a "public office," as distinguish- ed from a mere employment or agency resting on contract, and to which such powers and functions are not attached.-State v. Mackie (Conn.) 759.
§ 1. "Public officer" defined.-Richie v. City of Philadelphia (Pa.) 430.
§ 110. "Ministerial duty" defined.-State v. Howard (Vt.) 392.
§ 110. A discretionary duty is executive or judicial, according to the nature of the subject- matter.-State v. Howard (Vt.) 392.
§ 110. An officer's action necessarily involv- ing an inquiry of fact is binding on the courts. State v. Howard (Vt.) 392.
$ 110. That an official is permitted a choice of methods in discharging a duty will not con- trol the classification of the duty as ministerial or discretionary.-State v. Howard (Vt.) 392.
§ 110. Ascertainment of a fact which raises an officer's duty, or is collateral to its perform- ance, will not deprive the duty of its ministerial character.-State v. Howard (Vt.) 392.
See Set-Off and Counterclaim.
« AnteriorContinuar » |