L. R. A. CASES AS AUTHORITIES.

CASES IN 30 L. R. A.

30 L. R. A. 33, LAKE SHORE M. S. R. CO. v. RICHARDS, 152 Ill. 59, 38 N. E. 773.

Partnership accounting in Maynard v. Richards, 166 Ill. 478, 57 Am. St. Rep. 145, 46 N. E. 1138, Affirming 61 Ill. App. 336.

Constitutional right to appeal.

Cited in Illinois C. R. Co. v. Larson, 152 Ill. 329, 38 N. E. 784, sustaining statute making judgment of appellate court final as to questions of fact.

Cited in footnotes to Johnson v. State, 51 L. R. A. 272, which sustains statute requiring exception to obtain reversal for error in charge; McClain v. Williams, 43 L. R. A. 287, which holds right of appeal subject to legislative restriction. Review of facts by supreme court.

Cited in Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Stanley, 158 III. 400, 41 N. E. 1012, and Lake Shore loundry Co. v. Rakowski, 157 Ill. 461, 41 N. E. 1019, holding judgment of appellate court on questions of fact conclusive on supreme court; Cicero & P. Street R. Co. v. Meixner, 160 Ill. 322, 31 L. R. A. 332, 43 N. E. 823, and Siddall v. Jansen, 168 Ill. 45, 39 L. R. A. 114, 48 N. E. 191, holding that supreme court may review sufficiency of facts supporting plaintiff's case when refusal to direct verdict for defendant is assigned as error.

Waiver of exception to refusal to direct verdict.

Cited in Kolze v. Jones, 64 Ill. App. 292, and Martin Emrich Outfitting Co. v. Brown, 63 Ill. App. 39, holding exception to refusal to direct verdict for defendant waived by introducing evidence and submitting case without renewing motion.

Taking case from jury.

Cited in Siddall v. Jansen, 168 Ill. 46, 39 L. R. A. 114, 48 N. E. 191; Baltimore & O R. Co. v. Stanley, 158 Ill. 398, 41 N. E. 1012; Pittsburgh, Ft. W. & C R. Co. v. Callaghan, 157 Ill. 410, 41 N. E. 909; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Logue, 158 Ill. 626, 42 N. E. 53; Foster v. Wadsworth-Howland Co. 168 II. 517, 48 N. E. 163; North Chicago Street R. Co. v. Wiswell, 168 Ill. 614, 48 N. E. 407; Illinois Steel Co. v. Ostrowski, 194 Ill. 382, 62 N. E. 822; Wetz v. Greffe, 71 Ill. App. 315; Boyle v. Illinois C. R. Co. 88 Ill. App. 257; Finley v. West Chicago Street R. Co. 90 Ill. App. 370; North Chicago Street R. Co. v. Boyd, 156 Ill. 419, 40 N. E. 955, — holding instruction to find for defendant proper only when evidence wholly insufficient to sustain verdict for plaintiff; Cooney v. United States Wringer Co. 101 Ill. App. 473; Missouri Malleable Iron Co. v. Hoover, 77 Ill. L. R. A. AU.-VOL. IV.-1.

1

App. 439; Kean v. West Chicago Street R. Co. 75 Ill. App. 41; West Chicago Street R. Co. v. Marzalkiewiecz, 75 Ill. App. 242,- holding that evidence tending to sustain plaintiff's case raises question for jury.

Right to rescind or abandon contract for other party's default.

Cited in Turney v. Peoria Grape Sugar Co. 65 Ill. App. 657, holding that refusal to receive coal authorizes termination of contract to supply; Ballance v. Vanuxem, 191 Ill. 324, 61 N. E. 85, holding that default rendering further performance something different than contracted for justifies termination of contract; Tomson v. Heidenheimer, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 118, 40 S. W. 425, holding that repudiation gives other party right to treat contract as abandoned, and referring particularly to annotation in 30 L. R. A. 33; Curtis v. Brannon, 98 Tenn. 162, 38 S. W. 1073, holding that vendee seeking to rescind sale for breach of covenant of seisin must restore possession, and referring particularly to an notation in 30 L. R. A. 33; Peurrung v. Carter-Crume Co. 110 Fed. 109, holding (obiter) repudiation of contract equivalent to prevention of performance; Kimbark v. Illinois Car & Equipment Co. 103 Ill. App. 645, raising, without deciding, question whether refusal to deliver, repudiation of contract to furnish iron; Kaukauna Electric Light Co. v. Kaukauna, 114 Wis. 341, 89 N. W. 542, raising, without deciding, question whether breach of agreement to furnish additional lights justifies rescission of lighting contract; Genet v. Delaware & H. Canal Co. 170 N. Y. 295, 63 N. E. 350, by Bartlett, J., dissenting, who holds contract terminable only when acts of other party amount to complete repudiation.

Cited in footnotes to Johnson Forge Co. v. Leonard, 57 L. R. A. 225, which sustains seller's right to rescind upon purchaser's demand for additional deliveries before remitting for articles delivered; Vandegrift v. Cowles Engineering Co. 48 L. R. A. 685, which holds general assignment for creditors by contractor not abrogation or breach of existing contracts; Kauffman v. Raeder, 54 L. R. A. 247, which denies right of one receiving and retaining benefit of part performance by other party to rescind for breach of complete performance: Ball v. Safe Deposit & T. Co. 52 L. R. A. 403, which sustains right of purchaser to rescind for want of jurisdiction in court authorizing sale.

Limited in Stanford v. McGill, 6 N. D. 564, 38 L. R. A. 770, footnote p. 760, 72 N. W. 938, holding repudiation of contract before time of performance not breach.

Annotation in 30 L. R. A. 33, referred to particularly in West v. Bechtel, 125 Mich. 163, 51 L. R. A. 799, footnote p. 791, 84 N. W. 69, holding contract not abandoned by purchaser's breach of agreement to pay for each shipment as received; Worthington v. Gwin, 119 Ala. 54, 43 L. R. A. 384, footnote p. 382. 24 So. 739, denying right to abandon entire contract because small quantity of ore not free from foreign substances as required.

Bringing action on repudiated contract before time to perform.

Cited in Marks v. Van Eeghen, 30 C. C. A. 210, 57 U. S. App. 149, 85 Fed. 855, and Roehm v. Horst, 178 U. S. 16, 44 L. ed. 959, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 780, holding action on breach of executory contract after repudiation not permature; Zatlin v. Davenport, 71 Ill. App. 294, holding declaration of intention not to abide by contract to marry justifies bringing action before time set.

Effect of repudiation of contract.

Cited in Chemical Nat. Bank v. World's Columbian Exposition, 170 III. 92, 48 N. E. 331, Affirming 67 Ill. App. 178, holding insolvency of bank breach of

contract to establish branch on exposition grounds; Meyer v. Manhattan L. Ins. Co. 144 Ind. 451, 43 N. E. 448, holding allowing insurance to lapse terminates insured's right to paid-up policy; Southern Cotton-Oil Co. v. Heflin, 39 C. C. A. 550, 99 Fed. 344, holding notice that vendee will not receive goods does not take away vendor's rights under contract.

Remedies of injured party to repudiated contract.

Cited in Lockport v. Shields, 87 Ill. App. 154, holding repudiation of contract for services gives right to sue for damages; Vickers v. Electrozone Commercial Co. 67 N. J. L. 671, 52 Atl. 467, and James H. Rice Co. v. Penn Plate Glass Co. 88 Ill. App. 414, holding repudiation of contract gives right to sue for profits which would have been realized; Dyer v. Middle Kittitas Irrig. Dist. 25 Wash. 90, 64 Pac. 1009, sustaining right of contractor to recover without completing contract, where instalments not paid when due; Waggeman v. Janssen, 74 Ill. App. 41, sustaining recovery on quantum meruit for work under partly performed repudiated contract; Ornstein v. Yahr & L. Drug Co. 119 Wis. 435, 96 N. W. 826, holding recovery, upon breach of contract of employment, of one month's pro rata salary, bar to any subsequent recovery thereon.

Distinguished in effect in Rogers-Ruger Co. v. McCord, 115 Wis. 263, 91 N. W. 685, holding establishment of conditions precedent to defendant's obligation, necessary, before recovery may be had upon contract.

Measure of damages for breach of contract.

Cited in Delaware & H. Canal Co. v. Mitchell, 92 II. App. 581, holding measure of damages for vendor's refusal to deliver, difference between contract and market prices at time and place of delivery fixed.

Cited in footnote to Bethel v. Salem Improv. Co. 33 L. R. A. 602, which holds loss of profits not recoverable for breach of contract.

Cited in note (53 L. R. A. 36, 47) on loss of profits as element of damages for breach of contract.

30 L. R. A. 61, GERLI v. POIDEBARD SILK MFG. CO. 57 N. J. L. 432, 51 Am. St. Rep. 612, 31 Atl. 401.

Assignment of chose in action.

Cited in Tufts v. People's Bank & T. Co. 59 N. J. L. 382, 35 Atl. 792, holding accepting payment of third person's note amounts to assignment of debt; Sullivan v. Visconti, 68 N. J. L. 545, 53 Atl. 598, recognizing validity of assignment by single partner of chose in action belonging to firm.

What constitutes breach of contract.

Cited in Middlesex Water Co. v. Knappmann Whiting Co. 64 N. J. L. 246, 49 L. R. A. 575, 81 Am. St. Rep. 467, 45 Atl. 692, holding water company liable for failure to furnish fire protection, due to break in pipes.

Cited in footnote to West v. Bechtel, 51 L. R. A. 791, which holds contract not abandoned by purchaser's breach of agreement to pay for each shipment as received.

30 L. R. A. 74, PEOPLE ex rel HENDERSON v. WESTCHESTER COUNTY, 147 N. Y. 1, 41 N. E. 563.

Followed without discussion in Westcl. ster v. Haffen, 147 N. Y. 685, 42 N. E. 726.

Burden of showing act unconstitutional.

Cited in Re Brenner, 35 Misc. 215, 70 N. Y. Supp. 744, holding burden of proof on party asserting unconstitutionality of statute; Board of Education v. Board of Education, 76 App. Div. 357, 78 N. Y. Supp. 522, recognizing presumption of validity of legislation changing boundaries of school district; People ex rel. Tyroler v. City Prison, 157 N. Y. 149, 43 L. R. A. 277, 68 Am. St. Rep. 763, 51 N. E. 1006, by Martin, J., dissenting, who holds burden of showing unconstitutionality of statute on party asserting it.

When statute unconstitutional.

Cited in Dillon v. Erie R. Co. 19 Misc. 123, 43 N. Y. Supp. 320; Re Brenner, 35 Misc. 215, 70 N. Y. Supp. 744; Parfitt v. Ferguson. 3 App. Div. 196. 38 N. Y. Supp. 466; Irwin v. Metropolitan Street R. Co. 38 App. Div. 260, 57 N. Y. Supp. 21; People ex rel. Holmes v. Lane, 53 App. Div. 539, 65 N. Y. Supp. 1004; Worthington v. London Guarantee & Acci. Co. 164 N. Y. 84, 58 N. E. 102,- holding statute invalid only where clearly irreconcilable with Constitution.

Constitutional interpretation.

Cited in Goedel v. Palmer, 15 App. Div. 89, 44 N. Y. Supp. 301, holding that journal of Constitutional Convention may be consulted in interpreting Constitution.

Division of county without changing assembly district.

Cited in State ex rel. Hicks v. Stevens, 112 Wis. 177, 88 N. W. 48, sustaining statute creating new county providing it shall remain part of original assembly district.

Change in senatorial districts.

Cited in footnote to Denny v. State, 31 L. R. A. 726, which denies right to create double districts so as to give counties having less than population for one senator or representative a voice in electing more than one.

Distinguished in Baker County v. Benson, 40 Or. 223, 66 Pac. 815, sustaining act changing senatorial districts.

Effect of annexation act.

Cited in Irwin v. Metropolitan Street R. Co. 38 App. Div. 260, 57 N. Y. Supp. 21, sustaining act extending jurisdiction of municipal court of New York over more than one county; Bell v. New York, 46 App. Div. 197, 61 N. Y. Supp. 709, holding contract of school librarian with town annexed to New York city binding on city; Duckworth v. Cunningham, 26 Misc. 404, 56 N. Y. Supp. 191, and MeTurck v. Foussadier, 51 App. Div. 219, 64 N. Y. Supp. 962, holding change of county boundaries does not change judicial departments; Re McKeon, 26 Mise. 470, 58 N. Y. Supp. 589, holding jurisdiction of Westchester surrogate unaffected by act of annexation; Zeimer v. Rafferty, 18 App. Div. 398, 46 N. Y. Supp. 345, holding persons living in annexed portion deemed residents of Westchester county for purpose of determining venue of action.

Limited in Hawkins v. Pelham Electric Light & P. Co. 158 N. Y. 419, 53 N. E. 162, holding territory annexed by act of legislature part of New York county for purpose of determining place of trial of action.

30 L. R. A. 82, QUEEN v. DAYTON COAL & I. CO. 95 Tenn. 458, 49 Am. St. Rep. 935, 32 S. W. 460.

Breach of statutory duty as creating liability.

Cited in Wise v. Morgan, 101 Tenn. 278, 44 L. R. A. 551, 48 S. W. 971, holding druggist's failure to label poison negligence per se; Iron & Wire Co. v. Green, 108 Tenn. 164, 65 S. W. 399, holding employment of infant in factory in violation of statute, negligence per se; Perry v. Tozer, 90 Minn. 437, 101 Am. St. Rep. 416, 97 N. W. 137, holding that employment of child in sawmill in violation of statute, makes employer prima facie liable for injury; Riden v. Grimm Bros. 97 Tenn. 223, 35 L. R. A. 588, 36 S. W. 1097, holding seller of liquor after notice forbidding sale, in violation of statute, liable to wife for husband's death; Rhea County v. Sneed, 195 Tenn. 586, 58 S. W. 1063, holding commissioners, failing to comply with statute requiring taking bond from contractor for benefit of laborers, liable for wages; Weeks v. McNulty, 101 Tenn. 502, 43 L. R. A. 187, 70 Am. St. Rep. 693, 48 S. W. 809, and Schmalzried v. White, 97 Tenn. 45, 32 L. R. A. 784, 36 S. W. 393, raising, without deciding, question whether failure to comply with ordinance requiring fire escapes creates liability to person injured.

Contributory negligence as defense.

Cited in Island Coal Co. v. Sherwood, 153 Ind. 700, 53 N. E. 1135, holding contributory negligence of miner defense to action for injury from fall of coal; Bodell v. Brazil Block Coal Co. 25 Ind. App. 660, 58 N. E. 856, holding, that freedom from contributory negligence must be shown in action based on breach of statutory duty to cover mine cages.

Contributory negligence of children.

Cited in footnote to Gleason v. Smith, 55 L. R. A. 622, which denies liability for injury by collision with team, to twelve-year-old boy using street as playground.

30 L. R. A. 84, BROWN v. MARKHAM, 60 Minn. 233, 62 N. W. 123.

Validity of log-lien law,

Cited in Foley v. Markham, 60 Minn. 218, 62 N. W. 125, holding log-lien law constitutional.

Log-lien judgment as evidence of lien.

Cited in Scott & H. Lumber Co. v. Sharvy, 62 Minn. 529, 64 N. W. 1132, holding log-lien judgments prima facie evidence of existence of liens, in action against

owner.

30 L. R. A. 87, ÆTNA L. INS. CO. v. FLORIDA, 16 C. C. A. 618, 32 U. S. App. 753, 69 Fed. 932.

Petition for certiorari to circuit court of appeals denied in 163 U. S. 675, 41 L. ed. 311, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1198.

Suicide of insured as bar to recovery.

Cited in Christian v. Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co. 143 Mo. 467, 45 S. W. 268, construing statute making "contemplated suicide" defense in action for life insurance, as meaning intended suicide; Supreme Lodge, K. of P. v. Stein, 75 Miss. 120, 37 L. R. A. 778, 65 Am. St. Rep. 589, 21 So. 559, holding anti-suicide clause