Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Killing v.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Page.

Page. Dresler v. Hard..

37 Insurance Company of North America v. Hibernia InDuran v. Standard Life & Acc. Ins. Co 317 surance Company of New Orleans...

87 Dutenbofer v. Adirondack Railway

137 Dyer v. Swift.....

198 Jacksonville, T. & K. W. Ry, Co. v. Peninsular Land,
Transportation & Manufacturing Co......

295
Edwards v. Town of Pocahontas..
363 Janesville & W. R. Co. v. Fisher.

529 Eichel v. Senbeon...

218 Jamieson v. Indiana Natural Gas & Oil Company. 145 Eisenlord v. Clum... 66 Jeaume v. New York, L. & W. R. Co...

485 Ellisop v. Lucas.. 219 Jennings v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. of Canada.

406 Elting v. Palen 44 Jennings v. Iron Bay Co..

340 Emmitt v. Mayor, etc.... 176 Johns v. Johas....

199 Equitable Acc. Ius. Co. v. Osborne 304 Johnson v. Brown..

188 Johnson v. Lindsay.

854 Falvey v. Richmond

40
Joslyn v. Rockwell

507 Fanning v. Chace...

164
Joy v. Diefendorf....

496
Farmers & Merchants' Bank of Shelby v. Dunbier. 277
Farmers' State Bank of Solomon City v. Plevins
259 Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Riley.

156 Farrier v. Reynolds 178 Kilgore v. Rich

179 First National Bank of Champlain v. Wood...

79
State..

316
Fitzgerald v. Grand Trunk X. Co..
178 Kincheloe v. Merriam

104 Flynn 5. Taylor.... 439 King, In re..

309 Fonseca v. Cunard S. S. Co. 14 Kley v. Healy.

467 Forbes v. Board of Health of Escambia County 349 Kramrath v. City of Albany..

411 Fowler v. Ingersoll et al.. 447 Kummel v. Germania Sav. Bank.

405 Frauff v. Bendheim

446 Freeland v. Ritz 223 Lake v. The Manhattan, etc.

272 Larrowe y. Lewis

114 Gallagher v. Kemmerer 495 Lawrence v. Church..

426 Garland's Adm'rv. Garland's Adm'r. 280 Lawrence v. Metropolitau El. Ry. Co....

56 Galway v. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co. 434 Lee v. State...

124 Garlock v. Vandevort 467 Lee v. Vacuum Oil Co.

..112, 134 Garner v. State

323
Levy v. Newman...

488
Garnett, Matter of
5 Linton v. Udexcelled Fire-Works Co.

470 Garrett'v. Western Union Telegraph Co.. 99 Lipman v. Jackson Architectural Iron Works..

135 Gates v. State. 407 Lockwood v. Gehlert

116 Gebrig's Estate, In re.. 108 Lonergren v. Illinois Central Ry. Co..

581 Gerlach v. Turner. 80 Louis v. Elfelt..

198 Gill v, State

20 Louisville Courier Journal Co. v. Commonwealth. 384 Gillespie v. National Marine Bank of Baltimore. 138 Louisville, E. & St. L. C. R. Co. v. Berry.

496 Glatz v. Thein 475 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Eves.

40 Gleem v. Jackson, 17 Louisville & N. R.Co. v. Carl,

117 Gleeson v. Virginia Midland Railway Co... 33 Louisville, N. A. &C. Ry. Co. v. Hendricks.

177 Goode v. Riley. 264 Lowry v. Chicago, B. &'Q. R. Co.

59 Granger v. Lyman... 184 Lybarger v. State.....

507 Grantham v. Grantham..... 491 Lyman, Matter of

16 Gray v. Alabama... 39 Lynk v. Weaver

424 Gray v. Manhattan Ry. Co... 446 Lyon v. Industrial School Ass'n

175 Gray v. Western Union Tel. Co..

332 Greene v. Couse...

175
McAllaster v. Bailey.

470 Gutch v. Fosdick.

328
McArthur v. Gordon

136
McCracken v. Flanagan

445 Haberman v. Baker 406 McDonald v. State

63 Hahn v. Baker Lodge No. 47, a. F. & A. M. 204 McElroy v. Mumford.

423 Hall v. Hall.

McElwee v. New York Life Ins. Co.

516 Hamilton v. The Walla Walla 58 McFarland v. Lillard...

224 Harris v. Oakley... 469 McGee v. State

150 Harris L. H. Drug Co. v. Stucky: 203 McKeown y. Officer.

405 Harris v. Women's Hospital in State of New York. 199 McKuskie v. Hendrickson Hasberg v. McCarty. 52 McNally v. City of Cohoes.

135 Hay v. Weber.... 58 Mahr v. Norwich Union Fire Ins. Soc.

407 Hazel v. Chicago, M, &. St. Paul R. Co. 57 Mains v. Whiting

300 Heath v. Hewitt... 114 Manhattan, The..

272 Helfrich v. Catonsville Water Co... 143 Marwedel v. Cook

197 Henderson, Hull & Co., Limited, v. Philadelphia & R. R. Martin v. Johnson,.

154 Co... 479 May v. People..

521 Hick v. Rodocanechi.. 462 Mayer v. Hardy

13 Ilicklin v. Marco.. 137 Medawar v. Grand Hotel Company

265 Hill v. C. F. Jewett Pub. Co. 143 Melsheimer v. Sullivan..

151 Hodgman v. Barker..

112
Metropolitan El. Ry. Co., In re..

134
Hodgman v. Barker
154 Metropolitan El. Ry, Co., Matter of..

154 Hoey v. Coleman.. 99 Merriam v. Famous Shoe & Clothing Co.

525 Holden, Trustee, Matter of 84 Meyers v. Pacific Const. Co

362 Holmes, etc., Manuf'g Co. v. Holmes, etc., Metal Co... 23 Milbank v. Jones..

176 Home Mutual Ins. Co. v. Oregon Railway & Naviga- Miller v. Mead

407 tion Co....

49 Mills v. Dunham.. Hotchkiss v. Third National Bank of Malone.. 115 Monnet v. Merz

115 Hoyt v. Hoyt 452 Montgomery v. Thompson.

287 Hubble v. Cole. 217 Morse v. Moore

192 Hughes v. New York EI, R, Co., 486 Mt. Hope Cemetery Ass'n v. Weideuman

522 Hulbert v. Clark.. 487 Moglan v. Second Ave. R. Co.,

136 Hunter v. Frost.. 279 Mulligan v. New York, etc., Ry. Co.

124 Huntley v. Holt... 179 Munson v. Munson

62 Hurlburt v. Hurlburt. 485 Musch v. Burkhart.

59 Iluse, In re,..

108
Musick v. Musick ....

79
Illinois Cent. R. Co. y. Miller..
516 Nall v. Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co....

230 lubabitants of Phillips v, Inhabitants of Madrid 198 Nason Manuf'g Co. v. Stephens.

424

[merged small][ocr errors]

277

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

484

235

Page. National Bank of West Troy v. Levy.....

469 National Broadway Bank in City of New York v. Barker. 112 New Haven Young Men's Institute v. City of New Haven....

314 New York Cent, & H. R. R. Co. v. City of Rochester.. 444 New York, L. E. & W.R. Co. v. Ball....

57 Nostrand v, Ditmis.....

155

Robinson v. Oregon, S. L. & U. N. Ry. Co.......
Rollins v, McHatton.
Romaine v. Chauncey
Rosenberg v. Staten Island Railway Co.
Rothholz v. Duncan,
Rumsey v. New York & N. E. K. Co.
Rutherford v. Morning Journal Ass'n.

Page.

510 258 186

64 197 487 530

Oates v. Union Pacific Ry. Co......

94 O'Connor v. Andrews

137 O'Connell v. East Tennessee, V. & G. Ry. Co..

269 Oregon Pacific R. Co. v. Forrest..

114 Otis v. Shantz.......

79 Pacific Express Co. v. Foley

73 Pacific Nai. Bank of Boston v. Eaton..

51 Palmer v. Courtney...

510 Pappenheim v. Metropolitan Elevated, etc., Ry. Co..... 440 Parker v. Collins..

53 Parker v. Ormsby:

36 Pelican Ins. Co. of New Orleans v. Smith

117 Pennsylvania Co. v. Langendorff

190 Penny v. Croul.

225 People, ex rel. Winans, v. Adams..

184 People, ex rel. Winans, v. Adams..

154 People, ex rel. Trezza, v. Brush.

484 People, ex rel. Cochrane, v. Coleman.

446 People, ex rel. Union Trust Co., v. Coleman.

57 People v. Deitz...

238 People v. Flynn..

123 People v. Dewey.

154 People, ex rel. Schwab, v. Grant..

79 People, ex rel. Ellis, v. Lennon......

277 People v. Loppy.

468 People, ex rel. Andrews, v, Maguire.

94 People v. Most...

136 People, ex rel. Myers, v. Masonic Guild, etc., Ass'n. 78 Peabody v Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co....

127 Pease v, Cole,

413 Peil v. Reinhart.

184 People v. Phelps.

526 People, ex rel. Danzieger, v. Protestant Episcopal House of Mercy of City of New York

425 Peil v. Reinhart...

176 People, ex rel. Young, v. Straight.

485 People v. Tanper.

384 People v. Trezza..

484 People v. Ulster & D, R. Co..

483 People, ex rel. Edison Electric Illuminating Company of New York, v. Wemple.

393 Petrie v. Morgan..

78 Phillips v. Bishop.

97 Phillips v. New York, etc., R. Co.

185 Phenix Ins. Co. v. Gebhard..

258 Phønix Iron Co. v. The Vessels “ Hopatcing” et al.. Phenix Ins. Co. v. Bachelder..

197 Pinkney, In re..

243 Pittard v.Oliver..

319 Porter v. Gardner.

368 Potter v. Douglass.

100 Potter v. New York, etc., R. Co.

83 Powers v. Clarke...

425 Powers v. Larabee

499 Powers , Manning.

861 Prince, Ex parte..

275 Prout, Matter of

52 Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania....

80 Putnam . Southern Pac. Co.......

517

St. Nicholas Bank of New York v. State National Bank. 112 Sappenfield v. Main St. & A. P. R. Co....,

324 Sayre v. People of the State of New York..

175 Scheel, Matter of ....

51 Schindler v. Milwaukee, L. S. & W. Ry. Co.

303 Schultz v. Byers, ..

290 Schultz v. Jordan

36 Shedd, Estate of .

367 Sheridan Electric Ligbt Co. v. Chatham Nat. Bank 424 Shindess v. Proprietors of Locks and Canals on Merri. mack River......

198 Sicard v. Roca

279 Smith v. Smith

156 Sowles v. First National Bank of St. Albans.

199 Spain, In re..

847 Split Rock Cable Road Co., In re

424 Springer v. Bien...

136 State, ex rel. Rogers, v. Rombauer.

219 State, ex rel. Yancey, v. Hyde...

259 Staples v. Nott...

468 State v. Denton...

250 State v. Freeman

352 Strasser v. New York, L. & W. R. Co.

485 State v. Geer

515 State v. Kibling.

347 State v. Kingsly

131 State v. McCaskey

98 Stouter v. Railroad Co.

54 State v. Rider.

59 Stein v. Bien ville Water Supply Co.

36 Steltz v. Shreck. Stevens v. Hannan..

531 Stevens v. New York El. R. Co

506 Stevenson v. Colgan

515 Stewart v. Stone ..

468 Stoddard v. Village of Saratoga Springs

116 Stone v. Weller..

490 Stowers v. Postal Telegraph Cable Co

133 Suburban Rapid Transit Co. v. Mayor, etc., of City of New York

469 Supreme Assembly of Royal Society of Good Fellows v. Campbell...

232 Swan, Matter of...

59 Sweeney v. Hunter

490 Sweeney v. Warren...

447 Sweet v. City of Syracuse.

167 Swim v. Wilson.....

195 Swift Specific Co. v. Jacobs.....

491

488

13

Talbott v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York...
Taws v. Knowles...
Tecumseh Iron Co. v. Camp...
Teel v. Yost
Texas Trunk Ry. Co. v. Lewis
Thacher v. Hope Cemetery Association.
Thomas v. Scutt
Thomas, In re.
Thompson, In re ..
Thompson v. Simpson.
Thurman v. State..
Tilden v. Green.....
Tinken v. Tallmadge
Tisdale v. Kingman..
Todd v. Union Dime Sav. Inst.
Tode v. Gross.,
Town of Corinth v. Emery.
Trigg v. Clay
Tufts v. Grewer.
Turner v. Gibb

276 339

95 384 180

94 114 358 391 489 256 368 495 803 427 428 339 216 282 341

432 486

144

Quilty v. Battie .....
Quinlan v. Stratton
Quinn v. Complete Electric Construction Co.
Rankin v. Amazon Ins. Co.......
Redfield v. Redfield
Reid v. Board of Supervisors of Albany County.
Reincing y. New York, L. & W. R. Co..
Reiss y, New York Steam Co.
Reuner v. Railroad Co.....
Reynolds v. Haines
Richmond v. Chicago & W. M. Ry. Co.
Rhodes v. Newhall
Rigney v. Rigney
Richmond & D, R. Co. v. Hanimond
Roanoke, The...
Roberts v. New York Elevated Ry. Co.

88 94 446 485 135 103 528 840

78 426 258 157 454

[blocks in formation]

Page. Wallace v. Blake...

487 Whitmarsh v. Lorton Wallace v. Vacuum Oil Co...

52 Wiedemann v. Walpole Warnebold v. Grand Lodge of Ancient Order United Wilkerson v. Rahrer.. Workmen

Wilson v. City of Troy Waring v. National Marine Bank of Baltimore.

138 Wilson v. Wilson... Wass v. Stevens.

155 Woodman v. State of New York. Waterloo Woolen Manuf'g Co. v. Shanahan,

445 Woolsey v. Trustees of Ellenville Watson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co..

43 Welmer y. Thomas

274 Yaw v. State..... Werner v. Tuch..

53 Young v. New Jersey & N. Y. Ry. Co... Western Union Tel. Co. v. Rogers

329 Whitaker v. D. & H. Canal Co

93 Zigler v. Phønix Ins. Co White Sewing Machine Co. v. Richter

391 1

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

THE ALBANY LAW JOURNAL:

A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE LAW AND THE LAWYERS.

The Albany Law Journal.

THE

of the problem. Indeed our experience of government by Congress has not taught us to expect ideal measures or perfect results from that latest product

of the Anglo-Saxon political genius. We are getALBANY, JULY 4, 1891.

ting into the habit of accepting its favors with grat

itude — that they are no worse. CURRENT TOPICS.

It is not anticipated however that the new Courts THE new Federal Courts of Appeal have been set of Appeal will relieve the justices of the Supreme

up, with all the pomp and circumstance of or- Court of any part of their arduous labors. It is too ganized justice. In each case the court was organ- early to predict with any degree of certainty what ized by a justice of the Supreme Court, with the effect the operation of these courts will have on the assistance of the Circuit and District judges, and business of the individual justices, but we shall be there was no end of oratory, mostly of the congrat- surprised if it does not materially increase their ulatory sort. We have heretofore confessed to a burdens. It seems more than likely that, as business weakness for judicial millinery; the silk robe im- increases in these new tribunals, the more imporpresses our imagination, and the panoply of justice tant causes will be reserved for the advent of the is more grateful to our eyes than that of war. But Supreme Court justice, who will be confronted with we have also recorded our conviction that this new a growing calendar at home to compensate him for and complicated organization of nine intermediate the diminishing calendar at the Capitol. Probably courts of appeal, drawing their members partly from the justices will more and more feel the necessity of the Supreme Court above and partly from the Cir- presiding in these intermediate courts, in order to cuit Courts below, and thus interfering with the combat, as far as possible, the tendency to differwork of all the older tribunals, is a most unsatisfac-ences of opinion among them, and to keep their detory and, in some respects, mischievous solution of cisions in harmony with those of the Supreme trithe problem to which it is directed. We shall now, bunal. There is one department of the Supreme over a wider area and in a more important field, see justice's activity which is pretty certain to be done enacted the spectacle which our New York courts, away with by the institution of these new courts, with their system of duplicate appeals and often- and that is his annual or biennial circuit. This conflicting decisions, have so long presented. We time-honored, democratic practice has been subhave not found this solution of the problem of court jected to a good deal of criticism, but it has, upon relief a very satisfactory one, and we see no reason the whole, justified its existence by its effects.

We for anticipating a better result in the case of the in- believe that the justices themselves like it, and that termediate Federal courts. But that these courts they will surrender it with regret. It has certainly will, however lamely and with whatever resulting done much to keep the bar in all parts of the counlegal confusion, in some sort afford to our highest try in touch with the Supreme Court, and has kept tribunal that relief which is the necessary condi- alive the popular interest in our highest tribunal. tion of its continuing usefulness, cannot be doubted. Neither has the practice had the least effect to The congratulatory speeches with which their open- diminish the exalted regard in which the Supreme ing was celebrated were therefore not without rea- Court has always been held in this country. This son. When the highest court of justice in the land, is one of those rare cases in which familiarity has if not the greatest tribunal in the world, finds that, not bred contempt, but rather an increased respect. with its work already four years in arrears, new

We believe that this august tribunal has never stood cases continue to accumulate on its calendar much higher, in the estimation of the legal fraternity and faster than the old ones can be disposed of, the sit- of the American people at large, than it does to-day. uation is certainly desperate enough to justify a

On this side of the water we are never able to fully feeling of exultation at any measure of relief. In appreciate the mental attitude of our English friends such cases a bad solution is better than no solution in matters of this kind. Thus the Law Times, in a

VOL. 44 – No. 1.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

recent number, commenting upon the practice of scandal, and evidence which in a case between
Chief Justice Coleridge in presiding from time to Brown and Jones would be severely curtailed is in-
time as a trial judge, expresses the opinion that “the flated with artificial importance by common consent
dignity and importance of a high official, like the almost conspiracy – of all concerned."
lord chief justice of England, sink perceptibly
when put to the uses of a divisional court.” We have

The acquittal of Mr. Depew and his fellow direct-
no hierarchy of courts and dignities in this country,
and we do not recognize in the difference between dicted for violating the law of this state relative to

ors of the New Haven railroad, who had been inan original and appellate jurisdiction any such subtle the heating of railway cars, was a severe blow to distinction as our insular contemporary calls attention to. Probably it must be bred in the bone to be knew, or should have known, that there was no

our brethren of the newspaper press. Every lawyer understood.

theory of criminal responsibility upon which these The columns of our English exchanges continue directors could be convicted. The trial was a farce to bristle with points raised by the conduct of the in its inception and was only saved from ending in Gordon-Cumming trial. That cause celebre seems to à farce by Judge Van Brunt's prompt action in have made and unmade as many reputations as any directing a verdict of acquittal. How the district trial of our time. It appears to have carried Sir attorney came to lend himself to so ridiculous a Edward Clarke to a position of leadership at the performance will always be a mystery to those bar hardly second to that so long occupied by his who believe in him. But the failure of the prosecudistinguished opponent, Sir Charles Russell, The tion fell heavily upon the newspapers, who had alchief justice, who presided at the trial, also came ready tried and convicted the unfortunate directors out of the affair with flying colors. His conduct of (especially Mr. Depew, whose connection with the the trial seems to have been eminently judicious, road appears to be only a nominal one) and senimpartial and dignified, worthy of his high office tenced them to fine and imprisonment. It was too and great reputation. Probably it was not his bad, Esteemed Contemporaries, but we do not see fault, but that of the social system of which he is a how, in the present state of law and society, the repart, that the trial took on so much the character sult could have been otherwise. The courts have of a theatrical representation before a fashionable no general censorial powers (those powers having audience. It is doubtful if even the lord chief been vested solely in you) and have no function justice of England could safely exclude London but to administer the law as it now is, not as it “society” from his court-room upon the trial of a ought to be, or as it will be in the twentieth cencause exciting public interest and involving prom. I tury; and this law is only the expression of the inent members of that society. At any rate, to have average intelligence and morality of the time that done so in this case would have been a decided in- now is, not of that millennial era which you are novation upon the immemorial custom of the courts doing so much to usher in. If you had only thought of common law. However, we do these things dif- of all this you might have been spared the absurdity ferently over here, We are not a very reverential of such oracular nonsense as the remark that: people, but we do regard the bench —- as, by emi-“The law of directors' responsibility makes no adnence, the judicial seat — with a certain awe and vance in the case of the New Haven railroad directregard which would not tolerate its use as a mere ors.” Of course it doesn't, Esteemed Contemporary. point of observation or private box for a fashionable | That isn't what the courts are for, to“ advance" the audience. We believe that there is no case on rec- law. They do it, sometimes, but, when they do, they ord in this country in which it has been put to that don't make much poise about it, and, when they are use. Imagine Chief Justice Fuller, holding Circuit detected, they don't get much encouragement to try Court in Chicago, with his wife and daughters and it again. And, perhaps, if you had been a little the elite of Chicago society seated with him on the wiser or a little less angry, you would have refrained bench, and a horde of fashionable people, admitted from making that silly remark to the effect that the by ticket, occupying the body of the court-room! result of the trial was “perfectly lawlike and of The case need only be stated to show how wide a course perfectly absurd.” Do you really believe departure we have made from the English traditions. that the “lawlike" and the “absurd” are identiWherefore we heartily sympathize with our judici-cal, or were you merely trying to catch the ears of ous contemporary, the Law Times, in its condem- the groundlings and assert your independence of nation of the sensational conditions under which corporate influences? And, if we will admit that the baccarat trial was held. This is its comment: the law relating to the responsibility of directors of “We need only say that Lord Coleridge has ab- corporations is too indefinite and has failed to keep solutely repelled any charge of favoritism or mo- pace with their increasing power and that it stands nopoly. But whether a court of justice has not once

in need of definition and development, will you not more been converted into a play-house for the upper confess that you have uttered a precious deal of classes, and the bench made very much to resemble nonsense on the subject and have given the judicious the grand stand, may be a matter upon which occasion to grieve? opinions may differ. Our disposition is to protest against these long-drawn legal orgies in which Meanwhile, all over the land, the process of trial every one panders to the fashionable appetite for I by newspaper goes merrily on. And what an easy,

[ocr errors][ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »