Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

7. CONTRACTS-Statute of Frauds.-A subsequent oral execu-
tory agreement without consideration between the parties to a writ-
ten lease that, under certain circumstances, the time named in the
lease should be extended is void. (Mont.) Armington v. Stelle,

811.

8. PRACTICE-Evidence, Objection to, when not Sufficiently
Specific.-If certain papers are received in evidence against the ob-
jection that they are incompetent, immaterial, and irrelevant, the
action of the court must be sustained if they are competent and rele-
vant, though some part of one of them may not have been so, if no
objection was made in the trial court to this particular part, and the
attention of the court was not called to it in any way. Iowa)
Holman v. Omaha Ry. etc. Co., 293.

9. EVIDENCE-Conclusion of Witness.-An employé injured in a
mine by the blowing out of a thin wall is competent to testify as
to the duty of the mine boss to examine the rooms, entries and
walls in the mine, and to see that the walls therein are kept at a
proper thickness for the safety of the employés, as such testimony
calls for facts and not conclusions. (Ind. App.) Eureka Block etc.
Co. v. Wells, 259.

10. WITNESSES-Expert Testimony.-The decision of the trial
court in permitting or refusing to permit, witnesses to testify as
experts, will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of plain
(Ind. App.) Eureka Block etc. Co. v. Wells, 259.

error.

11. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Legislative Journals as Evidence.
Evidence cannot be received in court to impeach the verity of the
record provided by the constitution as evidence of legislative pro-
ceedings. (Ky.) Taylor v. Beckham, 357.

12.

EVIDENCE-Presumptions.-Legislative Records as shown by
the journals of the legislature are entitled to every presumption in
their favor. (Ky.) Taylor v. Beckham, 357.

13. EVIDENCE-Legislative

Journals-Presumption.-Although
the journals of the legislature are silent as to what evidence was
heard in determining an election contest, it must be presumed that
the legislature did its duty and had before it such evidence as was
satisfactory to it. (Ky.) Taylor v. Beckham, 357.

Note.

See Criminal Law; Witnesses.

Evidence, deceased persons, entries or memoranda made by, 673, 675,
676.

declarations, by persons deceased, as against their interest, gen-
eral admissibility of, 673.

declarations, death of person making, when must be shown, 674.
declarations, of deceased owners respecting boundaries, 681, 682.
declarations, of deceased persons, as to boundaries, prerequisites
to admissibility of, 679-681.

declarations, of deceased persons, as to matters of public in-
terest, 677.

declarations, of deceased persons, as to private boundaries, 678,

679.

declarations, of deceased persons, as to public boundaries, 677.
declarations, of deceased persons, as to real property made while
in possession, 675.

declarations, of deceased persons, must be made while there is
no motive for falseness, 676.

Evidence, declarations, of deceased persons, must have been against
their pecuniary interest, 675.

declarations, of deceased persons, must have been made before
suit brought, 680.

declarations, of deceased persons, must relate to matters within
their knowledge, 676.

declarations, of deceased persons, prerequisites to admissibility
of, 674.

declarations, of deceased persons, which might have subjected
them to punishment, 675.

declarations, of deceased public officers, 676.

declarations, of deceased surveyors and chain carriers, respect-
ing boundaries, 682, 683.

hearsay, exceptions to the rule excluding, 673.

against one's self, by covering or uncovering face or head, 338,
339.

against one's self, by exhibiting feet or hands, 339.
against one's self, by exhibiting tattoo marks, 340.

against one's self, construction of statutory provisions against
compelling, 336.

against one's self, standing up in court to be identified, 337, 338.
against one's self, standing up in court to enable jury to de-
termine age or race, 338.

compelling the production of books and papers, 347.

compelling the speaking of words or to show the sound of the
voice, 311.

manner of obtaining, when will not be considered, 345.

obtained by search of the defendant, 345, 347.

of examination of person of female, to which she objected, 340.
of examination of person submitted to under compulsion, 340,

341.

of examination of person voluntarily submitted to, 340, 341.
of footprints of an accused, 342, 343.

Exchange, difference between and a sale, 227-229.

EXECUTIONS.

See Exemptions; Principal and Agent.

EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS.
See Judgments, 21.

EXEMPTIONS.

1. EXECUTION-Exemption Laws-Construction of. Statutes
of exemption should receive a liberal construction, to aid in carry-
ing out the beneficent object of the legislation. (Iowa) Roberts
v. Parker, 316.

2. EXECUTION-Bicycles, Exemption of.-Under a statute de-
claring that the debtor may hold exempt from execution a wagon
or other vehicle, with the proper harness or tackle, by the use of
which he habitually earns his living, a bicycle may be exempt.
(Iowa) Roberts v. Parker, 316.

3. EXEMPTIONS.-If a crop is produced by the conjoint use of
property which is exempt, and that which belongs to the debtor in-
dividually, the whole crop cannot be made subject to the claim of

the creditor of the head of the family individually. In such case
only an aliquot part of the crop representing equitably the interest
of the debtor, unaffected by the exemption can be legally subjected
to his debt. (Ga.) Brand v. Clements, 133.

4. EXEMPTIONS-A Crop Partially Raised by the use of ex-
empted personalty is exempt as a whole, in the absence of a show-
ing of the aliquot part of the debtors' equitable interest therein un-
affected by the exemption. (Ga.) Brand v. Clements, 133.

EXPERT TESTIMONY.

See Evidence, 10.

EXPLOSIVES.

1. EXPLOSIVES.-In an Action for Damages to a Neighboring
House from an explosion of gunpowder, an instruction is erroneous
which makes no distinction between a case of the use and the manu-
facture of the explosive, nor any modification of the liability where
a secluded situation is sought in the first instance and thereafter
others are attracted to the locality; and which makes the defendant
liable notwithstanding the greatest care, and the fact that the ex-
plosion is caused by an agency beyond his control. (Cal.) Klee-
bauer v. Western Fuse etc. Co., 62.

2. EXPLOSIVES-Liability for Damages.-If a person stores
gunpowder for use in manufacturing fuses, and it does not appear
that when he commenced business he did not locate in a proper place
remote from residences, nor that he did not thereafter carry
on his business with the utmost care, he is not liable for injuries
to a neighboring house from an explosion resulting from a cause be-
yond his control. (Cal.) Kleebauer v. Western Fuse etc. Co., 62.
See Nuisances.

Note.

Explosives, liability of railroads for injuries caused by while in
transit, 70.

FACTORS.

See Principal and Agent, 7-9.

FAIR GROUND ASSOCIATIONS.

See Negligence.

FELLOW-SERVANT.

See Master and Servant; Railroads.

FORECLOSURE.

See Mortgages.

Foreign Judgments. See Judgments.

FORGERY.

1. FORGERY Consists in causing a writing to appear of some
legal efficiency which, in truth, it does not possess. (Mo.) State v.
Leonard, 798.

2. FORGERY.-The Similitude Between the Forged and the Gen-
uine Instrument must be such as is necessary, or reasonably adapted
to accomplish fraud. (Mo.) State v. Leonard, 798.

3. FORGERY-Undated Railroad Ticket.-When a railroad ticket
provides on its face that it shall be good for passage when officially
dated, a ticket without such date or with the date erased does not
bear a sufficient resemblance to the genuine ticket to be the sub-
ject of forgery. (Mo.) State v. Leonard, 798.

1.

See Banks and Banking, 6, 10, 11.

FOUND PROPERTY.

See Lost Property.

FRAUD.

See Release.

FRAUDS, STATUTE OF.

See Evidence, 4-7; Mortgages, 3.

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES.

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES-Title of Grantee.-Prima
facie the legal title to property alleged to have been transferred with
intent to defraud creditors is in the fraudulent grantee, the fraudu-
lent character of the transfer not appearing on its face, and this
continues, notwithstanding a sale of the property by a creditor on
execution against the fraudulent grantor, until the fraud is exposed
and the transfer aunulled. (Minn.) Brasie v. Minneapolis Brew.
Co., 709.

2. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES-Remedy of Creditor-Stat-
ute of Limitations.-If property is transferred in fraud of creditors
a defrauded creditor may cause the property to be sold on execution
against the fraudulent grantor and then maintain ejectment to re-
cover possession thereof, but is entitled to recover only upon estab-
lishing that the transfer was fraudulent as to him. That question
must be litigated under established rules of law in the usual way,
and that, too, before the title of the fraudulent grantee becomes
fully vested by operation of the statute of limitations. (Minn.)
Brasie v. Minneapolis Brew. Co., 709.

3. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES-Statute of Limitations.-
The title of fraudulent grantee is protected by the statute of limita-
tions, and if creditors do not, by proper judicial proceedings, effect
the cancellation of his title within the statutory period after the
discovery of the fraud, such title becomes final and conclusive.
(Minn.) Brasie v. Minneapolis Brew. Co., 709.

4. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES-Statute of Limitations.-
If property is fraudulently transferred and a defrauded creditor
causes it to be sold on execution against the fraudulent grantor, the
statute of limitations begins to run in favor of the fraudulent grantee
in possession from the date of such sale. (Minn.) Brasie v. Min-
neapolis Brew. Co., 709.

1.

GARNISHMENT.

GARNISHMENT.-If the Plaintiff is not Satisfied with the An-
swer of a garnishee, he may under the Washington statutes, contro-
vert it by affidavit, that he has good reason to believe the answer is
incorrect, stating in what particulars he believes it to be so. (Wash.)
McDaniels v. J. J. Connelly Shoe Co., 889.

2. GARNISHMENT.-The Defendant in an action, who obtains
judgment, may attach a debt due the plaintiff. (Cal.) Donohoe-
Kelly Banking Co. v. Southern Pac. Co., 28.

3. GARNISHMENT-Priority over Check.-The garnishment of
a fund on deposit in a bank takes precedence over unpresented
checks previously drawn and delivered by the depositor. (Cal.)
Donohoe-Kelly Banking Co. v. Southern Pac. Co., 28.

4. GARNISHMENT.-A Notice of Garnishment addressed to the
Donohoe-Kelly Company, instead of the Donohoe-Kelly Banking Com-
pany, is not void, there being no pretense that the notice was not
served on the right party, the levy being otherwise made according
to law, and no question being made that the corporation intended to
be reached was the Donohoe-Kelly Banking Company. (Cal.) Dono-
hoe-Kelly Banking Co. v. Southern Pac. Co., 28.

Note.

See Attachment.

Garnishment, foreign, effect of, 552, 553.

GAS COMPANIES.

1. GAS COMPANIES-Negligence of, when a Question for the
Jury. It is for the jury to determine as a matter of fact, and there-
fore not for the court as a matter of law, whether an inspection which
failed to discover what other persons in the same position as the
inspector were aware of was a due and reasonable inspection.
Consolidated Gas Co. v. Getty, 603.

(Md.)

2. GAS COMPANY-Contributory Negligence of Owner of Prop-
erty in not Discovering a Leak.-The failure of the property owner
and his agent to inspect premises, when by so doing they might have
discovered the escaping of gas, is not contributory negligence pre-
cluding his recovery as against the company through whose negli-
ence in permitting the leak the explosion occurred. (Md.) Con-
solidated Gas Co. v. Getty, 603.

gas

3. GAS COMPANY-Negligence-Proximate Cause.-If a
company is negligent in suffering the escape of gas or in not discover-
ing such escape when warned of it, and a policeman, in searching for
the leak with a lighted candle, causes an explosion, the escape of
the gas, and not the lighted candle, is the proximate cause of such
explosion. (Md.) Consolidated Gas Co. v. Getty, 603.

4. GAS COMPANY-Negligence, When not Chargeable to Prop-
erty Owner.-When a gas company permits gas to escape, and a
policeman, in searching for the leak with a lighted candle, causes an
explosion, the act of the policeman, if it is negligence, is not charge-
able against the property owner, and his contributory negligence is,
therefore, not the contributory negligence of such owner. (Md.)
Consolidated Gas Co. v. Getty, 603.

See Damages, 3.

« AnteriorContinuar »