Contempts.-All courts are vested with
power to punish for contempt. (W. Va.) State v. Fredlock, 932.
2. CONTEMPT -Unintentional Violation of Order of Court.—
If the act of contempt is the disobedience of an order of court, the
contemnor cannot be permitted to plead that his violation of the
mandate was unintentional. He cannot purge the contempt in that
way. (W. Va.) State v. Fredlock, 932.
3. CONTEMPT-Procedure.-If a court has the right to sum-
marily punish for contempt, it may proceed without an indictment,
jury, or confronting the accused with the witnesses against him.
(W. Va.) State v. Fredlock, 932.
1. JUDICIAL OFFICERS.-A Contract that a Judicial Officer
Shall Receive No Compensation for his services unless the party is
successful, or until he collects of his adversary, is against publie
policy and void, and cannot constitute a defense to an action to re-
cover compensation for such services. (Me.) Watson v. Fales, 504.
2. JURY TRIAL-Reasonable Time, When a Question for the
Court. If a contract with a judicial officer may be construed as re-
quiring him to wait a reasonable time for his fees for his services,
the question of whether a reasonable time had elapsed before the
action was brought is for the court, where no question of disputed
fact is involved. (Me.) Watson v. Fales, 504.
1. CORPORATIONS.-The Relation of One Corporation to An-
other in Which the Former Controls the Majority of the Stock is not
that of an agent to his principal. (Md.) Cannon v. Brush Electric
Co., 584.
2. CORPORATIONS.-Where There is an Ineffective Attempt to
Form a Corporation, the Relation of the Parties Thereto as Between
Themselves is not that of partners. Their rights are governed by the
terms, conditions, and limitations set forth in the paper which they
believed and intended to be a charter. (Md.) Cannon v. Brush
Electric Co., 584.
3. CORPORATIONS.-Where One Corporation has Become the
Owner of the Stock of Another, the Stockholders of the Controlling
Corporation can be held answerable for fraud, or such gross negligence
in the management as amounts to fraud. (Md.) Cannon v. Brush
Electric Co., 584.
4. CORPORATIONS-Burden of Proof.-Where one corporation
has become the owner of the controlling interest in the stock of an-
other, and it is claimed that the directors of the controlling corpora-
tion have been guilty of fraud, or gross negligence amounting to
fraud, the burden of proof is upon the party relying upon such fraud
as a ground for recovery. (Md.) Cannon v. Brush Electric Co., 584.
5. CORPORATIONS.-A Corporation Which Owns a Controlling
Interest in the Stock of Another may, notwithstanding, honestly and
fairly compete with it. (Md.) Cannon v. Brush Electric Co., 584.
6. CORPORATIONS-Lien on Stock.-If the charter of a bank
provides that the total liability to it of any person for borrowed
money shall at no time exceed one-tenth of its capital stock paid
in, and that the stock of any stockholder in the bank shall be held
bound thereto for any dues or other indebtedness by such stockholder
to it, and that it shall have a lien upon such stock "superior to all
other liens," the bank has a superior lien upon the stock of a stock-
holder therein, to an amount not exceeding ten per cent of its capital
stock actually paid in, although it may have violated the terms of
its charter by loaning to such stockholder a sum largely in excess
of that which it had authority to permit him to borrow. (Ga.) Peo-
ple's Bank v. Exchange Bank, 144.
![[ocr errors]](https://books.google.com.mx/books/content?id=CWw0AAAAIAAJ&output=html_text&pg=PA992&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&q=hold&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U2w0685sCMm-H3VT7iygju0vgPO-Q&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=701,438,9,5)
7. CORPORATIONS — Assignment of Stock Notice. — If the
charter of a bank provides that no assignment of its stock shall be
valid, as against it, unless a formal transfer thereof shall be made
on its books, the bank has a right to treat a stockholder as the true
owner of stock issued to him and to deal with him as such owner,
until it has notice that he has assigned his stock to a third person,
but after such notice has been brought home to the bank it has no
right to extend further credit to such stockholder upon the faith
of his ownership of such stock or in any way treat him as such
owner, although the stock has not been formally transferred on the
books of the bank. (Ga.) People's Bank v. Exchange Bank, 144.
8. CORPORATIONS-Notice to Officer as Notice to Corpora-
tion.-A corporation is not chargeable with notice of facts coming
to the knowledge of its president while dealing in his private ca-
pacity in his own behalf with third persons, nor when, acting through
another official, it deals with its president at arm's-length, the same
as it would with any outside individual. (Ga.) People's Bank v.
Exchange Bank, 144.
9. CORPORATIONS-Assignment of Stock.-If a stockholder in
a corporation has borrowed of it a sum largely in excess of the
amount which it is authorized to loan him and he has then as-
signed his stock, the corporation, as against his assignee cannot
assert a lien against the stock for a greater amount than it is au-
thorized to loan on it, but if the assignee refuses to discharge such
lien, it cannot demand a transfer of the stock on the books of the
corporation, until such assignor has fully paid all of his indebtedness
to the corporation contracted prior to its having notice of the as-
signment of the stock. In such case the assignor has a right to direct
how his payments shall be applied and the assignee has no right to
demand that they be applied otherwise. (Ga.) People's Bank v.
Exchange Bank, 144.
10. INSURANCE-Foreign Corporation-Service of Process.-A
stipulation required to be made and filed by a foreign insurance com-
pany with the insurance commissioner before doing business within
the state, authorizing the service of process in any action against it
on such officer, and making such stipulation irrevocable so long as
any liability of the company remains outstanding within the state,
is binding on the company while such liability continues, although
its right to do business within the state has been revoked. (Minn.)
Magoffin v. Mutual etc. Life Assn., 699.
Corporations, conveyances made to in anticipation of formation of,
de facto cannot exist where a corporation de jure is impossible,
Corporations, foreign, effect of foreign judgments against, 538.
inchoate or imperfect, conveyances to, effect of, 597.
inchoate or imperfect, estoppel to deny corporate existence of,
596.
inchoate or imperfect, personal liability of members of does not
exist where there is a corporation de facto, 594, 595.
inchoate or imperfect, personal liability of members of, where
a corporation de facto does not exist, 595, 596.
inchoate or imperfect, principles which should control proceed-
ings against members of, 594.
APPELLATE PRACTICE-Costs.-A plaintiff who, on appeal,
successfully attacks the judgment of the lower court on the ground
that it had no jurisdiction, must pay the costs on appeal. (W. Va.)
Freer v. Davis, 895.
COTENANCY.
See Tenancy in Common.
1. ATTEMPT to Commit Crime When the Person Attempting
Cannot Commit It.-Whenever the law makes one step toward the
accomplishment of an unlawful object, with intent and purpose to
accomplish it, criminal, the person taking such step with that intent
or purpose, and himself capable of doing every act on his part nec-
essary to accomplish that object, cannot be protected from responsi-
bility by showing that, by reason of some fact, unknown to him at
the time of his criminal attempt, it could not be fully carried into
effect. (Mo.) State v. Mitchell, 763.
CRIMINAL TRIALS-Evidence.-The Warrant for the Arrest
of the Defendant with the Return of the Officer Thereon is not ad-
missible on his trial for the crime specified therein. (Iowa) State
v. Height, 323.
EVIDENCE-Confessions not Voluntarily Made-Testimony as
to Facts Disclosed by.-Though a confession is not voluntarily made,
and therefore is not admissible in evidence, inculpating facts dis-
covered thereby may be established against the defendant. (Iowa)
State v. Height, 323.
4. EVIDENCE-Confession, What is not.-The condition of de-
fendant's person discovered by his examination by physicians cannot
be regarded as a confession nor as an independent circumstance dis-
closed by a confession, or admission. (Iowa) State v. Height, 323.
5. EVIDENCE.-Confessions of a Person Accused of Crime can-
not be excluded merely because he testifies that they were obtained
by duress or promise of immunity, where his testimony on this sub-
ject is contradicted by that of other witnesses. (Mo.) State V.
Jones, 786.
6. EVIDENCE.-A Confession, to be Inadmissible, must be made
to an officer of the law in consequence of improper influence exerted
by him, and if no threats of harm or promise of worldly advantage
is made by him or by the master of the accused when directly con-
cerned, the confession is admissible. (Mo.) State v. Jones, 786.
7. EVIDENCE-Confessions-Preliminary Testimony.-The court
should make a preliminary investigation of the circumstances is
which a confession was made before permitting it to go to the jury,
and these circumstances should be submitted to the jury along with
the confession, where the court deems it admissible and they re-
quired to find whether it was made voluntarily. (Mo.) State v.
Jones, 786.
8. EVIDENCE of Other Crimes is Admissible when it tends to
prove the one under investigation. (Mo.) State v. Jones, 786.
See Constitutional Law, 10-13.
Criminal Trials, compelling the accused to cover or uncover his face
or head, 339.
compelling the accused to exhibit marks on his person, 340.
compelling the accused to give a specimen of his handwriting,
344, 345.
compelling the accused to make footprints, 343.
compelling the accused to try on a shoe, 344.
compelling the accused to utter certain words, or to show the
sound of his voice, 341.
footprints, evidence that the accused refused to make is not
admissible, 343.
footprints of the accused, evidence of, when admissible, 342,
343.
physical examination of the accused against his will, evidence
of marks discovered by is not admissible, 339, 340.
CUSTODY OF CHILD.
See Judgments, 22.
Custom or Usage, cannot affect the meaning of an unambiguous con-
tract, 225.
interpretation of contract by aid of, 225.
presumption that business was conducted in accordance with,
1. DAMAGES.—Exemplary Damages Cannot be Allowed when no
actual damage has been sustained. (Mo.) Hoagland v. Forest Park
etc. Co., 740.
2. DAMAGES.-Though a Jury Awards the Plaintiff no Com-
pensatory Damages, yet, if They Find Exemplary Damages, and, in
effect, find that he was arrested without cause and cursed and abused,
he is entitled to some pecuniary reparation. (Mo.) Hoagland v.
Forest Park etc. Co. 740.
3. DAMAGES.-The Measure of Damages When an Explosion of
Gas Occurs through the negligence of a gas company is what would
be the fair and reasonable cost of restoring the property to the con-
dition in which it was before the explosion. (Md.) Consolidated
Gas Co. v. Getty, 603.
See Carriers; Explosives; Sales, 11; Vendor and Vendee.
Damages recoverable against party repudiating or countermanding
a sale, 121, 122.
Deceased Persons. See Evidence.
Declarations of Deceased Persons. See Evidence.
DEDICATION, When Inferable.- Where, on a town plat, prop-
erty is called a public square, and it is subsequently patented to the
county commissioners and their successors in office, and a courthouse
and jail are erected thereon, dedication of the square to the county
must be inferred. The intent of the parties is controlling, and where
it is not specifically shown by the language of the grant, it may be
established by parol. (Iowa) Edwards etc. Construction Co. v. Jas-
per County etc., 301.
Deeds, lost, effect of, 470.
lost, relief in equity based upon, 470.
Definition, of conditional sales, 210.
of duress, 412.
of foreign judgment, 533.
of sales, 209.
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Inspection of Papers and Accounts.
A court in which an action at law is pending has authority, upon
sufficient showing, to make a proper order requiring one party to
submit to the other for his inspection, copies of such entries of
accounts, documents or papers in his possession and under his con-
trol as certain evidence relating to the merits of the action or the
defense therein, and such order does not violate a constitutional
provision that the people shall be secure in their persons, papers,
homes and effects, from unreasonable searches and seizures. (Mont.)
State v. District Court, 831.
2. TRIAL-Inspection of Papers.-An Affidavit in support of
an application for an order for the examination of defendant's books
and papers must contain a statement that the action is pending in
the court applied to, and also the nature of such action, and the
relief sought, otherwise the application cannot be granted. (Mont.)
State v. District Court, 831.
3. TRIAL-Inspection of Papers.-An Order. for the inspection
of the defendant's books and papers, containing no limitation on
the time within which such inspection should be made, is void.
(Mont.) State v. District Court, 831.
|