Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

*On the exalting of value by an agent employed to purchase real estate far beyond what he believes it to be, if the principal relies on the representations of the agent, the latter and his co-conspirator are liable in damages.-Wiruth v. Lashmett (Neb.) 887.

*Threshing machine agents held liable to their principal as for a breach of contract for permitting a purchaser of a separator to obtain possession thereof without settlement, either in cash or notes.-J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. Folger (Wis.) 944.

3. Rights and liabilities as to third persons.

PRIORITIES.

Of mechanics' liens, see Mechanics' Liens, § 3.
Of mortgages, see Chattel Mortgages,
Mortgages, § 1.

PRIVATE ROADS.

Rights of way, see Easements.

PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS. Disclosure by witness, see Witnesses, § 2.

PROBABLE CAUSE.

*An agent of an estate held to have authority to make a settlement of a claim against defendant belonging to the heirs, and to waive a right of forfeiture of timber for failure to remove it For prosecution, see Malicious Prosecution, § 1. within a stipulated time.-Newberry v. Chicago Lumbering Co. (Mich.) 592.

Under Rev. Civ. Code, §§ 1667, 1670, a lease executed by an agent without written authority is void, and is not rendered valid by a subsequent ratification executed after the principal has parted with his title to the land.Dobbs v. Atlas Elevator Co. (S. D.) 128.

PROBATE.

Of will, see Wills, § 3.

See Courts, § 4.

PROBATE COURTS.

PROCEEDS.

*Where an order for the purchase of a niachine and a contract appointing one a local agent for the seller to procure orders for machines were executed on the same day, and immediately forwarded to the home office of the seller by its general agent, the seller was charg- Of foreclosure sale, see Chattel Mortgages, § 3. ed with knowledge possessed by the general agent.-Lindquist v. Northwestern Port Huron Co. (S. D.) 365.

*Acts of a corporation held a ratification of an illegal transaction by its agent as a matter of law. Twentieth Century Co. v. Quilling (Wis.) 1007.

PRINCIPAL AND SURETY.

Computation of limitations in action against surety, see Limitation of Actions, § 2. Liabilities on bonds for performance of duties of trust or office, see Sheriffs and Constables, § 3.

Limitations applicable to action against surety,
see Limitation of Actions, § 1.

Parties entitled to allege error in action against,
see Appeal and Error, § 9.
Surety on bail bond, see Bail.
81. Discharge of surety.

PROCESS.

In actions against particular classes of persons.
See Corporations, § 7; Infants, § 1.

In particular actions or proceedings.
On appeal, see Appeal and Error, § 3.

Particular forms of writs or other process. See Execution; Garnishment; Injunction; Mandamus; Prohibition; Quo Warranto; Replevin.

§ 1. Nature, issuance, requisites, and validity.

*An original notice requiring appearance on a date prior to the day of service, held void for want of jurisdiction.-Cummings v. Landes (Iowa) 22.

The printed signature of plaintiff's attorney attached to an original notice held a sufficient signing thereof within the statute requiring an original notice to be "signed" by plaintiff or his attorney.-Cummings v. Landes (Iowa) 22.

*If the payee's agent was not authorized to extend the time for payment of a note, and his act was not ratified, held a surety on the note was not released by such extension Fullerton Lumber Co. v. Snouffer (Iowa) 50.8 2. Service. Where the bond securing a building contract provided that notice of default should be served on the surety, held that, no claim being made for damages by reason of delay, the failure to give notice thereof within the required time did not relieve the surety from damages arising from labor and materialmen's liens.-Lakeside Land Co. v. Empire State Surety Co. (Minn.) 431.

2. Remedies of creditors.

Whether payee's agent was authorized to extend the time for payment of a note held a jury question.-Fullerton Lumber Co. v. Snouffer (Iowa) 50.

*As a general rule, the liability of a surety is not greater than that of his principal, and he may have the benefit of any defense which the principal pleads or can plead.-City Nat. Bank of Columbus, Ohio, v. Jordan (Iowa) 758.

*Fraud in inducing a principal to make a promise will release the surety as the same affects the character of the debt.-City Nat. Bank of Columbus, Ohio, v. Jordan (Iowa) 758.

*One not acting in a representative capacity or in some way authorized so to do may not waive service of process for another, either by appearance in court for or by acknowledg ing for him timely service after the date fixed for appearance.-Cummings v. Landes (Iowa)

22.

*Evidence held sufficient to show that the return of an officer showing service of process was erroneous.-St. Paul Harvester Co. v. Faulhaber (Neb.) 702.

*Defendant in foreclosure sued by the initial letters, who does not appear and upon whom personal service is not made, is not bound by the decree therein.-Herbage v. McKee (Neb.) 706.

PROHIBITION.

Of traffic in intoxicating liquors, see Intoxicating Liquors.

§ 1. Nature and grounds.

Acts of the state board of canvassers in canvassing the votes of a primary election held un See syllabus.

*Point annotated.

PUBLICATION.

der Laws Ex. Sess. 1907, p. 10, No. 4, being the
performance of merely statutory duties. may be
restrained by prohibition.-Bradley v. Board of Service of process, see Process, § 2.
State Canvassers (Mich.) 649; Warner v. Same,
Id.

The duties imposed on the board of state canyassers by Laws Ex. Sess. 1907, p. 10, No. 4, in canvassing the votes at a primary election and recounting them on petition therefor, being merely ministerial, the board may be restrained by prohibition from exceeding its jurisdiction.Bradley v. Board of State Canvassers (Mich.) 649; Warner v. Same, Id.

Judge of the trial court will not be prohibited from vacating judgment after remittitur to allow defendant to apply in the Supreme Court for a rehearing.-Nystrom v. Templeton (N. D.) 473.

PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.

See Breach of Marriage Promise.

PROMISSORY NOTES.

See Bills and Notes.

PROOF.

Of loss insured against, see Insurance, § 8.
Of service of process, see Process, § 2.

PROPERTY.

Constitutional guaranties of rights of proper-
ty, see Constitutional Law, § 7.
Licenses in respect to real property, see Licen-
ses, § 1.

Rules of property as stare decisis, see Courts,
§ 2.

Particular species of property.
See Animals; Crops; Fixtures; Good Will;
Intoxicating Liquors, § 8; Logs and Logging;
Trade-Marks and Trade-Names.

Remedies involving or affecting property. Protection of rights of property by injunction, see Injunction, § 2.

Transfers and other matters affecting title.
See Adverse Possession.

Dedication to public use, see Dedication.
Taking for public use, see Eminent Domain.

*A person acquiring knowledge of trade secrets may use them, where the manner of obtaining such knowledge and the use of them do not constitute a breach of faith.-Elaterite Paint & Mfg. Co. v. S. E. Frost Co. (Minn.) 388. A person in actual possession of and having actual control over personal property is prima facie the owner thereof.-Mariner v. Wasser (N. D.) 343.

PROVINCE OF COURT AND JURY. In civil actions, see Trial, § 6.

In criminal prosecutions, see Criminal Law, § 5.

PROXIMATE CAUSE.

Direct or remote consequences of injury, see
Damages, § 1.

Of injury caused by operation of railroad, see
Railroads, § 2.

Of injury in general, see Negligence, § 2.
Of injury to servant, see Master and Servant,
§§ 9, 12, 13.

PUBLIC DEBT.

See Counties, § 2; Municipal Corporations, 9;
Schools and School Districts, § 1.

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.

By municipalities, see Municipal Corporations, § 5.

PUBLIC LANDS.

Appropriation of water rights, see Waters and
Water Courses, § 1.

Documentary evidence in proceedings in land
office, see Evidence, § 7.

Taxation of public state lands, see Taxation, § 2.

§ 1. Survey and disposal of lands of United States.

A location of land under a military land warrant, accompanied by a record of the entry in the proper office, held to remove the land from the general domain of the government open to purchase or settlement.-Herrick & Stevens v. Sargent & Lahr (Iowa) 751.

*The passing of the legal title from the gov ernment by issuing a patent to land located under a military land warrant relates back to the date of the entry of the location, and removes all doubt as to the taxable character of the property after such date.-Herrick & Stevens v. Sargent & Lahr (Iowa) 751.

*Where a person's title to land under a military land warrant had been eliminated by a tax sale of the land and a deed thereof, a subsequent patent issued by the government to such person did not affect the title of one claiming under the tax deed.-Herrick & Stevens v. Sargent & Lahr (Iowa) 751.

*A judgment against a surety on a supersedeas bond is a debt contracted on the approval of such bond, within the timber culture law, providing that land acquired under such law shall not be liable for the satisfaction of any debt contracted before the issuance of the final certificate.-Leman v. Chipman (Neb.) 885.

[blocks in formation]

*Point annotated. See syllabus.

QUESTIONS FOR JURY.

In civil actions, see Trial, § 5.

St. 1898, § 1774, relative to amending articles of incorporation, refers only to corporations organized under chapter 86 of the Statutes. Railroad Commission (W.is.) 846.

In criminal prosecutions, see Criminal Law, which excludes railroad corporations.-State v. § 5.

QUIETING TITLE.

§ 1. Proceedings and relief.

Evidence in a suit to quiet title held sufficient to support a decree for complainants.Johnson v. Smith (Mich.) 563.

*The venue of an action to quiet title under Cobbey's Ann. St. 1903, § 1050, must be laid in the county in which the real estate is situated. Johnson v. Samuelson (Neb.) 470.

Where the owner of a mortgage, barred by limitations, asks affirmative relief, the court on a plea of said statute and proof may dismiss the action without compelling defendant to pay outlawed claim.-Herbage v. McKee (Neb.) 706. *A suit to establish title in land held barred by laches.-Likens v. Likens (Wis.) 799.

QUITCLAIM DEEDS.

See Deeds, § 2.

QUO WARRANTO.

1. Jurisdiction, proceedings, and relief.

In quo warranto proceedings to determine the right to the office of county superintendent of schools, evidence held insufficient to show that respondent had ceased to be a resident of the county in and for which he had been elected, and had not, therefore, vacated his office for that reason.-State v. Hays (Minn.) 615.

RAILROADS.

See Street Railroads.

As employers, see Master and Servant.
Carriage of goods and passengers, see Carriers.
Exercise of power of eminent domain, see Emi-
nent Domain, §§ 1, 2.

Harmless error in action for injuries caused
by operation of, see Appeal and Error, § 21.
Province of court and jury in action for in-
juries from operation of, see Trial, § 6.
Questions for jury in action for injuries from
operation of, see Trial, § 5.
Regulation of hours of employment of em-
ployés of as regulation of commerce, see Com-
merce, §§ 1, 3.

Requests for instructions in action for injuries
from operation of, see Trial, § 10.
Requirements of statute of frauds as to con-
veyance of right of way, see Frauds, Statute
of, § 1.

Right of action against receiver of railroad, see Receivers, § 1.

§ 1. Railroad companies.

The railroad commission of the state has authority, under Laws 1907, pp. 411, 412, c. 576, $$ 1753-3, to pass on the competency of a railroad corporation to increase its capital stock, and to refuse permission if the articles of incorporation shall not have been so broadened as to cover the subject by a valid amendment.State v. Railroad Commission (Wis.) 846.

A change of the authorized capital stock of a railroad, under St. 1898, § 1826, though not called an amendment, when effected, is one in fact.-State v. Railroad Commission (Wis.) 846.

A change of the authorized capital stock of a railroad is one of a fundamental character, requiring an amendment to the articles of organization.-State v. Railroad Commission (Wis.)

846.

[blocks in formation]

a

*The driver of a vehicle held guilty under the evidence of contributory negligence as matter of law, precluding recovery for injuries through being struck by a train at a crossing. -Williams v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 956.

*Whether one approaching a railroad crossing should stop, look, and listen depends on the circumstances of the particular case, and, save in exceptional cases, is a question for the jury. -Williams v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 956.

*Whether a way by license over the tracks of a railroad existed held under the evidence for the jury.-Tarashonsky v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (Iowa) 1074.

*In an action for injuries to a child struck by a switch engine, a finding of willful negligence of the trainmen held supported by the evidence.-Tarashonsky v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (Iowa) 1074.

*Trainmen in passing along a licensed way held bound to keep a lookout for travelers.Tarashonsky v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (Iowa)

1074.

Where the evidence showed that the omission by a railroad to construct gates at a street crossing was not the proximate cause of the injury to a boy, who crossed over the tracks to catch a ride on a passing freight train, a verdict for defendant was proper.-Mehalek v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co. (Minn.) 250.

*Plaintiff's intestate, killed in crossing a railroad track at night, held guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.-Hermeling v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. (Minn.) 341.

*The rule requiring a person before crossing the track to look and listen is not applicable in all its force to a passenger in a vehicle who has no control over the driver.-Liabraaten v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co. (Minn.) 423.

*That a passenger in a vehicle could, had he looked or listened, have noticed an approaching train, is not conclusive of contributory negligence on his part.-Liabraaten v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co. (Minn.) 423.

*In an action for injuries at a railroad crossing, evidence held to sustain a finding of negligence on the part of defendant.-Liabraaten v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co. (Minn.) 423.

*In an action for injuries to an automobile in a collision at a railroad crossing, plaintiff and his daughter held not negligent as a matter of law in not stopping before making the crossing.-Pendroy v. Great Northern Ry. Co. (N. D.) 531.

*In an action for injuries to an automobile in a collision with defendant's train at a railroad crossing, evidence held to require submission of contributory negligence of plaintiff and his daughter to the jury-Pendroy v. Great Northern Ry. Co. (N. D.) 531. *Point annotated. See syllabus.

[blocks in formation]

*In an action for injuries to an automobile
in a railroad crossing accident, certain instruc-

tions defining contributory negligence and proxi-
mate cause held not error.-Pendroy v. Great
Northern Ry. Co. (N. D.) 531.

A railway company held not negligent as to
a pedestrian struck, while walking along the
side of a track, by a bucket attached to the
side of a freight car on a passing train.-Ban-
dekow v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. (Wis.) 812.

RAPE.

Competency of evidence in general, see Crim-
inal Law, § 3.

Relevancy of evidence in general, see Criminal
Law, § 3.

Res gestæ, see Criminal Law, § 3.

RATIFICATION.

Of act of agent, see Principal and Agent, § 3.

REAL ACTIONS.

See Ejectment.

REAL ESTATE AGENTS.

See Brokers.

REAL PROPERTY.

See Property.

REBUTTAL,

Evidence, see Trial, § 3.

RECEIVERS.

turn it to the owner, provided his purpose was
also to secure a reward therefor.-State V.
Denny (N. D.) 869.

knowledge that property received had been
*The standard by which to impute guilty
stolen is not that of a man of ordinary intelli-
gence, but a personal test of defendant.-State
v. Denny (N. D.) 869.

property held not open to the objection that
*Instruction on a trial for receiving stolen
the jury might have understood therefrom that
they could convict defendant, even though they
found that he committed the larceny or was
an accomplice thereto.-State v. Denny (N. D.)
869.

*Instruction held erroneous as in effect in-

forming the jury that an intent to commit a
wrongful act which "might" result in receiv-
ing stolen property constituted a felonious in-
tent within the law relating to that offense.-
State v. Denny (N. D.) 869.

RECEPTION.

Of evidence at trial, see Trial, § 3.

RECORDS.

Of particular facts, acts, instruments, or pro-
ceedings not judicial.

See Wills, § 3.

Corporate records, see Corporations, § 2.

Of judicial proceedings.

Abstract for purpose of review, see Appeal
and Error, § 4.

Transcript on appeal or writ of error, see Ap-
peal and Error, § 4; Criminal Law, § 6.

Records as evidence, and evidence relating to
matters of record.

As evidence, see Evidence, § 7.

REDEMPTION.

From mortgage, see Mortgages, § 7.
From tax sales, see Taxation, § 7.

REFERENCE.

Of insolvent bank, see Banks and Banking, § 1. See Arbitration and Award.

[blocks in formation]

*On a trial for receiving goods, proof that
they were taken to defendant at an unusual hour
of the night is a circumstance indicating guilty
knowledge.-State v. Gordon (Minn.) 483.

To sustain a conviction for buying goods know-
ing them to have been stolen, the state held to
have the burden to prove certain facts.-State
v. Gordon (Minn.) 483.

*On a trial for receiving goods, knowing
them to have been stolen, guilty knowledge need
not be directly proved, but may be shown by
circumstances.-State v. Gordon (Minn.) 483.

*A person may be convicted of receiving stolen
property, though he received the property to re-

REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENTS.

1. Right of action and defenses.
Evidence held to justify reformation of con-
tract to express the meaning given it at the
time of its execution.-Blair v. Kingman Im-
plement Co. (Neb.) 773.

*Equity held authorized to reform a contract
for the sale of real estate by adding terms omit-
ted therefrom by mistake.-Hughes v. Payne
(S. D.) 368.

§ 2. Proceedings and relief.

Evidence held to support a finding to reform a
written contract.-Blair v. Kingman Implement
Co. (Neb.) 773.

Evidence held to establish the omission of a
reservation of certain rights in a river by mu-
tual mistake, authorizing the court to reform
the contract.-Tossini v. Donahoe (S. D.) 148.

*Parol evidence held admissible to show that
a reservation of all rights in a river adjacent to
the land to be conveyed was omitted from the
written contract by mutual mistake.-Tossini
v. Donahoe (S. D.) 148.

*Where the reformation of a written contract
is sought for mistakes resulting in the omission
therefrom of certain terms, parol evidence is
*Point annotated. See syllabus.

admissible to prove the mistake and the omit- | identify defendant and petitioner as the same
ted terms.-Hughes v. Payne (S. D.) 363.

Where a mistake is made in a contract by
the omission of certain terms, equity may re-
form it and then specifically enforce it.-Hughes
v. Payne (S. D.) 363.

See New Trial.

REHEARING.

REINSURANCE.

See Insurance, § 10.

RELEASE.

party. Wisecarver & Reynard v. Chicago, R. L
& P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 961.

A removal petition alleging that petitioner
was a citizen of Illinois and a nonresident of
Iowa was not defective for failure to allege that
defendant was not a citizen of Iowa.-Wise-
carver & Reynard v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry.
Co. (Iowa) 961.

A petitioner for removal of a cause is not re-
quired to negative any defense that may be
made to the petition.-Wisecarver & Reynard v.
Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 961.

*A state court has no jurisdiction to try an
issue of fact arising on a removal petition.-
Wisecarver & Reynard v. Chicago, R. I. & P.
Ry. Co. (Iowa) 961.

*A petition by defendant for removal of a
O'Connor v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Iowa)
979.

See Accord and Satisfaction; Compromise and cause to the federal court held insufficient.-
Settlement; Payment.

Of dower, see Dower, § 2.

§ 1. Construction and operation.
Where, by force of the provisions of a bene-

REMOVAL OF CLOUD.

RENEWAL.

fit certificate, the widow and children of a de- See Quieting Title.
ceased member are entitled to the insurance,
though the mother of deceased was designated
as beneficiary in the certificate, a release given
by the widow without consideration to the
mother held of no effect.-Knights of Columbus
v. McInerney (Mich.) 166.

RELEVANCY.

Of evidence in civil actions, see Evidence, § 3.

Of bill of exchange or promissory note, see
Bills and Notes, § 2.

Of lease, see Landlord and Tenant, § 3.

RENT.

Of evidence in criminal prosecutions, see Crim- See Landlord and Tenant, § 5.
inal Law, § 3.

[blocks in formation]

Of cause on appeal or writ of error, see Ap- Of statute, see Statutes, § 5.
peal and Error, § 25.

REMITTITUR.

Of cause on appeal or writ of error, see Ap-
peal and Error, § 25.

REMONSTRANCE.

REPLEVIN.

Harmless error, see Appeal and Error. § 16.
Relevancy of evidence in general, see Evidence,
§ 3.

Transfer of cause for trial, see Trial, § 1.

§ 1. Right of action and defenses.
*Replevin will not lie to recover property
which came lawfully into defendant's posses-
therefor.-Anderson v. Pendl (Mich.) 326.

To grant of liquor license, see Intoxicating Liq- sion, in the absence of a demand upon him
uors, § 3.

REMOVAL.

Plaintiff held to have sufficient possession
and special property in logs to maintain re-
plevin therefor against a stranger.-Rohrer v.

Of city officers, see Municipal Corporations, § 3. Lockery (Wis.) 1060.
Of fixtures, see Fixtures.

REMOVAL OF CAUSES.

Change of venue or place of trial, see Venue,
§ 1.

Conclusion in pleading, see Pleading, § 1.

§ 1. Citizenship or alienage of parties.
*To render an action removable to the federal
court on the ground of diversity of citizenship,
such diversity must exist at the beginning of the
suit, and when the petition for removal is filed.
-O'Connor v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
(Iowa) 979.

2. Pleading and evidence.

Under Code, § 3991, which protects an officer
from liability by reason of a levy until he re-
ceives notice of claim of ownership in a third
person, if the officer proceeds to trial, in re-
plevin by the owner to recover the property on
the sole issue of ownership, he waives the pro-
tection and cannot plead it in defense.-People's
Light Co. v. Eckerhardt (Iowa) 970.

Where the vendor and vendee under a land
contract agreed that the vendee should cut cer-
tain timber on the land and deliver it to a
mill, the vendor to pay the expense of sawing,
and dispose of the lumber, and apply the pro-
ceeds upon the purchase price, the previous con-
versation and conduct of the parties held ad-
missible to show the purpose of the delivery of
Record of a petition for the removal of a the logs in deciding whether there was a sale.
cause to the federal courts held to sufficiently-Rohrer v. Lockery (Wis.) 1060.

§ 2. Proceedings to procure and effect
of removal.

*Point annotated. See syllabus.

« AnteriorContinuar »