« AnteriorContinuar »
7. Omdal Bonds — LIABILITY OF SURETTES. — Sureties on an official
bond are presumed to take notice of the fact that changes may be made concerning the duties of their principal, and when these changes are made in matters of minor importance, which as a whole do not sabo stantially increase their liabilities, they are not exonerated nor released
by such changes. County of Spokane v. Allen, 830. 8. OrriciaL BONDS – LIABILITY OF SURETIES. — If an entirely new and
distinct class of duties, not germane to the office, are imposed opon a public officer, his sureties are not liable to answer for the faithful performance of the added responsibilities. County of Spokane v. Allen
830. 9. OTTICIAL BONDS — LIABILITY OF SURETIES FOR ADDITIONAL DOTIES
IMPOSED ON OFFICER. - If, after a county attorney has been elected, given an official hond, and has assumed the duties of the office, a statute is enacted imposing upon him the new and additional duties of collecting and accounting for delinquent taxes, such duties are not germano to his original office, and the sureties on his official bond aro not liable for the nonperformance by him of the new and additional doties
thus imposed. County of Spokane v. Allen, 830. 800 EQUITY, 3; LEGISLATURE; States, 1-4; SURETYS$17, 1-3; TRESPASS, L.
PARENT AND CHILD. 1. RIGHT TO CUSTODY.-A charitable corporation having no legal right to
the custody of a minor child cannot retain such custody as against its parents, no matter whether they are proper custodians or not. Lorell
v. House of the Good Shepherd, 839. 2 RIGHT OF PARENT TO CUSTODY.-Before parents can be deprived of the
custody or comfort of their minor child a case must be made which is sufficiently extravagant, singular, and wrong to meet the condemnation of all decent and law-abiding people, without regard to religious beliet
or social standing. Lovell v. House of the Good Shepherd, 839. 8. RIGHT OF PARENT TO CUSTODY.-The fact that the mother of a minor
child is a passionate, coarse, vulgar, and pugnacious woman, and that the father is addicted to the excessive use of intoxicants, and has other debasing habits, is not sufficient to deprive them of the custody of the
child. Lovell v. House af the Good Shepherd, 839. 4. RIGHT TO CUSTODY-ESTOPPEL. - If a charitable corporation has no legal
right to the custody of children placed in its charge a mother who has placed her minor child in charge of such institution, ander a prom. ise that the child should remain there until eighteen years of age, is not estopped to assert her right to the custody and control of the child at any time before it arrives at such age. Lovell v. House of the Good Shepherd, 839.
See DAMAGES, 4.
ancies in common, and may be partitioned. Russell v. Russell, 681.
ital employed in, and in the profits derived from, a business are part-
ners as to third persons. Webster v. Clark, 217.
ing a transaction in which the parties thereto have a community of in.
basis that the parties thereto have a community of interest in the capo
partner, and who has no interest in a partnership, cannot by reason
knowledge of the holding out. Webster v. Clark, 217.
the public or individual dealers to be deceived by the appearances of
the elements of a partnership are to be found. Webster v. Clark. 217.
property to secure the individual debt of one of its members is not
Smith v. Smith, 359.
norship name is valid, although in the action in which the judgment bo
See INSURANCE, 5; TRADEMARKS, 6.
patent to land regular upon its face, the patent is at least prima facie
impeach it, should be adınitted in evidence. Johnson v. Dreu, 172.
nor subject to disposition by, the general-land office is void. Its in.
filed. Johnson v. Drew, 172.
its face to convey the title to the land therein described, and purport-
facie valid in an action at law, Johnson v. Drew, 172.
lic land without any paper title, or any right of entry, or any authority
general land-office, and not void upon its face, cannot be questioned,
v. Drew, 172.
office in issuing a patent for any of the public land subject to sale is
a party of his just rights. Johnson v. Drew, 172.
issued under authority of the general government, but shown to have
PERSONAL PROPERTY. 1 FIXTURES - BUILDINGS ON ANOTHER'S LAND.-It is entirely competent
for parties to agree that buildings shall remain the personal property of him who erects them, and such an agreeinent may be either express or implied from the circumstances under which the buildings are erected.
Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Stanton, 491. 2. FIXTURES — BUILDINGS ON ANOTHER'S LAND. — If buildings are con.
structed on land by one having no estate therein, and hence no interest in enhancing its value, by the permission or license of the owner, an agreement that the structures shall remain the property of the person orecting them will be implied, in the absence of any facts or circumstances tending to show a different intention, Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Stanton, 491.
PLEADING. MISJOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION-DEMORRER.—If a complaint contains
• statement of one good cause of action, and an attempted statement of another calling for a species of relief which cannot be granted un. der any state of the pleadings, a demurrer for misjoinder of causes of action does not lie, provided the complaint contains a continuous state. ment of facts and is not divided into separate counts or causes of ac.
tion. T'imes Publishing Co. v. City of Everett, 865. Sea CARRIERS, 2; EJECTMENT, 1; FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES, B; MON.
CIPAL CORPORATIONS, 1; NEGLIGENCE, 1.
POWER OF ATTORNEY.
See AGENCY, 1, 3.
PREFERENCES. Soo ASSIGNMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS, 3–7; CORPORATIONS, Ifi
16; FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES, &
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.
PRINCIPAL AND SURETY.
See ARREST, 1-3
by publication addressed to “John McCorkle and — McCorkle, his
lic lands cannot be impeached collaterally unless it is void upon ita
the statute. Saunders v. New York etc. R. R. Co., 729.
While the state holds the title to lands under navigable waters in
PURITY OF ELECTIONS.