Imágenes de páginas

Deposit of client's money in attorney's name — liability for loss.) Where

an attorney deposits his client's moneys in a solvent bank, in his own name
in a separate account, but with no indication of the trust, he is liable for
loss by the subsequent insolvency of the bank, notwithstanding he was
prevented from transmitting the moneys by garnishment proceedings
against him. Naltner v. Dolan (108 Ind. 500), 61.

Disbarment — city attorney.] The respondent was a salaried attorney of the

city and county of San Francisco, having control of all its litigations.
During his term of office he appealed from judgments rendered against it
in certain cases in which he had no personal knowledge of the questions
involved. After the expiration of his term he agreed with the attorney for
the adverse parties, for a pecuniary consideration, not to be retained in
those cases by the city and county. Held, unprofessional conduct for
which he should be temporarily disbarred. In re Cowdery (69 Cal. 32), 545.

Evidence to vary condition.] As between the seller and the purchaser of

goods sold at auction, evidence is admissible to vary the conditions of the
sale publicly stated. Mitchell v. Zimmerman (109 Penn. St. 183), 715.

See CARRIER, 468.


Negligence — burden of proof.] In an action for the defendant's negligence

in suffering a note given to him for collection to be barred by the statute
of limitations, there is no presumption that he was to have compensation,
and the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show his liability. Kinche-
loe v. Priest (89 Mo. 240), 117.

Collections - agency — negligence.] A bank receiving for collection a check

on a bank at another place, and intrusting it directly to that bank for pay.
ment, is liable to the depositor for loss by the failure of the drawee.
Merchants' National Bank of Philadelphia v. Goodman (109 Penn. St. 422).




Conditional signing by surety.) Where a public officer procured the signa-

tures of sureties on his official bond on the assurance that he would pro-
cure certain others, which he failed to do, the signers cannot evade lia-
bility if the obligee had no notice of the condition and the bond was com-
plete in form. Carroll County v. Ruggles (69 Iowa, 269), 223.


1. Baggage – delivery.] The plaintiff travelled a part of the way to her des-

tination by the defendant's railroad, and on the next morning resumed her
route by another connecting road, which used the same baggage-room and
platform as the first, her trunk remaining in the baggage-room all night,
and she retaining the check; before the train on the second road left, an
employee of the first took the check, agreeing to place the trunk in proper
position for transportation; but on reaching her destination, it was discov.
ered that it had not been put on board the train, and it was never found.
Held, that the defendant was liable. Rome Railroad v. Wimberly (75 Ga.

316), 468.
2. Contributory negligence - passenger on freight train. A passenger in

the caboose of a railway freight train, on the stopping of the train a quar-
ter of a mile short of his destination, got up to walk to the door and was
thrown down and injured by the sudden backing of the train. Held, that
his negligence prevented his recovery of damages. Harris v. Hannibal

and St. Louis Railroad Co. (89 Mo. 233), 111.
3. Negligence - concurrent. Where a railway passenger is injured by the

concurrent negligence of his carrier and another, the negligence of his
carrier is not imputable to him. Holzab v. Nero Orleans and Carrollton

Railroad Co. (38 La. Ann. 185), 177.
4. Putting infant trespasser off train.). A boy seven years old, without the

fault of his parents, wandered to a raiload station, entered a passenger
train and was carried to a distant station, where the conductor put him
off, leaving him in charge of no one, and giving no instructions concern-
ing him. The child, left to himself, went upon the track near a highway
crossing, where he could be seen for three-fourths of a mile by persons in
charge of a train coming from the south. A freight train moving north
ward in the day-time, on an ascending grade, where it could easily have
been stopped, ran upon and killed the child. Held, that the railroad com-
pany was liable, Indianapolis, etc., Railway Co. v. Pitzer (109 Ind. 179),

6. Railroad - free pass — limitation of liability.] Annas v. Milwaukee and

Northern Railroad Company (67 Wis. 46), 848.
6 - passenger riding on engine.] One who by permission of the engineer

of a freight train, acting as conductor, takes passage on such train and
pays fare, is entitled to the privileges of a passenger, although the engin-
eer has been forbidden to receive passengers on the train, provided the

VOL. LVIII — 112

CARRIER — Continued.
passenger dous not know of such rules. Hanson v. Mansfield Railway

and Transportation Company (38 La. Ann. 111), 162.
7. It is not negligent in such passenger to ride on the locomotive by direction

of the engineer-conductor. Id.
8. Sleeping car company - duty as to passengers' effects.] Lewis v. New
York Sleeping Car Co. (143 Mass. 269), 135.



See MORTGAGE, 230.

Contributory negligence.] In an action by a wife under the civil damage act,

for furnishing intoxicating liquors to her husband, it is not proof of con.
tributory negligence to show that she was in the habit of letting him have
portions of his wages previously deposited with her, having reason to
believe he would spend them for such drink. Huff v. Aultman (69 Iowe,
71), 213.

1. Assignment for creditors.) An assignment for creditors, with preferences,

made in New York by a debtor living there, and valid there, will be held
valid in Michigan although the Michigan statute prohibits preferences.

Butler v. Wendell (57 Mich. 62), 329.
Death by negligence.) An action cannot be maintained in Massachusetts
against a railroad corporation operating its road as a continuous line in that
State and in Connecticut under the laws of both, for the death of a person
caused by the negligence of the corporation in Connecticut, the laws of the
latter State not affording the like remedy. Davis v. New York & Nese
England Railroad (143 Mass. 301), 138.

1. Action by State — waiving tort and suing in assumpsit.] Money was

deposited in bank by a tas-collector, to the credit of “I. H. Vincent,
treasurer," and checked out by him in the purchase of exchange on New
York, the draft being made payable to himself as treasurer, and indorsed
in the same way. The indorsee knew that Vincent was State treasurer.
Held, that the indorsee was chargeable with notice of the official character
in which the treasurer held the funds, and applying the money in payment
of an individual indebtedness of the treasurer to him, he became liable to
the State in an action for money had and received. Wolffe v. State (79 Ala.

201), 590.
2. Contempt - refusal to produce books before legislative committee.] A

standing committee on elections of a house of the legislature, with power
to send for persons and papers, may command a clerk of a court of com.
mon pleas, having custody of a poll-book, to produce it on an investiga.
tion, although this may involve the removal of the book to another county
than that of his office, and on his refusal such house may commit him for
contempt. Ex parte Dalton (44 Ohio St. 142), 800.

3. Exemption – wages — waiver.] The constitutional exemption of wages

from garnishment may not be waived as to all future wages. Green v.

Watson (75 Ga. 471), 479.
4. Grant by city of railway privilege in streets.] An irrevocable grant, by

a city, of the exclusive privilege to construct and operate a street railway,
is unconstitutional. Birmingham & Pratt Mines Street Railway Co. v.
Birmingham Street Railway Co. (79 Ala. 465), 615.
Impairing contract.] A judgment for the repayment of inoney paid by mis-
take is not upon contract, and is protected by the Federal constitutional
provision forbidding the enactment of laws impairing the obligation of cou.

tracts. State v. City of New Orleans (38 La. Ann. 119), 168.
6. Vested rights.] A change in the law prescribing the order of payment of

the debts of a decedent does not impair the obligation of a contract nor a

vested right. Mc Lure v. Melton (24 S. C. 559), 272.
7. Jurisdiction - as to delivery of election returns.] Where election returns,

as required by law, are directed to the speaker of the house of representa-
tives, in care of the secretary of State, and are to be delivered by the secre.
tary to the speaker, injunction will not issue to restrain the secretary from
delivering them, on the allegation that they are wrongful and illegal.

Smith v. Myers (109 Ind. 1), 375.
8. Municipal ordinance — regulation of railroads.] A city ordinance requir-

ing street railway companies to report quarterly the number of passengers

carried is valid. City of St. Louisv. St. Louis Rrlroad Co. (89 Mo. 44), 82.
9. Ordinance prohibiting street walkers.] A city ordinance prohibiting dis-

reputable women froin standing or loitering about the streets or stores at
night, unless on unavoidable business, is valid. Braddy v. City of Milledge-

ville (74 Ga. 516), 443.
10. Regulation of laundries.] Under a statute authorizing a city to prohibit

the erection of wooden buildings within limits where streets have been
graded, it is competent to ordain that no laundry shall be carried on with-
out special permit, unless in a brick or stone building. Matter of Yick

Wo (68 Cal. 294), 12.
11.: Regulation of physician.] The legislature may regulate the practice of

medicine and surgery, and prescribe the qualifications of applicants for

license. Eastman v. State (109 Ind. 278), 400.
12. Tax on inheritances.] A tax on gifts, legacies and collateral inheritances

is constitutional. Matter of McPherson (104 N. Y. 306), 502.
13. Sunday.] See CRIMINAL LAW, 768.


1. Illegal — lottery.) The owner of property, who disposes of it by lottery,

may recover it from the drawer. Martin v. Hodge (47 Ark. 378), 763.

CONTRACT — Continuea.
2. Implied - to pay consulting surgeon.) A consulting surgeon, who at the

request of the attending surgeon and with the consent of the patient ren-
ders services to the patient, may recover from the patient although the
attending surgeon had agreed with the patient to pay therefor, but with-
out the knowledge of the consulting surgeon. Garrey v. Stadler (67

Wis. 512), 877.
3. Labor tickets — assignability.) A“labor ticket," or certificate for wages,

issued by a corporation, and on its face "payable to employee only," and
“not transferable,” is not assignable. Tabler v. Sheffield Land, Iron and

Coal Company (79 Ala. 377), 593.
Lease or sale - coal in mine — taxes.] A. agreed in writing with B.,
“ leasing ” to him, all the coal beneath the surface of a certain tract of
land” owned by A. B. covenanted to mine and pay “royalty” for a cer-
tain number of tons every year whether mined or not. There were pro
visions for distress and forfeįture. The agreement was “ perpetual until
all the coal was mined,” and it extended to the heirs, executors, adminis-
trators and assigns of the parties. B. covenanted to pay the taxes on all
the coal mined. Held, not a lease but a sale of all the coal in place, and
that B. was liable for all the taxes thereon. Delaware, Lackawanna and

Western Railroad Company v. Sanderson (109 Penn. St. 583), 743.
5. Of subscription for book in parts — breach.] Under a contract of sub-

scription for a book, to be published in parts, at a certain price for each
part, to be paid for on delivery of each part, the subscriber, after receiv.
ing one part and paying for it, refused to take any more. In an action
for breach of the contract, held, that he could not defend on the ground
that he was induced to enter into the contract by fraud, without offering

to return that part. Barrie v. Earle (143 Mass. 1), 126.
6. Public policy -- value of medical services.] Where a doctor was em

ployed by one injured in a railway accident, to explain his injuries to the
company, on the agreement that if $1,500 should be recovered for the in-
jury, he was to have $300, and if $2,000, he should have $500, held, that

the agreement was illegal. Thomas v. Caulkett (57 Mich. 392), 369.
7. By letter.] A contract by letter is complete the moment an acceptance of

the offer is mailed, providing it is done with reasonable promptness and
before any intimation of withdrawal is received. Kempner v. Cohn (47

Ark. 519), 775.
8. Impairing.) See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 168, 272.


1. Contract- ultra vires.] A corporation is liable quantum meruit on a con-

tract ultra vires but not immoral, and broken by the other party. Day v.

Spiral Springs Buggy Co. (57 Mich. 146), 352.
2. Negligence - boom company – consolidation. Two boom companies

having booms on the same river were consolidated. Both were required
by their separate charters to maintain booms sufficiently strong to retain

« AnteriorContinuar »