Imágenes de páginas
[ocr errors]

$ 8.

Ejection of passengers and in- Of criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law,"

$ 4.
Certain acts held to constitute an ejection of
a passenger.-Boling v. St. Louis & S. F. R.

Co. (MIo. Sup.) 35.

Of accused in criminal prosecutions, see “Crim-
Certain acts held not to constitute ejection

inal Law," § 8.
of a passenger.- Boling v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Of witness, see "Witnesses," $ 3.
Co. (No. Sup.) 35.
A passenger rightfully ejected held entitled to

recover damages for insulting language of con-
ductor:-Boling v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. To jury in civil actions, see “Trial," $8 5–11.
(Mo. Sup.) 35.

To jury, in criminal prosecutions, see "Crim-

inal Law," $ 17.
Liability of carrier for failure to furnish, see

“Carriers," 1.

State charitable institutions, see “States," § 1.

§ 1. Creation, existence, and validity.

A devise of a remainder held a valid charita-
See “Animals."

ble trust.-Carson v. Carson (Tenn.) 175.

A certain bequest held valid.-Franklin v.

Boone (Tex. Civ. App.) 262.
Penalty against railroads for failure to con-

struct, see "Railroads," $ 8.

Of railroad, see “Railroads," $ 1.

See “Action"; "Malicious Prosecution," 1.

As affecting rights of buyer, see “Sales," $ 4.

Effect on validity of mortgage of cattle by mix-

ing other cattle with those mortgaged, see
See “Sales," $ 1.

"Confusion of Goods.'
Power of agent as to, see “Principal and

Agent,” $ 2.

§ 1. Requisites and validity.
Certified copies, see "Evidence," 8 7.

A chattel mortgage of cattle, valid in other
Of insurance, see "Insurance," 8.

respects, held not invalidated by a misdescrip-
Of notice to take deposition, see "Depositions." |tion as to their location.—Tootle v. Bucking-

ham (Mo. Sup.) 619.

A sale of personal property with a verbal

reservation of title to secure the price con-
See "Bills and Notes," $ 3.

stitutes a valid mortgage.-Crews v. Harlan
(Tex. Civ. App.) 411.


Perfecting record on appeal or writ of error, see See "False Pretenses”; “Fraud."

“Appeal and Error," $ 10.
§ 1. Nature and grounds.

Certiorari will not lie to compel a county See “Banks and Banking,” s 1; "Bills and
clerk to transmit to the district court a tran-
script of proceedings in the opening of a road.

-VI«Kinley v. Frio County (Tex. Civ. App.) Delivered to agent as payment to principal, see

"Principal and Agent," $ 2.

Necessity of verification of pleading setting up
§ 2. Proceedings and determination.
In certiorari to remove to the St. Louis Court of principal debtor as release of surety, see

forgery of check, see “Pleading," $ 6.
of Appeals the record of the excise commission-

"Principal and Surety," $ 3.
er in relation to granting a dramshop license, Payment by, see “Payment,” $ 1.
the court, on suggestion of a diminution of the
record, cannot compel the commissioner to
make a record of certain alleged findings and

certify them as part of the record. - State ex
rel. Sager v. Mulvihill (Mo. App.) 773.

See “Adoption"; "Guardian and Ward" :

"Parent and Child."

To juror, see “Jury," $ 3.

Assignment, see “Assignments."

See “Equity."

See “Process."

Of civil actions, see "Venue," $ 1.

See "Municipal Corporations."
* Point annotated. See syllabus.

[ocr errors]



See "Aliens"; "Indians."

See "Conspiracy”; “Monopolies," IL
Citizenship ground of jurisdiction of United
States courts, see “Removal of Causes,” $ 1.

Children born of alien parents in this coun: Between courts, see "Courts," $ 5
try are citizens.-Ehrlich v. Weber (Tenn.)


As to whether business of corporation is in-
Against estate assigned for creditors, see “As terstate, see “Corporations," 8 6.

signments for Benefit of Creditors," $ 1. Carriage of goods and passengers, see "Car-
To property levied on, see "Attachment,” & 2. riers"; "Shipping."

§ 1. Power to regalato in general.

Act Feb. 27, 1885 (Acts 1855, p. 35), and

Interstate Commerce Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104,
Certificate by clerk of notice to take depositions, 24 Stat. 379, as amended by Act March 2,

1889, c. 382, 25 Stat. 855 (U. S. Comp. St.
Duty as to making transcript, see “Certiorari," 1901, p. 3154), operating on the same subject

and in conflict, the latter, being within the

competency of Congress under the power to
Under Rev. St. 1899, § 825, clerk of court regulate commerce between the states, must
held not liable for negligence of his successor control. —Spratlin v. St. Louis Southwestern
in failing to transmit papers in a suit removed Ry. Co. (Ark.) 836.
to another court.-Llewellyn v. Spangler (Mo.
App.) 1021.

Rev. St. 1899, § 825, requiring the clerk to
"immediately” transmit papers in a cause the

Of broker, see
venue of which has been changed, construed.-

“Brokers," 88 3, 4.
Llewellyn v. Spangler (Mo. App.) 1021.
Clerk of court held not liable, under Rev. St.

1899). $ 827, for having failed to immediately
transmit record in cause, the venue of which See “Carriers."
had been changed.-Llewellyn v. Spangler (Mo.
App.) 1021.


See “Drunkards."
See “Quieting Title."


Liability of carrier, see "Carriers," | L
Parol evidence, see “Evidence," § &


See "Schools and School Districts," § 1
On execution sale, see “Execution," $ 4.
On judgment, see “Judgment," 8 7.

On organization of school district, see "Schools
and School Districts," 8 1.

See "Husband and Wife," § 5.
On sale of property belonging to decedent's

estate, see "Executors and Administrators,”
§ 3.

COLLATERAL INHERITANCE TAXES. Statute authorizing commutation of sentence

as invasion of pardoning power, see


stitutional Law," $ 1.
See “Taxation," $ 3.


For property taken for public use, see "Emi-
See "Frauds, Statute of," § 1; "Guaranty.” nent Domain," $ 1.

For services, see “Master and Servant," § 2.

Of attorney, see Attorney and Client," $ 3.

Of broker, see “Brokers," 88 3, 4.
Of estate of decedent, see "Executors and Ad-
ministrators," $ 1.


Of evidence in civil actions, see "Evidence,"

$ 2.

Of experts as witnesses, see "Evidence," $ 9.
Of trains, see "Railroads," $ 5.

Of jurors, see "Jury," $ 3.

Of witnesses in general, see “Witnesses," § 1.

To sustain adverse possession, see "Adverse

In civil actions in general, see "Pleading," $ 2.
* Point annotated. See syllabus.


See "Accord and Satisfaction”; “Payment"; Combinations to monopolize trade, see "Mo-

nopolies," § 1.

8 1. Civil liability.

A conspiracy cannot be made the subject of
Of interest, see "Interest," $ 2.

a civil action, unless something is done which,
Of period of limitation, see

**Limitation of Ac- without the conspiracy, would give a right of
tions," $ 1.

action.-Wills v. Ceutral Ice & Cold Storage

Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 265.

The mere exercise of one's right to refuse

to sell a certain commodity to a particular per-
In pleading, see "Pleading," $ 1.

son is not actionable.— Mills v. Central Ice &
Of witness, see "Evidence," § 9.

Cold Storage Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 265.

In an action for an alleged conspiracy to boy-
CONCURRENT JURISDICTION. cott plaintiff, refusal by defendants to place

in evidence certain contracts held not to au-
Of courts, see "Courts," § 5.

thorize a verdict for plaintiff.-Wills v. Central

Ice & Cold Storage Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 265.

In an action for an alleged conspiracy to boy.

cott plaintiff, evidence held insufficient to au-
Taking property for public use, see "Eminent thorize a recovery.-Wills v. Central Ice & Cola

Storage Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 265.

In an action involving the title to real estate,

whether plaintiff's agent conspired with one of

the owners of homestead property in making a
In tickets, see “Carriers," 88 4, 5.

loan of the plaintiff's money, taking the home-
Precedent to action, see “Action," $ 1.

stead as security with intent to deceive and de-

fraud the plaintiff, held a question for the jury.

-Morrill v. Bosley (Tex. Civ. App.) 519.
Admissibility in evidence, see "Criminal Law,”

8 12

See “Sheriffs and Constables."
CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONS. Process directed to, see “Process," 1.
Disclosure of communications, see “Witnesses,”
$ 1.


Provisions relating to particular subjects.
Of sale on execution, see "Execution," $ 4.

See "Death,” 8 1; "Judgment,” § 4; “Jury,".

$ 1; "Libel and Slander,” $ 3; “Mandamus,"

§ 1; “Master and Servant," 8 6; “Municipal

Corporations," $8 6, 7, 9; “Taxation," $ 1.

Condemnation proceedings, see "Eminent
See "Commerce," § 1.

Domain," $ 2.
Conflicting jurisdiction of courts, see “Courts,” Enactment and validity of statutes, see “Stat-
$ 5.

utes," $ 1.

Indian court, see "Indians."

Road taxes, see “Highways," 8 2.

Special or local laws, see "Statutes," $ 2.
A mortgagor of cattle held not entitled to de Subjects and titles of statutes, see “Štatutes,"
feat the lien of the mortgages by mixing other 8 3.
cattle of like description with those mortgaged.
-Tootlo v. Buckingham (Mo. Sup.) 619.

f 1. Distribution of governmental pow-

ers and functions.

Under Const. art. 5, 88 30, 31, legislative de-

termination that certain expenses are necessary

is conclusive on the courts, so long as such ex-
Power to regulate commerce, see “Commerce,” penses may be necessary. State v. Moore
$ 1.

(Ark.) 881.

Granting to city of power to pass ordinances

for the protection of citizens is not an infringe-
See "Carriers," 88 1, 2, 5.

ment of the maxim that legislative power may
not be delegated. Sluder v. St. Louis Transit

Co. (Mo. Sup.) 648.

*Statute authorizing the commutation of a
As defense to charge of robbery, see “Robbery.

penal sentence for good conduct, and specific-
Capacity of female to consent to intercourse, see

ally defining the credits to be allowed, becomes
"Rape," $ 1.

a part of the sentence, and is not an invasion
of the pardoning prerogative vested in the Gov-

ernor by Const. art. 3, § 6.-Fite v. State

(Tenn.) 941.
Of deed, see “Deeds," $ 1.

Shannon's Code, $ 7423, authorizing the board
of workhouse commissioners to deduct for good

conduct a portion of the time for which any

person has been sentenced, held an unconstitu-

tional delegation of legislative authority.-Fite
Of corporations, see "Corporations,” $8 1, 5. V. State (Tenn.) 941.

* Point annotated. See syllabus.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

§ 2. Obligation of contracts.

rations," $ 4; “Counties," & 2; “Master and
Legislation affecting either the validity or Servant"; "Railroads," § 1; "States," $ 1.
means of enforcement of bonds issued by a city
held repugnant to Const. U. S. art. 1, § 10.-

Contracts relating to particular subjects.
City of Austin v. Cahill (Tex. Sup.) 542. See "Interest"; "Railroads," $ 2.

Sale of timber, see “Logs and Logging.".
CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS. Transportation of goods, see “Carriers," $ 1.

Transportation of live stock, see "Carriers," $ 2.
See "Trusts," $ 1.

Transportation of passengers, see “Carriers,"

$ 4.

Particular classes of express contracts.

See “Bailment”; “Bills and Notes''; “Bonds";
8 1. Power to punish and proceedings “Covenants”; "Deeds," $ 1; “Guaranty";
"Indemnity”; "Insurance"; "Joint

A judgment rendered on a complaint informing ventures”; “Partnership"; "Sales.”
the court of the violation of an injunction held Affreightment, see “Shipping," $ 1.
not appealable under Rev. St. 1899, § 2696.-
State ex rel. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Bland Bills of lading, see "Carriers," $ 1.

Agency, see "Principal and Agent."
(Mo. Sup.) 28; State ex rel. Chicago & A. Ry. Employment, see “Brokers,"'$ 1; "Master and
Co. v. Same, Id.

Under Rev. St. 1899, 88 1616–1620, an order Leases, see “Landlord and Tenant."
adjudging defendants in an injunction suit | Limitation of liability of carrier, see "Car-
guilty of contempt for violation of injunction riers," $81, 2.
held appealable under section 806.-State ex Mutual benefit insurance, see “Insurance," $ 8,
rel. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Bland (Mo. Sales of realty, see “Vendor and Purchaser."
Sup.) 28; State ex rei. Chicago & A. Ry. Co. Suretyship, see "Principal and Surety."
v. Same, Id.

Particular classes of implied contracts.

Implied warranty, see "Sales," $ 5.

Particular modes of discharging contracts.
Of election, see "Elections," $ 3.

See “Accord and Satisfaction"; "Payment";


8 1. Construction and operation.
In criminal prosecution, see "Criminal Law," terminate on its going out of business.Fox v.

A contract with a newspaper company held to
$ 14.

Commercial Press Co. (Ky.) 1063.
Refusal of the court to set aside the swearing A contract construed, and held to require
of the jury and to continue the case, because a purchaser of lumber to pay the pay rolls
of the presence of witnesses whose depositions of the seller, not to exceed a certain amount.
had been withdrawn to avoid a continuance, -Nicola Bros. Co. v. Hurst (Ky.) 1081.
held not error.—Craft v. Barron (Ky.) 1099.

Where the terms of a contract are definitely
The verification to an affidavit for contin- known, and the inference to be drawn there-
uance by the attorney of the party, stating that from is indisputable, the interpretation of the
the matters set forth are, to the best of his contract is for the court.—Young v. Van Natta
knowledge, information, and belief, true, is (Mo. App.) 123.
insufficient.-St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co.
of Texas v. Harkey (Tex. Civ. App.) 506.

For the purpose of discovering intention of
In action on liquor dealer's bond an applica- situation of the parties and their surroundings.

parties to a contract, the court must view the
tion for a continuance because of the absence of -Hardwick v. American Can Co. (Tenn.) 797.
witnesses held properly overruled, the desired
evidence being immaterial.-Brewster v. State 8 2. Modification and merger.
(Tex. Civ. App.) 858.

A carrier's liability for breach of an oral
contract to furnish cars held not avoided

by a subsequent written contract.-Gulf, C. &

S. F. Ry. Co. v. House & Watkins (Tex. Civ.

App.) 1110.
Agreements within statute of frauds,
"Frauds, Statute of."

8 3. Actions for breach.
Alteration. See “Alteration of Instruments.” In action against railroad for breach of con-
Assignment, see "Assiguments."

tract in failing to reconstruct fences after lay-
Cancellation, see “Cancellation of Instruments." | ing out a right of way, an instruction held
Damages for breach, see “Damages," 88. 1, 2, erroneous, as authorizing a recovery beyond
3, 5.

the terms of the contract.-White River R. Co.
Election of remedies on breach of contract, see

v. Hamilton (Ark.) 978.
"Election of Remedies."

An instruction held erroneous, as authorizing
Impairing obligation, see “Constitutional Law," a recorery for a tort in tearing down fences,
§ 2.

when a breach of contract was counted on.-
Parol or extrinsic evidence, see "Evidence," $ 8. White River R. Co. v. Hamilton (Ark.) 978.
Reformation, “Reformation of Instru-

Where defendant signed an original contract
Specific performance, see "Specific Perform for the purchase of goods sued on, it was im-

material that a purported duplicate of the con-
Subrogation to rights or remedies of creditors, tract offered in evidence was not the same as
see "Subrogation."

the original.--Standard Mfg. Co. v. Hudson
Testimony as to transactions with decedents, (Mo. App.) 137.
see "Witnesses," § 1.

On an issue of non est factum the burden of
Contracts of particular classes of parties.

proof is on defendant to show by a preponder-

ance of the evidence that he did not execute
See “Brokers," $ 1; "Building and Loan the contract sued on.-Standard Mfg. Co. V.
Associations"; "Carriers," 88 1, 2, 4; “Corpo- | Hudson (Mo. App.) 137.

* Point annotated. See syllabus.






[ocr errors]


corporation.-Whaley v. Bankers' Union of the

World (Tex. Civ. App.) 259.
Of record, see "Appeal and Error,” s 11.

8 2. Corporate existence and franchise.
Of witness, seo “Witnesses," $ 3.

Persons whose claims arise out of transac-

tions with a company as a corporation are es-

topped to assert the invalidity of a deed of

trust given by it to others, on the ground that
Between co-tenants as to purchase price of out- it was not properly organized as a corporation.
standing incumbrance, “Tenancy in

-Hasbrouck v. Rich (Mo. App.) 131.
Common," $ 2.

§ 3. Capital, stock, and dividends.

Transaction by which a trust company ac-
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. quired corporate stock for a foreign railroad

held not invalidated as between the trust com-
See "Negligence," $ 3.

pany and the vendors of the stock by reason
Of passenger, see “Carriers," $ 7.

of any inability on the part of the railroad to
Of person injured by defect in street, see

enter into the contract. - Newman v. Mercan-

tile Trust Co. (Mo. Sup.) 6.
"Municipal Corporations," $ 8.
Of person injured by operation of railroad, see Transaction by which a railroad, acting
“Railroads," 88 5-7.

through a trust company, procured a majority
Of person injured by operation of street rail- of the stock of a ferry company, held not fraud-
road, see "Street Railroads," $ 2.

ulent.--Newman v. Mercantile Trust Co. (Mo.
Of servant, see "Master and Servant,” 88 8, 9. Sup.) 6.

Sale of stock in corporation held complete

and sufficient to pass title.--Newman v. Mer-

cantile Trust Co. (Mo. Sup.) 6.
Wrongful conversion of personal property, see $ 4. Corporate powers and liabilities.
"Trover and Conversion.”

In an action against a corporation, a finding

that the corporation had appeared held prop-

er.--Shorter University Franklin Bros.

(Ark.) 974.
In fraud of creditors, see "Fraudulent Con-

A deed of trust is not made void by a provi-

sion that foreclosure shall not be had till a
In trust, see “Trusts," § 1.

certain portion of the holders of the bonds se-
Conveyances by or to particular classes of cured so request.-Hasbrouck v. Rich (Mo.

App.) 131.
See "Executors and Administrators," § 3;

In an action for breach of a carrier's con-
“Husband and Wife," $ 2; "Insane tract to furnish cars for the shipment of cattle,
Persons,” 8 1.

evidence held admissible to show that the con
Agent, see “Principal and Agent," 8 2.

tract made by the agent of one of the carriers
Sheriffs, see "Execution," $ 1.

to furnish cars at a particular point was with-

in the scope of his authority:-Pecos River R.
Conveyances of particular species of property. Co. v. Latham (Tex. Civ. App.) 392.
See "Homestead," $ 2; “Public Lands," $ 1. § 5. Consolidation.
Particular classes of conveyances.

Corporations created in different states can

consolidate only by concurrent legislation, in
See “Assignments"; "Assignments for Benefit of which event there is a separate and distinct

Creditors"; "Chattel Mortgages"; "Deeds”; corporation in each state. --Whaley v. Bank-

ers' Union of the World (Tex. Civ. App.) 239.

$ 6. Foreign corporations.

The prosecution of a suit by a foreign cor-

poration held not to constitute "doing business"
Escape of, see "Rescue.”

within the state, within Aet Feb. 16, 1899, p.
Validity of statute relating to commutation of 18. c. 19.-Alley v. Bowen-Merrill Co. (Ark.)
sentence, see “Constitutional Law," 1. $39.

Under Rev. St. 1895, arts, 1230, 1233, service

of the notice upon a nonresident defendant cor-

poration held not to authorize a personal judg-
Action by foreign corporation on foreign judgment, although petition alleged that the cor-
ment, see "Judgment," 8 10.

poration did business in this state.- Louisville
Commission company as agent, see “Principal & N. R. Co. v. Niissouri. K. & T. Ry. Co. of
and Agent," $ 2.

Texas (Tex. Civ. App.) 413.
Quo warranto, see "Quo Warranto."

Foreign corporation must allege and prove
Wrongful conversion of shares of stock, see that it had a permit to do business in the
"Trover and Conversion,” $ 2.

state.--St. Louis

Expanded Metal Fireproofing
Particular classes of corporations.

Co. v. Beilharz (Tex. Civ. App.) 512.
See “Building and Loan Associations"; "Hospi- and material for construction work in the state

Foreign corporation which furnishes labor
tals''; "Municipal Corporations”; Rail-
roads"; "Street Railroads."

pursuant to contract made therein held engaged

in business within Rev. St. 1895, art. 745, and
Insurance companies, see “Insurance."

not engaged in interstate commerce.--St. Louis
Telegraph companies, "Telegraphs and Expanded Metal Fireproofing Co. v. Beilharz

(Tex. Civ. App.) 512.
8 1. Incorporation and organization. Change in name of foreign corporation held

Where two corporations, created under the not to affect the validity of a permit to do busi-
laws of different states, attempted to consol- ness in the state.-St. Louis Expanded Metal
idate without legislative authority, the attempt Fireproofing Co. v. Beilharz Tex. Civ. App.)
was a nullity, and did not create a de facto | 512.

* Point annotated. See syllabus.


« AnteriorContinuar »