Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

to

cominon

the goods.-Woods v. Thompson (Mo. App.) SECONDARY EVIDENCE,
1126.

In civil actions, see "Evidence," $ 3.
SATISFACTION.
See_"Accord and Satisfaction"; "Payment”;

SEDUCTION.
“Release."

Burden of proof, see “Criminal Law," $ 6.
Of judgment, see "Judgment," & 11.

Contradiction of witnesses, see "Witnesses," 3.
Of mortgage, see “Mortgages," 2.

Former jeopardy, see “Criminal Law," $ 5.

Instructions in general, see “Oriminal Law,"
SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS. Time of trial, see “Criminal Law,” s 14.
Following proceeds of sale of invalid schools 1. Criminal responsibility.
district bonds, see "Trusts," $ 3.

*In a prosecution for seduction, a charge on
Jurisdiction of particular courts of actions in- necessity of corroboration of prosecutrix held

volving title to office of school director, see not erroneous.—Burnett v. State (Ark.) 956.
"Courts," $ 4.

The statute held to authorize the court to
Parties to action on bonds issued by school discharge one accused of seduction, on his of-
district, see "Parties," $ 1.

fering in good faith after conviction to marry
Questions presented for review on quo warranto prosecutrix, though she refuses to do so.-

oust school director, see Appeal and Commonwealth v: Akers (Ky.) 1108.
Error," $ 2.

In a prosecution for seduction, evidence of a
$ 1. Public schools.

subsequent offer of marriage by defendant, not
The trustees elected for a graded common cluded.-Nolen v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 242.

made to prosecutris directly, held properly ex-
school district held properly elected, within Ky.
St. 1903, § 4471, and authorized to submit to In a prosecution for seduction, certain letters
the voters the question of the issuance of bonds written to a third person by prosecutrix, show-
as prescribed by section 4481.—Lee v. Trustees ing a vulgar and lascivious mind on her part,
of Shepherdsville Graded Common School Dist. were admissible.- Nolen v. State (Tex. Cr.
No. 4 (Ky.) 1071.

App.) 242.
Under Rev. St. 1899, $$ 9759, 9760, held not duct of prosecutrix subsequent to the alleged

In a prosecution for seduction, certain con-
required that a school director be a resident
taxpayer of the school district in which he is offense held admissible to show her unchastity
elected.—State ex inf. Sutton V. Fasse (Mo. prior to the alleged intercourse with defend-

ant.--Nolen v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 242.
Sup.) 1.

In a prosecution for seduction, subsequent
A majority of the directors of a
school district held not entitled to withdraw the tution on her part may be considered by the

conduct of prosecutrix indicating general prosti-
notice of an election ordered under Rev. $t. jury as a circumstance in passing on whether
1899, § 9861, to determine whether the dis- she was probably chaste at the time of alleged
trict should be changed into a village district. seduction.- Nolen v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 242.
-State ex rel. Gault v. Gill (Mo. Sup.) 628.
Rev. St. 1899, $ 9861, held to authorize the instruct that subsequent conduct of prosecutrix

In a prosecution for seduction, court should
organization of any common school district into indicating general prostitution on her part is
a village district.-State ex rel. Gault v. Gill

to be considered only as a circumstance in
(Mo. Sup.) 628.

passing on whether she was probably chaste
Rev. St. 1899, $ 9860, first adopted in Gen. at the time of her alleged seduction.-Nolen v.
St. 1865, p. 274, c. 47, § 1, relating to the in- State (Tex. Cr. App.) 242.
corporation of village school districts, held to

In a prosecution for seduction, defendant held
apply to incorporated and unincorporated vil entitled to acquittal, if promise of marriage was
lages.--State ex rel. Gault v. Gill (Mo. Sup.) not the sole reason of inducement.-Nolen v.
628.

State (Tex. Cr. App.) 242.
The validity of the organization of a school Evidence held insufficient to support a convic-
district held not subject to collateral attack | tion for seduction.-Garlas v. State (Tex. Cr.
in a proceeding on relation of a taxpayer to | App.) 345.
compel a county court clerk to extend taxes,
to which proceeding the school district was not

SELF-DEFENSE.
a party.-State ex rel. School Dist. No. 1, Tp.
51, R. 17, Howard and Chariton Counties, v. See “Homicide,” 88 5, 10.
Miller (Mo. App.) 637.
A taxpayer held barred by laches from main-

SEPARATE ESTATE.
taining mandamus to contest the validity of the
organization of a school district.-State ex rel, or married

women,

"Husband and
School Dist. No. 1, Tp. 51, R. 17, Howard and

Wife," $ 3.
Chariton Counties, v. Miller (Mo. App.) 637.

SERVICE.
SEALS.

Of process, see "Process," $ 2.
To jurat on verification of information, see
"Indictment and Information,” $ 1.

SERVICES.

See “Master and Servant," $ 2.
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.
Right of search as defense to charge of robbery, SET-OFF AND COUNTERCLAIM.

see “Robbery."
Seizure of goods to enforce vendor's lien on sale On appeal from justice's court, see "Justices
of personalty, see "Sales," § 6.

of the Peace," $ 2.
* Point annotated. See syllabus.

see

§ 1. Subject-matter.

the same out of the statute of frauds.-Cross
In an action on a contract for work and ma- v. Johnston (Ark.) 945.
terials, a certain counterclaim held not main-
tainable.—Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Kansas
City & I. Air Line Co. (Mo. Sup.) 3.

SPENDTHRIFTS.

Spendthrift trusts, see "Trusts," $ 1.
SETTLEMENT.
See “Accord and Satisfaction”; “Payment";

SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS.
“Release.
By guardian of infant, see "Guardian and

See “Intoxicating Liquors.”
Ward," 8 2.
By partners, see "Partnership,” $ 4.

STALE DEMAND.
Of bill of exceptions, see "Exceptions, Bill
of," $ 2.

See "Equity," $ 2.
SEVERABLE CONTRACTS.

STARE DECISIS.
See “Sales," $ 2.

See "Courts," § 1.
SHERIFFS AND CONSTABLES.

STATE GUARDS.
Process directed to, see "Process," $ 1.

Requisites and validity of statutes in general,
Sheriff's deed, see "Execution," $ 4.

see “Statutes," $ 1.

Subject and title of statute, see "Statutes,” $ 2.
§ 1. Powers, duties, and liabilities.
A constable held to have the same duties and

STATEMENT.
powers in connection with the execution and re-
turn of civil process within the county to which By witness inconsistent with testimony, see
his precinct belongs as the sheriff.--Medlin v. "Witnesses," $ 3.
Seideman (Tex. Civ. App.) 250.

Of agent as binding principal, see “Principal

and Agent," $ 2.
SHIPPING.

Of mechanic's lien, see "Mechanics' Liens," $ 1.

Of plaintiff's claim, see "Pleading," $ 2.
See “Ferries."
1. Carriage of goods.

STATES.
In an action for loss of a cargo of brick Courts, see "Courts."
while being towed by one of defendant's steam: Legislative power, see “Constitutional Law,”
ers under a private contract, whether defendant
held itself out as a common carrier for the Legislative power over municipal corporation,

8 1.
time being held for the jury.-Bassett & Stone
v. Aberdeen Coal & Mining Co. (Ky.) 318.

see "Municipal Corporations," $ 3.

Public lands, see “Public Lands."
In an action for loss of a cargo of brick, on
an issue whether defendant was a common 'car- | $ 1. Property, contracts, and liabilities,
rier, the court should have charged that, if it

Contract of trustees of the state charitable
offered to carry for all persons indifferently on

institutions for coal for four months in advance
such trips as the boat was then making, etc., held unauthorized under the statute, and there-
it was a common carrier, and liable, notwith-fore not enforceable.-Bunch v. Tipton (Ark.)
standing it was not guilty of negligence, but 888.
not otherwise.—Bassett & Stone v. Aberdeen

STATUTES.
Coal & Mining Co. (Ky.) 318.

Laws impairing obligation of contracts, see
SIDEWALKS.

"Constitutional Law," $ 2.

Provisions relating to particular subjects.
See "Municipal Corporations," § 8.

See "Abatement and Revival,"., 8.1; "Adop-

tion”; “Affidavits"; "Aliens," $ 1; "Ani-
SIGNALS.

mals”; “Appeal and Error," $ 10; "Bank-

ruptcy," $ 1; “Clerks of Courts"; "Com-
Failure of railroad to give, as negligence, see merce," § 1; "Corporations,” 8 6; “Counties,"
Railroads,” $ 6.

88 1, 2; "Courts," 8 1; “Death,” 8 1:

“Descent and Distribution"; “Exceptions,
SLANDER.

Bill of," § 1; “Execution," § 4; “Garnish-
ment,” | 1; "Highways," § 1; "Intoxicating

Liquors”;
See "Libel and Slander."

"Man-
"Judgment,” Š8 4, 5;
damus," $ 1; “Master and Servant," $ 6;

“Mechanics' Liens," § 1;. “Mortgages," § 3;
SPARK ARRESTERS,

"Municipal Corporations," $81, 5, 6, 9:

"New Trial,” & 2; “Partition," $ 1; "Paupers,
Duty of railroads to provide, Rail-

§ 1; "Pleading," $ 6; “Process," 8.1; "Quo
roads," $ 9.

Warranto," $ 1; "Railroads," $81, 8;

"Schools and School Districts," § 1; "Taxa-
SPECIAL LAWS.

tion," $ $ 2, 3; “Trusts," $ 3; “Wills," 88 1, 4.

Delegation of legislative power, see "Consti-
See “Statutes," $ 2.

tutional Law," $ 1.

Escape of prisoners, see "Rescue."
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. Indian court, see "Indians.'

Liens on sales of personalty, see "Sales," $ 6.
$1. Contracts enforceable.

Statute of frauds, see “Frauds, Statute of."
*Facts held to show such part performance Statute of limitations, see “Limitation of Ac-
of parol contract for sale of land as to take tions."

* Point annotated. See syllabus.

see

* 1. Enactment, requisites, and validity 5. § 30 (Kirby's Dig. $ 5295).-State v. Moore
in general.

(Ark.) 881.
*The courts should declare an act of the Leg. 3 4. Repeal, suspension, expiration, and
islature void only when the Constitution has

revival.
been plainly violated.-State v. Moore (Ark.)
881.

*Repeals by implication are not favored. -

Town of Benton v. Willis (Ark.) 1000.
*The same presumption in favor of the valid-
ity of a legislative enactment is indulged with: 5. Construction and operation.
reference to its form and the observance of the known of a prior statute, and to have had ref-

*The Legislature must be presumed to have
constitutional prerequisites and conditions as
in case of the subject matter of the legislation. the same subject.— Town of Benton v. Willis

erence thereto in enacting a subsequent one on
-State v. Moore (Ark.) 881.

(Ark.) 1000.
Under Const. art. 11, an appropriation to pro-
mote the efficiency of the state guard is one to terpretation, and it is re-enacted, it will be pre-

Where a statute has received a judicial in-
defray necessary expenses of government, with. sumed the Legislature intended it should bave
in Const, art. ð, 31.-State v. Moore (Ark.) the same construction which was given to the
881.

earlier statute.—Walker V. Bobbitt (Tenn.)
Under Const. art. 5, 88 30, 31, legislative de- 327.
termination that certain expenses are necessary
is conclusive, so long as such expenses may be be presumed to have known, when it passed the

In construing a statute, the Legislature must
necessary.-State v. Moore (Ark.) 881.

statute, the constitutional limits of its legisla-
*Unconstitutionality of Workhouse Law, $ 18 tive power.-City of Austin v. Cahill (Tex.
(Shannon's Code, § 7423), relative to commuta- | Sup.) 542.
tion of sentence, held not to affect the validity
of the balance of the act.–Fite v. State (Tenn.) to a special one, so far as is necessary to give

A general provision of a statute must yield
941.

effect to the particular subject of the special
§ 2. General and special or local laws. provision.-City of Austin v. Cahill (Tex. Sup.)

Under Const. art. 6, 88 1, 31, an act creating 542.
a criminal court for a county held not obnox- The legislative policy may be looked to as
ious to article 4, § 53, subd. 32, relating to persuasive in a matter of doubtful statutory
special laws.-State v. Etchman (Mo. Sup.) construction.-City of Austin v. Cahill (Tex.
643.

Sup.) 542.
3. Subjects and titles of acts.

The courts may not, in order to preserve a
An appropriation to promote the efficiency of statute against constitutional objection, ascribe
state guard held not to embrace a double ap- to it a meaning at variance with its plain im-
propriation, within the prohibition of Const. art. I port.-City of Austin v. Cahill (Tex. Sup.) 542.

[ocr errors]

STATUTES CONSTRUED.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

UNITED STATES. Page 3451.

524 , $ 3902.

593
Page 3452..
929 88 4375, 4381.

572
CONSTITUTION.

88 4631-4634

.1033
84807.

.1027
ARKANSAS.
Art. 1, § 10...
542

4966

.952, 961
5057...

566
CONSTITUTION.

5061.

976
STATUTES AT LARGE.

8 5119.

903
Art. 5, 8$ 30, 31.
881 | 8 5120

953
1887, Feb. 4, ch. 104, 24

Art. 7, 88 4, 14.
554 Š 5295.

881
Stat. 379. Amended by

Art. 9, § 1
961 Š 5438.

877
Act 1889, March 2, ch.

Art. 9, § 3,.
593 $8 5450, 5451.

1000
382, 25 Stat. 855 (Ú. S.

Art. 11
881 | 8 5461.

877
Comp. St. 1901, p.

$ 5.522

826
3154]

836

KIRBY'S DIGEST. 88 5785, 5786, 5792, 5793. 913
1889, March 2, ch. 382,

$ 6003.

995
25 Stat. 855 (U. S.

$ 734
.1030 S 6060.

913
Comp. St. 1901, p. Š 1227.

979 $8 6298-6300, 6314, 6315. 833
3154]

836
$ 1680.
.1009 8 6681..

515
1898, July 1, ch. 511, $ 60,

$ 1765.
822 $8 6749, 6750.

559
30 Stat. 562 [Ú. S.

$ 2005.
965 88 7351, 7358.

802
Comp. St.
1901,
$ 2008
585, 965 87823

995
3445)

286
$ 204...

956 $$ 7943, 7914, 7946. 834
1898, July 1, ch, 541, $ 70,

$ 2387.
822 88 7981, 7982.

559
subd. e, 30 Stat. 565 [U.

$ 2413.

905
S. Comp. St. 1901, p.

$ 2440a

818
3451]
524

MANSFIELD'S DIGEST.
$S 2550, 2552, 2553. 877
1898, July 1, ch. 541, $

8 2743
.1011 / 8 5080

330
70e, 30 Stat. 565, 566

8 2754.
913 Š 6119

834
(U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p.

88 2838, 2861.

570
3452]

929

$82947, 2952, 2954, 2955. 897 REVISED STATUTES
1902, July 1, ch. 1362, 88

$ 3001..

555

1837.
31-33, 32 Stat, 616-618. 308

§ 3064.

566
$ 3088

585 Ch. 128, 88 133, 134..... 1027
COMPILED STATUTES 8 3095, subd. 4.

987
1901.
$ 319..

.1011

LAWS.
$3656

.905, 939
Page 3154.
836 88 3705, 3707.

. 1033 1866–67, p. 97, § 3.
Page 3415.
286 88 3804, 3805, 3808. 876 1866–67, p. 157, § 2....

...1033
* Point annotated. See syllabus.
88 S.W.--77

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

......1027

[ocr errors]

1866–67, p. 317

600 GENERAL STATUTES 1865. SHANNON'S CODE.
1868, p. 62, $ 1.

1027
1885, p. 35
836 Page 274, ch. 47, § 1. ... 628 $$ 724, 735

821
1889, p. 168
1033

$$ 3659, 3660.

188
1895, p. 201
1000 REVISED STATUTES 1879. $8 4146, 4147

327
1895, p. 217, No. 146. 983

84203

173
1899, p. 18, ch. 19

838
§ 148
674 8 6075

169
1899, p. 177, No. 66.
985

7423

941
1901, p. 325

..1000

REVISED STATUTES 1889.
1901, p. 368, 88 1, 2.... 559

LAWS.
Ch. 6, art. 1, $ 473...... 625 1875, p. 4, ch. 2

188
ARIZONA.
88 4343, 4344...

630

1883, p. 330, ch. 250, $$
1, 2.

188
REVISED STATUTES REVISED STATUTES 1899. 1891, p. 271, ch. 123, §
1901.

18

911
Ch. 8, art. 9, $ 795. 625 1899, p. 150, ch. 94, $ 56.1036
Pars. 2533, 2767........
.... 457 Ch. 47, art. 4, 88 4239

1899, p. 172, ch. 94, $ 189. 172
4256

774
Ch. 51

781
INDIAN TERRITORY. 88 107, 108.

731

TEXAS.
8 541

791
ANNOTATED STATUTES 593

.147, 853 CONSTITUTION.
1899.
636

60
8 655
.53, 1119 | Art. 1, § 17

502
$ 3285
330 $ 745
.1128 Art. 5, 8 6

532
$ 798
..1119 | Art. 5, $$ 8, 16

502
$ 822
714 Art. 11, 8 5

542
KENTUCKY.
$ 825
.1021 | Art. 11, § 6

536
8 1105
162, 164 Art. 16, § 50

493
CONSTITUTION. $ 1106

162
8 1575

53 CODE OF CRIMINAL PRO-
§ 157
1065 88 1616, 1620

28

CEDURE 1895.
$ 171
.1103 $ 1875

719
1062 & 2219
604, 607 | Art. 420

228
8 2302
12 Art. 723

808
CIVIL CODE OF PRAC- 2517

733 | Art. 774

341
TICE.
§ 2527
719 Arts. 817, 821

203
$ 2696

28
$8 21, 24
.1062 $ 2992

151 PENAL CODE 1895.
§ 25
..1103 88 2993, 2997

773
$ 134
1095 $ 3397

131 Arts. 199, 200

351
§ 315

784 Arts. 651, 652, 713. 215
$3616
71 | Art. 717 .

208
CRIMINAL CODE OF

$3617

66, 71
PRACTICE.
$3697

617 WHITE'S ANNOTATED
8 3705

.99, 759 CODE OF CRIMINAL

$ 3852
156
.1061

108, 784

PROCEDURE.
$ 189
1047 $8 3854, 3855

1128
§ 4652

.1008 Arts. 734, 735, 781 .....1012
$ 4680

21
STATUTES 1903.
8 5329

75 REVISED STATUTES 1895.

$$ 6408, 6409.
Oh. 47

.1075
$ 6433

1130 Art. 7, subd. 2.
$8 470, 472, 656, 679.....10788 6759, 6760.

444
1707
.1067

99 Arts. 327, 328, 330. 815

$ Š 6771, 6798, 6799, 6808. 759 Arts. 416, 498.
8 2353
...1065 88 9759, 9760

536
1 Art. 632

484
$83279, 3453
..1095 $ 9824

99 Arts. 745, 749. Amended
88 3623, 3627

.1075
$$ 9860, 9861.

628
3760

by Laws 1897, p. 168, ch.

120
.1062

512
$ 3882
88 4019, 4021, 4030, 4036,
CITY CHARTER. Arts. 1192, 1193

295
4143
1103

Arts. 1230, 1233.

413
4203

.1073
Kansas City, art. 7, 8 5... 45 Art. 1239

858
$8 4471, 4481
.1071

648 Art. 1265
St. Louis, art. 3, § 26.

295
St. Louis, art. 6, § 7 et Art. 1331

470
seq.
80 Art. 1401

389
MISSOURI.
St. Louis, art. 10, $ 1... 648 Arts. 1965, 2046.

493
Art. 2274

457
CONSTITUTION.

LAWS.
Art. 2318

295
Art. 3342

534
Art. 2, § 14
60 1887, p. 51, 88 50, 51.. 41 Arts. 4496, 4535

530
Art. 2, § 21
80 1892-93, pp. 92, 93, $$ 110,

Art. 5243. Amended by
Art. 4, 81

619
113

1014 Laws 1897, p. 168, ch.
Art. 4, $ 53, subd. 32. 643

120

.512
Art. 6, § 1
643

Art. 5335

484
Art. 6, § 12

1

TENNESSEE.
Art. 6, § 31

643
Art. 9, § 16

41
CONSTITUTION.

SAYLES ANNOTATED
Art. 12, § 20
634

CIVIL STATUTES 1897.
Art. 3, 8 6.....

941
CODE OF CIVIL PROCE-

Arts. 1, 2.

364
DURE.

CODE 1858.
Art. 358

246
Art. 797

412
$ 593
147 | $8 1998-2000 ..
188 ) Arts. 997, 1000

532

..1047 | 8 3419

[ocr errors]

41

...1103

Art. 1129
Art. 1214
Art. 1346
Art. 1362
Art. 1369
Art. 1447
Art. 2121
Art. 2289
Art. 2302
Art. 2338
Art. 2543
Arts. 3147, 3152.
Art. 3393
Art. 4436
Art. 4447
Art. 4706
Arts. 4901, 4915.

389 Art. 5164

534 , 1897, p. 14, ch. 6.... 237
230 Arts. 5335, 5336, 5337.... 1113 1897, p. 138, ch. 103, §
873

15

.490, S73
283

CITY CHARTER. 1897, p. 168, ch. 120. 512
466

1897, p. 220. ch. 128, $$
250

812
Austin. Laws 1901, pp. 12,

3, 4
534

232
506

13, ch. 4, 88 33, 37.-536542 1899, p. 105, ch. 70.
Austin. Laws 1901, pp. 14,

1899, p. 195, ch. 115, 88
424

536
17, 67, ch. 4.

1-3

259
250

1899, p. 246, ch. 146. 370
385

1901, pp. 12, 13, ch. 4, 88
250
LAWS.

33, 37. Austin City Char-
245

ter

...536, 542
452 1891, p. 25, ch. 24 257 1901, pp. 14-17, 67, ch. 4.
281 | 1895, p. 213, ch. 132. Austin City Charter 536
250 Amended by Laws 1899, 1901, p. 291, ch. 124. .361
250 p. 105, ch. 70.

252 | 1903, p. 119, ch. 94...... 370

а

STIPULATIONS.

*A recovery for injuries to a traveler by

collision with a street car held not barred by
Consent to judgment, see "Judgment," $ 2. his contributory negligence, if the servants in

charge of the car could have a voided the ac-

cident.-Louisville Ry. Co. v. Hoskins' Adm'r
STOCK.

(Ky.) 1087.
Corporate stock, see “Corporations," $ 3.

*An instruction in an action against a street
railroad company for injuries to a traveler

by collision held bad, because eliminating
STORES.

the question whether the motorman knew of

the traveler's peril.-Louisville Ry. Co. v.
Elevators in, as common carriers, see “Car Hoskins' Adm'r (Ky.) 1087.
riers,” 8 6.

In an action against a street railroad com-

pany for injuries to a traveler, the refusal
STREET RAILROADS.

to give an instruction asked the company

held error under the evidence.-Louisville Ry.
Appellate jurisdiction in action to determine Co. v. Hoskins' Adm'r (Ky.) 1087.

franchise rights, see “Appeal and Error," $ 4.
Carriage of passengers, see “Carriers.”

An ordinance of the city of St. Louis held,
Election between causes of action against, see lg 1, and article 3, § 26, a valid exercise of the

under St. Louis Scheme and Charter, art. 10,
“Pleading," $ 7.
Excessive damages for personal injuries caused railroad company, without any acceptance of

city's police, power, and binding on street
by operation of, see "Damages," $ 4.
Municipal regulations, see "Municipal Corpora- Transit Co. (Mo. Sup.) 618.

the ordinance on its part.--Sluder v. St. Louis
tions," $ 7.
Opinion evidence in action for injuries caused A breach of an ordinance of the city of St.
by operation of, see "Evidence," $ 9.

Louis held to constitute negligence, for the
Right to grant franchise pending injunction to results of which a street railroad company is

restrain declaration of result of election on liable to an individual.- Sluder v. St. Louis
question of annexation of territory to munici- | Transit Co. (Mo. Sup.) 648.

pality, see “Injunction," $ 2.
Statement of separate causes of action against, of St. Louis exacted a higher degree of care

A contention that an ordinance of the city
see “Pleading,” $ 2.

on the part of a street railroad than the com-
§ 1. Establishment, construction, and mon law, and was void, held without merit.
maintenance.

Sluder v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo. Sup.) 648.
Under an ordinance granting a franchise to a Occupant of a carriage, injured in a collision
street railroad company, compliance by the with a street car, held not guilty of contribu-
company with certain conditions precedent to tory negligence.--Sluder v. St. Louis Transit
the vesting of rights under the franchise held | Co. (Mo. Sup.) 648.
required within a reasonable time.—Little Rock
Ry. & Electric Co. v. City of North Little shall not allow ladies or children to leave or

A city ordinance providing that conductors
Rock (Ark.) 826.

enter cars while in motion is not unreasonable
Under an ordinance granting a franchise to a

or void.--McHugh v. St. Louis Transit Co.
street railway company, certain action by the (Mo. Sup.) 833.
company held a reasonable and enforceable con-
dition precedent to the acquisition of any rights A city ordinance providing that conductors
under the franchise.-Little Rock Ry. & Elec- shall not allow ladies or children to leave or
tric Co. v. City of North Little Rock (Ark.) enter cars while in motion, held a valid police
826.

regulation.--McHugh v. St. Louis Transit Co.

(Mo. Sup.) 833.
The question of the authority to revoke a
street railway franchise held not presented by *Though one may have been guilty of con-
the pleadings and proof.--Little Rock Ry. & tributory negligence in being on street
Electric Co. v. City of North Little Rock (Ark.) track, the company is liable for any injury, if
1026.

it could have been prevented by ordinary care. -

Rapp v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo. Sup.) 865.
§ 2. Regulation and operation.
*In an action against a street railroad com-

*In an action against a street railroad com-
pany for injuries from a collision of car with pany for injuries to plaintiff in a collision with
plaintiff's vehicle, evidence held to justify sub- his vehicle, held, that the question of defend-
mission of defendant's negligence. --Bot Springs ant’s negligence was for the

jury:-Rapp v. St.
St. R. Co. v. Charlton (Ark.) 1006.

Louis Transit Co. (Mo. Sup.) S05.
• Point annotated. See syllabus.

car

« AnteriorContinuar »