« AnteriorContinuar »
LANDLORD AND TENANT.
LEGISLATIVE POWER. Demise of vessel, see “Shipping," § 1.
See “Constitutional Law," § 1. Mining leases, see "Mines and Minerals," $ 2. § 1. Terms for years.
LETTERS PATENT. Where a corporation is tenant under a lease, For inventions, see “Patents.” service of notice to quit upon its treasurer is a good service upon the corporation both at common law and under Gen. St. Minn. 1894, § 5199,
LIBEL AND SLANDER. which provides that, in an action against a corporation, service of summons may be made on its § 1. Actions. president, secretary, cashier, treasurer, a direct *A corporation can maintain an action to reor, or managing agent.--Lindeke v. Associates cover for pecuniary loss as the result of a libelRealty Co. (c. C. A.) 630.
ous publication precisely as an individual could *A lease for a long term construed, and held in a like situation and where the publication to give to the lessor the right to declare a for- is libelous per se and calculated to injuriously feiture for breach of a covenant to build on the affect plaintiff's business, special damages need leased premises.-Lindeke v. Associates Realty not be alleged.-Union Refrigerator Transit Co. Co. (C. C. A.) 630.
v. S. S. McClure Co. (C. C.) 623. *A lessor having a right to declare a forfeiture of the lease, and who has served notice of
LICENSES. such forfeiture, does not waive his right by the subsequent acceptance of rent from the lessee For mining, see "Mines and Minerals,” $ 2. covering a period which will expire before he is entitled to re-enter under the terms of the
LIENS. lease.-Lindeke v. Associates Realty Co. (C. C. A.) 630.
Effect of proceedings in bankruptcy, see "Bank
ruptcy," § 3. LARCENY.
For salvage, see "Salvage," $ 1. See “Embezzlement."
LIFE ESTATES. In Indian Country, see "Indians.” Liability of vessel owner for theft from pas Rights of remaindermen held not affected by senger, see "Shipping," $ 4.
an attempted declaration of trust by the life § 1. Prosecution and punishment.
tenants.--Anderson v. Messinger (C. 0. A.
929. On trial for larceny the question was whether defendant stole some cattle or bought them of one R. without notice. There was evidence
LIFE INSURANCE. that defendant paid R. in currency and a draft
See “Insurance." payable to R.'s order, and that the latter sent the draft to the drawee directing him to place its proceeds in a certain bank to his credit. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. Helā, that evidence that there was no method known to the banking institutions whereby Criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law," § 1 such draft could be paid without the indorsement of the payee, was irrelevant and im LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. material.-Sparks v. Territory of Oklahoma (C. C. A.) 371.
Of owner of vessel, see “Shipping,” $$ 4, 6. *Under Rev. St. U. S. § 5356 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3638), providing for the punishment
LIQUIDATION. of larceny, it is not necessary that an indictment allege the value of the stolen goods.- 1 of duties. see "Customs Duties," $ 3. Brown v. United States (C. C. A.) 975. LAW OF THE ROAD.
LITERARY PROPERTY, See "Highways," $ 1.
By bank, see "Banks and Banking," $ 1.
Ground for removal of cause, see "Removal o See "Internal Revenue."
Causes," $ 3.
§ 1. Master's liability for injuries to
gaged in loading cars held to have been caused
by the negligence of the foreman who was
his fellow servant for which the company was
not liable.Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Brown
*A mere foreman or gang boss is a fellow
servant of those working with or under him,
and for his defaults by which a fellow servant
is injured the master is not responsible, unless
absolute duty of the master the performance
Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Brown (C. C. A.) 24.
*The question of defendant's negligence held
one for the jury in an action for injury to a
osseck (C. C. A.) 363.
A master held not chargeable with negligence
which rendered it liable for an injury to a tool
owned or controlled by defendant, while per-
forming an errand at the direction of the fore-
man-American Bridge Co. v. Bainum (C. C.
The duty of a master to provide a reasonably
in fetching and carrying, whether messages
Bainum (C. C. A.) 367.
*Where plaintiff knew that the only protec-
tion against his falling in the hold of a ship,
to use extraordinary care to see that the net-
ting was in place. -Northwestern S. S. Co.
v. Griggs (C. C. A.) 472.
*In an action for injuries to an employé on a
-Northwestern s. s. Co. v. Griggs (C. C. A.)
Libelant, which raised a sunken scow under *Where a master was called by a superior to
perior in respect to the condition of such ap-
pliance represents the master, who is responsible
for his negligence.-American Car & Foundry
Co. v. Brinkman (C. C. A.) 712.
*The negligence of a fellow servant will not
defeat an action for injuries if it is not the
sole cause of the accident.—The Hamilton (C.
C. A.) 724; The Saginaw, Id.
*Subordinate officers and crew of a vessel
drowned in a collision held not fellow servants
the injury.-The Hamilton (C. C. A.) 724; The
quantity of ore.—Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. v.
East Itasca Min. Co. (C. C. A.) 232.
Compensation of vendee on rescission of a
purchase of_coal lands for fraud determined.-
Mather v. Barnes, Keighley & Greer (C. C.)
Ground for recovery of payment, see "Payment,"
Of judgment or order on appeal, see "Appeal
and Error," $ 6.
A complaint held to state a cause of action
fendants' bank for the payment of a portion
The certificate of the location of a mining Of personal property, see "Chattel Mortgages.'
§ 1. Foreclosure by action.
*That a mortgage was executed in the name
foreclose the same.-Waterbury V. McKinnon
*Where a mortgage was assigned as collater-
the mortgagor's title, and did not hold as trus-
tee for the assignor.-Anderson v. Messinger
(C. C. A.) 929.
For particular purposes or relief.
peal and Error," § 1.
"Trial," $ 1.
*Point annotated. See syllabus.
§ 1. Torts.
Particular classes of officers.
Corporate officers, see "Corporations," $ 2.
Municipal officers, see "Municipal Corpora-
tions," $ 1.
In civil actions, see "Evidence,” $ 6.
In criminal prosecutions, see “Criminal Law,"
Review of appealable orders, see "Appeal and
PARENT AND CHILD.
See "Guardian and Ward."
In civil actions, see "Evidence,” $ 5.
Character ground of jurisdiction, see “Courts,”
Death ground for abatement, see "Abatement
and Revival," $ 1.
In equity, see "Equity," $ 2.
Error," § 2.
*Bare denial of complainant's title on in-
formation and belief in partition, held not to
has been established at law. Carlson v. Sul-
livan (C. C. A.) 476.
*Where ouster is made by one tenant in com-
tenant is by ejectment to recover possession of
the individual moiety, and not by partition.-
Carlson v. Sullivan (C. C. A.) 476.
*Pleadings in a suit for partition of a min-
ing claim, held to present a cause triable in
equity under Alaska Code Civ. Proc. C. 43,
court to dismiss the cause and remit plain-
tiff to his remedy by ejectment.--Forderer v.
Act of bankruptcy by firm, see "Bankruptcy,"
*Point annotated. See syllabus.
§ 1. Rights and liabilities as to third is not further limited by a subsequent lapse or
forfeiture of a part of such term by reason of
*Under Rey. St. § 4887 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901,
p. 3382), the prior patenting in a foreign coun-
try of a minor part of a broad or basic inven-
tion does not so affect the whole that the
expiration of the foreign patent terminates the
whole of a United States patent covering both
such minor part and the broad main invention.-
Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. Talk-o-Phone Co.
§ 6. Infringement.
A fine imposed for contempt of court in
*On a reference to a master for an accounting
for infringement of a patent which has been sus-
tained and held infringed by the court, the whole
lar structures passed upon by the court and
Co. v. Miller (C. C.) 249.
Where on a reference for an accounting as to
ter by his rulings limits the scope of the inquiry,
the matter may properly be presented to the
to the master.—Walker Patent Pivoted Bin Co.
v. Miller (C. C.) 249.
*A substantial equivalent of a patented de-
may perform an additional function.-Universal
Brush Co. v. Sonn (C. C.) 517.
*The Metzger patent No. 489,682 for an elec-
tric lamp socket, claims 5 and 7, held valid
General Electric Co. V.
*A defendant adjudged in contempt for vio-
lation of a preliminary injunction against in-
fringement of a patent.-Robinson v. S. & B.
tion, and infringement of partic-
The Parcelle patent No. 463,704 for an electric
motor and dynamo held void for lack of patent-
able invention.-General Electric Co. v. Bullock
Electric Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 552.
The Weissenthanner patent No. 483,033 for a
a prior foreign jar construed and held not infringed.-Phoenix
*Point annotated. See syllabus.