Abraham Clark Freeman.

The American state reports: containing the cases of general value and ... online

. (page 114 of 121)
Online LibraryAbraham Clark FreemanThe American state reports: containing the cases of general value and ... → online text (page 114 of 121)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


SeeAsaault; Burglary; Evidence, 6; Forgery; Homicide; Indiclmeni;
Judgments, 9; Larceny; New Trial; Rape.

CROSSINGS.
See Railroads* 20-37, 42.

CRUELTY.
See Marriage and Divorce, 1-8.

CUSTOM.
DBEDS-USAGB OF WORD "MINBBALB.*— IN A CONVBT-
ANGE of mineral lands, the legal meaning of the word 'telnezmla^
cannot be changed by evidence that the word Is nndenrtood In tbm
locality, or "alK>ut there,'* to mean iron ores, without proof of an/
transaction based upon such usage, or that such usage was knovm to
either of the parties. (Armstrong t. Lake Ohamplain Granite Co^
68a.)

See Mines, etc, 6.

DAMAGES.

h PUNITORY DAMAOBS MAY BB GIVEN In an action bf OM per-
son against another for an injury to his business. (Graham v. St.
Charles etc. R. R.Co., 436.)

2. D AMAGBS-SMART MONEY IS NOT GIVEN AGAINST TH08B
LIABLE, if at all, by reason of their relation to the wrongdoer.
(Graham v. St Charles etc. R. R. Co., 436.)

3. DAMAGES— INADEQUATE.— An allowance of three thousand
dollars against an electric street railway company for n^ligently
running over a child three years of age, and resulting in the loss of
an arm, is not enough, and will be increased on appeal to Ave thou-
sand dollars. (Barnes v. Shreveport etc R. R. Co., 400.)

4. APPEAL^EXCESSIVE DAMAGES.— If a passeuRer, while en-
deavoring to alight from a moving railroad train. Is not seriously In-
jured, and works at his business after the accident with no diminution
of his physical ability apparent to his fellow workmen, though he Is
subsequently made sick from the effects of the tHXL, a verdict of three
thousand dollars Is excessive, and the appellate court will reyerse the
judgment, but will allow five hundred dolUrs, to cover the expenses
of siclmess and loss of time, with some allowance for suffering.
(Brashear v. Houston etc R. R. Co., 882.)

5. DAMAGES-DEATH CAUSED BY NBGLIGENCB.-One suing
to recover for the death of another caused by negligence, is entitled
to such damages only as the deceased himself could have recovered
at the moment when he died; that is, compensation for the suffering
endured. (Mattise v. Consumers' Ice Mfg. Co., 856.)

6. DAMAGES IN AN ACTION FOR DEATH.— In an action brought
for the death of a person who is shown to have been capable of



Digitized by



GooqIc



Index. 097

Mrning a small amount of money, all of which he had been appro-
priating to the comfort and support of himself and his family, sach
family haire no pecuniary interest in bis life, except by way of sap-
port and maintenance, and the jury should not be authorised in the
instmction of the court to give damages based upon the probability
that he might hare accumulated an estate which would have gone to
his temily at his death. (Louisville etc. R. R. Oo. v. Markie, 21.)
See Covenants; Bminent Domain, 8; Libel, 2, 8; Municipal Corpora-
tions, 33, 34; Railroads, 2-5; Telegraph Companies, 2.

DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA.
8ee Railroads, A.

DEAF-MUTES.
See Railroads, 8.

DEATH.

Bee Confliet of Laws; Damases, 6, 6; Negligence, 16, 17; Fiient and
Child; Privacy.

DECEIT.
See Fraud. •

DECLARATIONS.
See Homicide, 1«

DEDICATION.

1. DEDICATION OF REAL ESTATE to a pubUe nae may be made
by parol, but there la no such thing as a parol dedication of real es-
tate to a private use. (Louisville etc Ry. Co. v. Stephens, 806.)

2. DEDICATION FOR RAILWAY PURPOSBa— A railroad corpo-
ration is a private institution, created and operated for private gala,
and cannot acquire land for railway purposes by dedication. (Lonla-
vllle etc. Ry. Co. T. Stephens, 808.)

DEEDS.

1. DEEDS TO TAKE EFFECT AFTER DEATH OP GRANTOR*
A deed dulv executed and recorded which ''conveys and warrants"
certain land, and then provides that it shall be of no effect nntil after
the death of the grantor, and then to be in full force, conveys a i>Tesent
interest in the land, but pofit pones its enjoyment and is not void as a
testamentary disposition. (Wilson v. Carrico, 213.)

2. CONSTRUCTION. — IF AN INSTRUMENT IS AMBIGUOUS,
the subsequent acts of the parties are to be considered in construing it.
(Wilson V. Carrico, 218.)

3. A CONVEYANCE NOT TO TAKE EFFECTT UNTIL THE
DEATH OF THE GRANTOR is an attempt to make a testamentary
disposition without complying with the statute of wlUa, and la void.
Wilson V. Wilson, 178.)

4. DEED— DELIVERY.— THE MERE PLACING OF A DEED
IN THE HANDS OF ONE OF THE GRANTEES does not neces-
sarily constitute a delivery. (Wilson v. Wilson, 176.)

6. DEED.— TO CONSTITUTE THE DELIVERY OF A DEED i|
must appear that it was the intention of the prflntor that the deed
should pass title at the time, and that he should lose control of It
(Wilson V. Wilson, 176.)

6. DEEDS— DELIVERY.— The placing of a deed in the hands of cos

Digitized by Vj^^^^V IVC



998 Indbx.

of the graoteei with the nnderstandiog that it shall be retarned to th«
grantor if he ehould call for it, but if not it was to be piaced upon rec-
ord upon his death, does not constitute a deliyery. (Wilson t. WH-
son, 176.)

Bee Custom; Duress; Evidence, 8, 4; Judgments, 8; Trials !•

DE FACTO.
See Corporations, 2.

DEFINITIONS.

1. ASSESSMENT— DEFINITION. — An assessment is a charge laid
npon individual property for the reason that the property upon which
the burden is imposed receives a special benefit different from iha
general one enjoyed by the owner m common with others as a dti-
sen. An assessment is levied only upon the property benefited, and
is uniformly restricted to the means for paying Jocai burdens arising
by reason of the wants of small communities. (Walker t. Jameson,
222.)

''Bank.** (Freeman r. Bellegarde, 76.)

''Capital Stock." (Tradesman Pub. Co. r. Car Wheel Ck>., 941.)

"Forthwith." (Hamden v. Milwaukee etc. Ins. (3o., 467.)

Tull, fair and impartial trial." (State t. Fitzsimon, 708.)

"Isstfe." (Pearce v. Rlckard, 755.)

"Minerals." (Armstrong t. Lake Champlain Granite Co., 688.)

2. DBFINITIONS.-THB WORD "ORB" SIGNIFIES a compound
of metal and other substances. (Armstrong r. Lake Champlain
Granite 0>., 688.)

8. ORIGINAL PACKAGES ARE BUNDLES put up for transporta-
tion or commercial handling, and usually consist of a number of
things bound together convenient for handling and conveyance.
(State T. Board of Assessors, 818.)

4. A PERPETUITY is any limitation or condition which may take
away or suspend the absolute ^wer of alienation for a period beyond
the continuance of lives in being. The absolute power to alienate is
equivalent to a power to convey the absolute fee. (In re Walkerlj»
07.)

"Shore.** (Freeman t. Bellegarde, 76.)
"Sister.** (Shelly v. State, 026.)

"Treatment Injuring health or endangering reason."* (Eoblnsoa ▼•
Robinson, 682.)

DEL CREDERE.
See Factors, 1, 8.

DELIVERY.
See Deeds, 4-6; Sales.

DEPOSITS.
Bee Trusts, 8-6

DEVISE.

1. PERPETUITIES. — THE EFFECT OP A DEVISE OFFEND-
ING THE LAW AGAINST PERPETUITIES is that the property
descends to the testator's heirs, though his will clearly shows that
such was not his intention. (In re Walkerly, 97.)

2. PERPETUITY, EQUITABLE CONVERSION.— When lands are
devised to trustees to be held for a period of years and then lo be



Digitized by



GooqIc



InDEX. 999

•old, they cannot be regarded as oonverted into personalty prior to
the time when their sale is authorised by the terms of the trust.
Hence, the direction to sell cannot rescue the trust from the opera-
tion of the law against perpetuities. (In re Walkerly, 07.)

8. ALIENATION, UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT— DEVISE, CON-
BTRUCTION OF. — A devise of oertain property to trustees for a
specified purpose, accompanied by a provision that no final sale or
distribution of the trust estate shall take place during the life of the
testator's wife, but only after the expiration of twenty-five yearn
after his death, and after her death shows a purpose to preserve the
property inalienable for at least twenty-6ve years, and tor a longer
period should she live longer. It is therefore an attempt to restrain
the alienation of property for a period which may be greater than
the duration of lives in being. (In re Walkerly, 07.)

4. ALIENATION, RESTRAINT UPON— DI RECTION TO SELL.—
If property is devised to trustees to be held by them for specified pur-
poses, and also to be sold, this direction to sell cannot exclude the
trust from the operation of the law against perpetuities, if the trustees
are by its terms to retain the proceeds of the sale, and not to distribute
them until after a fixed period not measured by lives in being; (In
re Walkerly, 97.)

5. RESTRAINTS UPON ALIENATION APPLY TO PERSONAL
PROPERTY as well as to real by the code of California, and any trust
or other disposition of personalty which suspends the power of trans-
ferring it for any period which may be beyond lives In being is roid.
(In re Walkerly, 97.)

6. TRUST ESTATES, RESTRAINT UPON ALIENATION-CON-
DITIONS WHICH MAY NOT BE REJECTED AS REPUGNANT.
II property is devised in trust for specific purposes, provided that
no final sale or distribution thereof shall be made until after the
expiration of twenty-five years, this provision cannot be treated as
a condition which may be rejected as void because repugnant to the
estate devised. It therefore constitutes an unlawful restraint upon
the power to alienate. (In re Walkerly, 97.)

7. DEVISB-VOID ESTATE FOR LIFE— ACCBLBRATBD BB-
MAINDBRS.— If a devise of land to a specified person for life is
Toid, because the devisee signs the will as a subscribing witness, the
remainders declared by the will, after the termination of the life
estate, vest in the remaindermen in possession Immediately npon tbm
death of the testator. (Key r. Weathersbee, 846.)

8. DBVISB-LIMITATION OF BSTATB-BENBFICIAL INTBB>
EST.- If a tenant for life is directed by will to pay over the rents and
profits of the estate to his children after the death of the testator and
his own death, the estate and income therefrom then to go to a third
person, the life tenant has no beneficial Interest in the estate and is
only a trustee for his children as to the Income. (Key r. Weathers*
JDee, 840.)

See Estates.

DIRECTTING JUDGMENT.
See Appeal, 12.

DIRECTORS.
See Corporations, 10-18w

DISCOVERY.

DI8C0VBRY ^IF PROSECUTION FOR A PENALTY IB

BAKRBO by the statute of limitations, a person cannot refnss is



Digitized by



GooqIc



1000 Index.

make dIscoTery of matten connected with the tnmiactlon out of
which the penaltf arisea, on the ground that auch diacoreiT wftt
ezpoee htm to proaecntlon. (Idancheater etc R, R, t. Goncord R. tu
682.)

DISSOLUTION.
Bee Partnenhip, 4, ft.

DISTRIBUTION.
DIBTRIBUTION-WHBN TO BE MADB PBR OAPITA.~If po^

aonal estate la bequeathed to a trustee for the use and benefit of m
female relatiye during her life, and at her death the trust fund to
be iMiid, transferred, and delfyered to her Issue then allye, the tmal
fund la to be distributed per capita among her children and
children who were allre at her death. (Pearce r. Rickard, 766w)

DITCHES.
Bee Waters, 1.

DIVERSION.
See Waters.

DIVIDEND
See Corporations, IS.

DIVORCE.
Bee Husband and Wife, 10; Marriage and DiToroe; Beooidib t»

DOWER.
See Partnership, l - t.

DUPLICITY.
See Fraud, 15.

DURESS.

1. DEBD8, BXBOUTBD UNDER DURB88 of the grantor, are-
Toidable only, and not void. (Commercial Nat Bank t. Wheelock,.
7»8.)

S. DEBDB— DURESS OR FRAUD.~A grantor in a deed regnlailj
executed cannot assert rights contrary to its terms, on the ground
that it was executed under duress, fraud, or undue influence, without
first securing its reformation or cancellation hf a decree in equity..
(Commercial Nat Bank t. Wheelock, 788.)

See Trial, 1.

EASEMENTS.
Bee Landlord and Tenant, IL

ELECTIONS.
1. ELECTIONS -LEGISLATURE MAY ADOPT REASON ABUT
REQULATIONS.'Tfae legislature, within the terms of the constifca-
tion, may adopt such reasonable regulations and restrictions for the-
ezercise of the elective franchise as may be deemed neoessanr to prevent
intimidation, bribery, and fraud, if the voting is by ballot and tho
voter is aUowed to cast hia vote in absolute secrecy* (Taylor v»
Bleakley, 288^



Digitized by



GooqIc



Index. 1001

2. AUSTRALIAN BALLOT LAW.— PROVISIONS OP THE STAT-
UTE AS TO THE MARKING OF BALLOTS are in their nature man-
datory, but all statutes tending tu limit the citizen in the exercise
of his right of suffrage should be liberally construed In his fayor.
(Tebbe t. Smith, 6a)

3. ELECTIONS— AUSTRALIAN BALLOT LAW -PROVISION AS
TO MARKING OF BALLOTS IS MANDATORY,- A provision of
tlie Australian ballot law declaring that a ballot shall not be counted
if the voter fails to mark it as required, is mandatory, and does not
conflict with a constitution requiring all elections by the people to *' be
by ballot" (Taylor v. Bleakley, 233.)

4. ELECTIONS-AUSTRALIAN BALLOT LAW— BALLOTS NOT
MARKED WITH A(X) SHOULD NOT BE COUNTED.— Ballots not
marked with a cross (X) substantially in or upon the square or place
designated by the Australian ballot law should not be counted. (Tay-
lor T. Bleakley, 233.)

5. AUSTRALIAN BALLOT LAW.— If all the ballots east at a pre-
cinct have on them the name of a candidate written t^ some person,
and but one person in the precinct is lawfully assisted in the making of
his ballot in the mode required by law, only the ballot of the voter
thus lawfully assisted should be counted. (Tebbe t. Smith, 68.)

6. AUSTRALIAN BALLOT LAW— DISTINGUISHING MARKS.—
The writing of a letter in a blank space left lor the insertion of the
name of a candidate, though such letter was probably written by
the voter with the intention of making it part of a name, such inten*
tion being subsequently abandoned, is a distingui^ihing mark rendering
the baUot void. (Tebbe v. Smith, 6a)

7. AUSTRALIAN BALLOT LA W.— THE FACT THAT THE VOTER
PUTS A OROiSS AT THE RIGHT of the name of the person voted
lor, instead of in the space at the right of such name, does not invali-
date the ballot nor constitute a distinguishing mark, when the only
direction of the statute upon the subject is that the clerk, in printing
the ballot, shall place upon it a direction to the voter that, to vote for
a person, stamp a cross in the space at the right of his name. (Tebbe
T. Smith, 68.)

8. BLBCrriONS — BALLOTS AND BALLOT-BOXES, AUTHOR-
ITT TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OP.— The courts cannot compel
the production of ballot-boxes before f^ grand jury for the purpose
of there allowing an inspection of ballots, where the constitution
of the state declares that all elections by the people shall be by ballot,
that the election ofQcers shall be sworn not to disclose how any
voter shall have voted, unless required to do so as a witness in a
judicial proceeding, provided, that in all cases of contested elections,
the ballots cast may be counted, compared with the list of voters,
and examined under such safeguards and regulations as may be
prescribed by law. The right to examine and open ballot-boxes
is restricted to proceedings in election contests. (Ex parte Arnold,
657.)

9. ELECTION CONTEST.— BALLOTS, when their integrity is satis-
lactorily established, are the best evidence in an election contest of
How the electors voted. (Tebbe v. Smith, 68.)

10. ELECTION CONTEST.— TO SHOW THAT THE BALLOTS ARE
INTACT AND GENUINE it is sufficient to prove that the mode ol
preservation enjoined by the statute has been substantially pursued.
(Tebbe v. Smith, 68.)

11. ELECTION CONTEST-QUESTION OF FACT.— Whether bal-
lots which are ofTere<i in evidence in an election contest have been
kept in substantial com|>liance with the law and remain no unchanged
that Uiey should be rsoeived in evidence by the jury or trial judge, is a



Digitized by



GooqIc



1002 Index.

question of fact, the finding upon wliicli the appellate eonrt will not
disturb, unless the evidence does not warrant It (Tebbe t. Smith,
68.)

12. ELECTION CONTEST.— BURDEN OF PROOF AS TO BALr-
LOTS, WHEN SEilFTS.— When a substantial compliance with the
statute in respeot to the preservation of bAliota has t)een shown, the
burden of proof shifts to the conteatee to establish that, notwith-
standing such compliance, the ballots had in fact been tampered
with, or that they had been exposed under such circumstances that
a violation of them might have taken place. This proof is not made
by a naked showing that it was possible for one to have molested
them. (Tebbe t. Smith, 68.)

13. ELECTION CONTEST, BURDEN OF PROOF RESPECTINO
BALLOTS.— One who relies upon overcoming the prima facie correct-
ness of an official canvass by a resort to the ballots must first show
that the ballots presented to the court are intact and genuine.
(Tebbe v. Smith, 68.)

14. ELECTIONS-SECRECY OF BALLOTS.-If the constitution of
the state declares that all elections by the people shall be by ballot;
It means a secret ballot (Ex parte Arnold, 557.)

15. ELECTIONS. — VOTERS WHO DO NOT CHOOSE TO PAB-
TICIPATE in an election are not to be taken into consideration in
declaring the result Hence, if the law requires a question to be
decided, or an officer to be elected, by the votes of the majority of
the voters of the county, this does not require that the majority of
all the persons in the county entitled to vote shall actually vote affirm-
atively, but only that the result shall be decided by a majority of the
votes cast (Russie t. Brazzell, 542.)

16. ELECTIONS.— FOR THE MISCONDUCT OP ELECTION OF-
FICERS IN NOT OPENING THE POLLS until 10 o'clock, when
the law requires them to be open at sunrise, and the taking of the
ballot boxes with them when they a'jjourned for dinner to a house
some hundred yards distant, when the law required that such boxes
must not be removed from the balloting places, or the presence of
bystanders, is a departure from the provisions of the statute in so
substantial a respect that the ballots must be rejected, though there
is no evidence of frand, or th<<t the result of the election at the pre-
cinct had been altered by such misconduct. (Tebbe r. Smith, 68.)

See RSligious Societies^ 8.

ELECTRIC.
Bee Corporations, 8; Negligence, 1, 2.

ELEVATED RAILWAYS.
See Railroads, 2^.

EMINENT DOMAIN.

1. EMINENT DOMAIN— TAKING RIGHT OF WAT.— Not only an
absolute fee in land, but a right of way over land, or any easement
or right connected with it, may be taken by eminent domain, and, of
course, if so taken, must be paid for. (Johnston t. Old Colony
R. R. Co., 800.)

2. EMINENT DOMAIN— VALUE— EVIDENCE.— One element of
the value of a house and lot in a city on a platted street is its acces-
sibility by means of the street leading into public thoroughfares
beyond the limits of the plat, and the lopping off of the owner's right
of way or approach to the estate by permanently closing the street
at one end. Hence» evidence as to the amount of travel on the street



Digitized by



GooqIc



Indbz. 1008

t)efore and after the condemnation la admissible, for tbe purpose of
showing the extent to which the estate was Isolated by closing up the
street (Johnston t. Old Colony B. B. Co., 800.)

3. EMINENT DOMAIN— DAMAGES.— The measure of damages for
taking, under condemnation proceedings, a private right of way or
approach to one's premises, though such way Is In a platted street
used as a highway, Is the difference between the market yalue of the
•estate before and after the condemnation, so far as directly affected
thereby. (Johnston t. Old Colony R. R. Co., 800.)

4. EMINENT DOMAIN— EVIDENCE-NEW TRIAL.— In an action
by the owner of a house and lot In a city to recoyer damages for the
taking of a right of way or approach to his premises under condemna*
tlon proceedings, the defendant has no ground for a new trial because
of the admission of evidence as to tbe business done on the premises,
introduced, without objection, for the purpose of showing what they
were adapted for, where the Jury was instructed not to estimate the
damage to the plaintiff's business. (Johnston v. Old Colony B. B,
Co., 800.)

6. EMINENT DOMAIN-EXCESSIVE DAMAGES.— A verdict for
dz hundred dollars damages for taking a right of way appurtenant
to property under condemnation proceedings Is not excessive, where
the Jury took a view, where the property cost two thousand five hun*
dred dollars, and where the diminution in the value thereof was put
by the conflicting testimony of experts at all the way from five to
fifty per cent of iti value. (Johnston v. Old Colony B, B. Co., 800.)
See Railroads, 1-5,

ENTIRETIES.
See Husband and Wife, 0-lS.

ENTRY.
See Judgments, l, t»

EQUITY.

1. EQUITY-DECREES IlJ CHANCERY UNAIDED BY STAT-
UTE, ARE IN PERSONAM only and do not execute themselves so as
to transfer personalty. (Jelke v. Goldsmith, 780.)

2. A CONVEYANCE TO A WIFE THEN LIVING IN 8BCBET
ADULTERY, professing to be loyal and true to her marriage vows,
made by her husband in consideration of love and affection, is pro-
cured by fraud, and will be canceled in equity and the title revetted
lA him. (Byrd v. Byrd, 932.)

See Corporations, 6, 7; Duress, 2; Specific Performance« 8.

ESTATES.

1. ESTATES FOB LIFB-BIGHTS OF TBNANT.-If a person la
given a life estate^ by will, to enjoy the property in specie, and is also
appointed executor, he is entitled to the possession of the property
without giving a bond to the remainderman or anyone else to account
for it (Langley v. Farmlngton, 024.)

2. ALIENATION.— THERE IS UNLAWFUL BESTRAINT OF
ALIENATION WHEN there are no persons in being who, by joiuing
in a conveyanoe of their distinct interests, can pass an absolute interen
in possession. (In re Walkerly, 07.)

8. ALIENATION.— THE LAW AGAINST SUSPENDING THB
POWER OF ALIENATION APPLIES TO EVERY gift, conveyance,
or devise, and to all trusts, whether created by will or need, whethef

Digitized by LnOOQ IC



1004 Index.



providing for remalnden or executory deYisee, or merely rettislii-
ing the power lo alienate for a fixed period of years, and i'
-'^'— fog a nle wltb a gift over. (In ra Walkerly, 870



ing the
Tiding



ESTOPPEL.

1. EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL ABISES ONLY when one, by hte
worda or conduct, willfully cauaea another to belieye in the exiatence
of a certain atate of facta, and inducea him to act upon that belief
ao aa to alter hla preyioua poaitlon to hia prejudice. (De Beny t.
.Wheeler, 68a)

2. ESTOPPEL. - One who trlea on a dreaa made ut) wrong aide out
by the dreeamaker ia not eatopped from recorering damagea therefor
by the fact that ahe tried it on and knew that it waa being ao made
up, unless the misconduct or negligence of the dreeamaker waa In-
duced by aomething that her cuatomer aald or did or omitted to aaj
or do. (Lincoln t. Gay, 480.)

8. MARRIED WOMEN ARE NOT ESTOPPED from asserting title
to their landa, except for fraud, and can be dlyeated of their Intereat
therein only in the mode prescribed by atatute. (LouiariUe etc. By.
Co. T. Stephena, 808.)

See Contracts, 9; Husband and Wife, 4; Jndgmenta. 8; L^gaciea,

EVICTION.
See CoTSiianta, 1 ; Landlord and Tanant, 1-7.

EVIDENCE.

1. EVIDENCE.-jnDIOIAL NOTICE is Uken by theoonrts of the
fart that natural gaa doea not explode apontaneoiudy. (McGaban ▼.
Indianapolla Oaa Co., 199.)

2. EVIDENCE-JUDICIAL NOTICE.— The trial court will take Ju-
dicial notice of all the proceedinga, pleadinga, and Jurladlctlonal
papera in a caae on trial. Therefore, they need not be Introduced In
eTidcnco. (Searia t. Knapp, 878.)

5. DEEDS-EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE. - THE WORDS OF A
DEED, unambiguous in themselyea, cannot be controlled by proof
that the partiea uaed them with a definite and limited meaning, for the
piiil»osc of that particular inatrument. (Armatrong r. Lake Cham-
pliiD Granite Co., 688.)

4. DEEDS — INTERPRETATION.— THE WORDS "^MINERALS
AND ORES,** In a deed, cannot be controlled, In an action to de-
termine the righta of the partiea under the inatrument aa written, by
evidence of the grantee's purpose in acquiring the property, or of hia
atatementa, made contemporaneoualy with the deed, that he had pur-
chased the Iron ore on the premLsea. (Armatrong t. Lake Cham*
plain Granite Co.. 688.)

6. EVIDENCE OF OTHER CRIMES OB ACTS.— Acta which mn
part of one general scheme or plan of fraud, deaigned or put In execu-
tion by the same person, are admiaaible to prove that an act which
has been done by aomeone waa in fact done by the person who de-
signed and pursued the plan, If the act In question waa a neceaaaiy
part of the plan. Hence, where It la claimed that a party haa been



Online LibraryAbraham Clark FreemanThe American state reports: containing the cases of general value and ... → online text (page 114 of 121)