Augustus John Cuthbert Hare.

The Central law journal, Volume 28 online

. (page 142 of 151)
Online LibraryAugustus John Cuthbert HareThe Central law journal, Volume 28 → online text (page 142 of 151)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

together as husband and wife, are legitimate children
of such parents, with all the rights of heirs and next of
kin, applies to the children of colored parents, whether
slaves or free, and whether the parents were Incapable
of entering into the marriage relation by virtue of
positive law or their etaiue as slaves.— Woo4»ard 9. Bhae^
N. Gar., 9 S. B. Bep. 492.

86. DIVORCB— Alimony. Under f 22, oh. 25, Comp. *

St. a district court, or this court, upon appellate pro-
ceedings In the same case, may, after a divorce Is
granted at the suit of the husband, make a decree tor
alimony In favor of the wife out of tbe property, even
though the decree of divoree be against tbe wife f6r any
of tbe enumerated causes, except tbe adultery of tbe
wife.- IMcAwrwm v. Diekareon, Neb., 43 N. W. Bep. 9.

86. DowBR. In a petition filed by a widow In the

probate court to have dower In tbe lands of which her
husband died seised assigned to her, the failure to al*
lege In such petition that her right to dower **ls bo%.

Digitized by


Vol. 26.



<b pated by the heii> or devisees*' Is not fata*.— 5erry v.
Currg, Neb. 42 N. W. Kep. »7.

87. £A8BMBiiT8. Where by a change in thenses o

a dominant tenement the enjoyment of an easement of
passage to it has beoome exceedingly oppressive to the
owner of the servient estate, and a right of way from
necessity does not exist, if the owner of the pervient
estate obstmot the easement, eqnlty will not Interfere,
bnt will leave complainants to their remedy at law. —
McBrpde v. Sayre, Ala., 6 South. Bep. 791.

S8. Bii8BMBRT6 — Drainage. The easement of a

ditch for drainage purposes over the pasture land of
another does not Impose upon the owner of the serv*
lent estate any liability for damage done to the ditch
by his cattle In crossing over it, and In caving in Its
sides while feeding near it. — Dur/ee v. Oarvey, Gal., '^1
Pao. Rep, 802.

39. Bjbctmbmt. Where plaintiff is not, and de-
fendant is, in possession of land claimed by the former,
the proper form of remedy Is ejectment.— CS^rporo/ion v.
mbbcn. Wash. Ter., 21 Pac. Bep. 816.

40. BLB0TIOK8 AND YOTBBS. Ballots not conform*

Ing to the requirements, as to the paper used, should be
counted, as the language of the statute only makes it
Illegal to print or distribute such ballotp, and|not to vote
them, and that construction should be adopted which
Is most favorable to the validity of an attempted exer-
cise of the elective franchise.— Kellog v. Hickman^ Colo.,
21 Pac. Bep. 825.

41. Bminbnt Domain. In ascertaining the amount

of damages to be awarded to the owner of a farm, part
of which Is taken for a railroad, the tendency to f i Ighten
teams, employed on the farm, by the running of trains,
etc.. Is not too remote to be taken into consideration.—
FayeteriUe if LUtU Rock Ry, Co, v. Combi, Ark., 11 S. W.
Bep. 418.

42. Bminbnt Domain. In a proceeding by a rail-
road company to condemn land for a right of way, the
assessment of damages is not necessarily restricted to
the injury done to the particular tract described In the
petition.— Fayettetiile <f LU^ Rock Ry, Co, v. Hunt, Ark.,
11 S. W. Rep. 418.

48. Bminbnt Domain. The fact that a court re-
fused to enjoin a railroad company from taking posses-
sion of land for Its railroad before condemnation and
payment of compensation did not l<»gallze the posses-
sion so taken, or relieve the company from an action
at law for the wrongful entry. — Grand Rapidi, L f D,
R, Co, V, Cheaebro, Mich., 42 N. W. Bep. 66.

44. BQuiTT — Jurisdiction. Where a petition is

Hied In equity by the executrix of an estate, alleging
that certain debts are owing by the estate, and that it
Is necessary to sell land belonging to It to pay such
debts, and any part of the indebtedness alleged In the
petition Is found to be due by the estate, the chancellor
has Jurisdiction to order a sale of a part of the property
to pay such indebtedness.— McOowan v. Luf burrow, Ga.,
9 8. B. Bep. 427.

45. BQUITT— Jurisdiction. An action upon a con-
tract by which plaintiff delivered to defendant's lntes>
tate a number of sheep, to receive in return, at the
expiration of a fixed period, a quantity of wool and an
equal number of sheep, is not of an equitable nature,
though the accounts between the parties have been
carelessly kept.— Xetvif v. Baca, N. Hex., 21 Pac. Bep. 848.

46. BXBCUTION — Bedemptlon. Where a debtor

whose land has been sold on execution surrenders pos-
session to the purchaser and afterwards offers to
redeem In compliance with the Code the purchasers or
those claiming under him cannot Interpose a bill to re-
deem title derived after the sale from any source. —
Aycock V, Adter, Ala., 5 South. Bep. 794.

47. EXBGunoN — Lien. A claimant of personal

property levied on under execution on foreclosure of
a laborer's lien is not concerned as to the regularity or
validity cf the foreclosure proceedings, and cannot
move to have them dismissed.— Dteon v. in//tomt, Ga., 9
S. E. Bep. 468.

48. Execution — Partnership. A purchaser at a

sale upon an execution against one partner, levied
upon his Interest In partnership property, does not ac-
quire any title to or right of possession of the property.
These still remain in the partnership. — Lan9 v, Lenptst,
42 N. W. Bep. 84.

49. BXBOUTORS AND Administbators. The Stale-

nesB of a demand attacking ancient settlements, made
after the lapse of twenty years, and only after the death
of the party charged, and excused by no proof of ignor-
ance or concealment. Imposes upon the attacking party
the necessity of making clear and unequivocal proof.—
Succeision o/Bobb, La., 5 South. Bep. 757.


by which the administrator, who Is also a legatee of
the estate, conveys to a firm of attorneys one- half of
the assets of the estate, after the settlement of all the
claims against it, upon condition of the professional
services, etc., of said attorneys rendered in the settle •
ment of the estates, is not Illegal because of the attempt
to bind the minors' interest, it being only Invalid as to
them.— McCampbtUv. Dur$t, Tex., 11 S. W. Bep. 880.

51. Frauds— Statute of. Sheet of paper written

disconnectedly on both sides: ffeld, suffldent memo-
randum under the statute for sale of land. — Cordon v.
Avery, N. Oar., 9 S. B. Bep. 486.

52. Frauds— Statute of. It being impossible to

determine from the telegrams claimed to constitute a
contract for sale of land. Just what property was in-
tended to be Included in the proposition and accept-
ance, the contract was void under the statute of frauds.
—Breckinridge v. Crocker, Gal., 21 Pac. Bep. 179.

53. Fraudulbnt Convbtancb. The Bhode Island

statute, rendering void conveyances made with the
intent "to delay, hinder, or defraud creditors of their
Just and lawful actions, debts, suits, accounts, damages,
or Just demands of what nature soever," extends to a
claimant for damages for seduction, especially where
the claimant has recovered a Judgment. — McKenna r.
VrowUy, B. I., 17 Atl. Bep. 354.

54. Fraudulbnt Oonvbtancb. Where Insolvent

debtors made conveyances of real estate to creditors,
for the purpose of securing a bona fide Indebtedness,
and the creditors withheld the conveyances from
record, with an honest belief that their Indebtedness,
would be paid, and without any agreement or under-
standing with the debtors, such conveyances are not
fraudulent as to the other creditors, because they were
not recorded. — Firtt Nat. Bank v. Jaffray, Kan., 21 Pac.
Bep. 242.

55. Fraudulbnt Convbtancb. ■■ Under the Oali-
fomia insolvent act of 1880, where a debtor transfers
property out of the usual and ordinary course of busi-
ness it is prima fade evidence that the assignee had
reasonable cause to believe that the transfer was made
by the debtor with a view to prevent his property from
being distributed ratably among his creditors. — Waek-
bum V. HunHngtont Gal, 21 Pac. Bep. 805.

56. Gaming. Held, that a game called "craps,"

which can be played on any flat surface, and without
the Intervention of any third party, is not a game to be
''played, dealt, kept, or exhibited," within the meaning
of the statute.— CAopp€/2v. State, Tex., 11 8. W. Bep. 411.

57. Garnishmbnt. Non-residents of the State are

entitled to the benefit of Const. Tex. art. 16, $ 28, and
Bev. St. Tex. art. 218, providing that no current wages
for personal service shall ever be subject togirnlsh-
ment. — Bellv, Indian Live Stock Co,, Tex., 11 S. W. Br p.

68. Highways. The benefits received by a person

whose land Is taken for a public road are a part of the
consideration for the release or condemnation of the
land ; and such benefits are as much his property as
the land itself, and the State cannot deprive him of
them, by subsequently disoontinuing the road. — Pear-
aaU V, Board, Blich., 42 K. W. Bep. 77.

59. HIGHWAYS— Defeots.r-^Notioe held not sufficiently
accurate to comply with the statute requiring notloe

Digitized by


530 -


No. 24

of an accident for which damages are claimed against
a town for injuries.— Rafter v. Town of Greenfield, Wis., 42
N. W. Rep. 101.

60. HOMBSTBAD— Conveyance. A land owner who

Is not in debt may, by deed absolute or by mortgage,
convey his land that has never been allotted to him as
a homestead, without the joinder of his wife in the
deed, free from any restriction growing out of the pro-
visions of art. 10, § 8, Const, whether his land was
acquired or his marriage was celebrated before or after
its adoption.— Hughes v. Hodge*, N. Car., 9 S. E. Rep. 487.

61. HOMBSTBAD. Under Const. Ark. 1874, art. 9, § 6,

minor children can recovorof widow one half the rents
and profits of homestead, while she was in exclusive
possession thereof after the husband's death, though
no dower has been assigned her in the land, which was
all the real estate owned by her husband, notwith-
standing Mansf. Dig. § 2688. — Winters v, Davis, Ark., 11
S. W. Rep. 420.

62. HoMBSTEAD. A person making an entry under

the homestead laws of the United States may execute
a valid mortgage upon land so entered, prior to sub-
mitting final proof and receiving the final certificate.-
Lang v. Morey, Minn., 42 N. W. Rep. 88.

63. Husband and Wifb. No resulting trust can

arise out of an agreement between husband and wife,
by which the husband takes the title to land in his own
name, and pays part of the purchase price with his own
money, and agrees to hold for the wife's benefit, and
she subsequently pays the balance of the price.— ZcW«r
V. Light, Penn., 17 Atl. Rep. 483.

64. Husband and Wifb. Under Pasch. Dig. Tex.

art. 3457, the validity of a conveyance executed by a
husband pending a divorce suit, so far as it affected the
wife's interests in the community property, depended
upon whether it was made with the fraudulent view of
injuring her rights. — Moore v. Mooi-e, Tex., 11 S. W. Rep.

65. Infancy— Chattel Mortgage. Where one exe-
cutes a chattel mortgage while an infant, mere
acqiescence or failure to disafiirm by some positive act
of repudiation, after attaining majority, is not a legal
ratification.— Ht// v. Nelms, Ala., 5 South. Rep. 796.

66. Injunction. Where parties financially irre-
sponsible, without valid title, but claiming under a void
attachment sale, cut«tlmber constituting the principal
value of the land purchased, of which others olaiiuing
under a purchase in bankruptcy proceedlugs arc In
poijsessiou, equity will enjoin the continuance of such
trespass at the Instance of the latter. — SuUtvan r. Bobb,
Ala., 5 South. Rep. 746.

67. I N.I UNCTION— Party Wall. Construction of

statute granting to one co-proprietor of a wall In com-
mon to demolish okl wall and erect new one and defin-
ing the procedure. — Heine v. Merrick, La., 5 South. Rep.

68. Insolvency — Conflict of Lawy. Kcv. St. Me.

ch. 70, § 33, provMlng that an assignment In Insolvency
relates buck and dis.-^olves all attachments made within
four months of the commencement of Insolvency pro-
ceedings, Is binding upon a citizen of another State,
who causes an attachment to be levied here for the
enforcement of a debt contracted subsequent to the
enactment of the Insolvent law. — Owen v. Roberts, Me.,
17 Atl. Rep. 403.

60. Insurance — Conditions. A policy contained

covenants tha*^ the assured was to keep a set of books
showing a record of all business transacted, and to
keep them locked In a fire-proof safe at night and at
all times when the store was not actually open for
business, etc. : Held, that the covenant did not require
the books to be kept In a safe from sunset to sunrise,
but from th^ time the business of the day was ended^
and the stdre tilosed for the night. — Jones v. Southern
Ins. Co., U. S. 0. C. (Ark.), 38 Fed. Rep. 19.

70. Insurance- Mutual Benefit Society. -: Defend-
ant held entitled to reformation of certificate, where
there was a mistake in the amount of same, though the

beneficiary was not cognizant of the mistakd.— Orap v.
Supreme Lodge, Ind., 20 N. E. Rep. 888.

71. Intoxicating Liquors— Illegal Sales. Where

an incorporated association purchases beer outside of
the State of Kansas, and brings it into the 6tate, and
then sells chips to its members, each chip representing
a drink or glass of beer, and then furnishes a drink or
glass of beer for each chip returned by a member, and
the beer is drank as a beverage, and neither the asso-
ciation, nor any of its members, has any permit to sell
intoxicating liquors: Held, that the member of the as-
sociation and the president of the association, who is
present at the time, and knows of these things, may
be prosecuted, convicted, and punished for selling in- .
toxicating liquor In violation of law. — State v. Hor<icekt
Kan., 21 Pac. Rep. 204.

72. Intoxicating Liquors. Where the evidence

shows respondent was proprietor of the saloon where
the liquor was sold to the minors, and was then pres-
ent, and made no effort to prevent the sale, he cannot
object that there is no)evidence, though he testifies that
he did not see the sale, and had directed his agent not
to sell liquor to minors. — State v. Mayor, Wis., 42 N. W.
Rep. 110.

78. Judgment- Fraud. The statute authorizing

"the party aggrieved" to prosecute an action to set
aside a judgment obtained by means of the fraud of the
"prevailing party:" JJ«id, not to authorize one not a
party to the action in which such judgment was re-
covered, although he was directly Interested in the
results, to maintain such statutory action. — Stewart v.
Duncan, Minn., 42 N. W. Rep. 89.

74. Judgment— Res Adjudicata. Neither a judg-
ment of nonsuit nor one dismissing a suit for want of
proper parties will sustain the plea of res adjudicata,
Weinberger v. Merdmnts* Mut. Ins. Co., La., 5 South. Rep.

75. Landlord AND Tenant — Lien. Under Code

Miss. § 1301, alien on all the agricultural products of
the leased premises can be enforced against the agri-
cultural products of the leased premises after their
removal therefrom, and must prevail against a bona
fide purchaser for value.— Neicman v. Bank ofOreenevUle,
Miss., 5 South. Rep. 763.

76. Liens. Under Code Ga. § 1985, providing liens

on saw mills, an aflidavit for lien properly alleges that
the provisions were furnished to the mill of the person
named, and not to the person himself.— 5ennrt< r. Oray,
c;a.,ys. L. Rep. 46y.

77. Limitation of actions. The limitation of two

years prescribed by Civil Code Kan. § 18, subd. 3, for an
action for trespass on real property, limits the damages
recoverable to those caused within two years next
proceeding the action, though the trespass was con
tinned for more than two years, and the action was
coupled with an action of ejectment, the limitation of
which Is three years.— 3/a. Pac. Ry. Co. v.Ho%tseman,K2iTi.,
21 Pac. Rep. 281..

7H. Malicious Prosecution. Concerning the ne-
cessity of disclosing all material facts of the case to
counsel, In order to render his advise a good defense to
an action for malicious prosecution. — Smith v. Walter,
Penn., 17 Atl. Rep. 466.

1\*. Malicious Prosecution. Sufficiency of infor-
mation under Pen. Code Tex. art. 273, providing pun-
ishment for malicious prosecution. — Dempsey v. State,
Tex., 11 s. W. Rep. 372.

80. Malicious Prosecution The facts herein

held sufficient probable cause to justify defendant in
instituting criminal proceedings. — McDonald v. Atl. cf
Pac. R. R. Co., Ariz., 21 Pac. Rep. 38S.

81. Master and Servant— Negligence. Uuder the

facts where plank fell through elevator injuring plaintiff,
the latter cannot recover either on the ground of neglig
ence of fellow servant or of being assigned to dangerous
work.-^?/ord r. Metcatf, Mich., 42 N. W. Rep. 52.

82. Mortgages— Execution. Proof by a subscrib-

ng witness to a mortgage that he saw^he mortgagor

Digitized by VnOOQlC

\roL. 28.



sign the instromeiit, and aoltnowledKed that h« dM 0D»
is not saffloient proof of its exeontton to anthoHAe ltd
adtnlsiton to record. — Bdwmnfi v. 7%oai, Fla.» 6 South.
Rep. 707.

88. itoSTOAQBS. Where a note And mortgage ate

proTedtohare been destroyed byflre, and their con-
tents are prored wlthontoontradiotlon, it is Immaterial,
on foreclosure, that the mortgage, haying but one Wit-
ness, was not entitled to record. — Coon «. Bottehard,
Mich., 42 N. W. Rep. n,

84. MimtclPAL 00&t>oiUTioNil. A special law,

Hmitihg the time for commencing actiohs against the
city of St. Paul for injuries caused by its negligence,
oonAtrued its hot applicable to statutory actions by the
personal representatives of a deceased person for neg-
ligence causing such death.— MOfftom «. Ody of St. Ptha,
Minn., 42 N. W. Bep. 88.

85. MuHioiPAL OosPOBATioirB. A lattd-owhcr has

a right tb the lateral suppon of the soil in the adjoihing
street, and a city is liable for any damage oocasiohed
by remoVittg this lateral support in grading the street.
-^NtehdU «. OOv o/DtUtOh, Minn., 4i N. W. Rep. 84.

86. &It7lficiPAL Coft^ottltiotrs— public impfoyehiehts.

Undettbe charter of the city of Galvedton, pro-

yidlog that the council, before beginning any street
improyements, shall cause an estimate and report of
the probable cost to be made, the report is a conditioft
precedent to the exercise of the power to order the
work to be done. — Frosh v, Citjf of QaleetMn, Tex., 11 8.
W. Rep. Rep. 403.

87. Mdmicipal CoaAORAtiORS. — A contract by which
a municipal corporation in effect agrees to loan Its
credit to a proposed priyate corporation is forbidden
by Oonst. Tex. art. 11, § 8. — CUy of Clebume v. Brown,
Tex., 11 8. W. Rep. 404.

86. NsouGSNGB. In an action for the death of a

Hreman on defendant's locomotiye, eyldence of decla*
rations of defendant's seryants as to the character of
the engine, which was alleged to have been unsafe,
made since the accident, and not being In contradiction
of the testimony of such seryants, is inadmissible.—iTrie
<f 9r, r. B. Co, V. Smiih, Penn., 17 AU. Rep. 448.

89. Kbgligbngb. A complalht alleging that de-
fendant, being lawfully In possession of plaintiff's side
track, negligently placed a freight-car so near plaiht-
ifl*8 main track that plalbtllTs train collided with H,
whereby its cars were damaged, shows a cause of
action. — Montgomery Otu-IAgM Co. t, Montgomery ^ E.
By. Co., Ala., fi South. Rep. f85.

90. Negliobnob. A person trayeling on a train

which has with it a stock oar carrying horses for him,
his duty under his contract belitg "to feed, water, and
take care of the horses," is not guilty of contributory
negligence from the fact that be was on said car when
he was injtired. If he was on the car in the performance
of this duty.—JIfa. By. <f Ifao. Co. 9, WibgUr, Fla. 6 South.
Rep. 714.

91. NBGUGBNGB— Railroad Companies. Rey. St.

Tex. art. 2899, autborl2lng an action against a railroad
company for injarles causing death, when the death
was caused by the negligence of the proprietor, ot by
*'the unfitness, gross negligence, or carelessdt ss of the
seryants," makes the company liable for gross negli-
gence, and not for ordinary negligence, of seryants. -^
BaHne ^ B. T. By. v. BonUe, Tex., 11 8. W. Rep. 877.

92. NBOLiOBKGB— Eyldence. It was hot error to

receiye eyldence of doubtful admissibility, and auch
was the character of the eyldence showing the high
speed at which the same eugine was habitually run by
the same engineer at the same place, and that he habit-
ually neglected to ring the bell. — ^dpoanoA, etc. By. Co.
V. ftanagom, Oa., 9 8. E. Rep. 471.

98. NBGOTiABLB INSTSUMBITT. In an action on a

- note giyen by the defendant to the plaintiff, a canal
company, for some of its stock, alleged misrepresenta-
tions made by the plaintiff are not ayallable to the
defendant, where he has not elected to rescind the
ontract for the sale of stock, and has not set up any

oounterMslaim f^r damages on aooount of such mia-
reptesentatlohs.— Uppet 8etn Jba^Hin CaMi XJo. v. Boiteh,
Oal., 21 Pac. Rep. 304.

91. Pasbmt ahd Child. ^The law will not imply an

ta$»inp$U by the father of an infant which is in custody
of its mother under a decree of diyoroe malting no pro-
yision for alimony, to pay the mother's second hus-
band toi the infant's support, when the father has
made no demand for the custody of the child, and the
mother's second husband has neyer asked for pay for
its maintenance.—JbAnton v. Onsttd, Mich., 42 N. W. Rep.

96. PAimrBBBHiP. On dissolution of a partnership,

one member assigned all his interest in the firm assets
to }i\B sole copartner, to be by the latter applied to firm
debts. Immediately thereafter the latter oonyeyed all
his property of eyery kind in trust to pay his debts,
with no refetenoe to partnership assets or creditors:
Heidt that such conyeyance was yoid as to partnership
creditors.— GMUtfr v. Hanna, Md., 17 Atl. Rep. 890.

96. PARTinBRSHiP— DlBSOlutiOn.— — Ou dissolution of
a copartnership existing under an agreement, whereby
each member contributed equal capital, and were to
share the profits and losses equally, adyances made by
one partner In excess of the amount agreed to be con-
tributed by him must be repaid to him out of the part-
nership property remaining after paying partnership
debts, before the surplus to be diyided among the
partners, or the loss to be apportioned, can be ascer-
tained.~I/lfenfiim v. Bemhetmer, N. Y., 20 N. E. Rep. 869.

97. PABTNBHBHIP. Plaintiff and W were partners

under an dgreement which proyided that the orlgnal
amount put Into the business, and the amounts re-
ceiyed id the course of business, should be the property
of plaintiff, and that W should receiye as his compen-
sation one- half of the net lirofits : HUd, that this agree-
meht was binding upon defendant, who had full
knowledge of it, and that plaintiff was entitled to re-
coyer of him funds, other than one-half of the profits,
which W had turtaed oyer to him in payment of his own
indiyidual Aebt.—C4mpbeUv. Pence, Ind., 20 N. B. Rep. 840.

98. PATMBNT— Admiuistrators. An oyerpayment

made after the settlement of the estate by ah executor
to a legatee under the mistaken Impression that the
will authorized It, Is not a yoiuntary payment, and may
be recoyered.— j&yte v. SUer, if. Oar., 9 8. E. Rep. 491.

99. Pleading— Corporations. An allegation as to

the corporate existence df a defendant may be btated
In the complaint independently of a cause of action,
and is no part of it.— Weet v. Bureka Imp, Co., lilnu., 42 N.
W. Rep. 87.

100. Pleading. When a defendant demurs to a

complaint and the court oyerrules such demur, and
the defendant refuses %o further plead, and the court
renders Judgment against him, he waiyes the right to
urge thereafter such dilatory matter as an omission to
allege the county or yenue in the complaint in repleyln.
M€urx V, OroiMon, Oreg., 21 Pac. Rep. 810.

101. Pbagtigb in CiyiL Cases. ^ in Arizona, an in-

yolontary nonsuit is not proper under Rey. St. Ariz. §
764, proyiding that at any time before the Jury haye re-
tired the plaintiff may take a nonsuit, but he shall not
thereby prejudice the right of an adyerse party to be
heard on his own claim for afflrmattye relief. — Bryan v,
Phmey, Ariz., 21 Pac. Rep. 862»

102. Railroad Companibs. A elalm by the eon

Online LibraryAugustus John Cuthbert HareThe Central law journal, Volume 28 → online text (page 142 of 151)