Irving Browne Isaac Grant Thompson.

The American reports: containing all decisions of general ..., Volume 36 online

. (page 107 of 123)
Online LibraryIrving Browne Isaac Grant ThompsonThe American reports: containing all decisions of general ..., Volume 36 → online text (page 107 of 123)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

ments after maturity.

Cited in notes in 3 L.R.A. 759, on effect of transfer of note after maturity;
46 L.R.A. 804, 805 on demand and notice to charge indorser of negotiable paper
after maturity.

Presentment of Joint note.

Cited in note in 36 L.R.A. 704, on presentment to joint makers to hold indorsers
of note.

Demand of payment by mail.

Cited in Cloez v. Miracle, 103 Iowa, 198, 72 N. W. 502, holding that mailing
letter demanding payment is not such demand of maker as will charge an in-
dorser of the note.
Evidence to prove fact of agency.

Cited in Heusinkweld v. St. Paul F. A M. Ins. Co. 106 Iowa, 229, 76 N. W.
696; Burke v. Frye, 44 Neb. 223, 62 N. W. 476,— holding that fact of agency can-
not be established by declarations of one assuming to act as agent, without other
proof; O'Leary v. German- American Ins. Co. 100 Iowa, 390, 69 N. W. 686;
Nostrom v. Halliday, 39 Neb. 828, 68 N. W. 429,— holding the same but that the
testimony of such agent is admissible to prove fact of agency.
Implied authority of agent.

Cited in Stoll v. Sheldon, 13 Neb. 207, 13 N. W. 201, holding that agent en-
ployed to make collections has no implied authority to release surety on note
without payment thereof.

36 AM. REP. 251, TURNER v. WEBSTER, 24 KAN. 88.

Recovery for services where contract fails on account of mntnal mis-

Cited in Farrell v. Dooley, 17 111. App. 66; Russell v. Qough, 71 N. H. 177,
93 A. S. R. 607, 51 Atl. 632, — holding that one who performs services under such
contract may recover reasonable compensation; Union Hosiery Co. v. Hodgson,
72 N. H. 427, 57 Atl. 384, on same point; United States Coal Co. v. Pinkerton,
95 C. C. A. 34, 169 Fed. 530, holding that modification of contract cannot be made
without mutuality of consent; Wright v. Broome, 67 Mo. App. 32, holding that

Digitized by



person is entitled to recover quantum meruit where they were performed under
misunderstanding as to price.

Cited in note in 26 L.R.A.(N.S.) 811, on quantum meruit for services performed
or material furnished imder contract invalid because minds of parties did not
meet as to terms.

36 AM. REP. 254, SMITH t. ROGERS, 24 KAN. 140.
Relation existing between stepfather and stepchild admitted into his

Cited in Livingston v. Hammond, 162 Mass. 375, 38 N. E. 968, denying right
of stepfather to recover for maintenance of stepchild taken into his family;
State V. Kavanaugh, 133 Mo. 452, 33 S. W. 33; Hennessey v. Bavarian Brewing
Co. 63 Mo. App. Ill,— on relation existing between stepfather and stepchild
admitted into his family.

Cited in note in 53 A. D. 346, on stepparents' right to compensation for support,
etc., of stepchildren.

Parent's duty to support child.

Cited in note in 57 L.R.A. 729, on parent's duty to support child as affected by
child's interest in trust estate.

36 AM. REP. 257, STATE ▼. WIIiSON, 24 KAN. 18».
Dying declarations as evidence.

Cited in State v. Phillips, 118 Iowa, 660, 92 N. W. 876, holding declarations
not admissible as "dying declarations" in the absence of evidence to show belief
in impending death; State v. Knoll, 69 Kan. 767, 77 Pac. 880, holding dying
declarations admissible as such only where made under sense of impending death
with no hope of recovery at time when made; Foley v. State, 11 Wyo. 464, 72
Pac. 627, on inadmissibility of written memorandum of statements made as dying
declarations, when written down by physician in attendance and sworn to by
him; State v. Roberts, 28 Nev. 350, 82 Pac. 100, holding that declarations may
be admissible as dying declarations, though declarant may not have said that he
was without hope of recovery.

Cited in reference notes in 25 A. S. R. 726; 40 A. S. R. 414, — on admissibility
of dying declarations; 61 A. S. R. 889, on admissibility in criminal trial of evi-
dence of deceased witness.

Cited in notes in 11 E. R. C. 307, 308, on admissibility of dying declarations;
56 L.R.A. 424, on necessity of writing to admissibility of dying declarations;
56 L.R.A. 433, on dying declarations when there is other evidence of same facts;
56 L.R.A. 416, on sending for priest, etc., as evidence of mental and physical
condition of one whose dying declarations are offered in evidence; 40 L. ed. U.
8. 533, 534, on dying declarations.
— Evidence as to sense of impending death.

Cited in People v. Buettner, 233 111. 272, 84 N. E. 218, holding that fact that
declarant has called for and received the last sacrament is strong evidence of
belief in impending death.
Admissibility of evidence of testimony at former trial.

Cited in State v. Nelson, 68 Kan. 506, 75 Pac. 505, 1 A. & E. Ann, Gas. 468,
holding evidence of testimony given by witness who has since left the state, ad-
missible in criminal prosecution; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Osborn, 64 Kan.

Digitized by



187, 91 A. S. R. 189, 67 Pac 547, holding same in civil case; Gilmore t. Butts,
61 Kan. 316, 59 Pac. 645, on same point; Mattox v. United States, 156 U. S.
237, 39 L. ed. 409, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 337; State v. Gushing, 17 Wash. 544, 50 Pat
512, — ^holding evidence of testimony given by deceased witness at a former trial
admissible in criminal prosecution; Cline v. State, 36 Tex. Grim. Rep. 320, 61
A. S. R. 850, 37 S. W. 722 (dissenting opinion), on same point.

Cited in note in 25 L.R.A.(N.S.) 872, on admissibility in criminal trial of
testimony given upon preliminary examination by witnesses not available at

Distinguished in State v. Conway, 56 Kan. 682, 44 Pac. 627, holding evidence
of testimony of witness at former trial, who has since been sent to prison for
a term of years, not admissible.
Right to have counsel to assist county attorney in criminal prosecution.

Cited in Thalheim v. State, 38 Fla. 169, 20 So. 938; State v. Lighe, 27 Mont.
327, 71 Pac 3; Polin v. State, 14 Neb. 540, 16 N. W. 898,— holding that counsel
employed and paid by private parties may assist county attorney in prosecution
of criminal case; Eldridge v. State, 27 Fla, 162, 9 So. 448, on same point; State
V. Smith, 50 Kan. 69, 31 Pac. 784, holding it not to be error to permit private
counsel to make closing argument for state in criminal prosecution; State v.
Wells, 54 Kan. 161, 37 Pac. 1005, holding it not to be error for county attorney
to permit counsel employed by private parties to make opening statement to jury
in criminal prosecution; State v. Kent, 4 N. D. 577, 27 L.R.A. 686, 62 N. W. 631,
holding it not error to allow nonresident attorney employed by private parties to
assist in prosecution of criminal case; Wood v. State, 92 Ind. 269; Tull v. State,
99 Ind. 238; State v. Tyler, 122 Iowa, 125, 97 N. W. 983,— holding that court
may appoint attorney to assist in prosecution of criminal case.

Cited in note in 24 L.R.A. ( N.S. ) 565, on right to complain because prosecution
is conducted or assisted by unofficial member of bar.

Disapproved in Biemel v. State, 71 Wis. 444, 37 N. W. 244, holding that counsel
paid by private parties should not be permitted to aid the county attorney in
prosecution of criminal offense.

36 AM. RJEP. 259, SWITZGR t. WILVERS, 24 KAN. 884.
Implied authority of agent appointed to buy or sell.

Cited in Morris v. Ewing, 8 N. D. 99, 76 N. W. 1D47, holding that power of
attorney to sell and convey land does not include power to mortgage; Campbell
V. Foster, 163 Pa.. 609, 43 A. S. R. 818, 26 L.R.A. 117, 30 Atl. 222, on saifle
point; Kiefer v. Klinsick, 144 Ind. 46, 42 N. E. 447 (affirming 13 Ind. App. 253,

37 N. E. 1048), holding that general agent with power to buy goods on credit and
retail the same has no implied power to mortgage the entire stock of goods;
Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Moline Plow Co. 13 Ind. App. 225, 41 N. E.
480, holding that agent for transfer and storage of goods has no power to sell.

Cited in reference note in 25 A. S. R. 619, on power to sell not including power
to mortgage.

Cited in note in 50 A. R. 548, on power of executor to mortgage estate under
authority to sell, exchange, and dispose of it.
Execution of power of sale.

Cited in Arlington State Bank v. Paulsen, 57 Neb. 717, 78 N. W. 303, hold-
ing that power of sale under will must be strictly pursued and executed accor*i-
ing to the manifest intent of testator; Brown v. Farmers' Loan A T. Ca 51

Digitized by



Hun, 386, 4 N. Y. Supp. 422, on right to mortgage property held under devise
with power to sell.

36 AM. RCP. 261, HI31RIMAN t. SHOMOX, 24 KAN. S87.
Power of attorney at law to bind his client. »

Cited in Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Pavey, 57 Kan. 521, 46 Pac. 969, hoMing
client bound by stipulation of his attorney for a continuance upOn certain con-

Distinguished in Bonnifield v. Thorp, 71 Fed. 924, holding that stipulation as
to time of answering made by plaintiff himself with attorneys of defendant
may be disregarded where plaintiff is represented by attorney.

— As to release or discharge of claims.

Cited in Rounsaville v. Hazen, 33 Kan. 71, 6 Pac. 422, holding that attorney has
no power to release judgment in favor of his client before it is satisfied; Barr
V. Rader, 31 Or. 225, 49 Pac. 962, holding that attorney at law has no power
to accept anything other than money in satisfaction of a judgment in favor of
his client.

Cited in note in 76 A. D. 260, on effect of payment to attorney.
Power of collecting agent.

Cited in Bank of Kansas City v. Mills, 24 Kan. 604, holding that agent for
collection of draft has no power to accept anything other than money in pay-

86 AM. REP. 262, FRAK£R ▼. LITTIiE, 24 KAN. 698. .

Recovery of money volantarlly paid under mistake.

Cited in Lyle v. Shinnebarger, 17 Mo. App. 66, holding that money voluntarily
paid under mistake may be recovered back though payer may have been negligent
is not inquiring into the facts before making payment; Douglas County v.
Keller, 43 Neb. 635, 62 N. W. 60, holding that in suit for recovery of money
voluntarily paid under mistake, plaintiff is not chargeable with notice though
he had knowledge of facts from which they might have obtained notice.

— Payment of altered note in ignorance.

Cited in reference note in 36 A. R. 505, on right of accommodation milker to
recover money paid on altered note.

Distinguished in First National Bank v. Laughlin, 4 N. D. 391, 61 N. W.
473, holding that money paid upon note void for material alteration cannot be
recovered back where note was given for a valid debt.

86 AM. REP. 264, CUMMINS v. HEAIiD, 24 KAN. 600.
Liiability of one holding a note for collection for acts of subagents.

Cited in First Nat. Bank v. Craig, 3 Kan. App. 166, 42 Pac. 830, holding that
bank taking note for collection is liable for money collected thereon by agent em-
ployed by bank to collect it.

Cited in notes in 50 A. S. R. 115, on liability of attorney on claim forwarded
to another for collection; 34 A. D. 315, on liability of collecting bank for
negligence of notaries, correspondents, etc; 50 A. S. R. 124, as to whom sub-
agent is accountable.

Am. Rep. Vol. XVn.— 69.

Digitized by



Liability of attorney to client.

Cited in note in 22 L. ed. U. S. 484, on attorney's liability to client for Bcgli-

36 AM. REP. 267, THIELMAN ▼. GUEBIiE, 82 LA. ANN. 260.
Time for presentment and demand of demand note.

Cited in Turner v. Iron Chief Min. Co. 74 Wis. 355, 17 A. S. R. 168, 5 LJLA.
533, 43 N. W. 149, holding demand and protest within reasonable time neces-
sary to hold accomodation indorser of interest bearing demand note and that
delay of fen months is unreasonable; Home Sav. Bank v. Hosie, 119 Mich, 116.
77 N. W. 625; Harrisburg Nat. Bank v. Reily, 24 Pa. Co. Ct. 113, 3 DaupK
Co. Rep. 75, 10 Pa. Dist. R. 25, — holding the same and that delay of thirtj
three months was unreasonable; Leonard v. Olsen, 99 Iowa, 162, 61 A. S. R
230, 35 L.R.A. 381, 68 N. W. 677, holding the same and that ten years is not
a reasonable time.

Cited in reference notes in 42 A. R. 250, on laches in presenting note; 7 A
S. R. 648, on effect of laches in presenting negotiable instrument.

Cited in note in 28 L. d. U. S. 1045, as to when notes payable on demand must
be presented to hold indorser.
Effect of indorsement by stranger to note.

Cited in Redden v. Lambert, 112 La. 740, 36 So. 668, on presumption that
stranger indorsing commercial paper thereby becomes a surety.
Nature of demand notes payable with interest.

Cited in note in 80 A. D. 252, on nature of notes payable on demand witb

86 AM. REP. 272, STATE v. WILLIAMS, .32 LA. ANN. 885.
SulHciency of indictment in words synonymous with statute.

Cited in State v. Brown, 41 La. Ann. 345, 6 So. 541, holding that an indict-
ment is sufficient though a word not in the statute is substituted for one in
the statute where word substituted is equivalent to, or includes word in stat-
ute; State V. Hauser, 112 La. 313, 36 So. 396, on same point; State v. Rohn.
140 Iowa, 640, 119 N. W. 88, holding that indictment charging assault upon
female is not defective because word "violently" was used instead of "forcibly."

Cited in reference note in 83 A. S. R. 785, on sufficiency of indictment for

86 AM. REP. 274, STATE T. WRIGHT, 82 LA. ANN. 1017.
Forfeiture of right of appeal by escape and flight of accused.

Cited in Warwick v. State, 73 Ala, 486, 49 A. R. 59; State v. Murrell, 33
S. C. 83, 11 S. E. 682, — holding that a fugitive from justice can not maintain
an appeal from his conviction; State v. Port Royal & A. R. Co. 45 S. 0. 413,
23 S. £. 363 (dissenting opinion), on the same point.

Cited in notes in 41 A. D. 273, on right to appeal while a fugitive from
justice; 44 A. R. 88, on right of escaped convicted prisoner, not on bail, to be
heard in appeal; 26 L.R.A. (N.S.) 922, on effect of escape on appeal from con-
— Dismissal of appeal.

Cited in Allen v. Georgia, 166 U. S. 138, 41 L. ed. 949. 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 525,

Digitized by



holding that dismissal by state court j>f appeal from conviction by one who
has escaped and is a fugitive from justice is not a denial of due process of
law under constitution; State v. Edwards, 36 La. Ann. 863; State v. Porter,
41 La. Ann. 402, 6 So. 337; State v. Craighead, 44 La. Ann. 968, 11 So. 629,—
dismissing appeal where appellant had broken jail and. escaped while appeal was

86 AM. REP. 276, SCHNEIDER v. ^TNA L. INS. CO. 32 LA. ANN.

Betnrn day of commission to take evidence as controlling date of trial.

Cited in Wetta v. New Orleans & C. R. Co. 107 La. 383, 31 So. 776, holding
that fixing return day of eomnfission to take evidence does not of itself necessi-
tate the continuance of the case until the return day fixed.

86 AM. REP. 278, KINGSBURY v. WHITAKER, 82 LA. ANN. 1055.
Mental unsoundness as affecting wills and deeds.

Cited in Seawel v. Dirst, 70 Ark. 166, 66 S. W. 1068, holding that to invali-
date conveyance for insanity of grantor it must be shown that insanity was
such as to prevent intelligent comprehension of matters relating thereto; Re
Ayers, 84 Neb. 16, 120 N. W. 491, holding that partial insanity does not neces-
sarily disqualify testator from making valid will.

Cited in reference notes in 36 A. R. 428, on belief in spiritualism as affecting
testamentary capacity; 44 A. S. R. 687, on effect of partial insanity on testa-
mentary capacity.

Cited in notes in 61 A. D. 86, on belief in witchcraft as evidence of testamen-
tary incapacity; 44 A. S. R. 687, on effect of insane delusions on testamentary
capacity; 37 L.R.A. 266, on necessity that insane delusions be connected with
act in question; 37 L.R.A. 278, on insane delusions as to misconduct of heirs;
61 A. D. 84; 27 L.R.A.(N.S.) 56, 69, 86, — on what is testamentary capacity.
— Intermittent insanity.

Cited in Wood v. Salter, 118 La. 695, 43 So. 281, holding that where will is
drawn by testator himself and shows no indication of unsoundness of mind, the
presumption is that it was made during a lucid interval; Jacobs's Succession,
109 La. 1012, 34 So. 59; Jones's Succession, 120 La. 986, 46 So. 965,— sus-
taining will though testatrix may have been insane at times but testimony
showed at least lucid intervals; Bey's Succession, 46 La. Ann. 773, 24 L.R.A.
677, 15 So. 297, holding that test as to making a will is whether testator at the
time was of sufficiently sane mind to fully understand the nature and effect
of the testamentary act; Godden v. Burke, 35 La. Ann. 160, on same point.
Presumption and burden of proof of testator's insanity.

Cited in reference note in 52 A. R. 322, on burden of proving testator's

Cited in note in 41 A. R. 686, on presumptions as to sanity of testator.

86 AM. REP. 298, STATE v. TRIVAS, 82 LA. ANN. 1086.
Dying declarations as evidence.

Cited in State v. Daniels, 115 La. 59, 38 So. 894, holding dying declaration
not admissible unless made under sense of impending death with no hope of
recovery; State v. Keenan, 38 La. Ann. 660, holding dying declarations admis-
sible if made under sense of impending dissolution which soon after tran-

Digitized by



spires; State v. Molisse, 36 La. Ann. 920, on same point; State y. Xewbouae,
39 La. Ann. 862, 2 So. 799; State v. Sadler, 51 La. Ann. 1397, 26 So. 390,—
holding dying declarations admissible when made under sense of approaching
death, though it does not appear that declarant expected he would die im-
mediately; State V. Jones, 47 La. Ann. 1524, 18 So. 615, holding that aa founda-
tion for admission of dying declarations it need only be shown that they were
made under a sense of impending death which took place soon after; State t.
Peace, 121 La. 1071, 47 So. 28; State v. Black, 42 La. Ann. 861, 8 So. 594,—
holding that a dying declartion must go to the jury in its entirety; State v.
Burt, 41 La. Ann. 787, 6 L.R.A. 79, 6 So. 631, on dying declarations as eridence;
People V. Buettner, 233 111. 272, 84 N. E. 218, on desire for last rites of ehurci
as evidence of belief in impending death as affecting admissibility of dying

Cited in reference note in 40 A. S. R. 414, on admissibility of dying declar-
ations question for court.

Cited in notes in 56 L.R.A. 382, on sense of impending death or reaffirmanee
as condition of admissibility of dying declarations; 56 L.R.A. 416, on sending
for priest, etc., as evidence of mental and physical condition of one whose
dying declarations are offered in evidence; 56 L.R.A. 417, on arranging busi-
ness as evidence of mental and physical condition of one whose dying declara-
tions are offered in evidence; 56 L.R.A. 441, on question for court or jury as
to dying declarations; 40 L. ed. U. S. 534, on dying declarations.
— Manner and forni of making.

Cited in State v. Carter, 106 La. 407, 30 So. 895, holding dying declarations
admissible though sworn to, and though some of the statements standing alone
would be inadmissible; State v. Somnier, 33 La. Ann. 237, holding parol evi-
dence of dying declarations admissible; State v. Parham, 48 La. Ann. 1309,
20 So. 727, holding dying delcaration made to and written down by attend-
ing physician, signed by declarant and signature attested by justice of the
peace, admissible in evidence.

Cited in notes in 86 A. S. R. 645, on form of dying declaration as deter-
mining admissibility: 56 L.R.A. 429, on dying declarations made in answer
to questions.
Presumption of malice in homicide.

Cited in State v. Wright, 46 La. Ann. 1403, 16 So. 366, on presumption of
malice in homicide.
Evidence admissible as defense in prosecution for homicide.

Cited in Leonard v. Territory, 2 Wash. Terr. 381, 7 Pac. 872, holding evi-
dence tending to fix the crime on some one else admissible in defense in
prosecution for homicide.
— Intoxication as defense.

Cited in State v. Hogan, 117 La. 863, 42 So. 352, on drunkenness as de-
fense to prosecution for homicide; State v. Wilson, 124 La. 82, 49 So. 986,
to point that instruction as to intoxication as defense to crime m\ist state
on account of what particular feature of case that defense is admissible.
Intoxication as defense to crime generally.

Cited in notes in 40 A. R. 560, on drunkenness as excuse foj crime; 36
L.R.A. 468, as to when intoxication may be shown in excuse for crime;
8 E. R, C. 56. on intoxication as defense to crime.

Digitized by



Review of findings of trial court in criminal prosecution.

Cited in State v. Briggs, 34 La. Ann. 69; State v. Nash, 45 La. Ann.
1137, 13 So. 732; State v. Martin, 50 La. Ann. 1157, 24 So. 590; State v.
Harper, 61 La. Ann. 163, 72 A. S. R. 454, 24 So. 796,— holding that appel-
late court has power to review rulings of trial judge on question of law
mixed with fact when testimony upon which such rulings are based is made
part of the record upon appeal; State ex rel. Haab v. Moise, 104 La. 63, 28
So. 902, holding that only such evidence as is included in the transcript can
be considered upon appeal; State v. Seiley, 41 La. Ann. 143, 6 So. 573, hold-
ing that accused has right to have testimony on collateral issue reduced to
writing so as to have it annexed to bill of exceptions upon appeal from ruling
of trial court.
New trial for erroneous instructions.

Cited in note in 52 A. D. 603, on right to new trial for erroneous instruc-

36 AM. RSP. 299, MURPHT ▼. ADAMS, 71 ME. 113.

Assignability of liens and priorities.

Cited in Duncan v. Hawn, 104 Cal. 10, 37 Pac. 626; Kent v. Muscatine, N.
& S. R. Co. 115 Iowa, 383, 88 N. W. 935; Falconio v. Larsen, 31 Or. 137, 37
L.R.A. 254, 48 Pac. 703, — holding the preferential claim for wages of laborers
given by statute is assignable; Midland R. Co. v. Wilcox, 122 Ind. 84, 23 N.
E. 506; Wiley v. Connelly, 179 Mass. 360, 60 N. E. 784; McDonald v. Kelly,
14 R. I. 335, — holding a mechanics' lien assignable; Sibley ▼. Pine County, 31
Minn. 201, 17 N. W. 337, holding same in case of lien of attorney for compen-
sation upon a judgment; Union Slate Co. v. Tilton, 73 Me. 207, on the as-
signability of mechanics' lien.

Cited in notes in 49 A. S. R. 531, on assignability of perfected mechanics'
lien; 21 L. ed. U. S. 969, as to when a lien or right to a lien is assignable.
Right to maintain action in name of assignor of lien.

Cited in Phillips v. Vose, 81 Me. 134, 16 Atl. 463; Brogan v. McEachern, 103
Me. 198, 68 Atl. 822; McDonald v. Kelly, 14 R. I. 335,— holding assignee of
mechanics' lien might properly maintain action on in name of assignor.
When trover is maintainable.

Cited in note in 66 A. D. 274, on what is necessary to maintain trover.

36 AM. REP. 303, WYMAN ▼. LEAVITT, 71 BfE. 227.
Mental ang^nlsh as an element of damages.

Cited in Linn v. Duquesne, 204 Pa. 551, 93 A. S. R. 800, 54 Atl. 341, hold-
ing mental suffering could not be allowed as an element of damages in an
action for personal injury where not part of actual injury but arising after-
wards from regret, dissapointment or anxiety; St. Louis, I. M. 4s S. R. Co. v.
Taylor, 84 Ark. 42, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 169, 104 S. W. 551; Kalen v. Terre Haute k
I. R. Co. 18 Ind. App. 202, 63 A. S. R. 343, 47 N. E. 694; Lewis v. Western
U. Teleg. Co. 57 S. C. 325, 35 S. E. 556,— holding damages could not be re-
-covered for mental suffering disconnected with and in absence of physicial
suffering; Chase v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 10 L.R.A. 464, 44 Fed. 554; Western
U. Teleg. *Co. v. Wood, 21 L.R.A. 706, 6 C. C. A. 432, 13 U. S. App. 317, 57
Fed. 471; International Ocean Teleg. Co. v. Saimders, 32 Fla. 434, 21 L.R.A.
SIO, 14 So. 148; Chapman v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 88 Ga. 763, 30 A. S. R.

Digitized by



183, 17 L.R.A. 430, 15 S. K 901; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Rogers, 68 Hiss.
748, 24 A. S. R. 300, 13 L.R.A. 869, 9 So. 823; Connell v. Western U. Teleg.
Co. 116 Mo. 34, 38 A. S. R. 575, 20 L.R.A. 172, 22 S. W. 345; Newman t.
Western U. Teleg. Co. 54 Mo. App. 434, — holding same where caused by non-
delivery of telegram, there being no physical damage; Western U. Teleg. Co. ▼.
Sklar, 61 C. C. A. 281, 126 Fed. 295; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Wilson, 93
Ala. 32, 30 A. S. R. 23, 9 So. 414; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Ferguson, 157 Ind.
64, 54 L.R.A. 846, 60 N. E. 674; Butner v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 2 Okla. 234,

Online LibraryIrving Browne Isaac Grant ThompsonThe American reports: containing all decisions of general ..., Volume 36 → online text (page 107 of 123)