Irving Browne Isaac Grant Thompson.

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

. (page 118 of 123)
Online LibraryIrving Browne Isaac Grant ThompsonThe American reports: containing all decisions of general ..., Volume 36 → online text (page 118 of 123)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


privilege, and citing annotation also on this point.
Privileged nature of communication as question for court.

Cited in Griffiths v. Metropoliten Street R. Co. 171 N. Y. 106, 63 N. E.
808, 33 N. Y. Civ. Proc. Rep. 106, holding question as to privilege of physician
is for court.

— Aj9 to privilege of attorneys.

Cited in Kitz v. Buckmaster, 46 App. Div. 283, 61 N. Y. Supp. 64; People
V. Hess, 8 App. Div. 143, 40 N. Y. Supp. 486, — holding question is for court on
facts appearing; McDonald v. McDonald, 142 Ind. 65, 41 N. E. 336, on same
point.

Privileged communications generally.

Cited in reference notes* in 1 A. S. R. 671, on what are privileged communi-
cations; 66 A. S. R. 213, on confidential communications.

S6 AM. REP. 634, YOUNG v. YOUNG, 80 N. Y. 428.
Gift of choses in action.

Cited in Hopkins v. Manchester, 16 R. I. 663, 7 L.R.A. 387, 19 Atl, 243,
holding inter vivos gift of note may be made by delivery without indorsement;
Brunn v. Schuett, 69 Wis. 260, 48 A. R. 499, 18 N. W. 260, holding a release
of an indebtedness, retained until death, was ineffective as a gift; Slee v.
Kings County Sav. Inst. 78 App. Div. 534, 79 N. Y. Supp. 630, holding a
deposit in name of husband and wife and subsequent taking of the book by
wife did not constitute gift; Telford v. Patton, 144 111. 611, 33 N. E. 1119,
holding mere fact oi deposit to credit of another does not justify finding that
gift was intended; Montignani v. Blade, 145 N. Y. Ill, 39 N. E. 719, on
ineffectiveness of a certain unexecuted transaction as a gift.

Cited in notes in 39 A. R. 311, on effect of deposit of money in bank in name
of another as gift or trust; 11 L.R.A. 686, on deposit of money as gift; 21
L.R.A. 693, 695, on undelivered written transfer of property as a gift by un-
sealed instrument; 12 E. R. C. 435, on sufficiency of gift inter vivos.

Distinguished in Hutchins v. Van Vechten, 66 Hun, 69, 20 N. Y. Supp.
761, where no question as to gifts was involved.

— Declarations of memorandums of purpose of disposal at death.

Cited in Millard v. Clark, 7 Misc. 366, 27 N. Y. Supp. 631, holding memo-
randum on bonds and mortgages as to their disposition at death was in-
effective as a gift; Keyl v. Westerhaus, 42 Mo. App. 49, holding blank indorse-
ment of note and execution of power of attorney to collect and pay proceeds
to church in case of death was ineffective as a gift inter vivos.

Delivery as requisite of gift.

Referred to as leading case in Gannon v. McGuire, 22 App. Div. 43, 47 N. Y.
Supp. 870; Re Taber, 30 Misc. 172, 63 N. Y. Supp. 728,— holding delivery with
intention to give is absolutely necessary.

Cited in Williams v. Guile, 117 N. Y. 343, 6 L.R.A. 366, 22 N. E. 1071 (af-
firming 46 Hun, 645), holding present right to property must be. parted with;
Tyrrel v. Emigrant Industrial Sav. Bank, 77 App. Div. 131, 79 N. Y. Supp.
49; Matson v. Abbey, 70 Hun, 476, 24 N. Y. Supp. 284; Simpson v. Harris,
21 Nev. 353, 31 Pac. 1009; Re Paris, 16 Misc. 405, 39 N. Y. Supp. 722,— hold-



Digitized by



Google



36 AM. REP.] NOTES ON AMERICAN REPORTS. 1168

ing delivery, divesting title and possession, essential; Re Timerson, 39 Misc.
676, 80 N. Y. Supp. 639; Earner v. Sidway, 57 Hun, 229, 11 N. Y. Supp. 382;
Beaver v. Beaver, 117 N. Y. 421, 16 A. S. R. 531. 6 L.R.A. 403, 22 N. E. 940,—
holding proof of clear intention to make gift does not dispense with necessity
of delivery; Williams v. Chamberlain, 165 111. 210, 46 N. E. 250; Johnson v.
Williams, 63 How. Pr. 233; Dickeschied v. Exchange Bank, 28 W. Va. 340;
Kirk V. McCusker, 3 Misc. 277, 22 N. Y. Supp. 780,— holding delivery es-
sential in either a gift causa mortis or in a gift inter vivos; Pritcbard v.
Hirt, 39 Hun, 378, holding delivery with intent to give essential in a gift
inter vivos; Boon v. Castle, 61 Misc. 474, 115 N. Y. Supp. 583, holding that
to constitute valid gift there must be renunciation by donor and acquisition
by donee of all interest in and title to subject of gift; Clay v. Layton, 134
Mich. 317, 96 N. W. 458; Robb v. Washington & J. College, 185 N. Y. 485,
78 N. E. 359, — on delivery as an element in gifts.

Cited in reference note in 38 A. R. 326, on sufficient delivery of gift.

Cited in notes in 34 A. S. R. 213, 214, on effect of retention of subject of
settlement; 21 L.R.A. 695, on sufficiency of delivery of written transfer or
assignment of property as a gift.

Distinguished in McElroy v. Albany Sav. Bank, 8 App. Div. 46, 40 N. Y.
Supp. 422, where a deposit by husband to credit of wife, or himself or the
survivor was held effective without delivery.

— Where donor executes writing.

Cited in Liebe v. Battmann, 33 Or. 241, 72 A. S. R. 705, 54 Pac 179,
holding necessity of delivery not avoided by declaration of gift in writing.

— Sufficiency of delivery.

Cited in Brown v. Crafts, 98 Me. 40, 56 Atl. 213, holding delivery of a gift
was rendered ineffective by donee's execution of power of attorney giving donor
control during his life; Re Rose, 35 Misc. 21, 71 N. Y. Supp. 172, holding de-
livery, not to be operative until death, was ineffectual; Pope v. Burlington
Sav. Bank, 56 Vt. 284, 48 A. R. 781, holding transfer cannot rest in mere
intention; Millard v. Millard, 123 111. App. 264; Rosenburg v. Rosenburg,
40 Hun, 91; Matthews v. Hoagland, 48 N. J. Eq. 455, 21 Atl. 1054; Re Mun-
son, 25 Misc. 686, 56 N. Y. Supp. 151, — holding all title must pass absolutely
and without retention of dominion in a gift inter vivos; De Puy v. Stevens,

37 App. Div. 289, 55 N. Y. Supp. 810, holding actual or constructive delivery
with intent to divest all dominion essential in a gift inter vivos; O'Gara's
Estate, 15 N. Y. S. R. 737, holding all possession and dominion over subject of
gift causa mortis must be parted with; Conway's Estate, 18 Lane L. Rev.
129, to point that to effect gift title must pass out of donor in his lifetime.

Distinguished in Loucks v. Johnson, 70 Hun, 565, 24 N. Y. Supp. 267;
Re Bullard, 37 Misc. 663, 76 N. Y. Supp. 309, — where there was an actual
delivery; Re Townsend, 5 Dem. 147, where there were acts equivalent to a
delivery.
~ Where gift is to member of family.

Cited in West v. McCullough, 123 App. Div. 846, 108 N. Y. Supp. 493
(dissenting opinion), on nonrelaxation of rules in cases of gifts between
spouses.

— Delivery to agent or Intermediary.

Cited in Hurlbut v. Hurlbut, 49 Hun, 189, 1 N. Y. Supp. 854, denying that
delivery had to be made directly to d(Hiee; Bump v. Pratt, 84 Hun, 201, 32 N.



Digitized by



Google



1169 NOTES ON AMERICAN REPORTS. [634

Y. Supp. 638, holdiug delivery of bonds to third person for a donee was ef-
fective in a gift inter vivos; Luther v. Hunter, 7 N. D. 544, 75 N. W. 916,
holding delivery to third person, without instruction or statements ineffec-
tive in gift inter vivos.

— Effect of creating a Joint possession.

Cited in Kelly v. Home Sav. Bank, 44 Misc. 102, 89 N. Y. Supp. 776, hold-
ing gift not established by making of deposit in names of both parties.

— Effect of declarations by donor as to ownership.

Cited in Porter v. Gardner, 60 Hun, 671, 16 N. Y. Supp. 398, holding declara-
tions as to ownership of article in possession of donee at time of gift justified
inference of delivery.
Necessity that gift be in prsesenti.

Cited in McCartney v. Ridgway, 160 111. 129, 32 L.R.A. 655, 43 N. E. 826 (af-
firming 67 m. App. 453 ) , holding gift inter vivos cannot be made to take effect in
possession in futuro; Krummel v. Thomas, 5 Misc. 635, 26 N. Y. Supp. 833, hold-
ing gift inter vivos must be accompanied by delivery in prasenti.
<jrifts reserving interest to accrue.

Cited with special approval in Buswell v. Fuller, 156 Mass. 309, 31 N. E.
294, holding gift cannot be effected if donor retains possession in order to col-
lect interest.

Cited in Beatty v. Western College, 177 111. 280, 69 A. S. R. 242 42 L.R.A. 797,
52 N. E. 432, holding reservation of annuity to donor did not invalidate an execu-
ted gift; Ackerman v. Herrick, 71 Hun, 190, 24 N. Y. Supp. 606, holding gift may
be effected by delivery of indorsed bank book and donee's agreement to pay inter-
est to donor; Funston v. Twining, 202 Pa. 88, 51 Atl. 736, holding gift may be
effected by absolute delivery of bond and mortgage and donee's agreement to
pay interest to donor; Gallagher v. Donahy, 66 Kan. 341, 69 Pac. 330, holding
that retention of control of notes proposed to be donated, coupled with declara-
tion of payee that interest payments would be expected from payor does not evi-
dence purpose to make gift in prtesenti.

— Written transfer reserving interest to accrue.

Cited with special approval in Durland v. Durland, 83 Hun, 174, 31 N. Y.
£upp. 696, holding an assignment of bonds construed as reserving interest
during life time may be effective as a gift.

Cited in Re Wirt, 6 Dem. 179, holding delivery of an assignment of a mortgage
reserving title to principal and interest for life was ineffective as a gift; Smith
V. Ossipee Valley Ten Cents Sav. Bank, 64 N. H. 228, 10 A. S. R. 400, 9 Atl. 792,
holding deposit in name of daughter with intention to make gift subject to
reservation of interest for life was effective; Sullivan v. Sullivan, 39 App. Div.
99, 56 N. Y. Supp. 693, on effect of a bank deposit, reserving interest during life
and providing for the remainder at death.
Tmsts in choses in action or in money.

Cited in Barker v. Harbeck, 17 N. Y. S. R. 678, 2 N. Y. Supp. 425, holding
money deposited in bank for beneficiary made the depositor a trustee; Todd v.
Vaughan, 90 Hun, 70, 35 N. Y. Supp. 467, holding a trust created by delivery
of money to third person for specified purposes.

Cited in notes in 34 A. S. R. 216, 216, on declarations of trust testamentary in
character; 34 A. S. R. 204, on suflSciency of trustor's declaration of intention
evidenced by ineffectual attempt to assign property; 34 A. S.'R. 206, on voluntary
Am. Rep. Vol. XVn.— 74.



Digitized by



Google



36 AM. REP.] NOTES ON AMERICAN REPORTS. 1170

trusts arising from declaration of trustor; 38 A. R. 501, on validity of payment
by savings bank of deposit in trust, to depositor's administrator.

Explained in Wadd v. Hazleton, 62 Hun, 602, 17 N. Y. Supp. 410, holding
execution of an assignment of bond and mortgage and its delivery to executor
together with declarations established a trust.

— Necessity of vesting of title or equity.

Referred to as a leading case in Pope v. Burlington Sav. Bank, 56 Vt. 284,
48 A. R. 781, holding a deposit merely registered in name of another did not
create trust where there was retention of control and change of entry giving
right to it at death.

Cited in Brown v. Spohr, 180 N. Y. 201, 73 N. E. 14 (affirming 87 App. Div.
522, 84 N. Y. Supp. 995), holding there must be a fund, a trustee and a benefici-
ary designated as well as a delivery or assignment; Paine v. Paine, 28 R. I. 307,
12 L.R.A.(N.S.) 547, 67 Atl. 127, holding that settlor must do every thing es-
sential to make settlement binding; Ridgway v. McCartney, 57 111. App. 453»
holding mere intention to give or transfer does not create a trust; Re Small,
27 App. Div. 438, 50 N. Y. Supp. 341; Connecticut River Sav. Bank v. Albee.
64 Vt. 571, 33 Am. St. Rep. 944, 25 Atl. 487; Pope v. Burlington Sav. Bank, 56
Vt. 284, 48 A. R. 781, — holding act constituting transfer must be consummated;
Montignani v. Blade, 145 N. Y. Ill, 39 N. E. 719, on ineffectiveness of a certain
unexecuted transaction as a trust.

— Postponemeiit of operation till death of settlor.

Cited in Re Walker, 45 N. Y. S. R. 21, 17 N. Y. Supp. 666, holding money,
deposited as a trust for certain beneficiaries, became their property at death;
Brunn v. Schuett, 59 Wis. 260, 48 A. R. 499, 18 N. W. 260, holding a release
of indebtedness, retained until death, did not operate as a trust.

Explained in Phipard v. Phipard, 55 Hun, 433, 8 N. Y. S. R. 728, holding
declarations and memorandum attached to policy created trust in favor of in-
sured's children.
Sufficiency of proof of trust.

Cited in McKee v. Allen, 204 Mo. 655, 103 S. W. 76; Hamer v. Sidway, 57
Hun, 229, 11 N. Y. Supp. 182; Webb's Academy v. Hidden, 118 App. Div. 711,
103 N. Y. Supp. 659; Beaver v. Beaver, 117 N. Y. 421, 15 A. S. R. 531, 6 L.R.A.
403, 22 N. E. 940, — holding explicit declaration or circumstances, showing a
clear intention, essential; Hamilton v. Hall, 111 Mich. 291, 69 N. W. 484;
Clay V. Layton, 134 Mich. 317, 96 N. W. 458; Wadd v. Hazleton, 137 N. Y. 215, 33
A. S. R. 707, 21 L.R.A. 693, 33 N. E. 143; Millard v. Clark, 7 Misc. 366, 27
N. Y. Supp. 631; Re Small, 27 App. Div. 438, 60 N. Y. Supp. 341; Re Crise, 2
Connoly, 59, 7 N. Y. Supp. 202; Butler v. Duprat, 19 Jones & S. 77; Smith's
Estate, 144 Pa. 428, 27 A. S. R. 641, 22 Atl. 916, 28 W. N. C. 565; Leary v. Cor-
vin, 29 Misc. 68, 60 N. Y. Supp. 563, 30 N. Y. Civ. Proc. Rep. 38, - holding acts
or words must be unequivocal; Barry v. Lambert, 98 N. Y. 300, 50 A. R. 677,
holding trust may be created by unequivocal words or acts implying intent to
hold for another; Robb v. Washington & J. College, 185 N. Y. 485, 78 N. E. 359
(modifying 103 App. Div. 327, 93 N. Y. Supp. 92), holding execution and de-
livery of declaration under seal established trust; Connecticut River Sav. Bank
V. Albee, 64 Vt. 571, 26 Atl. 487; Pope v. Burlington Sav. Bank, 56 Vt. 284,
48 A. R. 781, — holding trust may be established by unequivocal declaration by
writing, or by parol; Gegan v. Union Trust Co. 129 App. Div. 184, 113 N. Y.
Supp. 595, to the point that declaration of trust must at least be evinced by acts



Digitized



by Google



1171 NOTES ON AMERICAN REPORTS. [634

that admit of no other interpretation than that such legal right as he retains is

held by him as trustee for donee.

Trust of personalty in possession of donor.

Cited in Miller v. Clark, 40 Fed. 16, holding rule requiring cessation of control
inapplicable.
~ Effect of retaining legal title.

Cited in Locke v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 140 N. Y. 135, 35 N. E. 578,
holding it consistent with creation of trust; Mitchell v. Bilderback, 160
Mich. 483, 124 N. W. 557, holding that to create trust where donor retains
property, words and acts relied upon must be unequivocal.

Cited in notes in 34 A. S. R. 212, on effect of grantor's retention in instru-
ment creating voluntary trust; 12 L.R.A.(N.S.) 662, 654, on sufficiency of dec-
laration to establish voluntary trust where legal title is retained by settler.

Voluntary executory agreements to transfer property.

Cited in Everdell v. Hill, 58 App. Div. 151, 68 N. Y. Supp. 719, holding agree-
ment to make a gift will not be enforced; Norway Sav. Bank v. Merriam, 88
Me. 146, 33 Atl. 840; Bennett v. Littlefield, 177 Mass. 294, 68 N. E. 1011,—
holding same as to agreement for creation of a tnist.

Cited in note in 11 L.R.A, 118; on enforcement of executory voluntary trust.
Defective gifts as predicate for trust.

Cited with special approval in Re Soulard, 141 Mo. 642, 43 S. W. 617,
holding an imperfect gift will not be converted into a trust.

Cited in Norway Sav. Bank v. Merriam, 88 Me. 146, 33 Atl. 840; Matthews
v. Hoagland, 48 N. J. Eq. 455, 21 Atl. 1054, — holding trust will not be built
up from fragments of an incomplete gift; Marcy v. Amazeen, 61 N. H. 131,
60 A. R. 320; Pope v. Burlington Sav. Bank, 66 Vt. 284,M8 A. R. 781; Con-
necticut River Sav. Bank v. Albee, 64 Vt. 671, 25 Atl. 487; Beeman v. Bee-
man, 88 Hun, 14, 34 N. Y. Supp. 484, — ^holding intent to give, ineffective as a
gift cannot be regarded as a trust; Wadd v. Hazleton, 137 N. Y. 215, 33 A.
S. R. 707, 21 L.R.A. 693, 33 N. E. 143; Govin v. De Miranda, 79 Hun, 286,
29 N. Y. Supp. 345; Re King, 61 Misc. 375, 101 N. Y. Supp. 279,— holding
gift defective for want of delivery will not be construed as a declaration of
trust; Allen- West Commission Co. v. Grumbles, 63 C. C. A. 401, 129 Fed. 287,
holding an absolute assignment, defective as a gift, will not be regarded as a
trust; Barnum v. Reed, 136 111. 388, 26 N. E. 672; McCartney v. Ridgway,
160 111. 129, 32 L.R.A. 665, 43 N. E. 826; Godard v. Conrad, 126 Mo. App. 165,
101 S. W. 1108; Millard v. Clark, 7 Misc. 306, 27 N. Y. Supp. 631,— holding
imperfect gift will not be rendered perfect or construed as a declaration of trust;
Devoe v. Lutz, 133 App. Div. 356, 117 N. Y. Supp. 339, holding that trust is
created where husband gives earnings to wife to maintain home and keep re-
mainder for his benefit; Organized Charities Asso. v. Mansfield, 82 Conn. 604,
135 A. S. R. 386, 74 Atl. 781, to point that trust arises where owner of
specific property without making transfer declares that he holds it for donee's
benefit; Ashman's Estate, 223 Pa. 643, 72 Atl. 899; Trubey v. Pease, 240 111.
613, 88 N. E. 1005, 16 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 370, — to point that incomplete gift
cannot be enforced as declaration of trust.

Distinguished in Harris Bkg. Co. v. Miller, 190 Mo. 640, 1 L.R.A.(N.S.)
790, 89 S. W. 629, holding inability to establish a perfect gift does not neces-
sarily preclude proof of a valid trust.

Explained in O'Neil v. Greenwood, 106 Mich. 672, 64 N. W. 611, holding



Digitized by



Google



30 AM. REP.] NOTES ON AMERIOAN REPORTS. 1172

tmdeliT^red bill of sale may be construed as a declaration of trust, where there

was other evidence of intent.

— Effect of meritoriouB oonsideratlon of kinship.

Cited in Priester y. Hohloch, 70 App. Diy. 256, 75 N. Y. Supp. 405, holding
fact of kinship does not permit trust to be imputed from voluntary gift; Pen-
nell V. Ennis, 126 Mo. App. 355, 103 S. W. 147, holding such fact does not
operate as a consideration except in case of defective execution of power.
Voluntary executed transfers or trusts.

Cited in Norway Sav. Bank v. Merriam, 88 Me. 146, 33 Atl. 840; Pope v.
Burlington Sav. Bank, 56 Vt. 284, 48 A. R. 781; Connecticut River Sav. Bank
V. Albee, 64 Vt 571, 25 Atl. 487; Van Cott v. Prentice, 104 N. Y. 45, 10 N. E.
257,—- holding objection as to voluntary character of a trust will be disregard-
ed; Westlake v. Wheat, 43 Hun, 77, holding executed gift or voluntary settle-
ment will be enforced.
Possession by trustee as an element in trusts.

Cited in Von Hesse v. MacKaye, 62 Hun, 468, 17 N. Y. Supp. 55, holding law
satisfied by fact that property went into possession and was under controL
Dissimilarity between gifts and trusts.

Cited in Grafing v. Heilmann, 1 App. Div. 260, 37 N. Y. Supp. 253, holding
in trusts interest can be retained; Robb v. Washington & G. College, 185
N. Y. 485, 78 N. E. 359, holding in trusts same delivery is not required as in
gifts; Bray v. O'Rourke, 89 App. Div. 400, 85 N. Y. Supp. 907, holding evidence
tending to the creation of trust cannot sustain a gift; Schwind v. Ibert, GO
App. Div. 378, 69 N. Y. Supp. 921, holding trust and gift theories of a case
must be separately considered; Flanders v. Blandy, 45 Ohio St. 108, 12 N. £.
321, holding trust And gift are antagonistic to each other; West v. McCul-
lough, 123 App. Div. 846, 108 N. Y. Supp. 493 (dissenting opinion), on inap-
plicability of rules of gifts to trusts.
Defective gifts as assets in hands of legal representatives.

Cited in Frost v. Craig, 28 N. Y. S. R. 167, 9 N. Y. Supp. 437, on inclusion
of an endowment poli^ as assets, notwithstanding indorsement thereon.

86 AM. REP. 648, JESSUP ▼. CARNEGIE, 80 N. Y. 441.
State decisions as rule for construction of Its statutes when involved in
foreign court.

Cited in Leonard v. Columbia Steam Nav. Co. 84 N. Y. 48, 38 A. R. 491;
Matthews v. Dickinson, 36 Misc. 187, 73 N. Y. Supp. 190, — ^holding construction
already given statute should be adopted; Savings Asso. v. O'Brien, 51 Ilun.
46, 3 N. Y. Supp. 764; Angell v. Van Schaick, 66 Hun, 247, 9 N. Y. Supp.
568, — ^holding same as a general rule; Johnson v. State, 91 Ala. 70, 9 So. 71;
Hannaher v. St. Paul, M. & M. R, Co. 5 Dak. 1, 37 N. W. 717,— holding con-
struction already given Constitution and statutes should be adopted; Dodge
V. Platte County, 82 N. Y. 218, on same point; Nimick v. Mingo Iron Works
Co. 25 W. Va. 184, holding same as a general rule.

Distinguished in Harrison v. Wallis, 44 Misc. 492, 90 N. Y. Supp. 44, where
particular section of statute under review had not been construed; Faulkner v.
Hart, 82 N. Y. 413, 37 A. R. 674, refusing to follow a sister state decision on
a question of commercial law.



Digitized by



Google



1173 NOTES ON AMEKICAN REPORTa [634-643

Basis of shareholder's liability for corporate debts.

Cited in Marshall v. Sherman, 148 N. Y. 9, 51 A. S. R. 654, 34 L.R.A. 757,
42 N. £. 419, holding voluntary purchase of stock does not of itself create
any liability; Molson's Bank v. Boardman, 47 Hun, 135, holding liability is
purely a creation of statute and cannot be based on law of partnership.
liiability of shareholders for failare to comply with statutes.

Cited in Rowell v. Janvrin, 151 N. Y. 60, 46 N. E. 398, holding failure to file
certificate as to stock exchanged for property at an excessive valuation creates
liability where there is fraud.
~ Partnership theory.

Cited in Rutherford v. Hill, 22 Or. 218, 29 A. S. R. 596, 17 L.R.A. 549,
29 Pac. 546, holding partner's liability not created by failure to complete cor-
porate organization.

Cited in note in 17 L.R.A. 553, on partnership liability of stockholders in
. case of defective or illegal incorporation.
Enforcement of shareholder's liability under sister state laws.

Cited in Russell v. Pacific R. Co. 113 Cal. 258, 34 L.R.A. 747, 45 Pac. 323,
holding liability under statute, providing a special remedy not existing in
forum, could not be enforced.

Cited in notes in 37 A. S. R. 171, on remedy for enforcement of stockholders'
liability in foreign tribunal; 34 L.R.A. 738, on right to enforce stockholder's
liability outside of state of incorporation; 13 L.R.A. 458, as to when lex fori
governs.
£xclasiveness of remedy given in statute creating rights or liabilities.

Cited in Ryan v. Ray, 105 Ind. 101, 4 N. E. 214; Central Trust Co. v. New
York C. & N. R. Co. 47 Hun, 587; Briggs v. Knickerbocker, 11 Misc. 197, 32
N. Y. Supp. 95, — holding remedies, provided in statute, are exclusive; Mairs
V. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 73 App. Div. 265, 76 N. Y. Supp. 838, holding a statute
constituting a given act a crime and providing a punishment, precluded an
action for damages.

Cited in note in 34 L.R.A. 758, on conditions prescribed by statutes in
state of incorporation as to enforcement of stockholder's liability by creditor
in other state after stock is fully paid for.

Distinguished in Graham v. Delaware & H. Canal Co. 46 Hun, 386, where
statute created a new duty but left it to be enforced by old remedies.
Constrnction of statutes creating right and providing remedies.

Cited in Central Trust Co. v. New York C. & N. R. Co. 47 Hun, 587, holding
enactment will not be enlarged by an unwarranted construction.
Law governing corporate contracts.

Cited in reference note in 26 A. S. R. 244, on conflict of laws as affecting
corporation's contracts.
What constitutes a partnership.

Cited in note in 19 E. R. C. 404, on what constitutes a partnership.
Validity of injunction without notice.

Cited in Meier v. Fidelity Nat. Bank, 43 Wash. 324, 86 Pac. 574, holding
injunction without notice or showing of emergency void.
Effect of statutory enactment.

Cited in note in 13 L.R.A. 56, on effect of statutory enactment.



Digitized by



Google



36 AM. REP.] NOTES ON AMERICAN REPORTa 1174

86 AM. REP. 654, H£EG ▼. MCHT, 80 N. Y. 579.
What constitutes a nuisance.

Cited in Wheeler v. Pullman Palace Car Co. 131 III. App. 262, holding ab-
sence of railing along front of platform on demised house was not a nuisance;
Jarvis v. Baxter, 20 Jones & S. 109, holding the building of a house so that
it fell and injured adjoining property was a nuisance; Wittleder v. Citizens'
Electric Illuminating Co. 60 App. Div. 478, 64 N. Y. Supp. 114, holding plac-
ing of live electric wire so that persons in thoroughfare were liable to come in
contact with it was a nuisance; Olmsted v. Rich, 3 Silv. Sup. Ct. 447, 6 N.
Y. Supp. 826, 26 N. Y. S. R. 271, holding keeping of large number of hives of
bees on lot next to dwelling could be permanently enjoined; Holke v. Herman,

87 Mo. App. 126, holding a petition to abate a pond as nuisance was faulty in
alleging predictions instead of facts; Fox v. Buffalo Park, 21 App. DIt. 321,
47 N. Y. Supp. 788, on whether an improperly constructed grandstand was a
nuisance.

Cited in note in 9 L.R.A. 712, as to when conduct of business is a nuis-



Online LibraryIrving Browne Isaac Grant ThompsonThe American reports: containing all decisions of general ..., Volume 36 → online text (page 118 of 123)