Irving Browne Isaac Grant Thompson.

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

. (page 120 of 123)
Online LibraryIrving Browne Isaac Grant ThompsonThe American reports: containing all decisions of general ..., Volume 36 → online text (page 120 of 123)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

377, 47 Phila. Leg. Int. 466, on contract for sale of specific shares of stock not
being enforceable by specific performance; Edelman v. Latshaw, 159 Pa. 644,
28 Atl. 475, on exceptions to rule denying specific performance of contracts re-
lating to sale of chattels; Smith v. Smith, 38 Pa. Super. Ct. 251, to point that
equity will not enforce contract to deliver stock where adequate remedy at law

Cited in reference notes in 2 A. S. R. 703, on specific performance of contract to
sell shares of national bank; 10 A. S. R. 409, on specific performance of contract
to sell bank stock ; 74 A. S. R. 690, on specific performance of contract to convey
corporate stock.

Cited in notes in 50 L.R.A. 502, on jurisdiction over specific performance of
contract for sale of stock in corporation ; 6 E. R. C. 646, on specific performance
of contracts concerning chattels.

Distinguished in Lafferty's Estate, 2 Pa. Dist. R. 217, on decree of specific
performance to enforce execution of power granted to trustee to vote stock;
Northern C. R. Co. v. Walworth, 193 Pa. 207, 44 Atl. 253, holding that specific
performance is proper remedy upon contract for purchase of stock of a railroad
company by another railroad, the two not being parallel and competing lines.
^— Agreements looking to control of corporate property.

Cited in Cage v. Fisher, 5 N. D. 297, 31 L.R.A. 557, 65 N. W. 809, holding that
equity will not decree specific performance of contract for voting stock of
another purpose of obtaining control of the corporation.

Cited in note in 50 L.R.A. 506, on jurisdiction over specific performance of
contract for sale of corporate stock to enable purchaser to secure control of cor-

Distinguished in Morris v. Tuskaloosa Mfg. Co. 83 Ala. 565, 3 So. 689; Ryan
T. McLane, 91 Md. 175, 80 A. S. R. 438, 50 L.R.A. 501, 46 Atl. 340; Morgan v.
Hartley Oil & Gas Co. 30 Pa. Co. Ct. 22, 35 Pittsb. L. J. N. S. 53; Carter v.
Producer's Oil Co. 182 Pa. 551, 39 L.R.A. 100, 38 Atl. 571, — on specific per-
formance of contract for sale of stock where purchaser intends thereby to obtain
•control of corporation.

Digitized by



Contracts asrainst public policy.

Cited in People v. North River Sugar Ref. Co. 54 Hun, 355, 6 L.RJL 386,
27 N. Y. S. R. 386, 7 N. Y. Supp. 406, on invalidity of contract to do a thing clear-
ly injurious to the public; State ex rel. Wilderman v. Kidd, 63 Wis. 337, 23 N.
W. 703, on invalidity of agreement based upon consideration of performance of
statutory duty.

Cited in note in 8 L.R.A. 497, on validity of contracts against public policy.

— For control of corporations.

Cited in Moses v. Scott, 84 Ala. 608, 4 So. 742, holding that agreement as to
control of stock which acts as a restraint on right of alienation is against public
policy and void; Cone v. Russell, 48 N. J. Eq. 208, 21 Atl. 847, holding agreement
to vote shares in a certain way for five years invalid as against public policy
where purpose was to keep a certain man in charge as manager; Tomlin v.
Farmers' & M. Bank, 52 Mo. App. 430, on validity under public policy of agree-
ment between certain stockholders to' vote only for certain parties and to sell no
stock except as to such as would do likewise.

Cited in note in 66 A. S. R. 140, on agreements to control future voting of
stock at corporate election.
Adequate remedy at law.

Cited in K&ul v. Henke, 2 Pa. Dist. R. 236, holding that equity will not enforce
restitution of promissory note fraudulently obtained, the remedy at law being
adequate; Philadelphia & R. R. Co.'s Appeal, 12 Pittsb. L. J. N. S. 379, 39
Phila. Leg. Int. 98, holding that equity will not specifically enforce contract re-
lating to personalty, if remedy at law exists.
National bank as quasi public institution.

Cited in Bridgers v. First Nat. Bank, 152 N. C. 293, 31 LJl.A.(N.S.) 1199, 67
S. E. 770, to point that national bank is quasi public institution.

86 AM. REP. 675, DUFF v. ALIiEGHENY R. CO. 91 PA. 458.
Liability for injury to trespassers and licensees on railroad trains.

Cited in Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Burnsed, 70 Miss. 437, 35 A. S. R. 656,
12 So. 958, holding railroad not liable for injury to trespasser on its cars, where
not inflicted wantonly or wilfully; Springer v. Byram, 137 Lid. 16, 45 A. S. R.
159, 23 L.R.A. 244, 36 N. E. 361, on right of trespasser or licensee to recover for
injury sustained through negligence of railroad.

Cited in notes in 52 A. R. 436, on right to recover for injuries received while
riding free because of fraud on carrier; 59 A. R. 604, on railroad's liability for
injuries to child while stealing ride on train; 13 L.R.A. 248, on railroad's duty to
avoid injury to trespassers on its premises; 12 L.R.A. 338, on liability of carrier
for removing trespasser from train; 27 L.R.A. 171, on master's liability for
negligent ejection from train by servant acting within scope of employment.

Distinguished in Kelly v. Hestonville, M. & F. Pass. R. Co. 39 Phila. Leg. Infc
168, holding that it is negligence of railroad to permit child of tender years to
ride upon platform of car.

— To persons riding by permission or invitation of trainman.

Cited in Hot Springs R, Co. v. Dial, 58 Ark. 318, 24 S. W. 500, holding
railroad not liable for injury sustained by one called by conductor to assist in
setting brakes on train, the conductor having no authority to employ him:
Reary v. Louisville, N. O. & T. R. Co. 40 La. Ann. 32, 8 A. S. R. 497. n '^^

Digitized by



390, holding the same though trespasser was riding in baggage car by permission
of baggageman; Rathbone v. Oregon R. Co. 40 Or. 225, 66 Pac. 909, denying
right, of one riding on hand car contrary to rules of company but upon invitation
of foreman, to recover for injury sustained; Darwin v. Charlotte, C. & A. R. Co.
23 S. C. 531, 56 A. R. 32, holding railroad not liable for injury to trespasser
riding on pilot of engine, though permitted by engineer to remain there; Vir-
ginia Midland R. Co. v. Roach, 83 Va. 375, 5 S. E. 175, holding railroad not liable
for injury to one riding upon its engine, though permitted to do so by engineer or
conductor; Fischer v. Columbia & P. S. R. Co. 62 Wash. 462, 100 Pac. 1005,
holding railroad not liable for injury to one riding on engine of freight train
at invitation of engineer; Pennsylvania Co. v. Coyer, 163 Ind. 631, 72 N. E. 875,
on liability of railroad for injury to one permitted to ride on its work train.

Cited in reference note in 118 A. S. R. 805, on liability of railroad company for
death of boy permitted by conductor, against rules, to ride gratuitously.

Cited in note in 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1241, on carrier's duty to one whom it permits
to enter its cars upon his own business and not as a passenger.

Distinguished in Albion Lumber Co. v. DeNobra, 19 C. C. A. 168, 44 U. S. App.
347, 72 Fed. 739, holding logging road liable for injury to one carried as pas-
senger by permission of superintendent.
Children as trespassers.

Cited in Feehan v. Dobson, 44 W. N. C. 65, 10 Pa. Super. Ct. 6; Gillespie v.
McGowan, 100 Pa. 144, 45 A. R. 365, 39 Phila. Leg. Int. 313; Rodgers v. Lees, 140
Pa. 475, 23 A. S. R. 250, 12 L.R.A. 216, 21 Atl. 399, 27 W. N. O. 441, 48 Phila.
Leg. Int. 329, 22 Pittsb. L. J. N. S. 34,-— holding that child of tender years may
be a trespasser so as to preclude recovery for injury sustained by him; Dull v.
Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. 21 Ind. App. 571, 52 N. E. 1013, holding rail-
road not liable for injury to child trespassing on its track; McMullen v. Penn-
sylvania R. Co. 132 Pa. 107, 19 A. S. R. 591, 19 Atl. 27, 25 W. N. C. 308, 47 Phila.
Leg. Int. 269, holding that child 10 years old cannot recover for injury sus-
tained while trespassing on railroad track; Cauley v. Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. R.
Co. 95 Pa. 398, 40 A. R. 664, holding injury while trespassing on flat cars not

— Riding on cars.

Cited in Catlett v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R, Co. 57 Ark. 461, 38 A. S. R. 264,
21 S. W. 1062, denying right of recovery for injury to child stealing ride on
train; Lott v. New Orleans City & Lake R. Co. 37 La. Ann. 337, 65 A. R. 600,
holding railroad not liable for injury to boy sustained while jumping off car upon
which he had been permitted to ride by the driver; Feingold v. Philadelphia
Traction Co. 21 Pa. Co. Ct. 183, 7 Pa. Dist. R. 445, 4 Lack. Leg. News, 292,
holding street railway not liable for injury sustained by child trespassing on
car. who is told by driver to get off and does so before car stops and is thereby

Distinguished in Biddle v. Hestonville, M. & F. Pass. R. Co. 112 Pa. 651, 4
Atl. 485, 17 W. N. C. 436, 43 Phila. Leg. Int. 306, holding street car company liable
for injury to child caused by his being ejected from car, on which he was tres-
passing, while is was in motion.

— Newsboy on train.

Cited in Raming v. Metropolitan Street R. Co. 157 Mo. 477, 57 S. W. 268,
holding that newsboy jumping on street car for purpose of selling papers,
without permission and without payment of fare is not a passenger thereon.

Digitized by



Who I8 passenger.

Cited in notes in 82 A. D. 293; 61 A. S. R. 101,— en who are passeo^ers; 61
A. S R. 02, on who are passengers on freight trains; 104 A. S. R. 589, as to
whether persons entering or heing upon a street car without intending to
become passengers are such.

S6 AM. REP. 676, ARMENIA INS. CO. ▼. PAUIi, 91 PA. 520.
Effect of omissions In application upon validity of insurance policy.

Cited in Farmers' Mut. F. & Lighting Ins. Co. v. Lecroy, 01 IlL App. 41^
holding that incomplete answer to material question in application for insurance
will not avoid policy issued thereunder; Hey v. Guarantors' Liability Indemnity
Co. 181 Pa. 220, 69 A. S. R. 664, 37 Atl. 402, 40 W. N. C. 423, 28 Pittsb. L. J.
N. S. 1, holding that in suit on policy of insurance on property destroyed by
flood in river, it is no defense that applicant did not specify in application tiiat
property was located near the river.

Cited in reference notes in 30 A. R. 684, on effect of unanswered inquiry as
warranty; 8 A. 8. R. 002, on effect of entire omission to answer question in
written application for insurance; 66 A. S. R. 423, on effect of partial answers
in application for insurance.

Cited in note in 16 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1244, on estoppel to avoid policy because of
fraud or mistake of agent preparing application where no answers were given
by applicant.

S6 AM. REP. 678, REYNOLDS ▼. WITTE, IS S. O. 5.
Liability of principal for acts of his agent.

Cited in Whaley v. Duncan, 47 S. 0. 130, 26 S. E. 64, holding that principal
is bound by acts of his agent in performing work intrusted to him, unless party
dealing with him has notice of special instructions; Hutchison v. Rock Hill Real
Estate & Loan Co. 66 S. C. 46, 43 S. E. 206, holding directors of corporation bound
by act of secretary and treasurer within scope of his employment, though
unauthorized by them; Mitchell v. Leech, 60 8. C. 413, 104 A. S, R. 811, 60
L.R.A. 723, 48 S. E. 200, holding Sovereign Camp of Woodmen of America liable
for injury caused by use of mechanical goat in initiation by local camp though
its use was unauthorized; Williams v. Tolbert, 76 S. C. 211, 56 S. E. 008; Rucker
v. Smoke, 37 S. C. 377, 34 A. S. R. 768, 16 S. E. 40,— holding principal liable
for act of his agent in seizure of personal property though act complained of was
neither authorized nor ratified; Lewis v. Mammoth Min. Co. 33 Utah, 273, 15
L.R.A. (N.S.) 430, 03 Pac. 732, holding master liable for acts of his servant
done in the furtherance of his master's business though done in violation of
instructions; Cobb v. Columbia & G. R. Co. 37 S. C. 104, 15 S. E. 878; Burns v.
Southern R. Co. 63 S. C. 46, 40 S. E. 1018 (dissenting opinion), on same point:
Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald & M. Constr. Co. 44 Neb. 463, 62 N. W. 800, holding cor-
poration not liable for acts of its officers where not within the scope of their
authority as officers.

Cited in note in 88 A. S. R. 705, on liability of principal in tort for fraud of
— Fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit by agent.

Cited in Pacific Postal Teleg. Cable Co. v. Bank of Palo Alto, 54 L.R.A. 711,
48 C. C. A. 413, 100 Fed. 360 (affirming 103 Fed. 841), holding telegraph com-
pany liable for loss td bank by payment of message forged by tel^raph operator;

Digitized by



Wolfe V. Paugh, 101 Ind. 293, holding principal liable for fraudulent representa-
tions of his agent in making deal for exchange of lands; Hollingsworth v. Hol-
brook, 80 Iowa, 151, 20 A. S. R. 411, 45 N. W. 561, holding that alteration of
chattel mortgage by agent with authority to take security for the debt, avoids
the mortgage in the hands of the principal; John Gund Brewing Co. v. Peterson,
130 Iowa, 301, 106 N. W. 741, holding principal bound by representations of his
agent made within apparent scope of his authority; Brown v. American Teleph.
& Teleg. Co. 82 S. C. 173, 63 S. E. 744, holding principal liable for fraudulent
act of agent done in course of employment, though it is contrary to instructions;
Matteson v. Rice, 116 Wis. 328, 92 N. W. 1109, holding landlord bound by rep-
resentations of his agent, with authority to exhibit premises and execute
lease therefor, in regard to condition of premises in a matter not open to in-
spection; Mclntire v. Pryor, 173 U. S. 38, 43 L. ed. 606, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 362;
Trankla v. McLean, 18 Misc. 221, 41 N. Y. Supp. 386, — on liability of principal
for fraud and deceit of his agent.

Cited in notes in 32 A. S. R. 724, on liabilities of holders of collateral security
for nonappropriation by agent; 12 E. R. C. 307, on imputing servant's or agent's
fraud to master or principal.

Distinguished in Myers v. Whiteheart, 24 S. C. 196, holding property of prin-
cipal not liable to statutory attachment for acts done by his agent without his
knowledge or authority.

Disapproved in Kingan v. Silvers, 13 Ind. App. 80, 37 N. E. 413, holding that
alteration of note by agent of principal does not invalidate it, where agent had
no authority to take notes or make settlements.

liiablllty of one signing incomplete instrument and placing it in hand off

Cited in Charleston v. Ryan, 22 S. C. 339, 63 A. R. 713, holding that mortgagee
signing and sealing his name in blank on back of mortgage is bound by a satis-
faction of mortgage written over it, as against subsequent innocent purchaser;
J. C. Stevenson Co. v. Bethea, 79 S. C. 478, 61 S. E. 99, holding maker of note who
place it in hands of agent for a certain purpo'se, bound by the note though his
agent negotiated it for another purpose; Bank of Spartanburg v. Bahon, 75 S. C.
255, 55 S. E. 529, on liability of indorser who delivers note to maker with name
of payee blank.
Measure of damages for conversion.

Cited in Gregg v. Bank of Columbia, 72 S. C. 458, 110 A. S. R. 633, 52 S. E. 195,
on measure of damages for conversion.

. 36 AM. REP. 687, McGRATH ▼. BARNES, 18 S. G. 828, Later appeal
in 18 S. G. 606.
Admissibility of parol evidence as to written instrument.

Cited in Kaphan v. Ryan, 16 S. C. 352, holding that where written instrument
constitutes only part of an agreement parol evidence is admissible to show whole
agreement; Moffatt v. Hardin, 22 S. C. 9, holding parol evidence admissible to
show what use was to be made of a mortgage and the conditions upon which it
was executed; Willis v. Hammond, 41 S. C. 153, 19 S. E. 310, holding that where
written contract is incomplete in itself, parol evidence is admissible to explain
and supply the missing parts.
— As to matter collateral to note or bill.

Cited ill Bulwinkle v. Cramer, 27 S. C. 370, 13 A. S. R. 646, 3 S. E. 776,
Am. Rep. Vol. XVII.— 75.

Digitized by



holding that in suit on note taken by payee in his own name for goods sold by him,
parol testimony is inadmissible to show that he acted as agent for another and
was not liable to indorser of the notes; Groesbeck v. Marshall, 44 S. C. 53S, 22
S. E. 743, holding parol testimony admissible to show illegality of consideration
for a note; Cline v. Farmers' Oil Mill, 83 S. C. 204, 65 S. E. 272, holding
parol evidence inadmissible to show that note for $150 in payment of purchase
price of mule, was only to be paid in case maker could collect $50 from another

Cited in notes in 3 L.R.A. 863, on admissibility of parol evidence to show con-
dition affecting commercial paper; 43 L.R.A. 454, on contemporaneous parol agree-
ment that payment is to be conditional as defense to note; 4 E. R. C. 207, on
admissibility of parol evidence to vary bill of exchange.

Distinguished in Doyle v. Hill, 75 S. C. 261, 55 S. E. 446, holding parol
evidence inadmissible to show want of consideration for note given for premium on
insurance policy which would be valid though the testimony offered were true and
Kffect of contract by administrator.

Cited In Carpenter v. Lindauer, 12 N. M. 388, 78 Pac. 67, holding that contract
of administrator binds him personally to the extent of the assets of the estate in
his lands.

Cited in reference note in 38 A. R. 661, on administrator's liability on personal
note for money borrowed for estate.

Cited in note in 15 L.R.A. 851, on effect of qualifying words "as executor" or
"as administrator" in contracts.


Sufficiency of demand and notice.

Cited in reference note in 1 A. S. R. 602, on sufficiency of notice of protest by

Cited in notes in 38 A. D. 614, on usage of banks and notaries to give notice of
dishonor through postoffice; 21 L.R.A. 441, on banking custom as to demand and
notice; 21 L.R.A. 45, on necessity of knowledge of banking customs.

86 AM. REP. 700, CURETON v. MILLS, 18 S. C. 40».
Administration of estate in forelsrn jurisdiction.

Cited in Langsdale v. Woollen, 120 Ind. 78, 21 N. E. 641, holding that where
assots of an estate are found within the jurisdiction the court may appoint an
administrator thereof.

Cited in notes in 35 A. D. 484, on ancillary administration; L.R.A. 246, on
capacity of foreign executors or administrators; 27 L.R.A. 116, on judgments of
another state or country rendered against executor or administrator.
— Disposition of ancillary assets.

Cited in Graveley v. Graveley, 25 S. C. 1, 60 A. R. 478, holding that ancillary
administrator in foreign state may pay a legacy to resident there out of assets
of estate remaining after all local debts are paid; Hamilton v. Levy, 41 S. C. 374,
19 S. E. 610, holding that after debts of intestate are paid, the law of his dom-
icil governs the distribution of his personal estate; Jones v. Jones, 39 S. C. 247,
17 S. E. 587, on same point.

Digitized by



— Collection of ancillary assets by domlcllary representatlTe.

Distinguished in Stevenson v. Dunlap, 33 S. C. 350, 11 S. E. 1017, holding
that administrator of an estate in one state can not maintain action for personal
property in a foreign state.

36 AM. BEP. 716, AliLEX v. AliliEN, 18 S. C. 512.
Ademption of legacies by advancement.

Cited in Swails v. Swails, 98 Ind. 611; Re Youngerman, 136 Iowa, 488, 114
N. W. 7, — holding that presumption as to ademption of legacy by subsequent
payment to legatee has no application where testator does not stand in loco
parentis to legatee; Carmichael v. Lathrop, 108 Mich. 473, 32 L.R.A. 232, 66 N.
W. 350, holding residuary bequest to child adeemed pro tanto by conveyance of
real estate where such intent clearly appears; McFall v. Sullivan, 17 S. C. 504,
holding that doctrine of advancements applies only to cases of intestacy, or when
directed by will; Pratt v. McGhee, 17 S. C. 428, on ademption of devise by gift of

Cited in notes in 95 A. S. R. 343, on meaning of ademption ; 95 A. S. R. 353, on
ademption by advancement of devise of real estate; 95 A. S. R. 350, on requisites
for ademption by advancement to children; 1 L.R.A. 203, on ademption by ad-
vancement to or provision for legatee; 2 E. R. C. 54, on presumption of ademp-
tion raised by subsequent gift; 2 E. R. C. 272, on competency of parol evidence
to show ademption of legacy.

— Effect of release of expectancy.

Cited in Low v. Low, 77 Me. 37, holding that where son received an amount in
cash and duly executed a release and discharge of all claims under the will, he is
estopped to set up any further claim.
Revocation or ademption of devise.

Cited with special approval in Gregg v. McMillan, 54 S. C. 378, 32 S. E. 447,
as admirably discussing question of revocation of devise by change in the prop-
erty itself or in the relation of testator to the property.

Cited in Fisher v. Keithley, 142 Mo. 244, 64 A. S. R. 660, 43 S. W. 650; Burn-
ham V. Comfort, 108 N. Y. 535, 2 A. S. R. 562, 15 N. E. 710 (affirming 37 Hun,
216) ; Godbold v. Vance, 14 S. C. 458, — holding that doctrine of ademption does
not apply to devises; Re Brown, 139 Iowa, 219, 117 N. W. 200, to point that doc-
trine of ademption applies to residuary legatees.
Wlien heirs take per capita.

Cited in Auger v. Tatham, 191 111. 296, 61 N. E. 77, holding that under devise
of specific sum to each of the heirs of a certain person such heirs take per capita.
Words of equality implying per capita gift.

Cited in Ramsey v. Stephenson, 34 Or. 408, 56 Pac. 520, holding that under
direction to convert residuary estate into cash to be "divided equally among the
heirs at law" such heirs take per capita; Kerngood v. Davis, 21 S. C. 183; Dukes
V. Falk, 37 S. C. 255, 34 A. S. R. 745, 16 S. E. 122,— holding that under devise to
"heirs of the body share and share alike" lineal descendants only take and they
take per papita as purchasers; Brantle v. Bittle, 72 S. C. 179, 51 S. E. 561, hol-
ing that heirs take per capita under devise using words "equally divided" and
share and share alike."

Who stand 'Mn loco parentis."

Cited in note in 2 E. R. C. 38, on relationship placing parties in loco parentis.

Digitized by



86 AM. REP. 725, HALL ▼. HALL, 52 TEX. 294.
Powers and rights of wife as to her sepairate property.

Cited in Martin Brown Co. v. Perrill, 77 Tex. 199, 13 S. W. 795; SwearingeE
V. Reed, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 364, 21 S. W. 383; Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Whit-
aker, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 380, 23 S. W. 520, — on interest paid to wife on her money,
borrowed by her husband, being her separate property; Hall v. Levy, 31 Tex. Civ.
App. 360, 72 S. W. 263, on wife's right as owner of money turned over to her by
her husband being proceeds of an insurance policy in her favor.

Distinguished in Braden v. Gose, 57 Tex. 37, holding that interest received by
wife upon loan of her money is not her separate property unless made so by con-

Contracts or transfers between husband and wife.

Cited in Adoue v. Spencer, 6 N. J. Eq. 782, 90 A. S. R. 484, 66 L.R.A. 817,
49 Atl. 10, on validity of conveyance, by husband to wife, of community property ;
Alexander v. Alexander, 86 Va. 363, 1 L.R.A. 125, 7 S. E. 335, sustaining va-
lidity of confession of judgment by husband in favor of wife and her right to sue

Cited in notes in 76 A. D. 108, on husband's gift of community property to wife
without intervention of trustees; 86 A. D. 642, on conveyances of community
property from husband to wife; 69 L.R.A. 356, on effect of gifts of personalty by
husband to wife; 69 L.R.A. 378, on homestead and community in property con-
veyed by husband to wife.
— Notes and bills.

Cited in McCormick v. McNeel, 53 Tex. 15, on validity of promissory note given
by husband to wife after marriage.

Action against husband.

Cited in Ryan v. Ryan, 61 Tex. 473, holding that wife may maintain suit
against her husband for the protection of her separate estate; Dority v. Dority,
96 Tex. 215, 60 L.R.A. 941, 71 S. W. 950; Bennett v. Lindsey, 37 W. Va. 396,
38 A. S. R. 47, 16 S. E. 638, on power of wife to contract with, and to sue her
husband under statute.
What Is community property.

Cited in note in 86 A. D. 628, as to what is community property.

86 AM. REP. 727, KBSSLGR ▼. DRAUB, 52 TEX. 575.
Termination of homestead generally.

Cited in reference notes in 36 A. 8. R. 578, on termination of homestead;
74 A. S. R. 103, as to when homestead is not lost.

Online LibraryIrving Browne Isaac Grant ThompsonThe American reports: containing all decisions of general ..., Volume 36 → online text (page 120 of 123)