Irving Browne Isaac Grant Thompson.

The American reports: containing all decisions of general ..., Volumes 1-12 online

. (page 2 of 51)
Online LibraryIrving Browne Isaac Grant ThompsonThe American reports: containing all decisions of general ..., Volumes 1-12 → online text (page 2 of 51)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

Poole y. Richardson (3 Mass. 330). See State y. Pike (49 N. H. 399), VI» 546.
Powell V. Mills (87 Miss. 891), denied ; Wyooflf v. Queens County Ferry Co. (52

N. Y. 84), XI, 662.
Pray y. Northern Liberties (7 Casey, 69), explained and limited ; Washington

Avenue (69 Penn. St. 362). VIII, 267.
Price V. Taylor (4 Casey, 96), limited ; Taylor v. Taylor (68 Penn. St. 481), III,

Railroad v. Shanefelt (47 111. 497), denied ; Kellogg y. Chicago & Northwestern

Ry. Co. (26 Wis. 228), VII, 71.
Richmond y. State (5 Ind. 884), oyerruled ; Grimes* Executors y. Harmon (85

Ind. 198), IX, 784.
Robbins y. Richardson (2 Bosw. 258), questioned ; Bowman y. Van Euren (29

Wis. 209), IX, 557.
Robinson y. Hutchinson (26 Vt. 88), limited ; Williams y. Robinson (42 Vt.

658), 1, 366.
Ryan y. New York Central R. R. Co. (85 N. Y. 210), doubted; Kellogg y,

Chicago, etc, R. R. Co. (26 Wis. 223), VII, 78.
Sadler y. Laugham (84 Ala, 811), disapproyed ; People y. Salem (20 Mich. 452),

IV, 412.
Sanford y. Handy (28 Wend. 260), denied ; Holbrook y. Connor (60 Me. 578).

XI, 216.
Schneider y. Eyans (25 Wis. 241 ; 8 Am. Rep. 56), limited ; Conkey y. Milwau-
kee Ry. Co. {HI Wis. 619), XI, 686.
Seger y. Barkhamsted (22 Conn. 298), criticised and denied ; Johnson y. WaUs

(6 Ney. 224), III, 247.
Seixas y. Wood (2 Cai. 48), explained ; Hawkins y. Pemberton (51 N. Y. 202),

X. 595.

Seymour, In re (1 Ben. 848), denied ; Cronan y. Colling (104 Mass. 245), VI, 284.
Sharpless y. Mayor of Philadelphia (21 Penn. St. 147), denied; Hanson y. Ver-
non (27 Iowa, 28). I, 215.

disapproyed; People y. Salem (20 Mich. 452), FV, 420.

See HammeU y. Philadelphia (65 Penn. St 146), III, 621.

Shepherd y. Johnson (2 East. 211), disapproyed ; Sturges y. Keith (57 01. 451),

XI, 33.

Shipley y. Carroll (45 HI. 285), disapproyed ; Burson y. Huntington (21 Mich.
415). IV, 502.

Smetterfl y. Rainey (14 Ohio St. 287), critidsed ; Bradford y. Andrews (20 Ohio
St. 208), V, 647.

Smith y. Commonwealth (1 Duyall, 224), oyerruled ; Shannahan y. Common-
wealth (8 Bush. 468), VIH, 471.

Springfield Bank y. Merrick (14 Mass. 822), denied ; WoodratTy. Scruggs (27.
Ark. 26), XI, 780.

St. Louis y. Gnmo (12 Mo. 414). oyerruled ; Thurston y. St. Joseph (61 Mo. 510).
XI, 464.

Digitized by



State V. Ohio& Miss. R. B. Co. (7 Ind. 479X diBtingoiahed ; Slatten ▼. Des

Moines R. R. Co. (29 Iowa, 148), IV, 908.
Steamboat Josephine (89 N. Y. 19), commented upon and distinguished ; Shep-
herd ▼. Steele (48 N. Y. 52), III, 661.

explained and limited; Brookman ▼. HommiU (48 N. Y. 555), m, 782.

Stockham y. Hanson (28 111. 58), limited; Frank v. Morris (57 IlL 188), XI, 6.
Stoat ▼. Poster (1 How. [U. S.] 89), distingaished ; Aastin ▼. Steamboat Co. (48

N. Y. 75), III, 667.
Stuber's Road (4 Cas. 199) ; see Palairet's Appeal (67 Penn. St. 479). V, 450.
Sweeney t. Sampson (5 Ind. 465), overraled ; Qrimes' Execators y. Harmon

(85 Ind. 198). IX, 784.
Swett y. Colgate (20 Johns. 196), explained ; Hawkins y. Pemberton (51 N. Y.

202), X, 595.
Taylor v. Pratt (8 Wis. 674),oyerraled ; Hoaghtony. Ely (26 Wis. 181), VII, 58.
Taylor v. St. Loais (16 Mo. 20), oyerraled ; Tharston y. St. Joseph (51 Mo. 510),

XI, 464.
Tenney y. Eyans (18 N. H. 462), denied; Woodward y. Leayitt (107 Mass. 470),

IX, 59.
Theobold y. Bailway Passengers' Assarance Co. (26 Eng. L. & Eq. 482),

explained ; Schneider y. Proyident Life Ins. Co. (24 Wis. 28), 1, 159.
Thomas y. Oimmissioners (5 Ind. 4), denied ; State y. Coonty (bart (50 Mo.

817), XI, 417.
Thomas y. Winchester (6 N. Y. 897), explained and distingaished ; Cook y.

Litchfield (42 N. Y. 851), 1, 545.
Thompson y. Perkins (8 Mas. C. C. 282), denied; Lewis y. Brehme(83 Md. 412),

III, 198.
Todd y. Bowley (8 Allen), see auMson y. Mallory (86 Conn. 165), IV, 54.
Turnpike Co. y. Hosmer (12 Conn. 864), distinguished and limited ; Mississippi

& Tenn. B. B. Co. y. Deyaney (42 Miss. 555), 11, 616.
Underwood y. Parks (2 Str. 1200), discussed ; Hanson y. Dale (19 Mich. 17),

n. 70.
Van Epps y. Harrison (5 Hill, 68), denied ; Holbrook y. 0)nners (60 Me. 578),

XI, 216.
Vartee y. Underwood (18 Barb. 561), denied ; Newhall y. Lynn Sayings. Bank

(101 Mass. 482), m, 889.
Veazie y. Penobscot B. B. Co. (49 Me. 119), limited and distinguiAed ; Eaton y

European B. B. Co. (59 Me. 520), Vm, 486.
Wade y. Whittington (1 Allen, 561), criticised ; Genard y. Hadden (67 Penn. St

82). V, 414.
Wann y. Telegraph Co. (87 Mo. 473), limited ; Sweetland y. Illinois Telegraph

Co. (27 Iowa, 488), I, 294.
Warren y. Lusk (16 Mo. 102), limited ; Bfarx y. Fore (51 Mo. 69), XI, 484.
Webber y. Williams College (28 Pick. 802), questioned; Shapley y. Abbott (42

N. Y. 448), I, 556.
Wethey y. Andrews (8 HUl, 582). explained ; Herrick y. Woolyerton (41 N. Y.

581), 1, 461.

Digitized by



Wlielden ▼. Chappel (8 R. L 380), denied ; Hall ▼. Corcoran (107 Mass.

IX, 81.
Whipple V. Walpole (10 N. H. 180), overruled ; Woodman t. Nottingham (49

N. H. 887), VI, 581.
Wlhert V. N. T. & E. R. B. Co. (19 Barb. 8(J), limited ; Ward t. N. T. C. B. B.

Co. (47 N. T. 88), VII, 406.
Williamson v. AUison (2 Eaet. 440), denied ; Boss ▼. Mather (61 N. T. 112), X, 662.
Wilson y. Hamilton (4 Ohio St. 722), denied; WjckoffT. Queens Co. Ferry Co.

(52 N. Y. 84), XI, 662.
Wilson ▼. Wilson (1 H. of L. Cas. 688 and 6 id. 40), denied; J. 0. v. H. G. (88

Md. 401), in, 189.
Winslow T. Kimball (26 Me. 498), denied; Sulliyan t. SuIUvan (106 Mass. 476),

Vm. 857.
Wood v. Milwaukee, etc., By. Co. (27 Wis. 641 ; 9 Am. Bep. 466), OTerruled in

part ; Conkey v. Milwaukee, etc, By. Co. (81 Wis. 619), XI, 682.
Wood y. Stone (2 Cold. 870), overruled ; Smith y. Brazelton (1 Heisk. 44), II, 689.
Worrell y. Gheen (8 Wright, 888), explained ; Neff y. Homer (68 Penn. St.

827), III, 666 ; Gerrard y. Hadden (67 Penn. St. 82), V, 414
Wright y. Overall (2 Cold. 886), overruled ; Smith v. Brazelton (1 Heisk. 44),

Tale v. Dederer (18 N. T. 266 ; 22 id. 460), denied ; Deering v. Boyle (8 Eans.

625), XII, 482.
Tost v. Stout (4 Cold. 208), limited ; Smith v. Brazelton (1 Heisk. 44), U, 688.
Toung V. Grote (4 Bing. 258), explained and distinguished ; Holmes v. Trumper

(22 Mich. 427), VII, 667.
Zehner v. Kepler (16 Ind. 290), overruled ; Frenxel v. Miller (87 Ind. 1), X 64

Digitized by


Digitized by





L Of action — See Malicious PRoeBounoN.
n. Op property — See Driftwood.
ni. Op ship or cargo — See Insurancb ; Ship A2n> Shippinq.


1. Of action — See Bankruptcy.
II. Of nuisancb — See Nuisancb.


By paroL Defendants, having a note for collection, recelyed an order from
the owner reqaesting them to pay a portion of the proceeds when collected to
plaintifis. The order having been accepted by parol, defendants sabsequently
transferred the note to C, to whom it was paid. Held, that the parol accept-
ance was binding, and that defendants were liable to plaintifls for the amount
of the order. 1870. Phelpe v. Northrup (56 Dl. 156), VIII, 681.
See Bills and Notes.


Title by transformation of property. One of two tenants In common of cer-
tain timber land conveyed his undivided half of the land by warranty deed to
certain parties to whom he was indebted, such parties agreeing orally to reoon-
vey upon the discharge of the indebtedness. Subsequent to the sale of his
interest in the land, and under authority previously given by his co-tenant, the
vendor sold a quantity of the timber growing upon the land, to a third pkrty.
who cut and manufactured the same into hoops. An action for replevin was
brought by the owners of the land to recover the hoops. It was shown upon
the trial that the value of the timber was $25, and that the value of the hoops
was $700. HM, that evidence, showing that the defendant purchased the

Digitized by



dmber and manafactared it in good faith, waa admijwible ; and that upon such
showing he waa entitled to have the jury instnicted that the title to the tim-
ber waa changed bj a aabatantial change of identity, and that the remedy of
the plaintiff was by an action of trespass. 1871. WetheH>ee ▼. Or&en (28 Mich.
311), Vn, 658.

8ee AocRBTioH ; Sai«b.



n. To BERVAirr — See Master akd Sertakt.


1. Where injary arises from a fortoltoas occarrence, beyond the control of
man, it is termed " the act of God/' and the party through whom it occors is
not responsible. Thus the owner of property which, without his consent^ 18
carried by flood or storm down a stream, and deposited apon the lands of
another, is not liable for any damage occasioned, unless he reclaim the prop-
erty. Shelden v. Sherman (42 N. Y. 484), 1, 669; Lif>ezey v. Philadelphia (04
Penn. St. 106), UI, 578.

2. Bzplosion of steam boiler. The owner of a steam boiler operated upon
liis own premises, in a lawful manner, is not liable, without proof of negli-
gence, to an adjoining owner, for damage done to his property by reason of an
accidental explosion of such boiler. 1869. Losee v. Buchanan (51 N. Y.
476), X ; but see Wilson v. City of New Bedford (108 Mass. 261), XI, 852, and
CahiU V. Eastman (18 Minn. 824), X, 184.

3. QIanoing bullet. Trespass vi et armis will lie for an accidental injury
caused by the glancing of a pistol ball, shot at a mark. 1869. Welch y.
Durand (86 Conn. 182), IV, 55.



ACCOMMODATION NOTE— See Bills and Notes.


1. The aooeptanoe of a note for $40 in satisfaction of anote for $60» and the
simultaneous surrender of the larger note is a full discharge thereot 1871.
Draper v. JRU (48 Vt. 489), V, 292.

2. Of a reward. The plaintiff recovered property stolen from the defend-
ant and returned it to him. Defendant handed him some money, saying*^ here
is something for what you have done." Plaintiff did not at the time look at
the money, but afterward found it to be $2. Defendant had on that morning
offered a reward of $50 for a recovery of the property, of which fact plain tifi
was at the time ignorant, but for which reward he brought this action. Beld
that he could not recover. 1870. Marvin v. Treat (87 Conn. 96), IX, 807.

Digitized by



3. Defense o^ in aotlon on a Judgment Accord and satisfaction is a good
defense to an action or other proceeding on a judgment. 1872. Sawige v. Ever-
man (70 Penn. St. 815), X, 676.

4. Debtors residing in Pennsylvania, and owning lands in New Jersey,

agreed with a creditor to permit and cause to be effected a sheriff's sale of such
lands, and that the creditor should purchase the same at the sale, and receive it in
full satisfaction and discharge of the debt. To carry out this agreement, the
debtors went to New Jersey, and there accepted service of process, and judg-
ment being obtained against them by default, and the property sold on execu-
tion, the creditor became the purchaser at a sum less than the debt. Held, (1)
that this was a good defense, to an action brought upon the judgment, to re-
cover the balance due ; (2) that the defense was admissible, under a plea of
payment, with leave to give the special matter in evidence. lb.

See Patmbnt.

I. Statbd.
II. Action or.

1. Bettoe&n partnera — See Pabtnbb8HIP#

2. Between tenants in eommon^See TsfANTS nr Oomicoh.

I. Acxx)uirr stated.

It is no bar to action on an account stated, that the defendant's indebtedness
was for liquors sold by plaintiff on Sunday, contrary to law, if the account was
not stated on Sunday ; but if the sale was illegal for want of a license the
action on an account stated could not be maintained. 1872. Melehior v. McCariy
(81 Wis. 292), XI. 605.


1. FoDowi origlnaL An act of congress, laying out the city of Burlington,
provided that a strip of land along the river shoald be reserved for public use.
HM, that the natural accretions from the river partook of the same character
as the original strip. Oook v. BurUngtan (80 Iowa, 94), VI, 649.

2. From lake. The owner of lands bounded on a lake, whether navigable
or not, is entitled to the land left dry by the gradual or imperceptible receding
of the waters. 1867. Warren v. Chambere (25 Ark. 120), IV, 28.

3. Where a new shore Is temed on a river not navigable, by the alluvial
deposits taken from the opposite side by the wearing away of the stream, the
land on the new shore is to be divided between the owners entitled to it, accord-
ing to the following rule : " Give to each owner a share of the new shore line
in proportion to*what he held in the old shore line and complete the division of
thc( land by running a line from the boand between the parties on the old shore
to the point thCis ascertained on the new." 1871. Bateheldery. Keniitan (51
N.H. 496), XII, 148.


Digitized by




L Bt AITD against whom MAIlVTAINABia.

IL Whbrb brought.
ni. When bkouoht.
IV. For what madttaikablb.
V. Form.

VI. On judgitents.
VII. Abatement.
VIII. Limitation of aotionb — See Limitation of AonoiiB.

I. Bt and against whom maintainablb.

1. By administrator for tort. An action liee by the adminiBtrator of a
person whose death has been occasioned by the negligence of the defendant
apothecary, in putting up a poison instead of a harmless medicine. Norton v.
SewaU (106 Mass. 143), VIH, 298.

2. By auctioneer. Defendant, at an auction sale, signed an agreement to
comply with the terms of sale, one of which was, that the purchaser should
pay the auctioneer $200 to bind the bargain. The property was knocked down
to defendant, but he afterward refused to complete the sale. Held, that an
action for the money was properly brought by the auctioneer. 1869. Thomp-
son y. KeUy (101 Mass. 291), III, 353.

3. By bailee. The possession of goods acquired by plaintiff under a bill of
lading is sufficient to maintain an action against one who does not show a bet
ter title. 1868. Adams v. O'Connor (100 Mass. 515), 1, 187.

4. By consignor against caixier. Plaintiff sold goods which were ordered
by the yendee, to be sent, " yia canal," sent them as ordered and mailed bill
of sale. Held, that title passed to the yendee on deliyery to the carrier, and
that plaintiff could not maintain an action for loss in transUu. 1871. Krudler
y. EUisan (47 N. Y. 86), VII, 402.

6. An action will not lie against a common carrier for failing to deliyer

goods shipped by the plaintiff, unless the plaintiff be the owner or haye some
special interest in them. 1872. Thompson v. Fargo (49 N. Y. 188), X, 842.

6. An action is well brought by the consignor of goods " sold to arriye "

against a carrier in whose possession they were destroyed. 1870. Hooper y.
Chicago 4b Northweetem Ry, Co, (27 Wis. 81), IX, 489.

7. on through contract No action lies by a shipper against one

carrier for goods lost by a connecting carrier, on a contract- between the
carriers which proyides that the gross receipt on through freight shall be
diyided, but that each carrier shall only be responsible for goods lost in his
possession. 1868. Bufroughs y. Norwich, etc., B, B. Co, (100 Mass. 26), I, 78.

8. By gnardian ad litem. An action is well brought by the guardian od
litem of children under age, to recoyer insurance money payable to the chil-
dren for their use or their guardian, if under age. 1871. Pricey. Phcmioc
Mut. Life Ins. Co. (17 Minn. 497), X, 166.

Digitized by



9. By heln. The heira of real estate cannot sue upon a covenant against
incambrancee broken daring the life of the person under whom thej claim the
estate. The administrator is the proper party plaintiff. 1870. FHnkv,BeUi$
(88 Ind. 185), V, 198.

10. By manied woman. A married woman may maintain an action in her
own name for personal injuries, where the statute secures to her her separate
property. 1860. Chicaffo,BuHingt(m,eU.,RR. Co, v, Dunn {62 m. 2^0), W,^^^

11. By mortgagee. A mortgagee without possession or right of possession
cannot maintain trespass qiutre elaumim fregii ; but he can maintain an action
to recover the value of fixtures removed from the mortgaged premises. 1869.
Gooding v. Shea (108 Mass. 860), IV, 668.

12. By owner of ▼•sseL An action for conversion may be maintained by the
owner of a vessel against a person claiming under a barratrous sale by the
master, notwithstanding the fact that the owner had abandoned the vessel to
the underwriters and received payment as for a total loss. 1869. Clark v.
Wilson (108 Mass. 219), IV, 682.

13. Against oity for neglect of fire department. An action will not lie
against a city by one whose property has been burned, for a defective fire
department, nor for the neglect of fire companies and officers. 1869. Wheeler
V. CUy of ancinnati (19 Ohio St. 19), II, 368 ; Fisher v. City of Boston (104
Mass. 87), VI, 196 ; JewU v. Otty of New Uaven (88 Conn. 868), IX, 882 ; Tor-
bush V. City of Noruieh (88 Conn. 226), IX, 896; Grant v. Erie (69 Penn. St.
420). VIII, 272.

14. Agaisst oorporation. An action will lie against a corporation for wrong-
fully refusing to issue certificates of stock. Baltimore City Passenger Ry, Co.
V. ^Snoetf (86 Md. 288). VI, 402.

16. Againsthtuib«ndbywif(S*8 attorney. An action will not lie against a
husband to reoover for services as attorney fur the wife, in a suit against her
for divorce, on the ground of adultery. 1870. Ray v. Adden (60 N. H. 82),
IX, 176.

16. An action lies against a husband to recover for services as attorney

for the wife, in proceedings prosecuted unsuccessfully by the husband against
her to find sureties to keep the peace. 1871. Warner v. Eeiden (28 Wis. 617),
IX. 616.

17. Against mannfscturer of defeothre machine. The manufacturer of a
Bteam boiler is answerable only to his employer for any want of care or skill
in the construction thereof. After the boiler has been completed and accepted
by the employer, who has the exclusive ownership, management and conduct
of it, the manufacturer is not liable for injuries done to a third person by an
e!iploeion occurring in consequence of the defective construction of the boiler.
1873. Losee v. Clute (51 N. Y. 494), X. 688.

18. Against vendor of defectiTe machine. An action will not lie against
the vendor of a machine, not dangerous in its nature, by one injured through
a defect therein. Loop v. Litchfield (42 N. T. 861). I, 648.

19. Against oonnty or town. A private action will not lie against a county

Digitized by



or town for injaries occasioned bj reason of the neglect of its officers to keep
a bridge in repair. WhiU v. dmrUy of Band (68 lU. 297), XI, 65, noU, 66;
Town of WaUham v. Kffmpwr (56 111. 846), VIU, 652.

20. An action lies against a town to recover a reward offered onder the

provisions of a general sUtute. 1868. Janwrin v. Town of ExeUr (48 N. H.
88), II, 186.

21. Against owner of leased premises. An action will not lie against the
owner of premises for injuries occasioned by their being out of repair where
the premises were, at the time, in the possession of a tenant and were in good
repair when thej came to his possession. 1870. FUker v. Thirkell (21 Mich. 1),

IV, 422.

22. Where, however, the roof was not under the control of the tenants,

the landlord was held liable for injaries occasioned hj snow and ioe falling
therefrom, althoagh the tenants had covenanted to keep the premises in
repair. 1869. JSMpUy v. Fifty Associates (101 Mass. 261). lU, 846. 8es Lanix.


23. Botwoan Mrrsnd ownen of a building. The owner of the apper storj
of a building has no action against the owner of the lower storj to recover con-
tribution for repairs of the roof, made by the former. 1871. OUumwa Lodge

V. Leiwis (84 Iowa, 67), XI, 186.

24. The owner of one part of a building has no action to recover dam-
ages at law for the willful neglect of the owner of the other part in permit-
ting his part to become ruinous and fall into decay, whereby the plidntiiPs
part is iigured. 1872. Pierce v. Dyer (109 Mass. 874), XII, 716.

26. Against own«r for nagligenoe of oontraotor. Where the owner of
land undertakes to do a work thereon, which is not in itself a nuisance, by
means of a contractor exercising an independent employment and employing
his own servants, an action will not lie against the owner for injuries resulting
from the negligence of such contractor or his servants in the execution of it,
unless the owner is in fault in employing an unskillful or improper person as
contractor. 1870. Ouff v. Newark d New York B. B, Go, (86 N. J. 17), X, 205.

26. Against ▼olnntary agent. Declaration that defendant, the teacher of a
high school, was requested by the school committee, whose own duty it was
to examine candidates for admission to such school and report upon their qual-
ifications, that he undertook the duty, that plaintiff was examined and found
qualified, but that defendant falsely and maliciously reported against him and
he was excluded from the benefits of the school. On demurrer heldf (1) that
the declaration was good : (2) that the confidence reposed in the defendant by
the committee to examine candidates, and his acceptance of the trust, created
sufficient legal consideration to make it a duty to faithfully perform the same.
1871. Hammond v. EvMey (51 N. H. 40), XH, 41.

27. So when a policy on the life of B was made payable to M., who held

it for the benefit of a creditor of B, though without such creditor's knowledge,
held^ B having died, that the creditor could maintain an action against M.
1871. HuUhings v. Miner (46 N. Y. 466), VII, 869.

Digitized by



28. Againit itokeholdag. An action lies against a stakeholder bj the loser
k> recover money bet on a horse race, after notice not to pay it to the winner
and demand. WWeinton v. Tausley (16 Minn. 299), X, 189.

29. Joinder of parties in action for reward. In an action for a reward, TiM,
that if two persons jointly perform the service, they most be joined as plain-
tiffs. Janwin v. Exeter (48 N. H. 88), U, 185.

n. Where BBOUGHT.

30. Against Ti»tf^^*^ bank. An action against a national bank organized
under the act of congress of 1864, chapter 106, can be broaght In a State coart
only in the dty or county where it is located. 1869. Crocker v. Marine Nat,
Bank (101 Mass. 840), Ui, 886. See een^a, Oook t. GiaU NaHonal Bank (52
N. Y. 96), XI, 667.

31. On guardian's bond. An action cannot be maintained in the courts of
Vermont, on a bond executed to a Judge of probate in New Hampshire, to
secure the proper disdiarge of the duties of a guardian ; the duties imposed by
the guardian's appointment, the oUigation created by the bond, and the rights
and remedies under It, being all prescribed by the statute of New Hampshire.
1872. Judge of Probate, eU. v. EOfbard (44 Vt. 597), VUI, 896.

32. By assignee In bankr upt c y . An action by an assignee In bankruptcy
to recover goods fraudulently transferred by the bankrupt, will not lie in a
Sute court. 1872. BHgham t. Ok^/lin (81 Wis. 607), XI, 628.

33. An action will not lie in a State court at the suit of an assignee in

bankruptcy, to set aside a conveyance made by a bankrupt, in fraud of the
bankrupt act. 1872. Voorhiee v. Friebie (25 Mich. 476), XU, 291. See to the
contrary CogdeQ v. Extim (69 N. C. 464), XII, 657.

IIL When brought.

34. For breach of promise to marry. One who contracts to marry at a
future day, and before that day arrives refuses to perform, is instantly liable
to an action for breach of promise. 1871. BurtU v. Thompeon (42 N. T. 246),
1, 516 ; 8, P. HoUatoa^ v. OHjfUh (82 Iowa, 409), VU, 208.

36. For brsaoh of oontraot. An action lies immediately for the breach of
an entire contract, after the performance is commenced, but before the arrival
of the time at which a part of it was to be performed. 1872. Dugan ▼.
Andereon (86 Md. 567), XI, 509.

36. On promissory notoi An action on a promissory note, payable gener-
ally, commenced at a quarter past six P. M., on the last day of grace, no demand
of payment having been made, held, premature. 1869. Eeiet v. Tower (102
BfasB. 65), UI, 489.

37. For malidons prosaontion. A husband and wife commenced an action

Online LibraryIrving Browne Isaac Grant ThompsonThe American reports: containing all decisions of general ..., Volumes 1-12 → online text (page 2 of 51)