Copyright
Unknown.

The American state reports, containing the cases of general value and authority subsequent to those contained in the American decisions and the American reports decided in the courts of last resort of the several states (Volume 1) online

. (page 1 of 106)
Online LibraryUnknownThe American state reports, containing the cases of general value and authority subsequent to those contained in the American decisions and the American reports decided in the courts of last resort of the several states (Volume 1) → online text (page 1 of 106)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


THE LIBRARY

OF

THE UNIVERSITY

OF CALIFORNIA

IRVINE

t

GIFT OF
J. A, C. Grant









THE



AMERICAN STATE REPORTS,

CONTAINING THB

CASES OF GENERAL VALUE AND AUTHORITY,

SUBSEQUENT TO THOSE CONTAINED IN THE "AMERICAN
DECISIONS" AND THE "AMERICAN REPORTS,"

DECIDED IN THB

COURTS OF LAST RESORT

OF THE SEVERAL STATES.

UJMTTBD, REPORTED, AND ANNOTATED

BY A. C. FREEMAN,

AMD THB A3SOCIATK EDITORS OF THE "AMERICAN DECISIONS."



VOL. I.



SAN FRANCISCO:
BANCROFT-WHITNEY COMPANY,

LAW PUBLIBHKM AND LAW BOOKSBLLZBB.

1888.



KTF



V.



Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1888,

BY BANCROFT-WHITNEY COMPANY,
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.



ANNOUNCEMENT.



THIS is the initial volume of a series of reports which com-
mence at the period where the American Reports were discon-
tinued, and are designed to extend into the future without
limit. The scope of these reports, and the plan upon which
they will be edited and published, will be substantially the
Bame as those of the American Decisions. The number of
volumes will be limited to six each year. This number will
admit of the selection and insertion of a higher percentage of
the original decisions than was possible in the publication of
either the American Reports or the American Decisions, while
it will not require the publication of anything which is not of
permanent and general importance.

The plan which it is proposed to pursue in this series of re-
ports may be considered with respect, first, to the reporting,
and second, to the matter to be reported.

In the reporting, an effort will be made, 1. To educe from
each opinion all the legal principles therein asserted as neces-
sary grounds of the decision; and to formulate those principles
into syllabi as clear and terse as possible; 2. To state those
facts which, though not disclosed by the court, are necessary
to enable the reader the better to comprehend the opinion, and
to determine whether any portion thereof was unnecessary to
the decision of the cause; 3. To embody in cross-references, at
the close of the opinion, citations of parallel and analogous
cases reported in the present series or in the American Re-
ports or the American Decisions; 4. To write full and accurate
notes to such cases as involve topics which, either from their
novelty or importance, are thought worthy of especial consid-
eration.

The matter to be reported will consist of opinions of the
courts of last resort in the several states, selected because of
their general value to the legal profession in every part of the
United States. Decisions which involve local or statutory



6 ANNOUNCEMENT.

questions will not be reported, except when those questions
are blended with others too important to be excluded. In
that event, no point of the opinion will be omitted. It is
true, this may occasionally result in the publication of matter
of local value only; but this evil will be more than compen-
sated by the obvious advantages of a complete report. Per-
sons seeing a case cited as reported in the original as well as
in this series will naturally and rightfully expect that either
citation may be safely cited in support of the same proposi-
tions. Furthermore, an opinion from which something is
known to be omitted is always viewed with a suspicion which
seriously impairs its force as an authority. Doubts will surely
arise whether the part omitted may not limit or enlarge that
which is inserted, or may not show that the portion published
is a mere extrajudicial opinion, not entitled to the rank and
credit of a matter necessarily decided.

While, as has been indicated, decisions involving statutory
questions will rarely be reported, yet when reported, if the
statute is not sufficiently disclosed in the opinion of the court,
the clauses under consideration will be set forth, either sub-
stantially or in full, in the statement of facts. By this means,
the decision can be clearly understood by persons not having
access to the original statute, and can be properly applied and
conceded the force of authority in every state having similar

statutes.

A. 0. P.

SAH FRANCISCO, July 27, 1888.



AMERICAN STATE REPORTS.



VOL. I.



SCHEDULE

showing the original volumes of reports in which the
cases herein selected and re-reported may be found,
and the pages of this volume devoted to each state.

MM.

CALIFORNIA REPORTS Vol. 72. 17- 91

CONNECTICUT REPORTS Vol. 54. 92-149

HOUSTON'S DELAWARE REPORTS. . . Vol. 5. 150-172

FLORIDA REPORTS Vol. 22. 173-230

KANSAS REPORTS Vol. 37. 231-280

MAINE REPORTS Vol. 79. 281-358

MARYLAND REPORTS Vol. 67. 359-421

MASSACHUSETTS REPORTS. .... Vol. 145. 422-486

MICHIGAN REPORTS Vols. 60, 61. 487-623

MINNESOTA REPORTS Vol. 36. 624-700

MISSOURI REPORTS Vol. 92. 701-784

NEW YORK REPORTS. Vol. 107. 785-904

f



AMERICAN STATE REPORTS.

VOL. I.



CASES REPORTED.



NAME. SUBJECT. REPORT. PAGE.

Adams v. BealL ................ .Infancy .......... 67 Md. 53 ....... 379

Adams v. Be Qua. ............... Judgments ........ 22 Fla. 250. ...... 191

Allen T. Maine Central R. R. Co. . Common carriers. . . 79 Me. 327 ....... 310

Allison v. Thomas ............... Deeds process.. . . 72 Cal. 562 ....... 89

Anderson v. Goff ................ Process ........... 72 Cal. 65 ........ 34

Anderson v. Peterson ............ Public lands. ...... 36 Minn. 547 ..... 698

Ayer v. Western Union TeL Co. . . Telegraphs. ....... 79 Me. 493 ....... 353

Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. T. Boyd. . Trespass ......... 67 Md. 32 ....... 362

Barker ada. People .............. Jury and jurors. . . 60 Mich. 277 ..... 501

Barry v. Terkildsen .......... '.{ "^^ \ 72 CaL 254. ...... 55

Bassett v. Conn. River R. R. Co. Railroads. ........ 145 Mass. 129 ..... 443

Bates v. Wiggin. ................ Mortgages ........ 37 Kan. 44 ....... 234

Bath v. Metcalf .................. False imprisonment.l4;5 Mass. 274 ..... 455

Bennett v. Kroth ................ Costs witnesses.. .. 37 Kan. 235 ...... 248

Berlack v. Halle ................. Mortgages ........ 22 Fla. 236 ...... 185

Bliss v. Inhab. of South Hadley. . .Negligence. ....... 145 Mass. 91 ...... 441

Bolinger v. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co. Railroads ........ 36 Minn. 418 ..... 680

Briggs v. Lewiston etc. R. R. Co..Munic. corporat'ns. 79 Me. 363 ...... 316

Brooks v. Brooks ................ Mar'ge and div'rce.HS Mass. 574 ..... 485

Banker v. Barron ............... Mortgages-paym't. 79 Me. 62 ....... 282



Burrows v. Mickler .............. Pleading and prac. 22 Fla. 572 ....... 217

Bushby v. New York etc. R. R. Co.Maxter and servant. 107 N. Y. 374 ..... 844

Butler v. Chambers .............. Constitutional law. . 36 Minn. 69 ..... 638

Callanan v. Oilman .............. Highways ........ 107 N. Y. 360 ..... 831

Carpenter v. Rodgers ............. Contracts ......... 61 Mich. 384 ..... 595

Cantens T. Hanselman. ........ \ HusbanJ and wife ) Ql Mi fa 426 ..... QQQ

I phystctans. \

Canco National Bank T. Shaw ..... Neg. instruments. . . 79 Me. 376 ...... 319

Clapp v. Minneapolis etc. R. R. Co. Master and tenant. 36 Minn. 6 ...... 629

I



10 . CASES REPORTED.

NAIU. SUBJECT. EXPORT. PAGE.

Clark v. Mosher ................ Interpleader. ...... 107 N. Y. 118. . . . . 798

67 Md. 461 ...... 409



Coburnv.Goodall ......... ~-.*fL *<**** ...... 75

Colman v. Goodnow .............. Mechanics' lien* ... 36 Minn. 9 ...... 632

Combav. Combs ................ Wills ............ 67 Md. 11 ....... 359

Connor v. Stanley .............. Contracts insanity. 72 Cal. 556 ...... 84

Cooch's Executor v. Cooch'a Ad- J Estates ofdeced'ts ) - rr onat tun jgi

ministrator. { wills. 1

Coverv. Stem .................. Debtor and creditor. 67 Md. 449 ...... 406

Co wen v. Sunderland ............ Landlord and ten't. 145 Mass. 363 ..... 469

Craver v. Christian .............. Master and servant. 36 Minn. 413 . . . . 675

Crawford v. Spencer ........... j Gamir^contract* J m MQ 4g8 ....... ?4g

Credit Company, Limited, v. j Corporations ) g, Conn. 357 123

Howe Machine Company. \ Neg. instruments. \
Cunningham v. Jones ............ Attorney and client. 37 Kan. 477 ..... 257

Dalay v. Savage ................. Highways ........ 145 Mass. 38 ...... 429

Davis v. Kobe. .................. Factors ........... 36 Minn. 214 ..... 663

Deringer's Administrator v. Der-j Corporations > 6 Honat 416 150

inger's Administrator. ( ex'rs and adm'rs. )

Detroit Base-ball Clnb v. Deppert. Injunctions ....... 61 Mich. 63 ...... 566

Defoe v. Harshaw ............... Munis, corporat'ns. 60 Mich. 200 .... 498

Donaldson v. Wilson. .......... \ Landlordandten- ) QQ m h> gg ...... 437

( ant negligence. J

Dora v. Dougherty ............ j ^^f \ < ......

44 ....... 368



67 Md. 383 ...... 396

Eutaw Place Baptist Church of ) m-n, c-i MI XQQ Atn

Baltimore City%. Shively. \ Wttt ............ 67 Mi 493 ...... 412

Evans v. Robberson .............. Executions ........ 92 Mo. 192 ...... 701

Fairbanks v. Snow .............. Duress ........... 145 Mass. 153 ..... 446

Firemen's Insurance Company j Partnership: ) /.^ -M-J j ft o nno

of Baltimore v. Floss. \ insurance. } 6 ' Md. 403 ...... 3

Fisk v. Central Pacific R. R. Co. . . Master and servant. 72 Cal. 38 ........ 22

Freehling v. Bresnahan .......... Exemptions ........ 61 Mich. 540 ..... 617

Freeman v. Foss ................. Statute of frauds. .145 Mass. 361 ..... 467

Gadway ads. People ............. Statutes .......... 61 Mich. 285 ..... 578

Gay v. Oilman .................. WiUi. ...... ..... 92 Mo. 250 ...... 712

Gilley v. Gilley ................. Parentand child. . . 79 Me. 292 ....... 307

Giroux v. Stedman .............. Saks ............. 145 Mass. 439 ..... 472

Godfrey v. White ............... Partition ......... 60 Mich. 443 ..... 537

Granite National Bank v. Fitch. . .Neg. instruments. . . 145 Mass. 567 ..... 484

Grieb v. Cole .................... Saks ............ 60 Mich. 397 ..... 633

GrisseU v. Housatonic R. R. Co. . . Railroads ......... 54 Conn, 447 ..... 138

Gunnv. Peakes .............. Judqments. ....... 36 Minn. 177 ..... 661



CASES REPORTED. 11

NAME. SUBJECT. REPORT. PAGE.

Halev. Spaulcling ............... Release, .......... 145 Mass. 482..... 475

Hall v. Kimmer ................. Pensions .......... 61 Mich. 269. - - 675

Harshaw ads. People ............ Munic. corporations. 60 Mich. 200. .... 498

Harris v. Bank of Jacksonville - - Alter nofinstmn't*. 22 Fla. 501 ...... 201

Hayes v. Nourse ................ Pleading andpj-ac.lQl N. Y. 577 ..... 891

Hazeltine v. Belfast etc. R. R. Co. Corporations ...... 79 Me. 411 ...... 330

Hodge v. Sloan ................. Covenants ......... 107 N. Y. 244. - - 816

Holman v. Continental L. Ins. Co.Insurance ........ 54 Conn. 195 ..... 97

House v. House ................. Attorney and client. 61 Mich. 69 ...... 570

Hudson v. Coe .................. Co-tenancy ....... 79 Me. 83 ....... 288

Jackson and Wife v. Holbrook. . . .Judgments ....... 36 Minn. 494 .... 683

Johnson v. Williams. ............ Deeds ........... 37 Kan. 179 ..... 243

Johnston v. Allen. .............. Neg. instruments. . . 22 Fla. 224 ...... 180

Kaes v. Gross ................... Homesteads dower. 92 Mo. 647 ....... 767

Kendrick v. Towle .............. Negligence ........ 60 Mich. 363 ..... 526

King v. Warfield ................ Contracts ....... ;. 67 Md. 246 ...... 384

Kiplinger v. Green .............. Landlord and ten't. 61 Mich. 340 ..... 584

Knapp v. Bailey ................ Deeds notice. ..... 79 Me. 195 ...... 295

Kraker ads. People .............. Criminal law ...... 72 Cal. 452 ...... 65



Kurtzv. State .................. Extradition ....... 22 Fla. 36 ....... 173

Lancaster y. Connecticut Mutual j Master and ser- ) 99 \T O AQQ 739

Life Insurance Company. ( vant negligence. )
Laubheim v. De K. N. S. Co ...... Shipping ......... 107 N. Y. 228 ..... 815

Lewis v. Wetherell .............. Homesteads ....... 36 Minn. 386 .... 674

Lindsley v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. Common carriers . . 36 Minn. 539 .... 692

Logan v. Logan. ................. Fraud, conveyances. 22 Fla. 561 ...... 212

Lowell v. Strahan ............... Landlord and fen'<.145 Mass. 1 ....... 422

^jTr^' City* Nati0nal BMlk [** and fcwiftV-lW N. Y. 179 ..... 803

Manchester v. Braedner ......... Stat. of I imitations. 107 N. Y. 346. .... 829

Mathewa v. Phelps .............. Guaranty ........ 61 Mich. 327 ..... 581

McCoy y. Brennan .............. Exemptions ....... 61 Mich. 362 ..... 589

McFadden v. Missouri etc. E'y Co. Common carriers. . . 92 Mo. 343 ...... 721

McFarland y. Sikes .............. Contracts. ........ 54 Conn. 250 ..... Ill

McGeo y. Missouri Pacific R'y Co. Common carriers . . 92 Mo. 208 ...... 706

McPhee y. Litchfield ............ Mechanics' liens - - 145 Mass. 565 ..... 482

McPherson y. Rollins. ......... j *** f Sj^ (l07 N. Y. 316 ..... 826

Michigan Land and Iron Com- ) Trt> ^ ..... 60 Mich> 143. .... 491

pany y. Deer Lake Company. )
Mitchell y. Aten ................ Agency judgm'ts.. 37 Kan. 33. ...... 231

Miller y. Dunn. ................. Constitutional law. . 72 Cal. 462. ...... 67

Millerv. Shay .................. Evidence ....... ..145 Mass. 1C2 ..... 449

........ 145Ma~281 ..... 458



New York Rubber Co. y. Rothery.tojcpel. ......... 107 N. Y. 310 ..... 822



12 CASES REPORTED.

NAME. SPBJICT. BEPOBT. PAGB.

Oak v. Dustin Duress 79 Me. 23 281

Oakland Paving Co. v. ^<aof\ass.. Constitutional law. . 72 CaL 5. 17

O'Brien v. Vaill Innkeepers 22 Fla. 627 219

Palmer v. Howard Sales mortgages . . 72 Cal. 293 60

Parlett v. Guggenheimer Trade-mark 67 Md. 542 416

Parkerv. State Rape. 67 Md. 329 387

Pearl v. Garlock Replevin, 61 Mich. 419 603

Peckv.Md^aa. | ^^^^ | 36 Minn. 228 665

Peninsular R. R. Co. v. Gary Railroads 22 Fla. 356 194

People v. Barker Jury and jurors. . . 60 Mich. 277 501

People v. Gadway Statute* 61 Mich. 285 578

People ex rel. Dafoe v. Harshaw. .Munic. corporat'ns. 60 Mich. 200 498

People v. Kraker Criminallato 72 Cal. 459 65

Peopfev. Sharp. j * 1 * W J^ flW.Y. 851

People, .So. ] ggSjfii [l07N.Y.593 893

Phelps v. Bates Wills 54 Conn. 11 92

Philadelphiaetc.R.R.Co.v. Fronk..ffa#rocKZ8 67 Md. 339 390

Pierce v. Equitable Life Assur- ) IJKTVT-KR AI*

ance Society. ^Insurance 145 Mass. 56 433

Pierce v. German Savings and ) Nuisance 72Cal.l80... 45

Loan oociety. \

Piperv. Hoard Stat. of limitations.. 1Q7 N. Y. 67 785

Piper v. Hoard Marr'geanddiv'rce. 107 N. Y. 73 789

Pratt v. Duncan. Mechanics' liens.. . . 36 Minn. 545 697

Pye v. City of Mankato Munic. corporat'ns. 36 Minn. 373 671

Raub v. Smith Statute of frauds. . 61 Mich. 543 619

Rentier v. Canfield Damages 36 Minn. 90. 654

Riggs v. Sterling Homesteads 60 Mich. 643 554

Ross v. Leggett Arrest damages. . 61 Mich. 445 603

Royal v. Chandler Evidence 79 Me. 265 305

Scarffv. Metcalf Shipping 107N.Y. 211 807

Seele v. Inhabitants of Deering. . .Munic. corporat'ns. 79 Me. 343 314

Sharp ads. People j ****. [ 107 N. Y. 427 851

Sherwood v. Whiting Deeds 54 Conn. 330 116

Shickle etc. Iron Co. v. S. L. ?rv_ .__-.,. i vr: n u oo K7i

Wiley Construction Co. \ Corporation* 61 Mich. 226 571

Simpson v. Story Skipping 145 Mass. 497 480

Smith v. Peninsular Car Works. . .Master and servant. 60 Mich. 501 542

Smith v. Wabash, St. Louis, and j Master and ser- ) Q0 M QCQ 700

Pacific Railway Company. | vant railroads, f '

Smith v. Wilson Innkeepers 36 Minn. 334. 669

Springv. Hager Innkeepers 145 Mass. 186 451

Squire ads. People. tJ^Sg^ [l07N. Y.593 893

State v. Thurston Statutes 92 Mo. 325 720

Stewart v. Smith Mortgages 36 Minn. 82 651



CASES REPORTED. 13

NAME. SUBJECT. RKPOBT. PAG*.

St. Louia etc. R. R. Co. v. Irwin. .Master and tenant. 37 Kan. 701 ..... 266

Stone v. French ____ .. ........... Deeds ............ 37 Kan. 145 ..... 237

Sullivan v. Royer ............... Nuisance. ........ 72 Cal. 248 ...... 51

Thomas v. Joslin ................ Judgments ........ 36 Minn. 1 ....... 624

Thurston ads. State ............. Statutes .......... 92 Mo. 325 ...... 720

Tobey v. Hakes ................. Mandamus ....... 54 Conn. 274 ..... 114

Tomlinson v. Bury .............. Wills ............ 145 Mass. 346 ..... 464

Tufts v. Sylvester ............... Sales ............. 79 Me. 213 ...... 303

Tyler v. Carlisle ................ Gaming .......... 79 Me. 210. ...... 301

Union Savings Ass'n v. Seligman. .Corporations ...... 92 Mo. 635 ...... 776

Venablev. Dutch .............. { H *J^u. } 37 Kan. 615 ..... 260

Wait v. Baldwin ................ Deeds. ........... 60 Mich. 622 ..... 551



222



Wheaton v. Trimble ............. Husband and ?i/e. 145 Mass. 345 .... 463

White v. Kuntz ................. Accord and satis/'n.lOl N. Y. 518 ..... 886

Whitney v. Salter ............... Estates for life - - 36 Minn. 103 ..... 656

Wichita etc. R. R. Co. v. Davis. . .Railroads ......... 37 Kan. 743 ...... 275

Wilson v. Jamison ............... Taxation ......... 36 Minn. 59 ..... 635



36 Minn. 1,2.... 659

Wilson v. Wilson ............... Trusts and trustees. 145 Mass. 400 ..... 477

Winn v. Sanford ................ Suretyship ........ 145 Mass. 302 ..... 461

Woodv. Callaghan..... ....... j Ne t^^* \ 61 Mich. 402 ..... 697

Woodman v. Pitman ............. lee ........ ...... 79 Me. 456. ...... 842

79 Me. 397 ....... 821



AMERICAN STATE REPORTS.

VOL. i



CASES

IN THE

SUPREME COURT

OF

CALIFORNIA



[!N BANK.]

OAKLAND PAVING COMPANY v. TOMPKINS.

[72 CALIFORNIA, 5.]

To ENTER PRIMARILY MEANS TO Go IN OR TO COME IN. It also some*
times means to register the essential fact concerning the thing said to ba
entered.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION REQUIRING AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION TO
BE ENTERED on the journals of the senate and assembly is satisfied by
the entry on such journals of an identifying reference. The amend-
ment need not be copied in full upon such journal.

MANDATE to require the execution of a contract by a city
marshal for street work. Whether the mandate should issue
or not depended on the validity of a constitutional amend-
ment, which was assailed on the ground that such amendment
had not been entered on the journals of the senate and as-
sembly. The only supposed defect with respect to such entry
was the failure to copy the amendment in full on the journals.

C. T. Johns, for the appellant.

/. H. Boalt, Henry Vrooman, and C. T. H. Palmer, for the
respondent.

By Court, TEMPLE, J. This case arises from a street assess-
ment in Oakland. The only question submitted is, whether the
constitutional amendment No. 1, ratified by the electors at the
general election in 1884, being an amendment to section 19,
article 11, was proposed by the legislature as required by sec-
tion 1, article 18, of the constitution. That section provides
AM. ST. R*p., VOL. L 2 17



18 OAKLAND PAVING Co. v. TOMPKINS. [Cal.

that amendments may "be proposed in the senate and as-
eembly, and if two thirds of all the members elected to each
of the two houses shall vote in favor thereof, such proposed
amendment or amendments shall be entered in the journals,
with the yeas and nays taken thereon," etc.

The objection is, that the proposed amendment was not en-
tered in the journal of either house, as required by the consti-
tution.

It was not copied into the journal, but there was entered an
identifying reference, such as is always entered in regard to
legislative bills; that is, it was proposed as a senate bill, and
was referred to by title and number. The yeas and nays were
entered as directed. It is agreed that the amendment thus
proposed was submitted to the people, and received a very
large majority of the votes cast.

This question is not a new one in this court. In People v.
Strother, 67 Cal. 624, it was the only issue of any importance,
and it was squarely decided that the amendment had been
constitutionally adopted. This was in bank, and there was
no apparent dissent. This decision was in October, 1885, and
in the following May, in the case of the Oakland Paving Co. v.
Hilton, 69 Cal. 479, an opinion was rendered by Justice Thorn-
ton, which was concurred in by Mr. Justice McKee, holding
to the contrary. The other members of the court who par-
ticipated in that decision based their concurrence on other
grounds.

It is contended that in this condition of the decisions the
question ought to be considered an open one. We do not ac-
cede to this proposition. In the case of People v. Strother,
supra, the point was squarely presented, was the only one in-
volved, and was plainly and unequivocally decided. We see no
reason why it is not entitled to the usual authority of a prece-
dent; nor do we concede that in so deciding there was error.
All admit that the constitutional requirement must be strictly
performed. But it does not follow from this that the language
of the instrument must be understood literally. The same
rules of construction must be applied to ascertain what its
requirements are, as though it were not mandatory and pro-
hibitory. And we think when an act commanded or author-
ized may be done in different ways, either of which would be
a strict compliance with the terms of the instrument under-
stood in some common and popular sense, either mode may
be pursued, unless some reason is discoverable for holding



Feb. 1887. J OAKLAND PAVING Co. v. TOMPKINS. 19

that one of such modes only will answer. If, for instance,
the direction to enter the amendment in the journal is com-
plied with, in some usual and popular sense of the language,
either by copying the amendment into the journal, or by
placing upon the journal an identifying reference only, either
will do, unless the context shows a different intention.

Now the word " enter " primarily means to go in or to come
in, but has many derivative meanings, and is often employed
in elliptical expressions, and is quite apt to be so used that the
literal or most obvious meaning cannot be attributed to it. We
read, for instance, in the laws of Congress that citizens may
enter at the land-office a tract of land, and the expression ia
repeated in different forms many times. We are often told
that a certain horse has been entered for a race, or an animal
has been entered at a fair. What is really done in each in-
stance is to make a record of certain important facts for pres-
ervation or notice. And such is certainly a very ordinary
meaning of the word "enter" when used in this derivative
sense; that is, to register the essential facts concerning the
thing said to be entered. And we think it may be fully ad-
mitted that the most natural and obvious meaning of the word
when employed in this derivative sense is to copy, without
greatly affecting the argument.

We find near the title-page of nearly every book printed
that it has been entered in the office of the librarian of Con-
gress. What is really left with the librarian is the title-page
of the proposed book, and this constitutes the entry, although
after it is printed the author is now required to present a copy
of the book for the congressional library. We sometimes read
that a certain play of Shakespeare was entered at Stationers'
Hall. We find that the entry really made was a brief identi-
fying reference, preliminary to obtaining license to print.
Such instances of the use of the word, and of the phrase in
which it occurs, might be multiplied indefinitely, but these
are enough to show that this usage is quite common. Now, if
we substitute in all these and like cases the word " copy " or
the phrase " enter at large " for the word " enter," we are
conscious at once that a great change has been made. In-
deed, the mere fact that the qualifying words " at large," " at
length," " in full," do so often accompany the word " enter,"
is proof that all feel that it is not a synonym of the word
44 copy."

The language, however, had been construed under the old



20 OAKLAND PAVING Co. v. TOMPKINS. [Cal.

constitution, which contained the same words, and under
which amendments had been adopted in the mode pursued
in this case.

The practice of both houses of the legislature had given this
construction to similar language. The joint rules have always
required, as also do the rules of the House of Representatives
of Congress, that at a certain stage in the passage of a bill it
shall be entered on the records of the house. They have
always been so entered by identifying reference. The conven-
tion itself adopted Cushing's Manual, which employs similar
language which is so used that it must be similarly under-
stood.



Online LibraryUnknownThe American state reports, containing the cases of general value and authority subsequent to those contained in the American decisions and the American reports decided in the courts of last resort of the several states (Volume 1) → online text (page 1 of 106)