Washington Irving.

Albany law journal online

. (page 147 of 147)
Online LibraryWashington IrvingAlbany law journal → online text (page 147 of 147)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

8.— Parol promise to pay debt of another out of funds
to be received is not. Justice v. Tallman (Sup.,
Pa.) 280

9.— Assumption In pursuance of, an act of assemblvof
a statutory liability of another not within; consider-
ation. Pittsburg, F W. &C. By. Co v. Stokes (Sup.,
Pa.) . 815

10.— Sale of land, sale of standing timber is, and void if
by parol. Daniels v. Bailey (Sup., Wis) 3T1

11.— Sale of personal property, conditional acceptance
by agent. Kebble v. Gough (Eng. Ct. App > 872

12.— Agreement to pay attorney out of proceeds of land
to be sold not void by. McPherson v. Cox (U. 8.
Sup.) 378

13.— Sale of personal property, memorandum need be
signed by party to be charged only. Mason v
Decker ((3t. App., N. Y.) 873

14.— Sale of goods part delivery: liquor with labels
therefor were sold to defendant in New York, he
taking the labels; the liquor was sent to Michigan.
Held to be for Jury to say whether the labels consti-
tuted a part of the goods sold. Garfield v. Paris (U.
S.Sup.) 373; (in full) 4fl7

16.— Contract not to be performed within a year must
affirmatively appear so to avoid; variance by subse-
quent verbal agreement when binding. Walker v.
Johnson (U. 8. Sup.) 482

16.— Promise to pay deot of another, representation of
commercial agency as to credit is not. Sprague v.
Dun (Phila.C.P.) (N. C.) 400


principal on note prevents statute running as to

surety. Schendel v. Gales (C%. App.,Md.2 (N.CI). . 450
2.— Promise to husband of deceased owner of note stops

statute running. Keely v. Wright (Sup., Pa.) 436

3.— Surety rights of, when surety may not plead, though

principal can : right of surety after payment.

Reeves V. Kalliam (Sup., Fla.) 435

4.— In fraud, runs from discovery of. Penob. R. B. Ck>.

V. Mayo (Sup., Me.) 463

6. —Does not run on suit commenced and abated by

death. Evans v. Cleveland (Ct. App., N. Y.) 512

6.— Under! 104, old Code, action may be commenced

within one year after Judgment of reversal by Ct.

of Appeals. Woosterv. Forty-Second St. R. R. Co.

(a. App.,N. Y.) 100

7.— Resulting trust, action to enforce does not lie in

Pennsylvania after 21 years. King v. Pardee (U. S

Sup.) 181

8.— In Court of Claims, where action accrues. U. S. v.

Clark (U.S. Sup.) 253

O.^Does not run afl»lnst claim against bankrupt estate.

VanSachs V. Kret« (a. App., N.Y.) 254

10.— Runs as to dower. Proctor v. Blgelow (Sup., Mich.)

(N. C ) 278; (hi fuU.) 287

U.— Promise by partner of dissolved firm does not bind

Arm. Tate V. Clemens (Sup. Ct.. Fla.) 816

12.— Action to recover land not appHcable to lien ol^udgment

creditor; Statute of Dlinob. Pratt v. Pratt (U. S.

Sup.) 852

See CoTuUtutional Law, 44.

2. —In this State the tiUe is part of a legislative act. Peo-
pie v. Wood (a. App., N.Y.) , .... 68

8.— Laws District Columbia; parties defendant; election in
action on joint and several note. Burdette v . Bartlett
(U.S. Sup.) 01

4.— Laws of 1856, chap. 6, regulating excavations in New
York and Brooklyn ; license to enter and protect adjoin-
ing building must be asked for. Dorrity v . Bapp (Ct.
App., NY.) 174

5. — Repeal of penal act without saving chuise affects pend-
ing actions. Rood v. C. M. & St. P. R. R. <3o. (Sup.,
Vns.) 2J1

6.— Statute of Tennessee adding territory to city does not
render added territory taxable for debts previously
contracted. United States v. Memphis (U. S. Sup.).. 238

7.— Repeal of revenue laws by implication are favored.
Konlsaatv. Murphy (U. 8. Sup.) 388

8.— Act of Congress, July 17. 1872, forbidding private dr-
culating notes lees than $1, non-payable in goods, does
not viotote. United States v. Van Auken (U. S. Sop.)
(in full.) Ml. «0



9.— Federal eigbt-hour law. United States t. Drisooll
(U.S. Sup?) 478

STOLEN SECIJRITIES.-Purchaflerln good faith
protected: eyidenoe of intent. D. M. Ins. Ck>. ▼.
Hatchfleld (Ct. App., N. Y.) 416

dent notloe to carrier. Clementson t. G. T. Ry. Co.
(Q. B., Ontario.) 98

SURETYSHIP.— A sure^ cannot require the credi-
tor to see that nlB principal performs. Harris v. Newell
(Sup.. Wis.) (N.CT) 3

2.—- The liability- of a surety cannot be extended by con-
struction , constable's official bond. Taylor y. Pai^
ker (Sup., Wis ) 89

8.— Construction of contract of guaranty. Jefferson City
Gas L. Co. V. Clark (U. S. Sup.) 56

4.— Official bond sureties in, not uaDle for personal injury
resulting from neglect of duty of prindpal. Jenks y.
Fassett (Sup , Mo.) 98

6.— surety on undertaking on appeal not exonerated by
discharge of principal m bankruptcy. Knapp y. An-
derson (C^. App., N. Y.) 94

6.— Goyemment officer; sureties of ^not discharged by
forbearance. United States y. Wright (U. S. Dist.)
(N. C.) 99

7.— Prindpal liable to surety for costs and expenses Incur-
red in securing debt. Thompson y. Taylor (Ct. App.,
N. Y.) :.. 155

S.—Sureties when liable for debt of public officer, pre-
viously a defaulter. State y. Toor ^up. , K. J ) 171

9.~</On8truGtion of contract to furnish goods. Morrell y .
Cowan (Eng. Ct. App.) 172

10. —Attempt of creditor to collect collateral securities or
receiving such securities, or attempted payment will
not release surety. Lord y. Biselow (Sub., Mass.). . . 281

11.— Release of surety; creditor discharging after-acquired
security for debt, releases surety. Campbell y.
RothweU (Eng. C. P. D.) 668

12. —Alteration in contract; surety not liable under new
contract. Hoime y . Brunskill (Ene. C. P. D.) 271

18.— Official bond of U. S. revenue collector ; sureties not
liable to ^private individuals for torts of prindpal.
Cnarkv. United States (Sup., Ga.) 274

14.— Death; rule releasing surety by death not applicable
to indorser of commercial paper. First Nat. Bk. v.
Morgan ((3t. App., N. Y.) 858

16.— One siffning as surety presumptivdy does so for all
apparent makers ; consideration; release as indorser
suffldent. Saylesv. Sims ((^. App., N. Y.) 475

16.— Representations as to credit in good faith do not
render maker liable. Duff v. Williams (Sup., Pa.) (in

fuU) 610

See Bcmkruptcyt 18, 188-142 ; Corporation, 20.

SURROGATE.— Has not Jurisdiction to make legades
duurareable in real estate . Bivan v . Cooper (Ct . App . ,

TAXATION^— Must extend over whole of the district
b«ieflted. State v. Fuller (Sup., N. J.) 172

2.— Voluntarily paid when recoverable back. City of
Eliaabethv. Hm(Sup., N. J.) 172

8.— Purchase at tax sale by party bound to pay taxes is
but payment ; is voluntary^ and mistake as to effect
is one of law. Lambert v. Co. of Dixon (U. 8. Sup.). 262

4.— Of national banks; rate of, how determined in New
York; deduction for real estate. People v. Commtrs.
ofTaxes(Ct. App., N. Y.) (in full) 844

5.— Of national banks: unjust oiscrimination against, not
allowable, and will be restrained by Federal court.
Merch. Nat. Bk. v. Cummhig(U. S. Circ.) (C. T.) 297
flnfuU) 845

6.— Assessments for street improvements not taxes; cove-
nant to pay taxes of every name and nature. Beals
V. Prov. Rubber Co. (Sup., R.I.) (N. C.) 879

7.— Of farm lands induded in extension of dty for depart-
ments of, valid. Kelly v. 0. of Pittsburgh (Sup., Pa.)
(N. C.) :.. 898

8. -Exemption from personal and not assignable. Wilson

v. Gaines (Sup., Pa.). 486

See Batilcruptcy, 148.

TELEGRAPH.— Faflure to deliver message sent enti-
tles to at least nominal damages. Logan v. West. Un.
Td. Co. (Sup., ni) 98

TENANCY IN OOMMQN.-Doweress and heirs
tenants in common. Knowles v. Bamhardt ((^. App.,
N.Y.) .:.: 164

TENDER— Must be kept good to stop hiterest and costs .
Bteseffy. Heyward (U. 8. Sup.) 162

TIME.~^<^°^Pu^^<>'' 0^1 ^^ ^^® stated means reason-
able time. Shipler v. Scott (Sup., Pa.) 618

TITLE.— To personal property ; fraudulent bills oMading
given by general owner In possession, of pledged cargo
of grain transfer, no title; nor does fraudulent deliv-
«ar«^ and the ^bd^ee is not estopj^ed from asserting

TITLE — Continued . paq k .

2.— To artide to be manufactured and sent, vests when de-
livered to carrier to be sent, and this is not defeated,
because manufacturer retains lien while artide in car-
rier'shands. Higgonsv. Murray (Ct. App., N.Y.).. 884

S.^Sale of land by one in rebellion before passage of con-
fiscation act gives good title. Conrad v. Waples (U.
S.Sup.) 852

4.— To stolen securities; purchaser in good faith. D. M.
Ins. Co. v. Hatchfleld (Ct. App, N. Y.) 415

TRADE-MARKS.— Iiifringement: *'Sapolio" and
^*Sapniakr^ public must be misled and defendant's
individuality preserved. Enoch Bdorfean Sons Co. v.
Schwachhofer(Sup., N. Y.) (in fuU.) 229

2.— Bottles bearing distinctive indelible mark cannot be
used by rival trader. Rose v. Loftus (Eng. Ch. D.).. 472

TRADE SECRET.— Covenant not to disdose.not too
general and eiiforceable. Hagg v. Darley (Eng. Ch.
D.) 876

TRESPASS.— Trespasser by mistake, cutting timber,
not entitlea to compensation for work done. Isle Roy
Min. Co. v. Hertin (Sup., Mich.) 114

2.— Taldne possession of premises held over by tenant at
will after notice not. Sullivan v. Carberry (Sup., Me.) 418

TRIAL.— A ruling working no harm is not error. Mut.
Ben. & Life Ins. Co. vTHigginbotham (Sup. Ct., U. S.) 16

2.— Cross-examination is very much within disca^tion of
court. Carringtonv. Ward (CJt. App., N. Y.) 74

8.— Instruction to jury on assumed fact is error. Oii. R. I.
& P. R. R. Co. v. Houston (U. S. Sup.) 91

4.— Practice at, as to excepting to incompetent evidence.
Furstv. Second A. R.TlTOo. (CJt. App., N. Y.) 272

6.— General objection to evidence when suffldent and when
insuffldent. McCXilloch v. Hoffman (Ct. App., N.
Y.) ..... 868

6 . —Charged to jury comments not prejudicing, not ground
for reversal, court not bound to give as instruction philo-
sophical remarks. Walker V. Johnson (U. S. Sup.).. 482
See Criminal Law, 38, 39 ; Juror.

TROVER.— Defense; mistaken removal of fence under
orders of town officers, not. Smith v. Colby (Sup.,
Me.) 891

TRUSTS.— Life estate, a will directing trustees to
permit one to have, take and reoeiveVents, issues and
profits of land during natural life, creates llfeestato.
Verdin V. Slocum (Ct. App.,N. Y.) (In full) 13

2.— Assignee of mortgage held intrust expressed therein
takes subject to trust. Reid v. Sprague (Ct. App.,
N.Y.) rr...... .. 254

8.— Mutual ill will between cestui quttruet and trustee not
alone ground for removing trustee; attorney trus-
toe for client. McPherson v. Cox (U.S. Sup ) 878

ULTRA VIRES.— Doctrine only applicable to exe-
cutory contracts. Thompson v. Lambert (Sup., Iowa)
(N.C.) V;. 168

2.— Cannot be set up as defense for negligence. O &M.
R. R. Co. V. McCarthy (U. 8. Sup!) 194

8. — Contract of corporation In excess of powers valid
unless against public policy, that loan was made In
excess or powers no defense to action by corpora-
tion in. Qerm. F. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dheln (Sup.,
Wis.) 331

UNDUE INFLUENCE.- Pretenses of spiritual-
istic communication oonstitutos. Leighton v. Orr
(Sup., Iowa) (N. C.) 169

USURY.— Forfeiture must be confined to usurious
loan though consolidated with non-usurious. Mahn
V. Hussey (Chan., N. J.) 94

2.— Unauthorized takingof, by agent does not bind
principal. Gtokeyy. Knapp (Sup., Iowa) (N. C.).... 119

8.— What is not; the directors of a company loaned
money In Interest to it and the money was deposltod
without interest in a bank of which they were also
directors. Held, no usury. Omaha Hotol Co. v.
Wade (U.S. Sup.) 161

4.— Penalty In default in payment not. Ramsay v. Mor-
rison (8up.,N.J.) ITS

6.— Taint of, follows renewal notos, and a National bank
must give credit In an action on the lost noto for all
Interest paid from beginning. CJakev. First Nat.
Bk. of Lebanon (Sup., Pa.) On full) 845

6.— Injunction will Issue to restrain collection of.
Walto V. Ballou (Sup^ Kan.) 364

7.— By National banks Stato courts have Jurisdiction for
penalties ; set-off; penalty may not be against other
note. Hade v. Mc Vay ^up., Ohio) (InTulI) 410

8.— Provision that corporations shall not plead extonds
to their sureties. (Ct. App.. N. Y.) 476

9.— Onnot be eradicated by taking new security. Mil-
ler v. Irwin. (Sup., Pa.) 813

See Corporation, 20; NaUonal Bank, 3^5.

to post-nuptial settlement. Trowell v. Shereton




WAIVER.— Aooeptanoe by State of work and pairment
with Knowledge of all circunutances of contract
illegally made, ratiflcation and waiver of claim un-
der. People V. Lord (Ot. App., N. Y.) 278

WAREHOUSE RECEIPT.— Posaession of, in-
oorsediablanK, presumptrTeeTidenoe of ownership
of property described, is negotiable, effect of notice.
Bayls ▼. Russell (Sup., Cal.) 815

WARRANTY.— A receipt stating a horse to be
**qulet to ride and drive, and warranted sound/' held
not a warranty that the horse was quiet to ride and
drive. Anthony v.Halstead. (Eng. Com. Pl.'Div.) 17

2.— Breach of possession is essential to maintenance of
action for. Matteson v. Vaugh (Sup., Mich.) MQ

WATER-COURSE.— Right exists in public to float
logs on small streams. Town of Pierpont v. Love-
leas (Ct. App., N. Y.) Ml

WAY.— Bxisting right of, cannot be enlarged by new
use. Oartyv. Shields (Sup., Pa.) (N. C). 819

WILL.— In load pencil valid. Myers v. Vanderbilt
(Sup., Pa.)(N. C.) 28

2.— Bequest for advancement of Kingdom of Christ by
designated means valid 70

WILL — Continued . p ags.

8.— Construction of ** living children*' held not to in-
clude grandchild ; " children and heirs ** includes
grandchild ; instruction to exclude lineal descend-
ant will not be imputed. Low v. Harmony (Ct.
App., N. Y.) 2U

4— Construction of: suspension of power of aliena-
tion. Moore Y. Hegeman (Ct. App.,N. Y.) 254

6.— Construction of; perpetuities. (Harvey y. McDivitt
(Ct. App., N. Y.) 278

6.— Signed nv another by direction of testator valid ;
supported against testimony of subscribing witneea.
Wfllof Jenkins (Sup., Wis.) 480

7.— Construction of, when legacies not chargeable on
real estate. Sevan v. Cooper (C^. App., K. Y.) 612

WITNESS,— Impeachment; though party cannot
impeach his own witness, he may oontradiot him.
Smith V. Ebhert (Sup., Wis.) 211

2.— Experts, compensation of ; physician testlf ylng as,
entitled to extra witness fees. Buchman y. ^ate
gup., Ind.) (in full) 242

8.— Party is at common law to prove contents of lost
package, and under 1070, U. 8. R. S. United States
V. aark(U. S. Sup.) 288

4.— Deceased party ; remarks of deceased, to third per-
son, in presence of other party, he cannot testify
to under old Code, 390. Kranshaar v. Meyer (Ct.
App., N. Y.) 874

Digitized by




Digitized by


RETURN TO the circulation desl< of any
University of California Library
pr to ttie
Bldg. 400, Richmond Field Station
University of California
Richmond CA 94804-4698


• 2-month loans may be renewed by calling

• 1 -year loans may be recharged by bringing
books to NRLF

• Renewals and recharges may be made 4
days prior to due date.


UCI 2 7 2004

IZCXDO (11/95)

Digitized by


Digitized by



Digitized by


Online LibraryWashington IrvingAlbany law journal → online text (page 147 of 147)