CIVIL DAMAGE LAWS. See "Intoxicating Liquors," § 3.
before the rights of third persons intervene.- Wasserman v. McDonnell (Mass.) 959.
3. Rights and remedies of creditors. A trustee in bankruptcy is not a party to a mortgage, executed by the bankrupt, within the meaning of the statute providing that an un- recorded chattel mortgage shall be void against See "Constitutional Law," §§ 2, 5, 6. a person other than the parties thereto unless there has been a delivery of the property.- Clark v. Williams (Mass.) 723.
Facts attending the giving of a chattel mort- gage held to show that there was no construc- tive delivery of the property which was in the hands of a third person at the time.-Clark v. Williams (Mass.) 723.
Against estate of decedent, see "Executors and Administrators," § 3.
CLASS LEGISLATION.
*The delivery required by Rev. Laws, c. 198, See "Constitutional Law," § 5. § 1, requiring delivery of mortgage chattels in order to render the mortgage valid as against third persons, in the absence of record, deter- mined.-Clark v. Williams (Mass.) 723.
CLERKS OF COURTS.
Power of deputy in probate proceedings, see "Wills," § 6.
Rev. Laws, c. 198, §§ 4-7, relative to fore- closure of chattel mortgages and redemption from foreclosure, held inapplicable to foreclo- sure under power of sale contained in the mort- See "Quieting Title." gage.-Wasserman v. McDonnell (Mass.) 959. Tax title, see "Taxation," § 5.
A sale of goods under a power of sale con- tained in a chattel mortgage is not invalidated as against a purchaser for value by an irregu- larity in the execution of the power of sale. Wasserman v. McDonnell (Mass.) 959.
See "False Pretenses"; "Fraud."
COLLATERAL AGREEMENT.
Parol evidence, see "Evidence," § 9.
COLLATERAL ATTACK.
On drainage proceedings, see "Drains," § 1.
Fraudulent issuance of, see "False Pretenses." On judgment, see "Judgment," § 5.
On appeal, see "Appeal and Error," § 6.
See "Municipal Corporations."
Equal protection of laws, see "Constitutional Law," § 6.
On preliminary proceedings for constructing lo cal improvements, see "Municipal Corpora- tions," § 6.
On qualification of notary to take affidavit, see "Notaries." On records of county board, see "Counties," § 1.
COLLATERAL INHERITANCE TAXES. See "Taxation," § 6.
COLLATERAL UNDERTAKING. See "Frauds, Statute of," § 1; "Guaranty.”
With street cars, see "Street Railroads," § 2.
Carriage of goods and passengers, see "Car iers"; "Shipping."
1. Power to regulate in general. Act Cong. May 25, 1900, c. 553, 31 Stat. 187 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 290], authorizes a state to enact laws prohibiting the possession of dead game within certain periods, whether taken within the state or imported.-People v. Hesterberg (N. Y.) 1032.
§ 2. Means and methods of regulation. *Rev. Laws, c. 65, §§ 15, 16, relative to peddlers' licenses, held a regulation of commerce * Point annotated. See syllabus.
in conflict with Const. U. S. art. 1, § 8.-Com- monwealth v. Caldwell (Mass.) 955.
Drainage commissioners, see "Drains," § 1. Scope and extent of review of proceedings be- fore, see "Appeal and Error," 16.
COMMISSIONS.
Of broker, see "Brokers," §§ 2, 3. Of trustee, see "Trusts," 8 4.
Of corporate stockholders, see "Corporations," § 3.
COMMON CARRIERS.
COMMON SCHOOLS.
See "Schools and School Districts," § 1.
For performance of contract, see "Contracts," § 2.
For property taken for public use, see "Emi- nent Domain," §§ 2, 3.
For services, see "Master and Servant," § 2. Of broker, see "Brokers," §§ 2, 3. Of county officers, see "Counties," § 1.
Of municipal officers, see "Municipal Corpora- tions." § 2.
Of shriff or constable, see "Sheriffs and Con- stables," § 1.
Of trustee, see "Trusts," § 4.
COMPETENCY.
Of evidence in criminal prosecution, see "Crim- inal Law," § 5.
Of witnesses in general, see "Witnesses," § 1.
Unfair competition, see "Trade-Marks and Trade-Names," § 2.
In criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law," § 3; "Indictment and Information."
CONCLUSION.
In pleading, see "Pleading," § 1. Of witness, see "Evidence," & 10.
Taking property for public use, see "Eminent Domain."
In dedication, see "Dedication," § 2.
In deed of land conveyed to city for street, see "Municipal Corporations," § 8.
In insurance policies, see "Insurance," §§ 4, 5. In railroad tickets, see "Carriers," § 5. Precedent to action, see "Action," § 1. Precedent to action by stockholders, see "Corpo- rations." § 3.
Precedent to action by trustee in bankruptcy, see "Bankruptcy," § 1.
Precedent to action for reformation of instru- ment, see "Reformation of Instruments," § 1. Precedent to action for wrongful death, see "Death," § 1.
Precedent to condemnation of property for pub- lic use, see "Eminent Domain," § 3. Precedent to relief against tax title, see "Taxa- tion," § 5.
Pleading by way of confession and avoidance, see "Pleading," § 2.
CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONS. Disclosure of communications, see "Witnesses," § 1.
Of assessment for public improvements, see "Municipal Corporations," § 8.
CONFLICT OF LAWS.
See "Charities," § 1.
Conflicting jurisdiction of courts, see "Courts," § 4.
COMPOSITIONS WITH CREDITORS. Contract of conditional sale as consideration
See "Compromise and Settlement."
COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT. See "Payment"; "Release."
Compromise of will contest as release of errors assigned, see "Appeal and Error," § 12.
for promise to pay price, see "Sales," § 7. For appeal bond, see "Appeal and Error," § 6. Of bill of exchange or promissory note, see "Bills and Notes," § 1.
Of contract, see "Contracts," § 1.
Of fraudulent conveyance, see "Fraudulent Con- veyances," § 1.
Of release, see "Release," § 1.
In proceedings to set aside a verdict in action for personal injuries, held error to receive af- fidavits on behalf of plaintiff in whose favor the verdict was rendered as to a settlement and of actions, see "Action," § 2. refuse those offered by defendant.-Kuehn v. Syracuse Rapid Transit Ry. Co. (N. Y.) 589.
it shall be void if sold by the purchaser on the *All parties to a conspiracy to injure an- sidewalk.-Collister v. Hayman (N. Y.) 20. other's business because of his refusal to do
some act held liable for resulting loss or overt acts done in pursuance of the conspiracy. Purington v. Hinchliff (Ill.) 47.
*Certain boycott agreement held illegal. Purington v. Hinchliff (Ill.) 47.
*To sustain an action for damages for a con- spiracy, it must appear that an act done pur- suant to the conspiracy proximately caused the injury complained of.-Britton v. Young (Ind. App.) 327.
*Under Burns' Ann. St. 1901, § 577, a person assaulted in pursuance to a conspiracy between several persons held entitled to recover judg- ment against all the conspirators.-Britton v. Young (Ind. App.) 327.
§ 2. Criminal responsibility.
Under Cr. Code, § 272, an indictment for conspiracy to obstruct the administration of justice held sufficient.-Tedford v. People (Ill.) 60.
*A conspiracy may be proved either by direct by circumstantial evidence.-Tedford
CONSTABLES.
See "Sheriffs and Constables."
CONSTITUTION.
See "Beneficial Associations."
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
Provisions relating to particular subjects. See "Appeal and Error," $ 27; "Commerce," 1: "Counties." §§ 1, 3; "Criminal Law," § 1 "Eminent Domain," § 1; "Judges,' § 1 "Jury," § 1; "Taxation," § 1.
to protect all citizens in their civil and legal Laws 1895, p. 974, c. 1042, entitled "An act rights," does not apply to a provision in a clause in a theater ticket rendering it void if sold by the purchaser on the sidewalk.-Collister v. Hayman (N. Y.) 20.
*The Legislature may validate by curative act any proceedings which it might have author- ized in advance.-People v. Wisconsin Cent. R. Co. (Ill.) 80.
§ 5. Privileges or immunities, and class legislation.
Acts 1903, p. 255, c. 145, relating to the im- provement of highways, held not unconstitution- al.-Spaulding v. Mott (Ind. Sup.) 620.
§ 6. Equal protection of laws.
*Laws 1904, c. 432, regulating the keeping of employment agencies in cities of the first and second class, is not, because it applies only to cities of the specified classes, in violation of Const. U. S. Amend. 14, guarantying the equal protection of the laws.-People v. Warden of City Prison of New York (N. Y.) 11.
§ 7. Due process of law.
Local Improvement Act, § 84 (Hurd's Rev. St. 1903, c. 24, § 590), relative to a hearing on the certificate of improvement, etc., held to afford due process of law.-People v. Cohen (Ill.) 388.
*U. S. Const. Amend. 5, providing, among other things, that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, applies only to congressional legislation, and cannot be invoked to affect state legislation.
Enactment and validity of statutes, see "Stat--Barton v. Kimmerley (Ind. Sup.) 250. utes," § 1.
Special or local laws, see "Statutes," § 2.
§ 1. Distribution of governmental pow- ers and functions.
*Where the Supreme Court finally adjudges a particular tax to be invalid, the Legislature cannot thereafter validate the levy and make the tax collectible.-Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. People (Ill.) 571.
Act April 23, 1902 (95 Ohio Laws, p. 259), Rev. St. 1905, §§ 1536-60, 1536-61, providing for detaching unplatted farm lands from cities and incorporated villages on petition to the court of common pleas, is not unconstitutional as con- ferring legislative power on the court of common pleas or a judge thereof.-Incorporated Village of Fairview v. Giffee (Ohio) 865.
The power of defining the functions of the judicial department is under the Constitution limited only by the general rule that a grant of general powers to any department constitutes an implied exclusion of all other departments from the exercise of such powers.-Incorporated Village of Fairview v. Giffee (Ohio) 865.
Burns' Ann. St. 1901, §§ 2385-2390, providing for the sale of the property of absentees, held not repugnant to U. S. Const. Amend. 14, guar- antying due process of law.-Barton v. Kim- merley (Ind. Sup.) 250.
*Burns' Ann. St. 1901, § 3977, relative to construction of sidewalks in certain cities, held not to deprive abutting owners of property with- out due process of law.-Dyer v. Woods (Ind. Sup.) 624.
Act Feb. 27, 1905 (Acts 1905, p. 59, c. 48: 4 Burns' Ann. St. Supp. 1905, § 893 et seq.) held not unconstitutional as a deprivation of property without due process of law.-Morrison v. Indianapolis & W. Ry. Co. (Ind. Sup.) 961.
*Laws 1900, p. 22, c. 20, as amended by Laws 1902, p. 487, c. 194, Laws 1902, p. 879, c. 317, and Laws 1904, p. 1413, c. 588, prohibiting the possession of game coming from without the state during the close season, is not uncon- stitutional as depriving a person of property without due process of law.-People v. Hester- berg (N. Y.) 1032.
§ 2. Personal, civil, and political rights. *Laws 1904, c. 432, regulating the keeping of employment agencies, held a valid exercise of the police power, and not in conflict with the See "Trusts," § 1. constitutional right to carry on a lawful busi- ness. People v. Warden of City Prison of New York (N. Y.) 11.
Liberty of purchaser to sell his property held Of election, see "Elections," § 2. not involved in provision in theater ticket that Of will, see "Wills," § 4.
* Point annotated. See syllabus.
joining in a contract of fam" Case v. Collins (Ind. App.) 781. *Agreement between employers and labor un-
Certain amendment of declaration held not cause for continuance on ground of surprise.-ion held valid.-Jacobs v. Cohen (N. Y.) 5. Wabash R. Co. v. Campbell (Ill.) 346.
*A motion for continuance on the ground of surprise resulting from an amendment of a plead- ing held properly overruled.-B. Shoninger Co. v. Mann (Ill.) 354.
82. Construction and operation.
A complaint in an action for breach of a contract held insufficient to show that plaintiff
had such a beneficial interest in the contract as would enable him to sue thereon.-Rodhouse v. Chicago & A. Ry. Co. (Ill.) 836.
Individual clauses of a contract must be con- strued in connection with the rest of the agree- ment.-New England Cotton Yarn Co. v. Lau-
Agreements within statute of frauds, "Frauds, Statute of." Assessment of damages for breach, see "Dam-rel Lake Mills (Mass.) 231. ages," § 3.
Assignment, see "Assignments."
Cancellation, see "Cancellation of Instruments." Election of remedies on breach, see "Election of Remedies."
Examination of witness in action on, see "Wit- nesses," § 2.
Harmless error in action on, see "Appeal and Error," § 22.
Operation and effect of gaming laws, see "Gam- ing," § 1.
Parol or extrinsic evidence, see "Evidence," § 9. Parties entitled to sue on contractor's bond, see "Parties," § 1.
Reformation, see "Reformation of Instruments." Specific performance, see "Specific Perform- ance."
Subrogation to rights or remedies of creditors, see "Subrogation."
*Where a contractor attempted in good faith to perform his contract, he was entitled to re- cover the contract price less such deductions as should be made on account of errors or omissions in doing the work.-Bergfors v. Caron (Mass.) 655.
The owner of a building in process of con- struction held entitled to a forfeit allowance for the contractor's delay up to the time the contractor was ejected from the premises be- fore completion.—Phaneuf v. Corey (Mass.) 718. 3. Rescission and abandonment. *Where a party to a contract makes a misrep- resentation as to a material existing fact, the one to whom it is made may rescind the contract. -Gardner v. Mann (Ind. App.) 417.
§ 4. Performance or breach.
An answer predicating the defense to an action for breach of contract on a provision making unavoidable cause an excuse for failure to per- form held not to state facts sufficient to bar the action.-Connersville Wagon Co. v. McFar- lan Carriage Co. (Ind. Sup.) 294.
§ 5. Actions for breach.
In an action to recover on a building contract, requiring the approval of the work by defend- ant's architect as a condition precedent to pay- ment, the question whether an unreasonable and vexatious delay in payment was occasioned by defendant's fault held one for the jury.- Fitzgerald v. Benner (Ill.) 709.
In an action to recover on a building con- tract, an instruction on the issue of the re- fusal of defendant's architect to deliver to plaintiffs a final certificate of approval of the work held not defective as not stating what facts constituted bad faith and lack of just cause on the architect's part in refusing to deliver the certificate.-Fitzgerald v. Benner (Ill.) 709.
Particular classes of express contracts. See "Bailment"; "Bills and Notes"; "Cove- nants"; "Deeds"; "Exchange of Property" "Guaranty"; "Insurance"; "Partnership"; Of witness, see "Witnesses," § 3. "Principal and Agent"; "Principal and Sure- ty"; "Sales."
Charter parties, see "Shipping," § 1. Employment, see "Master and Servant." Leases, see "Landlord and Tenant." Limitation of liability, see "Carriers," § 7. Marriage settlements, see "Husband and Wife," § 2.
Sales of realty, see "Vendor and Purchaser."
Particular modes of discharging contracts.
By heirs of co-surety, see "Descent and Dis- tribution," § 1.
From husband's estate for indebtedness paid by wife, see "Husband and Wife," § 5.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.
See "Negligence," §§ 2-5.
Of passenger, see "Carriers," § 8.
See "Compromise and Settlement"; "Payment"; Of person injured by act of servant, see "Master
§ 1. Requisites and validity.
A contract of family settlement held not ex- ecutory, but to have become operative from its date.-Case v. Collins (Ind. App.) 781.
A conveyance of certain land to a married woman held a sufficient consideration for her
Of person injured by defective sidewalk, see "Municipal Corporations," § 12.
Of person injured by operation of railroad, see "Railroads," § 8.
Of person injured on highway, see "Highways," $ 4.
Of servant, see "Master and Servant," §§ 6, 9. * Point annotated. See syllabus.
corporation may adopt by-laws for the govern- ment of the company, by-laws must be adopt- Wrongful conversion of personal property, see ed by the directors and managers, and not by "Trover and Conversion."
the stockholders.-Manufacturers' Bldg. Co. v. Landay (Ill.) 146.
In fraud of creditors, see "Fraudulent Convey- as an amendment to a by-law is binding.
In trust, see "Trusts," § 1.
Where all the stockholders of a corporation are directors, a resolution adopted by the directors although it is not ratified by the stockholders in accordance with a requirement of a by-law of the corporation.-Manufacturers' Exhibition
Conveyances by or to particular classes of Bldg. Co. v. Landay (Ill.) 146.
Disposition of action by, on reversal by appel- late court, see "Appeal and Error," § 29. Equitable jurisdiction of suit by stockholder to compel payment of dividends, see "Equity," § 1. Hearsay in action to enforce liability of di- rectors, see "Evidence," § 7. Mandamus, see "Mandamus," § 2. Mandamus to compel issuance of certificate of incorporation, see "Mandamus," § 1. Power of municipality to incur indebtedness in aid of corporation, see "Municipal Corpo- rations," § 13.
Proof of corporate existence as condition pre- cedent to condemnation of property for public use, see "Eminent Domain," §3. Right to corporate stock as between legatees and devisees, see "Wills," § 6. Taxation of corporations and corporate prop- erty, see "Taxation."
Particular classes of corporations. See "Beneficial Associations"; "Building and Loan Associations"; "Carriers"; "Exchan; ges"; "Municipal Corporations"; "Railroads," § 1; "Religious Societies"; "Street Railroads." Banks, see "Banks and Banking," § 1. Insurance companies, see "Insurance." Telegraph and telephone companies, see "Tele- graphs and Telephones."
Water companies, see "Waters and Water Courses," 5.
1. Corporate existence and franchise. Mere use of corporate name by a concern, without any fraudulent intentions or quences, held not a violation of the Criminal Code (Starr & C. Ann. St. 1896, c. 38, par. 368), making the unauthorized use of a corpor- ate name an offense.-People v. Rose (Ill.) 42. Violation of the Criminal Code (Starr & C. Ann. St. 1896, c. 38, par. 368), prohibiting un- authorized use of corporate name, can be at- tended only with infliction of the prescribed pen- alty.-People v. Rose (Ill.) 42.
*Shipper by dealing with dispatch line held not estopped to deny corporate existence of such line in a suit brought by it against him.-Kana- wha Dispatch v. Fish (Ill.) 352.
§ 2. Corporate name, seal, domicile, by- laws, and records.
*Under Hurd's Rev. St. 1903, p. 473, § 6, providing that the directors or managers of a
*Where all the stockholders of a corporation are also directors, by-laws adopted by them as stockholders will be deemed to have been adopt- Rev. St. 1903, p. 473, § 6, requiring corpora- ed by the directors in accordance with Hurd's tion by-laws to be adopted by the directors.- Manufacturers' Exhibition Bldg. Co. v. Landay (Ill.) 146.
§ 22. Capital, stock, and dividends.
Contract of corporation guarantying dividends to stockholders in preference to payment of necessary expenses held enforceable to the ex- tent of requiring the payment of dividends from the net income after deducting the expenses. Cratty v. Peoria Law Library Ass'n (Ill.) 707.
By-laws of corporation guarantying 8 per cent. annual dividend held to constitute a valid contract.-Cratty v. Peoria Law Library Ass'n (Ill.) 707.
the payment of 8 per cent. dividends held not Stockholder in corporation which guarantied barred by laches from enforcing their payment. -Cratty v. Peoria Law Library Ass'n (Ill.) 707.
Bill in equity held to lie to prevent discrimina- tion and distribution of dividends among stock- holders of same class.-Cratty v. Peoria Law Library Ass'n (Ill.) 707.
3. Members and stockholders.
In an action by a stockholder to set aside an agreement for the sale of stock or voting trust certificates, held that no cause of action was stated against one of defendants.-Weitze v. Burrage (Mass.) 508.
Sale of stock or voting trust certificates of a held to be within the express authority of the corporation made by the protective committee committee.-Weitze v. Burrage (Mass.) 508.
In an action by the stockholders of a corpora- tion against the officers for wrongfully occa- sioning loss, it was no defense that during the time of the alleged wrong the corporation was solvent, and that the stock had increased in value.-Jacobson v. Brooklyn Lumber Co. (N. Y.) 1075.
Where the officers of a corporation took funds as salaries to which they were not entitled, they could not defend their action on the ground that the business of the corporation had increased.- Jacobson v. Brooklyn Lumber Co. (N. Y.) 1075.
*Stockholders of a corporation held entitled to sue the officers without a prior demand on the corporation to sue.-Jacobson v. Brooklyn Lumber Co. (N. Y.) 1075.
Complaint in action by stockholder against a corporation and two other defendants stated cause of action in behalf of the corporation, but, failing to state demand on corporation to sue, held subject to demurrer. O'Connor v. Virginia Passenger & Power Co. (N. Y.) 1082.
Plaintiff, suing a corporation and two other defendants, held bound to allege a right of ac- tion in the corporation and the other defendants. and his right to enforce.-O'Connor v. Virginia Passenger & Power Co. (N. Y.) 1082.
* Point annotated. See syllabus.
« ПредыдущаяПродолжить » |