§ 10. Liabilities for injuries to third

persons.

*A master held not answerable for the acts
of his servant committed outside the line of his
duty.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Gillen (Ind.
Sup.) 1058.

*In an action by a servant for injuries from
a sliver from a hammer in use by another serv-
ant, the complaint was insufficient for failing
to show that the act of the other servant was
done in the line of his duty.-Louisville & N.
R. Co. v. Gillen (Ind. Sup.) 1058.

Messenger company held not liable for sum
collected by messenger for plaintiff, in absence
of showing of negligence of company in select-
ing messenger.-Haskell v. Boston Dist. Mes-
senger Co. (Mass.) 215.

*In an action against a master for an as-
sault committed by a servant, whether the serv-
ant was acting within the scope of his employ-
ment held for the jury.-Collins v. Wise (Mass.)
657.

In an action against the owner of a fish pre-
serve for injuries of a poacher shot by a watch-
man, it was error to refuse to charge that de-
fendant was not responsible if the shooting was
accidental or merely negligent.-Magar v. Ham-
mond (N. Y.) 474.

*Where trespasser on fish preserve is shot by
watchman, his contributory negligence held no
defense. Magar v. Hammond (N. Y.) 474.

*Where watchman in a fish preserve shoots a
poacher, whether the act was done within the

general scope of his employment, so as to ren-
der his master liable, held a question for the
jury.-Magar v. Hammond (N. Y.) 474.

*A master held not responsible for the act
of his servant done maliciously or in pursuit of
some purpose of his own; but where he dis-
regards his master's orders or exceeds his
powers, the master is liable.-Sharp v. Erie R.
Co. (N. Y.) 923.

It is error to take a case from the jury
where under the evidence the credibility of the
witnesses still remain for its determination.—
Sharp v. Erie R. Co. (N. Y.) 923.

*In an action to recover for the death of a
boy shot by a detective of a railroad company,
whether he was acting within the scope of his
employment held a question for the jury.-
Sharp v. Erie R. Co. (N. Y.) 923.

MEASURE OF DAMAGES.

For breach of contract to transport passenger,
see "Carriers," § 6.

For breach of covenant, see "Covenants," § 3.
For delay in transportation by carrier, see
"Carriers," § 2.

For loss of or injury to cattle by carrier, see
"Carriers," § 3.

For wrongful acts of agent, see "Principal and
Agent," § 1.

4.

MECHANICS' LIENS.

Credit of on foreclosure, see "Payment," § 1.
For construction of railroad, see "Railroads,"
Harmless error in action to enforce, see "Appeal
and Error," § 23.

§ 1. Nature, grounds, and subject-mat-
ter in general.

Under Burns' Ann. St. 1901, § 7255, and Acts
1899, p. 569, c. 255 (Mechanics' Lien Law), a
building equipped with machinery for the gener-
ation of steam to be distributed throughout a

city for heating purposes held a manufactory.
-Wells v. Christian (Ind. Sup.) 518.
82. Right to lien.

1899, p. 569, c. 255, a laborer hauling away dirt
Under Burns' Ann. St. 1901, § 7255, and Acts
from a trench for a steam pipe laid in a street
and connected with a plant for distributing
steam held entitled to a lien.-Wells v. Chris-
tian (Ind. Sup.) 518.

*Dynamite used in grading and construction
of a railroad is material within Mechanics' Lien
Law, Laws 1897, p. 516, c. 418, § 3.-Schaghti-
coke Powder Co. v. Greenwich & J. Ry. Co.
(N. Y.) 153.

8 3. Proceedings to perfect.

*Notice of lien held to sufficiently describe
the nature of the work and the character of the
materials.-Gilmour v. Colcord (N. Y.) 273.

§ 4. Waiver, discharge, release, and
satisfaction.
Materialman held entitled to sue on con-
for materials furnished.-Ochs v. M. J. Carna-
tractor's bond for failure of contractor to pay
han Co. (Ind. App.) 788.

§ 5. Enforcement.

On a petition to enforce a mechanic's lien, find-
ings of a jury that plaintiff had not fully per-
formed held consistent with a finding that he
had attempted in good faith to perform, and had
substantially performed.-Bergfors V. Caron
(Mass.) 655.

to personal judgment in an action to foreclose
*Grantee of owner of building held not liable
mechanics' lien suit. Gilmour v. Colcord
(N. Y.) 273.

§ 6. Indemnity against liens.

Sureties on a building contractor's bond se-
curing the owner against mechanics' liens heid
not entitled to file a lien for materials furnished
a contractor.-Miller v. Taggart (Ind. App.) 321.

MENTAL SUFFERING.

Element of damages, see "Telegraphs and Tele-
phones," § 2.

MERCHANTS.

License taxes on transient merchants, see
"Licenses," 8 1.

Taxation of property of transients, see "Taxa-
tion," 3.

Transient merchants, see "Hawkers and Ped-
dlers."

MERGER.

Of cause of action in judgment, see "Judg-
ment," § 6.

MESSENGER COMPANIES.

See "Carriers," § 1.

As employers, see "Master and Servant," § 10.

MINES AND MINERALS.

Mine operators as employers, see "Master and
Servant," §§ 5-9.

Payment to agent of rent under mineral lease.
see "Principal and Agent," § 2.
Requirements of statute of frauds as to oil
lease, see "Frauds, Statute of," §§ 2, 3.

8 1. Public mineral lands.

of sale.

*Where a notice is prescribed as a condition
of exercising a power of sale in a mortgage, a
sale without any notice, or upon a notice lacking
the essential requirements of the power, is void
as a proceeding for foreclosure.-Chace v.
Morse (Mass.) 142.

The fact that a notice of sale under a power
in a mortgage, and the sale itself, includes a
lot of land not included in the mortgage, does
not render the sale void, but merely makes it
voidable.-Chace v. Morse (Mass.) 142.

*In order to make a valid sale under a power
in a mortgage, the terms of the power must be
strictly complied with.-Chace v. Morse (Mass.)

142.

Irregularities in mortgage foreclosure sale
held not to render the sale a nullity.-Chace v.
Morse (Mass.) 142.

Proceeds of judicial sale of land as an en-
tirety should have been apportioned between
the different parcels of the land according to
the relative value of the parcels, instead of ac-
cording to their respective acreage.-Hogg v.
Rose (N. Y.) 38.

In a suit for accounting and for sale of land
deeded to trustees to satisfy advances made by
the trustees under the trust, judgment directing
the charges to be made on respective parcels of
land sold held proper.-Hogg v. Rose (N. Y.)
38.

§ 4. Foreclosure by action.

Master in chancery held to have acted proper-
ly in making a second offer of sale under fore-
closure decree.-Slack v. Cooper (Ill.) 84.

§ 5. Redemption.

*An agreement extending the time for the re-
demption of land sold under a foreclosure decree
held enforceable.-Williams v. Hoffman (Ind.
App.) 440.

The right to redeem within a period fixed by
a contract held not affected by the holder of the
certificate of purchase procuring a sheriff's deed
within the period.-Williams v. Hoffman (Ind.
App.) 440.

The word "redeem," in an agreement extend-
ing the time within which the right to redeem
from a foreclosure sale may be exercised, de-
fined.-Williams v. Hoffman (Ind. App.) 440.

The holder of a sheriff's certificate of sale un-
der a decree of foreclosure may extend the time
for redemption beyond the statutory period.-
Williams v. Hoffman (Ind. App.) 440.

*Where the time for the redemption of land
sold under a foreclosure decree has been ex-
tended beyond the statutory period by the hold-
er of the certificate of purchase, the redemption
must be made within the extended period, or

the right to redeem is lost.-Williams v. Hoff-
man (Ind. App.) 440.

tract extending the time for the redemption of
A complaint in an action for breach of con-
land sold under a foreclosure decree must allege
an offer to redeem within the extended period, or
allege facts showing an excuse for failure so to
do.-Williams v. Hoffman (Ind. App.) 440.

An allegation in a complaint for breach of con-
tract extending the time for the redemption of
land sold under a foreclosure decree held not to
state an excuse for the failure to redeem within
the extended period.-Williams v. Hoffman (Ind.
App.) 440.

mortgage for breach of condition is without
A foreclosure sale held under a power in a
authority, and does not affect the right of re-
demption unless there actually was a breach of
condition.-Chace v. Morse (Mass.) 142.

Mortgagor held guilty of such laches as to
preclude his right to redeem, unless the sale
was utterly void.-Chace v. Morse (Mass.) 142.
MOTIONS.

Change of venue in civil actions, see "Venue."
§ 2.
Continuance in civil actions, see "Continuance."
Direction of verdict in civil actions, see "Trial."
$ 4.
Dismissal or nonsuit on trial, see "Trial." § 4.
New trial in civil actions, see "New Trial." § 1.
New trial in criminal prosecutions, see "Crimi-
nal Law," § 13.

Presentation of objections for review, see "Ap-
peal and Error," § 4.

Quashing indictment or information, see "In-
dictment and Information," § 3.
Relating to pleadings, see "Pleading," $$ 3, 5.
Striking out evidence, see "Trial," § 2.

Defendants held not concluded from demur-
denial of motion by them to require plaintiff to
ring to complaint for misjoinder of causes by
separately state and number his causes of ac-
tion. O'Connor v. Virginia Passenger & Power

Co. (N. Y.) 1082.

MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS.
Jurisdiction of equity to avoid, see "Equity,"
§ 1.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.

See "Counties"; "Schools and School Dis-
tricts," § 1; "Towns."

Abatement of special assessment proceeding, see
"Abatement and Revival," § 1.
Abstract of record on appeal in action to con-
assessment, see "Appeal and

firm street
Error," § 7.
Actions against for wrongful death, see "Death,"
§ 1.

Bar of action for personal injuries by former
judgment, see "Judgment," § 6.

Bill of exceptions on appeal from assessment
for public improvements, see "Exceptions,
Bill of," § 1.

Dedication of easement to use of city, see "Dedi-
cation," § 2.

Enforcement of assessments for street improve-
ments as breach of covenant, see "Covenants,"
§ 2.

Exercise of power of eminent domain by, see
"Eminent Domain," §§ 2-4.

Form and allegations of pleading in suit to
restrain payment of contractors for public im-
provements, see "Pleading," § 1.

Judicial notice of character of light supplied by,
see "Evidence," § 1.

Mandamus, see "Mandamus," § 2.
Ordinances relating to intoxicating liquors, see
"Intoxicating Liquors."
Restraining action of, see "Injunction," § 2.
Retrospective operation of statutes for public
improvements, see "Statutes," § 5.
Rights of telephone companies, see "Telegraphs
and Telephones," § 1.
Statute providing for detaching lands from
municipalities as grant of legislative power,
see "Constitutional Law," § 1.
Statutory provisions for improvements as dep:
rivation of property without due process of
law, see "Constitutional Law," § 7.
Street railroads, see "Street Railroads."
Taxation of property of, see "Taxation," § 2.
Water supply, see "Waters and Water Cours-
es," 5.

§ 1. Proceedings of council or other
governing body.

Under Burns' Ann. St. 1901, §§ 237, 4357b,
municipal ordinance requiring railroad to light
crossings held invalid because of its indefinite-
ness.-Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co. v. Town of
Salem (Ind. Sup.) 631, 634.

An ordinance can be amended or repealed on-
ly by another ordinance enacted with like for-
mality as the original ordinance.-Chicago, I.
& L. Ry. Co. v. Town of Salem (Ind. Sup.)
631, 634.

Ordinance imposing penalty for railroad's
failure to light its crossings at night held penal
in character and subject to strict construction.
-Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co. v. Town of Salem
(Ind. Sup.) 631, 634.

§ 2. Officers, agents, and employés.

Under Burns' Ann. St. 1901, §§ 4350, 4351,
person appointed a deputy town marshal could
not, in an action on his bond, deny that he
was an officer de jure.-State v. Frentress
(Ind. App.) 821.

Under Burns' Ann. St. 1901, §§ 4350, 4351,
neglect of town board of trustees to fix official
term of deputy marshal, or to examine and
approve his bond, held not to affect the liability
of his sureties on such bond.-State v. Frentress
(Ind. App.) 821.

In an action by a police officer against the
city to recover his compensation, held that
certain allegations of the declaration were not
susceptible of the construction that plaintiff
had been removed or suspended, or that his
tender of services was made during a suspen-
sion or removal.-French v. City of Lawrence
(Mass.) 730.

Where an officer of a city was ready to per-
form services, but they were refused, he had
a cause of action to recover his fixed daily
rate of pay or salary.-French v. City of
Lawrence (Mass.) 730.

§ 6.

Preliminary proceedings and
ordinances or resolutions.
Under the sidewalk act of 1875 (Laws 1875,
p. 63), publication of ordinance requiring owner
to build a sidewalk held sufficient notice to the
owner to build the sidewalk.-Marshall v. People
(Ill.) 70.

A broad discretion is confided to city authori-
ties in the matter of sidewalk improvements,
and the burden is upon one complaining of their
action to show that the improvement ordinance
is unreasonable.-Marshall v. People (Ill.) 70.

A provision of a sewer ordinance for the con-
struction of house slants every 25 feet is not an
unreasonable or arbitrary subdivision of the
property owner's land.-Washington Park Club
v. City of Chicago (Ill.) 383.

Improvement resolution held not to substan-
tially vary from improvement ordinance.-
Washington Park Club v. City of Chicago (Ill.)
383.

Under Hurd's Rev. St. 1903, c. 24, § 513,
resolution for a public improvement held suf-
ficient.-Heiple v. City of Washington (Ill.)
854.

Under Burns' Ann. St. 1901, § 3977, relative
to construction of sidewalks, it is sufficient if
required service of notice be made on abutting
owners, regardless of sufficiency of return of
service.-Dyer v. Woods (Ind. Sup.) 624.

Under Burns' Ann. St. 1901, § 3977, an order
to construct a sidewalk need not be served on
the owner of abutting property.-Dyer v. Woods
(Ind. Sup.) 624.

Under Burns' Ann. St. 1901, § 3977, resolu-
tion by board of public works for construction
of sidewalk held to sufficiently describe the prop-
erty along which the sidewalk was to be con-
structed.-Dyer v. Woods (Ind. Sup.) 624.
Courts will not interfere with mere mistakes
in judgment made by municipal authorities in
constructing
Woods (Ind. Sup.) 624.
improvements.-Dyer

local

V.

It is no ground for setting aside dismissal of
patrolman from police force of the city of New
York that the designation of deputy commis-
sioner to hear charges was made orally.-Peo-
ple v. Greene (N. Y.) 614.

3. Property.
A gift of a library building and a library
fund held a gift to a town in its corporate
capacity. Nelson v. Inhabitants of Georgetown
(Mass.) 606.

Under the terms of a donation of property
to a town for library purposes, the town held
authorized to select a new site and to fix the

*On collateral attack there is a presumption in
favor of the jurisdiction of a board of public
works.-Dyer v. Woods (Ind. Sup.) 624.

*On collateral attack of proceedings of board
of public works in constructing a sidewalk, it
will be presumed that the notice served on prop-
erty owners was sufficiently definite in its de-
the property
scription of
to be improved.
(Burns' Ann. St. 1901, § 3977).-Dyer v. Woods
(Ind. Sup.) 624.

8 7.

Contracts.

*A contract for the improvement of a street
with a patented article held violative of Acts
1905, p. 281, § 95.-Monaghan v. City of Indian-
apolis (Ind. App.) 424.

§ 8.

A question as to the qualifications of a
city engineer could not be raised on an action
by the city to enforce a special assessment for
a street improvement.-Heiple v. City of Wash-
ington (Ill.) 854.

A typographical error in a notice of a public
improvement held not to affect the validity of
the assessment.-Heiple v. City of Washington
(Ill.) 854.

Judgment of confirmation of special assess-
ment cannot be collaterally attacked in manda-
mus to compel payment.-Board of Education
of City of Chicago v. People (Ill.) 75.

*The decision of the county court that a pav-
ing ordinance is not unreasonable will be sus
tained on appeal, unless clearly contrary to the
weight of the evidence.-Lamb v. City of Chi-
cago (Ill.) 343.

The fact that a city engineer in signing an
estimate on a street improvement placed an
validity of the judgment, especially where prop-
improper title after his name did not affect the
erty owners were not injured thereby.-Heiple
v. City of Washington (Ill.) 854.

*A condition in a deed of certain land con-
veyed to a city for a street, that the grantor and
the remaining portion of the lot would not be
liable for municipal assessment for maintain-
ing the street, held ultra vires and void.-Pitts-
burgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Oglesby (Ind.
Sup.) 165.

Under Local Improvement Act, § 41 (Hurd's
Rev. St. 1903, c. 24, § 547), requiring the filing
before final hearing of an affidavit "showing a
compliance with the requirements of this sec-
tion," such an affidavit need not show com-
pliance with sections 38 and 39 of the act.-
Washington Park Club v. City of Chicago (Ill.)
383.

Equality of witnesses on each side in special
assessment proceedings held not to preclude the
court from finding the preponderance of the evi-
dence to be with petitioner.-Conway v. City of
Chicago (Ill.) 384.

Under Local Improvement Act, § 41, as amend-
ed by Laws 1901, p. 107 (Hurd's Rev. St. 1903,
c. 24, § 547), affidavit of compliance with provi-
sions of the section need not show a compliance
with sections 38 and 39 (sections 544, 545).-
Conway v. City of Chicago (Ill.) 384.

Supplemental assessment payable in one pay-
ment held not to draw interest, although the
original assessment drew interest as provided
for in Local Improvement Act, § 42 (Hurd's Rev.
St. 1903, c. 24, § 548).-Conway v. City of Chi-
cago (Ill.) 384.

The fact that a supplemental assessment pay-
able in one payment is erroneous in providing
for interest held not to defeat the assessment.-
Conway v. City of Chicago (Ill.) 384.

Under Local Improvement Act, § 59 (Hurd's
Rev. St. 1903, c. 24, § 564), authorizing the levy
of a supplemental assessment, objectors to a
supplemental assessment cannot attack the in-
sufficiency of the ordinance for the original as-
sessment.-Conway v. City of Chicago (Ill.) 384.
Order of county court approving certificate of
board of local improvements, under Local Im-
provement Act, § 84 (Hurd's Rev, St. 1903, c.
24, § 590), held conclusive in a subsequent pro-

A municipal assessment for a gross sum
against two distinct tracts, each described by
metes and bounds, held in violation of Act May
15, 1901 (Laws 1901, p. 534, c. 231).-Pitts-
burgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Oglesby (Ind.
Sup.) 165.

Complaint for relief against sidewalk assess-
ment construed.-Dyer v. Woods (Ind. Sup.)
624.

A property owner who claims that an assess-
ment for a local improvement is invalid cannot
assert its apparent validity as a ground to en-
join the making of a second assessment.-Dyer
v. Woods (Ind. Sup.) 624.

9.

assessments

Enforcement of
and special taxes.
A judgment of sale in a special assessment
proceeding is defective where it refers to an at-
tached schedule for the amount of the judg
ment, and there is no dollar mark in front of
the numerals in the schedule, and nothing to
show that the numerals indicated dollars and
cents.-Gage v. People (Ill.) 56.

Under Hurd's Rev. St. 1903, c. 120, § 191,
judgment and order of sale, in assessment pro-
ceedings, marked "O. K.," and signed by initials
of county judge, held insufficient.-Gage v.
People (Ill.) 56.

Where a property owner appears and objects
to the entry of judgment for special assessment
against his property, defects of description in
the delinquent list and in the publication and
certificate were waived.-Marshall v. People
(Ill.) 70.

Under Laws 1875, p. 64, § 4, relative to special
taxes for a sidewalk, the city clerk's report of
delinquency of such a tax need not be under
seal of the city.-Marshall v. People (Ill.) 70.

Where a special tax warrant is issued against
the property of a nonresident owner, demand
for payment thereof need not be made personal-
ly, but it may be made by registered letter.—
Marshall v. People (111.) 70.