Изображения страниц



Mandamus, see "Mandamus," 8 2.

cost for a new library building.–Nelson y. In-
Ordinances relating to intoxicating liquors, see habitants of Georgetown (Mass.) 606.

“Intoxicating Liquors.”
Restraining action of, see "Injunction," 2.

| 4. Contracts in general.
Retrospective operation of statutes for public

An unauthorized contract made by trustees of
improvements, see “Statutes," $ 5.

a library in a town held ratified by the town.-
Rights of telephone companies, see "Telegraphs Nelson v. Inhabitants of Georgetown (Mass.)
and Telephones," $ 1.

Statute providing for detaching, lands from $ 5. Public improvements Power to
municipalities as grant of legislative power,

make improvements.
see "Constitutional Law," § 1.

Acts 1901, p. 235, c. 118, and Burns' Ann.
Statutory provisions for improvements as dep: St. 1901, § 4190n8, held not to authorize
rivation of property without due process of contract by city with railway company for
law, see “Constitutional Law," $ 7.

erection of viaduct to be maintained solely by
Street railroads, see “Street Railroads."

the city for all time.—Vandalia R. Co. v. State
Taxation of property of, see “Taxation,” $ 2.

(Ind. Sup.) 980.
Water supply, see "Waters and Water Cours-
es," § 5.

$ 6. Preliminary proceedings and

ordinances or resolutions.
§ 1. Proceedings of council

or other

Under the sidewalk act of 1875 (Laws 1875,
governing body.

p. 63), publication of ordinance requiring owner
Under Burns' Ann. St. 1901, 88 237, 4357b, to build a sidewalk held sufficient notice to the
municipal ordinance requiring railroad to light owner to build the sidewalk.—Marshall v. People
crossings held invalid because of its indefinite- (Ill.) 70.
ness.—Chicago, I. & L. Ry, Co. v. Town of

A broad discretion is confided to city authori-
Salem (Ind. Sup.) 631, 634.

ties in the matter of sidewalk improvements,
An ordinance can be amended or repealed on and the burden is upon one complaining of their
ly by another ordinance enacted with like for action to show that the improvement ordinance
mality as the original ordinance.-Chicago, I. is unreasonable.—Marshall v. People (Ill.) 70.
& L. Ry. Co. v. Town of Salem (Ind. Sup.) A provision of a sewer ordinance for the con-
631, 634.

struction of house slants every 25 feet is not an
Ordinance imposing penalty for railroad's unreasonable or arbitrary subdivision of the
failure to light its crossings at night held penal property owner's land. - Washington Park Club
in character and subject to strict construction.

v. City of Chicago (III.) 383.
-Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co. v. Town of Salem Improvement resolution held not to substan-
(Ind. Sup.) 631, 634.

tially vary from improvement ordinance.-

Washington Park Club v. City of Chicago (I11.)
§ 2. Oficers, agents, and employés.

Under Burns' Ann. St. 1901, 88 4350, 4351,
person appointed a deputy town marshal could

Under Hurd's Rev. St. 1903, c. 24, § 513,
not, in an action on his bond, deny that he resolution for a public improvement held suf-

an officer de jure.-State v. °Frentress ficient.—Heiple v. City of Washington (III.)
(Ind. App.) 821.

Under Burns' Ann. St. 1901, 88 4350, 4351,

Under Burns' Ann. St. 1901, § 3977, relative
neglect of town board of trustees to fix official to construction of sidewalks, it is sufficient if
term of deputy marshal, or to examine and required service of notice be made on abutting
approve his bond, held not to affect the liability owners, regardless of sufficiency of return of
of his sureties on such bond.-State v. Frentress service.—Dyer v. Woods (Ind. Sup.) 624.
(Ind. App.) 821.

Under Burns' Ann. St. 1901, 8 3977, an order
In an action by a police officer against the to construct a sidewalk need not be served on
city to recover his compensation, held that the owner of abutting property.-Dyer v. Woods
certain allegations of the declaration were not (Ind. Sup.) 624.
susceptible of the construction that plaintiff

Under Burns' Ann. St. 1901, § 3977, resolu-
had been removed or suspended, or that his tion by board of public works for construction
tender of services was made during a suspen- of sidewalk held to sufficiently describe the prop-
sion or removal.-French v. City of Lawrence erty along which the sidewalk was to be con-
(Mass.) 730.

structed.-Dyer v. Woods (Ind. Sup.) 624.
Where an officer of a city was ready to per-
form services, but they were refused, he had in judgment made by municipal authorities in

Courts will not interfere with mere mistakes
cause of action to recover his fixed daily
rate of pay or salary.- French v. City of Woods (Ind. Sup.) 624.

constructing local improvements.--Dyer
Lawrence (Mass.) 730.
Under St. 1895, p. 187, c. 187, § 7, and St.

*Mere irregularities will not vitiate proceed-
1896, p. 365, c. 415, § 5, the salary of the clerk ings of municipal board of public works on col-
of the board of police of the city of Lowell as

lateral attack after completion of improvement.
fixed by the board held binding on the city.--Dyer v. Woods (Ind. Sup.) 624.
Smith v. City of Lowell (Mass.) 956.

*On collateral attack there is a presumption in
It is no ground for setting aside dismissal of favor of the jurisdiction of a board of public
patrolman from police force of the city of New works.—Dyer v. Woods (Ind. Sup.) 624.
York that the designation of deputy commis *On collateral attack of proceedings of board
sioner to hear charges was made orally.-Peo- of public works in constructing a sidewalk, it
ple v. Greene (N. Y.) 614.

will be presumed that the notice served on prop-
3. Property.

erty owners was sufficiently definite in its de
A gift of a library building and a library scription of the property to be improved.
fund held a gift to a town in its corporate (Burns’ Ann. St. 1901, $ 3977).-Dyer v. Woods
capacity.- Nelson v. Inhabitants of Georgetown

(Ind. Sup.) 624.
(Mass.) 606.

Under the terms of a donation of property Acts 1905, p. 286, 8 107, held not to nullify
to a town for library purposes, the town held section 95 (page 281), providing for the letting
authorized to select a new site and to fix the of a contract for street improvement to the low-

* Point annotated. See syllabus.


[ocr errors]



est and best bidder.-Monaghan v. City of In- ceeding to collect the assessment-People v.
dianapolis (Ind. App.) 424.

Cohen (Ill.) 388.
*A contract for the improvement of a street A question as to the qualifications of a
with a patented article held violative of Acts city engineer could not be raised on an action
1905, p. 281, 8 95.-Monaghan v. City of Indian- | by the city to enforce a special assessment for
apolis (Ind. App.) 424.

a street improvement.-Heiple v. City of Wash-
A contract for a city improvement construed, ington (I11.) 854.
and held that the mayor was the only city of Certification of an ordinance for a public
ficial empowered to waive the failure of the con- improvement by the city clerk held sufficient.
tractor to comply with a stipulation in the con- |-Heiple v. City of Washington (111.) 854.
tract.-Cashman v. City of Boston (Mass.) 671.

A typographical error in a notice of a public
8 8. Assessments for benefits, and improvement held not to affect the validity of
special taxes.

the assessment.—Heiple v. City of Washington
City sidewalk improvement held not substan- (Ill.) 854.
tially different than provided for by improve The fact that a city engineer in signing an
ment ordinance.-Marshall v. People (Ill.) 70. estimate on a street improvement placed an
Certain school property held subject to special validity of the judgment, especially where prop-

improper title after his name did not affect the
assessments.-Board of Education of City oferty owners were not injured thereby.-Heiple
Chicago v. People (Ill.) 75.

v. City of Washington (Ill.) 854.
Judgment of confirmation of special assess-
ment cannot be collaterally attacked in manda-

*A condition in a deed of certain land con-
mus to compel payment.-Board of Education veyed to a city for a street, that the grantor and
of City of Chicago v. People (Ill.) 75.

the remaining portion of the lot would not be

liable for municipal assessment for maintain-
*The decision of the county court that a par- ing the street, held ultra vires and void.—Pitis-
ing ordinance is not unreasonable will be sus burgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Oglesby (lod.
tained on appeal, unless clearly contrary to the Sup.) 165.
weight of the evidence.-Lamb v. City of Chi-

Under Act May 15, 1901 (Laws 1901, p.
cago (Ill.) 343.

531, c. 231), an assessment for street improve.
An order of the county court vacating an order ments made by the city council on an engineer's
reducing an objector's assessment, and granting report, without reference to the city commis-
a new trial to the city in special assessment pro- sioners required to apportion the cost, held void.
ceedings, cannot be questioned for the first time - Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Oglesby
on appeal.—Lamb v. City of Chicago (III.) 343. (Ind. Sup.) 165.

Whether a paving ordinance was unreasonable A municipal assessment for a gross
or not held primarily a question of fact for the against two distinct tracts, each described by
county court.---Lamb v. City of Chicago (111.) metes and bounds, held in violation of Act Jay

15, 1901 (Laws 1901, p. 534, c. 231).—Pitts-
Under Local Improvement Act, § 41 (Hurd's burgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Oglesby (Ind.

Sup.) 165.
Rev. St. 1903, c. 24, $ 547), requiring the filing
before final hearing of an affidavit "showing a

Complaint for relief against sidewalk assess-
compliance with the requirements of this sec- ment construed.—Dyer v. Woods (Ind. Sup.)
tion," such an atlidavit neerl not show com- | 624.
pliance with sections 38 and 39 of the act. — A property owner who claims that an assess-
Washington Park Club v. City of Chicago (Ill.) ment for a local improvement is invalid cannot

assert its apparent validity as a ground to en-
Equality of witnesses on each side in special join the making of a second assessment.-Dyer
assessment proceedings held not to preclude the v. Woods (Ind. Sup.) 624.
court from finding the preponderance of the evi-
dence to be with petitioner.-Conway v. City of $ 9.

Enforcement of Assessments
Chicago (111.) 384.

and special taxes.

A judgment of sale in a special assessment
Under Local Improvement Act, $ 41, as amend proceeding is defective where it refers to an at.
ed by Laws 1901, p. 107 (Hurd's Rev. St. 1903, tached schedule for the amount of the judg:
c. 24, 8 547), affidavit of compliance with provi- ment, and there is no dollar mark in front of
sions of the section need not show a compliance the numerals in the schedule, and nothing to
with sections 38 and 39 (sections 544, 545). — show that the numerals indicated dollars and
Conway v. City of Chicago (I11.) 384.

cents.--Gage v. People (Ill.) 56.
Supplemental assessment payable in one pay. Under Hurd's Rev. St. 1903, c. 120, § 191,
ment held not to draw interest, although the judgment and order of sale, in assessment pro-
original assessment drew interest as provided ceedings, marked "O. K.," and signed by initials
for in Local Improvement Act, $ 42 (Hurd's Rev. of county judge, held insufficient.-Gage v.
St. 1903, c. 24, § 548).—Conway v. City of Chi- People (ill.) 56.
cago (111.) 384.

Where a property owner appears and objects
The fact that a supplemental assessment pay to the entry of judgment for special assessment
able in one payment is erroneous in providing against his property, defects of description in
for interest held not to defeat the assessment.-

the delinquent list and in the publication and
Conway v. City of Chicago (I11.) 381.

certificate were waived.—Marshall v. People
Under Local Improvement Act, § 59 (Ilurd's (11.) 70.
Rev. St. 1903, c. 24, § 564), authorizing the levy Under Laws 1875, p. 64, $ 4, relative to special
of a supplemental assessment, objectors to a taxes for a sidewalk, the city clerk's report of
supplemental assessment cannot attack the in- delinquency of such a tax need not be under
sufficiency of the ordinance for the original as- seal of the city.-Marshall v. People (II.) 70.
sessment.-Conway v. City of Chicago (Ill.) 384.

Where a special tax warrant is issued against
Order of county court approving certificate of the property of a nonresident owner, demand
board of local improvements, under Local Im- for payment thereof need not be made personal-
provement Act, $ 84 (Hurd's Rev. St. 1903, c. ly, but it may be made by registered letter.
24, § 590), held conclusive in a subsequent pro- Marshall v. People (111.) 70.

* Point annotated. See syllabus.


Special tax warrant for sidewalk improve- 1 8 10. Police power and regulations.
ment held sufficient to authorize street commis *Town clerks have jurisdiction over prosecu-
sioner to make a valid demand.-Marshall v. tion for the violation of town ordinances.-Chi-
People (Ill.) 70.

cago, I. & L. Ry. Co. v. Town of Salem (Ind.

Sup.) 631, 634.
Evidence held to show a fatal variance be-
tween delinquent list on special assessment and $11. Use and regulation of public pla-
notice.—Smythe v. People (Ill.) 82.

ces, property, and works.
The delinquent list on an application for

In an action for injuries in a collision with an
judgment of sale for special assessment stands automobile, evidence held to require submission
a declaration, and the notice of process

of the question of defendant's negligence to
must conform thereto.—Smythe v. People (111.) the jury.-Hennessey v. Taylor (Mass.) 224.

In an action for injuries in a collision between
Where an objector to a judgment and order plaintiff and an automobile, the interpretation
of sale in special assessment proceedings appears of plaintiff's testimony and her negligence, if
and makes defense, he waives insufficiencies any, in failing to observe the condition of
in the delinquent list and in the notice of ap- travel in the street, held for the jury.--Hen-
plication for judgment. Ottis v. Sullivan (I11.) nessey v. Taylor (Mass.) 224.

In an action for injuries to plaintiff by a
In special assessment proceedings, held error collision with defendant's automobile, facts
to enter judgment of sale on the record as it held not to show such a balancing of probabili-
stood.-Ottis v. Sullivan (I11.) 487.

ties by plaintiff that she assumed the risk as a
In the absence of anything to the contrary

matter of law.—Hennessey v. Taylor (Mass.)

it will be presumed that lots assessed for a local
improvement as one parcel were owned and im- $ 12. Torts.
proved as one parcel, so as to sustain the assess-
ment under Laws 1901, p. 106, s. 41, amending owner for damages from surface water dis-

In an action against a city by a property
the local improvement act.-Ottis v. Sullivan charged upon plaintiff's property, held that evi-
(III.) 487.

dence that the water resulted from extraordi-
Where appellant from a judgment and order nary rains was admissible under the general de-
of sale in special assessment proceedings fails to nial.--City of Valparaiso v. Spaeth (Ind. Sup.)
set out any part of the assessment ordinance in 514.
his abstract, the Supreme Court will not search
the record for alleged defects in such ordinance.

In an action against a city by a property
-Ottis v. Sullivan (III.) 487.

owner for damages from surface water dis-

charged upon her property from a ditch con-
Under Revenue Act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1903, c. structed along a street, error in excluding eri-
120) $ 191, held proper to permit city treasurer's dence that the water resulted from extraordi-
report, etc., to be amended on application for nary rains was prejudicial.-City of Valparaiso
judgment and sale for delinquent assessments. v. Spaeth (Ind. Sup.) 514.
-Ottis v. Sullivan (I11.) 487.

*A city in constructing side ditches, culverts,
A special assessment judgment for the "spe- and outlets for surface water on the improve-
cial assessment, printers' fees, and costs, is ment of a street, is only required to provide for
not subject to the objection of allowing a double such waters as may be reasonably expected to
recovery for printers' fees.-Gage v. People fall, and which are not the result of rains of
(111.) 498.

extraordinary character.-City of Valparaiso
A special assessment judgment may refer to a

v. Spaeth (Ind. Sup.) 514.
following attached schedule, and make the same *A city held liable for the discharge of water
a part of the judgment.-Gage v. People (III.) upon a lot abutting on an improved street.-

City of Valparaiso v. Spaeth (Ind. Sup.) 514.
Local Improvement Act, $ 99 (Hurd's Rev. Under Burns' Ann. St. 1901, $8 3623, 6899,
St. 1901, c. 24, $ 605), held not to make section 6900, a city held liable for faulty improvement
84 (section 590) of the act, requiring the by board of commissioners of the county of that
certificate of cost of improvements to be filed portion of a highway within the limits of the
within 30 days, etc., applicable to an improve-city.-City of Valparaiso v. Spaeth (Ind. Sup.)
ment completed and accepted more than 30 days 514.
prior to the time such section became effective.
-Gage v. People (Ill.) 583.

Under St. 1852, p. 172, c. 244, § 2, and St.

1869, p. 497, c. 155, under which the city of
Under Local Improvement Act, $$ 42, 61, 63, Boston operates a ferry carrying passengers for
65, 84 (Hurd's Rev. St. 1903, c. 24, 88 548, hire, it is liable for injuries to passengers re:
567, 569, 571, 590), application for judgment sulting from its negligence.-Davies v. City of
and order of sale against property assessed Boston (Mass.) 663.
cannot be maintained where the rebates of the
excess of assessments over the cost of the im *Under Rev. Laws, c. 11, § 186, a city held
provement have not been made.-Gage v. People to have no authority to construct a polling
(Ill.) 834.

booth in the traveled part of a public street,
ment Act, $ 42 (Hurd's Rev. St. 1903, c. 24, Boston (Mass.) 907.
Failure of city to comply with Local Improve so that such a booth may properly be regarded

as a defect in the street.-Haberlil v. City or
$ 548), requiring the board of local improve-
ments to file a certificate of the date of the In action for injuries from defects in cross-
first voucher, etc., held not prejudicial to a walk, instruction as to contributory negligence
property owner.-Gage v. People (I11.) 834. held erroneous; the question of contributory
Under Burns' Ann. St. 1901, $8 4290, 4297, City of Boston (Mass.) 957.

negligence being for the jury.-McMahon v.
relating to the foreclosure of
lien, attorney's fees recoverable

*In action for injuries from defects in cross.
second foreclosure of the lien against property walk, instruction held properly refused as stat-
holders not joined in the first proceeding.– ing that barriers about a part of street under re,
Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Porter pair were sufficient, which was question for
(Iud. App.) 179.

jury.-McMahon v. City of Boston (Mass.) 937.
* Point annotated. See syllabus.



On а


*Notice of injury in action by traveler against MUTUAL AID SOCIETIES.
city for accident caused by defect considered,
and held sufficient.-Beyer v. City of North See “Beneficial Associations."
Tonawanda (N. Y.) 214.
*Liability of city for omission or commis-

sion of corporate acts defined.–O'Donnell v.
City of Syracuse (N. Y.) 738.

See “Insurance," § 11.
*A city held not required to keep stream
flowing through city in a safe condition, though
a public highway.-O'Donnell v. City of Syra-

cuse (N. Y.) 738.

See "Trade-Marks and Trade-Names."
A city held not liable for failure to provide Description of accused in criminal complaint,
against floods and streams used as an outlet
for its sewerage system.-O'Donnell v. City of judgment debtor, see "Judgment," $ 2.

see "Indictment and Information,”. $ 2.
of Syracuse (N. Y.) 738.
*One who voluntarily goes on an obviously “Davey" and "David,” as designating foreman

There is no variance between the names
dangerous sidewalk cannot recover for injuries
which he sustained, even if the negligence of the of grand jury.—Lamb v. People (111.) 376.
city is shown.- City of Norwalk v. Tuttle The names "Max" and "Matt" are not idem
(Ohio) 617.

sonans. -

-Vincendeau v. People (111.) 675.
*A petition to recover for injuries sustained
from falling on an icy sidewalk held not to

state a cause of action.—City of Norwalk v.
Tuttle (Ohio) 617.

See "Waters and Water Courses."
*Where a city gives a permit to use part of
a street for building material, it is not liable

to a person injured in consequence of failure
to guard such place, unless it had notice of Liability of infant for, see “Infants," $ 2.
such omission.-City of Columbus v. Penrod
(Ohio) 826.

§ 13. Fiscal management, publio dobt,

securities, and taxation.
Where town warrants were void when issued, Competency of witnesses in action for, see "Wit-

Causing death, see "Death," $ 1.
under Const. art. 13, because exceeding the
town's debt limit, they could not be made Form and allegations of pleading, see “Plead-

nesses," § 1.
valid by a subsequent ratification.—Eddy Valve
Co. v. Town of Crown Point (Ind. Sup.) 536.

ing," 8 1.

Ground of compensatory damages, see "Dam-
Where a town was deprived of power to

ages," $ 1.
issue certain warrants in excess of its debt harmless error in instructions as to, see "Ap-
limit, by Const. art. 13, it could not estop

peal and Error," $ 25.
itself to deny its liability when sued on such
warrants.--Eddy Valve Co. v. Town of Crown

By particular classes of parties.
Point (Ind. Sup.) 536.

See “Carriers," $$ 2, 7; "Municipal Corpora-
Where a town purchased a waterworks plant

tions," $ 12; “Street Railroads," $ 2.
subject to a mortgage which it neither assumed Bailees, see "Bailment."
nor agreed to pay, such mortgage held a part Bank directors, see “Banks and Banking," $ 1.
of the town's indebtedness for the purpose of Employers, see “Master and Servant," $ 3-9.
determining the validity of warrants subsequent- Lessor, see “Landlord and Tenant," $ 1.
ly issued.-- Eddy Valve Co. v. Town of Crown Railroad companies, see "Railroads," $8 5-9.
Point (Ind. Sup.) 536.

Telegraph or telephone companies, see "Tele-

graphs and Telephones," $ 2.
*A city held not entitled to recover on a bond
given to secure performance of a contract, by Condition or use of particular species of property,
which the city agreed, on certain conditions, to

works, or machinery.
donate money to a manufacturing corporation. See “Explosives"; "Highways," 8.4;. “Rail-
-Collier Shovel & Stamping Co. v. City of roads," 88 5–9; “Street Railroads," $ 2.
Washington (Ind. App.) 122.

Demised premises, see "Landlord and Tenant,"
A fund donated to a town for library pur-

8 1.
poses held, on being paid over to the town, Streets in cities, see “Municipal Corporations,"
should be impressed with a trust to indemnify

§ 11.
the library trustees arising from contracts ex-

Contributory negligence
ecuted by them.-Nelson v. Inhabitants of of passenger, see "Carriers,” $ 8.
Georgetown (Mass.) 606.

Of person injured by act of servant, see "Master
Where the fund donated for the purpose of and Servant," 8 10.
maintaining a library in a town belonged to the Of person injured by. defective sidewalk, see
town, the fund should be in the custody of the "Municipal Corporations," § 12.
town.--Nelson v. Inhabitants of Georgetown Of person injured by operation of railroad, see
(Mass.) 606.

"Railroads," $ 8.
Under. St. 1896, p. 366, c. 415, 88 6-8, the Of person injured on highway, see “Highways,"
appropriation by the council of the city of of servant, see "Master and Servant," $$ 6, 9.
Lowell for salaries and labor of police depart-
ment held applicable for the salary of the clerk

$ 1. Acts

omissions constituting
of the board of police.-Smith v. City of Lowell

(Mass.) 956.

*In an action for negligence, the pleading and

proof must show a violation of a particular da.

ty owed by defendant to plaintiff, the omission

of which caused the injury.- Pittsburgh, C.,
See "Homicide," $ 2.

C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Simons (Ind. App.) 883.
* Point annotated. See syllabus.


*A trespasser or mere licensee on the prem *Contributory negligence is a matter of de-
ises of another cannot recover from the latter fense.-Union Traction Co. v. Sullivan (Ind.
for personal injuries sustained by falling App.) 116.
through an open hatchway on such premises.
- Mallock v. Derby (Mass.) 721.

*In an action for injuries, the burden of prov-

ing contributory negligence is on defendant.-
$ 2. Contributory negligence.

Roberts v. Terre Haute Electric Co. (Ind. App.)
*In an action against a railroad for wrong-

ful death of plaintiff's decedent while attempt-
ing to drive over a crossing, the existence of the negligence is a matter of defense, and must be

*Under Acts 1899, p. 58, c. 41, contributory
marriage relation alone held not to have the proven by defendant by a fair preponderance of
effect of charging decedent with the negligence the evidence.- New Castle Bridge Co. v. Doty
of her husband, who at the time had sole man-

(Ind. App.) 557.
agement and control of the team.—New York,
C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Robbins (Ind. App.) 804. *In an action for injuries from falling into
*The fact that a married woman is riding

an open elevator shaft, the burden of proving
with her husband, who has entire control of the the defendant's negligence is on the plaintiff'.

-Fletcher v. Kelly (Ind. App.) 813.
team, while attempting to cross a railroad
track, does not relieve her of the duty of exer *In an action for injuries from falling into
cising care for her own safety. New York, C. an open elevator shaft, the burden of proving
&. St. L. R. Co. v. Robbins (Ind. App.) 804. plaintiff's contributory negligence is on the de-

*A child injured in crossing a street car track fendant.—Fletcher v. Kelly (Ind. App.) 813.
held bound to exercise all the care he might In an action for injuries from falling into
reasonably have exercised by the employment an elevator shaft, evidence held sufficient to
of all of his faculties.—Roberts v. Terre Haute justify_a verdict in favor of plaintiff.-Fletch-
Electric Co. (Ind. App.) 895.

er v. Kelly (Ind. App.) 813.
*Where a child was injured by ice dropped by Where one delivering ice dropped it so that in-
one delivering the same, that the child was at jury resulted to a child, in an action for inju-
the time playing in the street did not bar a re- ries, the evidence held to sustain a finding that
covery.—Slattery v. Lawrence Ice Co. (Mass.) the child exercised reasonable care. -Slattery v.

Lawrence Ice Co. (Mass.) 459.
*The standard of care on the part of an infant In an action to recover for injuries received
capable of going on public ways unattended de- by being struck by an electric car while cross-
pends upon his age and intelligence.—Slattery v. ing the public street, evidence held to show that
Lawrence Ice Co. (Mass.) 439.

plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary prudence,

and was guilty of contributory negligence as
*A child six years and eight months old may
be allowed to go upon streets, without a con- R. Co. (N. Y.) 1035.

a matter of law.-Lofsten v. Brooklyn Heights
clusive imputation of negligence to her custo-
dian.-Slattery v. Lawrence Ice Co. (Mass.) 459.

8 5.

§ 3. Actions-Pleading.

In an action for personal injuries, instruction
A complaint for negligence which is not pred-held not to assume to directa verdict without
icated on any act or

omission is bad on demur- proof of injury.- Chicago & J. Electric Ry. Co.
rer.-Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. McFall (Ind. v. Patton (ill.) 381.
Sup.) 400.

*Where, under the rules of law, a given class
*A plaintiff may plead in one paragraph

of facts, embodying all the controlling facts
different acts of negligence, and on the trial and evidence and the reasonable inference aris-
it is sufficient if he prove such negligence ing therefrom, constitute negligence or due
charged as will establish his case : and this care, it is proper to so instruct the jury.-
may be a single act of negligence.- New York, McIntyre v. Orner (Ind. Sup.) 750.
C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Robbins (Ind. App.) 804.

*The question of contributory negligence is
*Contributory negligence, though a matter for the jury, except where the exact standard
of defense, may be proved under the general of duty is fixed.--Union Traction Co. v. Sul-
denial.- New York, c. & St. L. R. Co. v. Rob- livan (Ind. App.) 116.
bins (Ind. App.) 804; Roberts v. Terre Haute

*An instruction in an action for personal
Electric Co. (Ind. App.) 895.

injury held to correctly state the law on the
A guardian held not entitled to prove that question of contributory negligence.—Baltimore
his ward was non sui juris where such fact &0. S. W. R. Co. v. Kleespies (Ind. App.)
had not been pleaded.-Roberts v. Terre Haute 1015.
Electric Co. (Ind. App.) 895.

In an action for injuries to a child in a street,
*By the express provisions of Acts 1899, p. owing to ice dropped by one delivering it, held a
59, c. 41, in an action against a railroad for question for the jury whether the accident
injuries sustained in a crossing accident, it is should have been foreseen and guarded against
not necessary to allege freedom from contribu- by defendant's agent.—Slattery v. Lawrence
tory negligence.- Southern Indiana Ry. Co. v.

Ice Co. (Mass.) 459.
Corps (Ind. App.) 902.

In an action for personal injuries, whether
*The sufficiency of a complaint, in an action plaintiff was on defendant's premises by invita-
for negligence, as against a demurrer, must be tion or was a mere licensee held a question for
tested by the specific averments thereof, with the jury.-Mallock v. Derby (Mass.) 721.
out reference to the general allegations.- Balti-
more & 0. S. W. R. Co. v. Kleespies (Ind. fireworks in a public park held a question for

*Question of negligence in the discharge of
App.) 1015.

the jury:--Crowley v. Rochester Fireworks Co.

(N. Y.) 470.
*Under Burns' Ann. St. 1901, § 359a, burden *In actions for personal injuries arising from
of proving contributory negligence held to be negligence, that the facts are undisputed does
on the defendant.- Diamond Block Coal Co. v. not make the question of negligence one of
Cuthbertson (Ind. Sup.) 1060.

law.-Sharp v. Erie R. Co. (N. Y.) 923.

* Point annotated. See syllabus.
76 N.E.-76

[ocr errors]
« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »