Изображения страниц


Of traffic in intoxicating liquors, see "Intoxi- By, municipalities, see “Municipal Corpora-
cating Liquors."

tions," 88 5–9.
§ 1. Nature and gronnds.
*Under Code Cr. Proc. $$ 485, 516, 519, subd.

3, motion to dismiss indictment is appealable, so
that accused is not entitled to writ prohibiting Mineral lands, see “Mines and Minerals," $ 1.
the judge from further proceeding with the
trial.- People v. Trial Term, Part 1 (Criminal

Branch), of Supreme Court for New York Coun.
ty (N. Y.) 732.

Antenuptial contracts, see "Husband and Wife,”
*Writ of prohibition, under Code Civ. Proc.

8 2.
&$ 2091-2096, lies only when the grievance can-
not be redressed at law or in equity or by ap-

peal.-People v. Trial Term, Part 1 (Criminal
Branch), of Supreme Court for New York Coun- See "Schools and School Districts,” 8 1.
ty (N. Y.) 732.
*Writ of prohibition to prevent apprehended

error will be denied.-People v. Smith (N. Y.)

Dedication of property, see “Dedication.”.

Taking property for public use, see "Eminent
*As defendant's remedy on refusal of justice Domain."
to set aside defective service of summons is by
appeal, prohibition will not lie.—People v. Smith
(N. Y.) 925.


See "Waters and Water Courses," § 5.
See "Bills and Notes."


At foreclosure sale, see “Chattel Mortgages,"

$ 4.
Of loss insured against, see “Insurance," $ 8.

Of service of process, see “Process," § 1.

Judicial notice relating to, see "Evidence," § 1.

See "Animals"; "Good Will”; “Mines and

Minerals"; "Shipping"; "Trade Marks and Indictment or information, see “Indictment and

Information," § 3.
Constitutional guaranties, see “Constitutional

Law." 2.
Constitutional guaranties of rights of property,

see "Constitutional Law," $$ 3, 7.
Dedication to public use, see "Dedication.” In civil actions, see “Trial," $ 4.
Of municipality, see “Municipal Corporations,” | In criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law,"
$ 3.

8 9.
Protection of rights of property by injunction,
see “Injunction," § 2.

Taking for public use, see "Eminent Domain."

See "Ejectment," 1.

§ 1. Right of action and defensen.
Bill to

remove cloud from title held not
Abduction for purpose of, see “Abduction," § 1. maintainable under the evidence.—Livingston

County Building & Loan Ass'n v. Keach (I.)

In civil actions, see “Trial," 8 5.
In criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law," Duty of telegraph company as to stock quota-
8 9.

tions, see "Telegraphs and Telephones," $ 2.

wandamus to compel sale of quotations of board

of trade, see “Mandamus," $ 3.
Direct or remote consequences of injury, see

Of board of trade, see "Exchanges."
“Damages," $ 1.
Of injuries by collision of trains, see "Rail-

roads,” $ 7.

See “Street Railroads" ; "Taxation," $ 2.

As employés, see “Master and Servant."

Carriage of goods and passengers, see "Carriers."
To railroads, see "Railroads," $ 2.

Contracts between railroad and municipality for

erection of viaduct, see “Municipal Corpora-

tions," $ 5.

Documentary evidence in action for death

caused ov oneration of, see "Evidence," 8.
See "Counties," § 3; "Municipal Corporations," Exercise of power of eminent domain by, see
$ 13; “Towns," § 1.

“Eminent Domain," $ 2.
* Point annotated. See syllabus.

[ocr errors]



Form and allegations of pleading in action for fendant was operating railroad at the time of

injuries caused by, see "Pleading," $ 1. the injury held one of law for the court.-
Harmless error in action for injuries caused by, Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Weber (Ill.) 489.

see "Appeal and Error," 8 24.
Imputed negligence of person injured by opera-ing held entitled to recover from the company

*A passenger injured in a collision at a cross-
tion of railroad, see "Negligence,” $ 2:
Mandamus affecting, see "Mandamus,” 88 1-3.

negligently running its train into the car in

which he was riding.–Baltimore & 0. S. W. R.
Mechanics' liens for construction work, see
“Mechanic's Liens," $ 2.

Co. v. Kleespies (Ind. App.) 1015.
Pleading in general in action for injuries caused 8 6. Injuries to licensees or tres-
by operation, see "Negligence," 8 3.

passers in general.
Validity of ordinances requiring railroad to

In an action against a railroad for Degli-
light crossing, see “Municipal Corporations," gently causing the death of plaintiff's decedert
§ 1.

while attempting to drive over a crossing, evi-
§ 1. Railroad companies.

dence examined, and held insufficient to show,
Service of summons on servants of lessee

as a matter of law, contributory negligence on
railroad held not legal service on the lessor.- decedent's part.— New York, C. & St. L. R. Co.
Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Weber (Ill.) 489.

v. Robbins (Ind. App.) 804.

*In an action for death of a quarry employé
$ 2. Public aid.

Under Acts 1869, pp. 95, 96, c. 44, 88 14, 17, while attempting to load granite on a freight
Acts Sp. Sess. 1875, p. 70, c. 25, Act March 7, car, furnished by defendant, defendant held
1877 (Acts 1877, p. 111, c. 69), and Act March guilty of negligence in furnishing such car, which
11, 1875 (Acts 1875, p. 121. c. 82), supplemen- was fitted with a defective brake, for loading at
tary to Act 1869, a 'railroad company held not such quarry.-Hale v. New York, N. H. & u.
entitled to maintain mandamus to compel the R. Co. (Mass.) 636.
collection of a tax voted to raise funds for a Where a railroad company took freight as a
donation.-State v. Board of Com’rs of Clin- common carrier in the ordinary way from cer-
ton County (Ind. Sup.) 986.

tain quarries, where intestate was employed, it

was liable for negligence in providing an unsafe
§ 3. Right of way and other interests car to be loaded at the quarries, by reason of
in land.

which intestate was injured.-Hale v. New
Failure of property owner, who licensed rail- York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Mass.) 656.
road to construct its road over her land under
certain conditions and within a certain time, 8 7. Accidents to trains.
to declare a forfeiture at the expiration of the *A passenger on the train of one company
time fised for performance, held not a waiver may recover from another company for an in-
of her right to declare a forfeiture for non-jury resulting from a collision at a crossing
performance in the future.—Littlejohn v. Chica- caused by the negligent backing of a train of
go, E. & L. S. Ry. Co. (111.) 840.

the latter into a car of the former.- Baltimore
License under which railroad took possession & 0. S. W. R. Co. v. Kleespies (Ind. App.) 1015.
of land held revocable for failure of railroad *A railroad company approaching a track of
to comply with conditions.—Littlejohn v. Chica- another company crossing its own track held
go, E. & L. S. Ry. Co. (Ill.) 840.

required to stop, look, and listen for trains
*Agreement authorizing railroad to build its on the other track.--Baltimore & 0. S. W. R.
road on land and promising to give a deed when Co. v. Kleespies (Ind. App.) 1015.
the road was built held a mere license, and not
to confer any title on the railroad. - Littlejohn collision at a crossing, the act of another rail-

In an action for injuries to a passenger in a
v. Chicago, E. & L. S. Ry. Co. (Ill.) 840.

road held the proximate cause of the injuries.
Deed held not to except a certain strip of - Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. v. Kleespies
land from the conveyance.—Littlejohn v. Chica- (Ind. App.) 1015.
go, E. & L. S. Ry. Co. (I11.) 840.

Evidence in an action by a passenger for
*Certain conditions of conveyance to rail. injuries received in a collision at a railroad
road for right of way purposes held conditions crossing held to support the finding that the
precedent, and the railroad could not claim an passenger was injured as claimed by him.-
estate on condition subsequent.--Littlejohn v. Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. v. Kleespies
Chicago, E. & L. S. Ry. Co. (111.) 840.

(Ind. App.) 1015.
Where a railroad is deeded the fee to land A complaint held to charge a railway company
by warranty deed, its abandonment of the land with negligence in backing its train into the
for railroad purposes does not devest it of the train of another company passing over the
fee.- Enfield Mfg. Co. v. Ward (Mass.) 1053. tracks of the former.-Baltimore & 0, S. W. R.

* Abandonment of use of land by railroad Co. v. Kleespies (Ind. App.) 1015.
heid a question of intention.--Enfield Mfg. A complaint against two railroads for inju-
Co. v. Ward (Mass.) 1053.

ries to a passenger in a collision at a cross-
The fact that trustees under a railroad mort- ing held not to fail to show unity of action
gage pay no attention to certain land belong. on the part of the two railroads. --Baltimore
ing to the railroad held not to prove an abandon- & O. S. W. R. Co. v. Kleespies (Ind. App.)
ment of such land.—Enfield Mfg. Co. v. Ward 1015.
(Mass.) 1053.

8 8. Accidents at crossings.
8 4. Indebtedness, securities, liens, and *Railroads held not guilty of negligence per se

in operating trains over country highway cross-
*Under Laws 1897, pp. 515, 516, c. 418, $82, ings at any speed consistent with safety of the
3, a mechanic's lien may be obtained against a persons and property in their charge.--Lake
railroad for material used in the construction Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Barnes (Ind. Sup.) 6.
thereof.-Schaghticoke Powder Co. v. Green-
wich & J. Ry. Co. (N. Y.) 153.

*A complaint for injuries at a country tail-

road cross held insufficient to characterize the
§ 5. Operation-Companies and persons crossing as so extra-hazardous as to require the
liable for injuries.

railroad company to restrict the speed of its
In an action for personal injuries against a trains.—Lake Shore & M. S. Ry, Co. v. Bardes
railroad company, question as to whether de- '(Ind. Sup.) 629.

* Point annotated. See syllabus.

In an action against a railroad for wrongful | charge negligence in the operation of the loco-
death at a crossing, evidence that from certain motive. - Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. McFall
points in the highway defendant's track could (Ind. Sup.) 400.
be seen for certain distances held insufficient to
warrant the disturbing of a general verdict in ficiently charge negligence in respect to the

*A complaint against a railroad held to suf-
plaintiff's favor on the issue of decedent's con operation of a locomotive, and in permitting
tributory negligence.- New York, C. & St. L. fire to escape therefrom.—Lake Erie & W. R.
R. Co. v. Robbins (Ind. App.) 804.

Co. v. McFall (Ind. Sup.) 400.
In an action against a railroad for negligent-
ly causing the death of plaintiff's decedent while

attempting to drive across a track, the com-
plaint held not demurrable as proceeding on Of act of agent, see “Principal and Agent,” $ 2:
the theory that all the acts of negligence of void warrants, see “Municipal Corporations,"
charged combined caused the accident.-New

8 13.
York, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Robbins (Ind. App.)

*The failure of a railroad, while approaching
a highway crossing, to give the signals re-

See "Ejectment."
quired by statute, does not excuse one approach-
ing the track, with a view to crossing it, from

exercising ordinary care in so doing.–New
York, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Robbins (Ind. App.) See "Brokers.”
*In an action against a railroad for negligent-

ly causing the death of plaintiff's decedent
while attempting to drive over a crossing, neg: For public improvements, see “Municipal Cor-
ligence held established by proof of failure of porations," $ 8.
defendant to give the signals required by stat-
ute.- New York, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Robbins
(Ind. App.) 804.

*Plaintiff in traversing a path connecting Evidence, see “Trial," 2.
certain streets abutting on defendant railroad
company's right of way held to have done so by
defendant's implied invitation, and was entitled

to the exercise of ordinary care.— Pittsburgh,
C.,, C. &. St. L. Ry. Co. v. Simons (Ind. App.) As parties entitled to appeal, see “Appeal and

Error," $ 3.

As party on appeal or writ of error, see "Ap-
*In action for death in a crossing accident, peal and Error," $ 5.
the complaint held to sufficiently allege free-
dom from contributory negligence.-Southern S 1. Title to and possession of property.
Indiana Ry. Co. v. Corps (Ind. App.) 902.

*The appointment of a receiver affects no

change in the title to the property involved ;
In an action for death in a crossing accident, his possession being merely that of the court
an allegation of the complaint held to suffi- appointing him.-Polk v. Johnson (Ind. App.)
ciently show that intestate had driven on the 634.
track.-Southern Indiana Ry, Co. v. Corps
(Ind. App.) 902.

§ 2. Actions.

Receiver's inventory held admissible in action
*In an action for death in a crossing accident, by receiver for breach of contract claimed by
certain contentions as to defects in complaint defendant to have been sold at receiver's sale to
held of no merit.-Southern Indiana Ry. Co. show what was included in the term "assets"
V. Corps (Ind. App.) 902.

used in the order of sale.-Illinois Steel Co. v.
In an action for death in a crossing accident, Preble Mach. Works Co. (Ill.) 574.
the complaint held to show violation of Burns'
Ann. St. 1901, $ 5153, the proximate cause RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS.
of the injuries.-Southern Indiana Ry. Co. v.
Corps (Ind. App.) 902.

Evidence of other offenses, see "Criminal Law,"
*In an action for death in a crossing acci-
dent, held that the fact that an automatic Testimony of accomplices, see “Criminal Law,"
alarm bell did not ring was a circumstance to

$ 5.
be taken into consideration by the jury on the

*An indictment for receiving stolen goods
question of due care.-Southern Indiana Ry. held not defective for failure to name the thief
Co. v. Corps (Ind. App.) 902.

or allege that his name was unknown to the
$ 9.

grand jury.—Buechert v. State (Ind. Sup.) 111.
A paragraph of a complaint against a rail- In a prosecution for receiving certain steel
road company for the destruction of plaintiff's bars stolen from a corporation, evidence held
barn by sparks, merely alleging that the loco-to sufficiently show the corporation owner's
motive which emitted the sparks was operated nonconsent to the taking.–Buechert v. State
at a negligent rate of speed, held demurrable. (Ind. Sup.) 111.
-Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. McFall (Ind.

In a prosecution for receiving stolen goods,
Sup.) 400.

an instruction on the proof of the corporation
A paragraph of a complaint against a rail-owner's nonconsent to the taking of the goods
road company for the destruction of plaintiff's held properly refused as too broad.-Buechert
barn by fire held not to charge negligence in v. State (Ind. Sup.) 111.
that defendant permitted fire to escape from
its right of way.---Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. 2012 (Rev. St. 1881, $ 1935 and Horner's Ann.

*An indictment under Burns' Ann. St. 1901, 8
McFall (Ind. Sup.) 400.

St. 1901, $ 1935), describing the property stolen
In an action for destruction of plaintiff's barn and received as brass of a certain value, suffi-
by fire emitted by defendant's locomotive, a ciently described the property.-Miller v. State
paragraph of the complaint held to sufficiently (Ind. Sup.) 245.

* Point annotated. See syllabus.

$ 5.

[ocr errors]


Effect of discharge in bankruptcy on liability See "Records."
of surety, see “Bankruptcy,” 8 2.

Of particular instruments or transactions

See "Deeds," $ 3; "Trade-Marks and Trade

Names," § 1.
Attaching assignment of errors to record on ap-

peal, see "Appeal and Error," $ 12.
Of county board, see “Counties," 1.
Statement in brief of portion of record, see “Ap-On appeal or writ of error, see “Appeal and Er-

See "New Trial.”'
peal and Error," § 13.

ror,” 8 15.
Of judicial proceedings.
See “Courts," $ 1.

Abstract for purpose of review, see “Appeal and of members of association, see “Associations."

Error," 8 7.
Judgment in criminal prosecution, see “Crim-
inal Law," $ 14.

Transcript on appeal or writ of error, see "Ap-

peal and Error,” $$ 7-11; "Criminal Law," See “Compromise and Settlement" ; "Payment."
§ 15.

Effect of discharge in bankruptcy, see "Bank-
Of particular instruments.

ruptcy," $ 2.
See “Deeds," $ 3.

Of particular classes of rights and liabilities.
Where, in a proceeding to register title, there See "Dower,” s 2.
was an issue as to the location of a boundary Right to compensation for property taken for
line, and on appeal from the land court, under
Rev. Laws, c. 128, § 13, as amended by St. 1902, Widow's allowance, see "Esecutors and Admin-

public use, see "Eminent Domain," $ 2.
p. 370, c. 458, issues were framed, such issues
should be construed in connection with the deci-

istrators," $ 2.
sion of the land court to show the question pre-8 1. Requisites and validity:
sented for review.-Jeffrey v. Winter (Mass.) *An agreement to discharge a debt on payment

of a part of the amount due is without con-
Where a proceeding to register title is ap-sideration, and the balance may be recovered. -
pealed to the superior court and is reported to Zuelly v. Casper (Ind. App.) 646.
the Supreme Judicial Court, the decision of that 6 2. Construction and operation.
court cannot be certified direct to the land court,

That a sum is paid in gross to several persons
but the case must be remanded to the superior in satisfaction of their individual claims, arising
court, under Rev. Laws, c. 128, § 14.—Jeffrey v. from personal injuries sustained in the same ac-
Winter (Mass.) 282.

cident, does not necessarily make the contract

under which the sum is paid, joint.-Hoerger F.

Citizens' St. R. Co. (Ind. App.) 328.

A release of a claim for a personal injury
From mortgage, see “Mortgages," 89 2, 5.

held a bar to an action therefor.-Hoerger v.
From sale on execution, see "Execution," $ 1.

Citizens' St. R. Co. (Ind. App.) 328.
§ 3. Pleading, evidence, trial, and re-


A pleading, alleging that a release of a claim
See "Arbitration and Award."

for a personal injury was incorrectly reduced to
writing, held to fail to show that the agreement

should be rescinded.—Hoerger v. Citizens' St.

R. Co. (Ind. App.) 328.

*A reply, in an action for personal injuries, to
See “Cancellation of Instruments."

answer setting up a release executed by

plaintiff and others, held bad for failing to con-
§ 1. Right of action and defenses. tain certain allegations.--Hoerger v. Citizens'

*In an action on a written instrument, a de- St. R. Co. (Ind. App.) 328.
mand for a reformation was not a condition pre-
cedent to defendant's right to demand a refor-
mation in such action.- Nichols & Shepard Co.

v. Berning (Ind. App.) 776.

See “Charities."
*Failure of defendant to read a contract or Variance between pleading and proof in action
ascertain its contents before signing it held not against trustees of church, see "Pleading,"
such negligence as would preclude him from ob-

$ 6.
taining a reformation of the instrument, so that
it should evidence the contract made.- Nichols Property conveyed to the trustees of an unin.
& Shepard Co. v. Berning (Ind. App.) 776. corporated congregation vests on its incorpora-

tion in the corporation.—Christian Church of

Sand Creek v. Church of Christ of Sand Creek

(111.) 703.

*The courts have no jurisdiction to deter
Attack by habeas corpus on judgment commit- mine which faction of a congregation is in
ting infant to reformatory, see “Habeas Cor- practices and beliefs correct from an ecclesias-
pus," $ 1.

tical standpoint, except so far as property righis

are involved.-Christian Church of Sand Creek

v. Church of Christ of Sand Creek (III.) 703

*The fact that a great majority of the congre
Of witness, see "Witnesses," $ 2.

gations of a denomination have adopted inno
* Point annotated. See syllabus.


vations held not to affect the title of the prop-

erty of a congregation maintaining the original
practices. Christian Church of Sand Creek See "Landlord and Tenant," $ 2.
7. Church of Christ of Sand Creek (111.) 703.
*A faction of a congregation held entitled to

the church property on the theory that it upheld
the doctrines originally taught.-Christian Duty of master as to repair of machinery and
Church of Sand Creek v. Church of Christ of

tools, see "Master and Servant," 4.
and Creek (111.) 703.

Of highway, see “Highways,” 8 2.
*The property of a congregation dividing in-
to factions held to belong to the faction adher-

ing to the doctrines originally taught by the
congregation.—Christian Church of Sand Creek Of statutes, see “Statutes," § 4.
v. Church of Christ of Sand Creek (Ill.) 703.


Of goods sold on fraudulent representations, see
See "Life Estates."

"Sales," 5.
Creation, see “Wills," $ 5.


Of evidence as part of record on appeal, see
Of cause on appeal or writ of error, see "Ap- “Appeal and Error," $ 9.
peal and Error," 8 29.

Of personal representatives, see “Executors and

Administrators," § 6.

Effect on jurisdiction of equity, see "Equity,"
$ 1.

For instructions in civil actions, see “Trial,"
For breach of contract as to use of electricity, $ 8.
see "Electricity."

For instructions in criminal prosecutions, see

"Criminal Law," § 11.

Of cause on appeal or writ of error, see “Ap. Cancellation of written instrument, see "Can-
peal and Error," § 29.

cellation of Instruments."

Of contract, see “Contracts," $ 3.

Of contract for exchange of property, see “Ex-

change of Property.”
Of guardian, see "Guardian and Ward," $ 1.
Of policemen, see "Municipal Corporations,"
$ 2.


In deeds, see "Deeds," $ 2.
Change of venue or place of trial, see "Venue;"

$ 2.
Review of ruling on petition for removal of In civil actions, see "Evidence," $ 3.

cause as dependent on motion for new trial,
see "Appeal and Error," $ 4.

§ 1. Power to remove and right of re-
moval in general.

See "Judgment," $$ 6, 7.
An action for a writ of mandamus held not a
suit "of a civil nature at law or in equity,"

within Act Aug. 13, 1888, c. 866, § 2, 25 Stat.
434 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 509), relating to Municinal improvement resolutions, see “Mu-
the removal of suits to the federal courts. nicipal Corporations," $ 6.
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. State (Ind.
Sup.) 100.

$ 2. Amount or value in controversy.

See “Trusts," § 1.
*A petition for removal of a cause to the
federal court held properly denied on the ground
that the amount in controversy did not exceed

$2,000.-Springer v. Bricker (Ind. Sup.) 114.

See “Partnership," $ 2.
*In determining the amount in controversy
on an application for removal of a cause to
the federal court, the trial court is bound by

the averments of the complaint as well as of See "Statutes,” 8 5.
the petition for removal.--Springer v. Bricker
(Ind. Sup.) 114.

Constitutional restrictions, see "Constitutional

Law," $ 4.

See “Quieting Title."

of delinquent drainage assessments,

"Drains," $ 2.

Of election, see "Elections," § 1.

Of process in general, see “Process,". $ 1.
Of teacher's certificate, see "Schools and School Of record of proceedings for purpose of review,
Districts,” $ 1.

see "Appeal and Error," 8 10.
* Point annotated. See syllabus.


[ocr errors]


« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »