Form and allegations of pleading in action for
injuries caused by, see "Pleading," § 1.
Harmless error in action for injuries caused by,
see "Appeal and Error," § 24.

Imputed negligence of person injured by opera-
tion of railroad, see "Negligence," § 2.
Mandamus affecting, see "Mandamus," §§ 1-3.
Mechanics' liens for construction work, see
"Mechanic's Liens," § 2.

Pleading in general in action for injuries caused
by operation, see "Negligence," § 3.
Validity of ordinances requiring railroad to
light crossing, see "Municipal Corporations,"
§ 1.

2. Public aid.

Under Acts 1869, pp. 95, 96, c. 44, §§ 14, 17,
Acts Sp. Sess. 1875, p. 70, c. 25, Act March 7,
1877 (Acts 1877, p. 111, c. 69), and Act March
11, 1875 (Acts 1875, p. 121. c. 82), supplemen-
tary to Act 1869, a railroad company held not
entitled to maintain mandamus to compel the
collection of a tax voted to raise funds for a
donation.-State v. Board of Com'rs of Clin-
ton County (Ind. Sup.) 986.

3. Right of way and other interests
in land.

Failure of property owner, who licensed rail-
road to construct its road over her land under
certain conditions and within a certain time,
to declare a forfeiture at the expiration of the
time fixed for performance, held not a waiver
of her right to declare a forfeiture for non-
performance in the future.-Littlejohn v. Chica-
go, E. & L. S. Ry. Co. (Ill.) 840.

License under which railroad took possession
of land held revocable for failure of railroad
to comply with conditions.-Littlejohn v. Chica-
go, E. & L. S. Ry. Co. (Ill.) 840.

*Agreement authorizing railroad to build its
road on land and promising to give a deed when
the road was built held a mere license, and not
to confer any title on the railroad.—Littlejohn
v. Chicago, E. & L. S. Ry. Co. (Ill.) 840.

Deed held not to except a certain strip of
land_from_the conveyance.-Littlejohn v. Chica-
go, E. & L. S. Ry. Co. (Ill.) 840.

*Certain conditions of conveyance to rail-
road for right of way purposes held conditions
precedent, and the railroad could not claim an
estate on condition subsequent.-Littlejohn v.
Chicago, E. & L. S. Ry. Co. (Ill.) 840.

Where a railroad is deeded the fee to land
by warranty deed, its abandonment of the land
for railroad purposes does not devest it of the
fee.-Enfield Mfg. Co. v. Ward (Mass.) 1053.
*Abandonment of use of land by railroad
held a question of intention.-Enfield Mfg.
Co. v. Ward (Mass.) 1053.

The fact that trustees under a railroad mort-
gage pay no attention to certain land belong-
ing to the railroad held not to prove an abandon-
ment of such land.-Enfield Mfg. Co. v. Ward
(Mass.) 1053.

§ 4. Indebtedness, securities, liens, and
mortgages.

*Under Laws 1897, pp. 515, 516, c. 418, §§ 2,
3, a mechanic's lien may be obtained against a
railroad for material used in the construction
thereof. Schaghticoke Powder Co. v. Green-
wich & J. Ry. Co. (N. Y.) 153.

§ 5. Operation-Companies and persons
liable for injuries.

In an action for personal injuries against a
railroad company, question as to whether de-

| fendant was operating railroad at the time of
the injury held one of law for the court.—
Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Weber (Ill.) 489.

ing held entitled to recover from the company
*A passenger injured in a collision at a cross-
negligently running its train into the car in
which he was riding.-Baltimore & O. S. W. R.
Co. v. Kleespies (Ind. App.) 1015.

6.

Injuries to licensees or tres-
passers in general.

In an action against a railroad for negli-
gently causing the death of plaintiff's decedent
while attempting to drive over a crossing, evi-
dence examined, and held insufficient to show,
as a matter of law, contributory negligence on
decedent's part.-New York, C. & St. L. R. Co.
v. Robbins (Ind. App.) 804.

*In an action for death of a quarry employé
a freight
while attempting to load granite on
car furnished by defendant, defendant held
guilty of negligence in furnishing such car, which
such quarry.-Hale v. New York, N. H. & H.
R. Co. (Mass.) 656.

was fitted with a defective brake, for loading at

*A passenger on the train of one company
may recover from another company for an in-
jury resulting from a collision at a crossing
caused by the negligent backing of a train of
the latter into a car of the former.-Baltimore
& O. S. W. R. Co. v. Kleespies (Ind. App.) 1015.

*A railroad company approaching a track of
another company crossing its own track held
required to stop, look, and listen for trains
on the other track.-Baltimore & O. S. W. R.
Co. v. Kleespies (Ind. App.) 1015.

In an action for injuries to a passenger in a
collision at a crossing, the act of another rail-
road held the proximate cause of the injuries.
Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. v. Kleespies
(Ind. App.) 1015.

Evidence in an action by a passenger for
injuries received in a collision at a railroad
crossing held to support the finding that the
passenger was injured as claimed by him.-
Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. v. Kleespies
(Ind. App.) 1015.

A complaint held to charge a railway company
with negligence in backing its train into the
train of another company passing over the
tracks of the former.-Baltimore & O. S. W. R.
Co. v. Kleespies (Ind. App.) 1015.

A complaint against two railroads for inju-
ries to a passenger in a collision at a cross-
ing held not to fail to show unity of action
on the part of the two railroads.-Baltimore
& O. S. W. R. Co. v. Kleespies (Ind. App.)
1015.

§ 8.

Accidents at crossings.
*Railroads held not guilty of negligence per se
in operating trains over country highway cross-
ings at any speed consistent with safety of the
persons and property in their charge.-Lake
Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Barnes (Ind. Sup.) (29.

*A complaint for injuries at a country rail-
road crossing held insufficient to characterize the
crossing as so extra-hazardous as to require the
railroad company to restrict the speed of its
trains.-Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Barnes
(Ind. Sup.) 629.

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
the theory that all the acts of negligence
charged combined caused the accident.-New
York, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Robbins (Ind. App.)
804.

ficiently charge negligence in respect to the
A complaint against a railroad held to suf-
operation of a locomotive, and in permitting
fire to escape therefrom.-Lake Erie & W. R.
Co. v. McFall (Ind. Sup.) 400.

RATIFICATION.

Of act of agent, see "Principal and Agent." $2.
Of void warrants, see "Municipal Corporations,"
§ 13.

REAL ACTIONS.

REAL ESTATE AGENTS.

REASSESSMENT.

porations," 8.

REBUTTAL.

RECEIVERS.

*In action for death in a crossing accident,
the complaint held to sufficiently allege free-
dom from contributory negligence.-Southern
Indiana Ry. Co. v. Corps (Ind. App.) 902.

In an action for death in a crossing accident,
an allegation of the complaint held to suffi-
ciently show that intestate had driven on the
track.-Southern Indiana Ry. Co. v. Corps
(Ind. App.) 902.

*In an action for death in a crossing accident,
certain contentions as to defects in complaint
held of no merit.-Southern Indiana Ry. Co.
v. Corps (Ind. App.) 902.

In an action for death in a crossing accident,
the complaint held to show a violation of Burns'
Ann. St. 1901, § 5153, the proximate cause
of the injuries.-Southern Indiana Ry. Co. v.
Corps (Ind. App.) 902.

*In an action for death in a crossing acci-
dent, held that the fact that an automatic
alarm bell did not ring was a circumstance to
be taken into consideration by the jury on the
question of due care.-Southern Indiana Ry.
Co. v. Corps (Ind. App.) 902.

A paragraph of a complaint against a rail-
road company for the destruction of plaintiff's
barn by sparks, merely alleging that the loco-
motive which emitted the sparks was operated
at a negligent rate of speed, held demurrable.
-Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. McFall (Ind.
Sup.) 400.

A paragraph of a complaint against a rail-
road company for the destruction of plaintiff's
barn by fire held not to charge negligence in
that defendant permitted fire to escape from
its right of way.-Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v.
McFall (Ind. Sup.) 400.

In an action for destruction of plaintiff's barn
by fire emitted by defendant's locomotive, a
paragraph of the complaint held to sufficiently

Error," 3.

As party on appeal or writ of error, see "Ap-
peal and Error," § 5.

81. Title to and possession of property.
*The appointment of a receiver affects no
change in the title to the property involved;
his possession being merely that of the court
appointing him.-Polk v. Johnson (Ind. App.)
634.

§ 2. Actions.

Receiver's inventory held admissible in action
by receiver for breach of contract claimed by
defendant to have been sold at receiver's sale to
show what was included in the term "assets"
used in the order of sale.-Illinois Steel Co. v.
Preble Mach. Works Co. (Ill.) 574.

RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS.

Evidence of other offenses, see "Criminal Law,"
§ 5.
Testimony of accomplices, see "Criminal Law,"
$ 5.

*An indictment for receiving stolen goods
held not defective for failure to name the thief
or allege that his name was unknown to the
grand jury.-Buechert v. State (Ind. Sup.) 111.

In a prosecution for receiving certain steel
bars stolen from a corporation, evidence held
to sufficiently show the corporation owner's
nonconsent to the taking.-Buechert v. State
(Ind. Sup.) 111.

In a prosecution for receiving stolen goods,
an instruction on the proof of the corporation
owner's nonconsent to the taking of the goods
held properly refused as too broad.-Buechert
v. State (Ind. Sup.) 111.

*An indictment under Burns' Ann. St. 1901, §
2012 (Rev. St. 1881, § 1935 and Horner's Ann.
St. 1901, § 1935), describing the property stolen
and received as brass of a certain value, suffi-
ciently described the property.-Miller v. State
(Ind. Sup.) 245.

RECOGNIZANCES.

REGISTRATION.

RECORDS.

Attaching assignment of errors to record on ap-
peal, see "Appeal and Error," § 12.
Of county board, see "Counties." § 1.

Of particular instruments or transactions.
See "Deeds,' § 3; "Trade-Marks and Trade-
Names," § 1.

REHEARING.

See "New Trial."

peal and Error," § 13.

Of judicial proceedings.

See "Courts," § 1.

ror," § 15.

REINSTATEMENT.

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,"
$ 15.

Of particular instruments.

See "Deeds," § 3.

Where, in a proceeding to register title, there
was an issue as to the location of a boundary
line, and on appeal from the land court, under
Rev. Laws, c. 128, § 13, as amended by St. 1902,
p. 370, c. 458, issues were framed, such issues
should be construed in connection with the deci-

sion of the land court to show the question pre-
sented for review.-Jeffrey v. Winter (Mass.)
282.

Where a proceeding to register title is ap-
pealed to the superior court and is reported to
the Supreme Judicial Court, the decision of that
court cannot be certified direct to the land court,
but the case must be remanded to the superior
court, under Rev. Laws, c. 128, § 14.-Jeffrey v.
Winter (Mass.) 282.

REDEMPTION.

From mortgage, see "Mortgages," §§ 2, 5.
From sale on execution, see "Execution," § 1.

REFERENCE.

See "Arbitration and Award."

REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENTS.
See "Cancellation of Instruments.”

§ 1. Right of action and defenses.
*In an action on a written instrument, a de-
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.

*Failure of defendant to read a contract or
ascertain its contents before signing it held not
such negligence as would preclude him from ob-
taining a reformation of the instrument, so that
it should evidence the contract made.-Nichols
& Shepard Co. v. Berning (Ind. App.) 776.

REFORMATORIES.

Attack by habeas corpus on judgment commit-
ting infant to reformatory, see "Habeas Cor-
pus," § 1.

REFRESHING MEMORY.

Of witness, see "Witnesses," § 2.

RELEASE.

See "Compromise and Settlement"; "Payment."
Effect of discharge in bankruptcy, see "Bank-
ruptcy," § 2.

Of particular classes of rights and liabilities.
See "Dower," § 2.

Right to compensation for property taken for
Widow's allowance, see "Executors and Admin-
public use, see "Eminent Domain," § 2.
istrators," § 2.

§ 1. Requisites and validity.

*An agreement to discharge a debt on payment
of a part of the amount due is without con-

sideration, and the balance may be recovered.-
Zuelly v. Casper (Ind. App.) 646.

2. Construction and operation.

That a sum is paid in gross to several persons
in satisfaction of their individual claims, arising
from personal injuries sustained in the same ac
cident, does not necessarily make the contract
under which the sum is paid, joint.-Hoerger v.
Citizens' St. R. Co. (Ind. App.) 328.

A release of a claim for a personal injury
held a bar to an action therefor.-Hoerger v.
Citizens' St. R. Co. (Ind. App.) 328.

§ 3. Pleading, evidence, trial, and re-
view.

A pleading, alleging that a release of a claim
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
an answer setting up a release executed by
plaintiff and others, held bad for failing to con-
tain_certain allegations.-Hoerger v. Citizens'
St. R. Co. (Ind. App.) 328.

RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.

See "Charities."

Variance between pleading and proof in action
against trustees of church, see "Pleading,"
§ 6.

Property conveyed to the trustees of an unin-
corporated congregation vests on its incorpora-
tion in the corporation.-Christian Church of
Sand Creek v. Church of Christ of Sand Creek
(Ill.) 703.

*The courts have no jurisdiction to deter
mine which faction of a congregation is in
practices and beliefs correct from an ecclesias
tical standpoint, except so far as property rights
are involved.-Christian Church of Sand Creek
v. Church of Christ of Sand Creek (Ill.) 703.
*The fact that a great majority of the congre
gations of a denomination have adopted inno-