Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

6. CHATTEL MORTGAGE-Sales by Mortgagor-Assignment for Benefit of Creditors.-On July 25, 1895, D executed a mortgage to F on astock of goods and fixt ures to secure a debt of $1,000; and D, with consent of F, continued selling the goods and replacing them with a new stock, and using the proceeds as he saw fit. Subsequently the goods and fixtures were sold under attachment, and $426 received for the fixtures was paid to F on July 28, 1896. On July 15, 1896, D filed a petition in insolvency, and plaintiff was appointed assignee. Held, that the constructive fraud of D and F in dealing with the mortgaged property did not ren. der the mortgage void as to plaintiff, and, in the absence of actual fraud, plaintiff was not entitled to any of the funds as against F.-BRODERICK V. RICHARDSON, N. H., 49 Atl. Rep. 92.

7. CHATTEL MORTGAGE—Validity-Change of Possession.-Plaintiff took a mortgage on a stock of groceries belonging to D's wife. D had been conducting the business for his wife, and plaintiff agreed that he should continue to do so, and that the mortgage should not be recorded. Held, that the mortgage was void as to third parties.-LEHMAN-HIGGINSON GROCER Co. v. MCLAIN, Kan., 64 Pac. Rep. 1029.

8. CHATTEL MORTGAGE-Validity-Power of Mortgagor to Sell.-A provision in a chattel mortgage that the mortgagor may remain in possession of the mortgaged property,-the same being a stock of merchan. dise, and sell the same, turning over to a bank the proceeds of such sales until a debt due the bank was paid, does not render the mortgage void. Neither does the mortgagee in such mortgage lose his lien because the mortgagor fails to carry out such agreement, but uses a portion of such proceeds in a manner not provided in the mortgage, when the mortgagee had not consented to or permitted such misappropria tion. ATCHISON SADDLERY CO. V. GRAY, Kan., 64 Pac. Rep. 988.

9. CONTRACTS-Consideration.-In order to constitute a valuable consideration for a promise, neither the benefit to the promisor nor the detriment to the promisee need be actual. It would be a detriment to the promisee, in a legal sense, if he, at the request of the promisor, and upon the strength of his promise, performed any act which occasioned him the slightest trouble or inconvenience, and which he was not obliged to perform.-BIGELOW V. BIGELOW, Me., 49 Atl. Rep. 49.

10. CORPORATIONS-Directors - Individual Liability for Debts.-Pub. St. ch. 150, § 4, declares that no corporation except banks and insurance companies shall contracts debts exceeding one-half the value of its property; and section 5 provides that, for a violation of such act by a vote of its officers, the directors shall thereby become individually liable, to the amount of the excess, for the debts and contracts then existing, or contracted while they remain in office. Held, that on violating such acts the directors became liable as sureties for the corporation, and creditors were entitled to sue the directors as sureties, independent of their rights of action against the corporation.-SWAN V. BURNHAM, N. H., 49 Atl. Rep. 93.

11. CORPORATIONS-Ultra Vires-Estoppel.-Where a mutual fire insurance company, the articles of incorporation of which provide that it shall insure only town or city property, insures country property, receiving and accepting the premiums therefor, and levies and collects assessments thereafter, such company is estopped to plead ultra vires in an action on the policy.-GARNER V. MUTUAL FIRE INS. CO., Iowa, 86 N. W. Rep. 289.

12. CRIMINAL EVIDENCE-Intoxicating Liquors-Unlawful Sales.-The fact that bottles, glasses, liquors, and other articles may have been taken by an officer free from the possession of the defendant in an unau. thorized search of his premises does not constitute a valid objection to the admissibility of such articles in evidence against him, if they are otherwise pertinent

and competent.-STATE V. MILLER, Kan., 64 Pac. Rep. 1033.

13. CRIMINAL LAW-Libel-Information.-An information for publishing a libel not defamatory per se, and not averring that such publication tended to provoke the person libeled to wrath, is fatally defective.STATE V. ELLIOTT, Kan., 64 Pac. Rep. 1027.

14. ELECTIONS-Canvassing Boards-Duties and Powers. The object and purpose of the canvass made by such board is to determine the result of the election as shown by the official returns of such election, and not to determine judicially who received the most votes in fact. In case the official returns do not truly recite the votes as cast, the remedy provided for those who are aggrieved is by contesting the election.-STATE V. MACKENZIE, N. Dak., 86 N. W. Rep. 231.

15. FRAUD-Damages-Purchase on Joint Account.Defendant, having been made the depositary of plaintiff's money, proposed that they should jointly purchase land, to which plaintiff assented; and defendant made a purchase, using plaintiff's money therein, representing that the price was $10 per acre, when it was but $5 per acre, and taking title in himself. Afterwards plaintiff's share, on the basis of a purchase at $10 per acre, was conveyed to him. Held, that there was a fraud, rendering defendant liable for the difference between the price paid and that represented, though plaintiff realized from his land more than $10 per acre.-JOHNSON V. CAVITT, Iowa, 86 N. W. Rep. 256.

16. FRAUD-Pleading.-A mere general averment of fraud and illegality, without stating the facts upon which the charge is based, presents no issue, and is demurrable for insufficiency.-LADD V. NYSTOL, Kan., 64 Pac. Rep. 985.

17. FRAUD AND DESCENT False Representations.A representation made to one person, with the inten tion that it shall reach the ears of another, and be acted upon by him, and which does reach him, and is acted upon by him to his injury, gives the person so acting upon it the same right to redress as if it had been made to him directly -HENRY V. DENNIS, Me., 49 Atl. Rep. 58.

18. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE - Creditors.- Defend. ant was engaged in the millinery business in partner. ship with her sister, and she also conducted a like business individually in another city. Attachments were levied on the firm stock, and defendant immedi. ately executed a bill of sale of her stock to her brother for the express consideration of $2,500, and telegraphed him what she had done. There had been no previous correspondence as to such sale, but he at once started for the place where the store was, and took possession of the stock. She was indebted to him on a note for $900, which he turned over to her. He gave her $400 in cash, and the balance was made up by his notes. The transfer of the cash was made in the presence of a third party, because the brother, as he stated, wanted a witness. On taking possession of the store, he posted signs therein to the effect that the stock be longed to him. No invoice was made of the stock. The brother had never seen it before, and he knew nothing of the millinery business, his occupation being that of a common laborer, but he testified that some months previously he had endeavored to buy the stock. Held, that the conveyance to him was void.-ROSENHEIM V. FLANDERS, Iowa, 86 N. W. Rep.

293.

19. GARNISHMENT-Defective Service-Payment by Garnishee. Rev. St. 1898, § 2756, provides that garnishee summons shall be served on the principal defendant or his attorney within 10 days after service on the garnishee, and unless the garnishee summons be so served, or the proof of service show that, after due diligence, such service cannot be made within the state, the service on the garnishee shall become void and of no effect from the beginning. Held, that where garnishee summons was not served as provided by the statute, and the proof of service on the gar

nishee did not show that after due diligence such service could not be made within the state, a payment by garnishees to the principal defendant, prior to any motion to amend the return of the sheriff, discharged them from liability on the garnishment.-SMITH, THORNDIKE & BROWN CO. V. MUTUAL FIRE INS. CO., Wis., 86 N. W. Rep. 241.

20. GUARDIAN AND WARD-Guardian Ad Litem-Compensation. Before his appointment as guardian ad litem, an attorney agreed to accept such appointment in a proposed suit, and conduct the litigation therein for his wards, for a specified sum in the trial court and for a like sum in the supreme court on appeal. He received and receipted for the agreed sum after the trial. Thereafter the opposing attorney was changed, and the guardian ad litem's right to appeal was op. posed, and the general guardian attempted to secure his discharge, and opposed all his efforts in behalf of the wards. Held, that the compensation of the guardlan ad litem for services in the trial court was fixed by the agreement, but the circumstances of the appeal were so changed from those contemplated when the agreement was made that compensation should be awarded independent of the agreement.-RICHARD. SON V. TYSON, Wis., 86 N. W. Rep. 250.

21. HIGHWAYS-Deeds.-A deed conveying land for a street to a city "to have and to hold to the same extent and with the same effect as if the said street had been opened by a decree on proceedings had for that purpose under the road laws of the commonwealth," gives the city the same power over the street, including the narrowing or vacating of it, as though it had been opened by adverse legal proceedings.-MORRIS V. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Pa., 49 Atl. Rep. 70.

22. HUSBAND AND WIFE-Deed of Trust in Anticipation of Marriage.-A wife whose husband, just prior to the marriage, and without her knowledge, conveyed his property to a trustee, to pay the income to him for life, and after his death to convey the prop. erty to persons named, not including her, is not entitled to have the deed of trust set aside, so that man. agement of the property may be restored to the husband, though after his death she may have it annulled, that she may take a share in the property.POTTER V. FIDELITY INS., TRUST & SAFE DEPOSIT Co., Pa., 49 Ati. Rep. 86.

23. HUSBAND AND WIFE-Release of Dower Interest. -A release by the husband to the wife, during coverture, of all his right, title, and interest in dower, or right and interest by descent, in her real estate, and of all claim he may have in her personal estate at her decease; by allowance or otherwise, is not a "pecu. niary provision" for her, within the meaning of Rev. St. ch. 103, §§ 8, 9; and her release to him in consideration thereof, of her right and interest by descent in his real estate, is invalid.-PINKHAM V. PINKHAM, Me., 49 Atl. Rep. 48.

24. HUSBAND AND WIFE Separation Agreement.The separate acknowledgment by the wife required by Act Feb. 24, 1770 (1 Smith's Laws, p. 307; Purd. Dig. p. 632, pl. 22), when she conveys her interest in real estate, is not necessary to an agreement of separation, to bar her right of dower.-IN RE KAISER'S ESTATE, Pa., 49 Atl. Rep. 79.

25. INSURANCE-Fidelity of Employees-IndemnityEvidence.-A fidelity company, insuring the honesty of a railway company's employees, was compelled to

directors of an irrigation district shall bave power to manage the affairs of the district, execute all necessary contracts, and generally perform all necessary acts, a board had authority to consent to the cessation of work on a ditch, where the contractor was to be paid from a sale of bonds, and sufficient funds had not been raised by auch sales to meet payments due.DYER V. MIDDLE KITTITAS IRR. DIST. OF KITTITAS Co., Wash., 64 Pac. Rep. 1009.

27. JUDGMENTS Fraud-Suit to Set Aside.-The fact that a judgment is obtained by means of perjured testimony is not sufficient to support a sult in equity to set it aside on the ground of fraud.-STEEN V. MARCH, Cal., 64 Pac. Rep. 994.

28. JUDGMENT-Vacating.-The court should not vacate a judgment on an application made under sub. division 3 of section 568 of the Civil Code until the party applying therefor, if he be the defendant, shall have set up a defense to the action as provided in section 572. These two sections are to be construed together, and it is error to vacate a judgment on such grounds until the defendant has presented to the court a complete answer to the action upon which the judgment was rendered.-SCHULER V. FOWLER, Kan., 64 Pac. Rep. 1035.

29. LANDLORD AND TENANT

Repairs.-The plaintiff was injured by a defective stairway to a tenement leased by defendant to him. There was no evidence that the defendant knew of the existence of the defect. All that was visible or known to the defendant was visible to the plaintiff.-SHACKFOrd v. Coffin, Me., 49 Atl. Rep. 57.

30. LANDLORD AND TENANT-Taking Leased Property for Street-Liability of Lessee for Rents.-A city hav. ing given notice to a property owner-under Act April 21, 1855 (P. L. 266), authorizing it, on three months' notice, to open a street-that at the expiration of three months it would require certain of his land for a street, and he having served this notice on his lessees, and the property leased being of no value to them without the part claimed for a street, they may remove from the premises, without liability for rent after expiration of the three months, though the city does not then take possession; they being liable to be dispossessed at any time thereafter, and the owner being given by the act of 1855 an immediate remedy, on receipt of the notice, to obtain from the city full compensation for injury sustained.-UHLER V. COWEN, Pa., 49 Atl. Rep. 77.

31. LEASE-Right to Assign-Renewal.-A term lease of land, on which the lessee had erected a cottage, authorized him to terminate the lease and remove the cottage at any time, and authorized the sale of the house to be used on the premises, on the consent of the lessor, his heirs or assigns. The lease contained a covenant not to underlet, and all the rights thereunder were expressly granted to the lessee and his heirs, but no mention was made of his assigns. Held, to prohibit an assignment of the lease without the consent of the lessor.-UPTON V. HOSMER, N. H., 49 Atl. Rep. 96.

32. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS-Pleading-Amendment. -Though a cross complaint filed within the period of limitations was not signed by the attorneys until after the filing of a trial amendment, such amendment related back to the filing of the cross complaint, and the action was not barred by limitations.-ANTHONY INV.

injuries sustained by reason of the slipping of a ladder which was nailed to a roof by his fellow-servants, and the negligence alleged was that the nails used were too short, but there was no evidence that other and suitable nails were not furnished, plaintiff having testified that there was plenty of nails in such places, and that he had no doubt that there were other nails there, there was no evidence tending to show that defendant had not furnished proper appliances with which to conduct the work, and hence plaintiff was not entitled to recover.-MANNING V. MANCHESTER MILLS, N. H., 49 Atl. Rep. 91.

35. MORTGAGE-Foreclosure Limitations.-A husband and wife jointly executed a note, and secured the same by a mortgage on real estate belonging to the wife. The note became barred as to the wife by the statute of limitations, but not as to the husband, he having made payments which tolled the statute. Held, that the mortgage could be foreclosed, and the wife's land sold to pay the judgment rendered against the husband.-JACKSON V. LONGWELL, Kan., 64 Pac. Rep. 991.

36. MORTGAGE- Minors-Homestead-Foreclosure.A mortgage upon a homestead was executed by the father and mother of minor children to secure a note which they had given. Before the note matured, the father died intestate, and the mother and children continued to occupy the homestead. With the prod ucts of the homestead the mother made payments on the note, and kept it alive. No guardian was appointed for the children, and no payments on the note were expressly made for them. An action of foreclosure was brought more than five years after the maturity of the note, and the minor children claimed that the mortgage was barred as to them, and not en forceable as against the undivided one-half of the mortgaged land which they had inherited. Held that, the debt having been kept alive, the mortgage executed to secure its payment may be foreclosed against the whole of the land.-P'ERRY V. HORACK, Kan., 64 Pac. Rep. 990.

37. MORTGAGE-Recovery of Possession.-A mort. gagee or the assignee of a mortgage may maintain a real action against a person in possession of the mortgaged premises, and obtain a common-law judgment for possession, without the production of the notes referred to in the mortgage, or other evidence of the existence of some portion of the mortgage indebtedness, except the mortgage itself, where there is no evidence to the contrary, and no circumstances from which a payment of the indebtedness may be inferred.-MORSE V. STAFFORD, Me., 49 Atl. Rep. 45.

38. PARTITION-Minors-Step Parent.-Where a landowner dies leaving a widow and minor children, and the widow and her second husband occupy and culti vate the land and support the children, in a suit for partition after the children are of age the widow and her husband are chargeable with the value of the use of each child's interest during his minority, since the husband is not a tenant in common with the children, as he has no interest in the land.-PLANT V. FATE, Iowa, 86 N. W. Rep. 276.

39. PARTNERSHIP Evidence Verdict Improperly Directed.-Plaintiff contracted with defendant W to construct parts of a waterworks plant, the construc. tion of which W had undertaken for the consideration of a majority of the mortgage bonds and capital stock of the water company. Defendants S and O, after the making of plaintiff's contract, but before its completion, agreed to furnish W the necessary money to carry on the work, on the stock and bonds as security, and on the further agreement that when the work was finished, and W had paid the money and interest loaned him, the stock and bonds were to be equally divided between defendants, W, S, and O. Two receipts for stock and bonds, signed by O and given to W, setting out such agreement, were in evidence. Held, in an action against the three defendants on notes given by W in payment for plaintiff's work, that

the evidence tended to show a partnership, from the agreement for participation in profits, and it was error for the court to instruct in favor of defendants.— MOORE V. WILLIAMS, Tex., 62 S. W. Rep. 977.

40. PLEADING AND PRACTICE - Assignments-Suffi ciency. At a meeting of about 50 persons who had been working for the defendant company, all present agreed that plaintiff should present their claims; and plaintiff sued on his own claim and those of 45 others, and alleged that they were assigned to him, which defendant denied. Held, that the evidence of an assignment was not sufficient to justify a verdict in favor of plaintiff as assignee, under Code Civ. Proc. § 1835, defining satisfactory evidence as that which ordinarily produces moral certainty or conviction in an unpreju. diced mind.-GUSTAFSON V. STOCKTON & T. C. R. Co., Cal., 64 Pac. Rep. 995.

41. PLEADING AND PRACTICE Liability for FiresStatute.-A count in a petition in an action for property destroyed by fire while in a railroad depot which alleges that defendant was negligent, in that the depot was insufficient and highly inflammable, and that the property was destroyed through the defendant's negligence, and that it caught from a spark negli gently allowed to escape from defendant's locomotive, is defective, as combining an action for commonlaw negligence with a claim under Rev. St. 1899, § 1111, making a railroad liable for fire set by sparks escaping from its locomotives.-BLACKMORE V. MISSOURI PAC. RY. Co., Mo., 62 S. W. Rep. 993.

42. PLEADING AND PRACTICE-Remark of Court-New Trial.-In an action against defendant by his children to recover the community interest of their deceased mother in $10,000, the plaintiffs testified to having seen and counted the money just before their mother's death; and defendant swore that they never had any such money. The trial court, without knowledge that he was heard by the jury, remarked that somebody was guilty of perjury, and that he would have them before the grand jury. Two jurors made affidavit that, on consideration of the case, one juror claimed that the court said that defendant was guilty of perjury, and that some of the jurors seemed prejudiced against defendant. Held, that it was error to deny defendant a new trial.-RIDDLE V. RIDDLE, Tex., 62 S. W. Rep. 970.

43. PUBLIC LANDS

Purchase Forfeiture.-Act March 25, 1897, ch. 37, § 1, provides that, if on Novem. ber 1st of any year any part of the interest due for public lands heretofore sold has not been paid, the land commissioner shall indorse on the obligation for said lands, "Lands forfeited," and thereupon the lands shall thereby be forfeited to the state. Defend ant made default in the payment of interest on a sum due for public lands, and the land commissioner marked "Forfeited" on the file wrapper in which the papers concerning the land were kept in the land office, and also marked opposite the ledger account of such lands, "Forfeited," and the account in the treas urer's office was marked "Forfeited," and thereafter the commissioner of the land office sold the lands to plaintiff. Held, that the action of the land commis. sioner in reselling the lands to plaintiff was not an exercise of the state's right of rescission, since that right cannot be exercised until after the land has been declared forfeited by an indorsement on the obligation as prescribed by the statute.-COMANCHE COUNTY V. BRIGHTMAN, Tex., 62 S. W. Rep. 974.

44. RAILROADS-Injuries - Children-Trespassers.Instructions in an action for injuries to a child pre sented two theories of the case,-one that the child was a licensee; the other, that he was a trespasser. On the latter theory, the court instructed that it was not what defendant's employees could have seen, but what they did in fact see, of the child, and what they did on seeing him. Another instruction stated that "the employees, if they saw the child, must have known it was too young to help himself." Held, that the instruction with regard to trespassers was not er

roneous, as eliminating the question of what the employees by ordinary care might have seen, since the company owed no duty to trespassers, and the relaxation of this rule, in case of children, was provided for by other instructions.-THOMAS V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. Co., Iowa, 86 N. W. Rep. 259.

45. REAL PROPERTY-Trespass to Try Title-Board of Land Commissioners.-Plaintiff in trespass to try title offered in evidence an order of the board of land com. missioners of the county in which the land was situated which showed that the grantor of plaintiff's intestate had been granted an unconditional certificate to the land by virtue of having purchased the condi tional certificate at sheriff's sale, and also a deed of the grantor conveying the property to plaintiff's intestate. Held, that the exclusion of the deed on the ground that it did not show any title in the grantor to the unconditional certificate was erroneous, since the order of the board was sufficient to show that the cer tificate was sold to the grantor.-KARNES V. BUTLER, Tex., 62 S. W. Rep. 950.

46. RES JUDICATA Laying Out Highways.-Complainant sought to enjoin a township and its highway commissioner from entering his premises and con. verting part thereof into a highway. Defendants answered under oath, setting out the proceedings for the laying out of such highway, and the award of damages. The record showed no filing of a replication within the time allowed, and that the bill was dismissed. Held res judicata in a subsequent suit by com. plainant to prevent the township from orening the highway, and removing his fences, and to compel restoration of the former road and fences.-SCHULMEISTER V. BLENDON TP., Mich., 86 N. W. Rep. 237.

47. SALES-Breach of Warranty- Damages. - Defendant purchased ladies' gloves under a special warranty that, if they were not satisfactory or if they ripped. they should be returned to the plaintiff, who would furnish new ones. Five pairs were returned to defendant by customers as not satisfactory, the defend. ant having sold them to customers under a similar warranty. The defendant sent the five pairs to the plaintiff, who repaired them and sent them back to defendant, and he retained them without objection, and again sold them. The customers returned other gloves to defendant as not satisfactory, but he did not send them back to plaintiff, claiming it would be use. less. Held, that the defendant could not counterclaim his damages by reason of a breach of the warranty as to gloves not returned by him. - JAMES V. BEKKEDAHL, N. Dak., 86 N. W. Rep. 226.

49. SALES- Conditional Order.-Where defendant signed a written order to plaintiff for a harvester, and delivered it to the plaintiff's agent under an oral agreement that the order should not be delivered to plaintiff until defendant examined the machine, and, if he was not then satisfied with it, he could countermand the order, a charge that such agreement means that the machine could not be objected to by defendant unless it was, for a satisfactory reason, based on some matters relating to the machine, and not simply the fact that he did not like it, is erroneous, since, if defendant was honestly dissatisfied with the machine on inspection, he was not required to take it. - MCCORMICK HARVESTING MACH. Co. v. OKERSTROM, Iowa, 86 N. W. Rep. 284.

49. SALES-Delay Damage Release. Where the purchasers of goods requested further time in which to pay part of the purchase price, on the ground that the seller's delay in shipment seriously inconvenienced them, and the seller granted such time, this operated as a release and satisfaction of any claim for damages for such delay, estopping the purchaser from pleading damages there for, as a cross demand against the balance due on the purchase price.-ARKANSAS CITY CANNING CO V. DUNSTON, Kan., 64 Pac. Rep. 1025. 50. SALE-Execution-Adequacy of Price.-An execution sale will not be held void because the lots were

sold in bulk, and because the price bid was small; there having been no bid when they were offered separately, and there being an adverse claim to the property under a sale on execution against the prior title holder.-WILSON V. CORY, Iowa, 86 N. W. Rep. 289. 51. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS-Colleges-Tui. tion. A receipt of its own stock by,a solvent college corporation in payment of a debt for tuition is a valid payment, though it is invalid if made after the insoly. ency of the corporation.-ROACH V. BURGESS, Tex., 62 S. W. Rep. 804.

52. SHIPPING-Negligence of Vessel.-The American barkentine Anita Berwind, loaded with coal, was an chored near Port au Prince, in the bay of Hayti, under the direction of a government pilot. Afterwards the pilot came on board to move the vessel to another anchorage. On attempting to raise the anchor it was found to be fouled with what was supposed to be a wire rope, but was in fact libelant's submarine telegraph cable, and in attempting to free the anchor the cable was broken. The vessel had never been in that port before, and the cable was not shown on its chart of the bay. The libel charged that the breaking was negligent and intentional. Held, that the proof failed to support such allegations, the weight of evi dence showing that the vessel was attempting to sup. port the cable, which had not been raised to the surface, by means of a chain while the anchor could be freed, and that the cable was probably broken acros9 the edge of one of the anchor's palms, owing to the straining of the vessel against it while the work was in progress.-THE ANITA BERWIND, U. S. D. C., E. D. (Penn.), 107 Fed. Rep. 721.

53. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE-Pleading-Complaint.A complaint, in an action for specific performance, which alleges a legal contract, part payment of the consideration, the placing of the title papers in es crow, the tender of the balance of the consideration and its refusal, the hostile attitude of the one refusing the money tendered, and the possession of the lands by plaintiff since the date of the original contract, states a cause of action. GAMMON V. BUNNELL. Utah, 64 Pac. Rep. 958.

54. TAXATION-Curative Act - Constitutional Law.The legislature, subsequent to a void tax sale, attempted to validate said attempted levy of county taxes. Chapter 99, Laws 1897, section 1 reads: "That the levy of taxes as made in the various counties for the year 1895 is hereby legalized and made valid for all intents and purposes the same as if made in con. formity to the law then in force." Held, that said act of validation can operate only upon uncollected taxes based on said levy. It does not purport to do more than validate the levy. It does not undertake to validate any tax sale, or to give effect to any void tax deed. If it did do so, the act would be unconstitutional. It is beyond legislative power to transfer title to land by declaring that void deeds shall be valid conveyances of title. The tax deed in question is neither cured nor affected by the validating statute. -DEVER V. CORNWELL, N. Dak., 86 N. W. Rep. 227. 55. TAXATION Exemptions - St. Louis Mission School. Under Act Jan. 30, 1863, incorporating a mission free school of St. Louis, and exempting its property from taxation to the extent of $50,000, and Const. art. 10, § 6, exempting lots of one acre and the building thereon, when used for charitable purposes, such mission free school is not entitled to add the exemption of the constitution to that of the statute' but is liable for taxes on all the excess of its property over $50,000.- STATE V. MISSION FREE SCHOOL, MO., 62 S. W. Rep. 998.

55. TAXATION-School Tax-Amount of Levy.-The right of a school district to levy a tax, if it exists at all, must be clearly found in the statute. If there be a fair doubt as to its existence, it must be denied.MARION & M. RY. Co. v. ALEXANDER, Kan., 64 Pac. Rep. 977.

57. TAXATION-Stock-Assessment for Bank Taxes.Where certain shares of the stock of a bank, which are above par, have escaped taxation, they are subject to an assessment for back taxes computed according to the actual, and not the par, value of such stock.BANK OF OXFORD V. BOARD OF SUPRS. OF LAFAYETTE Co., Miss., 29 South. Rep. 825.

58. TRADE-Unfair Competition-Injunction.-Unfair competition, which entitles complainant to an injunc tion, is shown by proof that defendant sold to a representative of complainant bitters which it represented to be those of complainant, but which were not, but were an inferior article, and that defendant also furnished to the purchaser at his request an empty bottle of complainant having its labels thereon.-HOSTETTER Co. V. WILLIAM SCHNEIDER WHOLESALE WINE & LIQUOR Co., U. S. C. C., E. D. (Mo.), 107 Fed. Rep. 705.

59. TRESPASS TO TRY TITLE.-Where, in an action of trespass to try title, plaintiffs show title to an undivided interest in the land, and defendant shows no title, plaintiffs are entitled to judgment, since a cotenant is entitled to recover the entire tract, as against a trespasser.-WILCOXSON V. HOWARD, Tex., 62 S. W. Rep. 802.

60. TRUSTS-Validity.-Grantor conveyed realty to trustees to hold to his sole use, and, whenever directed by him, to convey and deliver the same to persons he should direct, and to hold the proceeds received in ex. change therefor, to grantor's use. Held, that such trust being merely a trust to hold for the grantor's use, and not within the uses authorized by Civ. Code, § 857, was invalid. Where an attempted life trust in certain property is void, the trust to take effect on the death of the settler, as to the residue of such property, will fall.-CARPENTER V. COOK, Cal., 64 Pac. Rep. 997.

61. TRUST-Validity.-Since all uses and trusts in relation to real property are abolished by Civ. Code, tit. 4, § 847, except those specified in that title, and those enumerated therein do not include a trust to convey real property to beneficiaries, a devise of the residue of testator's property to trustees, to have and to hold during the lives of testator's children, and to be transferred and conveyed on the death of the surviving child to certain beneficiaries, was void.-IN RE FAIR'S ESTATE, Cal., 64 Pac. Rep. 1000.

62. TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES Resulting Trusts-Parol Evidence.-Parol evidence to establish a resulting trust must be clear and satisfactory, and sufficient to take the matter out of the realm of conjecture or presumption; and hence where only one witness testified directly that funds which defendant invested in mort. gages were furnished by plaintiff's intestate, and it appeared that witness derived all his information from conversations with deceased, which it did not appear were contemporaneous with the investments, the evidence was insufficient to show that deceased furnished the money, and that a trust resulted in favor of his estate.-REYNOLDS V. BLAISDELL, R. I., 49 Atl. Rep. 42.

63. TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES-Revocation by Settlor.A voluntary active trust, by its express terms irrevocable, and which directs that the income be paid the

65. VENDOR AND PURCHASER Rescission of SaleNote-Indorsement.-Rescission for the non-payment of the purchase price may be enforced if the parties to the sale can be placed in the same condition as they were, "as though the obligation had not existed." The test in a suit between the parties to the sale is the return to the purchaser of that portion of the price he has paid, if any, and his complete discharge as to the remainder, the unpaid portion of the price.-RAGS. DALE V. RAGSDALE, La., 29 South. Rep. 906.

66. WATERS AND WATER COURSES - Dam-Flashboards.-Defendants conveyed to plaintiffs the right to maintain a dam, with flashboards two feet high on the top thereof, to be supported by iron pins not less than four feet apart. Thereafter defendants conveyed to plaintiffs the additional right to maintain a three-foot flashboard, but nothing was specified as to the manner of constructing it, though iron pins four feet apart were insufficient to maintain it. Held, that plaintiffs could place the pins as near together as was necessary to support the flashboard, since the second conveyance carried with it the right to use the neces sary means for the construction of an adequate flashboard of the height mentioned.-AMOSKEAG MFG. CO. V. SHIRLEY, N. H., 49 Atl. Rep. 91.

Eminent Domain

67. WATERS AND WATER COURSES -Dams-Flooding Lands.- Where a company flooding lands disclaimed its right to flood the lands under the general flowage act in a suit by the landowner to assess damages under such act, and its right to flow the land under its charter is denied, the landholder's petition will be dismissed on the continued adherence of the company to this position, since the company has no flowage right, and the landowner must bring action for damages, or suit to abate the flow.MITCHELL V. UNION ELECTRIC CO., N. H., 49 Atl. Rep.

94.

68. WITNESSES-Competency Transactions with Decedent.-A father gave each of two sons a tract of land. On one tract was a mortgage, and it is claimed that, in order to equalize the gifts, it was agreed that each son should pay one-half of this mort. gage debt. Before the debt was paid, the son whose land was free from incumbrance died, and the other son brought an action against the administrator of the estate of the deceased son to recover one-half of the mortgage debt. The mother, who had joined the father in the conveyance of the land to the sons, became a witness, and testified as to the agreement with reference to the mortgage debt. Held, that she is not to be regarded as an assignor of the thing in action, nor is she precluded from giving such testimony by any of the prohibitions of section 322 of the Civil Code. -MILLER V. MCDOWELL, Kan., 64 Pac. Rep. 9810.

[blocks in formation]
« ПредишнаНапред »