Графични страници
PDF файл

mines.''22 In Holden v. Hardy,23 the decis | MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATIONS-CHANGE

OF BY LAWS-CONSENT OF MEMBER-RE. ion of the state court is affirmed, Brown, J.,

COVERY OF PREMIUM-MANDAMUS. using the following language: “Upon the principles stated, we think the act in question STRAUSS v. MUTUAL RESERVE FUND LIFE

ASSOCIATION. may be sustained as a valid exercise of the police power of the state. The enactment Supreme Court of North Carolina, June 4, 1901, does not profess to limit the hours of all 1. A mere general consent, given by a member of a workmen, but merely those who are employed

mutual benefit association, that its constitution and

by.laws may be amended, does not authorize such a in underground mines, or in the smelting,

change in its rules as will destroy bis vested rights reduction or refining of ores or metals. under his insurance contract by subjecting him to These employments, when too long pursued, pay a greater rate of assessment than the contract

calls for the legislature has judged to be detrimental

2. Where a mutual benefit association violates its to the health of the employees, and so long as contract with a member, tbe most practical remedy there are reasonable grounds for believing is the recovery of premiums paid, with interest

thereon, and mandamus for reinstatement need not that this is so, its decision upon this subject

be resorted to, cannot be reviewed by the federal courts. DOUGLAS, J.: This case is before us on a hear* * * We have no disposition to criti. ing, being originally reported in 126 N. Car. 971, cise the many authorities which hold that 36 S. E. Rep. 352. We have again given it carestate statutes restricting the hours of labor

ful consideration, and have been forced to the

same conclusions announced in our former opinare unconstitutional. Indeed, we are not

ion. It seems useless to again discuss the princicalled upon to express an opinion on this

ples involved, as they are few and simple, as the subject. It is sufficient to say of them, that case is viewed by us. Tbe plaintiff had a conthey have no application to cases where the tract of insurance with the defendant, which the legislature bad adjudged that a limitation is

latter seems to have violated in its most essential

features, with the result of having destroyed its necessary for the preservation of tie health

value to the plaintiff, But it is said tbat the of employees, and there are reasonable

plaintiff made such contract of insurance with a grounds for believing that such determina mutual insurance association, of which he was a tion is supported by the facts. The question member, and by virtue of such membership; and in each case is whether the legislature has

that he is, therefore, bound by all such rules and adopted the statute in the exercise of a rea

regulations as may be thereafter lawfully adopted.

"Lawful adoption” may mean much or little. sonable discretion, or whether its action be a

Rules may be adopted under the forms of law mere excuse for an unjust discrimination, or

that might nevertheless be so unreasonable and the oppression or spoliation of a particular inequitable as to be clearly beyond any possible class.” This, then, seems to be the status contemplation of law. In any event, such rules of affairs: The restriction by the state of

can never have any greater force than the law

that authorizes their adoption; and, if this has the right of individuals to contract with refer

the effect of impairing the obligation of a conence to their own labor, is in contravention of

tract, it is void by constitutional inhibition. But any fair construction of American constitu it is said that the plaintiff, upon entering the tional law and individual rights as declared association, agreed, expressly or impliedly, that by our Declaration of Independence; such

changes might be made in its constitution and

by-laws, and is bound thereby. We have no restrictions may be exercised only in certain

evidence that he agreed that such changes might cases where the rights of the public are plainly

be made as were made, and we have no idea that paramount to those of the individual; but he ever intended to place it within the power of the United States Supreme Court will not the association to break his contract at pleasure, interfere to prevent such restriction so long or render it utterly valueless by subsequent stipu"as there are reasonable grounds for believ.

lations or regulations adopted without his con

sent. A mere general consent that the constituing that the restriction is the result of a

tion and by-laws may be amended applies only proper exercise of the police power of the to such reasonable regulations as may be within slate.”

the scope of its original design. We must again Denver, Colo., Dana T. Jones, repeat what we said in our former opinion:

“Whatever may be the power of a mutual asso22 See State v. Holden, 14 Utah, 71; State v. Holden, | oiation to change its by-laws, such changes must 4 Utab, 96; Short v. B. B. & C. M. Company, 57 Pac. always be in furtherance of the essential objects Rep. 720.

of its creation, and not destructive of vested 23 169 U. S. 366, 896.

| rights."

It is urged by the defendant that, if the plaint- ciations. Where is the essential difference in priniff is entitled to any relief, it is not by recovery ciple or in its practical result? Both companies of the premiums be has paid, but by mandamus pay back only what they have received, with for reinstatement. This remedy is not demanded legal interest thereon, and neither company is by the plaintiff, nor does it seem practicable to permitted to retain anything for the cost of past us. It is true, we migbt issue the mandamus to a insurance. If the mutual association receives foreign corporation baving its general offices in less, it pays back less. If the old time company New York; but how to make such a mandamus collects more tban the actual cost of insurance, effective is a different question, the solution of it pays back that much more, and loses its surwhich is not at all clear to us. Moreover, in the plus, as well as its cost of insurance. As we see present instance the plaintiff, Strauss, is now no reason to change our former judgment, the dead. Much stress has been laid upon the fact petition to rehear is denied. Petition dismissed. that the Supreme Court of Minnesota, in Ebert against this defendant (83 N. W. Rep. 506), while

NOTE. – Beneficial Associations- Right to Alter, agreeing with us upon the main question of the

Repeal or Amend By Laws-Must Not Impair Vested right of recovery, differs with us as to the meas

Rights.-Of course, a benefit society, like any other ure of damage. We are much impressed with the

society, may alter and repeal its by laws. In incor.

porated associations this right is implied from the views of the court upon that point, wbich have

express power to enact by laws. Supreme Lodge v. mucb to commend them as theoretical proposi

Koight, 117 Ind. 497. But one very important lim. tions; but we are equally impressed with the itation of tbis right is that it must not impair rights frank admission of the court as to the difficulty of which have become vested. Borgards v. Insurance their practical application. Our own rule, even Co., 79 Mich. 440; Wist v. Grand Lodge, 22 Oreg. 271, in our own minds, falls short of theoretical per 29 Am. St. Rep. 603; Supreme Lodge v. Malta, 95 fection; but, after most careful consideration, we

Tern, 157; Morrison v. Insurance Co., 69 Wis. 166; are unable to find a better. The impaired health

Hobbs v. Association, 82 (owa, 107, 31 Am. St. Rep.

466; Stobr v. Society, 82 Cal. 557: Becker v. Society, of the insured, or his having passed the insurable

144 Pa. St. 232. There is no controversy of any im. ago, would present complications practically in

portance over the rule of limitation just announced, surmountable in the actual trial of an action.

but its practical application appears to be a most Moreover, the defendant claims that the plaintiff's | difficult undertaking, the decisions being in apparent insurance bas cost more than he has paid in, and conflict over the question as to what are vested rights therefore his recovery would be nothing. The in such cases. The right must be a property right, it plaintiff would have no means of disproving the must bave accrued in the sense tbat it must not be alleged cost of bis past insurance, the proof of

something merely in prospect In other words, an which would be exclusively in the possession of

amendment must not affect a present right of prop

erty. Thus, after a member's death an a-sociation the defendant. He might cross-examine the de

cannot, by adopting a new article or repealing the fendant's witnesses, or demand its books and

old one, relieve it-elf of the obligation to pay to the papers; but if he got them, what could be do

widow benefits which had become fixed by death. with tbem? It seems to bave taken tbe defendant Gundlach v. Association, 4 Hun (N. Y.), 339. But several years to find out that the plaintiff's insur where the value of a certificate was reduced by a ance was costing more than his premiums, and by.law creating another class upon more advan. this it did only with the assistance of the insur tageous terms from a prospective two thousand ance commissioner of New York and expert actu

dollars to one hundred and seventy tbree dollars, the aries. With or without such assistance, what

beneficiary was not allowed to recover the difference.

Supreme Lodge v. Knight, 117 Ind. 489. The question chance would the average juror have of mentally

of whether a provision for sick benefits in force at the digesting five hundred pages of insurance statis

time of the contract of member-hip can be reduced tics? All actions must be capable of a practical by subsequent amendment passed before the sickness determination, with a reasonable certainty of of the member is generally answered in the affirma substantial justice; and rules of law must be ad. tive. The New York courts vacillated over tbis justed to tbat end, even if, in exceptional cases, question for some time before they came to the same they fall short of the full measure of ideal right.

conclusion. A study of the case from this state is A distinguished jurist has said: "Indeed, one of

interesting and profitable. Gundlach v. Association,

4 Hun (N. Y.), 839; McCabe v. Society, 24 Hun (N. the remarkable tendencies of the English com

Y.), 149; Poultney v. Backman, 62 How. Pr. 466, 10 mon law upon all subjects of a general nature is

Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 252, reverseà 31 Hun, 49. See to aim at practical good, rather than at practical

also St. Patrick's Society v. McVey, 92 Pa. St. 510. In theoretical perfection; and to seek less to admin the case of Becker v. Beneficial Society, 144 Pa. St, ister justice in all possible cases than to fnrnish 232, 27 Am. St. Rep. 624, will be found a strong rules which shall secure it in the common course opinion against the right of a benefit society to reduce of human business." Story, Eq. Jur., p. 115. tee amount of benefits agreed to be paid on the death The rule we have followed is not new. It was

of the member by subsequent by law. A contrary laid down by Chief Justice Pearson in Braswell

view, bowever, is expressed in the case of Fagan v. v. Insurance Co., 75 N. Car. 8, and has been uni

Mutual Society, 46 Vt. 362.

Remedy of Member of Benefit Society Unjustly formly followed in this state for the past 25 years.

Expelled or Whose Contract is Violated.-On the But it is said that tbis rule was intended to apply

vas intended to apply | question wbethor a benefit society can restrict the to "old line” companies, and not to mutual asso- l right of its members to sue, the authorities are divided. Some bold to the affirmative. Fillmore v. incident occuring in a recent trial in which one of the Great Camp, 103 Mich. 437; Osceola Tribe v. Schmidt, attorneys in the case denounced one of the opposing 57 Vd. 98; Hembeau v. Greut Camp, 101 Mich. 161, witnesses, who was a woman, as a "liar." Mr. Barnes 45 Am. St. Rep. 400. Other authorities bold such says: res'riction to be void on grounds of publio policy. "I am asked if there is anytbing in the code of Mulray v. Knights of Honor, 28 Mo. App. 463; Austin ethics of the legal profession wbich permits a lawyer, v. Searing, 16 N. Y. 112; Olery v. Brown, 51 How. Pr. in court, to call a woman, no matter wbat her cbar. 92; Supreme Council v. Garrigus, 104 Ind. 133, 54 acter may be, & liar. I do not pretend to be an Am. Rep. 298.

nestion whetharibe

fit so

authority on legal ethics, although I have decided It is the general rule that where a member of a opinions as to what constitutes a gentleman, at any beneficial association is illegally expelled or deprived time and in any place. Moral ethics forbids a man, of benefits to which he was entitled as a member of Jawyer or no lawyer, from addressing a woman as a the order, and it does not appear that he had any re. liar and I should say that legal ethics did likewise. dress within the association, a court of equity will "In any position in life a woman is more or less inquire into the reasonableness and propriety of the defenseless. Her sex, her training, ber habits, her society's action and afford such relief as the case pbysical weakness leave her without many of those warrants. Olery v. Brown, 51 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 92. elements for resistance that a man possesses. But in Thus, when a member of a beneficial society has been court, interested in a case, either as witness or one of denied his benefits and illegally expelled, equity will the principals, she is even more helpless than else. restore him to membership and compel an account where. She is not familiar with legal procedure. ing. Glover v. Lodge, 1 Del. Co. Rep. (Pa. 1882) 317. Few, if any, of her own sex are about her. Man's The most general remedy in cases where a member, ways, man's laws, man's autbority is over ber more of a beneficiary association has been wrongfully ex strikingly than in any other position io life. Her pelled therefrom is to compel bis reinstatement by natural timidity at being placed in strange attitudes mandamus. Meurer v. Association, 95 Mich. 451, 54 overwhelms her and sbe sits shrinking from dangers, N. W Rep. 954; Lavalle v. Societe, 17 R. I. 680, 24 apprehended if not seen. Hence the grievous shock Atl. Rep. 467; Otto v. Union, 75 Cal. 308; State v. to her sensibilities if under such circumstances she is Adams, 44 Mo, 570; Manning v. Club, 63 Tex. 166, 51 denounced as a liar. Her patural protectors are not Am. Rep. 639; Savannah Cotton Exchange v. State, by her side, perhaps: if they were, they could show 64 G2. 668; Sibley v. Club, 40 N. J. L. 295; Evans v. no resentment without displeasing the court. She Club, 50 Pa. St. 107; People v. Union, 118 N, Y. 101. must take the blow and suffer. I do not believe, to

In such cases, however, the member cannot resort the honor of the legal profession, tbat such an insult to the courts for reinstatement without first exhaust. is justified. In the case at question—that of Miss ing the remedies provided by the constitution and Knabjobann-& more truthful woman never came by laws of the society, and this though the order under my notice. I found her straightforward, woof expulsion be void. People v. Order of Foresters, manly, truthful at all times. This made the reflection 162 III. 78, 44 N. E. Rep. 401; Screwmen's Assn.y. | upon her veracity particularly upwarranted, because Benson, 76 Tex. 552, 13 S. W. Rep. 379; State v. in the entire trial (if it could be justifiable) nothing Knights, 10 Wkly. L. Bul. (Obio) 2. In Missouri occurred to justify the aspersion. this latter rule is not adhered to, and in such cases it

"It is permissible in courts of law for an attorney is not incumbent on the member whose rights have

to analyze evidence of witnesses; to take the evidence been violated to take steps to exhaust all remedies

bit by bit and from it to say to the jury or the court within the order or to have it reversed in a higher

tbat on its face it is false or that a falsehood has been judicatory. Hoeffner v. Grand Lodge, 41 Mo. App.

told. But in this particular case no evidence existed 30; Glasdon v. Kuights of Pythias, 50 Mo. App. 45.

of perjury or lying, and the lie direct was given Whether an action for amiges can be maintained in

wi,hout provocation on the part of the evidence of such cases is a point much controverted and not

the young woman who suffered from the charge. Its clearly settled. The court in the principal case holds

effect on the jury was particularly noticeable. Jury. this to be tbe most practicable remedy in many cases.

men like the rest of us, have mothers, wives, sweet. It is sustained by the following authorities: Ludow.

bearts. They carry in their bosoms the same innate iski v. Benevolent Society, 29 Mo. App, 337; Dilcher

respect, chivalry, admiration for womanhood that v. Church, 53 N. Y. 103; Koppstein v. Lipu, 28 Obio

we do. They were looking into the face of the St. 665. It is opposed by the following authorities:

speaker for the defense when he delivered his inLovalen v. Society, 17 R. I. 680, 24 Atl. Rep 467;

vective. Their eyes instantly fell, tben raised and Peyre v. Mutual Relief Society, 90 Cal. 240; Ebert v.

rested, not upon bis face, but upon that of the woman Association, 83 N. W. Rep. (Minn. 1900) 506. The

wrongfully accused. It was palpable then and there last case sums up the reason for holding a beneficial

that their manhood revolted; that their sympathies association not liable in damages in such cases in the

instantly went out to her; that if the charge had been following language: “Purely fraternal benefit asso

ten thousand times true they did not justify the ciations are not liable in damages for the unlawful

conduct of that manbood which call a woman a liar cancellation of a membership, because such a corpo

under any circumstances. ration acts purely as a trustee to collect and distri.

"It is the tendency of judges, juries and attorneys to bute a sick or death fund, and bas no other fund, and

uphold the hands of woman; to throw extraordinary no power to collect any money except to meet such a

safeguards about her to keep her still the ideal of payment."

the best manhood; the guardian of the cradle; the

theme of the song and poem; the one thing that JETSAM AND FLOTSAM.

makes the life better and purer for us all. Tbis 18 IT PERMISSIBLE FOR A LAWYER TO CALL A WOMAN

tendency cannot be made too strong. It should be as A LIAR.

powerful in private life as in public. I believe the A Cbicago paper recently published a criticism of legal profession with few exceptions means that it Mr. Albert S. Barnes, assistant states attorney, on an ' shall be so."



To the Editor of the Central Law Journal:

In a recent issue (53 Cent. L. J. 245), in treating of assigoment of judgments, you say: "The assigne ment of ap interest in a right of action for a personal injury which is to be prosecuted in the name of the assignor, with an agreement to assign a correspond. ing interest in the judgment which might be recov. ered in the future, is equivalent to an equitable assignment of the specified interest in the judgment the moment it is perfected, and binds all parties baviog notice or knowledge of the same. North Chicago Street Ry, Co. v. Ackley, 58 III. App. 572," adding that the rule is different in Missouri.

Now, as a matter of fact, tbis decision was not sustained by the Supreme Court of Illinois. See 171 lll. 100. In the first place, however, the supreme court did uphold the judgment of the appellate court, and its decision to that effect was published immedi. ately following its rendition in the Chicago Lav Journal Weekly (the correct name, I think). On rebearing, tbe supreme court reversed the judgment of the appellate court, but it entirely omitted any reference to the very interesting fact that the court, at first, had reached the opposite conclusion. Topeka, Kansas.


from civil wrongs, threatened, or irremediable if redress be long delayed, in the wbirl and clash of twentieth century progress, and the greater satisfac. tion afforded a client, when the practitioner is able to speedily obtain for him such a remedy, constitute the strongest recommendations for a meritorious publication of this character." The purpose of this treatise is therefore thoroughly practical. Mr. Spelling writes with the confidence of one who knows fully all tbe intricate workings of his subject and is therefore the master pot he slave of the mass of authorities, which confuse the ordinary practitioner. On almost any other subject of law a digest of the cases is practically all that a lawyer needs, but on the question of extraordinary remedies, depending, as they do, in great measure on the discretion of the court, no simple list of precedents will suffice. Careful discrimination and analysis of decided cases and consideration of equitable and legal questions involved are needed, and these by a man competent for his work. In this regard Mr. Spelling's work takes rank as one of the highest autborities on the law of extraordinary remedies to wbich the profes. sion has any access. The revised edition has been greatly enlarged and carefully revised. It will un. doubtedly commend itselt to the bench and bar througbout the country. Printed in two volumes of 1894 pages and bound in the best quality of law sheep. Published by Little & Brown & Co., Boston, Mass.



A new edition of the excellent work on parliament The American State Reports, Containing the Cases ary law bas just come under our observation. The

of General Value and Authority subsequent to subject of this little treatise, now eighteen years old,

Those Contained in the "American Decisions" is a most important one to laymen and lawyers alike. and the "American Reports," Decided in the The law of order in deliberative assemblies is not de. Courts of Last Resort of the Several States. Se. pendent upon arbitrary rules and meaningless forms,

lected, Reported, and Annotated, by A. C. Free. as has been often supposed, but is founded upon rea.

man, and the Associate Editors of the "American son and established precedent. Mr. Waple's book

Decisions." Vol. LXXX. San Francisco: Ban. proceeds upon the recognition of the law as a science,

croft Whitney Company, Law Publishers and and is therefore the more easily mastered and re

Law Book Sellers, 1901. Sheep. Price, $1.00. tained in the memory. We regard this book the

Review will follow. higbest and clearest authority on this important sub. ject. Printed in one volume of 306 pages, duodecimo

WEEKLY DIGEST. size, and bound in cloth. Published by Callagban & Co., Chicago, Ill.

Weekly Digest of ALL the Current Opinions SPELLING ON EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES.

of ALL the state and Territorial Courts of No subject is more important to litigant or lawyer

Last Resort, and of ll the Federal Courts than the one covered by the work which is the sub

ALABAMA, 3, 19, 21, 25, 27, 45, 53, 54, 63, 65, 87, 90, 106, 123, ject of this review. It is a practical treatise on

131, 132, 150, 153, 161, 162, 183, 184, 196, 198, 199, 205, 208, injunctions and other extraordinary remedies in

210 cluding habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo ARKANSAS ...

.... 33 warranto and certiorari, by Thomas Carl Spelling, of CALIFORNIA........................7, 61,

.........7, 61, 81, 85, 118, 135, 173 the San Francisco Bar. The constant strain and GEORGIA ..........

....................13, 60, 68, 69, 125, 167, 179, 214 most extended use to which these extraordinary

INDIANA.........8, 30, 31, 32, 42, 44, 52, 62 102, 107, 195, 203 remedies have been subjected of late years suggests

LOUISIANA, 9, 10, 29, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 43, 49, 56, 59, 61,

75. 76 77. 89. 91 92. 93. 96. 99. 103. 109, 110. 11. 113. 114. that they are becoming the most ordinary remedies

116, 117, 128, 134, 150, 118. 152, 150, 163, 164, 165, 166, 171, for a large class of civil wrongs. The remedy by

175, 177, 178, 181, 187, 197, 212 injunction, especially, bas, in recent years, come into

MISSISSIPPI..... such common use, that men are tempted to regard NEBRASKA ....................... 1, 2, 12, 16, 97, 145, 169, 170 the writ as no longer & measure of extraordinary NEW JERSEY....

........... 154, 186 relief in equity, and are in danger of looking at it as NEW YORK, 22, 28, 51, 79, 82, 83, 86, 98, 129, 141, 143, 149, 159 a matter of right in law. Mr. Spelling, however, has

172, 100, 189, 190, 191, 192, 209 given proof of his ability to prepare a text-book for


............17, 127, 201, 202 the practitioner by treating his subject purely from

PENNSYLVANIA ............39, 50, 105, 112, 122, 156, 159,,188

RHODE ISLAND............ ..................46 126, 194 the side of the law and the lawyer. To show his

SOUTH CAROLINA, 5, 15, 40, 47, 67, 80, 84, 94, 95, 100, 121, 124, practical turn of mind and concern for the lawyer, he

133, 134, 136, 139, 142, 147, 155, 174, 182, 193, 204, 211, 213. naively remarks in bis preface: "The increasing | TENNESSEE, 6, 14, 20, 24, 57, 72, 73, 74, 78, 108, 120, 144, 169, demand for remedies affording immediate relief! 185

............. 23

[ocr errors]

.........187, 176



16. APPEAL AND ERROR-Finding of Pact.-Findings WASHINGTON, 4, 11, 18, 26, 48, 55, 58, 66, 70, 71, 88, 101, 104, 1 on questions of fact will not be reviewed without a 115, 119, 130, 138, 146, 151, 157, 200, 206, 207

bill of exceptions.-UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN V. MC

GUCKIN, Neb., 87 N. W. Rep. 180. 1. ABATEMENT-Revival Limitation.- Where an ac.

17. APPEAL AND ERROR-From Nunc Pro Tunc Or. tion is not revived within a year, the court may strike

der.-An appeal lies from a nune pro tunc order annend. it from the docket.-PETERS V. HOFF, Neb., 87 N. W.

ing a decree entered on def ult, where the sunc pro Rep. 184.

tunc order was void.-HOOVER V. HOOVER, Oreg., 65 Pac. 2. ABATEMENT AND REVIVAL-Striking Case from

Rep. 796. Docket.-Striking action from docket for fallure to

18. APPEAL — Remanding – Duty of Trial Court. – revive on death of party pot equivalent to dismissing

Where a judgment of conviction had been afirmed by case.-PETERS V. HOFF, Neb., 87 N. W. Rep. 184.

the appellate court, the lower court on remand 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT8-Corporation-Notary a Stock. cannot vacate it.-STATE V. BOYCE, Wash., 65 Pac. Rep. holder.-Itig no ground for collateral attack on a deed to a corporation that the notury public taking ac.

19. APPEAL AND ERROR--Special Findings.-Where a knowledgment was a stockholder.-NATIONAL BUILD

case to tried to the court, and a special finding of facts ING & LOAN ASSN. V. CONNINGHAM, Ala., 30 South. Rep.

is not asked, and bill of exceptions fail to sbow ex. 335.

ceptions taken to the judgment, it cannot be reviewed. 4. ACKNOWLEDGMENT-Omiggion of Notary'g Addresg.

-WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. V. WHITE, Ala., 80 Soutb. -Under Ballinger's Ann. Codes & st. $ 4533, the omis. Rep. 279. Siop of the notary'g place of residence in a certificat

20. APPEAL AND ERROR-Suficiency of Plea.-Where of acknowledgment is not a material defect.-GRIFFIN

no question is made below as to sufficiency of a ples, v. CatLin, Wash., 65 Pac. Rep. 755.

none can be made on appeal.-SMITH V. CARMACK, 5. ACTION - Parties --Authority-Relief.-Where an Tenn., 64 8. W. Rep. 372. action is not authorized by one of the parties plaintiff, 21. ARREST – Escaped Convict.-A sheriff has au. no relief should be granted as to him.-TOOLE V.

ity to arrest an escaped convict at any time, and JOHNSON, S. Car., 39 S. E. Rep. 254.

Is allowed reasonable time thereafter within which to 6. ADVERSE POSSESSION-Hitcblog Horses.- Where

deliver such convict to the hirer of county convicts. for 50 years persons attending a chrch bitched their

-MCQUEEN V. STATE, Ala., 30 South. Rep. 414. horses on adjoining land, such use was not adverse 22. ASSIGNMENTS-Agreement as to Probate of Will. possession which would give the church title. -Agreement by executrix and residuary legatee with AEARN V. JONES, Tenn., 64 8. W. Rep. 344.

attorneys as to probate of will held not an equitable 7. AGRICOLTUBE-Killing Iosects on Trees.-In an

assigoment of a portion of her interest under the will,

so as to authorize them to compel an accounting by action to foreclose a lien on realty for killing insects

her as executrix.-IN RE SHAFER, N. Y., 71 N. Y. Sup. on the defendant's fruit trees, the fact that the peti.

1033. tlop contained a prayer for a personal judgment did not vitiate 10.-RIVERSIDE COUNTY V. BUTCHER, Cal.,

23. ASSIGNMENT - Contingent Fee.-In a suit to set off 65 Pac. Rep. 745.

a judginent, where the party obtaining it had agreed

to give his attorneys 40 per cent. of the judgment re. 8. APPEAL AND ERROR-Ambiguous Instructions.

covered, held that there was an equitable assign. No reversal will be had for ambiguities in instructions

ment in presenti to defendant's a torneys.-HARRIS in a criminal cuge, where it is clear the instructions as

V. HAZELHORST OIL-MILL & MrG. Co., Miss., 30 South. an entirety did not prejudice appellant and the Ver.

Rep. 273. dict was justified by the evidence.-MOSSER V. STATE,


ance Policies.Where a warehouseman, includes cer. 9. APPEAL AND ERROR-Attorney's Fees.-Where no tain insurance policies in a trust deed for benefit of attampt was made to prove attorney's fees below, they creditors, their rights will be governed thereby.will not be considered on appeal.-SWAIN V. WEBRE, SMITH V. CARMACK, Teon., 64 8. W. Rep. 872. La., 30 South. Rep. 331.

25. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT-License of Attorney.-A 10. APPEAL AND ERROR-Bonds.- Where two appeals

complaint against a lawyer, chargiog him with engag. are granted in one order and one bond is filed, the ing in practicing law, without having procurred or order, and bond sumces for one appeal, though the

paid a license, held not demurrable.- ALDRICH V. CITY other is dismissed.-MACKIN V. WILDS. La.. 30 Soutb. OF CULLMAN, Ala., 30 South. Rep. 415. Rep. 257.

26. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT - Lien - Waiver. - The 11. APPEAL AND ERROR – Conflicting Evidence.

parting with possession of a client's papers by an at. Where the evidence is conflicting, the findings of the

torney waives the latter's lien for his compensation lower court will not be disturbed.-RIDDELL V. BROWN, given thereon.-GOTTSTRIN V. HARRINGTON, Wash.. Wash., 65 Pac. Rep. 768.

65 Pac. Rep. 753, 12. APPEAL AND ERROR--Denying Order of Distribu. 27. BAILMENT-Hiring Animals-Conversion.- Where tion.-An order denying petition for distribution a person bires an animal for a specified work and for on the ground that petitioner is not an heir held a definite time, and uses it for other labor and for a appoalable.-MORTON'S ESTATE V. MORTON, Neb., 87 N. longer time, it constitutes conversion.-LEDBETTIR V. W. Rep. 180.

THOMAS, Ala., 30 South. Rep. 342. 13. APPEAL AND ERROB - Dismingal -"Final Judg. 28. BANKRUPTCY -Discharge-Incorrect Schedule.ment."-Where action is against four persons jointly, Debt hold not discharged, where a schedule gives a a judgment dismissing it as to three on demurrer is debtor's name incorrectly.-LISKUM V. KRAUS, X. Y., 71 final and appealable.-KOLLOCK V. WEBB, Ga., 89 S. N. Y. Supp. 1022. E. Rep. 339.

29. BILLS OF LADING - Varying by Parol Bvidonce.14. APPEAL AND ERBOR-Exceptions-Requisites. Terms of bill of lading to the extent that it is a con. Complaining of the overruling of certain exceptions, tract cannot be charged by parol evidence.-SONIA numbering them and referring to the transcript pages, COTTON OIL Oo, Y. THE RED RIVER, La., s boutb. Rep. is too general for consideration.-YOUNG V. YOUNG, 303. Tenn., 64 S. W. Rep. 319.

30. BOILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS-Insolvency. 15. APPBAL AND ERROK-Failure to File Authorities. - A building and loan association is insolvent when it -Appeal relnstated where fallure to file points and cannot pay back to its stockbolders the amount of authorities was caused by sickness of attorneys. tbeir contributions.- BIN HAY V. MARION TRUST Co., BAKEB V. IBVINE, S. Car., 89 S. E. Rep. 259.

Ind., 80 South. Rep. 29.

« ПредишнаНапред »