« PreviousContinue »
the warehouse, as being no longer in transit. — Merchant Banking Co. of London v. Phænic Bessemer Steel Co., 5 Ch. D. 205. See BILL OF LADING; SALE, 1.
WARRANTY. — See INSURANCE.
WILL. 1. Testatrix made a will disposing of all of her property. In 1860, she made another, making some changes in the bequests as they stood in the first document. The second will contained no residuary clause, and made no allusion to the previous will; but it declared that “this is the last will ... of me.” Held, that the first will must be considered revoked; the second alone admitted to probate. — Dempsey v. Lawson, 2 P. D. 98.
2. Clause: “I appoint my sister ... my executrix, only requesting that my nephews,” F. and J., “ will kindly act for' or with this dear sister.” Held, that F. and J. were duly named executors with the sister of the testatrix. — In the Goods of Brown, 2 P. D. 110.
3. Testatrix wished to revive a will and codicil dated respectively Jan. 26, and Feb. 21, 1876, and which had been subsequently revoked. Her solicitor made copies of them, and had the two documents re-executed Jan. 18, 1877. He neglected to change the reference to the date of the will made in the codicil, and the codicil read, “my last will dated Jan. 26, 1876." Held, that the will and codicil should be admitted to probate. — In the Goods of Ince, 2 P. D. 111.
4. Clause in will: “I hereby appoint one of my sisters my sole executrix." Testator had three sisters living at the date of the will; but only one survived him. The court refused to grant probate to her on the ground of uncertainty. - In the Goods of Blackwell, 2 P. D. 72.
5. Testator, living in Brighton, left a will appointing twelve executors thereof, one of whom he described as “ Percival of Brighton, the father.” There was evidence that testator had an intimate friend in Brighton, named William Percival Boxall; that testator was accustomed to call him Percival, and had appointed him executor in a previous will; that Boxall had a son named Percival, well known to the testator; and that testator knew no other person named Percival. This evidence was admitted to determine who was meant. - In the Goods of De Rosaz, 2 P. D. 66.
6. H. made a will dated March 15, 1864, giving his property to his wife. Oct. 12, 1874, he and his wife made a joint will,“ in case we should be called out of this world at one and the same time, and by one and the same accident." There was a clause revoking all previous wills. He died Dec. 31, 1876; his wife surviving. Held, that the joint will was made in view of an event which never happened, and hence it had become and was of no effect. The other will was good. — In the Goods of Hugo, 2 P. D. 73.
7. Testator used a blank lithographed form for a will to give property absolutely to children after the life-estate of the widow. The lithographed words giving to the children were marked out, and the words, “ to my only son, H.," written in. No note was made on any part of the will to these alterations, and the attesting witness (one witness had died) knew nothing about it. Testator left five children by a former wife, and the said son H. by a wife living. Testator had said to the trustee named in the will that he meant to provide for his son H.; and this evidence was admitted, and the will admitted to probate. — Dench v. Dench, 2 P. D. 60.
See BEQUEST, 1, 2; CONSTRUCTION, 1, 2; DEVISE, 1, 2; ELECTION; TRUST, 1, 2, 3.
WINDING UP. — See Company, 4.
Words. “ Money, Cattle, Farming Implements, &c." — See BEQUEST, 2. “ All and Every the Children or other Issue.” — See CoNsTRUCTION, 1.
“ Uncontrollable Authority.' - See Trust, 2.
“ Act for and with.” — See Will, 1.
SELECTED DIGEST OF STATE REPORTS.
(For the present number of the Digest, selections have been made from the following volumes of State Reports: 30 Arkansas; 51 California; 43 Connecticut; 27 Grattan (Virginia); 70, 71, 72, 79, and 80 Mlinois; 53 Indiana; 43 Iowa; 17 Kansas; 27 Louisiana Annual; 44 Maryland; 52 Mississippi; 5 Nebraska; 11 Nevada; 64 New York; 76 North Carolina; and 41 Wisconsin.]
ACTION. 1. The city of Williamsburg, Va., being occupied by the United States forces during the war, the officers in command furnished supplies to a lunatic asylum in the city, the directors of the corporation owning the asylum having left the city and dispersed; and under such military authority, provisions were taken without compensation from the house of G., which he had left, and were converted to the use of the asylum. Held, that the corporation of the asylum was liable to G. in trover. (CHRISTIAN, J. dissenting.) – Eastern Lunatic Asylum v. Garrett, 27 Gratt. 163.
2. No action lies at common law against a supervisor of highways for injuries caused to a traveller by defects in the highway. – McConnell v. Dewey, 5 Neb. 385. See DEVISE, 2; NUISANCE, 1, 2; PROXIMATE CAUSE. ADMINISTRATION. — See EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR.
ADULTERY. — See DowER, 2.
AGENT. 1. A broker is entitled to a commission for effecting a sale of land, if he has procured a person to enter into a binding agreement to purchase it, though the agreement be not carried out. - Love y. Miler, 53 Ind. 294.
2. A railroad company is not liable for advances made by a commission merchant on the faith of a bill of lading fraudulently signed by one of its station agents, the goods therein specified never having been shipped or received at the station for transportation. — Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Wilkens, 44 Md. 11.
3. The owner of a mill contracted to buy provisions and supplies for the men employed in the mill; and such supplies were furnished as required, on the order of the owner's agent. Held, that the contractors so furnishing them, after the owner's death, but before they had notice of it, could recover the price against his administrator. — Lenz v. Brown, 41 Wis. 172.
See ATTORNEY, 2; BANKRUPTCY, 2; LANDLORD AND TENANT; REMOVAL OF SUITS, 5.
ALIEN. — See JURY.
ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS. A note, purporting by its terms to be the personal promise of the makers, was signed by A., B., and C., "as trustees of the Universalist Society," a blank being left above these words for the signature of D., a fourth trustee; and the note was delivered to the payee to obtain that signature, which he did, after tearing off the descriptive words. Held, that even if these words had remained, the makers would have been personally liable; and therefore that the note was not materially altered before D. signed it, and that he was liable on it. (Scott, C.J. and SHELDON, J. dissenting.) – Burlingame v. Brewster, 79 Ill. 515. See Money HAD AND RECEIVED.
ANIMAL. — See TRESPASS, 1.
ARREST. — See FRAUD.
ATTACHMENT. Plaintiff, a resident of Indiana, brought an action in Illinois against de fendant, who was also a resident of Indiana, but was temporarily commorant in Illinois, and attached his goods, which were not exempt by the law of Illinois, though they would have been by that of Indiana. Held, that the attachment was no abuse of the process of the court, and was valid. - Mitchell v. Shook, 72 II. 492.
ATTORNEY. 1. An attorney who published advertisements of divorces obtained “without publicity; residence unnecessary,” giving his address at a particular postoffice box, without his name, was stricken from the rolls. — People v. Goodrich, 79 Ill. 148.
2. An attorney-at-law cannot delegate his authority; and therefore payment of a debt entrusted to him for collection to a person authorized by him to receive it, does not discharge the debtor. —Dickson v. Wright, 52 Miss. 585. See HUSBAND AND WIFE, 3.
BAIL. A prisoner who had recognized to appear and answer to a criminal charge, having failed to do so, was arrested, tried, and convicted, and was afterwards pardoned. Held, that he continued liable on his recognizance. — Weatherwat v. The State, 17 Kans. 427.
BANK. Defendants, who were partners, signed as sureties a note payable at plaintiffs' bank, of which R., one of the defendants, was a director. R. asked plaintiffs' cashier whether the note had been paid by the maker, and was told that it had; whereupon defendants neglected to obtain security from the maker, as they might have done; and he afterwards became insolvent, not having, in fact, paid the note. Held, that R. was bound, as a director, to know
whether the note was paid ; that therefore plaintiffs were not estopped by the cashier's statement; and that defendants were liable. — Merchants’ Bank v. Rudolf, 5 Neb. 527.
See CHECK; SET-OFF, 2.
1. On a petition to a District Court of the United States, by partners, to have the partnership adjudged bankrupt, personal service, made without the district, on a partner refusing to join in the petition, is not sufficient; and a State court will hold an adjudication on such service void as against him. Isett v. Stuart, 80 III. 404.
2. Debts due from a factor to his principal are debts “ created while acting in a fiduciary capacity," within the meaning of the Bankrupt Act, and are not barred by a discharge in bankruptcy. - Banning v. Bleakley, 27 La. Ann. 257. See ConstitUTIONAL Law, 1.
BASTARDY. – See PARENT.
BILL OF PEACE. — See WAY, 2.
Bills And Notes. If a promissory note bearing interest payable annually be indorsed before maturity, but after an instalment of interest is due and unpaid, the indorsee takes it subject to all equities between the original parties. — Hart v. Stickney, 41 Wis. 630.
See ALTERATION; CHECK; ILLEGAL CONTRACT, 2; LIMITATIONS, StatUTE OF; MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED; PRESUMPTION, 2; REPEAL.
Bona FIDE PURCHASER. — See BILLS AND Notes; Lis PENDENS, 2;
REGISTRY, 1. Bond. — See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, STATE, 1; INJUNCTION; Priority.
BOUNDARY. Conveyance by deed of land bounded on two streets, beginning at the intersection of their exterior lines. Held, that the soil of the streets did not pass. — White's Bank v. Nichols, 64 N. Y. 65.
Bridge. — See PARTIES.
BROKER. — See AGENT, 1. BURDEN OF PROOF. — See By-Law; EVIDENCE, 3; NEGLIGENCE, 2;
BURGLARY. The prisoner entered, without breaking, a dwelling-house by night, with intent to commit felony, and broke out in making his escape. Held, that he was guilty of burglary, by force of the English Stat. 12 Ann. c. 7, which, if