« PreviousContinue »
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. A shop-keeper is not liable for the act of his superintendent and clerks in calling a policeman, and causing the arrest and search of a woman suspected of stealing goods, if done without his authority, express or implied. — Mali . Lord, 39 N.Y. 381.
See BOUNTY; CONSTRUCTION OF INSTRUMENTS AND STATUTES, 4-6; CORPORATION, 2; DAMAGES, 4; EVIDENCE; MASTER AND SERVANT.
PROMISSORY NOTE. — See BILLS AND NOTES.
PROXIMATE CAUSE. - See DAMAGES, 1-3; INSURANCE, 2. PUBLIC USE. — See CONSTITUTIONAL Law, STATE, 3, 4; EMINENT Domain.
Quia EMPTORES. - See LANDLORD AND TENANT, 3.
RAILROAD. 1. A railroad company, which, for a consideration, receives the cars of a connecting company into its custody and control, and draws them with their contents over its own road, is liable as a common carrier for injuries to such cars during their transit over said road. — Vermont & M. R.R. Co. v. Fitchburg R.R. Co., 14 All. 462.
2. Defendants advertised the hours at which their trains would start in the newspapers, but it was their custom sometimes to postpone the hour of a train's starting, giving notice only by handbills in their cars and stations. On the day in question, after giving such notice, they postponed the hour. Plaintiff, who had purchased a package of tickets, and did not know of the postponement, presented himself for carriage at the advertised hour. 'Held, that defendants were liable for not carrying him at that hour. — Sears v. Eastern R.R. Co., 14 All. 433.
3. A railroad company is not liable for injuries received by a passenger while voluntarily and unnecessarily standing on the platform of a car in motion, although by the express permission of the conductor and brakeman. — Hickey F. Boston & L. R.R. Co., 14 All. 429.
4. The same diligence is not required from a railroad company toward a stranger as toward a passenger. The care required is that which experience has found reasonable and necessary to prevent injury to others in like cases. — Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Breinig, 25 Md. 378. See Philadelphia, W., & B. R.R. Co. v. Kerr, ib. 521.
5. A railroad is not bound to maintain a fence on the line of its road against cattle unlawfully in a pasture adjoining. – Mayberry v. Concord Railroad, 47 N.H. 391.
See CARRIER ; CORPORATION, 2; DAMAGES, 4, 5; EASEMENT; EVIDENCE; LEGAL TENDER, 6; MASTER AND SERVANT; STAMP, 1; Tax, 1.
RATIFICATION. — See SUNDAY. · RECEIPT. — See CARRIER, 1-4.
RECORD. A judgment of a court of general jurisdiction (i.e., in California, a court of record) cannot be impeached collaterally, because service by publication OR
rent becoming due after the sale.) The measure of damages is the purchasemoney and interest. — Myers v. Smith, 27 Md. 91.
See DAMAGES, 2, 3; FRAUDS, STATUTE OF, 2; MORTGAGE, 1; PLEDGE.
SEAL. An impression of the seal of a corporation stamped upon the paper on which a mortgage of the corporation is written, is a good seal, although no adhesive substance is used. — Hendee v. Pinkerton, 14 All. 381.
SEISIN. When several lots of wild and unoccupied land in the same county are mortgaged by one deed, and on one and the same condition, an entry by the mortgagee upon one in the name of the whole, gives him constructive possession of all of said lots, as against the mortgagor or any one subsequently entering with out right. — Green v. Pettingill, 47 N.H. 375. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. — See AGREEMENT, 2, 3; LEGAL TENDER, 5; SALE, 1.
STAKEHOLDER. — See BET.
STAMP. 1. An express company's receipt does not require a stamp. — Belger v. Dinsmore, 51 Barb. 69.
2. A stamp was affixed, with consent of court, to a paper setting forth the loss of a trustee bond, &c., and was cancelled, and said paper was filed in place of said bond. Held, that this made the unstamped bond valid ab initio.- Douler v. Cushwa, 27 Md. 354.
3. An agreement for a lease dated Feb. 28, 1863, was stamped before trial by a collector, Nov. 14, 1865, and the penalty was paid him. Held, that the paper was thereby made admissible in evidence. — Cooke v. England, 27 Md. 14.,
4. A declaration on a promissory note which does not show that the note was stamped, is not bad on demurrer. — Hallock v. Jaudin, 34 Cal. 167.
See CONSTITUTIONAL Law, 2. STATUTES, CONSTRUCTION OF. - See BANKRUPT Law, 2; BOUNTY; EMBEZZLE
MENT; INNKEEPER ; NationAL BANK; WAY; Will, 1.
STATUTE OF FRAUDS. — See FRAUDS, STATUTE OF.
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. — See LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF. STATUTES OF UNITED STATES. — See BANKRUPT LAW; CONSTITUTIONAL Law,
1; NationAL BANK ; STAMP. STOCKHOLDER. — See CONFLICT OF Laws, 1.
SUNDAY. A contract made in violation of the Lord's day is void, and no subsequent ratification will sustain an action upon it. — Day v. McAllister, 15 Gray, 433. See WILL, 1.
SURETY. Taking a note from the obligor in a bond payable in terms at the same time as the bond, and for the same debt, discharges the sureties on the bond, because the
VOTE. — See CasES FOLLOWED, 1; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, STATE, 1.
WAGER. — See BET.
· WAR. — See Cases FOLLOWED, 5.
WATERCOURSE. Plaintiffs owned the water of an artificial mill-pond, two hundred years old. Defendants cut and carried away ice from the same. Both parties claimed title to the land covered by said pond; the defendants under a conveyance of land bounded “ East by the pond.” Held, that, although defendants owned to the middle of the original stream (BUTLER, J., disagreeing to this), they were liable, having no more right to take the ice than they would have had to divert the water. - Mill River Woollen Manufacturing Co. v. Smith, 34 Conn. 462. See Ohio RIVER.
WAY. 1. A city accepted a charter giving it power to make by-laws for the protection and preservation of trees in the public squares; and a by-law was passed accordingly, fining parties who should cut or injure such trees without leave. The city negligently allowed a dead limb to remain on such a tree, and it fell and injured the plaintiff. Held, that the city was liable. It had neglected a corporate duty which it had voluntarily assumed (PARK, J., dissenting, the duty related only to the welfare of the trees, and was owed only to persons interested , in that.) — Jones v. New Haven, 34 Conn. 1.
2. A city was bound to keep its streets “in good and sufficient repair." Third parties suspended a flag with iron weights attached to it across said street, and one of them fell and injured the plaintiff, who was using due care. Held, that the city was not liable. — Hewison v. New Haven, 34 Conn. 136. See Jones F. New Haven, ib. 1.
See EASEMENT; EMINENT DOMAIN; NEGLIGENCE, 2.
WILL. 1. A will executed on Sunday in New Hampshire is valid. — George v. George, 47 N.H. 27.
2. A will, to be valid by the laws of New York, must be attested after the sig. nature by the testator. Judgment of Supreme Court reversed. – Jackson F. Jackson, 39 N.Y. 153.
3. A testator gave "to my brothers A., B., and C., and my sisters D. and E., and the heirs of F., and their heirs respectively," the residue of his estate, “to be divided in equal shares between them.” There was also a legacy " to the heirs of my sister F.” Held, that the heirs of F. took per stirpes ; i.e., one-sixth of the residue to them collectively. – Balcom v. Haynes, 14 All. 204. See CHARITY; FEE SIMPLE, 2 ; INSANITY, 2.
WITNESS. — See Will, 2.