« PreviousContinue »
she was not an inhabitant or resident of the State, within the statute giving the court jurisdiction. – Winship v. Winship, 1 C. E. Green, 107.
DOWER. — See PARTNERSHIP, 2.
ELECTION. An heir-at-law claiming a legacy under a will, and also claiming real estate as heir against the will on account of its defective execution as to passing land, may take both, and is not put to his election. — Kearney v. Macomb, 1 C. E. Green, 189.
EMANCIPATION. See AWARD; SLAVE; WARRANTY.
EMINENT DOMAIN. - See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, STATE. EQUITY.— See CONFEDERACY, 2, 3; CONFEDERATE MONEY, 1, 2, 5; ELECTION;
INJUNCTION ; PARTNERSHIP, 2; RAILROAD; SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE; SURETY, 3; TRADE MARK.
ESTOPPEL. Judgment was recovered against the plaintiffs for injuries caused by a defect in a highway made by defendants. The latter were notified of the suit, and were present at the trial. Held, that the verdict and judgment were conclusive evidence of the defect, the injury to the individual while in the use of due care, and the amount of the damage. — Portland v. Richardson, 54 Me. 46. See SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, 3.
EVIDENCE. Statute of Limitations pleaded, and presiding judge could not determine whether the date of the note declared on was January or June. Held, that extrinsic evidence was admissible to show the true date, and that the question was properly left to the jury. - Fenderson v. Owen, 54 Me. 372.
See ASSUMPSIT, 2; CONFEDERATE MONEY, 4; FIXTURE, 1; LEGAL TENDER, 1; WILL, 2.
EXECUTION. - See SHERIFF'S SALE.
EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR. 1. An administrator who held single bills payable on their face to him as administrator, which he had received for chattels of his intestate, lawfully sold by him, induced P. to become his surety in a purchase made by him for his private purposes, on the security of said bills, which he represented to be his own property, alleging also that he was in advance to his intestate's estate. It turned out that in fact he was at the time largely indebted to said estate, and a decree against him for a large balance was made soon afterwards. Held, that P. could not hold said bills, nor money collected on them, as against a surety on the administration bond, for whose indemnity it was necessary that they should be restored to the estate (DUNKIN, C.J., GLOVER, J., and CARROLL, C., dissenting). Rhame v. Lewis, 13 Rich. S.C. Eq. 269.
2. An administrator, appointed and residing in another State, solvent, and under bond for the due performance of his trust, cannot, on coming into Georgia
FRAUDS, STATUTE OF. 1. An unexecuted verbal agreement, made by a mortgagee to discharge a mortgage by a release, is within the Statute of Frauds. — Phillips v. Leavitt, 54 Me. 405.
2. Defendants' wood agent agreed verbally to take all the wood the plaintiff would put on the line of their road; and the plaintiff spoke of cutting and hauling the wood from his own land, naming a particular place. He cut wood accordingly, landed it within the limits of the road, and called on the wood agent to measure it. The latter said he would, but did not; and, after two or three years, the wood was burned by fire from defendants' engines. Held, that the contract was for a sale, and within the Statute of Frauds, and not for the manufacture of particular wood into cordwood. Also, that there was no evidence that the defendants accepted the wood. — Edwards v. Grand Trunk Railway, 54 Me. 105.
3. The plaintiff, being indebted to one of the defendants in a sum equal to or exceeding a debt from the defendants to him, it was agreed by parol that the amount due him should be applied upon his indebtedness, and the latter cancelled. The plaintiff was to give receipt, which was never done. Held, that his claim was not extinguished. This was a sale of a chose in action by the plaintiff, and void by the Statute of Frauds, while resting merely in parol (INGALLS, J., dissenting). — Brand v. Brand, 49 Barb. 346.
4. A receipt by mail of a bill of goods, containing the terms of the sale, will not take the sale out of the Statute of Frauds. — Pike v. Wieting, 49 Barb. 314.
5. A. and F. made an exchange of lands, each going at once into possession of the land acquired, and A. receiving a bond for a deed. F., after having been eighteen months in possession, left the country for several years; whereupon A. induced the family of F. to leave F.'s land, and obtained possession of the same himself. Held, that F. was entitled to a conveyance of the land.
A. also took possession of $500 worth of F.'s chattels. Two years later, F. gave a receipt for $240, "in full of all demands and claims due F.” to date. Held, that this only applied to claims arising from the personal property, and that the words did not import the transfer of F.'s equitable fee. — Fitzsimmons v. Allen, 39 Ill. 440.
GENERAL AVERAGE. — See INSURANCE, 3.
GUARANTY. In case of an absolute guaranty, no demand or notice of non-payment is necessary to fix the liability of the guarantor. — Dickerson v. Derrickson, 39 Ill. 574.
HIGHWAY. - See ROBBERY; Way.
HUSBAND AND WIFE. 1. A feme covert, having a separate estate with a general power of appointing the same by deed or will, disposed of the same to various parties, subjecting expressly only a portion of it to the payment of her debts. Held, that the creditors might look to the whole of it. — Rogers v. Hinton, 1 Phillips, N.C. Eq. 101.