Skip to main content

Full text of "A Treatise on the Law of Judgments: Including the Doctrine of Res Judicata"

See other formats


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on Hbrary shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 

to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 

publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we liave taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 
We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http : //books . google . com/| 







Author of "* Black's Law Dictionary " and of Treatises on ""Tax Titles," 
** Constitutional i4iw," ** Interpretation of Laws," **Bankrupicy," eta 




St. Paul, Minn. 

San Francisco, Cal 




Copyright, 1902, 



L 5529 


THE work now given to the public is one which has engaged the au- 
thor's study and reflection, more or less constantly, for a considerable 
number of years. The magnitude and importance of the subject are 
such as to demand the most patient and exhaustive research, the most 
careful collation and weighing of authorities, and the most impartial 
and reasonable discussion of its disputed points, on the part of any one 
who attempts a comprehensive and systematic treatment of it. How 
far the author has fallen short of the fulfillment of these conditions, is 
for the judgment of those who shall use the book. But the fact that 
he has constantly kept this ideal in mind, and devoted his best energies 
to the realization of it, is his justification for the hope that the follow- 
ing pages may be found to possess some interest and value .for his 
brethren of the bar. 

The law of judgments, at the present day, aside from local variations 
in matters of practice, may be regarded as tolerably well settled. 
There are, however, certain branches of the law of estoppel by record 
which still present themselves to many a puzzled inquirer as a 
labyrinthine confusion of apparently irreconcilable decisions. This 
arises, not so much from any real contradiction or obscurity in the 
authorities, as from the infinite variety exhibited in the facts of the 
different cases and the necessity of making nice discriminations in the 
principles to be applied. At such places, the endeavor has been made 
to exhibit the result of the decisions in a clear and orderly form, by a 
methodical classification of the cases, and by a logical and systematic 
arrangement of topics. In illustration we refer to the discussion of the 
doctrine of merger as applied to inseverable claims founded in contract 
or tort, actions for continuing damages, for distinct trespasses, for 
causes of action distinct though founded on the same transaction, for 
permanent and recurring nuisances, for periodical liabilities, etc. (vol 
"• §§ 73i'~7S3)- Nor is our general subject wholly free from vexed 



questions, upon which the authorities are hopelessly at war. In such 
cases it has been the author's task to weigh and balance the conflicting 
decisions, — not withholding criticism where he deemed it justified, nor 
refraining from the positive expression of individual opinion, — ^and to 
present what he considered the true rule, or- the best rule, or the rule 
sustained by the preponderance of authorities, supporting his con- 
clusions as well by the reasoning suggested by his own reflections on 
the subject, as by quotations from the opinions of the courts. Ex- 
amples of such topics, so treated, may be seen in the discussion of 
"judgments as contracts" (vol. i. §§ 7-1 1), the definition of jurisdiction 
(§ 215), the question of the collateral impeachment of judgments for 
want of jurisdiction (§§ 270-276), the subject of the conclusiveness of 
foreign judgments in personam (vol. ii. §§ 825-834), and the matter 
of jurisdictional inquiries in actions on judgments from a sister state 
(§§ 894-915) and the plea of fraud (§§ 916-921). 

Throughout the work an attempt has been made to preserve an 
orderly and scientific arrangement, both in the main divisions of the 
subject and in the sequence of parts and sections within each chapter. 
Such a plan, it is believed, if perfectly carried out, would greatly facili- 
tate the use of a text-book so voluminous as the present. As to the 
method of using the authorities, it may be observed that quotations 
from the opinions of the courts have been quite freely introduced, — 
not, it is hoped, to the extent of incumbering the pages with needless 
repetitions, but for the purpose of illustrating and re-inforcing the 
legal propositions stated by the apt and convincing remarks of learned 
judges. For the rest, the citations will be found to cover the English 
and Canadian reports, as well as those of all the American states, with 
occasional illustrations from the Roman law and other foreign systems. 
The extent of the author's researches will be apparent from the fact 
that more than ten thousand cases are cited in these volumes. But 
he feels confident that to refer to a profusion of authorities is to err 
(if at all) on the side most easily pardonable by the profession. 

In view of the wide circulation of the various periodicals constituting 
the National Reporter System, it was thought that convenience in the 
use of the book would be greatly promoted by introducing parallel 
references in the case of all decisions reported concurrently in an 
official series and in one of the Reporters. And this has accordingly 


been done. Where a case is cited from one of the Reporters alone, 
it is because it was omitted from the official series of reports or has 
not yet been reached by that series. For reasons similar to the fore- 
g^ing, parallel references to the American Decisions and the American 
Reports have been introduce^. The citations have been brought down 
to the time the work goes to press. H. C. B. 

WashiDgton, D. C, January 1, 1891. 


DURING the twelve years which have elapsed since the first publica- 
tion of this treatise, the law of Judgments, as expounded by the courts 
and affected by statutory enactments, has undergone a great elabora- 
tion and development, though without much change in the cardinal 
principles upon which its most important rules are based. In the same 
period the case-law of the subject has enormously increased. It there- 
fore seemed to the author that a new edition of this work would be 
acceptable to the profession, and would indeed be necessary to its con- 
tinuance in that career of usefulness of which he has many gratifying 
testimonies. Accordingly, the book has been subjected to a careful 
and thorough revision, many parts of it have been wholly re-written, 
much new matter has been added, and the later decisions, to the num- 
ber of about seven thousand, have been incorporated in the notes. It 
is hoped that the work, as thus enlarged and brought abreast of the 
current of judicial decisions, will be found a reliable guide to the rules 
and principles on which its subject rests, and a complete repertory of 
the precedents, both ancient and modern. H. C. B. 

Washington, D. C, October 1, 1902. 





Pabt I. Thb Naturb of Judgmbnts. 

$ 1. DeflnitiODS ot Judgments, Decrees, and Orders. 

2. Tbe Language of a Judgment 

3. Ifissentials of a Judgment. 

4. Consequences of a Judgment 

5. Judgment is not an Assignment 
ti. Judgmmt is not a Specialty. 

7. Judgments sometimes called Contracts. 

8. The opposite View. 

I). Where the Cause of Action is in Tort. 

10. Judgments are not Contracts. 

11. Question of Statutory Construction. 

Pabt IL Thb Classification of Judgmbhii. 

12. Methods of Classifying Judgments. 

13. Judgments on an Issue of Law, 

14. Judgments upon Verdict. 

15. Judgments without Verdict. 
1<S. Judgment against the Verdict 

17. Names of Judgments In certain Special Actions. 

18. Cross-Classlflcatlons of Judgments. 

19. Classification of Decrees. 



I 20. Reasons for the Distinction. 

21. Definition of Final Judgments. 

22. Interlocutory and Intermediate Orders. 

1 LAW JUDG. (vll) 


S 28. Must be final as to all Parties. 

24. Must settle all tiie Issues. 

25. Uncertainty of the Amount 

26. Judi^ment of Nonsuit. 

27. Dismissal of Suit. 

28. Judgment by Default 
2U. Judgment on Demurrer. 

30. Judgment on Plea in Abatement 

31. Judgment for Costs. 

31a. Allowance of Claims Against Fund. 

32. Granting or Refusing Extraordinary Remedies. 

33. On Motion for New Trial. 

34. Vacating or Reversing former Judgment. 

36. Orders as to Interpleader, Intervention, and Joinder of Parties. 

36. Dissolving Attachments and Executions. 

37. Order removing Cause. 

38. Judgments and Orders of Probate Oourti. 

39. Judgment in Partition. 

40. in Condemnation Proceedings. 

41. Finality of Decrees. 

42. i^'urtber Action necessary to settle the Equities. 

43. Further Action necessary to execute the Decree^ 

44. Decree ordering a Reference. 

45. Directing an Account. 

46. Decree suspending Rights until further Orders* 

47. Decree dissolving Partnership. 

48. Foreclosure of Mortgage. 

4tf. Sending issue out of Chancery. 


S 50. Confession of Judgment in Pending Suit. 

51. Confession of Judgment without Action. 

52. Authorized by. Statutes. 

53. Court must have Jurisdiction. 

54. Who may confess Judgment. 
56. Confession by Married Woman. 
56. Married Woman as Creditor. 
67. Confession by Partner. 

58. Joint Defendants. 

59. By Officers of a Corporation. 

60. Consent of Creditor is necessary. 

61. Requisites of Warrant of Attorney. 
61a. Revocation or Expiration of W'ari^cmt 

62. Affidavit that Debt is dae. 



68. Statement of the Indebtedness. 

t^. 8i|rnature to Statement. 

m. Verllication of Statement. 

<56. Amendment of Statement. 

f57. Judgement voidable for Failure to comply with Statut«i 

W. Valid between Parties. 

flM. For what Judgment may be confessed* 

70. Debt not yet due. 

71. For Future Advances. 

72. For contingent L.labllitle8. 

73. Amount of the Judgment. 

74. LiquidatloD of Amount by Clerk. 

75. inclusion of Attomey*8 Fees. 
7tS. Recording the Judgment 

77. Reversing and Vacating Judgments by Ck>nfe8sion. 

7H. Effects of confessed Judgment. 



79. Judgment of NU Dlcit 

7»a. Judgment for Want of AtUdavit of Defense, 

80. Judgment by Default. 

HI, Against Whom may be taken. 

82. Joint Defendants. 

83. Jurisdiction of the Defendant. 

84. Must be founded on good Declaration. 

85. Premature Entry of Default. 

86. Default, when proper. 

87. Conclusiveness of Judgment by Default 

88. Entry by the Clerk. 

8V. interlocutory Judgment, when necessary. 

W» Assessment of Damages. 

91. Evidence on Assessment of Damages. 

92. Amount of the Recovery. 

U3. Judgment by Default not aided by Presumptions. 

91. Opening and Vacating Judgments by Default 

05. Review of Judgments by Default 



96. Arrest of Judgment at Common I^w. 

97. When the Motion should be made. 

98. Grounds for Arrest of Judgment 


99. Defect of Parties. 

IIX). Jnsufflcient or Faulty i'leadings. 

101. Joinder of Good and Bad Counts. 

102. Misjoinder of Causes of Action. 

103. Objections to tiie Jury. 

104. Irregular or Defective Verdict. 

105. Grounds held Insufficient. 



§ 106. Distinction between Rendition and Entry. 

107. Power and Duty of the Court to render Judgment. 

108. Application and Order for Judgnient 

109. Signature of Judge. 

110. Entry by the Clerk. 

111. Entry In wrong Book. 

112. Indexing the Judgment 

113. Remedy against Clerk for improper Entry. 

114. Contents of the Judgment. 

115. Form of the Judgment. 

116. Designation of the Parties. 

117. Designation of the Property. 

118. Designation of Amount of Recovery. 

119. Conditions in Judgment. 

120. Joint Defendants. 

121. Time of entering Judgment 

122. Date of the Judgment. 

123. Construction of Ambiguous Judgments. 

124. The Judgment-Roll, or Record. 

125. Supplying Lost Records. 

125a. Entry of Judgments in Federal Courts. 



§ 126. Origin and Nature of the Power. 

127. Delay by Act of the Court. 

128. Delay by Motions or Appeal. 

129. Laches of Party. 

130. Supplying Entry of Judgment. 

131. Correction of Clerical Errors. 

132. Not a proper Means of changing or revi.'^fng the Judgment. 

133. Only proper when i^lnal Judgment could be entered. 


i 1214, Notice of AppllcaHon. 

135. Kvidence. 

13t>. HelatioD back of Order. 

137. Effect upoD Tiilrd Persona, 



138u Amount greater than Plaintiff's Demand. 

1^. Assessment of Damages on Default. 

140. Amount Indorsed on Summons. 

141. Prayer for Relief as Measure of Recovery. 

142. Judgment must follow the Verdict. 

143. Allowance of Credits. 

144. Tender, Counterclaim, Offer of Compromise, 

145. Joint Parties. 

14«. AffirmatlTe Relief to Defendant 

147. Interest. 

148. Conditions as to Payment 

149. Statutory Damages. 

150. Designation of Amount. 

151. Judgment designating Medium of Payment 

152. Judgment for Coined Money. 


f 15S. Amendment during the Term. 

154. Amendment afto* the Term. 

155. Correction of Clerical Errors. 

156. Supplying Omissions. 

157. Reforming and Perfecting the Judgment 
15S. Judicial Errors not to be thus Corrected. 
150. Amendment as to Amount of Judgment 
ItSO. Amendment in Respect of Parties. 

101. What Courts have Power of Amendment 

162. Time of making Applicfttion. 

163. Method of applying for Amendment 

164. Notice of Application. 

165. Evidence. 

166. Method of making Corrections. 

167. Allowance of Amendment is discretionary. 
16H. Jurisdiction of Equity. 

169. Effect of Amendments on Third Persons. 




I 170. Voidable and Void Judgments. 

171. Jurisdiction. 

172. Character and Status of Parties. 

173. Constitution of the Oaiirt. 

174. Disqualllied Judge. 

175. Acts of Judge de Facto. 

176. Judge out of Oltice. 

177. Time and Place of holding Court 

178. Place of Trial. 

179. Judgment rendered in Vacation. 
ISO. After Expiration of Term. 

181. Premature Entry of Judgment. 

182. Sundays and Holidays. 

. 183. Judgment must be supported by the Pleadings. 

184. Judgment in Action not at Issue. 

185. Findings necessary to support the Judgment 

180. Judgment must follow Verdict. 



{ 187. Against what Parties Judgments may be Rendered. 

188. Judgments against Married Women at Common Law. 

189. For Debt contracted Dum Sola. 

190. Effect of Omission to plead Coverture. 

191. Under partially enabling Statutes. 

192. Statutes removing Disability of Coverture. 

193. Judgments against Infants. 

194. Service of Process on Infants. 

195. Appearance by Attorney or Guardian. 

196. Effect of Failure to plead Infancy. 

197. Decrees in lixiuity against Infants. 

198. Infant Plaintiffs. 

199. Judgments against Deceased Parties. 
2U0. Judgment against Decedent Voidable only. 

201. Death of One of Several Defendants. 

202. Entry of Judgment against Decedent Nunc pro Tunc 

203. Jurisdiction must be acquired before Party's Death. 

204. Judgment for Deceased Plaintiff. 

205. Judgments against Insane Persona. 





206. Joint Parties at Common Law. 

:*i>7. In Actions of Tort. 

208. Joint Debtor Acts. 

201^. One Defendant suffering Default. 

210. Judgment, when Several, when Joint. 

211. Joint Judgment as an Entirety. 

212. Confession of Judgment by Joint Defendants. 

213. Misnomer of Parties. 

214. Descrlptlo Personae. 


S 215. Jurisdiction defined. . 

216. Sources of Jurisdiction. 

217. Consent cannot confer Jurisdiction. 

218. Judgment without Jurisdiction is Void. 

219. Judgment against One not a Party. 

220. Notice to Defendant. 

221. Statutes dispensing with Citation. 

222. Statutes regulating Mode of Citation. 

223. Defects in the I^rocess. 

224. Defects In the Service. 

225. Appearance as a Waiver of Citation. 

226. Defendant's Right to be heard. 

227. Judgments against Non-Uesidents. 

228. Extra-Terrltorial Service of Process. 

229. Jurisdiction by Attachment of Non-Resident's Property. 

230. What Property bound. 

231. Service by Publication without Attachment. 

232. Statutes authorizing Constructive Service to be strictly construed* 
2:^3. Joint Defendants. 

234. Joint Judgment as an Entirety. 

235. Joint Judgment authorized by Statute. 

236. Statutory Several Judgment. 

237. Judgment against l'£lrtners. 

2:{8. Appearance for Defendant not Served. 

2:i9. Construction of Judgment against "Defendants'* generally. 

240. Jurisdiction of the Subject-Flatter. 

241. Sulliclency of Declaration. 

242. Jurisdiction of Question decided. 

243. Ix^ss of Jurisdiction. 

244. Jurisdiction attaching, Error does not Vitiate, 




Paut I. The General Rule. 

% 245. Judgmeuts not to be Attacked Collaterally. 

246. To what Judgments the Rule applies. 

247. Tax Judgments. 

248. Adjudications In Bankruptcy. 

249. Awards. 

250. Judgments of Inferior Courts. 

251. Co-Ordlnate Courts. 

252. What constitutes a Collateral Attack. 

253. I*roceedings to prevent Execution of th§ Judgment. 
253a. I^roceidiiig to Enforce Judgment by Mandamus. 

254. Habeas Corpus Proceedings. 

255. Errors and Irregularities not Reviewable. 

256. Jurisdiction may be examined. 

257. Constitutionality of Statutes. 

258. Jurisdiction to render the I*articular Scntencei 

259. Sufficiency of Process or I'leadings. 

260. To what Parties the Rule applies. 

Part II. For Errors and iRREouLARiTiBSi 

261. Erroneous and Irregular Judgments. 

262. Mistakes in the Judgment. 

263. Irregular or Defective Service. 

264. Objections as to Parties. 

265. Legal Disability of Parties. 

266. Disqualification of Judge. 

267. Judgment for Excessive Amount. 

268. InsutHclency of Evidence. 

269. Illegal or Insufficient Cause of Action. 

Part III. For Want op Jurisdictobt. 

270. Jurisdiction of Superior Courts presumed. 

271. Silence or Incompleteness of the Record. 

272. Appearance by Attorney. 

273. Jurisdictional Recitals. 

274. Decision of the Court upon its own JurisdictloD. 

275. Cases denying Conclusiveness of Record. 

276. Arguments on the Conclusiveness of Records. 

277. No Presumption against the Record. 

278. Judgment Void on Its Face may be Attacked Collaterally. 


Part IIL For Want op Jukisdiction— Continued. 

f 279. Superior Courts exercising Special Statutory Powers. 

280. Summary l^roceedlngs. 

281. Constructive Service of Process. 

282. Judgments of Inferior Courts not aided by Presumptions. 

283. Superior and Inferior Courts distinguished. 

284. Probate Courts. 

285. Federal Courts. 

28t5. Justices of the Peace. 

287. Record of Inferior Court, showing Jurisdiction, is Conclusiva 

288. No I'resumption of Validity on Direct Attaclt. 
280. Foreign Judgments. 

Part IV. For Fraud. 

2«0. Whether Parties can Impeach Judgment for Fraud, 

291. Fraud in Procuring the Judgment. 

2U2. Fraud in the Cause of Action. 

2^3. Creditor may show Fraud in a Judgment. 

2M. Fraud must affect the Creditors. 

2D6. What Creditors allowed to allege I<Yaud. 

286. False Testimony. 


Part I. Thb Power to Vacate Judgmbkti. 

f 2Syi. What Courts possess the Power. 
21f7a. As Between Federal and State Courts. 
2U8. JL/eglslature cannot interfere. 

Part IL The Method of ssekimo Relief. 

2U9. By Audita Querela. 

9UU. By Error Coram Nobis. 

301. By BiU of Review. 

302. By Direct Action, 
aui. By Motion. 

'SH. Indirect Vacation of Judgment 
Other Remedies Available. 

Part III. The Time of AppLTnra 

au5. Daring the Term. 

306. After the Term. 

307. Void Judgments. 


Part III. The Timb of Applting— Continued. 

§ 308. Interlocutory Judgments. 

309. i'ennsylvaula Tractlce. 

310. Judgment carried over the Term by Motion. 
iMl, rnder Statutes. 

'612. Judgments against Non-Uesldeuts. 

313. Laches of l»arty. 

Part IV. This Parties who mat Apply. 

314. Successful Party may Apply. 

315. Joint Defendants. 

31t5. Legal KepresentatiTes of l*arty. 

317. Strangers. 

Part Y What Judgments mat be Vacateix 

318. General Kule. 

319. Consent Judgments. 

320. Judgments in Divorce. 
320a. Adjudications in Bankruptcy. 


821. Fraud and Collusion. 

322. Judgment taken contrary to Agreement 

323. Perjury. 

324. Want of Notice. 

325. Unauthorized Appearance by Attorney. 
32G. Irregularities. 

32(;a. Objections to Jury. 

327. Judgments against Persons under Disabilities. 

328. Unauthorized Entries. 

329. Judgment not Vacated because Erroneous. 

330. Not for Grounds which might have been pleaded in Defense. 

331. Illegality of Cause of Action. 
:^32. Newly-discovered Evidence. 

333. Judgment on reversed Judgment. 

334. Statutory Grounds for Vacating Judgments. 
3d5. Mistake. 

33(J. Surprise. 

337. Casualty or Misfortune. 

338. Sickness of Defendant 

339. Sickness of Counsel. 

340. Excusable Neglect. 

340a. Mistake, Ignorance, or Erroneous Advice of Counsel. 

341. Negligence of Attorney. 


Part YL Oroundjb for Yacatikg j cd jmbnts— ContlDued. 

342. Misunderstanding of Counsel. 

343. Unavoidable Absence of Counsel. 

344. Fraud of Attorney. 

345. Misinformation as to Time of Trial. 

34^. Estoppel to Apply for Vacation of Judgment. 

Part YIL Practice on Yacating Judgments. 

346. Notice of Application. 

346b. Requisites of Petition or Moving Papers. 

347. Affidavit of Merits. 

348. Meritorious Defense must be Shown. 

349. Technical or Unconscionable Defense not Sufficient. 

350. Opening Judgment to admit Defense. 

351. Evidence. 

352. Imposition of Terms. 

353. Partial Yacation of Judgment. 

354. Allowance of Application discretionary. 
354a. Practice on Opening Default. 

356. Effect of Yacating Judgment 



Part L Jurisdiction of Equity to Enjoin the Enforcement of JunoMEim. 

f 350. Origin of the Power. 

357. Nature of Relief granted. 

358. What Adjudications subject to the Power. 

359. What Parties may Apply. 

360. What Ck)urts exercise the Power. 

361. Concurrent Remedies. 

362. Same; ReUef on Motion. 

363. Same; Appeal, Error, or Certiorari. 

364. Same; Cross-Actions and Actions over. 

Part II. Grounds for Enjoining Judgmentsl 

366. General Grounds for Equitable Relief. 

366. General Rule Stated. 

367. Errors and Irregularities. 

368. Fraud. 

369. Fraud In Preventing Defense. 

370. Fraud in Procuring the Judgment 

371. Deceit and Codcealment 
1 LAW JUDG.— b 


Part IL Groundb for ENjomiNO Judgments— Continued. 

S 372. Perjury. 

373. Taking Judgment contrary to Agreement. 

374. Unauthorized Appearance of Attorney. 

375. Negligence or Mistake of Counsel. 

376. Want of Jurisdiction. 

377. Judgment founded on False Return of Serylce. 

378. Legal Defense not Interposed. 
370. Illegality of Consideration. 

380. Excuses for not defending at Law. 

381. Same; Mistake. 

382. Same; Surprise. 

383. Same; Accident or Misfortune. 

384. Ignorance of Legal Defense. 

385. Discovery must have been sought 

386. Newly-discovered Evidence. 

387. Negligence of Party precludes Relief. 

388. Defense not available at Law. 

389. Defense available either at Law or Ekiuity. 

390. Satisfaction or Release of Judgment. 

391. Injunction as a Means of securing Set-OfE. 

392. Personal Disability of Parties. 

Part III. Practice on Appltcatiok to Ekjoin Judgment. 

398. Nature and Requisites of Bill. 

393a. Evidence. 

393b. Joinder of Parties. 

394. Conditions on Granting Relief. 

395. Effect of Enjoining Judgment 
386. Dissolution of Injunction. 



Part I. Origin and Nature of Judgment- Liens. 

397. Early History of Judgment-Liens. 

398. Judgment-Lien is Statutory. 

399. Legislative Control of Judgment-Liens. 

400. Lien gives no Property in Debtor's I^nd. 

401. Lien is General. 

402. Courts cannot control the Lien. 

403. Parties cannot change Nature of Lieu. 

404. Docketing the Judgment. 


Past L Orioik and Naturb of JuDGMBNT-LiBNS—CoDtinued. 

i 406. Indexing the Judgment. 

406. Certainty required in Docket and Index as to Nantes of PartieB. 

406a. Same; As to Amount. 

Part XL What Judgments crsatb Libns. 

40T. What is Necessary to Judgment-Liens. 

408. Interlocutory Judgments. 

400. Judgments against Personal Representatives. 

410. Nunc Pro Tunc Judgments. 

411. Decrees in Chancery. 

41^ Judgments of Inferior Courts. 

413. Judgments of Federal Courts. 

414. Statutory Basis of such Liens. 

415. Territorial Extent of such Liens. 
410. Decrees in Admiralty. 

Part III. To what Property the Lien attaches. 

417. Territorial Restriction of Lien. 

418. Transfer of Judgment to Another County. 

419. Lien binds Real Estate. 

420. Actual Interest of Debtor bound. 

421. Title held in Trust 

422. Inchoate Title. 

423. Land Fraudulently Conveyed. 

424. Exempt Property. 

425. Homestead Property. 

426. Life-Estates. 

427. Estates by Curtesy. 

428. Reversions and Remaindera 

429. Leasehold Interests. 

430. Land held by Joint Ownera 

431. Partnership Property. 

432. After-Acquired Property. 

433. Equitable Estates and Interests. 

434. Equity of Redemption. 

435. Judgment against Trustee. 

436. Land held under a Power. 

437. Judgment against Cestui Que Trust 

438. Interest of Vendor under Executory Contract. 

439. Interest of Vendee under Executory Contract. 
439a. Sale of Land After Enti'y of Judgment 

440. Estates successively conveyed. 


Part IY. Date of the Lien. 

S 441. Oommon Law Rule. 

442. Exceptions to tbe Rule. 

443. Present Statutory Rules. 

444. Gases in which Lien relates back. 

Pabt y. Priobitt and Prbcbdbncb of Judgment- Liens. 

445. Lien is subject to Prior Rights and Equities. 

446. As against Prior Unrecorded CJonyeyance. 

447. Precedence of Purchase-Money Mortgage. 

448. Priority of GoTernment Claims. 

449. Priority by Date of Entry. 

4o0. Two Judgments entered the Same Day. 

451. Judgment and Gonyeyance entered the Same Day. 

452. Judgment given to secure Future Advances. 

453. Prior Undocketed Judgment. 

454. As against Subsequent Dower Right 

455. Priority by Superior Diligence. 

456. Priority by Prior Levy. 

457. Postponement by Stay of Execution. 

458. Postponement by Failure to Revive. 

459. Sale under Junior Judgment. 

460. Order of Priority on After-Acquired Lands. 

Part VI. Duration of the Libn. 

461. General Rules. 

462. Dormant Judgment Acts. 

463. Legislative Abridgment of the Time. 

464. Lien of Transferred Judgment 

465. Extension of Lien by Agreement of Parties. 

466. Survival against Judgment-Debtor. 

467. Death of Judgment-Debtor. 

468. Remedies of Greditor after Expiration of Lien. 

Part VII. Suspension and Dibcharob of JudombnT'Libns 

469. General Principles. 

470. Suspension of Lien by Injunction. 

471. Stay of Proceedings. 

472. Opening or Vacating Judgment 

473. Appeal or Error. 

474. Bankruptcy. 

475. Appointment of Receiver. 

476. Taking Defendant on Gapias. 

477. Payment 


Part YIL Suspxhsion and Dibchabob of Judgmbht-Libhs— Continued. 

i 478. Oancellatlon or Entry of Satisfaction. 

479. Sale of the Land. 

480. Acquisition of Title by Jndgment-Oreditor. 

481. Release of Lien. 



§ 482. Bevlval by Motion or Snit 
482a. Reyival by Scire Facias. 

483. Venue of the Action. 

484. Right to sne out Scire Facias. 

485. Time of Issuing the Writ 

486. Pleadings. 

487. BtfTlce of Writ 

488. Parties PlaintilT. 

489. Parties Defendant 

490. Same; Judgment against Decedent 

491. Same; Joint Defendants. 

492. Terre-Tenants. 

493. Defenses. 

494. Same; Payment Release, Set-Oft. 

496. Same; Discharge in Bankruptcy. 

490. Same; Invalidity of Original Judgment; 

497. Same; Oollateral Agreements. 

498. Judgment on Scire Facias. 
^9. Practice in Pennsylyania. 







f GOO. Basis of tbe Doctrine of Res Judicata. 

501. In the Roman Law. 

502L Modem European Systems. 

603. In Anglo-American Jurisprudence. 

604. The Rules Stated. 

506. Judgment can be Nothing less than Condusiye. 

600. Difference between Conclusiveness of Judgment and B^r by Former 

607. Scope of this Chapter. 

Pabt II. What Judgmbnts are ConoIjUSivb. 

508. Character of the Adjudication. 

609. Judgment must be Final. 

610. Effect of Pending Appeal. 

611. Reversed Judgment. 

612. Not affected by Motion for New TriaL 

613. Voidable and Void Judgments. 

614. Erroneous Judgments. 

616. In Actions to Annul Judgments. 

Part III. Organization and Chabactbr of thb Court. 

616. Judgment must be rendered by a validly constituted Court. 

617. Courto of Equity. 

618L Decrees In Equity binding at Law, and Vice Versa. 

619. Probate Adjudications. 

620. Judgments of the Federal Courts. 

621. Courts of Admiralty. 

622. Inferior Courts. 




Pabt III. Organization and Character of the Coubt-— Continued. 

f 528. Ecclesiastical Courts. 

524. Oourts-Martial. 

525. Military Tribunals. 

526. Awards of Arbitrators. 

527. Decisions of Appellate Courts. 

528. Judgment given by Divided Court 

529. Criminal Sentences not Evidence In Civil Issues. 

530. Decisions of U. S. Land Department 

531. Rulings of Government Officials. 
582. Boards of Municipal Officers. 

533. Judgments conclusive on Habeas Corpus. 

Part IV. Of the Persons concluded bt Judombnts. 

534. Parties and Privies. 

534a. Judgment as Estoppel against United States or State. 

535. Persons under Disabilities. 

536. Party bound only in the Capacity in which he Appears. 

537. Nominal and Real Parties. 

538. Use Plaintiff. 

539. Stranger Promoting the Litigation. 

540. Person Assuming the Defense. 

541. Person Submitting his Interest is bound. 

542. Witnesses. 

543. Effect of Additional Parties. 

544. Effect of Severance as to Parties. 

545. One Plaintiff suing in Behalf of Many. 

546. Unknown Owners. 

547. Evidence to Identify Parties. 

548. Estoppel must be Mutual. 
• 549. What constitutes Privity. 

550. Purchaser Pendente Lite. 

551. Mortgagor and Mortgagee. 

552. Sheriff and his Vendee. 

553. Co-Tenants. 

554. Remaindermen. 

555. Parties to Negotiable Paper. 

556. Husband and Wife. 

557. Guardian and Ward. 

558. Decedent and Heirs. 

559. Decedent and Representatives. 

560. Administrator and Heir or Devisee. 

561. Executor and Legatee. 

562. Successive Administrators. 

563. Principal and Ancillary Administrator. 

564. Administrator and Probate Purchaser. 


Past IV. Of the Pbbsons cokcluded by Judgments— Continued. 

I 565. Go-Heirs or Distributees. , 

560. SurYlving Partners and Representative of Deceased. 

567. Warrantor and Warrantee. 

5G8. Defenses Open to Warrantor. 

569. Requisites of Notice to Warrantor. 

570. Warrantor must have Opportunity to Defend. 

571. Effect of Judgment when Warrantor not Notified. 

572. Warrantor of Personal Property. 

573. Indemnitors. 

574. Persons Responsible Over. 

67S. Judgment against City as Evidence in Action against Person Liable 

576. Intervening Claimants. 

577. Landlord and Tenant 

578. Principal and Agent 

579. Master and Servant 

580. Officer and Deputy. 

581. BaUor and Bailee. 

582. Successors in Office. 

583. Cknporation and Stockholders. 
583a. Corporation and Bondholders. 

584. Municipal Corporation and Tax-Payers. 

585. Trustee and Cestui Que Trust 
585a. Assignees and Receivers. 

586. Principal and Surety. 

587. Sureties on Bonds given in Legal Proceedings. 

588. Sureties of Sheriffs and Constables. 

589. Sureties of Elxecutors and Administrators. 

590. Sureties of Guardians. 

591. Actions between Sureties for Contribution. 

592. Principal and Guarantor. 

598. Conclusiveness of Judgment against Garnishee. 

591. Not Cbnclusive as to Amount of Debt 

595. Right of Garnishee to Question Legality of Prior Proceedings. 

596. As between Garnishee and Assignee of Claim. 

597. As between Garnishee and Stranger. 

598. Foreign Judgment against Garnishee. 

599. Effect of a Judgment as between Co-Defendants. 

600. Judgments do not bind Strangers. 

601. Exception; Courts of Exclusive Jurisdiction. 

602. Exception; Judgments In Rem. 

608. Exception; Principle of Stare Decisis. 

604. Judgment as Evidence of its own Existence. 

605. Judgment as Evidence of Relation of Debtor and Creditor. 

606. Judgment as Evidence of Facts Provable by General Reputation. 

607. Judgment as Linlc in Chain of Title. 

608. Judgment as an Admission. 



Part V. What Points and Questions a2UI OoHOLUDEDb 

S 600. Scope of the Estoppel. 

610. The Four Identities. 

611. Matters Incidentally Considered. 

612. Inferences from the Judgment. 

613. Necessary Conditions to the Adjudication. 

614. What Constitutes the "Matter in Issue." 
- 615. Points Necessary to Warrant the Judgment. 

616. Points in Issue but not Decided. 

617. Points not in Issue. 

618. Matters which could not have been Adjudicated. 

619. Judgment on Matters not Presented. 

620. Claims Withdrawn or Withheld. 

621. Entire Demands cannot be Severed. 

622. Facts Assumed or Admitted. 

623. Evidence to Identify Points Adjudged. 

624. Parol Proof Admissible. 

625. Record cannot be Contradicted. 

626. Parol Evidence not Admissible to Enlarge the BstoppeL 

627. General Declaration or General Pleas. 

628. Parol Evidence to Escape the Estoppel. 

629. Burden of Proof. 

630. What Species of Evidence Receivable. 

631. Questions of Law or Fact. 

632. Inconsistent Positions in Litigation. 

Part VI. Conclusiveness of Pbobatb Ai>jUDiCATiOHa» 

633. Probate Decrees binding. 

634. When Impeachable for Fraud. 

635. Probate of a Will. 

636. Conclusiveness of Probate as to Realty. 

637. Effect of Rejection of Will. 

638. Parties bound by Probate. 
638a. Construction of Will. 

639. Appointment of Administrator. i 

640. Grant of Administration no Proof of Death. I 

641. Allowance or Rejection of Claims. 

642. Order for Sale of Land. ' 

643. Decree of Distribution. 

644. Settlement of Accounts. 

645. Appointment of Guardian. 

646. Order for Partition. 


Pabt VIL D18TINCTIYB Rules as to Ejecthbmt and Oxheb Real Actions. 

f 647. Common Law Rules as to Real Actions. 

9i8. Ck)mmon RecoTery. 

64». Writ of Entry. 

660. Ejectment at Common Law. 

651. Ejectment upon an Equitable Title. 

652. In Action for Mesne Profits. 

653. Confession of Judgment in Ejectment. 

654. Successive Judgments in Ejectment made Oondusiye by Statutes. 

655. Modem Actions Corresponding to Ejectment. 

656. After-Acquired Title not Barred. 

657. Judgment in Trespass. 

658. Whether Judgment in Trespass is Conclusive in Subsequent Eject- 

669. Trespass to Try Titles. 

660. Judgment in Partition. 

661. Parties bound by Partition. 

661a. Landlord's Action for Recovery of Possession. 

662. Action for Use and Occupation, 

663. Forcible Entry and Detainer. 

664. Action to Quiet Title. 

665. Dower Proceedings. 

666. Foreclosure Suits. 

667. Award of Arbitrators upon Title to Land. 

668. Bankruptcy Proceedings. 

Pabt VIIL Judgicemts in Actions concbrning Chattblb. 

669. Trespass. 

670. Trover. 

671. Replevin. 

672. Detinue. 



Part I. Gbnbral Prinoifles. 

673. Estoppel by Former Judgment. 

674. Doctrine of Merger. 

675. Merger by Decree in Equity. 

676. Foreign and Sister State Judgments. 

677. New Debt created by the Judgment 

678. Estoppel by Election. 


jariii table of contents. 

Part IL What Judoubnts Operate as a Bab. 

§ 679. Oonstitution of the Court 

G80. There must be a Valid Judgment 

681. Erroneous or Irregular Judgments. 
681a. Judgment Procured by Fraud. 

682. Verdict without Judgment no Bar. 

683. Judgment Reversed or Vacated. 

684. Effect of Granting New Trial 
085. Pendency of Appeal. 

686. Effect of Discontinuance. 

687. Decision of Court without Jury. 

688. Awards. 

689. Judgment in Summary Proceedings. 

690. Lis Pendens and Priority of Decision. 

691. Judgments on Motions. 

692. R^iewal of Motion In the Same Case. 

Part IIL Of the Rule that the Judgment must hate been upqh the 


693. Merits must be Adjudicated. 

694. Meaning of the Term "Merita.'* 

695. Judgment must be Final. 

696. Judgment upon Plea in Abatement 

697. Judgment by Default. 

698. Judgment upon Confession. 

699. Nonsuit no Bar. 

700. Judgment on Retraxit 

701. Discontinuance. 

702. Judgment of Non Pros. 

703. Dismissal of Complaint 

704. Judgment in Test Case. 

705. Agreed Judgments. 

706. Dismissal of Suit "Agreed." 

707. Judgment on Demurrer. 

708. General Demurrer to Declaration. 

709. Demurrer to Cause of Action Stated. 

710. Demurrer Based on Several Grounds. 

711. Demurrer to Bill for Want of Equity. 

712. Demurrer to Evidence. I 

713. Dismissal for Want of Jurisdiction. • 

714. Dismissal of Action Prematurely Brought i 

715. Dismissal of Misconceived Action. ! 

716. Dismissal on Technical Grounds. 

717. Failure of Evidence. 

718. Defects in the Pleadings. 

719. Dismissal for Defect or Want of Parties. 


Pabt UL Of thv Rule that the Jddoicbht must have been ufox the 


f 720. Dismissal of BiU In Equity. 

721. Dismissal "Withont Prejudice." 

722. Presumption that Merits were Oonsldered. 

723. Dismissal for Want of Prosecution. 

724. Evidence to Show Consideration of Merits. 

Pabt IV. What Causes of Action are Barreix 

725. Causes of Action must be the Same. 

726. Identification of Causes of Action. 

727. In Criminal Cases. 

728. Certainty required in Estoppels. 

729. Estoppel Oannot be Avoided by Varying Form of Action. 

730. Limitations of this Rule. 

731. Judgment Conclusive of Whatever might have been Litigated. 

732. Restrictions of Foregoing Rule. 

733. Second Action Proceeding on Different Theory, 
731. Rule against Splitting Causes of Action. 

735. What Demands are Inseverable. 

736. Action on Running Account. 

737. Okiims Omitted by Mistake. 

738. Entire Claims founded on Tort 

730. Recovery in Malicious Prosecution bars Action for Slander. 

740. Distinct Injuries from same Tortious Act. 

74L Distinct Trespasses. 

742. Continuing Damages from Tort 

743. Distinction between Permanent and Recurring Trespass or Nuisance. 

744. Plaintiff not Required to Join Distinct Demands. 

745. Causes of Action Distinct though Founded on Same Facts. 

746. Actions on Collateral Securities. 

747. Successively Arising Causes of Action. 

748. Breach of Continuing Covenant 

749. Actions for Instalments. 

750. Judgment in One Such Action as Evidence in the Next 

751. Successful Defense to one of a Series of Actions. 

752. Suits for Wages. 

753. Plaintiff can have but one Satisfaction. 

Part V. Defenses and Counterclaims Concluded bt Former Judgmbht 

754. Defenses concluded by Judgment for Plaintiff. 

755. Same; Adverse Title. 

756. Same; Fraud. 

757. Same; Agreement to Compromise. 

758. Same; Payment. 



Part V. Dbfbnbbs akd Countkrclaims Concluded bt Formbb Judqmbnt— 


i 759. Same; Usury. 

760. Same; Discharge iu Bankruptcy. 

761. Matter Available as a Set-Off. 

762. Submission of All Matters in Difference. 

763. One Claim cannot be Used both as Set-Off and as Cause of Action. 

764. Counterclaim not Adjudicated. 

765. Voluntary Allowance of Credit or Counterclaim. 

766. Equitable Defenses not Concluded by Judgment at Law. 

767. Cross-Actions. 

768. Action for Price of Goods and Cross-Action for Breach of Warranty. 

769. Action for Services and Cross-Action for Negligence. 

Part VI. Who may takb Advantagb of the Bab. 

770. Joint Contractors. 

771. One Joint Contractor a Non-Resident 

772. Effect of Joint Debtor Acts. 

773. Successful Defense by One Joint Debtor. 

774. Joint and Several Contractors. 

775. Joint Judgment on Joint and Several Contract 

776. Judgments against Partners. 

777. Joint Tort-Fcasors. 

778. Joint Trespassers; English Rule. 

779. Joint Trespassers; American Rule. 

780. Election between Joint and Several Action. 

781. Successful Defense by one Joint Trespasser. 

782. Satisfaction of Judgment against One. 

Pabt VIL Pleading an Estoppel of Record. 

783. Necessity of Pleading Prior Adjudication. 

784. Where there is no Opportunity to Plead. 

785. When Admissible under General Issue. 

786. Waiver of Estoppel by Failure to Plead. 

787. Conclusiveness of Judgment when not Pleaded, 

788. Arguments on the Question. 

789. Under Code Practice. 

790. Requisites of Plea of Former Judgment. 

791. Judgment recovered after Institution of Second Suit 

H 792. Definitions. 

793. Judgments Quasi in Rem. 

794. Jurisdiction. 


f 796. Effect of Adjudications in Rem. 

TVtSw Decrees in Admiralty. 

TUT. Judgments in Prize Cases. 

TU8. Judgments in Collision OaseS. 

TW. Cbndemnation of Goods Seized under Excise or Revenue Laws. 

iHUO. Acquittal of Goods Seized. 

Wl. Attachment Proceedings. 

^02. inquisitions of Lunacy. 

8U3. Decrees of Divorce. 

804. Orders of Naturalization. 

8U6. Settlement of a Pauper. 

806. Questions of Identity, Legitimacy, and Pedigree. 

80T. Bankruptcy and Insolvency. 

808. Probate Adjudications. 

8U9. Judgments for Taxes and Assessments. 

810. Foreclosure of Liens. 

811. Decrees of Sale. 

812. Establishment of Roads and Boundaries. 



Part L Foreign Judgments in Rbic 

813. Conclusiveness of Foreign Judgments in Rem. 

814. Decrees in Admiralty. 

815. Conclusive of Grounds of Sentence. 

816. Grounds of Condemnation must Clearly Appear. 

817. Not Conclusive of Collateral or Incidental Matters. 

818. Impeachable for Want of Jurisdiction. 

819. Not Impeachable for Error. 

820. Whether Fraud may be Shown. 

821. Objections to Legality bt Court 

822. Foreign Decrees of Divorce. 

823. Foreign Probate Decrees. 

82^ Foreign Adjudications in Bankruptcy. 

Part II. FoRSiaN Judgments in Personam: 

825. Conclusiveness on the Merits. Early English Cases. 

826w Distinction between Foreign Judgment as a Cause of Action and 
as a Defense. 

827. Later English Decisions. 

828. Early American Decisions. 

829. Recent American Decisions. 

830. Arguments on the Question. 

831. Reason of the Recognition of Foreign Judgments. 


Pabt IL Fobeion Judgmbkts in Personam— ContinuecL 

f 832. Scotch Law of Foreign Judgments. 

833. French Law. 

834. Oanadian Doctrine of Foreign Judgments. 

835. Jurisdiction may be Inquired Into. • 
83(5. Judgments against Non-Residents. 

837. Extra-Territorial Service of Process. 

838. Plea Negativing Jurisdiction. 

839. Foreign Judgment in Summary Proceedings. 

840. Kepugnance of Judgment to Natural Justice. 

841. Local or Police Regulations of Foreign Country not Enforced* 

842. Mistake of Law as Ground of Impeachment. 

843. Mistaken Conception of Foreign Law. 

844. Whether Impeachable for Fraud. 

845. Judgment must be Final. 

846. Effect of Pendency of Appeal. 

847. No Merger of Original Cause of Action. 

848. Form of Action on Foreign Judgment. 

849. Pleading and Exhibiting Foreign Judgment 

850. Plea of Statute of Limitations. 

851. Judgments of Foreign Courts of Inferior Jurisdiction. 

852. Foreign Garnishment Proceedings. 



Part I. Conclusiveness and Effboi^ 

§ S53. Before the Constitution. 

854. Constitutional and Statutory Provisions. 

855. Early Cases on the Subject. 

850. Mills V. Duryee, and Later Decisions. 

857. Judgment Conclusive on the Merits. 

858. Chancery Decrees Equally Conclusive. 

859. "Full Faith and Credit" to be Given. 
800. Validity and Effect how Ascertained. 

861. No Greater Effect to be Given than the Judgment has at Homeii 

862. Judgment not Executory in Foreign State. 

863. Rank and Priority. 

864. Original Cause of Action Merged. 

865. Lis Pendens in Another State no Bar. 
806. Judgment for Defendant as a Defense. 


Part IL Sistbr State Judgmbnt as a Cause of Action. 

§ 867. JudgiDent must be Valid, Subsisting, and Final. 

S6S. Judgments uimii Confession. 

SC9. I^crees in Chancery. 

870. Sentences imposing Penalties. 

871. Police Regulations of Another State not Enforced. 
S72. Judgments affecting Land outside the State. 

873. Form of Action on Sister State Judgment 

874. Requisites of Declaration. 

875. Averring Jurisdiction. 

876. Authentication of Record. 

877. Completeness of Record. 

878. Attestation of Clerk, and SeaL 

879. Certificate of Judge. 

SSO. Amount of Recovery; Interest 

Part IIL Defenses to Actiok on Sibteb State Judgmbht. 

881. Objections to Character of Judgment 

882. Pendency of Appeal. 

883. Defense cannot be Taken on the Merits. 
881. Nil Debet not a Good Plea. 

8*^5. Xul Tiel Record. 

s8(>. Incompleteness of Record. 

887. Want of Jurisdiction. 

888. Personal Disability of Defendant 

889. Error and Irregularity. 
800. Payment. 

891. Adjudication in Bankruptcy. 

892. Statute of Limitations. 

893. Aflldavit of Defense Required. 

Part IV. Jurisdictional Inquiries. 

891. Want of Jurisdiction destroys Effect of Judgment 

895. Want of Jurisdiction apparent on the Record. 

890. Presumption in Favor of Jurisdiction. 

897. Jurisdiction may be Inquired into. 

898. Requisites of Plea Denying Jurisdiction. 

899. Jurisdiction, if Impeached, may be Supported by Evidence. 

900. Cases Refusing to Allow Contradiction of Record. 

901. Record may be Contradicted. 

902. Plea Contradicting Record must be SpeciaL 

903. Denying Authoritj' of Attorney to Appear. 

904. Jurisdiction by Attachment of Property. 
903. Extra-Terrltorlal Service of Process. 
906. Constructive Service on Non-Residents. 

1 LAW Jl'DG.- 


Pabt ly. JuBxsDicTidVAL Ikquirkwi— CoBtioued* 

I 907. Constructive Serrioe os Besidents. 

908. Voluntary Appearance of Non-Resident 

909. Defendant Decoyed Into Another State. 

910. Non-Resident Corporations. 
910a. Non-Resident Stockholders of Domestic CkNrpoirationt. 

911. Irregularities In Service. 

912. Continuation of Jurisdiction. 

913. Judgment against Joint Defendants. 

914. Joint Debtor Acts. 

915. Jurisdiction of Subject-Matter. 

Part V. Fraud as Ground of Impeachment. 

^916. Cases Allowing Defense of Fraud. 

917. Plea of Fraud, when Admissible. 

918. Principles Governing the Question. , 

919. En joining Action on Fraudulent Judgment j 

920. False Evidence and Conspiracy. 

921. Fraud Anterior to the Judgment ! 


Part VI. Sister State Judgments in Rem. i 

922. Probate Adjudlcotions. ! 

923. Garnishment Proceedings. I 

924. Decrees In Divorce. ' 

925. Divorce Proceedings are in Rem. j 

926. Both Parties Citizens of the. State. 1 

927. Neither Party a Domiciled Citizen, 

928. Domicile of one Party Suffldent I 

929. Domicile must be Bona Fide. 

980. Conclusiveness of Findings as to Residence. I 

931. Couslmctive Service of Process. 

932. Validity of Divorce Granted on Constructive Notice. 

933. Matters Incidental to Dissolution of Marriage. 

Part VII. Judgments of Inferior Courts op Another Statb. 

934. Doctrine that such Judgments are to be treated as Foreign Judgments. 

935. Conclusiveness of Justices' Judgments. 

936. Jurisdi<>tional Inquiries. 

93T. Authentication of Such Judgments. 

Part VIII. Conclusiveness of Judgments as between Federal, State, and 

Territorial Courts. 

938. Federal Judgments in the State Courts. 
938a. Authentication of Federal Judgments. 


Past VIIL Concldbiyenbss of Judouents as bbtwebn Federal, State, and 

Tebbitobial CouBTS—Continued. 

§ 038b. Judgment of Federal Court as Foundation for Creditor's BllL 
938c. State Judgments In Federal Courts. 
d39. Jurisdiction May be Questioned. 
939a. Lis Pendens and Priority of Decision. 
939b. Judgments of Territorial Courts. 
939c Judgments of Indian Courts. 




940. E^ect of Assignment at Common Law. 

911. Parties to Assignment of Judgments. 

912. What Judgments Assignable. 

943. Agreement to Assign Future Judgment. 

944. Asaignmeiit of Part of Judgment. 

945. Mode of Assignment. 

94C. Statutory Mode of Assignment 

947. Equitable Assignment 

948. Title Passing to Assignee. 

949. Bights as against Assignor. 
9nO. Notice of Assignment. 

951. RIgbt of Assignee to Sue. 

952. Rights as against Judgment-Debtor. 

953. Assignee Takes Subject to Equities. 

954. Set-Off of Judgment against Judgement 

955. Vnontlon or Ueversal of Judgment In Assignee's Hands. 

956. Latent Equities of Third Persons. 

957. Priority' between Assignments. 



958. Judgment as a Cause of Action. 

969. Judgment must be Final and in Force. 

960. Effect of Pending Appeal. 

961. Judgments of Inferior Courts. 

962. Suits on Decrees in Chancery. 

963. Parties to Action on Judgment. 

964. Requisites of Declaration. 

965. Declaring on Judgment of Inferior Court 

966. Averments of Jurisdiction. 


I 967. Statutes Regulating Jurisdictional Ayerments. 

968. Evidence. 

969. Action on Lost or Destroyed Record. 

970. Defenses to Action on Judgment. 

971. Plea of Nul Tiel Record. 

972. Want of Jurisdiction as a Defense. 

973. Fraud as a Defense. 

974. Error or Irregularity no Defense. 

975. Plea of Payment 

97(5. Accord and Satisfaction as a Defense. 

977. Discharge in Bankruptcy. 

978. Arrest and Imprisonment of Debtor. 

979. Equitable Defenses. 

980. Amount of Recovery. 

981. Interest on Judgments. 

•982. Rate of Interest how Determined. 

983. Interest on Decrees in Equity. 

984. Compounding Interest. 

985. Limitation of Actions on Judgments. 

985a. Mandamus to Enforce Judgments against Municipal Corporations. 

985b. Same; Power of Federal Courts. 

 985c. Same; Prerequisites to Issuance of Writ 

,985d. Same; Defenses; Impeachment of Judgment. 

985e. Same, Execution of Writ 

985f. Same; Effect of Limitation of Taxing Power of Municipality. 


Part I. Payment by Judoicbnt-Dbbtob. 

I 986. To Whom Payment may be Made. 

987. Medium of Payment. 

OSS. Tender. 

989. Payment of Less than Whole Amount 

990. Evidence of Payment. 

991. Keeping Judgment Alive after Payment 

Part II. Presumption of Payment from Lapse of Timb. 

992. Common Law Presumption. 

993. Evidence to Rebut Presumption. 

994. Lapse of Less than Twenty Years. 


Part III. Payment by Joint Party ok Third Person. 

f 906. Parties Jointiy Liable. 

906. Payment by Surety. 

007. Uelease of Garnishee by Payment of Principal Judgment 

90S. Payment by Sheriff. 

909. Payment by Stranger. 

Part IV. 8bt-0ff of Judgment against Judgment. 

1000. Power to Order Set-Off of Judgments. 

1001. Judgments of Different Courts may be Set Off. 

1002. Where the Motion should be Made. 

1003. Moving Party must be Real Owner of Judgment. 

1004. Mutuality of Parties Required. 

1005. Requisites of Judgments to be Set Off. 

Pabt y. Saiisfaction bt Pbogebdinos on Final Process. 

lOOa Levy on Real Estate. 

1007. Levy on Personalty. 

1008. Satisfaction by Levy Is not Absolute. 

1009. Release of Property on Forthcoming Bond. 

1010. Sale on Execution. 

lOU. Taking Defendant on Ga. Sa. 

1012. Discharge of Defendant from Custody. 

1013. Cumulative Judgments. 

Pabt VL Entbt of Satisfaction on the Hbcori». 

1014. Bntry of Satisfaction when Ordered. 

1015. Nature and Effect of Entry. 

lOld. Striking <^ Mistaken or Fraudulent Entry. 
1017. Release and Discharge of Judgment 



[The references are to sections. Sections 1 to 499 inclusive are comprised in Volxune 
I , the residue in Volume IL] 

Aaron y. Wamer, 449. 
Abat y. Atkinson, 430. . 
Abbe V. Marr, 84. 

V. Rood, 989. 
Abbey v. Bank, 414. 

V. Railroad Co.*8 Receiyers, 585a. 
Abbott V. Bradstreet, 644. 

y. Foote, t>44. 

V. Insurance Co., 513. 

y. Osgood. 1012. 

y. Stevens, 765. 

V. Zeiglo*, 36. 
Abdil y. Abdil, 194. 
Abeless y. Powell, 79a. 
AbeU y. Simon, 81, 593. 
Aber y. Clark, 802. 
Abington y. Lipscomb, 127. 
Abienian y. Booth, 265. 

y. Roth. 367, 368, 393. 
Abouloff y. Oppenheimer, 844. 
Abraham y. Leyy, 179. 
Abram French Co. y. Marx, 349. 
A. B. Smith Co. v. Bank, 253. 
Ach V. Carter, 183. 
Achey y. Creech, 731. 
Acker y. Ledyard, G91. 
Ackerly y. Oabom, 29. 
Ackerman v. Ackerman, 1016. 
Ackerman'8 £r*r8 y. Van Houten, 760. 
Acklen y. Acklen, 137. 
Ackley y. Chamberlain, 425. 
Atwk y. Hal89y, 346. 
Acorn, The, 29(). 509. 
Adam y. Tolman, 446. 

Adams, Ex parte, 533. 

V. Adams, 320, 617, 644, 75a 

V. Barnes, 787. 

V. Betz, 124. 

V. Butts, 554. 

V. Cameron, 722. 

V. Conover, 567. 

V. Crosby, 462. 

y. Filer, 598, 597. 

V. Grey, 327. 

V. Hackett. 947. 

V. HafPards, 741. 

y. Harris, 439. 

y. Hickman, 347. 

y. Higgins, 132. 

y. Lee, 946. 

y. Leeds Co., 57. 

y. Oaks, 84. 

y. Railroad Co., 275, 600« 612, 700, 

y. Re Qua, 135. 

y. Rowe, 482, 912. 

y. St Leger, 585. 

y. Smith, 1010. 

y. Stake, 490. 

V. Tlernan, 282. 

V. Walker, 116. 

V. White, 393. 
Adams* Appeal, 350. 
Adams County v. Grayes, 549. 
Adams Exp. Co. v. Hill, 225. 
Adams* Heirs v. Adams, 633. 
A^dams' Lessee v. Jeffries. 270. 279. 
Adams School Tp. v. Ir^iu, 393a. 
Addams y. Worden, 888, 841. 





[References to sections. {{ 1 to 

Adderton v. Collier. 209. 

Adelbert OoUege v. Railway Co., 545. 

Adickes v. Lowry, 438. 

Adkinson v. Keel, 125. 

Adler V. Anderson, 50. 

V. Construction Co., 3(38, 705. 
Adrian v. Jackson, 118. 
iEtna Ins. Co. v. Aldrich, 333. 

V. Confer, 574. 

V. McCormick, 313. 
iEtna I-ife Ins. Co. v. Com'rs, 305, 355. 

V. Lyon County, 228. 

V. McCJormick, 318. 
Agard V. Valencia, 378. 
Agnew V. Adams, 513. 

V. McElroy, 603, 729. 
Agricultural Bank v. Fallen, 469. 
Agry V. Betts, 287. 
Ah Jow, In re. 257. 
Ahl V. Ahl. 735, 749. 

V. Goodhart, 729. 
Ah Lee, In re. 175. 
Ah Lep V. Gong Choy, 208. 
AUrs Estate, In re, 737. 
Alcardl v. Craig, 421. 

Y. Robbins, 987. 
Aiken V. Peck, 624. 

V. Stewart, 627. 
\iiislie V. Boynton, 1005. 

V. Mayor of New York, 534. 
Ains worth v. Trading Co., 67. 
Aislin v. Parkin. 504. 
Alabama G. & N. Co. v. State. 122. 443. 
Alabama Gold Life Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 

Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Blivens, 717. 
Alabama Iron & R. Co. v. Austin, 625. 
Alabama Nat. Bank v. Hunt 115. 
Alabama Warehouse Co. v. Jones, 518. 
Alabama & V. R. Co. v. Bolding, 306. 

V. McCerren, 707. 
Alameda County v. Crocker, 213. 
Albee V. Curtis, 461. 
Albert V. Hamilton, 541. 
Albin V. People, 486. 958. 
Albree v. Johnson, 191. 
Albright V. McTlghe, 207. 

V. Oyster, 720. 

V. Warkentln, 312. 
Albritton v. Bird. :585. 
Alcott T. Hugus, 734. 
Alderson y. Bell, 261. 


499 in vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Aldricn v. JbLousn, 2U1. 

V. Kinney, 227, 828, 856, 897, 903, 

V. Maitland, 116. 
Alelx V. Derbigny, 576. 
Alexander v. Abbott, 299. 

V. Arters, 961. 

V. Bouton, 192. 

V. Bridgford, 737. 

V. Gill, 287. 

V. Gould, 293. 

V. Ling, 326. 

V. McDow, 92. 

V. Mortgage Co., 359. 

V. Nelson, 251. 

V. Polk, 1008. 

V. Stern, 237. 

V. Stewart, 86, 164. 

V. Stokeley, 806. 

V. Taylor, 579. 

V. Walter, 600. 
Alford V. Hoag, 482. 

V. Moore*s Adm'r, 306. 
Alie V. Xadeau, 752. 
Alivon V. Furnlval, 842. 
Alklre Grocery Co. v. Richesln, 605, 
938b, 838c. 

V. Tagart, 744. 
Alldritt V. Bank, 61a. 
Allebaugh v. Coakley, 628. 
Allegheny Nat. Bank v. Hays, 666. 
Allen, Succession of, 644. 

V. Allen, 367, 368, 666. 

V. Bank, 774. 

V. Belches, 48. 

V. Bradford, 132, 134. 

V. Butman, 671. 

V. Chadsey, 233. 

V. Cla^-ton, 208. 

T. City of Savannah, 510. 

V. Coffman, 141. 

V. Conrad, 1015. 

V. Craig, 779. 

V. De Groodt, 554. 

V. Dubois Borough, 985a. 

V. Dundas, 635. 

V. Godfrey, 182. 

V. HalL 1004. 

V. Hoffman, 341. 

V. Holden, 998. 

V. Johnson, 1008. 

V. Krlps, 326. 

[References to lectlons. H ^ to 499 in vol. 1; residue In vol. 2.] 


Alien T. Lee, 22r>. 

▼. Liggett, 485. 

T. Lmuber Co., 90. 

y. Lorman, 677. 

y. Maclellan, 320. 

y. ^lacpherson, (h^, 636. 

y. Martin, 250. 
. T. M1U8, 250. 

V. Norton, 72. 

y. Rogers, 324. 

y. Sales, 131, l(i6. 

y. Sbepard, tS38a. 

y. Stone, 374. 

y. Thompson, 248. 

y. Watt, 92, 593, li39a, 

V. Wheatley, 782. 

y. Wilson, 306. 

y. Word, 100, 105. 
Aliens y. Andrews, 493. 
Alley y. Cbase, 518. 

y. Ledbetter, 886. 

y. Nott, 709. 
AUgood y. Wbltiey, 970. 
Alliance Trust Co. y. Barrett, 346. 
AUln y. Hairs Heirs, 534. 
AJlinet V. His Creditors, (j99. 
Allin*s Heirs y. Hall s Heirs, 540. 
Allis y. Dayldson, <:09. 
AUlsoD y. Drake, 45. 

y. Hess, 706. 

y. Little, 536. 

y. Rankin, 263. 

y. Taylor, 193. 205. 

y. Tbomas, 156. 

V. Whlttier, 346. 
Allman y. Taylor, 197. 
Allston y. Bank, 428. 

y. Sing, 127. 
Allured y. VoUer, 273. 
Alniy y. Daniels, 615. 
Alpers y. Schammel. ir>0. 
Alsop y. Matber, 562. 

y. Moseley, 415. 
Alston y. Munford, 560. 

y. Roblnett, 248. 
Altbouse y. Hnnsberger, 213. 
Altman y. Gabriel. 313. 

y. KUngensmith, 991. 

y. School Dist., 261, 2('9. 
Amador Co. y. Butterfield, 15. 
Amason y. Nash. 84. 
Ambler y. Whipple, ^4, 892, 917. 

American Aquol & Pyrodene Paint Co. 

V. Smith, 325. 
American Bell Telephone Co. y. Al- 
bright, 777. 
American Brewing Co. y. Jergens, 345, 

Ajuerican Building & L. Ass'n v. 

Stonemau, 586. 
American Exch. Bank y. Andrews, 550. 
American Fire Ins. Co. y. Landfare, 

American Grocery Co. y. Plrkl, 768. 
American Ins. Co. y. Oakley, 272, 374. 
American Inv. Co. v. Nye, 48. 
American Tube & Iron Co. v. Crafts, 

Amerman y. Briggs, 522. 
Ames y. Ames, 39. 

y. Bates, 1000. 

y. Hoy, 958, 962, 969. 

y. Wlnsor, 226. 
Ames Iron Works v. Chlnn, 335. 
Amesti y. Castro, 655. 
A. M. Holter Hardware Co. y. Mining 

Co., 418. 
Amlck y. Bowyer, 371. 

y. Oyler, 651. 
Ammerman y. State, 313. 
Ammons y. Whitehead, 367. 
Amory y. Amory, 703, 938c. 
Amrhein y. Dye Works, 741. 
Amsbaugh y. Exchange Bank, 907. 
Amsden y. Raihroad, 624, 631. 
Amy y. Amy, 271. 

y. Barkholder, 985b. 

y. City of Galena, 986a, 986d. 
Amyx V. Smithes Adm'x, 204. 
Anaconda Miu. Co. v. Saile, 345, 352. 
Anders y. Anders, 526. 
Anderson y. Anderson, 290, 806, 642, 
891, 917, 918. 

y. Amette, 237. 

y. Beebe, 349. 

V. Best, 1014. 

V. Bigelow, 5(»7. 

y. Binford, 2M2. 

y. Bright, (KM. 

y. Brown, 220. 

V. Carr, 262, 319. 

y. Chilson, 206. 

V. Clark, 891. 

y. Commission Co., 154 


[ReferrencM to Mctlons. H 1 to 499 in vol. 1; residue in vol. S.] 

Anderson t. Elliott, 251. 

V. Field, ta, 321. 

V. Fry, 857. 

V. Gage, 494. 

V. Gray, 209. 

V. Green, 341, 035, 638. 

V. Haddon, 839. 

V. Hawhe, 220. 

V. Hot^ Co.. 170. 

V. Kreidler, 629. 

V. Matthews, 32. 

V. Miller, 220. 

V. Morris, 225. 

V. Xagle, 44<5, 440. 

V. Oldham, 393. 

V. Perkins, 86. 

V. Rogge, 764. 

V. Settle, 994. 

V. Studebaker, 3.51. 

V. Thompson, 306. 

V. Trimble, 714. 

V. Trust Ck)., 935. 

V. Tuck, 443. 

V. T3'dlngs, 427. 

V. Watts, 566. 

V. Williams, 493. 

V. Young's Ex'rs, 593, 596. 
Anderson's Adm*r v. Irvine, 197. 
Anderson's Appeal, 331. 
Anderson's Succession, 981. 
Andover Savings Bank v. Adams, 747, 

Andres v. Krldler, 336. 
Andrew ▼. Schmitt, 745. 
Andrews v. Anderson, 560. 

T. Andrews, 929. 

V. Brown, 796. 

V. Davison, 567. 

V. Denlson, 567. 

V. Fenter, 878. 

V. Flack, 874, 878. 

V. Foundry & Pipe Works, 32, 540, 

V. Harper, 487. 

V. Herring, 600. 

V. Herrlot 835. 

V. Insurance Co., 84. 

V. Love, 32. 

V. Matthews, 446. 

y. Monilaws, 138, 326. 

V. MontgomeiT, 522, 857, 916. 

V. School Dlst., 703. 

V. Swartz, 255, 257. 

Andrews v. Varrell. 690. 

V. Wilkes, 413. 
Andrews' Adm'r v. Bank, 135. 
Andrew^s Bros. Co. v. Coke Co., 609. 
Andrus v. Burke, 455. 
Angell V. Bobbins, 287, 288. 
Anglo-American Land Mortgage & 

Agency Co. v. Bush, 445, 941. 
Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'u v. Me- 

Gowau, 85, 261. 
Annett v. Terry, 589. 
Ansley v. Carlos, 604. 

V. Robinson, 39. 
Antelope, The, 841. 
Anthony v. Estes, 1C8. 

v. Humphries, 496, 1006. 

V. Taylor, 406. 
App V. Drelsbach, 644. 
Appel V. Brooks, 81. 
Appci'son V. Memphis, 985b. 
Appleby v. MuUaney, 442. 
Applegate v. Applegate, 409. . 

V. Dowell, 617. 

v. Edwards, 465, 470. 

V. Mason, 948. 
Appleton V. Marx, 644. 
Appling V. Stovall, 400. 
Archer v. Gulll, 245. 

v. Mosse, 635. 

v. Romalne, 875, 936. 
Ard V. Pratt, 530. 
Argall v. Pitts, 697. 
Arlington Mfg. Co. v. Mears, 31L 
Armfield v. Nash, 749. 
Aimington v. Rau, 455. 
Armistead v. Harramond, 589. 

V. Ward, 384. 
Armroyd v. Williams, 814. 
Amistead v. Bllckman, 720. 
Armstrong v. Barton, 184. 

V. Bridge Co., 104. 

V. Carson, 855. 

v. Elliott, 439a. 

V. Harper, 1016. 

V. Harshaw, 219. 

y. Masten, 526. 

V. Prewitt, 774. 

V. Robertson, 165. 
Armstrong's Appeal, 402. 
Armsworthy v. Cheshire. 376. 
Amdt V. Amdt 229, 904, 906. 

v. Griggs, 793. 
Amegaard v. Arnegaard, 633. 

[Reference* to aectlona. H 1 to 

Arnett v. Cloud, 908. 

Arnetrs Ex'r v. Arnett, 284, 683. 

Arnold t. Arnold, ($47, 058. 

V. Frazler, 879. 

y. Fuller's Heirs, 1010. 

T. Griines, 713. 

V. Harris, 600. 

y. Hosiery Co., 335, 756. 

y. Kelley, 298. 

V. Kilchmann, 331. 

V. Patrick. 445. 

y. Roraback, 862. 

y. Shields, 210. 

y. Sinclair, 47. 
Arnold's Devisees y. Arnold's Bx'rs, 

Amott y. Redfem, 825, 827. 

y. Webb, 835. 807. 
Arrington y. Conrey, 159, 163, 165. 
Axthur y. Mosby, 182. 

y. Schrieyer. 127. 
Artisans' Bank y. Treadwell. 110. 
Arundell y. Tregono, 529. 
Asay y. Hooyer, 636. 
Asbury v. Friss, 370. 
Ash y. McCabe, 211. 
Ashbridge, Succession of, 109. 
A<«bby y. Glasgow, 306. 
Asboraft v. Knoblock, 300, 905. 

y. Powers, 326. 
Ashland Land & Llye-Stock Co. y. 

Woodford, 144. 
Ashley y. Hyde. 305, 306, 310. 
Ashniead v. Hurt, 613. 
Ash ton y. Ash ton, 197. 

y. Ass'n, 341. 

y. City of Rochester, 260, 578. 

y. Heydenfeldt, 967. 

y. Slater, 400. 
Ashton's Appeal, 601. 
Askren y. Squire, 84. 354. 
Aslin y. Parkin, 652. 
Aspden y. Nixon. 563. 600, 624. 
Atchison Say. Bank y. Means. 351. 
AtchJHon. T. & S. F. R. Co. y. Brown, 

y. Coni'rs, 584. 

y. Elder, 319. 

y. Nicbolls, 86. 
Atheam y. Brannan, 618. 
Athens Leather Mfg. Co. y. Myers, 340. 
Atherton v. Atherton. 536, 032. 
Atkins y. Anderson, 696. 

CITED. xliii 

499 in vol. 1; residue In vol. 2.] 

Atkins y. Bally, 588. 

V. Churchill, 1004. 

V. Horde, 650. 

V. Sawyer, 155. 
Atkinson y. Allen, 260, 296. 

V. Dayies, 16. 

y. Hancock, 421. 

y. Harrison, 1014. 

y. Parks, 604. 

y. Railroad, 135. 

y. White, 670. 

y. Williams, 33. « 
Atkison y. Dixon, 683. 
Atlanta Eleyator Co. y. Bag Sc Cotton 

Mills, 734. 
AtlanUc Dock Co. y. City of New York, 

Atlantic Dredging Co. y. U. S., 534a. 
Atlantic Lumber Co. y. Lumber Co., 36. 
Atlantic Mutual Life Ins. Co., In re, 

Atlas Nat. Bank y. More, 293. 
Attica State Bank y. Benson, 682. 
Attorney-General y. Caryer, 697. 

y. Eriche, 513. 

y. Telegraph Co., 981. 
AttrlU V. Huntington, 870. 
Atwater y. Bank, 63. 246, 868. 
Atwood y. Bobbins, 627. 
Audubon y. Insurance Co.. 349, 699. 
Augenstein, In re, 320a. ^ 
Augir y. Ryan, 751. 
Auld y. Butcher, 100, 892. 

y. Smith, 687. 
AuU V. Day, 154. 

y. Trust Co., 161. 
Aultman y. Mount, 751. 
Aultman Miller & Co. y. Mills, 898. 

V. Sloan, 600. 
Aultman & Taylor Co. v. O'Dowd, 16. 
Aurand's Appeal. 466. 
Aurora Citj' v. West. 707, 790. 
Aurora Hill Con. Min. Co. y. Mining 

Co.. 530. 
Austin y. Austin, 268. 

V. Hamilton County, 576. 

V. Jordan, 167. 

y. Nelson, 341. 

V. Riley, 306. 

V. Seminary, 193, 195. 
Auwerter y. Mathlot, 433. 439. 
Ayegno y. Schmidt, 558. 

xlir CASES 

[Referencei to sectioni. S§ 1 to 

Avera v. Rice, 600. 
Averlll V. Loucks, 71, 091. 

V. Smith, 796. 
Avery v. Ackart, 948. 

V. Court, 652. 

V. Fitch, 734, 736. 

V. Fitzgerald, 650. 

V. U. S., 299, 3J^. 
Axford V. Graham, 570. 
A:xman v. Dueker, 271. 
Axtel V. Chase, 761. 
Aydelotte v. Brlttain, 135. 
Ayer v. Ashmead, 779, 782. 

V. Bailey, 233. 

V. Termatt, 25. 
Ayers v. Waul, 471. 
Aylesworth v. Brown, 945. 
Aymar v. Chace, 181. 
Ayre v. Burke, 485. 
Ayres v. Findley, 592. 


Babb V. Sullivan, 494. 
Babcock v. Brown, 341. 

V. Camp, 504. 

V. Jones, 432. 

V. McCamant, 368. 

V. Marshall, 861, 919. 

V. Perry, 341. 

V. Wolf, 176. 
Babcock Hardware Co. v. Bank, 310, 

Bach V. Burke, 27. 
Bache V. Pur cell, 744. 
Baclielder v. Bean, .36.5. 
Bach man v. Schertz, 610. 

V. Sepulveda, 183. 
Backer v. Eble, 179. 
Bacon v. Green, 236. 

V. Howard, 892. 

y. Johnson, 346a. 

V. McBean, 838. 

v. Raybould, 67, 68. 

v. Schepflin, 714. 

V. Thornton, 33. 
Baden v. Clarke, 100. 
Badger v. Badger, 720. 

v. Tltcomb, 621, 73(5, 747.. 
Baggett V. Watson, 367. 
Baggott V. Boulger, 589. 
Bagley v. Cohen, 346a. 


499 in vol. 1; residue In vol. 2.1 

Bagot v. Williams, 734. 
Bailey v. Bailey, 446, 731. 

V. Bank, 378. 

V. Clayton, 352. 

V. Crittenden, 213, 547. 

V. Dilworth, 633. 

V. Eder, 418. 

V. Edmundson, 85. 

V. Fairplay, 650, 652. 

V. Hester, 986. 

V. Irrigation Co., 84. 

V. Laws, 609. 

V. McGinniss, 193, 211, 265. 

V. Martin, 877, 896. 

V. Sloan, 88. 

V. Snyder, 59. 

V. Stevens, 363. 

V. Sundberg, 640, 574, 579, 795. 

V. Taaflfe, 340, 347, 352, 354. 

V. Winn, 650. 
Bailey Loan Co. v. Hall, 209. 
Bailey*s Adm'x v. Robinson, 600. 
Baily V. Doolittie, 118. 
Bain, Ex parte, 259. 

V. Wells, 605. 
Bainbridge v. Burton, 585. 
Baines v. Babcock, 583. 

V. Burbridge, 55. 
Baird, In re, 585a. 

V. Klrtland, 433. 

V. U. S., 734. 

V. WlUiams, 421. 
Baker v. Baer, 87. 

T. Bank, 23. 

V. Barcllft, 307. 

V. Byrn, 293. 

V. Chandler, 417. 

V. Cummings, 720. 

V. Deliesseline. 604. 

V. Frellsen, 709. 

Y. Hess, 527. 

V. Hoag, 1000. 

V. Hummer, 959. 

V. Hunt, 986. 

V. Judges, 299. 

V. Kerr, 225. 

V. Lane, 719. 

V. Lehman, 48. 

V. Lukens, 55, 330. 

V. Merrifield, 526. 

V. Morgan, 367. 

V. Morton, 414, 420. 

[References to Bections. H 1 to 

Baker t. O'RIordan, 301. 

V. Palmer. 829. 

y. People, »32. 

T. Preston, 586. 

T. Bailroad Ck>., 536. 

T. Rand, 504, 618, 729, 866. 

V. Redd, 373. 

T. Remington, 33. 

T. Schoeneman, 38. 

▼. Secor, 945, 949. 

V. State, 2, 115. 

T. Stincbfleld, 758, 764. 

y. Stonebraker, 272. 867, 903, 946, 

T. Wadsworth, 323. 

T. Wyman, 807. 
Baker*s Case, 255. 
Balch T. Sbaw, 155, 164. 
Baldridge t. Eason, 431. 

V. Penland, 271. 
Baldwin t. Baer, 252. 

T. Davidson, 363. 

V. Engineering Co., 80L 

T. Foss, 33. 

V. Klmmel, 972. 

▼. McClelland, 306. 

V. McCrea, 51& 

V. Wright, 36. 
Balfonr-Gnthrie Iny. Co. y. Oelger, 

Balio y. Wilson, 15-1. 
Balk y. Harris, 275. 
Ball T. Miller, 75. 

y. Reese, uo«>. 

y. Sleeper, 299. 

y. Trenholm, 682. 

V. Warrington, 861. 
BaDance y. Forsyth, 530. 
Ballant^ne y. Mackinnon, 795, 796. 
Ballard y. Mitchell, 526. 

y. Purcell, 305. 
Ballentine y. Ballentine, 721. 
Balliett y. Humphreys, 98. 
Ballin v. Loeb, 938b. 
Ballinger y. Sherron, 58. 

y. Tarbell, 223. 
Ballon y. Ballon. 556. 
Ballow y. Hudson, 635. 
Baltimore County Dairy Ass'n, In re, 

Baltimore Steam Packet Co. v. Garri- 
son, 572. 


499 in TOl. 1; residue in vol. 2.1 

Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Faulkner, 

y. Fltzpatrlck, 986. 

y. FlinJa, 340a. 

V. May, 593. 

V. Railroad Co., 632. • 
Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. v. Alsop, 

Baltimore & O. & C. R. Co. y. Rowan,. 

Baltzeil V. Hickman, 142. 

V. Noeler, 903. 

y. Randolph, 384, .'(86. 
Bamka y. Railroad Co.. 740. 
Bancroft y. Wlnapear, 737. 
Bandon y. Becher, 293. 
Bangs y. Strong, 692. 
Banister y. Engine Co., 901. 
Bank v. Labitut, 306. 

y. Morsel 1, 434. 

V. Watson, 432. 
Bankers' Life Ins. Co. y. Bobbins, 961, 

482a, 485. 
Bank of Australasia y. Harding, 827^ 

y. Nias, 583, 827, 829, 844, 847. 
Bank of Belolt v. Beale, 1011. 
Bank of Carlisle y. Hopkins, 101. 
Bank of Chadron y. Anderson, 867, 

897, 917. 
Bank of China, Japan & The Straits 

V. Morse, 836, 839. 
Bank of Colfax y. Richardson, 271^ 

Bank of Commerce y. City of Louis- 
ville. 545, 704. 

V. Mayer, 860. 
Bank of Hamburg v. Howard, 440. 
Bank of Kentucky v. Stone, 534a, 578. 
Bank of Kinderhook v. GifTord, 349. 
Bank of Lewisburg y. Sheffey, 43. 
Bank of Maywood y. McAllister's Es- 
tate, 703. 
Bank of Mobile y. Hall, 44. 

y. Railroad Co., 534. 
Bank of Monroe y. Widner, 107. 
Bank of Newburgh v. Seymour. 137. 
Bank of North America v. Fitzslmons, 

y. McCall, 821. 

y. Wheeler, 690, 857, 804, 882, 8^. 
Bank of Pennsylvania y. Winger, 1010* 


[RoferenoM to ■(Bctloaf . iSlto 

Bank of Priuceton v. Johuston, 338. 
Bank of RussellvUle v. Coke, 141. 
Bank of Saliua v. Abbot, 005. 
Bank of Santa Fe v. Bank, 514. 
Bank of South Carolina v. Bridget, 659. 

V. Mosely, 995. 
Bank of StatesviUe v. Foote, 349. 
Bank of Stratton v. Dixon, 348. 
Bank of Tennessee v. Patterson, 168. 
Bank of the Commonwealth of Ken- 
tucky V. Hopkins, 706. 
Bank of U. S. v. Bank, 690, 864, 875. 

V. Beverley, 517. 

V. Lougworth, 399. 

V. Moss, 329. 

V. Patton, 1009. 

V. Ritchie, 197. 

V. Voorhees, 245. 
Bank of Warren County v. Kemble, 

Bank of Wooster v. Stevens, 269. 
Banks, In re, 807. 

V. Evans, 477, 1008. 

V. Speers, 589. 
Banning v. Sabin, 666. 

V. Taylor, 333. 
Bannister v. Higglnson, 201. 
Bannon v. People, 278. 
Banta v. McClennan, 1008. 
Banton v. Campbell's Heirs, 39. 
Baptist Cliurch v. Wltherell, 523. 
Baragree v. Cronkhite, 394. 
Baragwanath v. Wilson, 204. 
Barbee v. Shannon, U39c. 
Barber, In re, 257. 

v. Bowen, 641. 

V. aty of BUoxi, 154. 

v. Graves, 193, 195, 299. 

V. Kendall, 009, 616. 

V. Lamb, 847. 

V. Reynolds, 1007. 

V. Root, 926, 927. 932. 

V. Rutherford, 754. 
Barbour v. Bank, 1005. 

V. White, 206. 
Barbour County Court v. O'Neal, 306. 
Barclay v. Kinsey, SCO. 

v. Plant, 173, 407. 
Bard v. Fort, 349. 
Barden v. Grady, 550. 

V. Railroad Co., 530. 
Bardonski v. Bardonskl, 375. 
Barelll v. Wagner, 229, 201. 


mifiywLli reilAiis in vol. tl 

Barger v. Hobbs, 624, 655. 
Baring v. Clagett, 815. 
Barkaloo's Adm'r v. Emerick, 605. 
Barker v. Ayers, 206. 

V. Cassidy, 555. 

T. Olevelaod, 504, 729, 768. 

V. Cocks, 208. 

V. Crawford, 1014. 

V. Elkins, 385. 

V. Hamilton, 197. 

V. Justice, 305. 

V. Laney, 644. 

y. Miller, 697. 

V. Shepard, 225. 

V. Walsh, 299. 
Earkley v. Com'rs, U85e. 
Barkman v. Hain, 419. 

V. Hopkins, 898, ii06. 
Barksdale v. Greene, 330. 
Barlow v. Steel. 897. 
Barnard v. Ashley, 530. 

V. Devine, 738. 

v. Gibson, 32. 
Baru?s, In re, 38, 508* 

V. Branch, 326. 

V. Coal Co., 749. 

V. Gibbs, 864. 

V. Gill, 313. 

V. Hale, 158. 

V. Harris, 965, 966. 

V. Hurd, 99. 

V. Mott, 481. 

V. Railroad Co., 242. 

V. Rodgers, 16. 

V. Smith, 958. 

V. \'incent, 635. 
Bamesley, Ex parte. 802. 

V. Powell. 356, 634. 
Barnett v. Barnett, 370. 

v.Juday, 770. 

V. Lynch, 359. 

V. RaiU-oad Co.. 417. 

V. Smart, 518, 681. 

V. Squyres, 446. 
Barney v. Chittenden, 250. 

V. Dewey, 572. 

V. GoflP, 697. 

V. Patterson's Lessee. 828, 938. 

V. White, 857, 862. 
Barnhart v. Eiiwards, 97. 
Baruum v. Green, 944. 
Baron v. Abeel, (k)2. 
Barr v. Gratz, 607. 

OteCertneet to iftlnni 11 1 to 

Barr v. Uaseldon, 141. 

V. Poet, 372, 387. 

T. Simpson, 058. 
Barras v. Bidwell, U17. 
BarreU v. Tllton, 153, 16G. 
Barret v. Thompson, 181. 
Barrett v. Cleydon, 487. 

V. Cycle Oo.. 313, 34«a. 

T. Falling, 616» 020, »38. 

T. Furnish, 4C7. 

V. Garragan, 114. 

V. Graham, 321. 

V. Hopkins, 256, 6^ 

y. Llngle, 101<5. 

V. Oppenheimer, 887. 

y. Vaughan, 299. 

y. Wilkinson, 990. 
Barringer v. Boyden, 996. 

y. King, 880, 896. 
Barroilhet y. Hathaway, 47L. 
Barron y. Frink, 84. 

V. Paine, 583. 

y. Thompson, 432. 
Barrow y. Bailey, 487. 

y. Jones, 375. 

y. Robichaus, 357, 

y. West, 508. 852. 
Barrows y. Kindred. 656. 
Barry y. Carothers, 534. 

y. Patterson, 279. 
Bartels y. ScheU, 731, 785. 

y. Sonnenscheln, 30. 
Barth y. Burt, 708. 

y. Loeffelholtz, 1013. 

y. Makeeyer, 413, 415. 

y. Bosenfeld, 35. 
Bartholomew y. Hook, 426* 

V. Yaw, 385. 
Bartle y. Plane, 118. 
Bartlet y. Knight 828, 855. 
Bartlett y. Gaslight CJo., 577. 

y. Gayle, 470. 

y. Lang*s Adm'rs, 109. 

y. McNeil, 229. 

V. Pearscm. 1000. 

y. Russell, 268. 

y. Spicer, 004. 

y. Yates, 945, 986. 
Bartling y. Thielman, 138. 
Bartoe y. Guckert, 79a. 
Bartol y. Eckert, 485. 
Barton y. Allbright, 593, 594. 

V. Anderson, 87, 697. 


tfeiayoLl; rtsidiu in vol. 2.] 

Barton y. Bank, 153. 

y. Ix>ng, 600. 

y. Radcliffe, 979. 
Barton's Appeal, 354. 
Bascom y. Manning, 768. 

V. Young, 83. 
Basebe y. Matthews, 529. 
Basom y. Taylor, 680. 
Bass y. EstiU, 52. 

y. Seyler, 553. 
Basset y. Mitchell, 140. 
Bassett y. Railroad Co., 744. 

y. Sherrod, 600. 

V. U. S., 687. 
Bass Foundry & Machine Works y. 

Com'rs, 537. 
Bast y. Hysom, 92. 
Batchelder v. Batchelder, 926. 

y. Robinson, 649. 
Bate y. Fellows, 699. 
Bateman y. Miller, 273. 

y. Pool, 80. 

y. Railroad Co., 600. 

y. Wllloe, 356, 378. 
Bates y. Bates, 337. ' 

V. Crowell, 618. 

y. Cullum, 60, 77. 

y. Delayan, 904. 

y. Hamilton, 321. 

y. Hinsdale, 450. 

y. Kimball, 298. 

y. Plonsky, 295. 

y. Quattlebom, 734. 

y. Spooner, 731. 
Battell y. Lowery, 3, 118. 
Battelle y. Brldgman, 77. 
Battey y. Holbrook, 080. 
Battle y. Jones, 836. 
Baudin y. RollflP, 699. 
Bauer y. Rlhs, 61a. 
Bnugert y. Blades, 599. 
Baugbn y. Baughn, 123. 
Baum y. Custer, 492. 
Bauserman y. Cbarlott, 802. 
Bausman y. Eads, 82. 

y. Tilley, 351. 
Bayington y. Clarke, 430. 
Bawell y. Keusey, 734. 
Baxley y. Linah, 857, 8(14. 
Baxter y. Allen, 467. 

y. Ass'n, 16. 

y. Aubrey, 724. 

y. Baxter, 635. 

xlviii CASES 

[References to sections. 9S 1 to 

Baxter v. Carrol, 577. 

V. Chute, 340a. 

V. Dear, 403. 

V. Insurance Co., 815, 810. 

V. .Myers, 540, 000, OOU, 754. 

V. I'eople, 182. 
Hayless v. Daniels, 233. 

V. Jones, 97, 100. 
Bayley v. Buokland, 325, 374. 

V. Edwards, 825, 847. 
Baylis v. Hayward, 41)3. 
Baylor's Lessee v. Dejarnette, 564, 007. 
Baynard v. Harrity, 57S. 
Bay or v. Ewart, 32. 
Bays V. Trulson, 783. 
Baze y. Arper, 654. 
BazlUe v. Murray, 655. 
Beach v. Beach, 346. 

V. Beckwlth, 107. 

V. Botsford, 52, 286. 

V. City of Elmira, 609. 

V. (^rain, 748. 

V. McCann, 326. 

V. Reed, 439a. 

V. Vanderbergh, 998. 
Beadle v. Graham^s Adm*r, 699. 
Beal V. Smith, 935. 
Beale v. Berryman, 884. 
Beale's Adm'r v. Gordon, 614. 
l^eall V. Beck, 586. 

V. Brown, 364. 

V. Mill Co.. 343. 

V. rearre, 504, 687, 787. 

V. Powell, 300. 

V. Price, 1010. 

V. Slnquefleld, 174. 

V. Territory of New Mexico, 587. 

V. Walker, 783. 
Keairs Adm'r v. Taylor's Adm'r, 8W. 
Beals V. Judge, 774. 
Beam v. Bridgers, 157. 

V. Hayden, 139. 
Beams v. Denham, 373. 
Beam's Appeal, 419. 
Bean v. HaflPendorfer, 337. 

V. Seyfert, 1006. 
Bear v. Oom*rs, 253a, 584. 

V. Youngman, 182. 
Beard, Ex parte, 128. 

V. Beard, 227. 932, 933. 

V. Deitz, 427. 

V. Federy, 530. 

V. Hall. 127. 


499 in vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Beard v. Milllkau. 986. 

V. Roth, 200. 

V. Shoe Co., 86. 
Beards y. Wheeler, 317. 
Beardsley v. Hilson, 217, 311. 
Bear River Valley Orchard Co. v. Han- 
ley, 33. 
Beattie v. Latimer. 208. 
Beatty v. Beatty's Adm'r, 39. 

V. O'Connor, 342. 
Beaty v. Bordwell. 350. 
Beaubien v. Hamilton, :^00. 
Beaudrias v. Hogan. 282. 
Beaudrot v. Murphy, 278. 
Beaver v. Irwin, 660. 
Beazley v. Prentiss, 1006. 
Bechtel V. Brewing Co., 943. 
Beck V. Bellamy. 344. 

V. Devereaux, 734, 

V. Fransham, 360. 

V. Juckett, 354a. 

V. Kallmeyer, 560. 
Becker, In re, 196. 

V. Huthsteiner, 345a, 348. 

V. Sauter, 153, 154. 
Beckett v. Cuenin. 183. 
' V. Dean, 437. 

v. Selover, 274, 641. 

V. Stone, 099. 
Beckham, Succession of, 958. 
Beckley v. Xewcomb, 190. 
Beckneil v. Becknell, 958. 
Beckwith v. Boyce, 138. 
Beck & Pauli Lith. Co. v. Mining Co., 

27, 771. 
BecQUet v. McCarthy, 227, 836. 842. 
Beet on v. Becton, 198. 

v. Ferguson, 945. 
Bedell v. Hayes, 252. 

v. Stevens, 100. 
Bedon v. Davie, 554. 
Bedwell v. Ashton, 200. 

V. Thompson, 86. 
Beebe v. Bank, 956. 

V. Beebe Co., 85. 

V. Bull, 764. 

V. Elliott. 549. 784, 787. 

V. Grlffing, 39. 

V. Russell, 44, 45. 

V. State. 298. 
Beecher v. Shirley, 700. 
Boekman v. Hamlin, 992. 993. 

V. l»eck, 301. 

CReferencea to BecUons. H 1 to 

Beeler's Heirs t. Bullitt's Heirs, 195, 

Beer v. Simpson, 8G7, 892. 

V. Tbomas, 660, 755. 
Beere v. Fleming, 720. 
Beers, In re, 1014. 

V. Hendrickson, 989. 

V. Pinney, 573. 
Beets y. Strobel, 10. 
Behl y. Schuette, 352. 
Bebrens Drug Co. y. Hamilton, 141. 
Behrens' Estate, In re, 324. 
Belne, In re, 257. 
Beltber y. Zeigler, 28. 
Belcber y. Curtis, 264, 446. 

y. She^an. 227. 
Belden y. Meeker, 287. 

y. Seymour, 567. 

y. State, 733. 
Belford y. Woodward, 151, 873, 968. 
Beliyean y. Mfg. Co., 50. 
Belkin y. Ubodes, 130, 135. 
Belknap y. Greene, 460. 

y. Groover, 354a. 

V. Stewart, 600. 
BeU y. Bell, 561, 897. 

y. Dayis, 453. 

y. Eyans, 446. 

V. Gilmore, 411. 

y. Hanks, 331. 

y. McCoUoch, 729. 

V. McDuffie, 438. 

V. Merrifield, 733. 

V. Otts, 186. 

y. Perry, 995. ' 

V. Peterson, 549. 

y. Raymond, 250, 787. 

y. State, 206. 

y. Thompson, 306. 

y. Williams, 377, 493, 496. 

V. Wilson, 548. 
Bellamy v. Bellamy, 41. 

y. Woodson, 378. 
Bell County Coke & Imp. Co. y. Board. 

Belles y. MUler, 261. 
Belleyllle Nail Co. y. People, 809. 
HelleviUe A St. L. R. Co. y. Leatbe,, 

612, 627. 
Bellinger y. Crafgue, 769. 

y. Tbonipscn, 580. 
Belloc y. Rogers, 644. 
Bellows y. Ingham, 908. 
1 LAW JUDG.— d 

ciTBD. xlii 

499 in Yol. 1; residue in yoI. S.] 

Bellows y. Shannon, 16. 

y. Sowles, 964, 976. 
Beirs Adm'r y. Ayres, 641. 
Belmont y. Coleman, 583. 

V. Ponyert, 25. 
Beloit V. Morgan, 506. 
Belt V. Davis, 21, 26, 34. 
Helton V. Fisher, 857. 

V. Summer, 250. 
Beltzhoover v. Com., 775. 
Bement v. Trust Co., 641. 
Bemis v. Stanley, 892. 
Bemmerly v. Woodward, 155. 
Benbow v. Boyer, 461. 
Bender v. Askew, 246. 

v. Pennsylvania Ca, 37. 
Bendernagle v. Cocks, 734, 736, 738, 

741, 744, 747, 749. 
Benedict v. Arnoux, 349, 351. 

v. Auditor General, 355. 

V. Smith. 807. 
Benge v. Potter, 335. 
Benicia Agricultural Works v. Creigb- 

ton, 16. 
Benjamin v. Dubois, 30. 

v. Early, 268. 
Benne v. Scbnecko, 951. 
Benner v. Marshall, 865. 
Bennet, The, 814. 
Bennett, Ex parte, 179, 215. 

V. Allen, 61a, 69, 77. 

v. Bennett, 862. 

V. Buttei-worth, 979. 

y. Graham, 589. 

y. Gray, 549. 

V. Hanley, 1004. 

y. Holmes, 600, 629. 

y. Jackson, 336. 

v. Leach, 577. 

V. McGrade, 1008. 

v. Morley, 902. 

V. Townsend, 236. 

V. Winter, 301. 
Bensen v. Railroad Co., 250, 284. 
Bensimer v. Fell, 439a, 466, 549, 605^ 

Benson v. Anderson, 306, 368, 370. 

V. Arnold, 181. 

y. Cahill, 265. 

V. Haywood, 954. 

y. Matsdortr, 052. 

V. Maxwell, 423. 

T. Paine, 774. 




CRetereacM to MCtlon 

Bent T. Miranda, 308. 
Bentley y. Finch, 341. 

▼. Gardner, 110. 

▼. Goodwin, 2d5. 

V. O'Bryan, (517. 

V. Wright. i;J4. 
Beutiy y. Dillard, 378, 389. 
Benton v. Benton, 055. 

V. Burgot, 828, 857, 884, 917. 

V. Crowder, 1009. 
Benwell v. Black, 960. 
Benwood Iron-Works Co. y. Tappan, 

Benz y. Hines, 610. 
Berber y. Kerzinger, 544^ 
Berg V. Bank, 57. 

V. Pohl, 352. 
Bergemann y. Backer, 259. 
Bergen y. Bolton, 239. 
Berger y. Williams, 583, 586. 
Bergeron, In re, 320a. 

y. Richardott, 615. 
Bergin y. Haight, 252. 
Bering y. Burnet, 55. 
Berkey y. Judd, 200. 
Berkley y. Lamb, 420. 

y. Wilson. 702. 
Berkowitz y. Brown, 220. 
Bemal y. Lynch, 250, 522. 
Bernard y. City of Hoboken, 750. 

y. Douglas, 317. 

y. Merrill, 740. 
Bernardi y. Motteux, 813, 814, 816, 

Bemeckcr y. Miller, 193. 
Bemert, Ex parte, 258. 
Bernhardt y. Brown, 260, 270. 
Beronlo y. Railroad Co., 738. 
Berry y. Anderson, 118. 

y. Borden, 16. 

y. Burgbard, 387. 

y. Chamberlain, 576L 

y. Clements, 451. 

y. Foster, 271. 

y. Shuler, 444. 
Berry hill y. McKee, 44. 

y. Potter, 438. 

y. Wells, 981. 
Bersch v. Schneider, 282. 
Bertha Zinc & Mineral Co. y. Yanghan, 

Herthold v. Fox, 134, 164. 
Bertliue y. Bauer, 335. 

tftlAYoLl: rMidue In ToL 1] 

Bertrand y. Bingham*s Adm% 715^ 
Bertron y. Stewart, 487. 
Berwick y. Duncan. 16^ 
Besecher y. Flory, 694. 
Best y. Hopple, 703. 

y. Lawson, 1001. 

y. Nix, 204. 
Betancourt y. Eberlin, 493, 496^ 
Bethel v. Bethel, 154. 
Bethlehem y. Watertown, 5(^. 
Betterton y. Roope, 746. 
Bettmau y. Cowley, 95& 
Eetts y. Bagley, 287. 

y. Baxter, 83. 

y. Johnson, 487. 

y. Starr, 504, 729, 787. 

y. Town of New Hartfoid, 529* 
Beyen y. Chesire, 300. 
Beyer y. North, 567. 
Beyerley y. Brooke. 440. 
Beverley's Case, 205. 
Beverly v. Burke, 218. 
Bevington y. Buck, 3.. 
Beyerle y. Haln, 179. 
Bibb, Ex parte, 298. 

y. Allen, 206. 

y. Avery, 173. 

y. Jones, 1008. 
Bibend y. Insurance Co., 981. 

y. Kreutz, 361, 362, 377, 381. 
Bible V. Voris, 62. 
Bick y. Seal, 31. 
Bickel y. Cleayer, 493% 

y. Brskine, 193. 

y. Kraus, 326a. 
BIcknell y. Field. 917. 
BIddle y. Bank, 992. 

y. Dowse, 959. 

y. Pierce, 246. 

y. Wllkins, 677, 970. 
Biddle & Smart Co. v. Bumbam, 548w 
BIdleson y. Whytel, 8. 
Bldwell y. Coleman, 406^ 

y. Huff, 938b. 
Bierer y. Fretz, 754. 
Blerman y. Crecelius, 6i0. 
Blesecker v. Cobb,. 467. 
Biesenthall y. Williams, 907. 
Bllield y. Taylor, 585. 
Bigelow, Ex parte, 244, 255. 

y. Bigelow, 245. 

y. Chatterton, 273. 

T. Preyost, 99& 

[References to aoctieiM. H 1 to 

BIgelow T. Stearns, 275. 

V. Winsor, 518. 722. 
Blggam V. Merritt, 450. 
BIsge, In re. 38. 
Biggins V. Raisch, 588. 
Big Goose & Beaver Ditch Go. ▼. Mor- 
row, 118. 
Bigle3' V. Jones, 715. 
BlgDold V. Carr. WSS. 
Billan v. Hercklebrath. 417. 
Billing V. Gilmer. (514, 093. 
BUUngs V. Russell, 245. 250. 286. 
BiUingslea v. Smith. 160. 
Blllnps T. Freeman, 300. 
Blloxi Lumber & Export Co. y. Sup- 
ply Co., 86. 
Bilsland v. McManomy, 725. 
Bimeler t. Dawson. 828, 857, 887, 900, 

Blnck T. Wood. G97, 758. 
Binford v. Alston. 1008. 
Bingham v. Honeyman. 620. 
Btnsse v. Barker, 322, 368. 
Birch V. Frantz, 340. 

V. Fnnk, 693, 606, 707. 709. 
Bhrd, In re. 250. 

T. Chaffln, 381. 

V. Mfg. Co., 110. 

T. Mitchell, 589. 

V. Randall, 753, 778» 786, 787. 

T. Smith, 970, 975. 
BIrdMell Mfg. Co. v. Fire-Sprinkler Co.. 

115, 133. 
Birdseye v. Rogers, 117. 

T. Srhneffer, 37. 

V. ^haelTer, 631, 650. 
Bfnninghanoi v. I^ieonhardt 165. 
BiMhoff V. Weathered, 227, 836, 897, 

Blscoe V. Butts, 641. 

V. Sandefnr. 1008. 
Bish V. Burns, 47A\. 

V. Wnilar, 486. 
Bishop T. Abom. 158. 

V. Camp. 14. 

T. Carter, 182. 

y. Donnell. 83. 

y. McGillis. 706. 

T. Perrln. 663. 
Bfsland v. Hewitt 454. 
Bismark Bniidiug & Loan Ass'n y. 

Bolster, 429. 
Blssel y. Axtell, 356. 

ciTBrD. li 

#9 in TOl. 1; TMltw in yrt. Si] 

Bissell y. Briggs, 828, 867, 897. 

y. Edwards, 879, 935. 

y. Huntington, 581. 

y. Jaudon, 903. 

y. Kellogg, 614, 687. 

y. Township, 707, 710, 761. 

y. Wheelock, 896, 897. 
Bisson V. Curry, 530. 
Bitzer y. Klllluger, 681. 

V. O'Bryan, 353, 718. 

y. Shunk, 57. 
Bixby V. Whitney, 626. 
Black y. Black, 666, 600, 720, 754, 857, 
897, 901. 

y. Caldweil, 666. 

y. Epperson, 425. 

y. Pattlson, 70. 

y. Plunkett, 297. 

y. Smith, 919. 
Blacklmm y. Traffic Co.. ^1« 
Blackburn y. Beall, 498. 

V. Crawford, 543. 

y. Jackson, 896. 

y. Knight, 305. 

y. Squib, 994. 

y. State, 175. 
Blackham*8 Case, 614. 
Black Hills Nat Bank y. Kellogg, 209. 
Blackinton y. Blackinton, 720, 729. 
Blackman y. Joiner, 946. 

y. Simpson, 782. 

y. Wright. 872. 
Blackmer y. Greene, 66. 
Biackmore y. Gregg, 611. 
Black Rlyer Say. Bank y. Edwards, 

Black's Ex'r y. Black, 961. 
Blackwell y. Dlbbrell, 786. 

V. State, 482. 

V. WlUard, 173. 
Blackwood y. Brown, 542^ 
Blaln y. Blain, 927. 

y. Shaffner, 340. 

y. Stewart, 488. 
Blaine y. Briscoe, 324. 
Blair, In re, 255. 

V. Bartlett, 769. 

y. Caldwell, 877, 969, 1007. 

y. Chamblin, 434. 

y. McLean, 699. 

y. Russell, 306. 
Blaisdell v. Harris, 127, 128. 

V. Pray, 270, 


CReterenoes to Mctioni. §S 1 to 

Blake ▼. Blgelow, 807. 

▼. Hurley, 807, 963. 

V. Butler, 033. 

y. Dodemead, 486. 

V. Douglass, 193, 196. 

V, Heyward, 411. 

V. Mfg. Co., 270. 

V. Railroad Co., 613, 615. 
Blakely v. Calder, 601. 
Blakemore v. Wise, 440. 
Blakeslee v. Murphy, 080. 
Blakesley v. JoUnsou, 373, 953. 
Blalock V. DenLam, 43Ua. 
Blanc V. Mining Co., 900. 
Blanchard v. Hatch, 312. 

T. Russell, 824. 
Blanck v. Medley, 57, 70, 74. 
Bland v. State, 306. 
Blandy v. Griffith, 787. 
Blankenship v. Douglas, 420, 445. 
Blann v. Cocherou, 779, 782. 
Blanque v. Peytavln, 815. 
Blanton v. Carroll, 277. 
Hlasdale v. Babcock, 572. 
Blattner v. Frost, 962. 
Blauvelt v. Kemon, 77. 
Blewett V. Tregonnlng, 127. 
Blight's Heirs v. Tobin, 357, 
Blln V. Campbell, 680. 
Blindert v. Kreiser, 419. 
Bliss v. Clarke, 425. 

V. Treadway, 313. 

V. Weil, 747. 

V. Wilson, 220. 
Bliase v. Castlio, 135. 
Bloch V. Trice, 541, 938c. 
Blodget V. Jordan, 857, 935. 
Blodgett V. Dow, 016. 
Blohme v. Lynch, 459. 
Blood V. Bates, 182. 
Bloom V. Burdick, 195, 220, 275, 
Bloomfield v. Humason, 433. 
Bloomfleld R. Co. v. Burress, 213. 
Bloomstock v. Duncan, 910, 1001. 
Blose V. Bear, 425. 
Bloss V. Hull, 380. 

V. Plymale. 779. 
Blossom V. Barry, 113. 
Bludworth v. Poole, 107, 118, 201, 488, 

Blue V. Collins, 402. 
Blum V. Keyser, 405, 411. 
Blumke v. Dailey, 147. 


489 in vol. 1; reildue In vol. S.] 

Blythe v. Hinckley, 297a, 308, 324, 

BIythe's Estate, In re, 085. 
Blytli & Fargo Co. v. Svvenson, 233, 

312, 325. 
Boardman v. Acer, 782. 
V. De Forrest, Ul;3. 
V. Grocery Co., 9«0. 
V. Patterson, 147. 
V. Wlllard, 421. 
Board of Administrators, In re, 496. 
Board of Com*rs of Cheyenne County v. 

Com'rs, 982. 
Board of Com'rs of Custer County v. 

Moon, 118. 
Board of Com'rs of Grand County v. 

King. 985f. 
Board of Com'rs of Jackson County v. 

Nichols, 532. 
Board of Com'rs of Lake County v. 
Piatt, 253a, 270, 291, 097, 731. 
V. Sutliff, 500. 
Board of Com'rs of Rio Grande County 

V. Burpee, 2o3a. 
Board of Com'rs of Wells County v. 

Fahlor, 218. 
Board of Directors of Broadway Ins. 

Co., In re, 297. 
Board of Education v. Bank, 324. 

V. Fowler, 683. 
Board of Public Works v. Columbia 

College, 897, 913. 
Board of School Directors v. Hernan- 
dez, 548. 
Board of Sinking Fund Com'rs v. Ma- 
son & Foard Co.. 141. 
Board of Sup'rs v. Thompson, rs.le. 
Board of Trustees of School District 

No. 1 V. Whalen, 538. 
Boarman v. Patterson, 147. 
Boas V. Heffron, 349. 

V. Hetzsl, 807. 
Boasen v. State, 253a. 
Boatner v. Ventress, 530. 
Boaz V. Heister, 233. 
Bobb V. Bobb, 306. 

V. (Jraham, 407, 000. 
Bobe's Heirs v. Stickney, 758. 
Bobo V. State, 135. 
Eockover v. Ayres, 428. 
Bodkin v. Aniokl, 095. 
Bodurtha v. Goodrich, 901, 903. 
V. Phelon, 708. 

(References to sectloni. H 1 to 

Boe T. Irish, 124. 
Boeing Y. McKinley, 312. 
Boenninghaiiseii, Ex parte, 257. 
Bogan V. Hamilton, 857, 8U0. 
Bogart, In re, 255, 256. 

V. Perry, 433. 
Boggess y. Howard, 170. 
Boggs V. Douglass, 477, 953. 
Bogie V. Bloom, 1016. 
Boliannon v. Combs, 305. 
Bobn V. StlTers, 166. 
BoUeau v. Rutlin, 622. 
Boisse Y. Diclcson, 200. 
Boland, Ex parte, 266. 

Y. BeDson, 100. 

T. Spitz, 763. 
Bolen Y. Crosby, 948, 062. 
Bolen Coal Co. y. Briclc Co., 736. 
Boles Y. Smitli, 677. 
Bolinger y. Fowler, 491. 
BoUing Y. Speller, lia 
Bolton Y. Brewster, 287. 

Y. Gladstone, 815. 

V. H?y, 681. 

Y. Scliriever, 250. 
Bomar y. Ass'n, 541. 

Y. Parker, 708. 
Bonar y. Gosney« 162, 1G3. 
Bond, Ex parte. 258. 

Y. Banlc, 111. 

Y. Billups, 754. 

Y. Charieen, 36. 

Y. Epley, 334. 

Y. McXIder, 703. 

Y. Markstrum, 629, 750, 754. 

Y. Marx, 42. 

Y. Neuscbwander, 327. 

Y. Pacheoo, 89, 138» 267. 

Y. Wilson, 288. 

Y. Wycoff, 346a. 
Bone T. Torry, 574. 
Bones y. Aiken, 996. 
Bonested y. Gariingbouse, 1012. 

Y. Todd, 770, 771, 853. 913. 
Bonnell y. Holt, 193. 

Y. Pack, 000. 

Y. Railroad Co., 337. 
Bonner, In re, 258. 

Y. Martin, 298. 
Bonnet y. Ij^chman, 276. 
Bonsall t. Isett, 274, 278. 287. 
Bonta Y. Clay, 73. 
Booge Y. Railroad Co., 752. 

CITED. liii 

499 in ToL 1; residue in toI. 2.] 

Book V. U. S., 699, 702. 
Booker y. Kennerly, 193. 
Booker's Adm'r v. Bell's Ex'rs, 671. 
Boon Y. Boon, 165. 
Boor V. Lowrey, 201. 
Boos Y. Morgan, 946. 

Y. State. 159. 
Bootb, Ex parte, 257. 

Y. Bank, 110, 949, 996. 

Y. Campbell, 989. 

Y. Kesler. 357. 

Y. Koebler, 363. 
Bordages y. Higglns, 261. 
Borden y. Borden, 407. 

V. Fltcb, 275, 278, 828, 836, 897, 
Borden Mfg. Co. y. Barry, 683. 
Boren y. McGebee. 998. 
Borer y. Cbapman, 136. 
Bore's Bx'r y. Qulerry's Ex'r, 093. 
Borgwald y. Fleming, 80. 
Bomgesser y. Harrison. 734, 736w 
Borrowscale y. Tuttle, 722. 
Borst Y. Baldwin, 953. 

y. Nalle, 398. 
BosbyshcU y. Summers, 341. 
Boscb Y. Kassing, 84. 
Bosman y. Akeley, 181. 
Bosquett y. Crane, 611. 
Bostlc Y. LoYe, 262. 
Boston Y. Haynes, 366. 376. 
Boston Blower Co. y. Brown, 620. 
Boston India Rubber Factory y. Holt, 

828, 873. 
Boston Loan & Trust Co. y. Organ, 

Boston Water Power Co. y. Gray, 520. 
Boston & C. Smelting Co. y. Reed. 783. 
Boston & W. R. Oo. y. Sparbawk, 290, 

Bostwick Y. Abbott, 703. 

V. Benedict. 418. 

Y. Perkins, 313. 

Y. Van Vleck, 167. 
Boswell Y. Coaks, 332. 

Y. Dlckerson, 242. 

Y. Otis, 232. 
Botkin Y. Com'rs, 164. 

Y. Klelnschmldt, 267, 690. 
Botto Y. Vandament, 15. 
Bottorff V. Wise. 624, 628. 
Botts Y. Crenshaw. 173. 

Y. Shields' Heirs. <]53. 


[RaflBr«noes to sectloat. H 1 to 499 in toI. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Bouchaud v. Dias, 707, 751. 
Boucher y. Lawson. 825, 826. 
Bougher v. Scobey, 504. 
Boughton V. Bank of O^'laana, 439. 
Bouldin v. Miller, 252, 284, 290. 
Bourg Y. Gerdlng, 609. 
Bourgeois y. Jacobs, 090. 
Bourke y. Granberry, 816. 
Bourne y. Simpson, 195. 
BournonYiUe y. Goodall, 000. 
Boutel Y. Owens, 69. 
Boutin Y. Qatlin, 322, %2. 

V. lindsley, 617. 
Eowden y. Hatcher, 177. 
Bowdoin College y. Merritt, 707. 
Bowdre y. Hampton, 16. 
Bowe Y. Arnold, 295. 

Y. McNab, 607. 

Y. Bdllk Co., 615, 747. 
Bowen y. Allen, 635. 

Y. Clark, 390. 

Y. Hastings, 770. 

Y. Johnson, 922. 

Y. Mill Co., 326. 
Bowers v. Boom Co., 742w 

V. Chaney, 218. 

V. Harner, 489. 
Bowersox y. Gitt, 861. 
Bowie V. Kansas City, 27. 

V. Xeale, 486. 
Bowler, Ex parte, 257. 

Y. Ennls, 277. 

Y. Huston, 237, 907, 913. 

V. Palmer, 27. 
Bowles Y. Orr, 844. 
Bowling Y. Blum. 3i3. 

V. Garrett 443. 
Bowman y. Field, 375. 

Y. Forney, 1016. 

V. Humphrey, 746. 

Y. Insurance Co., 877. 

Y. Noyes. 209. 

Y. Silvus, 412. 

Y. Wilson, 292. 
Kown V. Morange, 977. 
Bowne y. Joy, 865. 
Bowzer y. RIcketts, 320. 
Boyce y. Danz, 530. 
Boyd, In re, 255, 406a, 407. 

Y. Baynham, 239. 

Y. Blalsdell, 165. 

V. Boyd, 720, 1)03, 904. 

V. Caldw?li, 589. 

Boyd Y. Canal Co., 367. 

.Y. Ellis, 233. 

Y. Ernst, 186. 

Y. Ghent, 430. 

V. Hitchcock, 976. 

V. Huffaker, 587. 

Y. Mann, 1006. 

V. Miller, 297. 

Y. Munson, 315. 

Y. Koane, 193. 

Y. Robinson, 614. 

V. Schott, 135. 

Y. Wallace, fi»40« 

Y. WeaYer, 368. 

Y. Whitfield, 567, 569. 572. 
Boyer v. Austin, 714. 

Y. Bolender, 952. 

Y. xteeB, 4o^. 

Y. Robinson, 86. 

Y. Schofield, 522. 
Boyer's Estate, 451. 
Boyken y. State, 118. 
Boykin y. Buie, 906. 

V. Cook, 558, 560. 
Boylan y. Anderson, 483. 

Y. Whitney, 903. 
Boyland y. Boyland, 281. 
Boyla Y. Maroney, 454, 593. 

Y. Wallace, 744. 
Boyles v. Chytraus, 68. 
Boynton v. Ball, 977. 

Y. Foster, 243. 

Y. Morrill, 573. 
Boys Y. Shawhan, 208. 
Bozarth y. McGillicuddy, 138. 
Bozzio Y. Vaglio, 311. 
Brace y. Duchess of Marlborough, 400. 
Bracey v. C'alderwood, 219. 
Brachtendorf v. Kehm, 32. 
Bracken y. Parkinson, 530. 

V. Trust Co., 585, 617, 731, 790. • 
Brackett v. Bauegas, 311. 

V. Hoitt, 717. 

Y. Norton, 986. 

Y. People, 714. 

Y. Winslow, 299. 
Bradbury v. Walton, 812. 
Braddee y. Browutield, 78, 298. 69a 
Bradeu v. Reitzeubergar, 366, 378. 
Bradfleld v. Newby. 418. 
Bradford y. Bradford, 493, 650. 

Y. Bradley's Adm'rs, 44. 

Y. Burgess, 787. 

OEUtarcncM to MCtiOM. If 1 to 4M in yOI. 1; rmMliM ia toI. S.] 


Bradford v. Colt, ail. 

T. Knowles, (515. 

T. I^arUn, 261. 

T. Rice, 091. 
Bradiflh v. Gee, 356. 

V. Grant, 720. 

▼. State, 12*2, 443. 
Bradley, In re, 041. 

V. Andrews, 740. 

▼. Beetle, 583. 

V. Bradley, 529, 710. 

V. Burnett. 227. 

Y. Clandon, 182. 

T. Fowler. 227. 

T. Glass, 66, 67. 

T. Hefleman, 448. 

T. Johnson, 548. 

Y. McDaniel, 577. 

Y. Sandllands, 83. 

Y. Slater, 305. 

Y. Township, 800. 

Y. Welch, 807. 

Y. West, 663. 
Bradley Fertilizer Go. y. Caswell, 16. 
Bradshaw y. Bank, 23, 359. 

Y. Bratton, 1016. 

Y. Hedge, 16. 
Bradshaw's Appeal, 618. 
Bradstreet y. Insurance Co., 797, 814, 

815, 817, 818, 900. 
Bradwell y. Spencer, 586. 
Brady y. Ball, 779. 

Y. Beadleston, 671. 

Y. Beason, 155. 

Y. Brady, 248, 540. 

Y. Creditors, 458. 

Y. Horvath, 398. 

Y. Insurance Co., 300, 324, 346. 

Y. Madden, 206. 

Y. Murphy, 783. 

Y. Palmer, 877. 

Y. Pryor. 611. 

Y. Reynolds, 770. 

Y. Spurck, 568. 
Bragg Y. Lorio, 246. 

Y. Railroad Co., 16. 

Y. Thompson, 199. 
Bragner y. Langmead, 441. 
Brahan y. Ragland, 945. 
Braiden y. Mercer, 590. 
Brainard y. Fowler, 857, 884, 916. 
Brake y. Payne, 373. 

Brakke v. Hoskins, 258. 

Brakken y. Railroad Co., 742. 

Braly y. Seaman, 232. 

Bramblet's Heirs v. Pickett's Hehrs, 

154, 165. 
Bramlett v. McVey, 877. 
Branch y. Branch, 27. 

V. Lowery, 415. 

Y. Mfg. Co., 872. 
Branch Bank y. Ford, 478. 
Brand y. Stafford, 340. 
Brandenburgh y. Beach, 986. 
Brandhoefer y. Bain, 261. 
Brandies y. Cochrane, 433, 434, 436. 
brandon y. Green, 373, 378. 
Brandt's Appeal, 418. 
Branley y. Dambly, 411. 
Brannan v. Kelley, 483. 
Brannon y. Noble, 593. 
Branson y. Caruthers, 247, 273. 
Branstetter v. Rives, 326. 347. 
Brautingham y. Brautingham, 269. 
Braswell v. Downs, 857, 897. 

V. Hicks, 536. 
Bratton v. Leyr«r, 1014. 
Brauer v. City of Portland, 982. 
Braunsdorff y. Fay, 184. 
Brawley y. Mitchell, 235. 
Bray y. Laird, 36. 
Brazee v. Bank, 456. 
Brazill Y. Isham, 526, 688, 789. 
Breading v. Boggs, 5, 115. 

V. Slegworth, 597, 801. 
Breault v. Lumber Co., 541. 
Brebner v. Johnson, 421. 
Breckenridge v. Railroad Co., 614. 
Breckenridge Co. v. Perkins, 326. 
Breden v. Gilllland, 306. 
Breed v. Gorham, 432. 

V. Ketchum, 336. 
Breene v. Booth, 160, 162, 165. 
Breeze v. Doyle, 261. 
Bremen Bank v. Umrath, 82. 
Brengle v. McCIellan, 863. 
Brennan y. Bridge Co., 91, 709. 
Brenner v. Gundershiemer, 85. 
Brent y. Bank, 448. 
Bresnahan y. Price, 368. 
Brett V. Marston, 689. 
Brettell v. Deffebach, 317. 
Brewer v. Beck with, 652. 

Y. Mock, 394. 


[References to lectioBa. H 1 to 

Brewer v. Thomes, 992. 

Brewer & Hoffman Brewing Ck>. y. 

Lonergan, 346a. 
BrewiB y. Lawsou, 500. 
Brewster v. Boyle, 34l>a. 

V. Clamflt, 471. 

V. Norfleet, 30(5. 
Brlce V. Taylor, 941. 
Bridge y. Ford, 906. 

y. Gray, 627. 

y. Johnson, 942. 

y. Sumner, 699. 

y. Ward, 426. 
Bridge Co. y. Douglass, 534a. 
Bridgeport Electric & Ice Co. t. Im- 
provement Co., 354. 
Bridgeport Fire & Marine Ins. Co. y. 

Wilson, 293, 573. 
Bridgeport Say. Bank y. Eldredge, 287, 

Bridges, Ex parte, 256. 

y. Blalceman, 354. 

y. McAlister, 548. 

y. Nicholson, 245. 

y. Smyth, 127. 200. 

y. Thomas, 110. 
Bridgman y. McKissick, 455. 
Brlesch y. McCauley, 366, 378. 
Briggs y. Briggs, 425. 

y. Clark, 270. 

y. Dorr, 945. 

y. Milburn, 071, 785. 

y. Richmond, 87, 687, 766. 

y. Sholes, 86. 

y. Smith. 387. 

y. Thompson, 1014. 

y. Wells, 624, 630. 

y. Yetzer, 63. 
Brigham v. Fayerweather, 638. 

y. Henderson. 857. 
Bright y. Diamond, 330. 

y. Smitten. 935. 

V. State, 105. 
Brightman y. Brigbtman. 550. 
Bright's Adm'r v. Sexton. 992. 
Brlgnardello y. Gray. 132. 
Brigot's Heirs y. Brigot. 272, 367, 862. 
Brlley y. Sugg, 975, 996. 
Brill V. Shively, 666. 
Briukerhoff y. Marvin, 71. 

V. Telford. 518. 
Brinkley v. Brinkley, 857, 867. 
Brinsmead v. Harrison, 778. 


499 in vol. 1; residue in vol. L] 

Brinton's Estate. 633. 
Brisbin y. Newhall, 953. 
Briscoe y. Lomax. 606. 

y. Stephens. 278. 680. 
Brister v. State. 103. 
Bristol y. Ross, 306. 
Bristor y. Galvin, 339. 
Brittain, In re, 254. 

v. Mull, 205. 
Brittenham v. Robinson, 156, 162^ 
Brittin v. Wilder, 211. 
Britton y. State, 529. 

v. Thornton, 654. 
Brizendiue v. Bridge Co., 543. 
Broaddus v. Broaddus. 373. 
Broadis v. Broadis, 376. 
Broadwater v. Foxworthy, 1014. 
Broas v. Mersereau, 204. 
Brock v. Garrett, 600. 

y. Klrkpatrick, 958. 
Brockenbrough's Ex'x y. Brocken- 

brough's Adm'r, 441. 
Brockman v. McDonald. 211, 233. 
Brock's Adm*r v. Frank. 635, 636. 
Brockway v. Kinney, 621. 
Broda v. Green wald/ 375. 
Broder v. Conklin, 110, 266. 

V. Court, 107. 
Broderick, In re, 625. 
Brodie y. Bickley. 563. 
Brodrib v. Brodrib. 590, 644. 
Bromley v. Littleton. 487. 
Bronson v. Railroad Co., 48* 

y. Rodes. 152. 

y. Schulten. 306. 
Bronzan y. Drobaz. 964, 967. 
Brooke v. Filer. 173. 

y. Gregg. 790. 

y. Phillips, 418. 
Brooker v. Sprague, 460. 
Brooking v. Dearmond, 536. 
Brooklyn City & N. R. Co. T. Bank, 

Brooklyn, W. & N. R. Co., In re, 798. 
Brooks V. Ashbum, 779. 

v. Brooks, 130. 

y. aty of New York, 261. 

y. Harrison. 376, 377. 

T. Hunt 299. 

y. Johnson, 340a, 348. 

y. Munoz, 666. 

y. O'Hara, 754. 

y. Powell. 245, 252. 

(RflferMkeM to Mottaas. H 1 to 

Brooks T. Whitson, 373, 383. 

T. Wilson, 423. 
Brook's Adm*r v. Love, 306. 
Broome v. Wooton, 778. 
Browiahan, In re, 257. 
Brothers v. Beck, (120. 

T. Uiggins, 703. 

T. Hurdle, 052. 
Brougtaton v. Mcintosh, 758. 

▼. Wlmberly, 44. 
Bronnker v. Atkyns, 582. 
Bronssard v. Broussard, 009. 
Browder v. Faulkner, 158. 
Brower ▼. Bowers, 545. 

T. NeUis, 970. 
Brown, In re, 977. 

T. Ayres, 950. 

Y. Balde, 275. 

Y. Barnes, 155. 

Y. BarngroTer, 63, 421. 

Y. Bartlett, 165. 

Y. Bates, 938b. 

Y. B^nett, 329. 

Y. Birdsall, 771, 864. 

Y. Bradford, 588. 

Y. Brown, 352, 808. 

Y. Butler, 438. 

Y. Campbell, 3C3, 685, 783, 789. 

Y. Oanal Oo., 486. 

Y. Carraway, 33. 

Y. Causey, 248. 

Y. Chaney, 534, 574. 

Y. Chapman, 80, 224, 362. 

Y. Christie, 261. 

Y. City of New York, 87, 697, 729. 

Y. Coal Co., 24. 

Y. Cody, 684. 

Y. Darrah, 641. 

Y. Dudley, 593, 594. 

Y. DufTus, 257. 

Y. Baton, 920. 

Y. Edgerton, 34. 

Y. Bvans, 21. 

Y. Feeter, 976. 

Y. Gale, 42& 

Y. Harley, 482, 486. 

Y. Hearon, 245, 567. 

Y. Howard, 536. 

Y. Huber, 351. 

Y. Hume, 52. 

Y. Hyman, 412. 

Y. Insurance Co., 248, 814, 816. 

T. Kern, 989. 


499 in Yol. 1; rosldao In toI. L] 

Brown y. King, 621. 
V. Kirkbride, 70a 
Y. Lanman, 250. 
Y. Lawler, 159. 
Y. Lee, 98. 
Y. Luehrs, 384. 
V. McCune, 167. 
Y. McKinney, 191. 
Y. McMullen, 572. 
V. Mfg. Co., 22. 
Y. Montgomery, 142. 
Y. Moran, 729. 
Y. Nichols, 225, 272. 
Y. Nickle, 650. 
Y. 0*Connell, 175. 
Y. Parker, 861, 892. 
Y. Porter, 121. 
Y. RaUroad Co., 103, 866. 
Y. Reed, 659. 
Y. Rhinehart, 318. 
Y. Rice, 22. 
Y. Roberts, 656. 
Y. Scott, 948. 
Y. Searle, 16. 
Y. Smart, 807. 
Y. Smyth, 160. 
Y. Somerville, 593. 
Y. Sprague, 704, 705. 
Y. Squires' Adm*r, 733. 
Y. Stegemann, 351. 
Y. Swann, 32, 384, 385. 
Y. Taylor, 567. 
Y. Telephone Co., 743. 
V. Thornton, 308. 
V. Tillman, 534, 783. 
V. Todd's Adm'r, 872. 
Y. Toeirs Adm'r, 379. 
Y. Trulock, 970. 
Y. Tucker, 229. 
Y. Yandermeulen, 32. 
Y. Wadsworth. 524. 
Y. Walker, 360, 541. 
V. Warren, 346a, 1000. 
Y. Webb, 490. 
Y. Wheeler, 127, 128, 648. 
Y. White, 995. 
V. Wiley, 589. 
Y. Williams, 454. 
Y. Wilson, 378, 380. 
Y. Wootton, 778. 
Y. Wuskoff, 464. 
Y. Wygant, 487, 48a 
Y. Wynkoop, 000. 



CftafiMaeM to Mctionp. IS 1 to 409 la toL 1; rtsidva la vol. 1.] 

Browne v. Browne, 107. 

V. Cassem, 57, 61. 

V. French, 586. 

V. Joy, 299. 
Browner v. Davis, 544. 
Browne & Mauzanares Co. y. Canavez, 

484, 485. 
Brownfield v. Dyer, 281. 
Browning v. Uoane, 322, 326» a47. 
Brownlee v. Com'rs, 135. 
Brown's Adm'r v. Johnson, 770, 773. 
Brown's Appeal, 466. 
Brownsville Taxing Dist. v. Loague, 

Brozton v. Nelson, 734. 
Bruce v. Gloutman, 278, 959. 

V. Conyers, 36. 

▼. Dpollttle, 179. 

V. Foley, 518, 726. 

V. Osgood, 274, 506, 541. 

▼. Sugg, 400. 

V. Vogel, 450, 459. 
Bruce's Ex'x v. Strickland's Adm'r, 

Bruclcman v. Taussig, 835, 875, 966. 
Brumbaugh v. Schnebly, 363. 

V. Stoclcnmn, 341. 
Brummagim v. Ambrose, 642. 
Brundred v. Egbert, 261. 
Brunner's Appeal, 55. 
Bruno v. Oylatt, 493. 
Brunsden v. Humphrey, 740. 
Brury v. Smith. 616. 
Hruschke v. Der Nord Chicago Schuet- 

zen Vereln, 218. 
Brush V. Cook, 577. 

V. Kaiiroad Co., 144. 

V. Bobbins, 306. 

V. Wilson, 586. 
Brush Electric Co. v. Electric Co., 509. 

V. Improvement Co., 27. 
Brusie V. Peck Bros. & Co., 157. 
Bryan v. Alexander, 664. 

V. Esiton, 408. 

V. Kennett, 194, 246. 

V. Miller, 63, 68. 
Bryant v. Allen, 633, 

V. Harding, 293. 

V. Hunter, 518. 

V. Johnson, 299. 

V. Keed, 782, 905. 

V. Richardson, 346a. 

Bryar v. Bryar, 690. 

V. Campbell, 786. 
Bryn Mawr Nat. Bank ▼. JamM, 
Bryson v. St. Helen, 783. 
Buchan v. Sumner, 420, 44& 
Buchanan v. Biggs, 799. 

V. Kauffman, 572. 

V. Plow Co., 57, flO. 

V. Port, 884. 

v. Railroad Co., 613, 686. 

v. Rucker, 220, 227, 836. 

V. Springer, 750. 

V. Thomason, 306. 
Buchegger v. Shultz, 152. 
Bucher v. Raihroad Co., 688. 
Buck V. Buck, 526. 

V. Havens, 351. 

V. Littie, 142. 

V. Rhodes, 671. 

V. Spofford, 694^ 

▼. Wilson, 735. 
Buckingham, Appeal of, 661. 

y. Ludlum, 566. 

V. McCracken, 16. 
Bucki & Son Lumber Co. T. liUmber 

Co.. 734. 
Buckland v. Jc^nson, 778. 
Buckles v. Bank, 154. 

V. Railroad Co., 691. 
Buckley v. Duff, 16. . 
Buckmaster v. Carlin, 244. 

V. Grundy, 632, lOOll 
Buckueil V. Deering, 421. 
Buckner v. Finley, 8^. 

V. Geodeker, 550. 

V. I^ucaster, 510. 
Buck's Appeal, 492. 
Budd V. Finley, 651. 

V. Gamble, 374, 

V. Shock, 57. 
Buddress v. Schafer, 733. 
Buehlcr's Heirs v. Buffington, 499. 
Buell V. Emerlch, 324. 
Buena Vista Co. v. Railroad Co., 345. 
Buena Vista Petroleum Co. y. Mining 

Co., 530. 
Buffington y. Cook, 599. 
Buffum V. Ramsdell, 211. 

V. Stimpson, 896. 
Buford y. Adair, 54a 

y. Buford, 916. 

y. Rucker, 600. 

CRcCflrenew to flections. K 1 to 199 In vol. 1; reeldue In vol. 2.] 


Bnhl ▼. Wagner, 449. 

Building, Light & Water Go. ▼. Fray, 

Bulger, Ex parte, 258. 
Balkley t. Andrews, 644. 

V. Stewart 52B. 
Bulkly T. Healy, 609. 
BuU V. Mathews, 98, 102. 
Bullard v. Sherwood, 88. 
Bullene ▼. Hlatt, 425. 
Bullenkamp y. Bullenkamp, 188. 
BuUer ▼. Sidell, 979. 
BuUitt T. Taylor, 988b. 
Bullock y. BaUew, 970. 
y. Bullock, 872, 933. 
y. Winter, 359. 
Bump y. Butler County, 270. 
Bumstead y. Read, 240. 
Bunding y. Miller, 412. 
Bundy y. Cunningham, 666. 

y. Maginess, 121. 
Bunker y. Gilmore, 506. 
v. Langs, 746. 
y. Tufts, 729. 
Bunker Hill & Sullivan Mining & Con- 
centrating Co. V. Mining Co., 713. 
Bunn y. Lindsay, 4o3. 
Bunnel y. Pinto. 526, 736. 
Bunnell y. Bridge Co., 23. 
Bunnell & Eno Inv. Co. y. Curtis, 311. 
Buntain v. Blackburn, 393. 
Bunton v. Lyford, 374. 
Buntyn y. Holmes. 560. 
Burch v. Newburj-, 298. 
y. Scott, 153, 368. 
v. West, 361. 
Burcham v. Terry, 247. 
Burden y. Homsby, 33. 
Bnrdlck y. Cameron, 751. 
y. Post, 609. 
y. Railroad Co., 604. 
Burd's Ex'rs v. McGregor's Adm'r, 644. 
Borford v. Kersey, 731. 
Burge y. Gaudy, 124. 
Burgess y. Cave, 946. 
V. Loyengood, 372. 
y. Mortgage Co., 703. 
Y. Kuggles, 34. 
V. Souther, 962. 
Burghardt y. Van Deusen. 646, 660. 
Burgwald v. Welppert, 101. 
Borbans y. Van Zandt, 504. 

y. Village of Norwood Park, 352. 

Burk V. Hill, 19U. 
Burke v. Elliott, 522. 

v. Miller, 609. 

y. Stokely, 199, 201, 341. 

y. Ward, 354. 

V, Wheat, 367. 
Burldiam v. Van Saun, 69. 
Burkhard v. Smith, 324. 
Burlen y. Shannon, 613, 615, 624, 657^ 

754, 803, 822, 928, 932. 
Burley v. Filby, 351. 
Burling Y. Goodman, 92, 152. 
Burllngham y. Vandevender, 546. 
Burlington, C. R. & N. B. Co. y. Sim- 
mons, 48. 
Burn y. Bletcher, 836. 
Burner y. Heyener, 69L 
Bumes v. Simpson, 966. 
Burnett, Ex parte, 257. 

y. Ballund, 98. 

y. Crandail, 944. 

y. Milnes, 393a. 

y. Smith, 763. 

V. State, 130, 185. 
Bumey v. Boyett, 450. 

V. Hunter, 1016. 
Bumham v. Bumham, 560, 641. 

V. City of Chicago, 155. 

y. Bailing, 127. 

y. Railroad Co., la 

y. Smith, 347. . 

V. Webster, 828, 829. 
Burnley v. Rice, 373. 

V. Stevenson, 857, 872. 
Burns v. Bangert, 948. 

V. Gavin, 539. 

V. Hodgdon, 656. 

y. Monell, 615. 

y. Scooffy, 343. 

y. Simpson, 958. 

y. Thornburgh, 1000. 
Bumside v. Bumside, 867. 

V. Ennis, 346. 
Burns & Smith Lumber Co. y. Doyle, 

Burpee v. Smith, 368. 
Burr v. Mathers, 52, 57. 

v. Mendenhall, 1007. 
Burrill v. West, 573. 
Burritt v. Belfy, 747, 749. 
Burrows v. Cox, 23. 

V. Jemino, 820. 

y. Niblack, 98, 101. 


CRefarencM to Mctlont. || 1 to 

Burson y. Blair» 962, 053. 
Burt V. Casey, 992, 993. 

y. McBaiii, 197. 

y. Railroad Co., 173, 175. 

y. Scranton, 85. 

y. Sternburgh, 504, 657, 787. 

y. Stevens, 211, 771. 
Burtls y. Cook, 953. 
Burton, In re, 760. 

v. Barlow's Estate, 617. 

y. Burton, 510. 

y. Gagnon, 646. 

y. Hazzard, 600. 

y. Huma, 664. 

y. Hynson, 375, 389. 

y. Lawrence, 50. 

y. Perry, 219, 296. 

y. Smith, 428. 

y. Stewart, 970. 

V. Township, 261. 

y. WUey, 375. 
Burtt y. Barnes, 29. 
Burwell y. Jackson, 970. 
Busch y. Jones^ 620. 
Buschlng y. Sunman, 326. 
Buse y. Bartlett, 281. 
Busenbark y. Busenbark, 359. 
Bush, In re, 320a. 

y. Arnold, 938b. 
• y. Bush, 136. 

y. Farris, 406a. 

V. Glover, 173. 

y. Hanson, 279. 

y. Knox, 549. 

y. Merriman, 766. 

y. Monteith, 350. 

V. O'Brien, 367, 691. 

v. Sheldon, 633. 
Bushee v. Surles, 269. 
Bushong v. Taylor, 987. 
Busklrk, Ex parte, 256. 
Bussey v. Dodge, 607. 
Butcher v. Bank, 860, 875. 

V. Taylor, 36. 
Bute V. Brainerd, 770. 
Butler y. Ashworth, 995. 

y. Eaton, 511. 

y. Fayer weather, 22. 

V. Horwitz, 152. 

y. James. 462. 

y. Mitchell, :)11, 347. 

y. Morse, 341. 

V. Owen, 908. 


4M in voL 1; residue in voL 2.] 

Butler y. Railroad Co.. 352. 

y. Soule, 326. 

y. Vineyard Co., 186. 
Butte Butchering Co. v. Clarke, 348, 

Butterfleld v. Smith, 644. 

v. Town of Ontario, 747. 
Butterfield's Appeal, 269. 
Buttrick v. Allen, 826, 828. 
Butts v. Armor's Estate, 16. 

y. Cruttenden, 405, 406. 
Butz y. Muscatine, 985b. 
Byers v. Butterfleld, 33. 

y. Fowler, 285. 413, 416. 
Bynum v. Barefoot, 986. 
Byram y. McDowell, 232. 
Byrket v. State, 737. 
Byrne v. Hoag, 158. 

y. Hudson, 27. 

v. Hume, 643. 

V. Prather. 510, 685. 

y. Railroad Co., 742. 

Cabell y. Given, 407. 

Cackley v. Smith, 680. 

Cadaval v. Collins, 758. 

Caddy v. Barlow, 529. 

Cade v. McFarland, 745. 

Cadmus v. Jackson, 247. 

Cadwallader v. McClay, 322, 361. 

Cadwell v. Dullaghan, 135. 

Cage y. Cassidy, 373. 

Cagger v. Gardiner, 313. 

Cahill y. Lilienthal, 347. 

Cahnmann v. Railroad Co., 740. 

Cahoon y. McCuUock, 770. 

Cairo & St. L. R. Co. v. Holbrook, 136. 

Cake y. Bhd, 1010. 

Cake's Appeal, 447. 

Calderwood v. Brooks, 549. 

Caldwell v. Bryan, 23. 

y. Carrington, 938c. 

y. Carter, 349. 

v. Fifleld, 321. 

y. Harp, 236. 

y. Jacob, 554. 

v. Martin, 996. 

v. Taggart, 585. 

V. Walters, 5o, 293. 
Caledonia Ins. Co. y. Wenar, 866. 

[References to sectiona. §9 1 to 

Calef v. Parsons, 169. 
Caley v. Morgan, 68, 480, 945. 
Calboun v. Adams, 486. 

y. Insurance Co., 814. 

V. Pace, 152. 

▼. Ross, 270. 

V. Terry Porter Co., 118. 
California Beet Sugar Co. v. Porter, 

California Dry Dock Co. ▼. Arm- 
strong, 740. 
California Southern R. Co. v. Rail- 
road Co., 109. 
California & O. Land Co. y. Worden, 

Calkins y. Allerton, 549. 
Call y. Cozart, 481. 
Callahan y. Fahey, 490. 

y. Griswold, 245, 293. 

y. Murrell, 737. 
Callahan's Estate, In re, 3a 
Callan y. Lukens, 79a. 
Callanan y. Bank, 302, 339. 

y. Votruba, 404. 
Callen y. £ailson, 190, 270, 273. 
CalUcott, In re, 257. 
Callis y. Cogbill. 567. 
Calloway y. Byram, 70. 

y. Cooley, 250. 

y. Glenit, 583, 859. 

y. McElroy, 388. 
Calloway's Heirs v. Eubank, 491. 
Calyerly y. Phelp, 585. 
Calyert y. Ash, 315. 

y. Boyill, 816, 817. 

y. Roche, 446. 
Camberford v. Hall, 513. 
Cambridge Valley Nat. Bank y. Lynch, 

Camden y. Plain, 284. 
Came y. Brigham, 200, 583. 
Cameron y. Bennett, 27, 29. 

y. Boyle. 261. 

y. Cameron, COO. 

y. Hintou, 707. 

y. Railroad Co., 114, 703. 

y. Wurtz's Adm'r, 863. 
Cammell y. Sewell, 795, 813, 844. 
Camoran y. Thurmond, 135. 
Camp y. Baker, 493. 
y. Forrest, 650, 059. 
y. GaJn?r. 4J)8. 
y. Phillips, 86, 313. 

CITBD. 1x1 

499 in Tol. 1; retidae in yol. 11 

Camp y. Ward, 372, 393. 

V. Wood, 53. 
Campbell y. Ayres, 556. 

y. Bank, 269. 

V. Booth, 1015. 

V. Brown, 220, 278. 

V. Butts, 625. 

V. Campl>ell, 31a. 

V. Com., 175. 

V. Consalus, 617. 

V. Cross. 657, 658, 790. 

V. Donovan, 83, 354. 

V. Edwards, 376. 

V. Goddard, 75. 

V. Hall, 551, 655. 

V. Hays, 83, 224, 263. 

V. Insurance Co., 904. 

V. Ketcham, 371. 

V. McHarg, 209. 

V. Mayhugh, 761. 

y. Mesier, 127. 

y. Nixon, 661a. 

V. Phelps, 580. 

y. Pope, 1007. 

y. Potts, 703. 

y. Spence, 417, 473, 1007. 

y. Steele, 771. 

y. Strong. 504, 641. 

y. Swasey, 225. 

y. Williamson, 816. 
Campbell Printing Press & Mfg. Co. y. 

Marder, Luse & Co., 263, 393. 
Campbell's Appeal, 496, 957, 999. 
Campbell's Registration, In re, 727. 
Campion v. Friedberg, 948, 988. 
Canady y. Detrick, 593. 
Canal & Banking Co. v. Brown, 580. 
Canal & C. R. Co. v. Railroad Co., 609. 
Candee y. Clark, 776. 

y. Lord, 605. 
Candler v. Pettit, 349. 
Canjolle y. Ferrle, 633. 
Cannon v. Brame, 787. 

y. Harrold, 338. 

y. Hemphill, 39, 109. 

y. McDaniel, 641. 

y. Nelson, 584. 

y. State, 693. 
Cannon River Manufacturers* Ass'n y. 

Rogers, 540. 
Cantrell y. Ford, 950. 
Capehart v. Cunningham, 220. 

V. Etheridge, 391. 

fadi CASKS 

OtMt f e ncM i to Mctlons. §i I to 

Gapell ▼. Moses, 39. 

Capen v. Inhabitants, 157, 30G. 

Oaperton y. Hall, 646. 

T. Schmidt, 504, 655. 
Capital City Dairy Co. v. Pluumier, 

Capital Lumbering Co. y. Learned, 

Capital Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. 

Swan, 335. 
Capllng V. Herman, 849. 
Captain of The Mollie Hamilton v. 

Paschal, 116. 
Carberry v. Railroad Co., 720. 
Carbiener y. Montgomery, 609. 
Card y. Melneke, 110. 
Cardesa y. Humes, 493. 
Carey v. Browne, 338, 346a. 

y. Giles. 707. 

T. Rooseyelt, 536, 540, 561, 970. 

y. Wilcox, 667. 
Carlt y. Williams, 677. 
Carkhuff v. Anderson, 433. 
Carl y. Coal Co., 16. 
Carland v. Custer County, 175. 
Carleton v. Bickford, 227, 289, 835, 
897, 901, 906. 

V. Insurance Co., 270, 279, 906. 

y. Lombard, 624. 
Carley y. Carley, 320. 
Carli y. Rhener, 176. 
Carlin y. Brackett, 708. 

y. Taylor, 906. 
Carlisle y. Godwin, 398. 

y. Howes, 615, 722. 

y. Killebrew, 654. 

y. Wilkinson, 311. 
Carlson y. Carlson, 691. 

y. Phinney, 330. 
Carlton v. Davis, 671. 

y. Patterson, 155. 

y. Young, 483. 
Carmack v. Com., 588. 
Cannichael v. Abrahams, 411. 

v. Governor, 588. 
Cnrmody v. City of Rome, 521. 
Carraony v. Hoober, 6J)3. 
Carnarvon v. Viilebois. 006. 
Carnes y. Crandall, 48:^. 
Caraey v. Village of Marseilles. 378. 
Carolina Inv. Co. v. Kelly, S(*. 
Carolina Nat. Bank v. Ass'u, 301. 
Carolus v. Koch, 384. 


4M in vol. 1; residua In vol. 2.) 

Carondelet Canal Nav. Co. y. City of 

New Orleans, 32. 
Carothers v. Lange, 153, 483. 
Carpenter v. Butler, 958. 

v. Cameron, 635. 

y. Canal Co., 545. 

y. Dexter, 860. 

y. AlcClure, 594. 

y. Pier, 935. 

y. Ritchie, 896, 898, 908. 

v. Sheldon, 138. 

y. Sherfy, 118. 

y. SUlwell, 998. 

V. Strange, 857, 872. 

V. Thornton, 962. 
Cariientier v. Brenham, 141. 

V. City of Oakland, 272, 973. 
Carr v. Bank, 324. 

v. Brick, 514. 

y. Dawes, 343. 

y. Fife, 530. 

y. Miner, 291. 

y. School Dist, 354. 

y. Townsend's Ex'rs, 200, 498. 

y. U. S., 578. 

v. Weld, 1008. 
Carrigan v. Semple, 563. 
Carrlngton v. Holabird, 357, 365, 368. 
Carroll v. Board, 532. 

y. Carroll, 635. 

y. Goldschmidt, 549. 

V. Watkins, 413, 415. 
Carr's Will, In re, 335. 
Carshore v. Huyck, 985. 
Carskadden v. McGhee, 160. 
Carson v. Clark, 693. 

V. Machine Co., 504. 

y. Moore, 491. 

y. Taylor, 265. 
Carstarphen v. Holt, 682. 
Carter v. Adamson, 892. 

v. Bennett, 357, 862. 

v. Caldwell. 31a. 

y. Carriger's Adm'rs, 199, 482a. 

y. Challen. 421. 

y. Christie, 147. 

y. Couch. 613. 

y. Elmore, 114. 

y. Eugles, 641. 

y. Gibson, 242. 

y. Hnuna. 701. 

y. Kaiser, 324. 

V. ^IcBroom, 135. 

[Referencei t* aecttoa*. H I to 4W in toI. 1; reild«« in toI. 2.] 


Carter ▼. Paige, 904. 

▼. Scaggai 663. 

T« Torrance, 301. 
Garter, Bice & Ca t. Howard, 556. 
Carthage Turnpike Co. y. Overman, 

Camth y. Grigsby. 586. 
Caruthers y. Corblu, 022. 

y. Hartafiekl, 302, 377. 

y. WlUlams, 000. 
Canrer y. Adams, 118. 

y. Canrer, 103. 
Caryill y. Garrigues. 021, 734, 785. 
Cary y. Dixon, 100, 191. 

y. State, 170. 
Case y. Bartliolow, 000. 

y. Beauregard, 720. 

y. Bridge Co., 013. 

y. Case, 313. 

y. Hawicins, 069. 

y. Huey, 037. 

y. Ingle, 28, 20. 

y. Mannls, 164. 

y. Plato, 118. 

y. Railroad Co., 720. 

y. Rlbelln, 200. 

y. State, 06. 
Casebeer y. Mowry, 684. 
Case Threshing Machine Ca y. Peder- 

son, 063. 
Casey y. Galli. 531. 

y. McFallB, 663. 

y. People, 273. 
Cashman v. Henry. 102. 
Casoni y. Jerome, 580. 
Cass y. Adams, 1007. 
Cass County y. Johnston, 065b. 
Cassel y. Scott, 367. . 
Cassels y. Vernon, 635. 
Cassidy y. Leltch, 007. 

y. Time-Stamp Co., 373, 374. 
Cassill y. Morrow, 766. 
Castellaw y. Guilmartin. 561. 
Casteiline y. Mundy, 3(M). 
Castle v. Noyes, 540, 570. 655. 
Castledine y. Mundy, 300. 
Castleman y. Templeman, 583. 
Castlio y. Bishop, 347. 
Oaston y. Perry. 755. 
Castriqne v. Behrens. 810. 

y. Imrle, 814, 810, 827, 843. 
Castro y. lilies, 402. 

Caswell y. Caswell, 260. 

y. Comstock, 44. 
Oatawba Mills y. Hood, 734. 
Gates y. Riley, 264. 
Catbcart v. Peck, 100. 
Cathcart*s Appeal, 1007. 
Catlin y. Latsou, 82. 

y. Robinson, 430. 

y. Underbill, 870. 
Catron y. Lafayette County, 962. 
Catterlin v. City of Frankfort, 575. 
Cattlin V. Kemot, 1012. 
Caudle y. Dare, 1008. 
Caughey v. Eleyator Co., 343. 
Caughran y. Gilman, 877, 806^ 000. 
Cauhape y. Parke, 713. 
Caujolle y. Curtiss, 683. 
C. Aultman & Co. y. Wirth, 116e 
Oauthom v. Berry, 138, 155, 106. 

V. King, 207. 
Cavan v. Stewart, 840. 
Cayanaugh y. Buehler, 611. 

y. Peterson, 446. 

y. Railroad Co., 354. 

y. Smith, 278. 
Cave V. City of Houston, 118. 
Cavender v. Guild. 880. 

y. Smith's Heirs, 211, 422. 
Cavln V. Williams, 145. 
Cawley y. Leonard, 301. 
Cayce y. Stoyall, 482, 400. 
Caylus y. Railroad Co., 674. 
Cecil y. Cecil, 584, 033, 635. 

y. Johnson, 650. 
Central Appalachian Co. y. Buchanan, 

Central Bank y. Gibson, 218, 27a 

y. Veasey, 064. 
Central Baptist Church ft Society v. 

Manchester, 540. 
Central Coal & Coke Co. y. Bank, 406, 

406, 462, 475. 
Central Irr. Dist, In re, 282. 
Cantral Nat Bank v. Hazard, 540. 

y. Stevens, 360. 
Central R. Co. v. Brinson, 740. 
Central R. R. & Banking Co. y. Smith, 

Central Trust Co. v. Bridges, 508. 

V. Clark, 616. 

v.- Condon, 583a. 

y. Henuen, 583a. 


IReferencei to sectloni. §§ 1 to 499 in yoI. 1; residue In vol. 2.] 

Central Trust Co. v. McGeorge, 217. 

V. Madden, 48. 

v. Railroad Co., .48. 

y. Season good, 251. 
C. Graham & Sons Co. v. Van Horn, 

Chace v. Vasquez, 44. 
Chadbourn t. Johnston, 325. 
Chaddock v. Barry, 282. 
Chadrou Building &. Loan Ass'n v. 

Hamilton, 445. 
Chaffe V. Morgan, 632. 
Chaffee v. Hooper, 138, 267. 
Chatliu T. Fulkerson, 335. 

V. Kimball's Heirs. 197. 
Chaboon v. Hollenback, 438. 
Chalfant v. Monros, 106. 
Challenor v. Nlles, 482a, 483. 488. 
Challis V. Headley, 326. 
Chamberlain v. Blodgett, 232. 

V. Bradley, 607. 

V. Carlisle, 788. 

V. City of New Orleans, 606. 

V. Faris, 904. 

V. Gaillard, 614. 

V. Godfrey, 588. 

V. Hopper, 661a. 

V. Pierson, 529. 

V. Preble, 567, 705. 

V. Sutherland, 723. 
Chamberlin v. Murphy, 779. 

V. Vance, 152. 
Chambers v. Bridge Manufactory, 288, 

V. Carson, 487. 

V. Clearwatar, 174. 
. V. Denie, 61. 

V. Hodges, 358. 

V. Lapsley, 577. 

V. McDowell, 967. 

V. Xeal, 299. 

V. I*rewitt, 585. 

V. Bobbins, 373. 

V. Upton, 210. 
Chamley v. Dusany, 145. 
Champ V. Kendrick, 23. 
Champion v. Sessions, 179. 
Champlin v. Bakewell, 216. 

V. Railroad Co., 41. 

V. Smith, 713. 

V. Tilley, 209. 
Chandler v. Drew, 1000. 

V. Furbish, 1006. 

Chandler v. Higgins, 1008. 

V. Nash, 282. 
Chandler's Ez'r, Appeal of, 634. 
Chandler & Taylor Co. y. Norwood, 90. 
Chaney v. Bryan, 901. 

V. Ramey, 138. 
Chant V. Reynolds, 560, 577. 
Chapdelaine v. Handy, 346. 
Chapin v. Broder, 118, 411. 

V. Curtis, 707. 

V. McLaren. 60, 68. 

V. Thompson, 52. 58^ 77, 212. 
Chapman, In re, 255. 

V. Armistead, 650. 

y. Blakeman, 1016. 

y. Brewer, 248. 

y. Chapman, 462, 867. 

y. Douglas County, 892. 

y. Hatt, 1011. 

y. Holmes, 567. 

y. Hughes, 611. 

y. Nelson, 483. 

y. Sloan, 975. 

y. State, 182, 532. 

V. Wells, 108. 
Chappel V. Chappel, 63. 
Chappell V. Comins, 36. 

V. Pooling Co., 304a, 326. 
Chapron v. Cassaday. 432, 433. 
Chaquette v. Ortet, 9G4. 
Chard v. Holt, 549. 
Charles v. Haskins, 775, 942, 061. 
Charley y. Kelley, 247. 
Chase y. Christianson, 141. 

y. Curtis, 938c. 

y. Driver, 41. 

y. Giknan, 122, 443. 

y. Jefferson^ 684. 

y. Manhardt, 373, 381. 

y. Miles, 504. 

y. Swain, 504. 

y. Tuckwood, 246, 293. 

y. Walker, 784. 

V. Whitten, 158. 

y. Woodward. 954. 
Chase's Case, 722. 

Chattanooga, R. & C. R. Co. v. Jack- 
son, 080. 
Chatterton y. Young, 190. 
Chauncey y. Wass, 247. 
Chautauqua County Bank T. Risley, 

y. W-hite, 434. 

CBeferences to sections, tt 1 to 

Chavent v. Schefer, 731. 
Cbeairs v. Slaten, 593. 
Cheatham, £x parte, 213. 

V. Morrison, 587. 
Cheek v. Pugh, 211, 219. 
i:heeseman t. Thome, 66L 
Cheever v. Mirrlck, 998. 

V. Wilson, 932. 
Chemical Bank t. Bulkley, 946. 
Chemung Canal Bank v. Judson, 275. 
Cheney v. Cooper, 699. 

V. Cross, 538. 

V. Hovey, 387. 

V. Patton, 538, 790. 

V. Stone, 716. 
(*heraw & 0. R. Go. v. Marshall, 490. 
Cheriot V. Foussat, 818. 
Cherry v. Speight, 922. 

V. York, 657, 786. 
Chesapeake Bank v. Swain, 152. 
Che84ipi»ake, O. & S. W. R. Co. v. 

Dyer Co., 529. 
Chesapeake & O. Canal Co. v. Git- 
tings, 614. 
Chesley v. St. Clair, 581. 
Chesnut v. Marsh, 247. 
Chester t. Apperson, 375. 

V. MUler, 225, 368, 376. 

Y. Plalstow, 99a 
Chester City Presbyterian Church v. 

Gonlin, 682. 
Chesterfield t. Perkins, 524. 
Chew V. Bnimagim, 857, 862. 
Chezam t. Glaypool, 691. 
Chicago T. Bobbins, 575. 
Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Hitchcock 
County, 272. 

V. SchalTer, 743. 

V. Wlngler, 135. 
rhlcago City R. Co. v. Blanchard, 950. 
Chicago Clock Co. v. Tobin, 213. 
Chicago Driving Park v. West, 269. 
Chicago Fire-Proofing Co. v. Bank, 77. 
Chicago Forge & Bolt Co. v. Rose, 

Chlcngo. K. & W. R. Co. v. Black, 

Chicago, M. A St P. R. Co. v. Hoyt, 

Chicago Opera House Co. y. Paquin, 

Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Berg, 



499 In vol. 1; residue In vol. 2.] 

Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Campbell,. 
859, 897. 

V. Depot Co., 506. 

V. Sturm, 859, 889. 
Chicago Tip & T. Co. v. Bank, 50, 591 
Chicago Trust & Sav. Bank y. Kin- 

nare, 57. 
Chicago Waifs' Mission & Training 

School V. Electric Co., 307. 
Chicago & A. Bridge Co. v. Fowler,. 

V. Provision Co., 938. 
Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Clausen, 97^ 

V. Ferry Co., 251, 860, 938c. 

V. Maher, 743. 

V. Pearson, 97. 
Chicago & E. I. R Co. v. Hines, 97.^ 

V. State, 714. 
Chicago & E. R. Co. v. Harshman,. 

V. Kreig, 16. 
Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Andrews, 29. 

V. Packet Co., 567, 568, 574. 
Chicago & S. E. R. Co. v. Higgins, 
963, 967. 

V. Spencer, 240. 

V. Wheeler, 96. 100. 

V. Yawger. 725. 
Chichester v. Cande, 130, 692. 
Chickaming v. Carpenter, 985c» 
Chickering v. Failes, 232. 
Child V. Morgan, 508. 

V. Powder Works, 864. 

V. Whitman, 162. 
Childress v. Smith, 141. 
Childs V. Dlgby, 801. 

Y. Hayman, 793. 

Y. Lanterman, 196b 

Y. ^IcChesney, 109. 

Y. ^rfg. Co., 7. 

Y. Railroad Co., 310. 
Chiles V. Champenols, 717. 
Chilton Y. Town of Gratton, 583a. 
China Mut. Ins. Co. y. Force, 576, 796. 
Chinn y. Mitchell, 379. 
Chipman y. Emrick, 149. 

Y. Fowle, 1000. 

Y. Martin, 746. 

Y. Montgomery, 284, 633. 
Chirac v. Reinecker, 600, 606, 652. 
Chlsholm Y. State, 333. 
Chisolm Y. Chittenden, 1008. 
Chlssom V. Barbour, 126, 



[References to Bectioni. 9§ 1 to 499 in yoI. 1; residue in toI. 2.1 

Giiittenden v. Society, 44. 
Ghoat V. Bennett, 52. 
Clioate V. People, 487. 
Cboppin y. Bank, 660. 
Chouteau v. Gibson, 527, 651. 

V. Rice, 32, 225. 
Chrisman v. Dlvinla, 261. 
Clirismau*9 A(lm*x y. Harman, 624, 

Christal v. Kelly, 225. 
Christensen's Estate, In re, 218. 
Christian, Ex parte, 367. 

V. O'Neal, 83, 224. 

V. Yarborough, 16. 
Christiansen, In re, 513. 

V. Mendham, 671. 
Christian & Craft Grocery Co. v. Cole- 
man, 829, 835, 849. 
Christie v. Bishop, 558, 956. 

V. Insurance Co., 115, 509. 

V. Secretan, 817. 
Christmas v. Russell, 290, 857, 859, 

8S4, 892, 917. 918, 973. 
Christner v. Hochstetler, 55. 
Christoflferson v. Pfennig, 269, 281. 
Christy v. Sherman, 57, 376. 

V. Waterworks, 660. 
Chrysler v. Renois, 152. 
Chudleigh v. Railroad Co., 557. 
Church V. Chapin, 605, 615. 

r. Cole. 958. 

V. Grossman, 114. 

V. Hubbart. 849. 

V. Lacy, 341. 

V. Leavenworth, 504, 623. 
Churchill V. Holt, 574. 

V. Morse, 420. 

V. Warren, 1008. 
Churchman y. Martin, 152. 
Cincinnati. S. & C. R. Co. y. Sloan, 32. 

y. Village of Belle Centre. 274. 
Cincinnati, U. & F. W. R. Go. v. 

Wynne. 829. 
Cist y. Zeigler, 729. 
Citizens' Bank y. Brlgham, 609. 

V. Brooks, 127. 

y. Miller, 538. 
Citizens' Loan Ass'n y. Martin, 408. 
Citizens' Trust & Surety Co. y. Good- 
child, 309. 
City and County of San Francisco y. 
Burr, 213. 

y. Le Roy, G18, 004, 

City Bank of New Orleans y. Walden, 

City Block Dhrectory Co. y. App, 340. 
City Building & Loan Aas'n y. Nickey, 

City Council of Anderson y. Fowler, 

City Ins. Co. y. Bank, 872. 
City Nat. Bank y. Swink, 483. 493. 
City of Aurora y. West 683. 790. 
City of Bath y. Palmer, 20. 
City of Boston y. Robbing, 250. 

y. Worthingtou, 574, 575. 
City of Broken Bow y. Waterworks 

Co., 366. 381. 
City of Burrton y. Bank, 982. 
City of Cairo y. Eyerett, 985c. 
City of California v. Harlan, 160. 
City of Carlyle y. Power Co., 538. 
City of Cincinnati y. Emerson, 754. 

y. Hafer, 468. 

y. Hosea, 609. 
City of Cohoes y. Morrison, 57ri. 
City of Dayenport y. Railroad Co., 750. 
City of Delphi y. Startzman, 274. 
City of Detroit y. Ellis, 938. 

y. Railroad Co., 232. 
City of Duluth v. Dibblee, 313. 
City of East St. Louis y. Canty, 968, 

y. U. S., 985a. 
City of Elkhart y. Slmonton, 533. 
City of Fostoria y. Fox. 218. 
City of Galena y. Amy, 985b, 985f. 
City of Goliad y. Welsiger, 358. 
City of Guthrie y. Lumber Co., 89. 
City of Hammond y. Eyans. 964, 966. 
City of Helena y. U. S.. 246. 253a. 
City of Houston y. Emery, 985d. 
City of Johnstown y. Wade. 40. 
City of Lancaster v. Frescoln. 754. 
City of La Porte y. Organ, 115, 641. 

City of Little Rock v. Bullock, 306. 
City of Los Angeles y. Baldwin, 743. 

y. Melius, 708, 709. 
City of Louisville y. Muldoon. 107. 
City of Lowell y. Parker, 295, 588. 
City of New Orleans y. Bank. 516, 
534a, 582, 610, 617, 750. 

y. Gaiithreaux, 179. 

y. Peake. 32. 

V. Warner, 87, 583a. 

IRflferencM to secUons. IS l to 

City of New Orleans v. Whitney, 200, 

City of Newport v. Com., 750. 
City of New York v. Brady, 332, 574, 

T. CoDStantine, 735. 

V. Smith, 325, 354. 
City of North Muskegon v. Clark, 709, 

718, 939a. 
City of Oakland v. Water-Front Co., 

City of f>gden v. Irrigation Co., 32. 
City of Olney v. Harvey, 318, 985a. 
City of Oskaloosa v. Piukerton, 575. 
City of I'ana v. Humphreys, 86. 
City of Parsons v. Lindsay, 182. 
City of Peterson v. Baker, 506. 
City of Philadelphia v. Dobson, 290. 

▼. Railroad Co., 617. 

T. Simon. 1016. 

V. fc^tewart, 774. 

T. Weaver, 351. 
City of Portland v. Kicliardson, 575. 
City of Providence v. Adams, 657. 
City of Roodhouse v. Christian, 777. 
City of St. Joseph v. Railroad Co., 575. 
City of St. Louis v. Bissell, 567. 

T. Gleason, 211. 

T. Lang, 697. 

V. Schuienburg & Boeekler, 650. 
City of Sherman v. Langham, 9, 253a. 
City of Spokane Falls v. Curry, 354. 
City of Syracuse v. Reed, 183. 
City of Texarkana v. Rodgers, 23. 
City of Troy v. Railroad Co., 573. 
City of Washington v. Calhoun, 96. 
City of Wetumpka v. Wharf Co., 518. 
City Savings Bank v. Whittle, 145. 
Ciaason's Appeal, 450, 451. 
Clabby v. Sheldon, 32. 
Claflln V. Butterly, 208. 

V. l>od8ou, 63. 

V. Dunne, 200, 203. 

V. Fletcher, 539. 

V. Mcr>ermott, 862, 088b. 
Claflin & Kimball v. Electric Co., 734. 
Claggett V. Simes, 1, 108, 513, 692. 
Claghom*8 Estate, In re, 54. 
Clapp V. Bromagham, 660. 

V. Ely, 72. 

V. Graves, 223. 

V. McCabe, 242. 

V. Thomas. 699. 

ciTBD. Ixvii 

499 in vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Clapp*s Ex'rs v. Branch, 505, 872. 
Clare v. Clare, 177. 

V. Raih*oad Co., 740. 
Clarlday v. Reed, 509. 
Ciark v. Baiiey, 293. 

v. Bank, 687. 

V. Barnard, 149. 

V. Bettelhelm, 560, 651. 

V. Blair, 624. 

V. Boyreau, 652. 

V. Bryau. 261, 270, 273, 282. 

V. Butler, 447. 

V. Butts, 446. 

V. Carrington, 574. 

V. Cliarles, 348. 

v. Child, 882. 

V. Clark, 155, 183, 926. 

V. demeut, 992. 

V. Com., 175. 

V. Compton, 87. 

V. Digges, 163. 951. 

V. Douglass. 291, 294. 

V. Duke, 451. 

V. Dunnam, 47. 

V. Dyer, 742. 

V. Ewing, 339. 

V. Finnell, 239. 

V. Fitch. 32. 

V. Flannery, 585. 

V. Gallaher, 142. 

V. Goodwin, 058, 978. 

V. Irvin, 529. 

V. Jones, 734. 

V. Kern, 247. 

V. Kingsland, 941. 

V. Lamb, 135, 165. 

V. Lanier, 743. 

V. Lary. 154. 

V. Lee, 378. 

V. Little, 972. 

V. Lyon, 341. 

V. McComman, 286. 

V. Mattress Co., 720. 

V. Moss, 945. 

V. yiunroe, 447. 

V. Newman's Adm'x, 589. 

V. Nordholt, 7JK). 

V. Norman, 591. 

V. Ogilvie, 916. 

V. Ovharzabai. 324. 

v. Parsons, 934. 

V. People, 181. 

V. Perdue, 577. 

Ixviii CASES 

[Referencea to aections. H 1 to 

Clark V. Perry, 313. 

V. Railroad Co.. 950. 

V. Raymond, 32. 

V. Rowling, 977. 

V. Sayers, 381. 

V. Story, 1000. 

V. Thompson, 194. 

V. Village of North Muskegon, 29. 

V. Whitaker, 103. 

V. Willet, 963. 

V. Withers, 1007. 

V. Wolf, 584. 

V. Young, C9t5, 714. 
Clarke, Appeal of, 536, 872. 

Ex parte, 257. 

V. Clarke, 872. 

V. Dunham, 205. 

V. Hogeman, 957. 

V. Perry, 644. 

V. Railroad Co., 308. 

V. Witram, 354. 

V. Yorke, 742. 
Clark's Adm'r v. Stroud, 680. 
Clark's Cove Guano Co. v. Steed, 304a. 
Clarkson v. Beardsley, 958. 

V. Manson, 144. 
Clary v. Brick Co., 98. 
Clawson v. Eichbaum, 450, 451. 
Claxton V. Swift, 774. 
Clay V. Clay, 892. 

V. DeskJus, 938c. 

V. Fry, 379, 389. 

V. Ilildebrand, 123, 315. 

V. Hoysradt, 989. 
Clay County v. McAleer. 985f. 
Clayton v. Gresham, 640. 

V. West, 600. 
Cleaton v. Chambllss, 787. 
Cleavenger v. Felton, 420. 
Cleaves v. Lord, 857, 8(M, 908, 
Clegg V. Fithian, 326. 
Cleiman v. Murphy, 996. 
(^Iclnnd V. Trust Co.. 335. 
Clemens V. Murphy, 623. 
Clement v. Field, 763. 
Clements v. BeiTy, 28. 

V. Collins, 571. 

V. Davis. 606. 

V. Gerow, 63. 
Clemmer v. Cooper, 859. 
Clemons v. demons' Estate, 971. 

v. Heelan, 183. 
Clester v. Gibson, 39. 


499 in vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Cleveland y. Cbambliss, 599. 

V. City of Bangor, 777. 

y. Heidenheimer, 539. 

y. McCanna, 1000. 

y. Rogers, 966. 

y. Shannon, 446. 

y. Spencer, 543, 600. 
aeveland, C, C. & St. L. R. Co. y. 
Jenkins, 97. 

y. Nuttall, 742, 743. 
Cleveland Co-Op. Stove Co. y. Grimes, 

140. ^ 

Cleveland I^eader Printing Co. v. 

Green, 132. 
Clews V. Lee County, 253a, 985b. 
Click V. Gillespie, 375. 
Clifford v. Gruelle. 340a. 
Clifton v. Livor, 388. 
Clinch Valley Coal Co. y. Tonkin, 906. 
Clink V. Thurston, 784. 
Clinton V. City of PorUand, 247. 
Clinton Bank v. Hart, 770, 774, 775. 
Clippinger v. Miller, 492. 
Clodfelter y. Hulett, 683. 
Clopton v. Carloss, 367. 

v^ Herring, 24. 
Close v. Close. 411. 

y. Gillespey, 156. 

y. Hancock, 79a. 
Cloud v. Inhabitants, 81. 

V. Wiley, 510, 685. 
Clough v. Brown, 299. 
Clowes y. Dickenson, 440. 
Cluff V. Insurance Co., 529. 
Clune V. Qultzow, 81. 
Clute y. Emmerich, 213, 406. 

v. Potter, 378. 
Coad y. Cowhick, 443. 
Coates V. Blush, 320a. 

v. Roberts, 593, 597. 
Coats V. Barrett, 115, 144. 
Coats worth v. Ray, 144. 
Cobb y. Arnold, 062. 

v. Fogg, 618. 

V. Gamer, 250. 
Cobbey v. Wright. 376. 
Coburn v. Currens, 593. 

V. Palmer, 978, 1012. 
Cochran v. Couper, 722. 

V. Eldridge, 350, 356. 

V. Loring, 245. 

V. Miller, 44. 

V. Thomas, 272. 

[References to sectlom. SS 1 to 

Cochrane v. Pnrker, 205, 513. 
Cocke V. Jenner, 778. 
CockerUl y. Stafford, 620. 
Cocke's Adm'r v. GUpin, 42, 47. 
Cockey v. Milne's Lessee, 444, eOO. 
Cockley v. Rehr, 282. 
C^udde T. Mahiat, 51& 
Codding, In re, 431. 

V. Wood, 497. 
Coddrington v. Webb, 372. 
Codwise t. Field, 987. 

Y. Gelston, 423. 
Cody V. Cody, 290. 
T. Hough, 246. 
Cue, In re, 37. 
V. Aiken, 370. 
V. Erb, 122. 
T. llallam. 449. 
V. Hamilton, 206. 
T. Bitter, 585. 
Coffee V. Ball, 378. 
T. Hayues, 187. 
V. Neely, 916. 
T. Tevis, 995. 
Coffey V. Carter, 345a. 
V. Coal Co.. 329. 
V. U. S., 529. 
Coffin T. Bell, 200. 
T. Cottle, 174. 
T. Freeman, 260. 
V. Heath, 197. 
V. Hill, 151. 
▼. Knott, 707. 

T. McCullough*s Adm'r, 367, 641. 
Coffinberry v. Horrill, 177. 
Coffman t. Brown, 144, 700. 
Coger T. Coger, 220. 
Ooggtns V. Balwlnkle, 745. 
C6h T. Bright, 119. 
Cobee t. Baer, 265. 
Coben t. Burgess, 70. 
T. Camp, 1016. 
T. Dubose, 367. 
Colt T. Beard, 703. 

T. Haven. 270, 271, 278, 900, 901. 
T. Tracy, 604. 
Coltbe T. Crane, 44. 
Colbum T. Pomeroy, 567. 

V. Woodworth, 681. 
Colby Y. Parker, 680. 
Colcben y. NInde, 97. 
Colclongh Y. Hhodus, 976. 
Coldinn y. Shoe Co., 421. 


499 in Yol. 1; residue in vol. 2.1 

Cole V. Adams, 583. 

V. Brewer, 957. 

Y. Butler, 224, 263. 

V. Conolly, 513. 

Y. Cunningham, 862, 897. 

Y. FaYorite, 549, 729. 

V. Fllteraft, 865. 

Y. Grigsby, 81. 

Y. Hundley, 383. 

Y. Mitchell, 958. 

Y. Robertson, 1009. 
Coleman y. Dalton, 707. 

Y. Davis, 549. 

Y. EXiwards, 491. 

Y. Floyd, 90, 328. 

Y. Henderson, 182. 

Y. McAnulty, 200, ai6. 

Y. McKnlght, 270. 

V. McMurdo, 562. 

Y. Reel, 117. 

Y. Waters, 53, 868. 
Coleman's Appeal, 230, 628. 
Colenburg y. Venter, 490. 
Coler Y. Com'rs, 583a. 
Coles Y. Carter, 785. 
Colhoun Y. Snider, 432. 
Collais Y. McLeod, 981. 
CoUard y. Railroad Co., 779. 
College Street, In re, 307. 
Collier Y. Cunningham, 732, 744. 

Y. Easton, 378. 

Y. ^itzpatrlck, 340a. 

Y. Jenks, 16. 
CoUlDgwood Y. Carson, 482a. 

Y. Irwhi, 667, 671. 
Collins Y. Baker, 669. 

Y. Bennett, 729, 764. 

Y. Brook, 986. 

Y. Butler, 362. 

Y. Freas, 350. 

Y. Goldsmith, 649, 665. 

Y. Hydron, 636, 586. 

Y. Hyslop, 116. 

Y. Jennings, 509. 

Y. Kammann, 286. 

Y. Knight, 199, 201, 211. 

Y. Lee, 389. 

Y. Lemasters, 770. 

Y. Lofftus, 586. 

Y. Mitchell, 200. 

V. Prentice, 127, 128. 

Y. Scott, 369. 
Colman y. Watson, 169. 


[References to sectionB. SS 1 to 499 in yol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Colorado Central Consolidated Mln. 

Co. V. Tnrck, 142. 
Colorado Coal & Iron Co. v. U. S., 530. 
Colorado Eastern 11. Co. v. Railroad 

Co., 21, 27. 
Colquitt V. Bonner, 1000, 1004. 
Colson V. Kennedy, 458. 
Colson'8 Ex'rs v. \Vade*s Ex*rs, 199. 
Colt V. Colt, 2G5, 536. 

V. Du Bois, 420, 432, 441. 
Colton V. Onderdonk, 536. 

V. Koss, 141. 

V. Rupert, 232. 

V. Smith, 660. 
Colton Land & Water Co. v. Swartz, 

Columb V. Mfg. Co., 731. 
Columbia Real Estate Co., In re, 248, 

Columbus Mut Life Ass*n v. Plum- 

mer, 347. 
Colusa Co. V. De Jamett, 532. 
Colvln V. Reed, 928. 
Cohvell V. Bleakley, 616. 

V. Rockwell, 493. 

V. Wehrly, 319. 
Colyer v. Langford's Adm*r, 386. 
Combs V. Bentley, 346a. 

V. Breathitt County, 89. 

V. Oil Co., 376, 393. 
Comegys v. Vasse, 530, 943. 
Commercial Assurance Co. v.» Insur- 
ance Co., 573. 
Commercial Bank v. Banking Co., 415. 

V. Kendall, 490. 

V. Sherwood. 511. 

V. Yazoo Co., 459. 
Commercial Union Assur. Co. v. Ever- 

hart's Adm'r, 90. 
Commissioners of Brown County v. 

Butt 574. • 
Commissioners of Lake County y. 

Piatt, 261. 
Commonwealth v. Adkins, 407. 

V. Baldwin, 461. 

V. Blatt, 32. 

V. Blood, 875, 924. 

V. Bollch, 901. 

V. Burnett, 950, 953. 

V. Cochran, 536. 

V. Com'rs, 216. 

V. Comrey, 508. 

V. Ebert, 92Z 

Commonwealth t. Feldman, 529. 

V. Gleim, 468. 

V. Goddard, 707. 

V. Gracey, 644. 

y. Green, 856, 857. 

▼. Horton, 529. 

V. Hultz, 167. 

v. Keeper of Jail, 255. 

V. Kirkbride, 894. 

V. Krause, 86. 

V. McCleary, 28. 

V. Mateer, 491. 

V. Order of Solon, 613. 

V. Patterson, 644. 

V. Pease, 985a. 

V. Rhodes, 590. 

V. Smith, 589. 

V. Steacy, 246. 
^ V. Sutherland, 617. 
Commonwealth Mut. Fire Ins. Co. t. 

Hayden, 857. 
Compton Y. Jesup, 545, 938c. 
Comstock, In re, 298. 

V. Clemens, 377. 

V. Crawford, 250, 287. 

V. Davis, 13. 

v. Holbrook, 482a, 487. 
Conable v. Bucklln, 1000. 
Conant v. Jones, 541, 613. 

V. Van Schaick, 583. 
Conard v. Insurance Co., 400, 415, 448. 
Condon v. Railroad Co., 721. 
Cone V. Cotton, 270. 

V. Hooper, 857. 912. 
Coney v. Harney, 548. 
Conger v. Chllcote, 539. 
Conkliu V. Furman, 583. 

V. Railroad Co., 153. 
Conkling v. Ridgely, 179. 
Conley v. Buck, 462. 

V. Chapman, 913. 
Conlin V. Iron Co., 141. 
Conn V. Bernheimer, 715. 
Connay v. Halstead, 74. 
Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. 
Jones, 674. 

V. Smith, 707. 
Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Bayles, 985. 
Connell v. Brumback, 23. 

V. Galllgher, 325, 600. 

V. Stelson, 362, 377. 
Connelly v. Arnold, ,^>26. 

V. Connelly, 822. 

[References to Mctlona. H 1 to 

t'oiiner y. Noff, 483. 

y. Pennington, 975. 
Connltt y. Reformed Gburcb, 523. 
Connolly y. Connolly, 633. 

y. Edgerton, 185. 
<\mnoly y. Railroad, 93. 
Connor y. Corson, 707. 
Conn*8 Liessee y. Whiteside, 321. 
Conord y. Runnels, 33. 
Conrad y. Baldwin, 277. 

y. Eyerlcb, 407. 
Consolidated Canal Co. y. Peters, 100. 
ConsoUdated Coal Co. y. Oeltjen, 327. 
Consolidated Hand-Method Lasting 

Mach. Co. y. Bradley, 509, 574. 
Consolidated Roller MUl Co. y. Smith 

Co., 7513. 
Consolidatc'd Wyoming Gold Min. Co. 

V. Mining Co., 938c, 93Ua. 
Contee y. Cooke, 357. 
Conyerse y. Colton, 621. 
y. I>airy Co.. 398. 

y. Davis, 541. 

v. I^ngshaw, 157. 

V. Sickles, 717. 
Conway y. Ellison, 889, 916. 

y. Halstead, 74. 

y. Town of Jefferson, 101. 
Conwell y. Hartsell, 006. 
Coogan, In re, 297. 
Cook y. Allen, 546, 661. 

V. Brown, 909. 

V. Cattle Co., 754. 

V. Cook. 928. 932. 

y. Cooi)er, 74. 

y. Darling, 273. 

y. Dillon, 4^4. 

V. Doremus, 719. 

V. Field, 5f«. 785. 

y. Jones, 493. 

y. Lasher, 549. 

y. Litchfield, 865. 

y. Mci'ahill. 953. 

V. Moore, 985. 

y. Mo8«ley, 768. 

y. Parham. 551. 

y. Phillips, ;M7. 

y. Rice, 510. 

y. Rogers, 198. 

y. Thomhill, 857. 

y. Thurston, 958. 

y. Town of Monis, 293, 600. 

y. Vimont. 747, 785. 

CITED. Ixxi 

499 in YOl. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Cook y. Whipple, 65, 71. 

y. Wood, 154, 164, 306. 
Cooke y. Avery, 406. 

v. Burnham, 358. 

y. Cook, 747. 

y. Crawford, 13. 

y. Sholl, 529, 800. 

y. Smith, 1002. 
Cooksey y. Railroad Co., 674. 
Cook's Heirs v. Bay, 41, 42. 
Coolbaugh v. Roemer, 68, 438. 
Cooley y. Beach Co., 89, 305. 

y. Brayton, 787. 

y. Gregory, 332. 

y. Land & Imp. Co.'s Assignee, 

y. Smith, 262. 
Coombs V. Jordan, 308, 420, 439, 445. 
Coon V. Jones, 376, 377. 
Cooper y. Borough of Kingston, 352. 

y. City of Brooklyn, 747. 

V. Cooper, 122, 153. 

V. Cutshall, 439. 

V. Dlsbrow, 326. 

y. Duncan, 290, 326, 335, 644. 

y. Hayes, 872. 

y. Hunchin, 189. 

y. Insurance Co., 177. 

y. Mayfield, 273. 

y. Metzger, 1. 

V. Newell, JK». 

y. Reynolds, 216, 227, 229, 240, 
801, 004, 906. 

y. Sunderland, 270, 274, 279, 282, 

y. Tyler, 373. 
Co-operative Savings & I>oan Ass*n v. 

Mcintosh, 281. 
Coos Bay, H. & E. R. & Nay. Co. v. 

Endlcott, 335. 
Cope V. Humphreys, 992. 
Copenhaver, In re. 985b, 985e. 

V. Stewart, 938. 
Copeland v. Todd, 958. 
Cope's Appeal, 472. 
Copin v. Adamsou, 8.*]6. 
Corbet v. Barnes, 778. 

v. Evans, 749. 
Corbett, In re, 256. 

V. Wood, 5;i0. 
Corbin v. Adams, 52(). 

y. Land Co., 360. 

y. Westcott, 590. 


CReferences to sections. 8§ 1 to 

CJorbltt V. Timmerman, 272. 
Oorbley v. Wilson, 529, 606. 
Corby V. Taylor, 744. 
Corcoran v. Canal Oo., 599. 

V. Chesapeake Co., 536. 

V. Doll, 984. 
Cordler v. Schloss, 63, 68. 
Cordray v. City of Galveston, 73. 
0>rey v. Gale, 758. 

V. Morrill, 245. 

V. Elpley, 248, 320a. 

V. White, 995. 
Corley v. Anderson, 284. 

V. McKeag, 367. 

V. Renz, 453. 
Cornelius v. Burford, 1008. 

V. Thomas, 388. 
Cornell v. Bai'nes, 9G5, 96a 

V. Green, 536. 

V. Hartley, 723. 
Cornells v. Shannon, 939c. 
<:ornell University v. Hotel Co., 86. 

V. Parkinson, 153. 
Corprew v. Corprew, 638a. 
Corrigan v. Bell, 190. 
Corry v. Lackey, 803. 
Cors v. Tompkins, 32. 
Corse V. Chapman, 643. 
Cortez V. Court, 482. 
Corthell v. Mead, 107. 
Corwin V. Bensley, 316. 
Corwin*s Lessee v. Benham, 414. 
Corwith V. Bank, 718. 
Corwlthe v. Griffing, 368. 
Coryell, Matter of, 259. 
Cosby V. Powers, 271. 
Cosgrove v. Butler, 326. 

V. U. S.. 317. 
Coskery v. Wood, 89(>. 
Cossitt V. Biscoe, 641. 
Coster V. Griswold, 360. 
Coster's Ex'rs v. Bank, 445. 
Cottam V. Currie, 32. 
Gotten V. McGehee, 130, 306. 
Cotterell v. Koon, 291. 
Cottingham v. Weeks, 529. 
Cottle, In re, 174. 

V. Cole, 973. 
Cotton V. Bank, 461. 

V. Jones, 659. 
Cottrell V. Pierson, 448. 
Cottreirs Appeal, 996. 
Cotzhausen v. Kerting, 372. 


499 in vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Couch V. Heffron, 307. 
Ooughanour v. Bloodgood, 1. 
Coughran v. Gilman, 896, 939b. 

V. Gutcheus, 135, 154, 105 
CougiU V. Insurance Co., 867 
Coulter V. Davis, 617, 631. 

V. Lumpkin, 407. 
Council V. Willis, 330. 
Council Bluffs L. & T. Co. v. Jennings, 

Council Bluffs Sav. Bank v. Griswold, 

Oountz V. Markling, 56. 
Courier-Journal Job Printing Co. v. 

Insurance Co., 609. 
Oourson v. Walker, 447. 
Court, In re, 320a. 
Courtnay v. Parker, 438. 
Court of Probate v. Sprague. 98. 
Coutts V. Walker, 437, 441. 
Covenant Mut Life Ins. Co. v. Clov- 
er, 211. 
Cover V. Black, 400. 
Covert V. City of Brooklyn, 742. 
Covey V. Wheeler, 317. 
Covhigton V. bhamblin, 368, 633. 

V. Ingram, 246. 
Covington & C. Bridge Co. v. Sargent, 

729, 754. 
Covington & G. Elevated Railroad & 
Transfer & Bridge Co. v. Klelmeler, 
Cowan V. Anderson, 197. 

V. Braidwood, 838. 

V. Price, 378. 

V. Wheeler, 518. 
Cowardin v. Anderson, 447. 
Cowin V. Toole, 368. 
Cowles V. Cowles, 84, 89, 340. 

V. Hayes, 311, 326, 334. 
Cowley V. Railroad Co., 362. 
Cox V. Allen, 691. 

V. Armstrong, 340a. 

V. Barnes, 917. 

V, Brackett, 306. 

V. Capron, 86. 

V. Cox, 320, 929, 9:33. 

V. Davis, 261. 

V. Hartranft, 671. 

V. Jagger, 667. 

V. Jerman, 371. 

V. Mitchell, 847. 

V. Moss, 103. 

IReferencM to sections. SS 1 to 499 In toL 1; residue in toI. 2.] 


Cox ▼. Palmer, $>I0, 956w 

Y. Bailroad Ck>., 886. 

T. Ratdiffe, Id. 

Y. Reed, 1009. 

Y. Smith, 996. 

V. Story, 194, 197. 

▼. Strode, 567, 571. 

Y. Thomas' Adm'x, 606. 

▼. Von Ahlefeldt, 861. 
Cox*8 Adm'rs y. Uill, 599. 
Coy, Ex parte, 259. 

Y. Lyons City, 985f. 
Coyle Y. Ward, 751. 
Coyne t. Souther, 113. 
Crabb y. Larkin, 555. 
Crabtree y. Green, 526. 

Y. WeUea, 714, 764. 
Craddock v. Croghan, 1. 

Y. Tomer's Adm'x, 589. 
Craft Y. Merrill, 991. 995. 
Crafts Y. Dexter, 376. 377. 
Cragin y. Carleton, 008. 
Craiff Y. Alcorn, 110. 

Y. Brown, 878. 

▼. Glass, 50. 

Y. Herring, 587. 

Y. InYestment Co., 340. 

Y. Major, 340. 

Y. Smith, 354. 

Y. Ward, 550. 

Y. Watson, 656. 

Y. Wroth, 326. 
Craighead y. Dalton, 666. 

Y. Wilson, 44. 
Craine y. Bdwards, 636. 
Crake y. Crake, 967. 
Cralle y. Cralle, 154. 
Cramer y. Mfg. Co., 540. 

Y. Moore, 518, 720. 
Crandall, Ex parte, 258. 

Y. Bacon, 180, 361, 377. 

Y. Gallup, 561, 612, 790. 
Crane y. Barry, 318. 

Y. Crane, 86, 156, 875. 

Y. French, 57, 211. 

Y. Knauf, 16. 

Y. O'Connor, 429. 

V. Penny. 400. 

Y. Richardson, 472. 
Crank y. Flowers, 211, 271, 368. 
Cranor y. School Dist, 980. 
Crapo Y. Township, 530. 
CraYen y. Railroad Co., 319. 

CraYens y. Duncan, 945. 

Y. Jameson, 607. 
Craver y. Christian, 703. 
Crawford, In re, 977. 

Y. Bank, 1009. 

Y. Bergen, 529. 

Y. Cheney, 299. 

Y. Howard, 282. 

Y. McDonald, 250, 252. 

Y. Pyle, 592. 

Y. Simonton's Ex'rs, 754, 857, 889, 
971, 981. 

Y. Summers, 099. 

Y. Thomson, 206. 

Y. Wilcox, 213. 

Y. Word, 68a 
Crawford's Adm'r y. Glass' Bx'rs, 700. 
Crawford's Ex'rs y. Ellison, 975. 
Crawley v. Isaacs, 840. 
Cray v. Wright, 600. 
Creager y. Walker, 687. 
Creath v. Sims, 379. 

V. Smith, 197. 
Crebbin v. Bryce, 620. 
Crecelius v. Bierman, 954. 
Credit Foncier of America v. Rogers. 

Credits Conunutation Co. y. XJ. S., 35. 
Creed y. Scruggs, 394. 
Creigh v. Hedrick, 120. 
Creighton y. Keith, 685. 

V. Leeds, 400. 

V. Murphy, 857. 
Crenshaw v. Julian, 55. 
Crescent Brewing Co. y. Gullins, 321. 
Crescent Canal Co. y. Montgomery, 
' 77, 347. 

Crescent City LiYe-Stock Landing & 
Slaughter-House Co. y. Butchers* 
Union, 938. 
Cressey y. Kimmel, 555. 
Cresswell y. White, 343, 349. 
Creswell y. Slack, 963. 
Orews Y. Cleghorn, 703, 721. 

Y. Lackland, 208. 
Crim Y. England, 589. 

V. Haiidley. 375, 383, 388. 

Y. Kessing, 109. 
Crippen y. Dexter, 633. 
Crisman y. Beasley, 384. 
Critchfleld Y. Porter, 325, 362, 374. 
Critten v. Vredenburgh, 63. 
Crittenden, Ex parte, 44. 



[References to sections. H 1 to 

CroasdeU y. Tallant, 210. 
Crocker v. Allen, 362, 365. 

V. Balch, 279. 

V. Clements' Adm'r, 983. 
Crockett v. Doriot, 191. 

V. Drew, 193. 

y. Lasbbrook, 650, 652b 

V. Parkison, 280. 

V. Routon, 726. 
Croft V. Steele, 620, 621. 
Crofut V. Aldrich, 69. 
Crogban v. Livingston, 661. 
Cromer v. Boinest, 176. 
Crompton & Knowles Loom Works v. 

Brown, 750. 
Cromwell v. Sac Co., 506, 509. 610. 

614, 673, 697, 731, 750, 751, 754. 
Crook V. Hamlin, 326. 

V. Tull, 982. 
Croom V. Winston, 214. 
Croop V. Dodson, 349. 
Cropper's Case, 256. 
Cropsey v. Crandall, 413, 415. 
Crosby v. Baker, 716. 

V. Jeroloman, 770. 

V. Lang, 293. 

V. Wood, 1017. 
Crosley v. Calboon. 633. 

V. Hutton, 203. 
Cross V. Armstrong, 792, 903. 

V. Birch, o47. 

V. Moffat, Ola, 69. 

V. Zane, 1010. 
Crossman v. Davis, 706. 
Crotbers v. Rcss' Distributees, 306. 
Crouch V. Crouch, 320. 

V. Grldley, 943. 

V. Ha nee, 99. 
Croudson v. Leonard, 797, 814, 815. 
Crouse v. Derbyshire, 50. 

V. Holman, 747. 

v. Johnson, 67. 

V. Murphy. 406. 

V. Reichert, 83. 
Crouse's Appeal, 438. 
Crow V. Mortgage Co., 326. 
Crown Coal & Tow Co. v. Mining Co., 

Cruger v. Douglas, 44. 

V. Sullivan, 981. 
Cruikshank v. Cruikshank, 297. 

V. Gardner, 211. 

V. Insurance Co., 16. 


499 in vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Crum V. Rea, 790. 

Crumlish's Adm'r v. Improvement Co.» 

v. Railroad Co., 786. 
Criunpton v. State, 707. 
Cruse V. Cunningham, 345. 
Crutcher v. Com., 169. 
Crutchfleld v. Robins, 987. 

V. State, 513. 
Cryer v. Andrews, 646. 
Cucullu V. Insurance Co., 814, 815, 821. 
Culbreth v. Smith, 153. 
Cullum V. Casey, 376. 
Culver V. Brlnkerhoff, 324, 348. 

V. Leovy, 179. 

V. Rogers, 411. 
Cumberland Coal & Iron Co. v. Jef- 
fries, 522. 
Cumberland Co. v. Boyd, 250. 
Cumming v. Eden's Devisees & Terre- 

Tenants, 487. 
Cummings v. Banks, 828, 829. 

V. Colgrove, 629. 

V. Cummings, 633. 

V. Harrison, 567, 569. 

V. O'Brien, 896. 

V. Powell, 530. 

V. Ross, 326. 
Cummings' Api)eal, 431. 
Cummins v. White, 369. 
Cummin's Appeal, 1008. 
Cundlff V. Trimble, 958. 
Cunningham v. Ashley, 560. 

V. Brown, 296. 

V. Butler, 862. 

V. City of Cleveland, 719. 

V. Dixon, 236. 

V. Foster, 628. 

V. Harris, 549. 

V. Hatch, 354. 

V. Holt, 510, 685. 

V. Hydraulic Co., 877. 910. 

V. Mining Co., 156. 877. 

V. Morris, 652, 738. 

V. Schley, 15, 700. 

V. Smith's Adm*r, 040. 

V. Squires, 283. 
Cupisino V. Perez, 521. 
Cureton v, Shelton, 589. 

V. Stokes, 80. 
Curran v. Kerchner, 79. 
Currle v. Chowning, 504. 

v. Franklin, 250. 

[References to sections. tS 1 to 

Curry v. Janicke, 324. 

Y. Mack, 586. 

▼. Bonndtree, 82, 8& 
Curds ▼. Ballagh, 341. 

V. Bradley, 538. 

Y. Bnrdick, 100. 

Y. Donnell, 085. 

V. Fox, 72. 

T. Gooding, 677. 

y. Hawn, 483. 

V. Hubbell, 878. 

V. Root, 432, 447, 473, 1008. 

r. SI088OD, 350. 
rurtiss Y. Beardsley, 960. 
Curts V. Trustees, 722. 
Cuahlng v. Edwards, 540. 
Custer V. Detterer, 482a. 409. 

Y. Russey, 508. 
Cutler Y. Button, 312. 

Y. Cox, 729. 

V. ( Humberts. 36. 

V. Huston, 285. 
Cutter V. Butler, 635. 

V. KYans, 587. 
l^yphert y. McClune, 315. 
Cyrus V. Hicks, 358. 
r. & C. Electric Motor Co. y. Lewis, 

l>abbs Y. Dabbs, 49. 
Dabney y. Manning, 660. 
Da by v. Ericsson, 994. 
Daggett V. Daggett, 671. 

Y. Robins, 671. 
Dail y. Freeman, 400. 
Daily's Adm*r y. Reid, 197. 
I>alngerfleld y. Smitli. r)<:o. 
Daisy Roller Mills y. Ward, 482. 
Dakin y. Hudson. 96(;. 
Dalby y. Cronkhlte, 481. 
Dale y. Bugh, 347. 

V. Doddrldg?, 663. 
Dalgleisb y. Hodgson, 816. 
Dalhoff y. Keenau, 362. 
DflUinger y. Richardson, GliS. 
l>a]rymple y. Gamble, 922. 
DaltoD y. Bowker, 567. 

V. Libby, 177. 
Daly y. Pennie, 363. 

y. Thomiison, 348. 
Dame y. Wingate, 78i. 


489 in yol. 1; residue In yol. 2.] 

Damm y. Mason, 551. 
Damouth v. Klock, 39, 44. 
Damp Y. Town of Dane, 217. 
Damport v. {Sj'uipgon, 296. 
Damix»n v. Ferguson, 33. 

V. Smith. 439. 
Dana v. GUI, 699. 
Dancy v. Martin, 55. 
Dandridge v. Harris, 370. 
Dane v. Gilmore, 295, 588. 
Danfortb y. Morrlcal, 530. 

V. Thompson, 935. 
Daniel v. Cooper, 28. 

V. Gibson, 982. 

V. Gum, 536, 613, 734. 

y. Haynes, 462. 
Daniels v. Benedict, 291. 

y. Daniels, 21, 31a. 

y. Heidenreich, 744. 

Y. Hendei'son, 550. 

y. McGinnis, 159. 

y. Southai-d, 297. 
Danielson v. Fuel Co., 21, 110. 
Danziger y. Williams, 7ol. 
Darcy y. Kelley, 612. 
D'Arcy y. Ketchum, 227, 897, 906. 
Darragh v. Bigger, 77. 
Darrah's Ex*rs y. Bayard, 1004. 

V. Watson, 229. 
Darrlngton y. Borland, 560. 
Darrow y. Calkins, 560. 

V. Darrow, 1016. 
Dart V. Hercules, 86. 
Dartmouth Say. Bank y. Bates, 415. 
Dauberman v. Huln, 2(11. 
Dauchy v. Goodrich, 687. 
Daugherty y. Steel Co., 21. 
Dayenport y. Bamett, 543. 

y. Bufflngton, 622. 

V. Dodge County, «85c. 

y. Hubbard, 761, 767. 

y. KIrkland. 1(50. 

Y. Moore, 207a, 360. 

V. Mulr, 567. 568. 

y. Wright, 54, 73. 
Dayenport Mills Co. y. Chambers, 57. 
Dayey's Estate, In re, 490. 
Dayld y. Porter, 867. 
Dayid Bradley Mfg. Co. y. Manufac- 
turing Co., 509, 731, 787, 791. 
Dayidson v. Alexander, 63. 

y. Bond, 20(J. 

y. Burke, 468. 


[References to sectlone. SS 1 to 

Davidson v. City of New Orleans, 615. 

V. Frew, 454. 

V. Gaston, 1006. 

V. Geoghugau, 1000. 

V. Hunter, 486. 

V. Ivnox, 237. 

V. ^klyers, 406. 

V. Nebraker, 958. 

V. Root, 417. 

V. Sharpe, 860, 906. 

V. Sbipman, 617. 

V. Thornton, 261, 493, 496. 

V. Weed, 759. 
Davie V. Davis, 694, 724. 

V. McDaniel, 633, 642. 
Davies v. Coryell, 200, 306. 

V. Davies, 127. 

V. Lowndes, 607. 

V. Thomson, 24. 
Daviess County Court v. Howard, 154. 
Davis, EIx parte, 257. 

V. Aikin, 761. 

V. Banlc, 192. 

V. Barker, 130. 

V. Bass, 362. 

V. Beall, 462. 

V. Beason, 255. 

V. Benton, 432. 460. 

V. Blevins, 635. 

V. Bowker, 1017. 

V. Bums, 938b. 

V. Burt, 324. 

V. Canal Co., 449. 

V. Caswell, 780. 

V. Clements, 367, 393. 

V. Commonwealth, 927. 

V. Connelly's Ex'r, 896. 

V. Comue, 360. 

V. Davis, 39, 145, 227, 291, 312, 
358, 536, 924, 958, 9^. 

v. D. M. Osbom & Co., 253. 

V. Fasig, 32. 

V. Field, 152. 

V. Fields, 329. 

V. Fish, 182. 

V. Foy, 190. 

V. Hamilton, 275. 

V. Harper, 402. 

V. Havard, 667. 

V. Headley, 860, 872, 919. 

V. Hedges, 761, 768. 

V. Hoopes, 1000. 


499 in vol. 1; residue In vol. 2.] 

Davis V. Jordan, 83. 

V. Lane, 874, 884. 

V. Lennen, 664. 

V. McCary, 118. 

V. Mason, 152. 

V. Milburn, 735, 954. 

V. Mlllaudon, 37L 

V. Morris, 63. 

V. Morris' Ex'rs, 864. 

V. Morton, 989a. 

V. Murphy, 758. 

V. Packard, 275. 

V. Packer, 53. 

V. Roberts, 308. 

V. Schaffner, 624. 

V. School Tp., 324, 34a 

V. Sexton, 629. 

V. Shaver, 135. 

V. Smith, 574. 897, 9ia 

V. Solomon, ^7. 

V. Steeps, 406. 

V. Talcott, 623. 

V. Tallcot, 768. 

V. Taylor, 207. 

V. Tlleston, 384. 

V. Trump, 031, 681. 

V. Vass. 439. 

V. Village of Menasha, 298. 

V. Wade, 261, 307. 

V. Weibbold, 530. 

V. Wilboume, 569. 

V. Wimberly, 91. 

V. Wood, 806. 
Davis' Case, 259. 
Davis' Estate, In re, 34, 340. 
Davison, In re, 256, 524. 

v. Brown, 181. 

V. Harmon, 770. 

V. Heffron, 341. 
Davisson v. Mackay, 458. 
Davis & Rankin Bldg. & Mfg. 06. v. 

Creamery Co., 23. 
Davoue v. Fanning, 260. 
Dawes v. Shed, 589. 
Dawley v. Brown, 655, 726. 
Dawson v. Baum, 753. 

V. Cunning, 412. 

V. Daniel, 960. 

V, Hardy, 204. 

V. McCarty, 446. 

V. Parham, 655. 

V. Schloss, 207. 

V. AVisner, 153* 

[Reference* to seotionB. 18 1 to 499 in toI. 1; residue in yoI. 2.] 


Day T. Bank, 261. 

V. Crosby, 968, 993. 

V. l)e Jonge, 510. 

V. Goodwin, 130, 346. 

y, Hamburgh, 300. 

V. Hill. 774. 

V. Holland, 510. 

T. Mertlock, 83, 86, 347, 692. 

V. Patterson, 440. 

V. Porter, 778. 

V. Printing Co., 155. 

V. Rubber Co., 534. 

V. Vallette, 629. 

V. Willy, 492. 

V. Woolen Co., 138. 
Dayton v. Mlntzer, 284, 633. 
Dazey v. Pennington, 240, 307. 
Deadrick y. Harrington, 115. 
Deadwyler v. Bank, 23. 
De Agrcda y. Mantel, 127. 
Dean y. Blount, 147. 

V. Chapin, 799. 

Y. BidsAvay, 716. 

Y. Stone, 876. 

Y. Thatcher, 67, 78, 698. 
Deane y. Ix)uek8, 346a« 
Dear y. Reed, 724. 
Hearing y. Bank, 906. 

Y. Shepherd, 985a. 
I>e Armond y. Adams, 293, 295. 
DeaYer y. Erwln, 378. 

Y. JcMies, 319. 
Debbs Y. Dalton, 260. 
De Brimont y. Penniman, 841. 
Debs Y. Dalton, 81. 
De Camp v. Bates, 313. 

Y. Miller, 685. 

Y. Thompson. 1006. 

Y. Thomson, 1005. 
De Cnfftro y. Richardson, 153. 154, 165. 
De Caters y. Le Ray De Chaumont, 

Decatur Gaslight & Coke Co. y. How- 
ell. 743. 
Decatur T^nd Co. y. Cook, 45. 
Decatur &. X. Imp. Co. v. Crass, 90. 
De Chambrun y. Campbell, 938c. 
De Chanbmn y. Schermerborn, 938c. 
De Chastellux y. Fairchild, 298. 
Deck Y. Deck, 822. 

Y. Gerke, («44. 

Y. Johnson. 548. 
D.^ckard y. State, 256. 

Decker v. Decker, 754. 

Y. Gilbert, 469. 

Y. Graves, 337. 
Deck's Estate v. Gherke, 216, 641. 
De Cosse Brissac v. Ratbbone, 827. 
Deegan v. Deegan, 252, 272, 590. 
Deem y. Grume, 971. 
De Ende v. Wilkinson's Adm*r, 857. 
Deering y. Poston, 972. 
Deerlng Harvester Co. v. Donovan, 330. 
De Figanlere v. Young, 1005. 
De Ford v. Green, 494. 
De Forest v. Andrews, 082. 

v. Thompson. 297a. 
Degelos v. Woolfolk, 534. 
De Graaf v. Wycoflf, 764. 
De Graf v. Navigation Co., 26. 
De Graw v. Elmore, 183. 
De Haven v. Covalt, 367. 
De Hymel v. Mortgage Co., 159. 
Deickhart v. Rutgers, 25. 
Deldrich v. Nachtsheim, 961. 
Deisber v. Gehre, 663. 
De La Guerra v. Xewhall, 741, 
Deland v. Hlett, 089. 
Delaney, Ex parte, 257. 
De Laney v. Blizzard, 100. 
Delaney v. Brown, 373. 

V. Reade, 513, 693. 
Delano V. Jacoby, 543. 

V. Jopling, 857, 912. 
Delap V. Hunter, 23. 
De Lashmutt v. Sellwood, 600. 
De La Vergne v. Evertson, 477, 956. 
Delaware v. Ensign, 63. 
Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Brecken- 

ridge, 650. 
De Leon's Estate, In re, 554. 
Delk V. Yelton, 510. 
Deloach v. Myrick, 1006. 
De I>ouIs V. Meek, 369, 373, 374. 
Delta Building & Loan Ass'n y. Mc- 

Clune, 1016. 
De Marco v. Mass, 341. 
Demens v. Poyntz, 3. 
Demerit v. Lyford, 372, 973. 

V. Mills, 99. 
Demlng v. Storage Co., 219. 
Dempsey v. Bush, 996. 

v. Insurance Co., 815. 

V. Oswego Tp., 402. 

V. Schawacker, 605. 

Ixzviii CASES 

DUfbrenceB to lectionft. SS 1 to 

Dempster Mill Mfg. Co. v. Fltzwater, 

Den V. Tomlln, 128. 
Den d. Bray v. McSbane, 652. 
Denegre v. Haun, 482a, 498. 
Dengler v. Kiebner, 402. 
Denlke t. Deuike, 599, 609. 
Denison v. Lewis, 138. 

V. Williams, 958. 
Dennett v. Cliick, 771. 
Denney v. State, 534a. 
Dennie v. Smith, 588. 
Denning y. Corwin, 279. 
Dennison v. Chapman, 352. 

V. Hyde, 504, 600, 901, 93a 

V. Leech, 138. 

V. U. S., 609, 617. 
Denny v. Eddy, 993. 

V. Mattoon. 218. 

V. Reynolds, 671. 
Denslow v. Bush, 29. 
Densmore v. Tomer, 548. 
Dent V. Ashley, 563. 

V. King, 599. 
Denton v. Baker, 359. 

T. Bank, 313. 

V. Denton, 320. 

V. Noyes, 32r>. 
Denver City Irrigation & Water Co. 

V. Middaugh, 743. 
Denver Consol. Tramway Co. v. Riley, 

Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. lies, 699. 
Denvrey v. Fox, 1008. 
Depriest v. Patterson, 338. 
Deputy V. Tobias, 357, 385. 
Depuy's Estate, In re, 174. 
Dequlndre v. Williams, 274. 
Derby, In re, 320a. 

V. Jacques, 87, 697, 699, 705. 

v. Yale, 783. 
De Riemer v. Cantillon. 77, 367. 
Dermott v. Carter, 417. 
Dernburg v. Tefft, 220. 
Derr v. Wilson, 261. 
De Saussure v. Zeigler, 408. 
Deslonde v. Darrinjrton's Heirs, 635. 
Des Moines Nat. Bank v. Harding, 

Des Moines & Ft. D. R. Co. v. Bul- 

lard, 731. 
Desnoyers v. Dennison, 541, 731. 
De Sollar v. Hauscome, 728. 


499 In vol. 1; residue in yol. 2.] 

Desribes v. Wilmer, 346. 

Dessauer v. Koppln, 237. 

Destrehan v. Scudder, 857. 

Desvergers v. Parsons, 41. 

De Tar v. Boone Co., 83. 

Detrick v. Sharrar, 707, 

Detroit L. & N. R. Co. v. McCammon, 

720, 790. 
Deuel County v. Bank, 985b, 985t 
Deutermanu v. Pollock, 176. 
Devereaux v. City of Brownsville, 

985d, 985e. 
Devln V. City of Ottumwa, 599. 
Devlin y. Boyd, 335, 384. 
Devol V. Halstead, 770. 
Devon V. Scales, 370. 
De Wandelaer v. Hager, 313. 
Dewees v. Richardson, 376. 
De Weese v. Smith, 7o5. 
Dewey v. City of Des Moines, 227. 

V. Humphrey, 16. 

v. Latson, 473. 

V. Moyer, 69. 

V. Peck, 754. 

v. Sugg, 406. 
Dewing V. Sears, 152. 
De Wolf V. Crandall, 750. 
Dewsnap v. Davidson, 761. 
Dexter v. Clark, 703. 
Dexter, Horton & Co. v. Sayward, 689. 
Dial v. Holter, 126-128. 
Diamond v. Law^rence Co., 550. 
Diamond State Iron Co. v. Alex K. 

Rarig Co., 807. 
Dibble V. Truluck, 363, 375. 
Dick V. McLaurln, 326. 

V. Mahoney, 316. 

V. Tolhausen, 190, 974. 

V. Webster, 747. 

V. Williams, 343, 691. 
Dickenson v. Codwise, 42, 44. 

V. Gilliland, 691. 
Dickerson v. Chrisman, 211. 

V. Corners, 381. 

V. Davis, 205. 

V. Powell, 655. 
Dickerson*s Appeal, 487. 
Dickey v. Gibson, 156, 513. 
Dickinson v. Allison, 483. 

V. Hayes, 611, 63S. 
Dickinson v. Price, 622. 
Dicks V. Hatch, 217. 278. 
Dickson v. Burke, 211. 

[References to eectlonft. H 1 to 489 in vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 


Dickson t. UolTs Adm*r, 165. 

r. Matbeson, 326. 

y. Kichardson* 380. 

Y. Wilkinson, 403. 
Dteffenbach v. Rooh. 1000. 
Diehl T. Marcliant, 609. 
Dietrich Y. Dietrich, IIG. 
Dietz, In re, 320a. 

Y. Transfer Co., 617. 
Dlgnan t. Dignan, 043. 
Dill V. White, 772. 
Dillard, Ex parte, 122, 443. 

V. Iron Co., 277. 

Y. Turner's Adm'r, 236. 
Dilley r. McGregor, 576. 
Dnilng ▼. Murray, 296. 
DiUinger y. Kelley, 714. 
Dillon Y. Porter, 236. 

Y. Railroad Co., 158, 461, 504. 

Y. Rand, 83. 
Di Lorenzo y. Dragone, 409. 
Dllwortb Y. Curts. 938b. 

Y. Johnson, 900. 
Dimes Y. Canal Co., 174, 783. 
Dimmick y. Rcsenfeld. 421. 
Dinet y. Eigenmann, 375. 
Ding Y. Kennedy, 213. 
Dlngman y. Myers, 299. 
DInsmore y. Austin, 118. 

Y. Boyd« 957. 
Dionne y. Matzenbaugb, 351. 
Dlrmeyer y. O'Hem, 191. 
District of Ck)lumbla y. Eaton, 100. 
District Tp. of Newton v. White, 861. 
Ditch Y. People, 83. 
Dltson Y. DitsoQ, 822, 927. 928, 982. 
DiToIl Y. Atwood, 504. 
Dixon Y. Baxter, 297. 

Y. Bropbey, 322. 

r. Dixon, 433. 

Y. I.yne, 342. 

Y. Miller, 674. 

Y. Sinclear, 694. 
Dixson Y. Warters. (MK). 
D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Alliance Corp., 

Y. Machine Co., 30. 
Doak V, WIswell, 761. 
Doan Y. Holly, 326. 
Doane y. Glenn, 166, 346. 
Dobberstein y. Murphy, 513. 
I>obbins Y. McNamara. 348. 
lN>b8on Y. Pearce, 373, 857, 858, 973. 

Dodd Y. Bond, 421. 

V. Brott, 950. 

V. Groll, 875. 

Y. Maylleld, 750. 

V. Scott, 755. 
Doddridge's Estate y. Doddridge, 618. 
Dodds Y. Blackstock, 098. 
Dodge Y. Coffin, 179, 889, 892, 896. 

Y. Hubbell. 299. 

Y. Williams, 369. 

Y. Wright 141. 

V. Zimmer. 537. 
Doe V. Calvert. 636. 

V. Harlow, 650. 

V. Huddart, 783. 

Y. Jones, 436. 

Y. Mining Co., 154. 

V. Oliver, 843. 

V. Riley, 642. 

Y. Thomas, 650. 

V. Watts, 530. 
Doe d. McMuIlen v Lank, 437. 
Doe d. Parrish v. Ferris, 720. 
Doescher y. Doescher, 749. 
DogUoni Y. Crispin, 823, 827. 
Dohner's Assignees. In re, 487. 
Dole V. Boutwell, 593. 
Dolen V. Buchanan, 297. 
Dolphin Y. Robins, 822. 
Don Y. Lippmaun, 825, 835, 850. 
Donahue y. Johnson, 32. 
Donald v. Kell, 677. 
Donaldson v. Bank, 42. 

V. Roberts, 363. 
Donham y. Hardware Co., 376. 
Donnell y. Hamilton, 306. 

V. Wright, 616. 
Donnelly, In re, 320a. 

Y. Graham, 211. 

Y. McArdle, 297. 

V. Wilcox, 705. 
Donner v. Palmer, 418. 
Donovan y. Finn, 367, 518. 

Y. Simmons, 446. 
Donworth v. Coolbaugh, 583. 
Dooian v. Carr, 530. 
Dooley v. Dooley, 633. 

v. Watklns, 641. 
Doollttle V. Don Maus, 660. 

v. Holton. 284. 
Dore Y. Thornburgh, 802. 
Dormitzer v. Society-, 272. 
Doman y. Furniture Co., 267. 


[References to sections. 88 1 to 

Dorr V. Blrge, 84. 

y. Stockdale, 560. 
Dorrance v. Scott, 55. 
Dorrell v. State, 529. 
Dorris V. Erwln, 613. 
Dorr's Adm'r v. Robr, 220. 
Dorsey v. Dorsey, 926, 932. 

V. Kendall, 261, 278. 

V. Maury, 853, 857, 938a. 

V. Reese, 388, 389. 

V. Thompson, 28, 34. 
Dortic V. Loekwood, 80. 
Doster v. Bank, 423. 
Doswell V. Adler, 420, 445. 

V. Stewart, 125. 
Dotterer v. Harden, 453. 
Doty V. Brown, 504, 506, 029. 

V. Caldwell, 160. 
Doub y. Mason, 963. 
Doud Sons & Ck). y. Milling Co., 84. 
Dougherty, In re, 255. 

y. Bank, 354. 

y. Gummings, 763. 

y. McManus, 214. 
Dougherty's Estate, In re, 291, 294, 

483, 486. 
Doughty y. Meek. 130. 
Douglas y. Douglas, 349. 

y. Forrest, 227, 836. 

y. Twombley, 1009. 
Douglas y. Yost, 641. 
Douglass y. Brooks, 335. 

y. Ferris, 590. 

y. Rowland, 586, 592. 

y. Joyner, 360. 

y. Todd, 340a, 351. 
Douglass* Lessee y. Massie, 211, 233. 
Douthit y. Douthit, 322. 
Doyer y. State, 255. 
Dow y. Blake, 43, 882, 933. 

y. Jewell, 197. 

y. March, 85. 

V. Plainer, 63. 

y. Whitman, 162. 
Dowdall V. Cannedy, 733. 
Dowdell V. Neal, 459. 
Dowell y. Applegate, 218, 271, 755. 

y. Goodwin, 364. 377. 

y. Grlswold. 981. 
Dowling y. McGregor, 491, 493. 

y. Polack, 27. 
Downer y. Bank, 953, 956. 

V. Crlpps, 682. 


499 In vol. 1; residue in yol. t.] 

Downer y. Dana, 209. 

y. Morrison, 600. 

y. Shaw, 227, 896. 
Downey y. Forrester, 497. 
Downing y. Diaz, 536. 

y. Railroad Co., 627. 

y. Still, 314, 326. 
Downs y. Fuller, 293. 
Dows y. McMichael, 543, 784. 
Doyle y. Com., 533. 

V. Gore, 529. 

y. Hallam, 87, 664, 607. 

y. Reilly, 758. 

y. Smith, 184. 
' y. Wade, 415. 
Doyley y. White, 189. 
Dozler y. Lewis, 401. 

y. Richardson, 275. 
Drake y. Brander, 865. 

y. Duyenick, 270. 

y. Hanshaw, 193, 367. 

y. Iryine, 79a. 

y. I^yons, 364. 

y. Mitchell, 746, 770. 

V. Ogden, 247. 

y. Slmi)Son. 5-4, 61. 

V. Smythe, 328. 

y. Steadman, 303. 

y. Water Co., 787. 
Draper y. Bishop, 347. 

y. State, 211, 987. 
Draughan t. Bank, 135. 
Drenuan y. Bunn, 573. 
Dresser v. Wood, 237. . 
Drew y. City of St. Paul, 355. 

y. Clarke, 381. 

y. Towle, 594. 
Drexel y. Man, 652, 654. 
Drexel's Appeal, 260, 317. 
Dreyer y. Goldy, 23. 
Dreyfuss v. Soale & Co., 262. 

V. Tompkins, 130, 155, 1G2. 
Drlggers y. Cassady, 247, 261. 
Driuger y. Raih*oad Co., 368. 
Drinkhouse v. Water-Works, 550. 
DriscoU y. Damp, 624. 
Driver y. White, G50. 
Droham y. Norton, 315. 
Droz y. La key, 121. 
Drumm y. Sherman, 950, 986. 
Drummond y. Matthews, 313. 

V. Prestman, 586. 
Drydeu v. Dryden, 84. 

[References to Metiona. H 1 to 

Dryden v. Parrotte, 252. 

V. Ballroad Co., UUl. 
1 »u Bay V. Ullne, 184. 
Du Bois V. dark, 313, 324, 377. 

y. Dubois, 869, 961. 

v. Railroad Co., G09. 
Du Bose V. Marx, 779. 
i>uche8s of Kingston*s Case, 283, 503, 

516, UUO, 611, 783, 787. 
Ducker, Succession of, 958. 
Pnckwortb t. Duckworth's Adm'r, 

284, 380. 033. 
Ducommuu v. Hyslnger, 878. 
Imden t. Maloy, 939a. 
Dudley T. Brinck, 352. 

V. Insurance Co., 344. 

Y. Lindsey, 938, 968, 971. 
Duell V. Potter, 432. 
l>uer V. Thweatt, 246. 
Duff V. Carrier, 31a. 

V. Wyncoop, 499. 
Duffey V. lioutz, 158, 46L 
Duffield V. Smith, 524. 
Duffy V. Gray, 745. 

V. Lytle, 621. 791. 
I>ufo8sat V. Berens, 361. 
Dufour V. Camfranc, 273. 

T. Lang. 32. 
Dugan T. McGlann, 321, 368. 

V. Xorthcutt, 49. 
Dugas T. Mathews, 943, 946. 
Duggc T. Stumpe. 600. 
Dubaime y. Monast, 324w 
Duke y. Oark, 446, 956. 
I'ukesy. Bowley, 118. 
intlaney v. Murphy* 32. 

V. Payne, 747. 
Dull y. Blackman, 549, 793. 
Dullard y. Hardy, 641. 

T. Phelan. 52, 63, 303. 
r>nlle y. Lally, 354a. 
DumbouM y. Bowley. 424. 
Dunagain y. State, 529. 
Dunbar y. Hallowell, 875. 
Duncan r. Asbcraft 406. 

y. Bancroft. 613. 

y. Flynn. 492. 

y. Geidine, 83, 288. 

y. Uargroye, 495. 

T. Holcomb. 599, OOO. 

T. l4inkford. 247. 

y. ryon. 386, 390. 

y. McCall. 257. 
1 LAW JUDG.— f 


409 in YOl. 1; residue in vol. 1] 

Duncan y. Stokes, 729. 
Dunckle v. Wiles, 657. 
Dunliam v. Bower, 767. 

V. Carson, 701. 

V. Cox, 423. 

y. Doremus, 554. 

V. Downer, 388, 389. 

y. Dunham, 862. 

V. Insurance Co., 770. 

y. Jones, 245. 

y. Wllfong, 263. 
Duuham Lumber Co. v. Holt, 391. 
Duukin v. Vandenbergh, 1005. 
Dunklee y. Goodenougb, 696, 790. 
Dunklin v. Wilson, 376, 513. 
Dunlap V. Byers, 290. 

V. Clements, 299. 

y. Cody. 909. 

y. Edwards, 628. 

V. Gallatin Co., 44a 

y. Glidden, 624. 

y. Robinson, 682. 

y. Southerlin, 241. 

y. Steere, 324. 
Dnuleyy y. Ross, 487. 
Dunloyy's Estate, In re, 680. 
Dunlop y. Schubert, 336. 
Dunn, In re, 938c. 

y. Barton, 790. 

y. Beaman, 996. 

V. Dunn. 228. 

V. Pish, 367. 

V. Hall, 233. 

y. Hughes, 83. 

V. Murray, 752. 

V. Pipes, 87, 697, 706. 

V. Seymour, 585. 

y. Snell, 945, 998. 

y. Tillotson, 159. 
Dunns v. Batchelor, 3, 118w 
Dunn's Ex*rs y. Renick, 122, 
Dunson v. Spradley, 174. 
Dunstan y. Higgins, 829. 
Duplelx y. De Royen, 850, 802. 
Du Pont y. Abel, 229. 

y. Du Bos, 22. 
Durand y. Trusdell, 905. 
Durant y. Abendroth, 795. 

y. Comegys, 21. 

V. Duchesse D'Auxy, 301. 

V. Essex Co., 528, 720, 721, 722. 

T. Gabby, 986. 


[R«f«renceB to MCtiooi. || 1 to 

Durden y. Garhart, 91. 
Duren v. Kee, 620. 
Durham v. Brown, 76. 

V. Darby, 39. 

V. Moore, 348. 

V. Williams, 044. 
Durlnger v. Mosebino, 909, 973. 
Dumford, Succession of, 123. 
Durning v. Burkhardt, 158. 
Durousseau v. United States, 216. 
Duryea v. Fuechsel, 158. 
Duryee v. Hale, 913, 914. 
Dusing Y. Nelson, 31. 
Dusy V. Prudom, 324. 
Dutcber r. Dutcber, 92a 
Dutll V. Pacheco, 389. 
Dutton V. Hobson, 263. 

V. McReynolds, 446. 

V. Mason, 953. 1000. 

V. Sbaw, 734. 

V. Smtth, 275, 691. 

V. Woodman, 657. 
Duvall V. Fearsqn, 857. 
Duxbury v. Dable, 278. 
Dwigbt V. Newell, 445. 

V. St. Jobn, 1016. 
Dworak v. More, 879. 
Dwyer v. Wilgbt, Go3. 
Dyckman v. City of New York, 287. 
l>yer v. Print Works, 609. 
Dy?r\ille Mfg. Co. v. Heller, 162. 
Dygert v. Dygert, 620. 
Dyke v. Bank, 118. 
Dynes v. Hoover, 250, 256, 524. 
Dysart v. Brandertb, 412. 
Dyson v. Leek, 659. 

y. Simmons, 122, 443. 

Eager v. Stover, 903. 

Eagle Mfg. Co. v. Mfg. Co., 540. 

Eagles V. Kern, 588. 

Eakin v. McCraltb, 549. 

Eames v. Eames, 49. 

V. German ia Turn Verein, 407, 
Ean V. Railroad Co., 336. 
Kans V. Sawyer, 612. 
Earl V. Bull, 768. 

V. Mathenoy, .^95. 

V. Raymond, 865, 938c. 


496 in vol. 1; residue in vol. 1.] 

Earle y. Earle, 642. 

Earley v. Churcb Soc, 1015. 

Earley's Appeal, 354. 

Earll V. City of Chicago, 77. 

Earl of Bandon v. Becber, 508. 

Earls y. Earls, 179. 

Early y. Moore, 3, 118. 

Earnest v. Hoskins, 77, 683. 

Eartbman's Adm'rs y. Jones, 279. 

Easley v. Camp. 330. 

V. McClinton, 284. 
East, The, 814. 
Eastern Building & Loan Ass'n y. 

Welling, 510. 
Easterly y. Goodwin, 229. 
Eastern Townships Bank y. Beebe, 

847, 853. 
Eastbam y. Sallis. 21. 
Eastlick y. Wright, 141. 
Eastman y. Cooper, 611, 657, 658. 

y. Porter, 732, 744. 

y. Scbettler, 423. 

y. Wadleigh, 230. 

y. Waterman, 299. 
Eastmure y. Laws, 729, 763. 
Easton y. Plckersgill, 691, 692. 
East Rlyerside Irr. Dist y. Holcomb, 

East Tennessee, V. & Q. B. Co. y. 
Kennedy, 923. 

y. Mabiney, 619. 
East Texas Land & Imp. Co. y. Gra- 
ham, 393. 
Eaton, In re, 255, 259. 

V. Badger, 240, 906. 

y. George, 699. 

y. Harth, 592. 625. 

y. Hasty, 482a, 857, 897, 916, 919. 

y. Lyman, 570. 

V. Ryan. 42.5. 

V. Sanxter, 436. 
Eaton's Appeal, 407, 448. 
Eaton & Hamilton R. Co. v. Hunt. 

y. Varnum, 32. 
Eau Claire Lumber Co. y. Anderson, 

Eaves y. Vial, 617. 
Eayrs y. Nason. .560. 
Eboll V. Bursinger. 326. 
El)erle y. Bryant. ."ilK). 
Efcles V. Daniels. (j41. 
Eckart, In re, 255. 

[Reference* to Mctioni. H 1 to 

Eeker ▼. First Nat. Bank, 182. 
Eckert v. Blnckley, 514. 

V. BInkley, T91. 
Eddie ▼. Eddie, 166. 
Eddleman v. McGlathery, 27. 
Eddy & Bissell Live-Stock Ck>. v. 

Blackburn, 183. 
Edelln t. Lyon, 29. 
Eden v. Uartt, 629. 
Edgar t. Buck, 722. 

V. Greer, 52, 67. G83. 
EdgeU v. Slgerson, 750, 790. 
Edgerly v. Emerson, 100. 

T. Stewart, 22. 
Edgerton v. Edgerton, 291. 

V. Muse, 660, 705. 
Eklmanson t. Best, 380» 756. 
Bdmlston y. Edmiston, 279. 
Edmonds ▼. Montgomery, 903, 940, 

£dmonson v. Moseby's Heirs, 373. 
Edmunds t. Smith, 469. 
Rdmundson t.- School District, 253fi, 

Edrlngton y. AUsbrooks, 232. 
Eklson y. Cumings, 368. 

y. Edson, 320. 

y. Munsell, 660.' 
Eklwards y. Bates County, 751. 

y. Carter, 233. 

y. Edwards, 55. 

y. Helllngs, 121, 236. 341, 461, 964. ; 

V. Jones, 857, 889. 

y. McKay, 338. 

y. Maupin, 22. 

y. Osgood, 299. 

y. Roys, 655. 

y. Stevens, 526. 

y. Stewart, 769. 

y. Turner, 50. 

y. Whlted, 190, 278. 
Edwards' Appeal, 297. 
Egan y. Rooney, 340. 

y. Sengpeil, 306. 
Egberts v. Dibble, 892. 

y. Wood, 585. 
Eggleston y. Morrison, 48. 
Ehle y. Bingham. 631. 
Ebmgren v. Gronlund, 939b. 
Eioeman v. Finch, 454. 
Efchelberger v. Smyser, 968. 
EJchert v. Schaffer. 650. 
Kichboff y. Elcbhoff, 271. 

CITED. Ixxxiil 

499 In vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Eickmau v. Uersker, 246. 
Eichoff V. Eichoflf, 376. 
Eikenberry v. Edwards, 544. 
Elmer v. Uiekards, 252. 
Einstein v. Davidson, 93, 307. 
Eisenhower v. School Dlst., 734, 752. 
Biseulord v. Clum, 600. 
Eiseumeuger v. Murphy, 196. 
Eltel v. Foote, 247. 
Ekel V. Snevily, 350. 

V. Swift, 341. 
Ekey v. Inge, 050. 
Ela V. Edwards, 563. 
Elder v. Bank, 330. 

y. City of New Orleans. 329. 

y. Grunsky, 88, 107. 

y. McClaskey, 39. 

y. Mining Co., 158, 271, 297a, 311, 
Eldred v. Hazletf s Adm'r, 354, 482a, 

v. White, 393. 
Eldredge v. Aultman, Miller & Co., 

Eldridge v. Adams, 141. 

y. Hill, 650. 

v. Post, 430. 
Eleventh School Dlst. In Alburgh v. 

Rodd, 299. 
Elgin Watch Co. v. Meyer, 730. 
Eliot y. McCormlck, 220. 

V. Porter, 730, 770, 777, 779. 
Elizabethtown Savings Inst. v. Ger- 

ber, 862. 
Elkhart Car- Works Co. v. Bills, 718. 
Elkins V. Wolfe, 61. 
Elligood y. Cannon, 93. 
Ellinger's Appeal. 349. 
Ellington V. Crockett, 699. 
Elliott V. Bastian, 200. 

V. Bufflngton, 159. 

V. Haydoii, 777, 779. 

V. Hoi brook, 57, 958. 

V. Jordan, 115. 

V. Ivnlght. 140. 

V. Peirsol, 218, 245, 513. 

V. Qiilmby, 526. 

V. Wnrlng. 940. 

V. Woodward, 555. 
Ellis V. Bonner. 313, a46a. 

V. Clarke. 1)70. 

V. Crowl. 534. 738. 

V. Duuu. 118. 

Ixxxiy CASES 

[References to sectioiiB. {{ 1 to 

Bills V. Ellis, 124, 178, 876, 927. 

y. Harrison, 300. 

T. Insurance Co., 059. 

y. Jameson, 608. 

y. Jones, 213, 348. 

y. Kelly, 291. 

y. Kerr, 953, 955. 

y. The Lyceum, 632. 

y. Mills, 87, 697. 

y. Rademacher, 141. 

y. Smith, 987. 

y. Staples, 790. 

V. White, 875. 
Ellis* Estate, In re, 290. 
Ellis H. Roberts & Co. y. Buckley, 169. 
Ellison V. Bank, 183. 

V. State, 211. 
Elliston y. Bank, 354. 
Ells y. Bone, 772. 

y. Tousley, 421, 445. 
Elsworth y. Caldwell, 948. 
Ellsworth y. Cuyler, 439. 
Elmendorf y. Elmendorf, 278. 
Elsasser y. Haines, 912. 
Elsenrath y. Kallmeyer, 98. 
Elson V. Comstock, 584. 
Elston y. Robinson, 425. 
Elting y. Bank, 370. 
Elton y. Brettschneider, 345. 
Eltzroth V. Vorls, 93. 
El well V. Gooduow, 22. 

y. Hitchcock, 438. 

y. Johnson, 29. 

y. Security Co., 549. 
Ely V. Beaumont, 428. 

V. Cooke, 954. 

y. Lamb, 986. 

y. Parkhurst, 72. 

y. Tallman, 277. 
Elyton Land Co., Ex parte, 44. 
Emanuel v. State, 259. 
Embry y. Palmer, 938, 939b. 
Embury v. Conner, 279, 621, 731. 
Emerlck v. Garwood, 450. 
Emerson y. Head, 158. 

y. Knapp, 949. 

y. Sansome, 656. 

y. Udall, 366. 378. 
Emerson, Talcott & Co. v. Skidmore, 

Emery y. Downin^c, 85. 

y. Fowler, 578, 579, 784. 

y. Nelson, 522. 


499 In vol. 1; residue in yoI. 2.] 

Emery y. Whltwell, 164. 

£2mig y. Medley, 114. 

Emlson y. Walker, 159. 

Emma Sllyer Mln. Co. y. Emma Mln. 

Co., 578. 
Bnmel v. Hayes, 651. 
Emmons v. Dowe, 671. 
Emory y. Jolce, 941, 945. 
Empey y. Plugert, 530. 
Empire State Xail Co. y. Button Co., 

540, 615, 625. 
Empire Tp. v. Darlington, 906. 
Emporia Mut. Loan & Say. Ass'n v. 

Watson, 442. 
Endicott y. Morgan, 897. 
Eneu y. Clark, 55. 
Enewold v. Olsen, 496. 
Engel y. Scheuerman, 916. 
England v. Garner, 193, 225. 
England Mortgage Security 00. v. Tar- 

yer, 50. 
English T. Aldrlch, 381, 666. 

V. English, 721. 

y. Miller, 360. 

y. Mun*ay, 040. 

y. Savage, 197, 383. 
English's Adm'r y. Murray, 640. 
English's Appeal, 77. 
Engstrom y. Sherburne, 296, 917, 920. 
Ennis V. Ass'n, 337. 

y. Smith, 806. 
Eno V. Crooke, 995. 
Binos y. Capps, 107. 

V. Smith, 220, 278, 

V. Suthsrland, 44. 
Ensign v. Kindred, 878. 
Enslen y. Wheeler, 467, 
Ensley y. Wright, 352. 
Ensly y. Wright. 352. 
Entrekin y. Chambers, 232. 
Epling y. Dickson, 981. 
Eppinger y. Kirby, 118. 
Epprlght V. Kauffman, 793. 
Epstein y. Ferst, 721. 
Equator Mining & Smelting Co. t. 

Hall, 654. 
Equitable Securities Co. y. iBloi-k, 265. 
Equitable Trust Co. y. Smith, 722. 
Erck y. Bank, 140. 
Erlcksou y. Quinn, 423. 
^Erlanger v. Ayegno, 118. 
Ernst's Estate, In re, 488. 
Erwln y. Gamer, 536. 



DUfereneet to secUoiiB. U 1 to 

flkrwln ▼. Lynn, 734. 

y. Rutherford, 986. 

T. Scotten, 772. 

▼. Vint, 301. 
Esmond, In re, 524. 
Essex V. Berry. 308. 
Estelle y. Peacock, 540. 
Estep y. Hntchman, 682. 

V. Larsb. 707, 724. 

y. Watklns, 246. 
Esterly's Appeal, 401. 
EBtes, In re, 420. 423. 

y. NeU, 553. 

y. Railroad Co., 6G0. 
EstUl y. Tanl, 604, 714. 
Estls y. Patton, 377. 
Etherldge y. Middleton, 11& 
EtK y. Wheeler, 875. 
Eoreka Clothes Wringing Machine Co. 

y. Machine Co., 531. 
Eureka Iron Works y. Bresnahan, 260. 
Erangelical Synod y. Schoeneich, 585. 
Kvans v. Ashby, 261. 

y. Barclay, 77. 

y. Blrge, 612. 

y. Bradley, 085a. 

y. Breueman, 231. 

y. Caiman, 392. 

y. Chester, 189, 300. 

y. Cleary, 802. 

y. Commonwealth, 588. 

y. Duim, 41, 47. 

y. Eyans. 444. 

y. FaU River County, 354. 

y. Fearne, 61a. 

y. Fisher. 132. 

y. Gill, 233. 

y. Instlne, 972. 

y. Lipscomb, 189. 

v. McGlasson, 446. 

V. McMahan, 123, 700. 

y. I^arks, 139. 

V. Percifull. 27a 

V. Uees, 126, 127, 606. 

y. Schafer, 141. 

y. Stokes, 585. 

V. Tatem, 517, 720, 857, 869. 884, 
885, 962. 

y. Trust Co., 363, 393a. 

V. Watts, 57. 

y. Wells, 976. 

y. White, 699. 

T. Young, 271« 


499 in Tol. 1; residue in toI. 2.] 

Evans* Adm*r v. Clover, 34. 
EvansvUle, S. & C. Straight Line R. Co. 

V. City of Evansvllle, 287. 
Everett v. Printing Co., 750. 

v. Reynolds, 303. 
Everill y. Swan, 754. 
Everling y. Holcomb, 571. 
Eyers v. Watson, 274, 285. 
Ewald y. Waterhout, 671. 
Ewell y. Pitman, 24a 
Ewen y. Terry, 1001. 
Ewer y. Cotfln, 905. 
Ewmg y. Fuller, 32. 

y. Hatfield, 116. 

y. Jennings, 964. 

V. McXairy, 737. 

y. Nickle, 378. 

y. Wilson, 205. 
Excelsior Mfg. Co. v. Boyle, 456. 
Exchange Bank y. Ault, 271. 

y. Ford, 306, 776. 

y. Oilman, 700. 

y. Streeter, 306. 
Exchange Nat. Bank y. Allen, 162. 

y. Clement, 229. 
Excise Com*rs y. Holllster, 348. 
Exendine y. Pore, 939c. 
Exl?y y. Berryhill, 352. 
Ex-Mission Land & Water Co. y. 

Flash, 356. 
Exposition Building & Loan Co. v. 

Spiegel. 306. 
Expressman's Mut. Ben. Ass'n y. Hur- 

loc:k, 906. 
Ex ton y. Zule, 643. 
Eyre v. Cook, 208. 
Eyres y. Sedgewicke, 296. 
Ezzell y. Maltbie, 714. 

Faber v. Hovey, 510, 882, 960. 
Factors* & Traders' Ins. Co. v. De 

Blanc, 245. 
Fagan y. Barnes, 83. 
Fahey y. Mottu, 286. 
Fahs y. Taylor, 263. 
Fain y. Hughes, 707. 

y. Miles, 663. 
Fairbanks y. Bank, 107. 

y. Kraft, 57. 
Fairchild y. FalrchUd, 274 


[References to sectlonB. {{ 1 to 

Fairchlld v. Holly, 746. 

V. Lyn(*h, 732. 
Fulres v. McLellan, Oil. 
Fairfield v. McNauy, 761. 
Falconer t. Cochran, 604. 
Falken v. Railroad Co., 90. 
Falkuer v. Guild, 223. 

V. Insurance Co., 882. 
Fall V. Evans, 315. 
Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 

Fallon. In re. 807. 

V. Murray, 572. 
Falls V. Robinson, 384. 
Faun V. Atkinson, 441. 
Fanning v. Bank, 380. 

V. Insurance Co., 789. 

V. Krapfl, 232. 
F. A. Poth Brewing Co. v. Bemd, 326. 
Faran v. Robinson, 560. 
Farber v. Iron Co., 714. 
Faris v. Durham, 293. 
Farlsh v. Austin, J)58. 

V. Corlies, 349. 
Farley, Ex parte, 256. 

V. Cammann, 155. 

V. Lea, 441. 

V. McAlister, 446. 
Farmer v. Farmer, 565. 

The, V. McCraw, 581. 

V. Sasseen, 1010. 

V. Simpson, 593. 

V. Wilson, 135. 
Farmers' Hank v. Beaston, 596. 

V. Collins, 357. 

V. Groves. 976. 

V. Hclghe. 417, 418. 

V. Ijeonard, 992. 

V. Steamboat Co., 583. 
Farmers' Fire Ins. Co. v. Johnston, 

Farmers* Ins. Co. v. Hlghsmith, 274. 
Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Bank, 
375, 382. 

V. Killlnger, SoS, 

V. McKinney, 278. 

V. Schwenk, 425. 
Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Burns. 32. 
Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank v. Math- 
er, 7, 60. 

V. Spear, 70. 
Famey v. Hamilton County, 206. 
Farnham, £x parte, 255. 


499 in vol. 1; residue in toI. 2.] 

Farnham v. Mallory, 148. 

Farnsley v. Stillwell, 351. 

Famum v. Machine Shop, 583. 

Fan- V. Ladd, 286, 900. 

Farrar v. Mining Co., 321. 

Farrel v. Bank, 585a. 

Farrell v. City of St. Paul, 754. 

Farrell Foundry & Machine Co. v. 

Bank, 585a. 
FaiTington v. City of New York, 246. 

v. Payne, (;21, 734, 738. . 
Farris v. Hayes, 190. 

V. People, 486. 

V. Walter, ^i. 
Farrow v. Dial, 321. 
Farson v. Gorham, 32. 
Farwell v. Huston, 70. 

v. Raddin, 291. 
Fasholt V. Reed, 438. 
Fassett v. Tallmadge, 1011. 
Faucette v. Ludden, 89. ' 
Faughnan v. City of Elizabeth, 966, 

989. 1016. 
Faulconer v. Stinson, 1005. 
Faulder v. Silk, 802. 
Faulk V. Kellums, 115. 
Faulkner v. Campbell. 378b 
Fauntleroy v. Lyle, 589. 
Faurot v. Bank, 86. 
Faver v. Briggs. 233. 237, 
Fawcett v. Vary, 156. 
Faxon v. Baxter, 299. 
Faj' V. Ames, 588. 

y. Ednilston. 588. 

V. Wenzell, 155. 
Fayerwcather v. Monson, 32. 

V. Ritch, 616, 624, 731. 

y. Tucker, 88. 
Fayette City Borough v. Huggins, 16. 
P'ayssoux v. Kendall County, 252. 
Fears v. Riley, 321, 375. 
Feaster v. Woodflll, 295. 
Featherson y. Turnpike Co., 574. 
Featherston v. Small, 287. 
Feeter v. McCombs, 487. 
Feikert v. Wilson, 313. 
Felch y. Beaudry, 15. 
Fell v. Bennett, 543, 553, 734. 
Fellows v. Fellows. 926. 

v. Hall, 248. 
Fels y. Raymond, 86. 
Felt v. Cook, 1014. 

V. Turn u re, 707. 

[References to Bectloni. H 1 to 

Felter v. MuUiner, 115, G82. 
Felton V. Railroad Co., 16. 

V. Smith, 732. 751. 
FeltUB V. Starke, 006. 
IVndaU v. U. S.. 534a, 627. 
Fendir v. Stiles, 236. 
Fenn v. Dogdale, 555. 
Fenton r. Garllck, 904. 

V. White, 38. 
Fenwlck t. ThorntOD, 536. 
Ferebee v. Doxey, 493. 
Ferguson v. Carter, 729. 

V. Crawford, 275, 287, 901, 972. 

V. Harw'ood, 877, 878. 

V. Kuinler, 246. 

V. Mahon, 827, 829, 835. 

V. Mason, 29. 

V. MlUaudou, 130. 

V. Miller, 787. 

V. Staver, 682. 

V. Town of Sheffield, 680. 

V. Yard, 284. 
Fernandez v. Da Costa, 815. 
Ferrall v. Bradford, 770. 
Ferrea v. Chabot, 560. 

T. Tubbs. 988. 
Ferrell r. Alder, 567. 

V. Broadway, 806. 

T. Hales, 127, 180, 410. 
Ferrers v. Arden, 715. 
Ferrer's Case, 647. 
Ferriday v. Seleer, 388. 
Venis v. Coovei, 216. 

V. Fisher. 660. 

V. Udell, 511, 615, 684. 
Ferry v. Car- Wheel Co., 902 

V. Street, 530. 
Festoraszi r. Church, 29. 
Fetter v. Beale, 734, 738. 
Fetterman v. Siurphy, 466. 
Fkkes T. Vlck, 376. 
Fidelity Insurance Trust & Safe De- 
posit Co. V. Fridenberg, 518. 

v. Gazzam, 74b 

T Iron Co., 159. 
Fidelity Trust & Safety-Vault Co. v. 

City of Louisville. 609. 
Fidelity & Deposit Go. v. Bank, 419. 
FMler v. John, 423. 
Field T. Cain, 860. 

T. Glbbs. 272, 903, 938c. 

V. Liver man, 455. 

V. Mllburn. 456. 



499 in vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Field V. Sandei-son, 290, 890. 

V. Sims, 958. 

V. Slsson, 330. 

V. Williamson, 197. 
Fielden v. Lahens, 208. 
Fields V. Brown, 331. 

V. Mundy's Estate, 892. 
Fifleld V. Edwards, 618. 
Fifth Mut. Bldg. Soc. v. Holt, 541. 
Fifth Nat. Bank v. Judge. 329. 
Figge V. Rowlen, 269, 271. 
Filbert v. Hawk, 9.^3. 
Files V. Robinson, 88. 
Filley v. Cody. 179. 

V. Duncan, 438. 
Fllson V. Greenspan. 77. 
Finance Co. v. Hanlon, 206. 
Finch V. Earl of WInehelsea, 400, 445. 

V. Galigher, 772. 
Flncher v. Malcolmson, 344. 
Flndley v. Johnson, 326. 

V. Smith, 949. 
Finlayson v. Accident Co., .140, 34L 
Finley v. Carothers, 981. 

V. City of Tucson, 15. 

V. Hanl>e6t 504, 631, 785, 791, 

V. Houser, 292, 666. 

V. Robertson, 193, 194. 
Flnley's Appeal, 55. 
Finnagan v. Manchester, 116. 
Finnegan v. Campbell, 620. 
Flnnell v. Jones' Ex'x, 165. 
Finneran v. Leonard, 272. 
Finney v. Boyd, 549. 

V. Ferguson, 60. 
Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia v. Ruby, 


Firebaugh v. Ward, 446, 449. 
Fireman's Ins. Co. v. McMillan, 588. 

V. Thompson, 907. 
First Baptist Church v. Fort, 242. 

V. Syms, 370, 561. 
First Nat. Bank v. Bennett, 429. 

V. Burkhardt, 210. 

V. Carleton, 63. 

V. Clark. 415. 

V. Clements, 576. 

V. Cloud, 406a. 

V. Crosby, 874. 

V. Cunningham, 61a, 291, 861, 
897, 920: 

V. Distining Co., 252. 

V. Dry-Goods Co., 238, 307. 


[References to Mctloni. §§ 1 to 499 in toL 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

First Nat. Bank v. Duel Gouuty, 862. 

V. Dusy, 158. 

v. Bwlng, 583a. 

V. Finck, 770. 

y. Garland, 53. 

y. Garlinghouse, 55, 192. 

y. Gibsou, 991. 

V. Hanior, 971. 

V. Hanua, 245, 270. 

V. Hays, 439a. 

y. Ileudrieks, 448. 

y. Hostetter, 179. 

V. Hyer, 2t)2. 

V. Jaggers, 213. 

V. Kowalsky, 155. 

y. Lieberman, 304a. 

y. Linville, 509. 

V. Lumber Co., 78, 

y. McKinney, 53. 

V. Mfg. Co., 995. 

y. Maxwell, 423. 

V. Oldham, 005. 

y. Prescott, 80. 

y. Rogers, 1008. 

y. Sloman, 938b. 

y. Trout, 61. 

y. Vander Stucken, 186. 

y. Wallis, 857, 889. 

y. Williams, 315, 783. 

y. Wolff. 121. 
Fischer y. Qulglcy, 745. 

y. Stlefel, 313. 
Flscus y. Guthrie, 514. 
Fish y. Benson, 663. 

y. Folley, 748. 

y. Howland, 585. 

V. Lane, 371. 

y. Lightner, 611. 

y. Wheeler, 86. 
Fishblate y. McGuUough, 351. 
Fish Bros. Wagon Co. y. Mfg. Co., 

Fishbume y. Engledove, 663. 
Fisher, Bx parte, 257. 

In re, 321. 

y. Fielding, 836, 844, 849, 874. 

y. Fisher, 746. 

y. Harnden, 218. 

y. Holbrook, 393a. 

V. Kelly. 790. 

V. Ijongnecker, 278, 699. 

y. McGirf, 257. 

V. Ogle, 810, 817. 

Fisher v. Railroad Co., 300. 354a. 

y. Scharadin, 16. 

V. Sieyrea, 125. 

y. Simon, 297. 

y. Wineman, 600. 
Fish Furniture Co. y. Jenkins, ?W6. 
Fishli y. Fishll, 926. 
Fishmongers Co. y. Robertson, 129. 
Fisk y. City of Hartford, 725. 

y. Miller, 296, 659. 

y. Parker, 703, 721. 

y. Thorp, 306, 346. 
Fiske y. Anderson, 230. 
Fisler y. Stewart, 1017^ 
Fitch y. Byall, 367. 

y. Cornell, 195. 

y. Meudenhall, 466. 

y. Richard, 162. 

y. Scot, 16. 

V. Scoyel, 299. 
Fithlan y. Monks. 216, 242. 
Fitzgerald y. Salentine, 213. 

y. Stewart, 128. 
Fitzhugh y. Blake, 482a. 

y. Custer, 275. 

V. McKinney, 761. 

V. Orton, 367. 
Fltzpatrick v. Oampbell, 340. 

y. Hoffman, 567. 

y. Leake, 485. 
Fitzsimmons y. Insurance Co., 816, 817. 

y. Johnson. 889, 922. 

y. Marks, 864. 

V. Munch, 115, 130. 

y. Railroad Co., 29. 
Flad Oyen. The, 818, 821. 
Flagg V. Flagg, 461. 

V. Kirk, 991. 
Flake y. Carson, 206. 
Flanagan y. Insurance Co., 60. 

V. Patterson, 338. 
Flanagin v. Daws, 437. 
Flanders y. Hall, 703. 
Flandreau v. Downey, 784, 787. 
Flanneken v. Wright, 363. 
Flannery y. The Alexander Barkley, 

V. Fertilizer Co., 274. 
Flat Top Grocery Co. y. McClaugherty, 

Flecktpn y. Spicer, 567. 
Fleece y. Russell, 27. 
Fleenor v. Drlsklll, 123, 660. 



[Raferencea to lectionB. fiS 1 to 

Fleetwood y. Mortgage Co., 345. 
Fleischman y. Walker, 217. 
Fleitas Y. Meraux, 731. 
Fleming y. Beayer, 991, 996. 
Y. Boiling, 25, 44. 
Y. Freese, 235. 
y. Hawley, 699. 
Y. Improvement Co., 83. 
Y. Insmrance Co., 719. . 
Y. Jencks, 331. 
Y. McDonald, 779, 782. 
Y. Seellgson, 200. 
Y. Stansell, 953. 
Y. Ttowsdale, 253a. 
Flemings y. Blddlck's Ez*r, 683. 
Fletcher y. Coombe, 135. 
Y. Ferrel, 857, 859. 
Y. Holmes, 87, 411, 697, 705. 
Y. Jackson, 591, 592. 
Y. Rapp, 916. 
Y. Warren, 367. 
Flewellen y. 'Ft Bend County, 616. 
FUcklnger y. Hull, 394. 

Y. Railroad Co., 153. 
Flint Y. Bodge, 756. 
Y. Sheldon, 970. 
Flint River Steamboat Ca y. Foster, 
Y. Roberts, 220. 
Flippen v. Dixon, 616. 
Flitters V. Allfrey, 522. 
Florat V. Handy, 390. 
Florida Cent U. Co. v. Schntte, 614. 
Florida Southern R. Co. v. Brown, 707. 
Florshelm Bros. Dry-Goods Co. y. Wil- 
liams, 324. 
Fkmrenoy y. Durke, 878w 
Floumoy y. Healy, 152. 
Flowers v. Alford, 3ia 

V. Jackson, 83. 
Fkjyd V. Browne, 779. 
V. Olark, 461, 466w 
V. Harding, 445. 
V. lion Co., IG, 98. 
Fluker v. Herbert. 681. 
Flynn v. Hlte, 755. 
V. Morgan, 409. 
F. Mayer Boot & Shoe Co. v. Falk, 246. 
Foertsch v. Germulller, 191. 
Fogarty v. Sparks, 577. 
Fogg V. Glbbs. 271. 

v. Plumer, 578, 607. 
Folan Y. Folan, 299. 

499 in vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Foley V. Foley, 138, l&i. 

Foley's Bx'r v. GatUff, 77. 

Folger Y. Insurance Co., 228, 835, 897, 

Follansbee v. Paving Co., 25. 

V. Walker, 537, 538, 624, 
Follett V. Alexander, 326^ 346a. 

V. Hall, 442. 
Folmar's Appeal, 636, 638. 
l'\)lsom V. Ballard, 304a« 

V. Blood, 878. 

V. Carli, 425. 

V. Chesley, 1008. 

V. Clemence, 737. 

V. Couuer, 299. 

V. Howell, 707. 
Foltz V. Wert, 445, 956. 
Folz V. Nelke, 725. 
Fontaine v. Hudson, 109. 
Foot V. DlUaye, 407. 

V. Sprague, 766. 
Foote V. Clark, 617. 

Y. Glbbs, 722. 

Y. Glenn, 360. 

Y. Sllsby, 386. 
Footman v. Stetson, 7581 
Forbes v. Bringe, 233. 

Y. Douglass, 560. 

Y. Muxlow, 85. 

Y. Navra, 130. 

Y. Scanneil, 851. 

V. Tiffany, 940. 
Forcey's Appeal, 611. 
Ford V. Doyle, 213, 219, 692. 
. V. Elkln, 72. 

Y. Ford, 381. 

V. Ford's Adm'r, 611, 642. 

V. Hill, 59. 367. 

Y. Land Co., 224. 

Y. Newcomer, 641, 

Y. Roberts, 706. 

Y. Stuart, 'Mb, 

Y. llgue, 346a. 
Forder v. Davis, 660. 
Fore V. Manlove, 957. 
Foreman v. Bibb, 1014. 

V. Carter, 318, 326. 
Forgay v. Conrad, 42, 44. 
Forin v. City of Duluth, 347. 
Formby v. Shackleford, 4G2. 
Forquer v. Forquer, 156, 163, 165. 
Forrest v. 0*Donnell, 948. 
Forrester v. Strauss, 70. 


[ReferencM to MctionB. S8 1 to 

Forsyth v. City of Hammond, 938c 
Forsj'the v. McCralght, 378. 
Fort V. Battle, 1533. 

V. Blagg, 9G1. 
Fortier, Succession of, 252. 
Fortman y. Ruggles, 222. 
Fortune v. Bartolomei, 61, 69. 
Forwood V. Dehoney, 952. 
I«'osliee V. McCreary, 366. 
Fosliier v. Narver, 898. 
Foss V. Hinlcell, 530. 

V. Witliam, 299. 
Foster v. Andrews, 551. 

V. Baiili, 378. 

V. Bowman, 117. 

V/ Com., 707. 

V. Crawford, 252, 1008. 

V. Derby, 549. 

V. Evans, 650. 

V. Foust. 438. 

V. Glvens, 271. 273. 

V. Glazener. 279. 

V. Hunter, 994. 

V. Jones, 205, 341, 593. 

V. Undley, 29. 

V. Martin, ^47. 

V. Milliner, 707. 

T. Napier, 738. 

V. Powers, 600. 

V. Railroad Oo., 152. 

V. The Richard Busteed, 501, 675, 

V. Rutherford, 1006. 1008. 

V. Smith, 91. 

V. Wells, 504, 624, 715. 

y. Wood, 378, 390. 
Foster's Appeal, 4.39. 
Foster's Estate, In re, 460. 
Foullc V. Collmm, 969. 
Foulke V. Thalmessinger, 754, 787. 
420 Mining Co. y. Mining Co., 696. 
Four-Mile Land Co. v. Slusher, 123. 
Fourth Nat. Banic y. Neyhardt, 125a. 
Foust V. City of Huntington, 537. 

y. Trice, 441. 
Foute y. Fairman, 400. 
Fowble T. Walker, 352. 
Fowle y. New Haven & N. Co., 743. 

y. Park, 760. 
Fowler y. Atkinson, 766. 

y. Brooks, 174. 

V. Brown, 227, 794. 

V. Doyle, 123. 


499 in vol. 1 ; residue in vol. 2.] 

Fowler v. Halt, 783. 785. 

y. Lee, 365, 377. 

V. Lewis' Admr, 281. 

V. Osborne, 543, 622. 

V. Owen, 779. 

V. Rlckerby, 491. 

y. Roe, 382. 

y. Savage, 007. 

V. Shearer, 697, 758, 

y. Simpson, 277. 

y. Smith, 990, 991. 

y. Succession of Gordon, 250. 
Fowlkes V. State, 785, 790. 
Fox V. Assu, 245, 261. 

y. Bank. 321. 

y. Hoyt, 286. 287. 

y. McClay. 367. 

y. McC^omb, 619. 

y. Muller, 210. 

y. Reed, 225. 
Foxcroft v. Baraes, 660, 661. 
Fox's Appeal. 431. 
Foye y. Patch. 506, 785. 
Fraley v. Feather, 305. 
Francis v. Cox, 347, 351. 

y. Insurance Co., 815. 

y. Rand, 1004. 

v. Steamer Black Hawk, 86. 
Francovlz v. Ireland, 312. 
Frank v. Brasket. 1007. 

y. Jenkins, 671. 

y. Myers, 585a. 

y. Snow, 872, 

y. State, 98. 

y. Tatum, 24. 

y. Thomas, 58. 

y. Wadderin. 540. 
Franke y. Brewing Co., 406, 432. 

y. Franke, 617. 
Frankel y. Satterfield. 278. 

V. Stern, 996. 
Frankfurth v. Anderson, 84. 
Franklin v. Merida, 204. 
Franklin County v. Bank, 615. 
Franklin Sav. Bank v. Taylor, 556, 

Frankovlz y. Smith, 347. 
Franks v. Lockey, 315. 
Franz Falk Brewing Co. v. Hirsch, 

513, 905. 
Frary v. Frary, 926. 
Fraser y. District of Columbia, 31a. 
Frayes v. Worms, 845. 

[Ref erenccB to sections. S9 1 to 

Frazer v. Barry, (591. 

V. Thatcher, 445. 
Frazier v. Bishop, 340. 

V. Felton, 190. 

T. Frazier's Ex'rs, 600. 

T. Griffie, 297. 

T. McQueen, 1009. 

T. Moore's Adm*r, 847. 

V. Williams, 211. 303. 
Frederich, Ex parte, 255. 
Fred Miller Brewing Co. v. Insurance 

Co.. 80, 859, 881, 889. 
Freedman's Savings & Trust Co. r. 

Earle, 434, 437. 
Freel v. State, 1(52, 
I^eeland v. Sup'rs, 82. 

T. Williams, 9. 11. 
Freeman, Appeal of, 857. 

V. Alderson. 220, 792, 793, 004. 

T. Baruum. GOO, 613. 

Y. Bass, 750. 

V. Caldwell, 1010. 

V. Camden, 97. 

T. Hawkins, 606. 

T. Menrs, 132. 

T. Paul, 1016. 

V. Preston. 227. 
Freer v. Stolen bur, 577. 
Freiberg v. Collender Co., 186. 

V. Le Clair, 352. 
Fremont v. Seals, 86. 
French v. Edwards, 64, 683. 

V. Eversole, 338. 

y. Frazier*s Adm^r, 640. 

T. Goodnow, 138. 

T. Howard, 750. 

T. Ice Co., 42. 

V. Xeal, 543. 

V. Pease, 109. 857, 889. 

▼. Savings Inst.. 29. 

V, Shooniiiker. 32. 

V. Shotwell, 359, 705. 

V. Snjder, 1008. 

V. Tumlin. 173. 
French Lumbering Co. v. Theriault, 
42:*, 445. 

Fresno Milling Co. v. Irrigation Co., 

Frevert v. Henry, 183. 
Friar v. Ray, 443. 
tVIdge V. State, 245. 
Friedman v. Manley, 346a. 
T. Shamblin, 252. 

CITED. zci 

499 in Tol. 1; resiaue in vol. 2.] 

Friendly v. Lee, 16. 
Frlerson v. Moody, 379. 

V. Travis, 193. 
Fries V. Fries, 301. 

V. Railroad Co., 683. 
Frlese v. Hummel, 372. 
Frink v. Frink, 135. 105. 
Frisbie v. McFarluue, 208. 
Frlsseli v. Haile, 950. 
Fritz V. Fisher, 902. 

V. Iloney, 340. 

v. Tompkins, 657, 787. 
Fromlet v. Poor, 671. 
Frost V. Dodge, 347. 

v. Hull. 182. 

V. Koon, 63. 
Frothingham v. Barnes, 901, 906, 918. 

V. Stacker, 446. 
Fruchey v. Eagleson, 16. 
Fruits V. Elmore. 261. 
Fry V. Bank, 1006. 

V. Malcolm, 9v>9. 

V. Taylor, 808. 
Frybnrger v. Andre, 947. 
Frye v. Jones, 71. 
Fryer v. Myers, 872. 
Fuehs & Land Mfg. Co. v. Springer & 

Welty Co., 352. 
Fuellhart v. Blood. 407, 467. 
Fuerman v. Ruble, 27. 
Fuher v. Vlllwock. 718. 
Fulbright v. Canuefox, 195, 225. 
Fullan V. Hooper, 376. 
Fuller, In re, 984. 

V. .4.dnms, 32. 

V. Boggs, 33. 

V. Brownell, 534. 

y. Cushman, 589. 

V. Dry-Goods Co., 358. 

T. Eastman, 758. 

V. Hamilton County, 938c. 

V. Insurance Co., 625. 

V. Little. 375. 

V. Nelson, 406. 

V. Pease, 248. 

V. Robb, 211. 

V. Shattuck, 697, 758. 

V. Smith, 193. 
Fullerton v. Kelliher, 118. 
Fuller Watchman's Electrical Detect 

or Co. V. Louis. 116. 
Fulliam V. Drake, 359, 365, 512, 754. 
Fullmer v. Pine Tp., 944, 958. 


[References to lectioni. {{ 1 to 

Fulton V. Fulton. 127. 

y. Hanlow, 611, 619. 

V. Harrington, 906. 

V. State, 109. 
Fulton Iron Works v. Riggin, 866. 
Fulton's ElBtate, 421. 
Funderburk v. Smith, 482a, 483, 489. 
Funk V. Mfg. Ck)., 322, 375. 
Furber v. McCarthy, 981. 
Furgeson y. Jones, 278, 279. 
Furguson y. Glaze, 589. 
Furlong y. Banta, 536. 
Furman y. Furman, 315, 321, 352. 
Fumald y. Glenn, 358, 362, 387. 
Furneaux y. Bank, 751. 
Fumiss y. Ferguson, 940. 
Fursht y. Oyerdeer, 485. 
Fuselier y. Babineau, 590. 

Gaar y. Lockridge, 438. 
Gable y. Miller, 523. 
Gabrielson y. Waydell, 702. 
Gaddis y. Leeson, 1005. 
Oaehring y. Haedrlch, 317. 
Gaff y. Hutchinson, 146. 
Gaffleld y. Plumber. 638a. 
Gage y. Allen, 183. 

V. Bailey, 809. 

y. City of Chicago, 306. 

V. Downey, 3, 178. 

V. Eddy. G55. 

y. Eich, 29. 

y. Ewlng, 720. 

y. Goudy. 247. 607. 

y. Hill, 278, 513. 

y. Holmes, 624. 

y. Judson, 115. 

y. Parker, 549. 

y. Pumpelly, 247, 809. 

y. Rogers, 92. 
Gaiennie v. Akin's Ex'r, 237. 
Gaines, Succession of, 685, 882. 

y. Betts, 115. 

V. Cyrus, 29. 

y. Kennedy, 378, 655, 761. 

y. Patton, 44. 

y. Relf , 2113. 

y. Wedfi:eworth, 156. 
Gaines* Will, In re, 829. 
Gains y. Johnston, 290. 


499 in Tol. 1; residue in toI. 2.1 

Gainsborough y. Giff<H^ 856. 
Gainty y. Russell, 357. 
Gairdner v. Tate, 5<X). 
Gaither v. Welch's Estate, 560. 
Galbraith y. Barnard, 363. 

y. Black, 522. 

y. Martin, 378, 388. 

V. Neville, 825. 

y. Sidener, 100. 
Gale y. Best, 681. 
Gall y. Gall, 141. 
Gallagher y. Water Co.. 610, 750. 
Gallaher y. City of MoundsyUle, 606. 

y. Pendleton, 954. 
Galley y. Baker, 356. 
Gallop y. Allen, 297. 
Galloway y. Bank, 271« 

y. Galloway, 141. 

y. McKeithen, 156. 
Gairs Estate, In re, 588. 
Gallup y. Lichter, 709. 

y. Smith, 250. 
Galpln y. Fishbume, 137. 

y. Page, 194, 229, 277, 279, 281, 
289, 896, 897, 904. 938c 939. 
Gait y. Todd, 985. 
Galyeston, H. & S. A. B. Co. r. Katac, 

Galway v. Malchow, 420. 
Gambette y. Brock, 190. 
Gambia y. Howe, 61. 
Gamble y. Buffalo County, 179. 

y. Banking Co., 943. 

y. Voll, 551. 
Gammon y. Knudson, 125. 
Gandell y. Pontigny, 752. 
Gandy y. Jolly, 263. 
Gannon y. Riel, 158. 
Ganzer y. Schiffbauer, 337. 
Gapen y. Bretternitz, 082. 

V. Stephenson, 423. 
Garber y. Commonwealth, 589. 
Garden City Wire & Spring Co. v. 

Kause, 367. 
Gardenhire y. King, 462. 

y. Vinson, 338. 
Gardiner y. Van Alstyne, 368, 387, 973. 
(Gardner, Ex parte, 218. 

y. Buckbee, 504, 729. 787. 

y. Bunn, 68. 

y. City of New London, 91. 

y. Bering, 156. 

y. Henry, 958. 

[References to lectiona. H 1 to 

ciardner y. Jenkins, 377. 

V. Letson, 747. 

y. Railroad Co., 680, 946. 

y. Balsbeck, 599. 

T. Stratton's Adm'r, 541. 
4 Pardon ▼. Chester. 44G. 
Oarey t. Saugston, 950. 
4:arfield v. rnlverslty, 299. 
iSaribaldi v. Carroll, 125. 
liarland y. Harrisou, 95G. 

V. Tucker, 828. 873. 

V. Wynn, 530. 
Garland County t. Hot Spring Coun- 
ty. eOO. 938. 
<;arluck y. Calkins. 297. 
4 Earner y. Bank, ()97. 

V. Burleson, 77. 

y. Carrol, 15. 

y. Erlanger, 354. 

y. Gamer, 905, 933. 

y. Henzig. 782. 

y. Prewltt, 44, 47. 

y. State, 98, 185. 

V. Wills, 790, 967. 
f wnmett y. Macon, 560. 
4;arrard y. Dollar, 91, 697. 

V. Hull, 549. 

V. Webb, 44. 
Oarretson y. Ferrall, 696. 
i.arrett y. Beaumont, 16. 

V. Greenwell, 696. 

V. Lynch, 384. 
<;arrick y. Chamberlain. 720. 
Uarrigne y. Amott, 534. 
Uarrison y. Transportation Co., 574. 

y. Cobb, 378. 

y. City of New York, 9, 11, 677. 

y. People, 132. 

y. Tlnley. 630. 
Carrott y. Johnson, 764. 
riarr. Scott & Co. y. Spalding, 109. 
Uarry y. Jenkins, 44. 
Garth y. Campbell, 998. 
(;artbwaite y. Wentz, 089. 
Garton y. Botts, 644, 787. 
Garvey y. Janrls, 989. 
Garyie y. Greene, 349. 
Garrin y. Ganrin, 417, 430. 

y. Hall. 945. 

V. Squires, 391. 
Garwood y. Garwood, 547, 614, 633, 

CITED. xciii 

499 in vol. 1; residue in toI. 2.] 

Gary v. Ass'n, 83. 
GaskeU y. Gaskell, 661. 
Gasklll V. Dudley, 87, 583, 697. 
Gassert y. Black, 714. 
Gassncr v. Sandford, 975. 
Gates V. Bennett, 161, 624. 

V. Bucki, 939a. 

y. Gorebam, 726. 

y. Lane, 359. 

y. McLean, 099. 

V. Newman, 204, 761, 875. 

y. Parmly, 612, 699. 

y. Preston, 769. 

y. Salmon, 39, 44. 

y. Steele, 370. 

V. Treat, 633. 
Gatewood y. Long, 734. 
Gatewood*s Adm'r v. Goode, 41T.. 
Gaullagher v. Caldwell, 950. 
Gault V. Sickles, 641. 
Gauthier y. Rusicka, 347. 
Gautier y. English, 982. 
Gayin y. Curtin, 554. 

y. Graydon, 787. 
Gay y. Cheney, 160, 165. 

y. Gay. 349. 

y. Grant, 183, 351. 

y. Lloyd, 875. 

y. Mantle Co., 761. 

y. Minot, 174. 

y. Rainey, 450. 

y. Smith, 278. 

y. Stancell, 665. 
Gayer v. Parker, 726.' 
Gayle v. Foster, 52. 
Gaylord y. Payne, 211. 
Gaynor y. Clements, 15Sw 
Gaytes v. Bank, 600. 
Gear y. Hart, 117. 
Geary y. Bangs, 733. 
Gebhard y. Gamier, 875. 
Gechter y. Gechter, 320. 
Gederholm y. Davies, 28. 
Gedney v. Gedney, 737, 744. 
Gedney's Estate, In re, 646. 
Gedusky y. Rubinsky, 16. 
Gee V. Burt, 632. 
Geekie y. Carpenter Co., 680- 
Geer v. Com'rs, 253a. 
Geery v. Geery, 407. 
Gehrke v. Jod, 341. 
Geissiuger's Appeal, 1016. 


[Referencei to sectloiu. H 1 to 4d9 in toI. 1; residue in vol. S.] 

Gelston v. Hoyt, 799, 800. 
Gemmell t. Hueben, 1005. 

V. Elce, 270. 281. 
Genella v. McMurray, 560. 
General Steam Navigation Ck>. v. 

GouiUou, 827, 836. 
Genestelle v. Waugli, 69. 
Genet v. Cauai Co., 158. 
Geneva Nat. Bank v. School Dist, 

Genobles v. West, 194. 
Gentle v. Ass'u, 388. 
Genties v. Fink, 732, 744. 
Gentry v. Allison, 439. 

V. U. S., 138. 
George v. Belk, 186. 

V. Gillespie, 624, 785. 
Y. Middougb, 125. 
V. Tutt, 383. 
George P. Steel Iron Oo. t. Jacobs, 

Georgetown v. Smith, 438. 
George W. McAJpln Co. v. Flnster- 

wald, 57. 
Georgia Home Ins. Oo. v. Goode, 138. 
Georgia R. & Banking Co. v. Harris, 
217, 227. 
V. Pendleton, 89, 244. 
Gerald v. Burthee, 50. 
Gerault v. Anderson, 897. 
Gerber v. Gerber, 703. 
(Jere v. Sup'rs, 54. 
Cterhart v. Font, 95. 
Gerllng v. Insurance Co., 98. 
German-American Bank v. Stickle, 82. 
German-American Sav. Bank v. Fritz, 

German-American Title & Trust Co. v. 

Campbell, 70. 
(lerman Bank v. Insurance Co., 541. 
German Exchange Bank v. Kroder, 

Ciernian Fire Ins. Co. v. Perry, 369. 
Germania Iron Co. v. U. S., 530. 
Germania Life Ins. Co. v. Koehler, 900. 
(iennan Ins. Co. v. Frederick, 16. 
German Reformed Church v. Common- 
wealth, 523. 
German Security Bank v. Campbell, 

GeiTish V. Cummings, 120. 
V. Hunt, 376. 
V. Pratt, 709. 

Geriish v. Seatou, 376. 
Gerstein v. Fisher, 536w 
Geseirs Appeal, 39. 
Getchell, In re, 248. 
Gettys V. Gettys, 929. 
Geyer v. Douglass, 367« 
Gheer v. Huber, 338. 
Gibbon V. Ass^n, 16. 
Gibbons v. Campbell, 851. 

V. Ogden, 32. 
Gibbs V. Bryant, 770. 

V. Jones, 699. 

V. Southern, 247. 
Gibson, Ex parte, 255. 

V. Beveridge, 208. 

V. City of Chicago, lia 

V. Chouteau. 194, 700. 

V. Chouteau's Heirs, 130. 132, 139l 

V. Cincinnati Enquirer, 98L 

V. Davis, 483, 486. 

V. Emerson, 216. 

V. Gibson, 701. 

V. Insurance Co., 939, 988b. 

V. Mi In, 724. 

V. Moore, 378. 

V. Parlin, 790. 

V. Robinson, 589. 

V. Templeton, 216. 

V. Vaughan, 125. 

V. Watts, 382. 

V. Willis, 536. 
Giddlngs v. Steele, 200, 641. 

V. Whittlesey, 881. 
Gideon v. Dwyer, 341. 
Gleseke v. Schrakamp, 1000. 
Gifford v. Thorn, 374, 705. 

V. Whalon, 960. 
Glhon V. Fryatt, 1005. 
Gilbert v. Earl, 118. 

V. Marrow, 348. 

V. Thayer, 22. 

V. Thompson, 611. 
Gilbreath v. Jones, 790. 
Gilchrist v. Bale, 729, 785. • 
Gill v. Jones, 27. 

V. Pelkey, 168. 

V. Truelsen, 956. 

V. U. S., 538. 
Cille V. Emmons, 307. 
Gillespie v. Campbell, 354. 

V. Coleman, 29. 

V. Hauenstein, 250. 

V. Insurance Co., 894, 907. 

(ReCerencet to aectioni. SS 1 to 499 in vol. 1; residue in toI. 2.] 


Gillespie t. Rogers, 330. 

T. Webster, 351. 

T. Weiss, 351. 
GiUett y. Booth, 165. 

T. Camp, 922. 

Y. Landis, 604. 

v. Sullivan, 388. 
GiUette-Herzog Mfg. Go. t. Asbton, 85. 
GilUam v. Ketldick, 173, 516. 
GinUan Y. Murphy, 270. 

v. Spratt, 6U9. 
Giniland y. Bredin, 354. 

V. Seller, 240. 
GiUim Y. DaYless Count}', 619. 
Gillbigham y. Towboat & T. Co., 579. 
(Dillon Y. Wear, 273. 
Gillum Y. Case, 652. 

Y. Railway Co., 208. 
Gitanan y. DonoYan, 204. 

Y. Foote, 774. 

Y. Gilman, 901, 903. 

Y. HoYey, 407. 

Y, Lewis, 227. 

Y. Rives, 707, 708, 709. 
Gilixuin*n Estate, In re, 313. 
Gilmer, Ex parte, 135. 

V. City of Grand Rapids, 167, 713. 

Y. Morris, 709. 718, 725. 
<>ilmore v. Ro<l jeers, 250. 

V. Ward, 101. 

v. Whltemau, 750. 

V. Williams, 768. 
(tilmour v. Ewing, 939a. 
<:ilpin V. Railroad C6., 920, 1016. 
<;ilreath v. GiUiland, 146. 
GUmth Y. Gilrutb, 320. 
GllsoD, In re, 255. • 

Y. Bingham, 768. 
Giitinan v. Strong, 587. 
Gingrich v. Gingrich, 306. 
Oirardln v. Dean, 543, 725. 
c;iKller Y. Carter, 667. 
<;i«t V. Davis, 713. 

V. McJunkin. 624. 
i'Avonn V. Campbell. 376. 

V. Peake. 745. 
Givens* Appeal, 379. 
<iladweU v. Hnme, 663. 
4;iae9er v. City of St. Paul, 324, 
Glanton v. Griggs, 596. 
Glaser v. Meyrovitz, 790. 
iilasner y. Weisberg, 543. 
Glaspie Y. Keator, 745. 

Glass v. Blackwell, 829, 935. 

v. Gilbert, 260. 

Y. Glass, 134. 

v. Smith, 358. 
Glasscock v. Price, 406. 

V. Stringer, 405, 406a, 453. 
Glaude v. Peat, 747, 7tS3. 
Gleason v. Dodd, 855, 901. 

v. Peck, 299. 

Y. Supply Co., 20a 

Y. Wilson, 801. 
Glenn v. Brush, 510. 

Y. Priest, 789. 

Y. Savage, 620. 

v. Shelbume, 84. 
Glickman v. Loew. 352. 
Glldden v. Packard, 83. 

V. Railroad Co., 530. 
Globe, The, 791. 
Globe Ace. Ins. Co. v. Reld, 84. 
Gloninger v. Hazard, 350. 
Glos v. Sankey, 896. 
Glover v. Flowers, 290. 

V. Hedges, 386. 

Y. Holman, 85, 181, 223. 

V. Moore, 190, 192. 

V. Stamps, 655. 
(ilyde Y. Keister, 55. 
Goar Y. Maranda, 271. 
Goble Y. Dillon, 751, 769. 
Godard v. Gray, 814, 820, 827, 843, 

0"1'1 . 

Godbold V. Klrkpatrick, 944. 
Goddard v. Benson. 790. 

V. Bolster, 127, 204. 

V. Coffin, 106. 

V. Seidell, 621. 
Godding V. Decker, 206. 
Goebel v. Iffla, 554. 
Goenen v. Schroeder, 713. 
Goergen v. Schmidt, 318. 
Goetzinger v. Rosenfeld, 451. 
Goff V. Dabbs, 78, 698. 
Goggan V. Evans, 147. 
Gold V. Hutchinson, 347. 

V. .Tohnson, 1006. 
Goldberg v. Fowler, 83. 
Goldsberry v. Carter, 347. 
Goldschmidt v. Mills, 599. 
Goldsmith v. Wilson, 29. 
Goldtree v. Allison, 643. 
(Solightly v. Jellicoe. 762. 
(Joniez v. Gomez, 246. 


[Reterencei to secUonB. (fi 1 to 

Gonzales v. Batts, 260. 
Gooch V. Atkins, 1010. 
Good V. Good, 505. 

V. Norley, 194. 
Goodale y. Cooper, 206. 
Goodall V. Harris, 122. 443. 

Y. Marshall, 865. 
Goodell V. Blumer, 417, 418, 445. 

v. Raymond, 161. 

V. Starr, 274. 
Goodenow v. Litchfield, 751. 
Goodess V. Williams. (iOl. 
Goodfellow, In re, 248. 
Goodhue V. Churchman, 347. 

T. Daniels, 604. 

V. Meyers, 338, 339. 
Goodin v. Newcomb, 542. 
Goodman v. Hailes, 577. 

V. Malcolm, 703. 

V. Pocock, 752. 

V. Winter, 635. 
Goodness y. Railway Co., 352. 
Goodnow V. Hill, 192. 

Y. Litchfield, 548. 

V. Smith, 605. 

V. Stryker, 540, 892. 
Goodrich y. Alfred, 50. 

Y. Bodurtha, 683. 

Y. City of Chicago, 521, 

V. ColYin, 958. 

Y. Jenkins, 857. 

Y. StCYens, 878. 

Y. Thompson, 633. 

Y. WiUard, 299. 

Y. Yale, 729, 734, 78a 
Goodwill Y. Elkius. 50. 
(Goodwin Y. Miller, 42. 

Y. Richardson, 954. 

Y. Wilson, 589. 
Goodwlne y. Hedrlck, 163. 
Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Go. y. 

Frlsselle, 958. 
Gordon y. Bodwell, 109. 

Y. Downey, 183. 

Y. Gilfoil, 939a. 

Y. Johnson, 508. 

V. Kennedy, 633. 

V. Mackay, 897. 

▼. Rixey, 404. 

Y. State, 727. 

V. WeaYer, 655. 
Gordonier y. Billings^ 299. 


499 in vol. 1; residue in vol. U 

Gore Y. Gore, 617. 

Y. Poteet, 949. 
Gorgas y. Blackburn, 985e. 
Gorham y. Farson, 429. 
Gorman y. Young, 364. 
Gormully &, Jeflfery Mfg. Co. y. Cath- 
arine, 354a. 
Gorrill v. Whittier, 174, 245, r»13. 
Goss Y. Singleton, 541. 

V. Wallace, 600. 
Gott V. Carr, 369, 372. 
GotUieb v. Fred W. Wolf Co., 744. 

Y. Thatcher, 473. 
Gonce y. McCoy, 1006. 
Goucher v. Clayton, 698, 
Goudy V. Hall, 274. 
Gough Y. McFall, 167. 

Y. Pratt, 389. 
Gould Y. Crawford. 699. 

V. Crow, 925, 932, 933. 

Y. EleYator Co., 108. 

Y. Hayden. 864, 958. 

Y. Kelley, 100. 

Y. Loughran, 180. 

Y. Luckett, 454. 

V. McFall, 191. 

Y. Railroad Co., 693, 703, 707, 709. 

V. Sternburg, 315, 683. 

Y. Webb. 852. 
Gould's Estate y. Watson, 154, 300. 
Goundle y. Water Co., 660. 
Goiurlay y. Hutton, 349. 
Gove Y. Lyford, 722. 
Governor v. Read, 986. 

V. Shelby, 588, 689. 
Governor and Company of Bank of 

Scotland v. Fenwick, 486. 
Govin Y. De Miranda. 744. 745. 
Gowen y. Conlow, 355. 
Goyhlnech v. Goyhinech. 34. 
Grace y. Marble Co., 211. 
Grader v. Weir, 351. 
Qracy v. Coates, 81. 593. 
Grady y. Donahoo, 340. 
Graef y. Bernard, 314. 

Y. Beraard, 511, 864. 
GraefP, In re, 32. 
Grafton y. Brigham, 661a. 
Grafton & G. R. Co. y. DaYlsson, 303. 

Gragg Y. Richardson, 567. 
Graham, Ex parte, 63, 76, 482. 

[References to sections. iS 1 to 

(Graham, In re, 533. 

T. Bank, 366, 387. 

% Dyer, 567. 

v. Graham, 83. 

V. Grigg, 934, 937. 
Graham v. Improvement Co., 252, 393. 

y. Long, 55, 190. 

V. Lynn. 135, 137. 

V. Railroad Co., 242, 248, 297a. 

T. Reynolds, 280. 

V. Roberts, 375, 381. 

V. Scripture. 958. 

V. Spencer, 230, 901, 903, 939. 

T. Tankersley, 371, 567, 571. 
(frames t. Un wley, 306. 
(rraud Gulf Bank v. Henderson, 449. 
Grand Island & N. W. R. Co. v. Ba- 
ker. 253a. 
Grand Rapids Sav. Bank y. Wldd- 

comb, 157. 
Granger v. Clark, 273, 290, 917. 

T. Singleton, 703. 
Graniee, Ex parte, 255. 
Granite State Provident A88*n v. Mc- 

Hugh. 155. 
Grange v. Frihgs, 354. 
<;rant v. Bledsoe, 875. 

V. Bnrgwyn, 674. 

V. Easton, 848. 

V. Harrell, 303. 

V. Hill, 2S4, 295. 

V. Insurance Co., 41. 

V. Lowe, 22. 

V. McCatfgbin, 349. 

V. McLachlin, 814. 

V. Maclaren, 644. 

V. Oliver. 530. 

V. Quick. 361. 

V. Railroad Co., 41. 

V. Ramsey, 504. 

V. Schmidt, 145. 

V. Spann, 250. 
Grantham v. Kennedy, 367. 
Graotland v. aty of Memphis, 489. 
Grant Tp. v. Reno Tp., 540. 
Grass T. Hess. 376. 
Grattan v. Matteson, 65, 297. 
Graver v. Faurot, 372. 
Graves V. Bnlkley. 588. 

V. Hebbron, 624. 665. 

V. Joice, 652. 

▼. Skeels, 490. 

V. Whitney, 52. 


4&d in vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Graves v. Woodbury, 953, 954, 1004. 

Graves' Adm'r v. Flowers, 562. 

Gravett v. Malone, 590. 

Gray v. Barton, 362. 

Gray v. Bicycle Co., 321^ 804, 919. 

V. Brignardello, 132, 245. 

V. Canal Co., 923. 

V. Daniels, 704. 

V. Dougharty, G93, 714. 

V. Edwards, G17. 

V. Gates, 306, 324. 

V. Glllllan, 304, 787. 

V. Gray, 707. 

V. Hlnes, 143. 

V. Larrlmore, 281. 

V. McNeal, 282, 287. 

V. Palmer, 47. 

V. ringiy, 729, 783, 784, 787. 

V. Sabin, 343. 

V. Smith, 554. 

V. Stuart, 170, 211. 

V. Thomas, 133, 803. 

V. Thrasher, 482a. 

V. Ward, 371. 

V. Winder, 198. 
Graydon v. Hurd, 666. 

V. Justus, 875. 
Gray's Adm'r v. McDowell, 210, 491. • 
Gray's Adm'rs v. White, 206. 
Gray*s Heirs v. Coulter, 118. 
Great Falls Co. v. Worster, 293. 
Greathouse v. Smith, 958. 
Great Western Tel. Co., In re, 320a. 

V. Piwdy, OlOa. 
Great West Mln. Co. v. Mining Co., 83. 
(ireaves v. Middlebrooks, 069, 780. 
Greely v. Smith, 647, 609. 

V. Townsend, 216. 
Green v. Association, 896, 907. 

V. Ballard, 191. 

V. Banks, 31, 32. 

V. Barker, 530. 

V. Beals, 211. 

T. Bedell, 529. 

V. Bogue, 509. 

V. Branton, 190. 

V. Brown, 213. 

V. Burke, 1008. 

V. Clark, 578, 581. 

V. ClawBon, 680. 

V. Cobden, 127. 

V. Fisk, 39. 

V. Foley, 857. 


CBeterenOM to MCtloiii. HI to 

Green y. Fricker, 526. 

V. Grant, 302. 

V. Hamilton, 87. 

y. Huggius, 562. 

y. Jones, 86. 

y. Marks, 425. 

y. Massie, 385. 

y. Plattsburg, 494. 

y. Railroad C^o., 305, 806, 810. 

y. Reagan, 179. 

y. Sanbon, 866. 

y. Sarmiento, 828. 

V. Shaw, 236. 

V. Starr, 864. 

y. Taney, 199. 

y. United States, 718. 

y. Van Busklrk, 904. 
Greenabaiun y. Elliott, 758. 
Greene v. Darling, 526, 956. 

V. Greene, 290, 296. 

V. Halleubeck, 973. 

y. Haskell, 368. 

V. Railroad Co., 733, 972. 
Greene County v. Daniel, 985c. 
Greenlaw y. Williams, 569. 
Greenleaf y. Com'rs, 582. 

y. Maher, 369. 
Greenlee v. Lowing, 630. 
Green man v. Fox, 593. 
Greeno v. Barnard, 119. 
Green's Appeal, 485. 
Greenstreet v. Thornton, 199. 
Greenway v. Cannon, 432. 
Greenwich Bank y. Loomis, 411, 550. 
iJreeuwood v. City of New Orleans, 
197, 706. 

V. Marvin, 692. 

V. Murray, 635. 

y. Warren, 644. 
Greenzweig y. Strelinger, 897, 911. 
Greer v. Hale, 379. 

y. Simrall, 556. 

y. Bank, 491. 
Gregg V. Belting Co., 610. 

V. Jamison, 175. 
Gregory v. Bovier, 287. 

y. Clabrough's Ex'rs, 549. 

y. Cuppy, 954. 

y. Ford, 377. 

y. Gregory, 927. 

V. Hnynes, 352, 550. 

V. Ken yon, 783. 

V. riive, 504. 


4M in Tol. 1; reiidue In yol. 2.] 

Gregory y. Stark, 1006. 

y. Woodworth, 707. 
Grenell v. Sharp, 491. 
Gresham y. Ellis, 311. 
Greve v. Goodsou, 32. 
Grevemberg y. Bradford, 284. 
G rider v. Apperson, 865. 
Grldley v. College, 283. 

y. Watson, 466. 
Griefswald, The, 821. 
Griel v. Vernon, 341. 
Grier v. Jones, 346, 691. 
Griess v. Insurance Co., 88. 
G riffle v. McClung. 779. 
Griffin V. Brewer, 340. 

y. Camack, 945. 

y. McGavin, 263. 

y. Orman, 44. 

y. Railroad Co., 681. 

y. Seymour, 696, 707, 710. 

V. Smyly, 261, 378. 

V. State, 255. 
Griffin's Case, 175, 256. 
Griffin's Ex'r v. Cunningham. 218. 298. 
Griffith V. Clarke, 188, 190, 392. 

y. Fields, 728. 

y. Furry, 206. 

y. Griffith, 393. 

V. Happersberger, 600. 

y. Harvester Co., 213. 

y. Maxwell, 158. 

y. Ogle, 128. 

y. Reynolds, 371. 
Griffiths v. Sears, 956. ' 
Grigg y. Gilmer, 86. 
Griggs y. Becker, 867. 
Grignon y. Astor, 283. 
Grigsby v. Akin, 809. 
(Jrim V. School District, 298. 
Grimes v. Barratt, 38. 

y. Grosjean, 155. 

V. HiUlary, 41. 

y. Port man, 425. 

y. WMlliams' Estate, 782. 
Grimes' Estate y. Norris, 633. 
Grimke's Ex'rs v. Mayrant, 483. 
Grimley, In re, 256. 
Grimmett y. Askew, 177. 
Grinnell y. Schmidt, 326. 
Griswold v. Hazard, 251, 380. 

y. Hill, 127, 1013. . 

y. Pitcairn, 826. 

V. Rutland, 299. 

CR«f«reiioM to Mctioiis. H 1 to 

Grlawold y. Stewart, 203, 260. 
Griswold Unseed Oil Co. y. Lee, 822, 

Groat y. Pracht, 526. 
Groesbeck v. Golden, 603. 
GroDer v. Hield, 641. 

T. Smith, 130. 
Gronfler v. Puyniirol, 194, 195. 
Groning y. Union Ins. Co., 815. 
Groome, In re, 320a. 
Grootemaat y. Tebel, 340. 
Groshon v. Thomas, 548. 
Gross y. Railroad Co., 995. 
Grosyenor y. Cbesley, 958. 

y. Doyle, 335. 
Grotenkemper y. Carver, 709. 
Groth y. Washburn, 556. 
(Sroondie y. Water Co., 578, 660. 
Groat y. Chamberlin, 568. 
Groye y. Bnsh, 343. 
G rover y. Boon, 490. 
V. Groyer, 87a 
Groyer & Baker Co. y. Raddiffe, 894. 
Groves y. Brown, 694. 
Grovetf Appeal, 398. 
Grahh y. Crane, 347. 
Gmbbs y. Blum, 61. 
Gnmd v. Tncker, 583. 
Gnmdy y. Kelley, 347. 
Gmner y. Westin, 473. 
Granert y. Spalding, 549, 600, 609, 

615^ 629. 
Gmsenmeyer y. Logansport, 250. 
G. 8. Congdon Hardware Co. y. Min- 
ing Co., 340, 851. 
Guarantee Co. of North America v. 

Tmst Co., 46. 
Guarantee Tmst & Safe-Deposit Co. v. 

Railroad Co., 31a. 
Guaranty Trust & Safe-Deposit Co. ' 

V. Railroad Co., 232, 513. , 

Guardian Say. Bank v. Reilly, 44. | 
Gude y. Insurance Co., 875. 
Guerln y. Danforth, 550. 
Guernsey v. Carver, 734, 736. 

V. Froude, 351. 
Guernsey Branch of State Bank v. 

Kelley, 982. 
Guest y. Guest, 926. 
Guidiy v. Jeanneaud, 578. 
Guild v. Bonnemort, 30. 

v. Phillips, 321. 
Guiles V. Murray, 986. 


499 in vol. 1; realdue in vol. 2.] 

Guille y. Swan, 770. 

Guinard v. Heysinger, 213, 970. 

Guinness v. Carroll, 827. 

Guise y. MiddletoD, 165. 

Guiteau y. Wisely, 440. 

Gulf City Street Ry. & Real-Estate 

Co. y. Becker, 28. 
Gulf City Trust Co. v. Hartley, 541. 
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Blankeu- 
heckler, 393b. 

y. Henderson, 863, 393. 

y. King, 363. 

y. James, 084. 

y. Moody, 529. 

y. Stephenson, 24. 
Guliano v. Whitenack, 261. 
Gulick v. Lodei-, 892, 975. 
Gulickson V. Bodkin, 271. 
Gullett Gin Co. v. Oliver, 404-406. 
Gulley V. Thurston, 445. 
Gumbel v. Abrams, 152. 

y. Pitkin, 576. 
Gum-Elastic Roofing Co. y. Mexico 

Pub. Co., 138. 
Gummer v. Trustees of Village of 

Omro, 699. 
Gund y. Horrlgah, 130. 
Gundlhi y. Packet Co., 696. 
Gunn y. Black, 44. 

y. Donoghue, 22. 

y. Howell, 204, 246, 247, 279, 593. 
857, 875, 886. 

V. Miller, 220. 

y. Peakes, 721, 835, 849, 875, 877. 

y. Plant, 110, 245, 513. 

v. Railroad Co., 661. 
Gunnell v. Emerson, 141. 
Gunter v. Buckler, 404. 
Gurley v. Railroad Co., 29. 
Gumea v. Seeley, 682. 
Gurnee v. Maloney, 641. 
Gusman v. De Poret, 386. 

V. Hearsey, 681a. 
Gutchess v. Whiting, 746. 
Guthrie v. Bashlinc, £^. 

y. Doud, 372. 

v. Havard, 190. 

v. Lowry, 897. 

y. Pierson, 576, 

v. Reid. 1016. 
Gut Luu, In re, 533. 
Gntzwiller v. Crowe, 118. 
Guy V. Ide, 312. 


[References to secttOM. H 1 to 

Guy V. Lumber Co., GOO. 
Guyer's Adm'r v. Guyer, 109. 
(iwinn V. Newton, 367. 

V. Parker, 305. 
Gwj'nn V. Hamilton's Adm'r, 548. 


Haak v. Breidenbach, (528. 
Haak's Appeal, 455. 
Haas V. Taylor, 020, 764. 
Hacker, In re, 250. 
Hackett v. Connett, 713. 

V. Jones, 18<). 

V. Manlove, 203, 295. 
Hackley v. Draper, i)73. 
Haddock v. Perham, 586. 
Haden v. Goppinger, 429. 

V. Walker, 945. 
Hadley v. Mayor of Albany, 532. 
Hadwin v. Fisk. 402. 
Hagadorn v. Hart, 449. 
Hagan v. Cliapmau. 407. 
Hagar v. Reclamation Dist., 221. 

V. Townsend, 141. 

V. Wikoff, 354. ' 
Ilageman v. Salisberry, 119. 
Hagerthy v. Bradford, 574. 
Haggart v. Morgan, 52(5. 
Haggerty v. Amory, 850, 891. 

V. Phillips, 302. 
Haggln V. Ix)rentz, 341. 
Hagler v. Mercer. 118, 130. 
Hagood V. Aikin, 982. 
Hahl V. Sugo, 601. 
Hahn v. Gates, 340. 

V. Hart, 358, 368. 

V. Kelly, 270. 271, 273, 277, 278, 
.281, 283. 

V. Miller, 742. 

V. Mosely, 112. 
Haight V. City of Keokuk. 611. 

V. Gay. 216. 

V. Ilolley. 30. 
Halle V. Hill, 922. 
Hailey v. Boyd's Adm'r, 590. 
Haines v. Christie, 3. 

V. Lytle, 349. 
Hair v. Lowe, 368. 

V. Moody, 306. 
Halrston v. Garwood, 336. 
Hake v. Coach, 24, 45. 


499 In TOl. 1; reildue in toI. S.] 

Halbert v. De Bode. 250. 
Haloombe v. Ijoudermilk, lOlO, 
Haldeman v. Starrett, 89. 

V. U. S., 690. 
Hale v. Angel, 958. 

V. Bank. 141, 956. 

y. Bozeman, 357. 

V. Finch, (KiO. 

V. Hardon, 583. 

V. Home, 434. 

V. Lawrence, 13. 

V. Robertson. 439a. 
Haley v. Bank. 90. 
Haleys v. Williams, 433. 449. 
HaU V. Calvert, 510. 

V. C^aig, 064. 

V. Cralge, 214. 

V. De Armond, 3. 

V. Dodge. 518. 

V. Green, 415. 

V. Griffin, 382. 

V. Hamlin. 290. 293. 

V. Harrison, 677. 

V. Harvey. 202. 

V. Heffley, 245. 

V. Henderson, 963. 

V. Howd, 282. 

V. Jones, 309. 

v. Lanning, 237, 901. 

V. Law, 238. 

V. McKay, 874. 89(J. 

V. Mercantile Co.. 305 

V. Merrill, 157. 

V. Odber, 825, 847. 

V. Publishing Co., 326. 

y. Richardson, 536. 

y. gauntry. 245, 446, 1015. 

V. SIgel, 583. 

V. Taylor, 998. 

V. Thayer. 174. 

y. Warren. 802. 

y. Williams, 211, 228, 884, 897. 

y. Young, 217. 

y. Zeller, 627. 
Hallack v. Gagnon, 749. 

V. Loft, t581a. 700. 
Halladay v. Underwood. 321. 
Hallberg v. Brosseau, 142. 
Halleck v. Moss. 250. 
Haller y. Parrott, 551. 

y. Pine, 627. 
Hallett y. Righters, 281. 

[BeferenceK to sections. SI 1 to 

Hallock V. DomlDy, 522. 

V. Jaudin, 84. 
Hallowell v. Brown, 491. 
Hallum V. DlckJuson, 099. 
Halstead t. Black, 875. 
Halter v. Soap-Works Co., 352. 
Hambel v. Davis, 270, 280. 
Bamberger v. Easter, 407. 
Uamberlin v. Teii->*, 2t)7. 
Hambleton v. Glenn, 917. 

V. McGee, 2()7. 
Hamblln v. Kni|;ht, 376. 
Hambly v. Hnyden, 118. 
Hambrick v. Dent, 80. 
Hamburg-Bremen Fire Ins. Co. v. Mfg. 

Co., 357. 
Hamburger v. Easter, 407, 411. 
Hamer v. Cook, 271. 

V. Kirk wood, 981. 

V. Sears, 182. 

V. Trust Co., 130. 
llamill V. Talbott, 907, 926. 
Hamilton v. Adams, 305. 

V. Burum, 282. 

V. Cutts, 567, 574. 

T. Dutch East India Co., 825. 

V. Oilman, 197. 

V. Mclean, 368* 

V. Seitz, 167. 

V. Ward, 114. 

V. Wood. 373. 

V. Wricht, 272. 
Hamilton Bhig. Ass'n v. Reynolds, 694. 
llamiltouK Appeal, 406. 
Hamlin t. Railroad Co., 35. 
Hamlln*s lessee v. Bevans, 449. 
Hamm v. Bascbe, 208. 

V. Beaver. 740. 
Hamman v. I^wis. 115. 
Hammatt v. Wyman, 995. 
Hnmmer v. McConiiel, 130, 155, 160. 

V. Woods, 661a. 
Hammergen v. Schurmeier, 099. 
Hammett v. Morris, 593, 997. 
Hammock v. McBride, 293. 
Hammon v. Smith, 855. 
Hammond v. Ass'n, 897, 

V. Carter. 655. 

T. Freeman, 181. 

T. Hammond, 933. 

T. Place, 974. 

T. Wilder, 290. 
Hamner y. Boott, 36. 


499 in vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Hampson v. Edeleu, 438. 

V. Weare, 245. 
Hampton v. Levy, 446. 

V. McConnel, 275, 856, 857, 884. 
Hampton Lumber Co. v. Van Ness, 

Hanchett v. Auditor General, 664. 

v. Kimbark, 956. 
llauchey v. Croskrey, 629. 
Hancock v. Bowman, 183. 

v. Flynu, 513, 680. 

V. Lopez, 660. 

V. Mfg. Co., 750. 

V. Welsh, 729. 
Hancock Nat. Bank v. Farnum, 910a, 

Hand v. Taylor, 588. 
Handley v. Jackson, 365, 374, 393, 

v. Sydenstrlcker, 432. 
Handrahan v. Iron Works, 583. 
Handy v. Smith's Adm'r, 485. 
Haneman v. Pile, 691. 
Hanham v. Sherman, 697, 747. 
Hanika's Estate. In re, 260. 
Hanks v. Harris, 944, 948. 

V. Pearce, 462. 

V. Thompson, 21. 
Hanley v. Donoghue, 211, 860, 914, 

V. Foley, 632. 

V. Hanley, 370, 808. 
Hauly V. Adams, 498. 
Hanua v. Morrow, 387. 

V. Read, 506, 543, 682, 888. 

V. Savage, 587, 1006. 

V. Spotts' Heirs, 197. 
Hannaford v. Huun, 783. 
Hanness v. Bonnell, 1008. 
Hannon v. O'Dell, 671. 
Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Tomlinson, 

Hanrick v. Gurley, 567, 659, 751. 
Hansbrough v. Fudge, 135. 
Hanscom v. Hewes, 87. 

V. Tower, 907. 
Hansen v. Schlesinger, 165. 
Hansen's Empire Fur Factory v. Tea- 
bout, 545. 
Hansford v. Van Auken, 9G(J. 
Hanson v. Armstrong, 553, 577. 

V. Bowyer, 36. 

V. Buckner's Ex'r, 571. 



[References to sections. SS 1 to 

Hanson v. Hanson, 354. 

y. Jacks, 482a, 491. 

y. Michelson, 341. 

V. Wolcott, 288, 324. 
Hanthorn v. Oliver, 335. 
Harbaugb v. Water Co., 340a. 
Harbeck v. Pupin, 58. 

V. Vanderbilt, 9U9. 
Harbin v. Chiles, 908. 

V. Roberts, 567. 
Harbolt v. State, 83. 
Hard v. Shipman, 275. 
Hardaway y. Drummond, 560. 
Hardee v. Stovall, 128, 473. 
Harden v. Campbell, 970, 
Hardenbergh v. Converse, 448. 
Hardin v. Blackshear, 600. 

V. Clark, 600. 

V. Dickey, 714. 

V. Melton, 110. 

V. Palmerlee, 729. 

V. Ray, 180. 
Harding v. Alden, 822, 926, 982, 933. 

V. Cowing, 152. 

V. Fiske, 357. 

V. Hale, 618, 745. 

V. Larkin, 567, 569. 

y. R. S. Peale Co., 340. 

V. Splvey, 441. 
Ilardwlck v. Hook, 604. 
Hardy v. Beaty, 227, 281. 

y. Cathcart, 159. 

y. Eagle, 548. 

y. Gholson, 270. 

y. Hardy, 709. 

v. Nelson, 571, 574. 
Hare y. Hare, 920. 
Harford y. Street, 237. 
Hargns y. Goodman, 504, 658, 726. 
Harker y. Brink, 235. 
Harkness y. Hntcherson, 253a. 
Harlan y. Berry, 774. 

y. Wlngate's Adm'r, 389. 
Harlow y. Bartlett, 729. 
Harman y. Blackstone, 23. 

V. Brotherson, 211. 

y. City of Lynchburg, 288. 
Harmer y. Bell, 814. 
Harmon y. Auditor of Public Ac- 
counts, 584. 

v. Bynum, 43. 

y. Dedrick, 484. 

y. Hope, i)4S. 

499 in vol. 1; residue In vol. 2.] 

Harmon y. Martin, 299. 

y. Struthers, 509. 
Harms y. Coryell, 664. 

y. Jacobs, 340. 
Hamer's Appeal, 445. 
Harness y. Green's Adm*r, 863. 
Hamsbarger's Adm'r v. Kinney, 378. 
Harp y. Guano Co., 439. 
Harper y. Baruett, 307. 

y. Biles, 85. 

V. Campbell, 650. 

y. Cunningham, 50, 52. 57, 218, 

V. Drake, 308. 

V. Graham, f)89. 

y. Harper, 622, 938c. 

y. Harvey, 986. 

V. Hill, 359. 

y. Kean. 299. 

y. Mallory, 341. 

y. Nichol, 896. 
Harralson v. McArthur. 324, 339. 
Harriinan y. Swift, 299, 329. 
Harrington y. Bean, 1005. 

y. Glenn, 981. 

y. Harrington, 676, 864. 

V. People, 275. 

V. Sharp, 422, 432, 433. 

V. Wadsworth, 604. 
Harris, In re, 257, 320a. 

y. Barnhart, 512, 084, 685. 

y. Bradford, 135. 
Harris y. City of Houston, 744. 

y. Colquitt. (333. 

V. Guin, 225. 374, 377. 

V. Hardeman, 324. 

V. Harris, 183. 609. 

y. Jenkins, 55. 

V. Jones. 179. 

V. Leonhardt, 770. 

V. Lester, 245. 

V. McClanaliau. '^73. 

Y. McDonald, :.79. 

V. Mfg. Co., 86. 

y. Martin, 165. 

V. Miner, 669. 

V. Mulkem, G."2. 

y. Palmer, 1000. 

y. Plant, 548. 

y. Preston, 207, 700. 

V. Keinhard, 55. 

y. Sanders, 23. 

V. Sargcant, 273. 

LRef erencM to sections. H 1 to 

Harris t. State, 153. 

T. Stelner, 958. 

V. Willis, 282. 

y. Yonman, 197. 
Harrison y. Harrison, 157, 880, 932. 

V. Heatbom, 127. 

y. Insurance Co., 696, 707, 938. 

V. Lourle, 829. 

V. McHenry, 459. 

y. Pender, 246, 269. 

y. Roberts, 432. 

y. Rosb, 32. 

y. State. 154. 

y. Trust Co., 162, 962. 

y. Wanton's Ex'r, 197, 898b, 664. 

V. Walton's Ex'r, 504. 

y. Waterworks, 22. 

y. Wilson, 1009. 
Harrison's Ex'x y. Taylor, 117. 
Harryman y. Roberts, 729, 864, 907. 
Harsbey y. Blackmarr, 374, 377, 901, 

Eiar^bman y. Court, 253a. 
Har*: v. Bank, 695, 714. 

V. City of New Orleans, 985a, 

y. Grigsby, 192. 

y. Hiatt, 22. 

y. Jewett, 513. 

y. Lazaron, 361. 362. 

y. McNamara, 799. 

y. Moulton. 549, 600, 609. 

y. O'Bourke, 307. 

y. Plcard, 617. 

y. Russell, 404. 

y. Sansom, 906, 939. 

y. Saryis, 50. 

y. Steedman, 660. 

y. Washburn, 352. 
Harteau y. Harteau, 928. 
liarter y. Harter, 958. 
Hartford Pire Ins. Co. y. Green, 26. 
Hartigan y. Nagle, 321. 
Hartman, Ex parte, 255. 

y. Hesserlcb, 201. 

y. Ogbom, 190, 269, 273. 

y. Olyera, :i52. 

V. Plane Co., 742, 750. 

y. Smith, 530. 

V. Stehl, 607. 

y. Welland, 604. 
Hartrldge y. Wesson, 97, 121. 
Hart's Lessee y. Johnson, 213. 

CITED. cm 

499 in vol. 1; residue in vol. 8.] 

Hartzell y. Com., 644. 

y. Relss, 497. 
Harvey y. Branson, 44. 

y. Farnie, 822. 

y. Foster, 260. 

y. Head. 587. 

y. HugglDS, 282. 

y. McAdams, 121. 

y. Osborn, 599. 

y. Pollock, 318. 

y. Railroad Co., 754. 

y. Tyler, 279. 

y. Wilde, 560. 

y. Wilson, 339. 
Harvie v. Turner, 577, 663. 
Harwood v. Railroad Co., 301. 
Haseltlne v. Thrasher, 724. 
Haskell y. Bowen, 102. 
Haskin v. Mayor, 750. 
Haskins y. Jordan, 954, 1005. 
Hass v. Billings, 323. 
Hassell y. Hamilton, 889. 
Hassler y. Hefele, 208. 
Hassler's Appeal, 162. 
Hasted v. Dodge, 121. 
Hastie y. Aiken, 44. 
Hastings v. Cunningham, 154. 

V. Land Co., 159. 
Hatch V. Arnault, 109. 

y. Coddington, 729. 

y. Eustls, 482a, 493. 

y. Ferguson, 2G5, 297a. 

y. Garza's Ex'r, 292. 

y. Spofford, 864, 865, 989a. 
Hatcher v. Dillard's Adm*rs, 644. 
Hattteld v. Cummings, 100, 583. 
Hathaway v. Crocker, 206, 

y. Hemingway, 143. 
Hattenback v. Hoskins, 179. 
Hauck V. Gundaker, 490. 
Hauer's Appeal, 53, 496. 
Haug V. Railroad Co., 246, 286, 709. 
Haughey v. Strang, 389. 
Haupt v. Burton, 482, 488, 498, 892. 
Hauscheld y. Hauscheld, 329. 
Hauselt y. Patterson, 703. 
Hauser y. Harding, 16. 
Hayard y. Atkins, 530. 
Havemeyer v. Refining Co., 314. 
Hayen y. Baldwin, 958. 
Hayerty y. Haverty, 344. 
Hawes y. Hathaway, 974. 

y. Hoyt, 349. 


[References to sectloiui. f S 1 to 

Hawes v. Petroleum Co., 583. 

V. Water Co., 611. 
Hawk T. Evans, 689. 
Hawkes v. Phillips, 774. 
Hawkeye Ins. Co, v. Liickow, 986. 
Hawkins v. Depriest, 518. 

V. Files, 446. 

V. Glenn, 147, 583. 

V. Hai-fllng, 388, 1014. 

V. Hatton, 779. 

V. McDougal. 261. 

V. Ridenhour, 982. 

V. Ringler & Co.. 750. 

V. Smith, 28. 

V. Taylor. 541. 

V. Wills. 412, 766. 
Hawkins' I>essee v. Hayes, 650, 653. 

V. Lambert, 543. 
Hawks V. Ti-uesdell, 682. 
Hawley, Ex parte, 32. 

V. Dawson, 552. 

V. Fairbanks, 985b. 

V. Heyman, 220. 

V. Mead, 299. 

V. Simons, 655, 6JW- 

V. Smeiding, 420. 

V. Warner, 671. 
Haws V. Tiernan, 699. 
Hay V. Cole, 304a. 
Hay del v. Roussel, 162. 
Hayden v. Boothe, 504. 

V. Goppinger, 429. 

V. Hayden, 321, 36a 

V. Huff, 443. 

V. Slaughter. 494. 

V. Woods, 207. 
Hayden Saddlery Hardware Co. v. 

Ramsay, 92. 
Hayes v. Caldwell, 29. 

V. Carr, 953. 

V. Collier, 174. 

V. Kerr, 275. 

V. Reese, 737. 

V. Seaver, 589. 

V. Shattuck. 613. 

V. Shaw, 200, 204. 

V. Solomon, 101. 
Haygood v. McKoon, 513. 

V. Tait, 84. 
Haynes v. Aultman, Miller & Oo., 496. 

V. Baekman, 116. 

V. Calderwood, 550. 

V. Gates, 280. 


499 in vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.3 

Haynes v. Jackson, 699. 

V. Meeks, 250. 

V. Ordway, 510, 685, 769. 

V. Wheat. 98(;. 
Hays V. Cage, 847. 

V. May's Heirs, 42. 

V. Merkle. 857, 903. 

V. Miller, 137. 

V. Regar. 421. 

V. lYyon. 408. 

V. Ward, 996. 
Hays' Appeal, 417. 
Hayton v. Hope, 138. 
Hayward v. Clark, 734. 

V. Pimental, 247. 
Haywood v. Daves, 859. 

V. Nooney, 447. 

V. Shieve, 55. 
Hazard v. Durant, 133. 
Hazard's Estate, In re, 460. 
Hazelett v. Ford. 522. 
Hazelrigg v, Wainwrlght, 349. 
Hazeltine v. Insurance Co., 910. 

V. Reusch, 367. 
Hazen v. Bank. 721. 

V. Reed, 751. 
Hazleburst v. Morris, 21. 
H. B. aaflin Co. v. De Vaughn, 518. 

H. C. Tack Co. v. Ayres, 446. 
Head v. Daniels, 269. 

v. Gervais, 941. 999. 
Headley v. Roby, 958. 
Heady v. Ass'n, 229. 
Heald v. Bennett, 987. 
Healey v. Ashbey, 430. 
Healy v. Root, 871. 
Heaps V. Hoopes, 342. 
Heard v. Lodge. 587. 589 

V. Sack, 205. 
Hearfleld v. Bridges, 889. 
Hearn v. Railroad Co.. 575. 
Hearne v. Erhard, 117. 
Heath v. Banking Co., 158. 

V. Cobb, 379. 

V. Frackleton, 759. 

V. Halfhill, 358. 

V. Wallace, 530. 
Heathcote v. Haskins, 332. 
Heath's Adm'r v. Ashley's Adm'r. 197. 
Heaton v. Collins, 238. 

V. Peterson, 339. 
Hebel v. Insurance Co., 232. 



[ReferenceB to sectloiiB. IS 1 to 

Heberd v. Wines, 420. 
Hecht V. Motliner, (381. 
Uockemann v. Young, 770. 
Hecker v. Haak, 191. 

V. Mourer, 438. 
HeckUng v. Allen, 333. 
HeckBcher v. Mlddleton, 322. 
Iled^ecoxe .v. Conner, 158. 
Hedges v. Meyers, 32. 
Heegaard v. Trust Ckx, 21, 27. 
lit?ert V. Cruger, 158. 
lieff V. Cox, 205, 407. 
H.»Cferfnan v. Porter, 525. 
lieffuer v. Day, 45. 

V. Gunz, 224, 324. 
Heffron v. Knickerbocker, 534* 
Ilefliug V. Van Zandt, 351. 
Hefner v. Insurance Co., 204. 
Ilegarty'H Appeal, 635. 
Hegeler v. Henckell, 135. 
Heggle V. A8s*n, 583. 
Ueicliew v. Hamilton, 504. 
Heid.^nhelmer v. Johnston, 984. 
Heidritter v. Oil doth Co.. 794. 
ilei^bway v. Pendleton, 223. 
Ileikes v. Com.. (598, 727. 
iiolll)ron T. Campbell, 330. 

lieSlig V. I^mly, 998. 

ilellman v. Krob. (^1. 

Heilner v. Coal Co., 351. 

Ileil's Appeal, 406. 

Ileim T. Butln. 373. 

lleimgartner v. Stewart, 330. 

Heine t. Corners, 985e. 

Heinemann v. I^ Clair, 322. 

Helnlen v. Phillips, 121. 

Helns V. WIcke, 92, 725. 

Heintz v. Pratt, 160. 

Ileisterhagen v. Garland, 337. 

Hekking v. Pfaff, 939. 

Helena, The, 814. 

Heller v. Mfg. Co., 387. 

Hellman v. Schwartz, 186. 

Helm V. Gilroy. 32. 
T, Hardin, 585. 
V. Van Vleet, 206. 

lif^lms V. Bell. 2ro. 
V. KeaniK. 138. 

Helmoth v. Bell. 145. 

IlHprey v. Redi< k. (iOO. 

Ilelvete r. Rapp. 110. 

Hemmeus v. Bentley. 182. 

Hemmenway t. Hickes, 84. 

499 in vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Hempstead v. Watkins, 378, 389. 
Hemstad v. Hall, 16. 
Henchman v. Roberts, 55. 
Henderson, Ex parte, 256. 

V. Banks, 160. 

V. Coke Co., llJ9. 

V. Harness, 747. 

V. Henderson, 731, 829, 844, 962. 

V. Heushali. 27. 

V. Insurance Co., 15, 26. 

V. J. B. Brown Co., 206. 

V. Lange, 340. 

V. McPike, 152. 

V. McVay, 954. 

V. Moore, 362. 

V. Moss, 757. 

V. Stanlford, 227, 907. 

V. Vanhook, 491. 

V. Williams, 585. 
Hendrick v. Clouts, 699. 

V. Thomas, 989. 

V. Wblttemore, 224, 245, 270, 282, 
Hendricks v. Comstock, 892. 

V. Decker, 789. 

V. Wallls, 992. 994. 
Hendrickson v. Bradley, 357, 583. 

V. Brown, 954, 1000. 1001. 

V. Hinckley, 366. 378, 388. 

V. Norcross' Ex*rs, 518. 
Hendrlckson's Appeal, 451. 956. 
Hendrix's Heirs v. Clay, 165. 
Hendron v. Kiimer, 3()7. 
Hendry v. Benlisa. 086, 987. 

V. Crandall, 116. 

V. Cline, 173. 
Henkleman v. Petenson, 368. 
Henley v. Stone, 585. 
Henly v. Soper, 962. 
Hennessee t. Mills, 248. 
Hennessy v. City of St. Paul, 247, 
Henulng v. Insurance Co., 910. 
Henninger v. Heald, 693. 
Henrietta Nat. Bank v. BaiTett, 733. 
Henriques ,v. University, 697. 
Heniy v. Allen, 875, 896. 

V. Brothers, 950. 

V. Davis, 611. 

V. Elliott, 364. 

V. Estes, 282. 

V. Ferguson, 671. 

V. (Gibson, 206. 

V. Henry, 463. 


[References to eecUons. H 1 to 

Henry v. lusuranee Co., 35. 

V. Keys, 1010. 

V. Railroad Co., 536. 

y. Sansom, . 759. 
Henry Ulfelder Clothing Co., In re 

611, 807. 
Henry & Coatsworth Co. v. Halter, 

484, 991. 
Hensley v. Force, 884, 916. 
Henson v. Taylor, 745. 
Hentig V. Redden, 655. 
Hepburn v. Bank, 86. 

V. Griswold, 152. 
Hepler v. Davis, 487, 892. 
Herald v. Hargis, 349. 
Herbert v. Cook, 825. 

V. Hanrlck, 633. 

V. Herbert, 309, 370, 383. 

V. Lawrence, 344. 

V. Rowles, 301. 
Herbster v. State, 174. 
Herbst Importing Co. v. Hogan, 338. 
Herdlc v. Woodward, 314. 
Hering v. Chambers, 270, 277. 
Herman v. Miller, 1000. 
Herman Berghoff Brewing Co. v. 

Przbylskl, 98. 
Hermance v. Cunningham, 340a. 
Hermann v. Commission Co.. 765. 
Herman's Ex'x v. Martin, 8 i. 
Hernandez v. James, 358, 3(i2, 377. 
Herndon v. Hawkins, 177. 
Heroman v. Louisiana Inst., 104. 
Herr v. Herr, 646, 660. 
Herren v. Harraison, 354. 
Herrick y. Bank, 299. 

y. Butler, 271. 

y. Smith, 255. 
Herring y. Adams, 761. 

y. Cherry, 135. 

V. PoUey, 122. 
Herriter y. Porter, 734, 738. 
Herron v. Walker, 450. 
Hersey v. Long, 569. 

y. Turbett 550. 
Hershey y. Bank, 511. 

V. Dennis, 411. 
Heryey y. Edmunds, 179, 318, 326. 

y. Rawson, 746. 
Herwick y. Supply Co., 394. 
Hess y. Bollnger, 530. 

y. Cole, 326, 127, 272. 

y. Heebie, 621. 


499 In vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Hesse y. Mann, 110, 111, 404. 
Hettrlck y. Wilson, 346. 
Heward y. State^ 98. 
Hewetson y. City of Chicago, 154. 
Hewett y. Outland, 948. 

y. Williams, 714. 
Hewitt y. Furman, 526. 

y. Hazard, 345. 
Hewlett y. Pilcher, 551. 
Heydenfeldt y. Towns, 174. 
Heydenfeldfs Estate, In re, 099. 
Heyfron y. Bank, 13. 
Heyl y. Donifelser, 536. 
Heyman y. Landers, 604. 
Heywood y. Thacher, 545. 
H. Herman Sawmill Co. y. Martin, 

Hibbard y. Eastman, 366, 373. 

y. Randolph, 953. 
HlbbeiHl y. Smith, 406. 411. 
Hibemia Sayings & Loan Soc t. 
Court, 81, 593. 

V. Matthai, 84, 88» 156. 

y. Thornton, 141. 
Hibler y. Shipp, 695, 703. 
Hickey y. Smith, 233. 
Hicklin y. McClear, 340a. 
Hickman y. Barnes, 155. 

y. Branson, 211. 

y. Jones, 173. 

y. Macon Co., 958. 

V. Railroad Co., 90. 
Hicks y. Ayer, 50. 

y. Bank, 79a. 

y. Riley, 213. 

V. Ross, 1002. 

V. Vann, 86. 
Hidden y. Saunders, 1012. 
Hidell y. Funkhouser, 541. 
Hiestand y. Williamson, 459. 
Higbee y. Bowers, 31. 
Higgen's Case, 674. 
Higgins, Ex parte, 770, 776. 

T. Bockwith, 228. 

V. Bogan, 100. 

y. Bordnges, 247, 270. 

y. Brown, 34. 

V. Bullock, 376, 378. 

V. Curtis, 641. 

y. Dunkleberger, lOOS. 

y. Peltzer, 188, 190. 
Higginson y. Martin, 965. 
High's Estate, In re, 641. 

[References to BectlooB. U 1 to 

Higley T. PoUock, 86. 
Hildretb v. DaTis, 351. 

T. Thompson, 200. 
km V. Armlstead, 173, 407. 

T. Bain, 574. 

r. Bowyer, 387. 

T. Cab Co., 275. 

T. City of St Louis, 310. 

y. Cooper, 655. 

T. Coiirt, 253a, 983b. 

T. Crump, 343, 346, 351. 

T. Egan, 309. 

T. Gordon, 376, 434, 446. 

T Grant, 2&I. 

T. Harris, 394. 

T. Hoover, 134, 161, 164. 

V. Hnckabee, 173, 407. 

T. Joy. 735. 

V. Keyes, 193. 

V. Lancaster, 754. 

y. Mendenball, 897, 902. 

y. Morse, 773. 

y. Town ot Sunderland, 298. 

V. Transfer Co., 275, 973. 

y. Tucker, 563. 

y. U. S., 3o9. 

y. Warren, 299. 

y. Woodward, 270. 
Hillebrant y. Barton, 13a 
Htllens y. Brinstield, 137. 
Hills T. Sherwood, 706. 
HiU'g Ex'x T. Rogers, 365. 
HUrs Heirs, In re, 38. 
Hilton y. Bachman, 270. 

7 Quyot, 829, 836, 844. 

y. Guyott, 829, 831, 840, 844. 
Hlmes y. Kiefal, 768. 
Himmelmann v. Sulliyan, 632. 
Hinckley v. Miles, 373. 
Hindman y. Mackall, 887. 
liiiids y. Allen, 567. 

V. Hopkins, 61, 61a. 

V Scott, 460. 

y. Wallis, 240. 
Hinason y Weatherill, 634. 
HIne y. Hussey, 174. 
Hfnesly v. Hunn*s Adm*r, 1006, 
Hinrlchaen y. Reinback, 391. 
Hinsdale y. Hawley, 317. 
IlinfK>n y. Wall, 860. 
illnton y. Bland's Adm'r, 195. 

y. Insurance Co., 104, 228, 278. 

y. McNeil, 660. 



499 in vol. 1; realdue in toI. 2. ] 

Hlnton y. Odenheimer, 995. 

V. Prltohard, 560. 

V. Towues, 227. 
Hintrager v. Sumbargo, 362. 
Hbriart v. Ballon, 32. 
Hirsh y. Clawson, 86. 

y. Welsberger, 34, 232, 312. 
mrshfeld v. Brown, 297, 318. 

V. Franklin, 236. 
Hirth y. Pfelfle, 593. 
Hitcb y. Gray, 116. 
Hitchcock V. Aicken, 828, 855. 

V. Frackelton, 771, 774. 

V. Herzer, 347. 
Hitchiu V. Campbell, 119. 
Hlte V. Fisher, 340. 

V. Long, 729, 734, 738. 
Hitt V. Lacey, 593. 
Hittle V. Zelmer, 339. 
Hittson y. Daveuport, 152. 
Hix V. Davis, 774. 
EUxBon V. Ogg, 504. 
Hoag V. Hatch, 101. 

V. Society, 346a, 354. 
Hoagland v. Bell, 583. 

V. Green, 443. 

y. Hoagland, 271, 273, 281. 

y. Way, 157, 163. 
Hoare y. Nlblett, 770. 
Hobart v. Frost, 217. 
Hobbs V. Beckwith, 21. 

y. Duff, 761, 761, 953, 954, 1004. 

y. Heming. 816. 

y. McMakin, 500., 

V. Mlddleton, 580.* 

y. Parker, C17. 

v. Slmmonds, 471. 

V. Staples, 21. 
HobBon v. Marksoo, 248. 

V. Yancey, 589. 
Hoch V. Raibroad Co., 742. 
Hockaday v. Jones, 83, 362, 398. 

V. Skeggs, 921. 
Hockman y. Hockman, 441. 
Hodgdon v. Hodgdon, 981. 
Hodge y. Hodge, 549. 

y. Shaw, 743. 
Hodges v. Brett, 232. 

y. Eastman, 236. 

y. Bddy, 655. 

y. Hodges, 526. 

y. Kimball, 27. 

y. McCabe, 454. 

<;V111 CASES 

[References to sectloiui. SS 1 to 

Hodges y. Templer, 126. 
HodsoU y. Stallebrasse, 738. 
Hodson y. Tlbbetts, 232. 
Hoey V. Furman, 058. 

y. Jacksou, 309. 
Hoffertbert y. Kllnkhardt, 123. 
Hofflieimer y. Stiefel, 902. 
Hoffield y. Board, 213. 
Hoffman y. Hoffman, 227, 906, 927, 

y. Newell, 913. 

V. Porter, 706. 

y. Shupp, 188. 
Hoffmire y. Hoffmlre, 272, 374. 
Hogau y. SmMh, 050. 
Hogg y. Charlton, 804, 874. 

V. Link, 370. 
Hoggatt, Succession of, 199. 
Hoggatt*s Heirs y. Crandall, 515. 
Hoghtallng y. Osborn. 182. 
Hoglan V. Carpenter, 256. 
Hogshead v. Carruth, 1006. 
Hogton, In re, 197. 
Hogue y. Corbit, 155. 
Hoguet y. Wallace, 85. 
Hobner v. Gratz, 841. 
Hohorst V. Packet Co., 23. 
Hoitt y. Skinner, 83. 
Holbert'R Estate, In re, 082. 
Hoibrook v. Brooks, 080. 

y. Champlin, 1008. 

y. Hoibrook. 320. 

y. Murray, 211. 
Holcomb V. Tift. 110. 
Holden v. Dunn.' ;H]0. 

y. Garrett. 420. 

V. Haserodt. 32. 

V. Lathrop, ()44. 

V. O'Donohue, 029. 
Holderman y. Tedford, 360. 
Holdsworth y. Tucker, 33. 
Hole y. Page, 85, 320. 
Holland v. Assn. 201. 

y. Hatch, OJm. 

y. Johnson, 218. 

y. Kindrogan, 16. 

y. Mining Co., 583. 

y. Preston, 009. 

y. Trotter, 373. 
Holland Bank y. Lleuallen, 322. 
Hollander v. Fechheimer, 45. 
Hollenbeak y. McCoy, 303. 
Hollenbeck y. Stanberry, 990. 


499 in Tol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Holley V. Acre, 589. 
HoUlda y. Shoop, 430. 
Holliday y. Bank, 442> 456, 459. 

y. Coleman, 720. 

y. Ward, 635. 
HoUiman y. Pearlstone, 338. 
Holllnger y. Reeme, 374. .S87. 
Hollingsworth y. Barbour, 220l 

y. Patten's Adm'x. 448. 

V. State, 203. 

y. Thompson, 451. 
Hollis y. Morris, 029. 
HoUister y. Abbott, 504. 

y. Barkley, 518. 

y. Dillon, 1010. 

V. HoHIster. 920, 967. 

V. Judges, 105. 
HoUoway y. Holloway, 36. 

y. Jones, 655. 057. 
Holly V. Cook, 954. 
Holman y. Furniture Co., 32, 201, 3<'3 

y. Miller. 449. 
Holmes, In re. 407, 508. 

y. Aery, 520. 

y. Buckner, 286. 

y. Campbell, 966. 

y. City of Carondelet, 650. 

y. Holmes, 228, 320, 929. 

y. Honie, 127, 326. 

V. Lewis, 89. 

y. Railroad Co., 039. 

y. Renisen, 307, 503, 852. 

y. Robinson, 1004. 

y. Steele, 367. 

y. Wilson, 742. 
Holmes' Appeal, 422. 
Holmes* Heirs y. Gay's Heirs, 210. 
Holsworth V. O'Chander. 582. 
Holt y. Alloway, 227, 912, 916. 

y. Johnson, 913. 

y. Lamb, 638. 

y. Schneider. 032. 

y. Thadier, 200, 972. 
Holtby y. Hodgson, 100, 191. 
Holt County y. Insurance Co., 253a. 
Holt County Bank y. Holt County. 

Holtor Lumber Co. y. Insurance Co., 

Holthausen y. Kells, 749. 
Holton y. Gleason, 009, 

V. Towner, 211. 
Holyoke Bank y. Mfg. Co., 583. 

[Reference* to aectlont. if 1 to 

Homan t. Fleniiug, 100. 

T. Hellman, ltJ9. 
Uome Friendly Soc. v. Tyler, 903. 
Uome Life lua Co. v. Caulk, 303. 

T. Dutiu, 37. 

V. Morse, 217. 
Uome Nat. Hank v. Carpenter, 291. 
Homer v. Brown, 699. 

V. Fish, 754. 
Hood T. Bank, 160. 

V. Hood, COO, 624, 803, 822, 926, 

V. State, 927, 929. 
Hooe V. Barber, 200. 
Hook T. Ricbeson, 179. 

V. Trust Co., 154, 576. 
Hooper v. Hardle, 197. 

T. Hooper, 561. 

V. Railroad Co., 740. 
Hoopes* Eistate, In re, H40a. 
Hooeier Stone Go. v. Railroad Co., 

Hooton V. Will, 441. 
Hoover t. Blnkley, 141. 

V. Kilander, 751. 

V. Mltcbell, 705, 706. 
Hope V. Everbart, 74. 
Hopkins T. Bowers, 119. 

V. Cravey, 246. 

T. Flynn, 161. 

T. Hopkins, 354. 

V. Howard, 77, 486, 

r. J^dd, 80, 90. 

T. Lee, 504, 611. 

T. Orr, 118. 

▼. Sbei^ard, 880. 

y. Stockdale, 735, 944. 

V. Woodward, 978. 
Hopper T. Da\ie8, 388. 

T. Lucas, 57. 
Hopper's Estate, In re, 81a. 
Hoppin Y. Arery, 537, 550, 754. 
Hoppock ▼. Cray, 78. 

▼. Sbober, 448. 
Hoppock'B Bx*r8 r. Bamsey, 451. 
Horan r. Wabrenberger, 216, 270, 282. 
Horbacb v. Smiley, 425, 443, 462. 
Hord y. Dlsbman, 383. 
Horgan v. Pacific Mills, 740. 
Horn T. Lockbart 173. 

y. Queen, 386. 

y. Ross. 1008. 
Home y. Seisel, 44Ck 


499 in vol. 1; reiidue in vol. 2.] 

Horner v. Bank, 220, 261, 271. 

v.* Doe, 278. 

V. Dunnagan, 737. 

V. Homer, 154, 158. 

V. Nichols. n, 204. 
Homsby v. Bank, 585. 
Horn thai v. Flnellte, 352. 
Hortou V. Clark, 484. 

V. Crltchfleld, 835, 875. 

V. Hamilton, Oil. 

V. Howard, 174. 

V. Mining Co., 340a, 347. 

V. Railroad Co., 734. 
Hosklns V. Hatteuback, 357. 

T. Joliiiii«ou, 431. 
Hosier v. Uursh, 16. 
Hosmer v. Hoitt, 86. 

V. Wallace, 530. 
Hcspes V. O'Brien, 939a. 
Hos8ack v. Underwood, 948. 
Hostetter v. City of Pittsburgh, 526. 
Hotchkiss V. Cutting, 110, 274. 

V. Nichols, 611. 
Hotham v. Somervllle, 436. 
Hottenstein v. Conrad, 32. 

V. Haverly, 991. 
Hough V. Stover. 264. 

V. Waters. 766. 
Honlditch v. Donegal, 825. 
House V. Lrckwood, 614, 786. 

V. Reavis, 663. 

V. Wright. 33. 
Housemire y. Moulton, 504. 
Houser v. Smith, 219. 
Housh y. People, 589. 
Houston V. Houston, 403, 440. 

V. Moore. 34. 

T. Musgrove, 513, 693. 

V. Starr, 33. 

y. Timmermau, 550. 

V. Ward, 233. 
Houston, E. & W. T. Ry. Co. v. BK 

lisor, 363. 
Hovey y. Elliott, 226, 939, 939b. 

y. Middleton, 352. 

V. Morrill, 954. 
How y. Dorscheimer, 68. 

V. MorteU, 357, 373. 
Howard, Ex parte, 645. 

V. City of Huron, 253a, 613, 697, 

y. Coon, 905. 

V. De Cordova, 360. 


• [References to Mettsiuk IS 1 to 

Howard y. Howard, 860. 

V. Iron Co., 207. 

y. Johnson, 186. 

V. KimbaU, 611. 

y. Lock, 263. 

T. Mitchell. 787. 

y. North, 190, 430. 

y. Smith, 903. 
Howard-Harrison Iron Co., Bz parte, 

Howards v. Selden, 938c. 
Howe V. Bank, 617. 

V. Coldreu, 352. 

V. Harding^ 747. 

y. Klein. 1001. 

y. Mining Co., 352. 

V. Mortell, 357. 
HoweU V. Barrett 210, 

y. Budd, 639. 

y. Campbell, 83. 

y. Goodrich, 769. 

V. Gordon, 906. 

y. Hale, 190. 

y. McCracken, 746. 

y. Aifg. Co., 59. 

V. Morlan, 130. 

y. Thomason, 362. 

y. Withers, 1005. 
Howe Mach. Co. v. Hickox, 1004. 
Howes y. Austin, 699. 
Howeth y. Clark, 27. 
Howgate y. U. S., 586. 
Howie y. Lewis, 77. 
Howison V. Weeden, 245, 261. 
Howk y. KimbaU, 991. 
Howland y. Carson, 248. 

V. Knox, 455. 

y. Railroad Co., 936. 
Howlett V. Tarte, 697. 
Howse V. Judson, 469. 
Hoxie V. Bank, 599. 

V. Wright, 857. 
Hoyle y. McOrea. 1012. 
Hoyt y. Howe, 425. 

y. Hudson, 1009. 

y. :Macon, 83. 

V. Railroad Co., 718. 
Hoyt Dry-Goods Co. y. Thomas, 33. 
Hubbard v. Hobson. 3S4. 

V. Hubbard, 635. 

V. Investment Co., 908. 

V. Martin. 381. 
Hubbart v. Phillips, 374. 


tf9 In Yol. 1; residue in toI. 2.] 

Hubbell y. Coudrey. 892. 

y. Hubbell, 554, 926, 928, 982. 

y. U. S., 512, 685, 708, 722. 733. 
Huber Mfg. Co. v. Sweny, 130, 305. 
Huckaby y. Sasser, 109, 905^ 
HuddeU, In re, 492. 
Hudelmeyer y. Hughes, 766b 
Hudgins y. White, 354. 
Hudson v. Breeding, 93. 

y. Carman, 583. 

y. Daily, 880. 

y. Hudson, 135, 165. 

y. Kline, 364. 

y. McMahon, 50. 

y. Morris, W3. 

y. Yost, 253. 
Huebschman y. Baker, 375. 

y. Cotzhausen, 633. 
Huey's Adm*r v. Redden's Heirs, 491. 
Huir y. Hutchinson, 261. 

V. Wright, 192. 
Huffman y. Knight, 671, 734. 
Huggins y. King, 369. 
Hugh y. HIggs, 962. 
Hughes y. Alexander, 750. 

y. Blake, 504. 

V. Cornelius. 797, 813, 814. 

y. Cummin gs, 270. 

V. Davis, 939b. 

y. Frum. 100. 

y. Helms, 63. 

y. Housel, 346a. 

V. Jones, 624, 672, 802. 

V. Lindsey, 211. 

V. Mendocino Co., 744. 

V. Moody, 77. 

V. Mortgage Co., 734. 

y. Pipe Lines, 581. 

y. Rees, 783. 

V. Shreve, 1. 

V. Shingle Co., 161. 

y. Trahem, 950, 953. 

y. U. S., 693, 713. 

y. Walker, 703. 
HuklU y. Guffey, 663. 

y. Railroad Co., 708. 
Hulett V. Hamilton, 362. 
Hull y. Blake, 598, 923. 

V. Chaffln. 554. 

y. Hull, 1)32. 

y. Naumberg, 958. 

y. Vining, 340, 354. 

V. Webb, 800, 878, 806. 



[ReferaoMtOMOtlni. If 1 to 489 in toL 1; naldiie la toL tj 

Holme y. Janes, 211. 
Hulfle T. Mershon, 75. 
HulTersoQ r. Hutchinson, 286. 
Humboldt Mill & Min. Go. Y. Terry, 

flume T. Bank, 619. 

y. Bowie, 33. 

y. Schintz, 682. 
Hnmes y. Scniggs, 600. 
Homlston t. Smith, 482a. 

T. Stainthorp, 32, 44. 
Hmmnel v. Bank, 562. 

y. Lilly, 486. 
Hummer y. Lamphear, 958. 
Humphrey y. Persons, 7. 

y. Thorn, 141. 

y. Tozier, 345a. 
Humphreys y. Browne, 682. 

V. Humphreys, 356. 

y. Leggett, 390. 

y. Lundy, 498. 

y. Rawn, 321, 323. 
Humphreys' Lessee y. Humphreys, 428. 
Hnmphreyyille y. Culyer, 154. 
Humphries y. Bartee, 241. 
Huner y. Doolittle, 63. 
Hungerford y. Oushing, 287. 

y. SIgerson, 378. 
Hungerford's Appeal, 627. 
Hnnstock y. Hunstock, 27. 
Hunt y. Anderson, 23a 

y. Bates, 779. 

y. Breading. 1007. 

y. Brown, 757. 

y. City of San Francisco, 84. 

y. Coachman, 367 

y. Conrad, 1004. 

y. Dutchcr, 967 

y. Fisher, 297a. 

y. Hayen, 549. 

y. Hunt. 916, 92& 

y. Jenney, 354. 

y. Lucas, 80. 600. 

V. Lyle, 227, 85a 

y. Payne, 655. 

y. Russ, 560. 

y. Smith, 983. 

y. Standart, 206. 

y. Steyens, 311. 

y. Swajze, 443, 446. 

y. Terrn*s Heirs, 618, 712, 773. 

V. WaUis. 347. 

V. Yeatman, 326. 

Hunter y. Bank, 367. 

y. Bryant, 88, 326. 

y. Carroll, 657. 

V. Davis, 615. 

y. Hunter, 25. 

y. Ruff, 281. 
Hunter*8 Private Road, In re, 40. 
Huntingdom y. Grantland. 422. 
Huntington- y. Attrill, 870. 

V. Crouter, 377. 

v. Emery, 322, 348. 

y. Finch, 326. 

y. Meyer, 411. 

y. Moore, 47. 
Himtley y. Baker, 907. 
Hunton v. Euper, 324, 354a. 
Huntt y. Townshend, 436. 
Hurd y. Eaton, 359. 

y. Fogg, 1005. 

y. McClellan, 540. 
Hurford v. City of Omaha, 182. 
Hurlburt y. Reed, 324. 
Hurlbutt y. Butenop, 545. 

v. Thomas, 222. 
Hurley y. Hewett, 109. 

V. Lamoreaux, 662. 
Hursey y. Marty, 588. 
Hurst v. Combs, C09. 

y. Everett, 695, 865. 

y. Fisher, 300. 

y. Means, 714. 

y. Sheets, 954, 1004. 
Husky y. Maples, 994. 
Hussey v. Culver, 947. 
Husted V. Van Ness, 242. 
Huston v. Ditto, 299, 378. 
Huston Tp. Co. of Mut Fire Ins. Co. 

V. Beale, 352. 
Hutcheson v. Grubbs, 397, 398, 468. 
Hutchings v. Bank, 82. 

V. Weems, 99. 
Hutchins v. Gerrish, 879. 

v. Riddle, 1004. 
Hutchinson v. Bank, 529. 

v. Brown, 58, 121, 780, 950, 957. 

y. Inhabitants, 96& 

v. Ledlle, 318. 

y. McLaughlin, 40. 
Hutsonplller's Adm'r v. Stover's 

Adm'r, 993. 
Hutton V. Williams, 633. 
Huyck V. Graham, 262. 
Huyghe v. Briukman, 610. 


[References to sections. H 1 to 

Hyatt y. Bates, 504. 

V. Challiss, 707, 938. 
Hyde v. Curling, 132, 135. 

V. Lelsenring, 731. 

V. Michelson, 120, 130, 137. 

V. Noble, 745. 

V. Piukard, 28. 

V. Redding, 263. 
Hyder v. Smith, 269. 
Hyman v. Stadler, 776. 


Iba Y. Association, 303. 

Ide V. Booth, 84. 

Iglehart v. Chicago Ins. Co., 61. 

V. Lee, 384, 386. 

V. State, 589. 
• Ihmsen v. Ormsby, 646, 660. 
lliorn V. Wallace, 950. 
liams V. Root, 271, 281. 
lies V. i^lledge. 904. 
Ilg T. Burbanli, 604. 
Illff V. Arnott, 180. 
Illinois Cent. R. Co. V. Brown, 37. 

V. City of Champaign, 534a. 

V. Miller, 740. 

V. People, 740. 

V. jQuirk, 529. 

V. Slater, 740. 

V. Wilbourn. 743. 
Illinois Conference of E^vangeUcaI 

Ass'n V. Plagge, 555. 
Illinois Live Stock Ins. Co. y. Kirk- 

patrick, 100. 
Illinois Steel Co. v. O'Donnell, 70. 

v. Szutenbach, 326a. 
Illinois Trust & Savings Bank y. Rail- 
way Co., 48, 270, 
Illinois & St. L. R. & Coal Oo. v. 

Cobb, 613. 657. 
Imlay v. Cai-pentier, 862. 
Imrie v. Castrique, 819. 
Independent Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 152. 
Independent Order y. Paine, 97. 
Independent School Dist. y. Schreiner, 
311, 953. 

V. Werner, 400. 
Indiana, B. & W. R. Co. y. Allen, 664. 
Indiana Farmers' Liye Stock Ins. Co. 
v. Stratton, 761. 



499 in vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.} 

Indianapolis, D. & W. By. Co. v. 

Crockett, 303, 317. 
Indianapolis & C. R. Co. y. Clark, 617, 
y. Risley, 970. 
Indianapolis & St L. Ry. Oo. y. Harm- 
less, 972. 
Indiana & I. S. R. Co. y. Sampson, 97. 
Ingalis v. Bank, 378, 394. 

V. Morgan, 481. 
Ingersoli v. Dyott, 60. 
y. Jewett, 793. 
V. Mangam, 194. 
Ingle V. McCurry, 376, 377. 

V. Thousand Islands Hotel Co., 
Ingraham v. Champion, 482. 
V. Gildemeester, 236, 237. 
V. Hail, 734, 736. 
Ingram v. Beik. 346, 482a, 487. 
V. Bray, 718. 
y. Phillips, 513. 
V. Bobbins, 65. 
Ingwaldson v. Olson, 235, 772. 
Ingwersen y. Buchholz, 380, 627. 
Inhabitants of Argyle y. Dwiuel, 430. 
Inhabitants of Brewer y. Inhabitants. 

Inhabitants of Dublin y. Chadboum, 

Inhabitants of Embden y. Lishemess. 

Inhabitants of Essex County y. Berry. 

Inhabitants of Greenfield y. Wilson. 

Inhabitants of Jay v. Inhabitants, G^S). 
Inhabitants of Knox v. Inhabitants. 

Inhabitants of Limerick, In re, 132% 

inhabitants of Lower AUoways Creek 

v. Moore. 588. 
Inhabitants of Milford y. Holbrook. 

Inhabitants of Shrewsbury y. Inhab- 
itants, 574. 
Inhabitants of Springfield y. Inhabit- 
ants, 127. 
Inhabitants of Stetson v. Inhabitants. 

Inhabitants of Stockbridge y. luhnb- 
itants» 969. 

[Beferences to secUons. §S 1 to 489 In toL 1; rMidue In vol. X.] 


IiiliabltantB of Sturbridge v. Fraukliu, 

Inhabitants of Veazie y. Raili'oad (X»., 

574, 575. 
Inloe y. Harrey, 550. 
Inumn v. Jenkins, 785. 

V. Jones, 331. 

V. Mead, G05. 
luos V. Winspear, 237. 
Inquirer Printing & Publishing Co. y. 

Wehriy, 412. 
Inslee y. Hampton, 763. 
Insley y. U. S., 261. 
International Bank v. Sherman, 187. 
International & G. N. Uy. Co. y. Gie- 
selman, 743. 

y. Moore, 274. 
Interstate Commerce Commission y. 

Raibroad Co., 305. 
Iowa Union Tel. Co. y. Boylan, 376. 
Irby y. Wilson, 228, 929, 932. 
Ireland y. Champueys, 127. 
Irish-American Bank y. Ludlum, 609, 

Iroquois Furnace Co. v. Mfg. Co., 595. 
irvin v. Wright, 1005. 
Irvine y. Davy, 86. 

y. Leyh, 356, 370. 

V. Myers, 954, 1005. 

y. Tarbot, 530. 
Irwin y. Backus, 589. 

V. McKee, 986. 

y. Nixon*s Heirs, 482a. 
Isaacs V. Clark, 784, 787. 

y. Mintz, 116. 

V. Price, 83, 224. 
Isbell V. Fan-is, 525. 

y. Stewart, 541. 
Isett v. Lucas« 953. 
Islmiel y. Potts, 84. 
Isler V. Brown, 107, 127, 471. 
Isley y. Boon, 273. 
Israel y. Arthur, 218, 232. 
Ives, In re, 248. 

Y. Addison, 956. 

y. Finch, 958. 

y. Hulce, 130. 

y. Niles, 567. 

y. Phelps, 987. 
Ivey v. Gilder, 154. 

y. McConnell, 387. 
Ivory V. Delore, 30. 
Ivy Coal & Coke Co. v. Bank, 406. 
1 LAW JUDG.— h 


Jaccard y. Anderson, 100. 
Jack y. Hudnall, 779. 
Jackson, £x parte, 255. 

y. Allen, 425, 474. 

v. Bell, 391. 

y. Bowen, 10O7. 

y. Brunor, 81, 196. 

y. Ohapin, 433. 

y. Crawfords, 909. 

v. Cullum, 969. 

y. Fletcher, 970. 

y. Gould, 341. 

y. Griswold, 586. 

y. Holbrook, 423, 455. 

y. Jackson, 927. 

y. Lodge, 504, 784. 

y. Lumber Co., 59. 

y. Marsh, 567. 

y. Mayor of Berwick, 127. 

v. Mlddleton, 428. 

y. Myrick, 600. 

y. Nasou, 993. 

y. Olmstead, 989. 

y. Parker, 439. 

V. Patrick, 378. 

y. Railroad Co., 27. 

y. Stone, 550. 

y. Summerville, 292. 

y. Tift, 271. 

y. Town, 420. 

V. Vedder, 600. 

V. West, 538. 

y. Wood, 623, 787. 
Jackson Co. v. GuUatt, 46. 
Jackson's Lessee y. Williams, 422. 
Jacksonville, T. & K. W. R. Co. y. 

Const. Co., 31a. 
Jacob V. Day, 009. 
Jacobi V. Schloss, 36. 
.Tacoble y. Mickle, 666. 
Jacobs V. Burgwyn, 135, 317. 

V. Hill, 586, 588. 

V. Insurance Oo., 20. 

y. Kastholm, 319. 

V. Marks, 861. 
Jacobs' Appeal, 422. 
Jacobson v. Miller, 754. 

V. Wernert, 360. 
Jacquette v. Hugunon, 884* 
Jaefror v. Koenig, 1003. 
Jakobl V. Gorman, 317. 


[References to sections. }( 1 to 

Jamaica Co. v. Chandler, 009. 
James, Ex parte, 311. 

In re, 666. 

V. Allen County, 752. 

V. City of Ix)uisville, 584. 

V. Daniels, 146. 

V. Hubbard, 440. 

V. James, 822. 

V. Markham, 999. 

V. Smith, 261, 278. 

V. Trust Co., 58:i. 
•lames' Adm'r v. Neal's Adm*r, 363. 
James Clark Co. v. Colton, 290. 
James' Estate, In re, 228, 246, 929. 
James' Ex'r v. Life, 994. 
Jameson v. Barber, 641, 774, 

V. Smith, 23. 
Jamieson v. Pomeroy, 211. 
Jamison v. City of New Orleans, 809. 

V. May, 375. 

V. Weaver, 324, 351, 376. 
Janes v. Bullard, 159. 

V. Howell, 393. 
Janney's Ex'r v. Stephen's Adm'r, 450. 
Jansen v. Grlmshaw, 310. 

V. Vamum, 207. 
Janson v. Bank, 138. 
Jaques v. M. E. Church, 41. 
Jarboe v. Brown, 123. 

V. Saverin, 655. 

V. Smith, 705, 706. 
Jartline v. Relchert, 911. 
Jariuan v. Saunders, 373, 1014. 
Jamlgan v. Fleming, 739. 
J. A. Roebling Sous Co. v. Electric 

Co., 362, 394. 
Jarrell v. Brubaker, 534. 
Jarrett v. Andrews, 54. 

V. Goodnow, 391. 
Jarrett'B Estate, In re, 127. 
Jartman v. Insurance Co., 335. 
Jarvis v. Barrett, 231. 

V. Drlggs, 697. 

V. Fountain Water Co., 526. 
Jasper Mercantile Cq. v. O'Rear, 115. 
Jay V. De Groot, ^41. 
Jaynes v. Brook, 371. 
J. B. Watkins Land Mortg. Co. y. Mul- 
len, 278. 
Jean v. Hennessy, 345. 
Jefferies v. Allen, 632. 
Jefferson y. Bohemian Ass'n, 32. 
Jefferson Co. Bank y. Bobbins, 354. 


499 in Tol. 1; residue In vol. 2.1 

Jeffersonian Pub. Co. v. Hilliard, 266. 
Jeffery v. Fitch, 376. 
Jeffords v. Hine, 630. 
Jeffrey v. Moran, 443. 
Jeffreys v. Yarborough, 483. 
Jeffries v. Aaron, 348. 

V. Evans, 1004. 

y. Morgan, 698. 

V. Sherbum, 433. 
Jencks v. Smith, 288. 
Jenkins v. Anderson, 4:;4. 

V. Davis, 157. 

v. Fahey, 660, 661. 

V. Go wen, 432. 

V. Harrison, 618. 

V. Johnston, 720. 

V. Long, 155. 

V. Newman, 448. 

V. Putnam, 853. 

V. Robertson, 705. 

V. Sup'rs, 985b. 

V. Telegraph Co., 322, 347. 

V. Wilkerson, 89. 
Jenkinson v. Hilands, 683. 

V. Wysner, 609. 
Jenks v. Opp, 760. 
Jenners v. Spraker, 22.'», 
Jenness v. Jenness, 928. 
Jennings v. Ashley, i:,3. 

v. Bartels, 22. 

y. Jones, 536. 

v. Parsons, 79a, 

V. Pearce, 346. 

v. Shiner, 376. 

V. Simpson, 200. 
Jennison v. Hapgood. 633. 

V. Inhabitants, 611. 
Jensen v. Barbom\ 340. 346, 691. 
Jepson V. International Fraternal Al- 
liance, 714. 
Jeter v. Fellowes, 921. 

V. Hewitt, 503, 811. 
Jewett V. Davis, 30. 

V. Land Co.. 218, 278. 

V. Sundback, 287. 

V. Wadleigh, 989. 
Jex V. Jacob, 749. 
Jilsum V. Stebbins, 367. 
Jil2, Ex parte, 681. 
Jinks V. Lewis, 550. 
Job V. Tebbetts, 247, 809. 

V. Walker, 299. 
Jocelyn y. Dounel, 249. 

I References to sections. H 1 to 

Jochumsen y. Bank, &10. 

John y. Smith, 638a. 

John A. Tolman Co. y. Savage, 142. 

Johns y. Frltchey, 110. 

y. PaUee, 2&1. 
John Sblllito Co., The, y. McClung, 

Johnson, In re, 258, 259. 

Y. Baker, 223. 

T. Bank, 155. 

V. Beazley, 284, 633. 

Y. Bleaching Co., 583. 

Y. Block, 219. 

Y. Boice, 949, 950. 

T. Bonfield, 206. 

V. Butler. 7, 11, 874. 

V. Carrer, 119. 

V. aty of New Orleans, 699. 

v. Coleman, 320, 377. 

v. Delbridge, 83. 

V. Dobbins, 917, 939b. 

V. Dodge, 229. 

V. Driver, 361. 

V. Gdde, 450. 

V. Eldred, 335. 

V. Everett, 44, 45, 48, 

Y. Fitzhugh. 977. 

Y. Foreman. 158. 

v. Foster, 5ri3. 

v. Fry, 32G. 

v. GiUett 115. 

y. Girdwood, 529. 

Y. Graves, 536. 

V. Ha thorn, 141. 

V. Hess, 406. 

V. HoUey, 290. 

V. Hoover, 42. 

V. Huber, 390, 968. 

v. Jacob, 554. 

y. Johnson, 218, 504, 620. 

V. Jones, 306, 377, 697. 

v. Logan, 680. 

y. Lnmbering Co., 530. 

y. Lyon. 378. 

y. McCabe, 197. 

y. ifcCnrry, 352. 

V. Sklantz, 92. 

v. Miller, 100, 115, 261. 

V. Mining Co., 261. 

y. Mitchell, 449. 

V. Morse, 657, 658. 

V. Parrotte, 3S, 

V. Pate, 655, 707. 


499 In vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Johnson v. Pattersou, 232. 

V. Polk Co., 29. 

V. Pomeroy, 205. . 

v. Railway Co., 730. 

v. Reed, 754. 

V. Roberts, 299. 

V. Robertson, 585. 

V. Snyre, 524. 

V. Sohlosser, 404. 

V. Shnmway, 34. 

V. Smith, 441, 628, GC9. 

V. Stockham, 092, 801. 

y. Sweeney, 322. 

V. Signal Co., 29. 

V. Templetciu. 356. 

V. TowHley, 530. 

y. Tnttle, iJ81, 993. 

v. i:. S., 2.*)e3. 

y. Vance. (320. 

y. Van Doren, 138. 

y. Vaughan, 120, 233. 

v. White. 693. 

V. Wright, 135, 156. 
Johnson County v. Rugg, 191. 
Johnson's Adm'rs y. Unversaw. 321, 

Johnson Steel Street R. Co. v. William 

Wharton & Co., 508. 
Johnston v. Brown, 091. 

V. Glasgow, 52. 

V. Lemmonds, 434. 

V. McAuslaud, 63. 

V. Osmont, 617. 

V. Panl 526. 

V. Saving Union, 541. 
Johnston's Devisees v. Churchills, 537. 
John V. Farwell Co. v. Lykins, 615. 
Jolce v. Scales, 802. 
JoUey V. Foltz, 282. 
Jones, Ex parte, 135. 

V. Acre, 118. 

V. Bank, 370, 377, 506. 

V. Beamau, 624, 732, 737. 

V. Belt, 117. 

V. Blun, 252. 

V. Brinker, 641. 

y. Brlttan, 321. 

v. Chalfant 108. 

y. Chase, 644. 

y. City of Petaluma, 747. 

V. City of Seattle, 740. 

y. Coffey, 262. 

V. Commercial Bank, 377. 506. 



[References to sectlona. f|lto 


V. Culleu, 240. 


De Graffenreid, 650. 


Ellison, 701. 


Fenninoore, 10. 


George. 253, 487, 493. 


Glass, 1»2. 


Green, 437. 


Gregory, 034. 


Guthrie, 414. 


Hart, 154. 


Hillls, 726. 


Howard, 099. 


Hunter. 703. 


Insurance Co., 35, 300. 800, 884. 


Jamison, 829, 847. 


Jones, 197, 240, 313, 397, 905, 



Jones* Heirs, 503. 


Kilbreth, 733. 


Kllgore, 384. 


I^avender, 742, 785. 


Leech, 341. 375. 


Lewis, 160. 


Lowell, 779. 


Mastin, 587. 


Merrill. 228. 


Mlnogup, 117. 


Myrlck's Ex'rs. 440. 


Perkins, 626. 


Pharls, 218, 250. 


Quayle, 20. 


Ransom, 976, 989. 


Read, 15. 


Reed, 233. 


Reynolds, 662. 


Richardson, 673. 


Ritter's Adm'r, 589. 


Russell, 347. 


Sander, 145. 


Schmidt, 1010. 1014. 


South's Adni'i-8, 'MIS, 


Spencer, 004, 000. 


Taylor, 102. 


Tracy, 81, 503. 


Underwood, 620. 


Wasrgoner's Adra*r, 567. 


Watkins, 3(57. 


Weathersbee, 785, 787. 


Webb, 15. 


Wetherbe?, 504. 


White, 520. 


Wllkey, 5<K), 800. 


Williamson, 374. 


499 in Yol. 1; residue In yol. 2.] 

Jones y. Wilson. 41, 908. 

V. Word, 109. 

V. W^rlght, 459. 
Jones* Estate, In re, 406. 
Jones & Laughlins v. Sands, 35^ 
Jonsson v. Lindstrom, 338. 
Jordahl v. Berry, 769. 
Jordan v. Chester, 394. 

V. Corley, 378. 

y. Faircloth, 707. 

y. Farthing, 055. 

y. Ford, 555. 

V. Huntington. 77. 

V. John Ryan Co., 86^ 270. 

V. Petty, 136. 

Y. Robinson. 8. 

V. Selfert, 696. 

y. State. 109. 

V. Tarver, 305. 346. 

V. Thomas, 378. \ 

y. Van Epps. 660. 
Jorgensen v. Griffin, 110, 349. 
Joseph y. Boldildge, 593. 
Josephi y. Clothing Co., 783. 
Jospe y. Lighte, 348. 
Jouett y. Gunn, 174. 
Jourden y. Meier, 635. 
Journe y. Hewes, 744. 
Joy y. College, 37. 

V. Hill, 102. 

V. Hull, 143. 
Joyce, Ex. parte, 256. 

V. McAvoy, 197. 

y. Moore, 735. 

y. Perry, 423. 

y. Whitney, 399. 
Joyes y. Hamilton, 189. 
J. S. Menken Co. v. Brinkley, 935. 
Judah y. Stephenson, 220. 
Judd y. Downing, 299. 

V. Patton, 347. 

y. Ross, 500. 
Judd Linseed Sperm Oil Co. v. Hub- 
bell. 210. 
Judge y. Booge, 114. 

V. Fillmore, 966. 
Judge of Probate y. Quimby, 589. 

y. Robins, 643. 
Judklns V. Insurance Co., 884. 
Judson V. Gage, 115, 154. 

V. Lake, 036. 
JuIUlard y. Gr3eimian, 152, 
Julian y. Beal, 434. 

[References to sectlonv. {ft 1 to 

Janeman, Ex parte, 182. 
Jaiiffnitach y. Iron Co., 738. 
Jnnkans y. Bergin, 278. 
JuBkin y. Dayis, 849. 
Justice y. Scott, 357. 
JiutuB, Succession ^f, 635. 
J. W. Reedy Kleyator Mfg. Co. y. Pit- 
yowsky, S3. 

Kager y. Vickery, 190. 
Kalm y. Casper, 349. 

y. Kahn, 752. 

y. Lesser, 58, 69, 903. 
Kalne, Ex parte, 533. 
Kal8» y. Brown, 89. 

y. Lembeck, 447. 
Kallander y. Neldhold, 390, 987. 
Kalteyer y. Wipff, 252, 318. 
Kaminsky y. Trantham, 458. 
Kamm y. Stark, 357. 
Kamman y. Otto, 324. 
Kanawha Lodge No. 25 y. Swann, 45. 
Kane y. Canal Co., 661. 

y. City of Fond du Lac, 526. 

y. Cook, 901, 906. 

y. Dnlex, 662. 

y. Fisher, 714, 749. 

y. Hills, 128. 

y. Morehouse, 737. 

T. Whittick, 44. 
Kane & Co. y. School Dist, 317. 
Kannally y. Renner, 393b. 
iCanne y. Minn. & St L. R. Co., 691. 
Kann's Estate, In re, 449. 
Kansas City y. Winner, 267. 
Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co. y. 

Morgan, 198, 251, 291, 938c. 
Kansas aty, P. & G. R. Co. y. Moon, 

Kansas aty, St. J. & C. B. R. Oo. y. 

Campbell, 194. 
Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. y. McBratney, 

Kansas Rolling Mill Co. y. Atchison, 

Kansas & A. V. Ry. Co. y. Pltzhugh, 

Kapischke y. Koch, 738. 
Karnes y. Harper, 411. 

y. Lloyd, 293. 
Kams y. Kunkle, 875, 967. 


499 la Yol. 1; residue hi toI. 2.] 

Karr y. Barstow, 782. 

y. Parks, 740. 
Kashman y. Parsons, 508, 613, 617, 

Kasson y. People, 1011, 1012. 
Kaster y. Welsh, 620. 
Katz y. Moore, 367, 378. 
Kauff y. Mesner, 765. 
Kauffman*s Appeal, 182. 
Kaufman y. Schneider, 366, 691. 

y. Shain, 326. 
Kaufmann y. Drexel, 307, 366, 374. 
Kaukauna Water Power Co. y. Canal 

Co., 938c. 
Kay y. Walter, 892. 
Kean y. McKinsey, 245. 

y. Rice, 935. 

y. Roby, 580. 
Keane y. Fisher, 587. 
Kearney, Ex parte, ^5, 25G. 258, 259. 

y. Denn, 806. 

y. Snodgrass, 33. 
Keater y. Hock, 707, 733. 
Keating y. Craig, 448. 

y. Korfbage, 191. 

V. Springer, 663. 
Keaton y. Banks, 326, 327. 
Keator y. Case, 346a. 
Keck y. McEldowney, 86. 
Keech y. Beatty, 514, G30. 
Keeler v. Elston, 373. 

y. King, 958. 
Keen y. Coleman, 55. 

y. Jordan, 125. 

V. Kleckner, 69. 
Keenan v. Whitehead, 981. 

V. Williams, 32. 
Keeue y. McDonough, 173, 255. 
Keener y. Goodson, 109 
Keep y. Leckie, 72. 
Kees V. Maxim, 100. 
Keesey y. Old, 614. 
Iveesling y. Doyle, 245. 
Kehler y. Insurance Co., 340. 
Kehoe y. Blethen, 21. 

y. aty of Philadelphia, 740. 
Keifer y. Eldred Tp., 16. 

y. Summers, 304. 
Keigher y. Mfg. Co.. 373. 
Keiper y. Helfrlcker, 55, 
Keirle y. Shriyer, 104. 
Keith y. BBtlll. 8. 

y. Keith, 190. 


[References to sections. SS 1 to 

Keith V. McCaffrey, 340. 
Keith Bros. & Ck). v. Stiles, 211, 776. 
Kelber v. Plow Co., 34, 352. 
Kellam v. Klppey, (595. 

V. Toms, 857. 
Kelleher v. Boden, 366, 378. 
Keller, Succession of, 645. 

V. City of Mt. Vernon. 537. 

y. Jordan, 23. 

V. Stevens, 97. 

V. Stolzenbach, 718, 723. 
Kellerman v. Aultman, 425. 
Kelley v. Chapman, 000. 

V. Kelley, 896, 924. 

V. McKibben, 123. 

V. Mfg. Co.. 306. 

V. Mize, 290, 514, 081. 

V. Stanbery, 41. 
Kellogg, Ex parte, 244. 

V. Johnson, 633. 

V. Keith, 52. 

V. Linger, 286. 

V. Schuyler, JM3. 

V. Sweeney, 152. 

V. Window, 82. 
Kellogg, Johnson & Co. v. Gilman, 208. 
Kelly V. Bandini, 236. 

V. Church, 567. 

V. Dill, 425. 

V. Donlin, 642, 754. 

V. Garvin, 1009. 

V. Hamblen, 4-10, 543, 958. 

T. Harrison, 203. 

V. Hurt, 378, 388. 

V. Lyons, 53. 

V. Payne, 141. 

V. Kailroad Co., 572. 

V. Van Austin, 88, 235. 

V. Wlmberly, 3, 532. 
Kelsey v. Murphy, 720, 722. 

V. Ward, 655. 
Kelty V. High, 305. 
Kemp v. Cook, 193, 297, 300, 313, 493. 

V. Lyon, 135, 165. 

V. Mundell, 884. 
Kempe's Lessee v. Kennedy, 282, 283. 
Kempner v. Comer, 747. 
Kempton v. Burgess, 699. 
Kenan v. Miller, 513. 
Kenck v. Parchen, 589. 
Kendal v. Talbot, 693, 7ia 
Kendall v. Briley, 958. 

v. Hamilton, 770. 


499 in vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Kendall v. Hardenbergh, 641. 

V. O'Neal, 156. 

V. Winsor, 380. 
Kendig v. Marble, 63. 

V. North, 483. , 
Kenedy v. Jarvis, 311. 
Kenmore Shoe Co., In re, 793. 
Kenuard v. Alston, 985. 

V. Carter, 770. 

V. Mabry, 445. 
Kennedy v. Bam brick, 496. 

V. Baker, 263. 

V. Bank, 2<0, 285. 

V. Cassillis, 825. 

V. Davisson, 701. 

V. Evans,. 359. 

v. I^we, 77. 

V. Pickering, 204. 

v. Scovil, 611. 

V. Wachsmuth, 161. 
Kennell v. Abbott, 634. 
Kennerley v. Shepley, 412, 641. 
Keunery*s Adm'r v. Railroad Co., 33. 
Kenney v. Greer, 270. 

V. Howard, 790. 

V. Phillipy, 660. 

V. RaUroad Co.. 981. 
Kenn*8 Case, 320, 523. . 
Kent V. Brown, 245. 

V. Church, 564. 

V. Iron Co., 251, 290. 

V. Lashley, 577. 

V. Railroad Co., 504. 

V. Ricards, 366, 308, 373. 

V. Riley, 697. 

V. West, 81. 
Kenum v. Henderson, 89. 
Kenypn v. Baker, 158. 

V. Shreck, 325. 

V. Woodruff, 782. 
Keokuk County v. Alexander, 616. 737. 
Keokuk & H. Bridge Co. v. People. 

Keokuk & W. R. Co. v. Missouri, 551, 

583a, 750. 
Kepler v. Loan Co., 492. 
Kerby v. Chadwell, 341. 
Kerchner v. McEachem, 319. 
Kern v. Chalfant, 63. 

V. Maglnniss, 39. 

V. Saul, 31. 

V. Strausberger, 245, 375, 513. 

V. Wilson, 616, 716. 

IReferences to sections, fifi 1 to 

Keman v. Railway Co., 33. 
Kerr v. Blodgett, 545. 585, 681a. 

y. Chess, 658. 

V. Kerr, 275, 835, 894, 897, 901, 
930, 1016. 

T. Simmons, 747. 

Y. Swallow, 229. 
Kerr's Appeal, 452, 1015. 
Kerry ▼. Pacific Marine C5o., 138. 
Kersey v. Rash, 356, 383. 388. 
Kessel t. Albetis, 942, 945. 
Kessler v. Vera, 85. 
Kester v. Stark, 661. 
Kesterson v. Tate, 450. 
Ketcham y. Elliott, 352. 
Ketchum t. Ghristman, 535. 

T. Edwards, 252. 

V. Thatcher, 510, 685. 
Key V. Dent. 604. 

V. Goodwin, 127. 

V. Hayden, 86. 

V. Vaughn, 284. 
Keyes v, Mooney, 879. 

V. U. S., 250. 
Keys V. Grannis, 967. 
Keyser v. Sutherland, 655, 65a 
Kibbe V. Howard, 687. 
Kibler, Ex parte, 205. 
Kidd T. Huff, 705. 

V. McMillan, 306. 
Kllander t. Hoover, 751. 
Kllbum T. Woodworth, 904. 
Kilgore v. Kllgore, 634. 
Kllheffer v. Herr, 786, 787. 
Kille v. Ege, 652. 
Killlon V. Wright, 620. 
KUlough ▼. Alford, 152. 
Killpatrlck t. Rose, 154. 
KlUsa T. Shermond. 593. 
Kilpatrick t. Railroad Ck)., 783. 

T. StroEier, 711. 
Kimball y. Hilton, 657. 

T. Hutchison, 378. 

V. Merrick, 225, 899. 

y. Randall, 209. 

y. Tanner, 211. 
Kimble v. Cummins, 952. 

y. Short, 370. 
Kimbro y. Railroad Co., 707. 
Khne y. Fenner, 297, 348. 
Klmmel y. Henna, 650. 

y. Kimmel, 23& 
Kindel y. Lithographing Co., 159. 


499 in Tol. 1; residue in yoI. 2.] 

Kindt, In re, 320a. 
Kindt's Appeal, 492. 
King, In re. 255, 1008. 

y. Aughtry, 996. 

V. Baldwin, 388, 389. 

y. Bank, 166. 

V. Belcher, 463. 

V. Briglmm, 611. 

V. Brcoks, 309. 

y. Burdett, 201. 

y. Bumbam, 134. 

y. Chase. 580, 614, 624. 

y. Clarke, 563. 

y. Eastou, 424. 

y. Fnber. .j97. 

y. French, 110. 

y. Goodwhi, 1012. 

y. Green, 179. 

y. Harris, 472. 

y. HIgglns, 76. 

y. Hoare. 674, 770, 774, 778. 

y. Jones, 189. 300. 

y. Kerr*s Adm'rs, 567. 

y. Molloban, 683. 

y. Nimlck, 418. 

y. Normau, 573, f)SQ. 

y. Poole. 220. 

y. Portls, 417. 

y. Robinson. 206. 

y. Ross. 633. 

y. Savory, 526. 

y. Smith, 633. 

y. Townshend, 650, 655. 

V. Vance, 593, 596. 

y. Van Gilder. 829, 934. 
Kingen y. Stroh, 213. 
Kingman y. Cowles, 876. 

y. Paulsen, 608. 
Kingman y. Paulson, 868. 
Kingsborough y. Tousley, 275, 902, 972. 
Kingsbury y. Kingsbury, 47. 

y. Yniestra, 901. 
Elingsland v. Forrest, 958. 

y. Koeppe, 206. 
Kingsland & Douglass Mfg. Co. y. 

Mitchell, 209. 
Kingsley y. Gilraan, 22. 

V. Miller, 284, 633. 
Kinkade v. Cunningham. 488. 
Kinkier y. Junlea. 207. 
Ellnney y. Degman, 530. 

V. O'Baunon's Ex'x, 312. 
Kinnler y. Klnnier, 889, 921, 930. 

[References to Beotloni. N 1 to 489 in voi. 1; residue In vol. 2.] 

Klnports t. BoyntoD, 434. 

V. Ra^vson, 179. 
Klnsey v. Ford, 881. 
Kinsler t. Holmes, 094. 
Kinsley y. Rumbough, 879. 
Kinsman v. Page, 978. 
Kinter v. Jenks, 054. 
Klntz T. McNeal, 680. 
Kip V. Brlgham, 573, 574. 
Klpp V. Fullerton, 287. 
Kirby, In re. 510. 

V. Ghilds, 191. 

V. Fitzgerald, 63, 68, 78, 698. 

V. Kirby, 290. 

V. Runals, 411. 

V. State, 255. 
Kirchuer v. Wood, 29. 
Kirk V. Dmen, 253. 

V. Goodwin, 731. 

V. Kirk, 554. 
Kirkbam v. Gibson, 346a. 
Kirklan v. Brown's Adm'rs, 758. 
Kirkland v. Krebs, 482a. 

V. Smitb. 878. 
Klrkpatrlck v. Stingley, 714, 726, 

Kirkwood v. Koester, 4.33. 
Kirscbner v. Kirsebner, 347. 
KIssam v. Hamilton, 127, 133. 
Klsterson v. Tate, 450, 460. 
Kistier v. Mosser, 498. 
Kitcben v. Bank, 53. 
KItcbenman v. Skeel, 101. 
Kitcbens v. Hutcblns, 211. 
Kite V. Lumpkin, 298. 
Kitsmiller v. Kitcben, 88, 223. 
Kitson v. Blake, 340. 
Kittle V. Bellegarde. 86, 88. 
Klttredgo V. Emerson, 251. 

V. Holt, 715. 

V. Martin, 972. 

V. Stevens, 87, 697. 
Kitts V. Willson, 536. 
Klvett V, Wynne, 339. 
Klzer V. Caufleld. 273. 
Kizer Lumber Co. v. Mosely, 801. 
Klaes v. Klaes, 320. 
Kleiber y. McManus, 22. 
Klein y. Dennis, 957. 
Kleinbenz v. I*helps. 1010. 
Klemm v. Dewes, 225. 
Klenime y. McLay, 945. 
Kieyer y. Seawall, 24, 30a 


Kline y. Triplett 421. 
Kline's Appeal, 643. 
Kllnk y. Tbe Cusseta, 21. 
Kloke y. Gardels, 666, <197. 
Klupfcr y. Ekis, 351. 
Knapp y. Abell, 211, 9ia 

V. Knapp, 933. 

V. Marsball, 29. 

y. Town of Marllwro, 567, 571. 

V. Valentine, 958. 
Knappen v. Freeman, 159. 
Knapp, Stout & Go. v. Standley, 916. 
Knarr y. Elgren, 348. 
Knauber y. Watson, 313. 
Knauss* Appeal, 464. 
Kneedler's Appeal, 61. 
Knickerbocker y. Wilcox, 574, 5SG. 
Knickerbocker Co. y. Roskopf, 29. 
Knifong y. Hendricks, 357. 
Knight y. Ass'u, 530. 

y. Cberry. 989. 

y. Church, 1010. 

y. Macomber, 993. 
Knights V. Martin, 76. 
Knott y. Cunningham, 777, 779, 782. 

y. Jarboe, 224. 

y. Stephens, 747. 
Knowles, Ex parte, 216. 

y. Coke Co., 227, 897, 899. 901. 

y. Lawton, 550. 
Knowlton y. Hanbury. 720, 938. 

y. Railroad Co., 738. 
Knox y. Bank, 58» 212. 

y. Clifford, 311. 

y. Flack, 54. 

y. Moore, 155. 

T. Moser, 157. 

y. Spratt, 600. 
Knox County y. Asplnwall, 985b. 
Knox County Bank v. Doty, 326. 
Knudson y. Curley, 183. 
Koch, y. City of New York, 29. 

y. Railroad Co., 137. 
Koebring y. Aultman, Miller &. Co., 

540, 541. 
Koelscb y. Mixer, 599. 
Kohl y. Leblback, 259. 
Kohn y. Haas, 308, 896. 

y. Johnson, 138. 

y. Loyett, 863, 381. 
Kolb V. Raisor, 324, 351. 

y. Swann, 608. 

tResf erenow to ■ectlona. Si 1 to 

Kollock T. Jackson, 400. 
Konigmaker t. Brown, 467. 
Koning Y. Bayard, 414. 
Konltzky y. Meyer, 573, 829. 
Koogler y. Huffman, 600. 
Koon y. lyey, 4»3. 
Koonce y. Butler, 903* 
Koons y. Bryson, 26. 
Kopf y. Huckins, 703. 
Kopp y. Blessing, 246. 
Kopperl V. Nagy, 118, 851, 8G0. 
Korea y. Roemheld, 604. 
Kraker y. Shields, 146. 
KraU V. Mfg. Co., 332. 
Kramer v. Breedlove, 271. 

y. Gerlacb, 347. 

y. Rebman, 1. 

y. Schatzkln, 772. 
Krampb's Ex*x y. natz\s Bx'rs, 092. 
Kraner y. Chambers, 411. 
Krapp y. Eldridge, 714. 
Kratz y. Preston, 485, 487. 
Krause y. Stlcbtenoth, 29. 
Kranse's Appeal, 429. 
Kreatz y. School Dist, 16. 
Krebs y. Clark, 351. 
Kreite y. Kreite, 341. 
Krekeler y. Bitter, 787. 
Kremer y. Haynie, 194. 
Kress y. Woehrle, 183. 
Krencbi y. Debler, 729. 
Krickow V. Mfg. Co.. 68, 193. 
Kriess y. Faron, 799. 
KKMishage y. Bailroad Co., 744. 
Kronskl y. Bailroad Go., 213. 
Kmg, In re, 259. 

V. Dayis, 253. 
Kabll y. Hawkett, 34. 
Kuchenbeiser v. Beckert. 197. 
KueiiUng y. Leberman, 824. 
Ktietme y. Goit, 61. 
Knhn y. Klhner, 213. 
Kimes y. McCloskey, 324. 
Knnze y. Kumse, 875. 
Kupferle y. Bank, 342. 
Kurtz y. Railroad Co., 284, 297a, 600, 

Kuykendall y. Coulter, 206. 

I^baree y. Colby. 192. 

La Barre y. City of Waterbury, 80. 


499 In ToL 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Lacassagne t. Chapuis, 520. 
I-acey v. Waples, 986. 
Lackey y. Seibert, 455. 
Lacock V. White, 297. 
Lacoste y. Eastland, 110. 
Lacroix y. Lyons, 540. 
Ladd y. Church, 497. 

V. Durkin, 558, 559. 

y. Jacobs, 593. 

y. Mason, 307. 

y. Stevenson, 334. 

V. TuUy, 185. 

V. Welskopf, 643. 
Ladley y. Creighton, 450, 451. 
I^dnier v. Ladnier, 118. 
La Farge y. Herter, 976, 987. 

V. Park, 661a. 
Lafayette County y. Wonderly, 482a, 

484, 485, 403. 
Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 213, 910. 
Lafferty y. Lafferty, 197. 
Lafon's Ex'rs y. Desessart, 366. 
Lagerquist y. Williams, 698. 759. 
Laidley y. Kline, 409, 560. 
Lalng Y. Rigney, 911. 
Lair V. Jelf, 983. 
Ijaird y. Campbell, 79a. 

y. City of De Soto, 506, 584. 

y. Morris, 723. 
Laithe v. McDonald, 323. 
Lake v. Hancock, 737. 

V. Jones, 346, 347. 
Lake Eiie & W. R. Co. y. Purcell, 743. 

V. Smith, 938c. 
Lakin v. C. H. McCormick & Bro., 461. 
Lalor, In re, 320a. 
Lamar v. Knott, 655. 

V. WiUiams, 208. 
Lamar Ins. Co. v. Gulick, 583. 

V. Pennell, 548. 
Lamasti^r v. Lair, 713. 
Lamb v. Gatlin, 70G. 

V. McConkey, 709. 

y. Nelson, 347. 

V. Shays, 423. 
Lambell v. Pettyjohn. 300. 
Lambert v. Ban-ett, 32. 

V. Sanford, 91, 700, 702. 

y. Smith, 817. 

V. Wiltshire, 1012. 
Lamberton v. Bank, 446. 

V. Grant, 862. 
Lambertvllie Bank v. Boss, 459. 


[References to section!. 8S 1 to 

I.amb*s Appeal, 354. 
Lambson v. Moffett, 4S4. 
Lamey v. Coffman, 404, 40(;a. 
Lamme v. Schilling, 450. 
Lamon v. McKee, 22, 27, 35. 
Lamont v. Stimson, 530. 
La Motte v. Harper, 504. 
Lampen v. Kedgewin, 718. 
Lamping v. Hyatt, 138. 
Lampkin v. Chisom, 208. 
Lamprey v. Xiidd, 205. 

V. Pike, 439. 
Lampson v. Bradley, 299. 
Lampton v. Jones, 785. 
Lancaster, In re, 259. 

V. Inhabitants, 971. 

V. Insurance Co., 640. 

V. Snow, 274, 275. 541, 603. 

V. Wilson, 245, 276, 513. 
Lancaster County Bank t. Stauffer, 

Lancaster Mfg. Co. v. Colgate, 704. 
Lance v. Dugan, 900. 

V. Shanghnessy, 611, 687, 787. 
liand V. Elliot, 357. 

V. Keirn, 611. 
Landa v. McGeliee, 340. 

V. Obert, 529. 
Landa iier v. Kspenhain, C04. 
Lander v. Arno, 536, ^5. 
Landes v. Brant, 422. 
Landis v. Hamilton, 539. 
Landon v. Brown, 486, 402. 

V. Bulkley, 731. 

V. Burke, 313. 

V. Towushend, 536. 
Landrum v. Farmer, 362, 377. 
Landry v. Bertrand, 304 a. 
Landsberg v. Lewis, 752. 
Lane v. Bank, 69. 

v. Bommelmann, 118, 261. 

V. Cook, 736. 

V. EUinger, 153. 

V. Gluekauf, 982. 

V. Gover, 454. 

V. Hardwicke, 107. 

V. Inhabitants. 083. 

V, Innes, 232. 

V. Klngsberry, 304. 

y. Lane, 518. 

V. Leech, 225. 

V. Ludlow, 438, 

V. Nelson, 218. 


4d9 In TOl. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Lane t. Welds, 540. 

V. Wheless, :W6. 
Laney v. Garbee, 277. 
Lang v. Holbrook, 843. 

V. Zinc Co., 23. 
Langan's Estate, In re, 313. 
Langdon y. Blackburn, 292. 

V. Raiford, 455. 
Lange, Ex. parte, 170, 258. 
Langley y. Grill, 239. 
Langmead y. Maple, 624. 
Lang's Heirs y. Waring, 600, 721. 
Langston y. Roby, 954, 1005. 
Lanier y. Blount, 62. 

y. Gallatas, 298. 
Lanning y. Carpenter, 53, 62, 63, 401, 

y. Pawson, Ola, 199. 
Lansing y. Eddy, :J90. 

y. Quackenbush, 1010. 

y. Woodworth, 71. 
Lantz y. Maflfett, 560. 
Lapham y. Briggs, 900. 
Larimer y. Clemmer, 223. 
Larimer's Appeal, 446. 
Larison y. Hager, 773. 
Larkin y. Larkin, 33, 34. 
Larkins y. Bullard, 193, 194. 
Laroussini y. Werlein, 725. 
Lan-abee y. Baldwin, 8, 583. 

V. Knight, 596. 
Larson y! Williams, 362, 368, 370. 
Lartliet y. Hogau, 445. 
I^rtigue y. Baldwin, 586. 
Ivarum y. Wilmer, 543. 
Lash y. Hardick, 446. 

y. Warren, 85. 
Last Chance Min. Co. y. Mining Co., 

506, 508, 513, 600, 630, 697. 
Latham y. Chafee, 939a. 

y. Delany, 901. 

y. Edgerton, 218, 275, 27a 

y. Wiswall, 811. 
Lathrop y. Brown, 433, 459. 

y. O'Brien, 340a. 

y. Stuart, 807, 966. 
Latimer y. Dean, 372. 
Latlne y. Clements, 563, 963. 
Latrobe Building & Loan Ass'n y. 

Fritz, 73. 
Latta y. Griffith, 168. 

y. Kll bourn, 45. 

V. Visel, 744, 763. 

[References to sections. 89 1 to 

Latterett v. Cook, 876. 
Lattimer t. Ryan, 306. 
Lattomus v. GarmaD, 953. 
Laucks V. Michael, 477. 
I^uer V. Bandow, 770. 

T. Ketner, 493. 
I^aghlin T. Fairbanks, 950. 

V. January, 81, 51)3. 

V. Peckham, 179. 

v. Vogelsong, 281. 
Laughton V. Atkins, 637. 

V. Nadeau, 218. 
Ijiundry License Case, 257. 
Laur V. People, 675. 
Laval V. Kowley, 996. 
Laverty v. Sexton, 141. 
Law V. Groinmes, 270, 278. 

V. Hansen, 834. 

V. Jackson, 477. 
Lawler y. Bashford-Burmister Co., 

Lawler's Heirs v. White, 271, 281. 
Lawless T. Hackett, 63. 

T. Lawless, 610. 

T. Reese, 357. 
I^wrance v. Borm, 80. 
I-awrence v. Belger, 413. 

T. Englesby, 633, 639. 

r. Fast, 118. 

V. Gaultney, 934. 

V. Haynes, 600. 

V. Hunt, M3, 600, 611. 

T. Jarris, 867, 884, 897, 908, 916. 

v. Lawrence, 320. 

y. Martin, 943, 986. 

y. Nelson, 225. 

y. Pond, 95a 

y. Steams, 506, 574. 

y. Vernon, 726, 729. 

y. Willoughby, 968. 
T.awrence County y. Meade County, 

I-awrence Mfg. Co. v. Cotton Mills, 

Lawrence Say. Bank v. Stevens, 754. 
Lawrence's Estate, In re, 758. 
Mwaon y. Bettison, 382. 

y. Conaway, 769. 

y. Moore, 33. 
Uwton y. Perry, 482, 482a, 509, 958, 

Uwrer y. Walls, 699. 
Layton y. Prewitt, 36L 


499 in vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Laznrus v. Btirrett, 141. 

V. MoGiiIrk, 369. 
Lazier v. Westcott, 821), 849. 
Lea y. Hopkins, 432. 

y. Lea, 624. 

V. Yates, 118, 410. 
Leach y. Kohn, 227. 

V. Linde, 896. 
Leadbetter v. Lake, 210. 
Leader y. Dunlap, 340, 354. 
League v. Scott, 901, 938. 
Lea bey v. Klngon, 349. 
Leake y. Ferguson, 398, 476. 

V. Gallogly, 352. 
Leayell y. Scale, 117. 
Leavens y. Ewins, 638a. 
Leavenson v. Lafontane, 1000. 
Leaverton y. Leaverton, 246. 
Leavitt v. Wolcctt, 599. 
Lebanon v. :Mead, 569, 575. 
Lebanon Mut. Ins. Co.'s Appeal, 378. 
Lebeck v. Bank, 585. 
Lebroke v. Damon, 250. 
Le Cheveller v. Lynch, 852. 
Ledbetter y. Bmbree, 671. 

V. Higbee, 200. 
Ledbetter & Co. Land & Loan Ass'n 

V. Vinton, 89. 
Ledoux y. Bank, 605. 
Ledoux's Heirs v. Lavedan, 614, 644. 
Le Due V. Slocomb, 313, 322, 348, 956. 
Ledyard y. Brown, 959. 

v. Henderson, 43. 

y. Phillips, 954. 
Lee y. Delehanty, 950. 

V. Flgg, 68. 

V. Gardiner, 199. 

V. Giles, 958. 

V. Harmon, 370. 

V. Hai-per, 30. 

y. Houston, 155. 

y. Johnson, 530. 

y. Kingsbury, 245, 262, 614 

V. Knapp, 91. 

V. Lee, 1003. 

y. McKoy, 754. 

V. Mortgage Co., 183. 

V. Oil Co., 1010. 

y. Patten, 245. 

y. Ryall. 191. 

y. SaUada, 351. 

y. Stone, 433. 

V. Terbell, 967. 



[References to sectlona. U 1 to 

Lee V. Wllklns, 96. 
Leedom v. Loiubaert, 2ri0. 
Lee*8 Adm'x v. Lee, 004. 
Leese t. Sherwood, 27. 
Leet y. Grant, 352. 

V. Leet 3(>3. 
I^ee Tong, In re, 257. 
Le Favour, In re, 320a. 
Lefebvre v. De Montllly. 000. 
Lefever t. Armstrong, 420. 
Lefferson v. Dallas, 438. 
Leftvvlch Lumber Co. v. Ass'n, 541. 
Legal Tender Gases, 152. 
Legatt V. ToUervey, 520. 
Leggett Y. Doremus, 426. 

V. Llppincott, 735. 

y. Morris, 3S4. 

y. Railroad Co., 536. 

y. Ross, 543. 
Legrand y. Rixey*s Adm*r, 630. 
Le Grange's I^essee v. Ward, 177. 
Le Guen y. Gouverneur, 378, 380. 
Lehigh Zinc & Iron Co. y. Iron Co., 

Lehman v. Bradley, 560. 

y. Hinton, 810. 

y. Stone, 605. 
Lehman Mach. Co. y. Rood, 57. 
Tjehmkuhl, Ex parte, 255. 
Lehr y. Hall, 968. 

y. Vandeyeer, 80. 
Lelnkauff y. Adyanciug Co., 165. 
I^eiper y. Brden, 994. 
Leitch V. Wells, 550. 
Leith y. Lelth, 929. 
Leland y. Marsh, 747. 

y. Tonsey, 052. 
I^emacks v. Glover. 153. 
Lemen v. Young, I'W. 
Lemmon v. Herbert, 246, 269. 

v. Osbom, 508. 
Lemon v. Staats' Heirs, 450. 
Lendall's Case, 778. 
L'Engle v. Gates, 898, 939. 
Lennon, Ex parte, 255. 
Lenoir v. Broadhead's Adm'r, 88. 
Lenoir's Adm'r v. Wilson. 745. 
Lenox v. Notrebe, 194, 600. 
Lente v. Clarke, 225. 
Lentllhon v. City of New York, 111. 
Lentz v. Lamplugh, 444. 

v. Wallace, 504, 611, 612, 614. 
Leonard y. Bryant, 298. 

499 in vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Leonard v. Ferry Co., 432. 

v. Hargis, 85. 

y. Insurance Co., 360. 

y. Bobbins, 183. 

y. Simpson, 87, 007. 

V. Sparks, 263, 522. 

y. Townsend, 192. 

y. Whitney, 614, 615. 
Leonard's Appeal, 473. 
Ijeonis y. Leflingwell, 155. 
Leopold y. City of Chicago, 624. 
Le rage v. McCrea, 97a 
Leslie v. Boaite, 555. 

V. Fischer, 225. 
r^essert v. Sieberling, 419, 432, 439a. 
Lester v. Cloud, 138. 

y. Hosklns, 306, 378. 

y. Insurance Co., 100. 
Le Strange v. State, 100. ^ 
Le Sutf y. Le Suer, 822. 
Letney v. Marshall, 273. 
Levan v. MllhoUand, 264. 

V. Patton, 386. 
Levering v. levering, 641. 
Levey v. Norton, 680. 
Levi V. Drudge, 160. 

y. McCraney, 555. 

y. Monroe, 86. 

v. Thompson, 422. 
Levin V. Fashion Co., 752. 
I^vlston y. Swan, 160. 
Levy V. Gill. 363. 

y. Levy, 107. 

V. Stelnbach, 391. 

V. Williams. 327. 

V. Winter, 553. 
Levysteln v. O'Brien, a92. 
Lewis, Appeal of, 611. 

v. Adams, 857, 922. 

V. Armstrong, 269. 

V. Ash, 201. 

y. Atherton, 446. 

v. Baker, 508. 

y. Blue, 989. 

y. Campau, 32. 

V. CockreU, 986. 

V. Dunlop. 596. 

V. Foard, 15. 

V. Gunn, 192. 

V. Insurance Co., 378. 

v. Kean, 086. 

V. Lewis, 320, 720. 990. 

v. McCabe, 32. 


[References to sections. H 1 to 

Lewis T. Maulden, 206. 

T. Billls, 588. 

T. Nenzel, 756. 

V. Perkins, 191. 

y. Peterkin, 295. 

V. Pier C5o., ^527. 

Y. Railroad Co., 35. 

V. Uapelyea, 60. 

v. Rogers, 204. 

V. Ross, 156. 

V. RowlaiMl, 261. 

Y. SiiDontOD, 245. 

V. Sloan, 807. 

V. Smith, 73, 462, 467, 763. 

V. Soper, 202. 

V. Spann, 1008. 

V. Tarns, 507. 

V. Webb, 208. 

?. Welch, 641. 

Y. Williams, Ul, 
I^x*B Appeal. 284, 633. 
lAhby y. Rosekrans, 148. 
Liberty Grotto y. Meade, 58. 
Llehtenberger y. Worm, 86. 
Lichton y. McDongald, 455. 
Liobtstein y. Insurance Co., 16. 
Liohty y. Hochstetler, 485. 

y. Lewis, 556. 
Liddell y. Chidester, 752. 
Lieberman y. Railroad Co., 745. 
Lieserowltz y. Railroad Co., 196. 
Life Ass'n y. Fassett, 199. 300. 
Ugare y. Railroad Co., 609. 
Liggett y. Glenn, 9S9a. 
LIghtcap y. Bradley, 539. 
Lightoer's Estate, In re, 534. 
Lightsey y. Harris, 250, 286b 
Liglnger y. Field, 808. 
IJgon y. lJ$;on. 43. 

y. McXeil. 058. 975. 

y. Trtplett, 87, 697. 
IJgon's Adm'rs y. Rogers, 169. 
Llle y. Hopkins, 949. 
Lilientbal y. Drucklleb, 826. 
LiUey y. Adams, 632. 
LlUis y. Ditch Co., 624, 728* 
Lilly y. Larkln, 136, 165. 
Linberg v. Finks, 659. 
Unck y. City of Litchfield, 981. 
Lincoln y. Flint, 290. 

y. Tower, 220, 278, 896, 900. 
Lincoln Nat Bank y. Virgin, 242. 
Lincoln Say. Bank v. Ewing, 988. 

489 in Tol. 1; residue In vol. 2.] 

Lind y. Adams, 118. 

Linden y. Leggett, 617. 

LInder y. Monroe's £r*rs, 118. 

Lindgren y. Lindgren, 725. 

Lindh V. Crowley, 963. 

Lindley y. Ross, 357. 

Lindsey y. Town of DanylUe, 506, 729. 

Lindsley y. Mining Co., 709. 

y. Sparks, 321, 371. 

y. Thompson, 731. 
Line y. Cranftll, 83. 

V. McCall, 944. 
Lineberger y. Newkirk, 554. 
Liuehan v. Hathaway, 660. 
IJninger y. Glenn, 243, 393. 
Link y. Link, 368. 
Linn y. Carson's Adm*r, 218. 

V. Pntton, 411. 
Lluney v. Wood, 617. 
Linton v. Hurley, 058, 975. 

y. Insurance Co., 504, 009. 
LIntz y. Thompson, 908. 
Lion y. Burtis, 652. 
Lippencott y. Wilson, 450. 
LIppman y. Campbell, 578. 
Lipscomb y. Grace, 1009. 

y. Postell, 589. 
Lirette y. Carrane, 407. 
List y. Jockheck, 33. 
Lister y. Vowell, 138. 
LItch V. Clinch, 761, 764. 
Litchfield y. City of Brooklyn, 939a. 
Little y. Bnrlow. 787. 

V. Blrdwell, 116. 

V. City of Portland, 734. 

y. Cook, 299. 

V. Dyer, 50, 69. 

V. Ferguson, 83. 

y. Leiphton. 33. 

y. McVey, 892. 

y. Price, 365, 366. 

V. ^^^lIte, no. 

LIttletield y. Nichols, 459. 

LIttlejohn y. Arbogast, 127. 

Little Rock Junction Ry. v. Burke^ 

Little Rook & Ft. S. R. Co. T. Dyer, 

V. Wells, 363. 
Littleton y. Richardson, 574, 675, 604. 

y. Smith, 266. 
Llttster V. Llttster, 297, 327. 
Liveimore y. Herschell, 716, 729. 


[References to sections. §§ 1 to 

liverpool Marine Credit Co. v. Hunter, 

Liverpool & L. & G. Ins. Ca v. Per- 

rln, 341. 
Livesley v. O'Brien, 354. 
Livezly v. Pennock, 53. 
Livingston, In re, 197. 

V. Allen, 250. 

V. Bishop, 777, 778, 779. 

V. Jordan, 173. 

V. Morgan, 152. 

V. Kendall, 200. 

V. Van Ingen, 285. 
Llano Improvement & Furnace Co. v. 

Watkins, 982. 
Lloyd V. Ball, 560. 

V. Bank, 1005. 

V. Barr, 52C, 549, 599. 

V. Klrkwood, 197. 

V. Malone, 197. 

y. Mansell, 356. 

V. Tracy, 604. 
League V. Taxing District of Browns- 
ville, 253a. 
Locke V. Hubbard, 110. 
Lockhart v. Gillis, 599. 

V. Locke, 896. 

V. State, 109. 
Lockridge v. Lyon, 358. 
Lockwood V. Bock, 34. 

V. Mitchell, 369. 

V. Nye, 939a. 

V. Stradley, 197. 
Ix)eb V. Willis, 686. 
Loeber v. Moore, 493, 496. 
lioensnltz v. Seelinger, 584. 
Lofland v. Jefferson, 986. 

V. McDaniel, 987. 
Logan V. Caffrey, 734. 

V. Cloyd, 483. 

V. Hale, 400. 

y. Hillegass, 362, 367. 

V. Ti-ayser, 539, 599. 
Logan's Adm'r v. Pannill, 438. 
Logansport Gaslight & Coke Co. v. 

Knowles, 857. 
Lohman v. Cox, 43, 85. 
Lomas v. Hilliard, 864. 
Lomax v. Besley, 324. 
Lombard v. Bayard, 413, 415. 

V. Clark, 89. 
Lombard Inv. Co. v. Burton, 981. 
Lomison v. Faust, 351. 


499 In vol. 1; residue In vol. 2.] 

Loudon Assur. Corp. v. Lee, 86. 
London & N. W. R. Co. v. Lindsay, 

Lonergan v. Lonergan, 882. 
Loney v. Bailey, 87, 105, 236, 306. 
Long y. Behan, 699. 

y. Burnett, 250. 

y. Eisenbeis, 362. 

V. Gamett, 211. 

V. Gilbert, 371. 

V. Hammond, 8o5. 

V. Klein, 948. 

V. Long, 721. 

V. Maxwell, 43. 

V. Miller, 492. 

V. :^[ulford, 197. 

V. Kuch, 346a. 

y. Shackelford, 1014. 

V. Smith, 363. 

y. Stafford, 127, 134. 

y. Thoi-mond, 482a. 

v. Trexler, 742. 

V. Yonge, 585. 
I^ongfeliow V. Quimby, 3, 532. 
Longinette v. Shelton, 532. 
Longman v. Bradford, 325. 
Longstreet v. Phile, 617. 

v. Rea, 208. 
Longwell v. Bentley, 430. 
Longworth v. Screven, 299. 
Lonsdale y. Littledale, ^56. 
Lookout Mountain R. Co. y. Houston, 

Loomis v. Lane, 36. 

y. Pulver, 758. 

y. Rice, 329. 

y. Robinson, 944. 
Looney v. Reeves, ^4. 
Loop y. Summers, 600. 
Lord y. Cannon, 5(i7. 

v. Chadbourne, 792. 

y. Thomas, 609. 
Lord Mohun's Case, 126. 
Lore's Lessee v. Truman, 722. 
Lorillard v. Clyde, 682, 750. 
Lorimer v. Marshall, 425. 
Loring v. Arnold, 635. 

v. Folger, 200, 203. 

V. Hildreth, 793. 

v. lUsIey, 1. 

V. Mansfield, 758. 

y. Steineman, 643. 

y. Whittemore, 067. 

[References to sectioxiB. 89 1 to 

Lorraine y. Long, 766. 

Lorziug r. Eisenberg, 313. 

Los Angeles Oounty Bank y. Raynor, 

106, lOD. 
Losey v. Neldig, 366. 
Lothian y. Henderson, 815. 
Loudenback y. CoUins, 722, 723. 
Lough Y. Thornton, 16. 
Louis V. Triscony, 641. 
Louisiana y. Mayor of New Orleans, 9, 
11, 677. 

Y. U. S.. 085f. 
Louisiana LeYee Co. y. State, 632. 
Louisiana Nat. Bank y. Whitney, 35. 
Louisiana State Bank y. NaYigation 

Co., 617. 
LoQlSYille. N. A. & G. B. Co. Y. Creek, 

Y. Johnson, 100. 

Y. Nicholson, 225. 

T. Parish, d36. 

V. WyUe, 703, 
LouisYille Trust Co. y. City of Cincin- 
nati, 360, 551. 615, d38c. 

Y. Springs Co., 750. 
LouisYUle & N. B. Co. y. BrinckerbofT, 

V. Cbnley, 33. 

Y. Mayfield, 16. 

Y. Nash, 227. 

Y. Orr, 617. 

Y. Taylor, 174. 

Y. Trustees, 179. 

V. Ward, 100. 
Lounsbury y. Purdy, 421, 438. 
Louw V. DaYlB, 620. 
Ijore T. Allison, 493. 

Y. Fah^eld, 944, 968. 

Y. Gibson, 591, 604. 

Y. Harper, 471. 

r. Waltz, 750. 
Lorejoy y. Albee, 229. 

Y. Locks Co., 354. 

Y. Murray, 573, 777, 779, 782, 

V. Webber, 299. 
T»velace y. LoYell, 306. 
I^orell v. Hammond Co., 671. 

T. Habin, 105. 
Ix>vett V. Cowman, 349. 
Ix>rett*s Ex'rs y. Mathews, 635. 
Lorins Y. Humplirles, 8. 
ljo\\tt Y. Bussell, 24a 
Low V. Bartlett, 503. 


499 In vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Low V. Duncan, 1000. 

V. Graff, 116. 

V. Low, 509. 

Y. Mining Co., 24. 

y. Mussey, 517, 866. 
Lowber y. Mayor of New York, 317- 
Lowber & Wilmer's Appeal, 200. 
Lowdon Y. Flsli, 118. 
Lowe, In re, 423. 

Y. HamlltOB, 340. 

Y. Morgan, 585. 

V. Stringham, 272. 
Lowenstein v. Insurance Co., 34. 

V. Mcintosh, 526. 
Lower v. U. S., OSSb. 
Lower Latham Ditch Co. y. Canal Co., 

Lownsdale y. City of Portland, 540. 
Lowry y. Banli. 593, 598. 

Y. Hall, 865. 

Y. Inmau, 583. 

Y. McMUlan, 700. 

Y. McMurtry, 537. 
Loy V. Kennedy, 635. 
Loyd V. Waller, 250, 938c. 
Lublier Y. Plow Co., 185. 
Lublin Y. Stewart, Howe & May Co., 

Lucan y. Cadwallader, 32. 
Lucas, Succession of, 892. 

Y. Cassaday, 1008. 

Y. City of San Francisco, 527. 

Y. Governor, 588. 

Y. Le Compte, 735. 

Y. Nichols, 379, 389. 

Y. Spencer, 379. 

Y. Todd, 261. 

Y. Waul, 379. 
Luce Y. Dexter, 782. 
Luclcenbach y. Anderson, 909. 
Luckett Y. Trust Co., 705. 
Luco Y. Bank, 284. 
Ludeling y. Cbaffe, 754. 
Ludington v. Hand ley, 384. 
Ludington*8 Petition, 549. 
Ludlow V. City of Norfolk, 40. 

Y. Bamsey, 367. 

Y. Township, 790. 
Ludlow*s Heirs y. Johnston, 135, 136. 

Ludwick V. Fair. 522, 970. 
Ludwig V. Huck, 482. 

Y. Ijnzarus, 363. 


[It«f«rencei to Metkms. 8S 1 to 

LuUe D.» The, 950, 98G. 
Lumbard t. Abbey, 420. 
Lumly V. Quarry, 814. 
Lumpkin y. Williams, 381. 
Lundberg y. Davidson, 1000. 
Luscomb y. Maloy, 338. 
Luse y. Rankin, 220. 
Lusk v. Dayidson, 492. 
Lustfleld y. Ball, 1008. 
Lutes v. Alpaugb, 2^1.* 
Luttrell V. Reynolds, 707. 
Lutz V. Kelly, 228. 
Lutz's Appeal, 485. 
Lycan y. Miller, 644. 
Lyday v. Douple, 378. 
Lyford y. Demerritt, 296. 
Lyle V. Uorstman, 273. 
Lyles V. Belles, 240, 200. 

y. Caldwell, 589. 
Lyman y. Browne, 847. 

V. Harvester Co., 767. 
Lynch v. Baxter, 261, 808. 

V. Insurance Co., 865. 

v. Kelly, 115. 

V. Rooney, 252. 

v. Swanton, 506. 
Lynch's Ex'x y. Tunnell, 199. 
Lyode v. Lynde, 857. 

V. Railroad Co., 790, 872^ 
Lyne v. Sanford, 284. 
Lynn v. Gridley, 395, 470. 

V. Lowe, 200. 
Lyon V. Barney, 86. 

y. Bollvin, 325. 

y. Boiling, 996. 

V. Cleveland, 492. 

V. Ford, 487. 

V. Hampton, 1008. 

v. Lyon, 929, S)32. 

V. Mfg. Co., 720. 

v. Xorthrup, 587, 987. 

y. Bobbins, 455. 

v. Tallmadge, 783. 

V. Vanatta, 274. 
Lyons v. Green, 313. 
Lysle v. Williams, 498. 
liythgoe y. Lytligoe. 110, G14. 
Lytle V. Arkansas, 530. 

V. Black, 446. 

V. Colts, 326. 

V. Custead, 86. 

V. Fenn, 326. 

V. Forest, 325. 


499 In vol. 1; residue In toI. 2.] 

Lytle v. Lytie, 933. 

v. Railroad Co., 630. 

v. Town of Lansing, 251, 989. 
Lyttleton y. Cross, 270. 


McAfee v. Covington, 9. 

v. Patterson, 491. 

V. Reynolds, 467. 
McAleer v. Clay County, 9Sod. 

V. Lewis, 506. 
McAlexander v. Goopwood, 660. 

V. Lee, 983. 
McAllister v. Brooks, 593. 

v. Guggenheimer, 229. 

V. Mfg. Co., 879, 970. 
McAllister's App?al, 77. 
Mc Alpine v. Sweet ser. 294, 
McAnally v. Haynie, 43. 
McAnulty v. Association, 309, 355. 
McAithur v. Dane. 989. 

V. Slauson, 343. 

V. Smith, 434. 
McBane v. People, 261. 
McBrayer v. Dean, 1003. 
McBride v. Bank, 1008. 

V. Fallon, 947, 954. 

V. Harn, 228. 

V. Wakefield, 366. 
McBrien v. Riley. 306, 346a. 
McBroom v. Gt'vemor, 588. 

V. Sommerville, 375, 383. 
McBryde, In re, 977. 
McBurnie v. Seaton, 536. 
McCabe v. Sumner, 77. 
McCadden v. Slausen, 680, 867. 
McCaffrey v. Carter, 738. 
McCahan v. Elliott, 466. 
McCain v. Railroad Co., 731. 
McCall V. Harrison. GOO. 

V. Hitchcock, 34. 

V. Jones, 719. 
' V. McCall, 354. 
McCalla v. Ely, 152. 
McCalla*s Adm'r v. Patterson, 589. 

V. Patterson, 491. 
McCalley v. Wilbum, 87, 697. 
McCallister v. Bridges, 511, 578. 
McCalmont v. Peters, 60. 
McCamant v. Roberts, 004. 
McCambridge v. Walraven, 291. 

[References to Bections. |9 1 to 499 In vol. 1; residue In vol. 2.] 


McCampbell v. Durst, 252. 

Y. McCampbell, 518. 

V. Mason, 666. 
McCance v. Taylor, 474. 
McCandless v. Securities Corp., 632. 

y. Smith, 269. 
McOann v. State, 103. 
McCardie, Ex parte, 21G. 
McCargo y. Chapman, 36. 
McCartee y. Chambers, 30. 
McOrter v. Neil, 247. 
McCarthy y. Marsh, 804. 
McCartney y. Osbum, 872. 
McCarty y. Ball, 461. 

y. aty of New Bedford, 923. 

y. Kinsey, 680. 

y. O'Bryan, 98. 

y. Railroad Co., 579. 

y. Stock Farm, 352. 
McCaskill v. Graham, 408, 439a. 
McCanley y. Fulton, 273. 

y. Hargroyes, 857, 909. 

y. Hanrey, 284. 
McCaolis y. Duyal, 386. 
McCelvey y. Noble, 714. 
McChesney.v. City of Chicago, 306. 
McClain y. Dayls, 127. 
McClarin y. Anderson, 462. 
McClaskey v. Barr, 587. 
McCleary y. Brewing Co., 747. 

y. Faber, 803. 

y. Menke, 590. 
McCleary*8 Appeal, 499. 
McCleery y. Thompson, 67. 
McClellan y. Kennedy, 600. 

y. Klnnalrd, 391. 
Mcaelland y. Moore, 200. 

y. Patterson, 661a. 

V. Pomeroy, 354. 
McClesky y. State, 270, 537. 
McClish y. Manning, 70. 
McCloskey y. Sweeney, 194. 

y. Wingfield, 200. 
McCloud y. Meehan, 311. 
McOung y. Belme, 432, 440, 906. 

V. Condit, 009. 

y. Hobl, 709. 

V. Murphy, 28. 

y. Steen. 607. 
Mtdure V. Bowles, 53, 61. 

y. Coldough, 588. 

y. McClure. 6C0. 

y. Thistle's I'lx'rs, 446, 


McClurg V. Schwartz, 317. 
McCluskey, Ex parte, 259. 
McCollum y. Prewitt, 383, 384. 

V. Wood, 810. 
McComb V. EUett, 278. 

V. Frlnk, 620. 
McConkey v. McCraney, 88. 
McConnell y. Day, 285, 556. 

y. Downs, 567. 
McCord y. Well, 32. 
McCord-Brady Co. y. Krause, 000. 
McCord-ColUns Commerce Co. v. Levi, 

McCormlck y. Alexander, 399. 432, 
463, 1005. 

y. Belvin, 34. 

y. Brnnnan, 534. 

y. Uogan, 313. 

y. McCormlck, 344. 

y. Paddock, 200. 

y. SulUvant, 270, 273, 285. 

y. Webster, 263. 

y. Wheeler, 137, 169. 
McCormlck Harvesting Mach. Co. y. 
Coe, 57. 

y. Marchant, 240. 
McCotter y. Flynn, 514, 661a. 

y. McCotter, 953, 956. 
McCown y. Macklin's Ex'r, 384 
McCoy y. Hazlett, 987. 

y. Jones, 16. 

y. McCoy, 600. 

y. Nichols, 560. 

y. Porter, 161. 

v. Van Ness, 966. . 
McCracken v. Swartz, 493. 
McCrady y. Jones, 44. 
McCrairy y. Ware, 52. 
McCravey y. Remson, 612. 
McCraw y. Williams, 175. 
McCray v. Clark, 492. 

V. Freeman, 755. 
McCready, Ex parte, 257. 
McCreary y. Casey, 766. 

V. Robinson, 24, 185. 
McCredy v. Thrush, 780. 

y. Woodcock, 314, 340a. 
McCreery v. Davis, 897. 

v. Everding. 199, 559, 577. 

v. Fuller, 705. 
McCrillls V. Harrison Co., 514, 681. 
McCrory v. Parks, 599. 
McCroskey v. Parks, 193. 


[References to sections. 99 1 to 499 In yol. 1; residue In vol. 2.] 

McCue V. Sharp, 117, 1U2. 
McCalloch v. Dodge, 34. 

y. Tapp, 349. 
McCullougb, Ex parte, 255. 

V. Franklin Coal Co., 4»4, 976w 

y. Hellman, 740. 

y. Montgomery, 644. 

y. Pence, 709. 
McCune v. Eaton, 15. 

V. McCune, 449, 478. 
McCurdy y. Baugliman, 87, 190, 097. 
McCurry y. Robinson, 055. 
McCutcheon v. Allen, 1014. 

y. Dougherty. 982. 
McDade v. Burch, 042. 
McDaniel v. Correll, 218. 

y. Goodall, 994. 

y. McLendon, 341. 
McDermott y. Clary, 229, 897, 899, 901, 

McDoel V. Cook, 233. 
McDonald y. Badger, 425. 

y. Berry, 042. 

y. Butler, 958. 

y. Crandall, 425. 

y. Dickson, 8, 968. 

y. Drew, 917. 

y. Falvey, 299. 

y. Hannah, 004. 

y. McCoy, 019. 

y. McDonald, 38, 431. 

y. Matney, 000. 

y. Mobile L. Ins. Co., 517. 

y. Pearson, 393. 

y. Raincr, 032. 

y. Refrigerating Co., 639. 

y. Sellgmnn, 091. 

y. Simcox, 250. 

y. Stark, 740. 

y. Tutty, 85. 

y. Wilkie, 211. 
McDonough y. Nicholson, 83. 
McDougal V. Downey, 749. 
McDougald^s Adm*r v. Rutherford, 041, 
MacDougall y. Hoes, 959. 

y. Knight, 731. 

y. Walling, 321, 323. 
McDowall V. McDowall, 307. 

y. Daniels, 03. 

y. Gibson, 071. 

y. Langdon, (;24. 

y. McDowell 100, 176, 307. 

^. Railroad Co., 707. 

Mace y. Gaddis, 107. 

y. O'Reilly, 170. 
McEachern y. Brackett, 325. 

V. Kerchner, 157. 
McElfatrick y. Taft, 9^4, 936, 937. 
McElmoyle v. Cohen, 850, 853, 857, 862, 

803, 884, 892. 
McElrath v. Butler, 223. 
McElroy v. Mumford, 083. 
McElwain y. Huston, 22. 
McElwee y. Jeflfries, 1008. 
McEvoy V, Bock, 747. 
McEwan y. Zimmer, 228, 829. 837. 
McEwen y. Bigelow, 705, 1001. 
Macey y. Stark, 250. 
McFadden v. Fritz, 071. 

y. Geddis, 014. 

y. liockhart, 490. 

y. Ross, 071. 

V. Schroeder. 703. 
McFaddin v. Garrett, 377. 

V. Spencer, 370. 
McFall y. Association, 264^ 

V. Dempsey, 580. 
McFarland y. Fish. 439. 

V. Fricks, 870. 

y. Hairs Heirs, 42, 44. 

y. Irwhi, 493. 

y. Stone, 639. 

y. White, :to9. 
McFarland*s Estate, In re, 381 
McFarlane y. Cushman, 714. 

y. Derbisbire, 848. 
McFerran v. Davis, 434. 
McGaffigan y. Jenkins, 347. 
McGarvey y. Darnall, 872. 
McGaughey y. Woods, 213. 
McGavock y. Clark, 220. 
McGee v. Overby, 725. 
McGehee v. Gold, 380. 

y. Shafer, 779. 

y. Wllkins, 278. 282. 
McGhee v. Romatka. '517. 
McGIll, Ex parte, 255. 

V. Rothgeb, 98. 
McGillis V. Willis, 731. 
MoGilvray v. Avery, 8<)4, 865. 
McGiniss v. Lillard's Ex'r, 1008. 
McGirk v. Chauvin, 270, 288. 
McGlaughlln v. O'Rourke, 191. 
McGoon y. Scales, 245. 

v. Shirk, 152. 
McGourkey y. Railway Co., 500L 

[Referencei to sections. SS 1 to 499 in vol. 1; reildne in vol. 2.] 


McGowan v. Kreling, 322. 
HcGrady v. Monks, 625. 733. 
McQrath t. Maxwell. l>58. 

V. Seagrave, 124. 
McGregor y. McGregor, 616. 

V. Tabor, 571. 
McGrew v. Insurance Co., 822. 
McGolre v. Campbell, 77. 

T. Gallagher, 7. 
McGurry v. Wall, 153. 
McUenry v. Shephard, 63. 
Machon v. Handle, 100. 
McUugh V. Sparks, 363. 
Mcllrain v. James L. Leeds Co., 57. 
McUvoy T. AIsop, 107. 
Mclntlre v. Unehan, 619. 
Mclntosli V. Com'rs, 322. 

V. Lown, 745. 
Mclntjre v. Storey, 616. 
McJilton T. Lore, 857, 865, 039a, 963, 

McJimsey v. Traverse, 526. 
McJunkin t. McJnnkin, 320. 
Mack V. Doty. 369, 383. 

V. Levy, 508, 612, 786. 
MackaUey*s Case, 182. 
Uacke v. Byrd. 22. 

V. Ryan, 255. 
McKean v. Jones, 707. 

V. Read, 384. 

V. Smoyer, 663. 
McEee v. Gayle, 449. 

V. Gilchrist, 423. 

V. Railroad Co., 742. 

V. Wbitten, 633. 
McKellar v. Bowell, 586, 590. 

V. Lamkin, 86. 
McKenna v. Van Blarcom, 446. 
McKenzle. EIk parte, 317. 

V. Budd, (M3. 

V. Donnell. 270. 

V. Renshaw. 050. 
McKeown v. Officer, 45b 
Hackey v. Bell, 44. 

V. Coxe, 9390. 

v. Hyatt, 30. 

V. Mackey. 042, 043. 
^lackey's Adm'r v. Coates, 600. 
McKim V. Haley, 580. 

V. Odom, 809, 873, 962. 
McKindley v. Buck, 300. 
McKlnUy ▼. TutUe, 213. 

McKlnley, In re, 320a. 

V. Irvine, 44. 

V. Tuttle, 342, 351. 
McKinuey v. May, 86. 

V. Mehaffey, 486, 940. 

T. Ralh-oad Co., 219. 
McKlnney's Adm'r v. Davis, 641. 
McKlnnon v. McGown, 985. 
Mackintosh v. Smith, 516. 
McKlnzle v. Railroad, 578. 
McKlssack v. Voorhees, 24. 
McKissick v. McKissick, 747. 
McKnlght V. Devlin, 768. 

V. Dunlop, G29, 658. 

V. Strong, 305. 

V. Taylor, 50i. 
MacLachlan v. Pease, 268. 
McLaln V. Duncan, 154. 
McLane v. Bovee, 656. 

V. Miller, 618. 

V. Spence, 695. 
McLaran v. Wilhelm, 206. 
McLaren v. Kehler, 861, 867. 
McLaughlin v. Bank, 1014^ 

v. Doane, 707. 

V. HUl, 736. 

V. Insurance Co., 754. 

V. McGee, 717. 

V. Nichols, 875, 967. 
McLa urine v. Monroe's Adm*rs, 774. 
McLean v. Hansen, 537. 

y. Hugarin, 681. 

y. Meek, 563. 

y. Rockey, 187, 429, 450. 

y. Shields, 838. 

y. State, 127. 

y. Stewart, 154. 
McLelland v. Ridgway, 600. 
McLellan Dry-Dock Co. v. Steam-Boat 

Line, 159. 
McLemore v. Durlvage, 300. 

V. Railroad Co., 197. 
McLenachan v. Commonwealth, 644. 
McLendon v. Dodge, 889. 
McLennan v. McMonies, 674* 
McLsod V. Lee, 614, 624. 

V. Nimocks, 90. 

y. Power, 770. 

y. Receveur, 250. 

V. Williams, 493. 
Mcl^eran v. McNamara, 378it 
McLure v. Bencenl, 857. 


CReferencei to lections. || 1 to 499 in toI. 1; residue In vol. 2.] 

McMahan v. Geiger, 599. 
McMahon v. Ass'n, 896. 

V. Macy, 583. 

V. Perkins, 116. 

Y. Smith, 589. 

V. Tumey, 231. 
McManama v. Garnett, 306. 
McMechen v. Marman, 433. 
McManus v. Ennis, 157. 
McMaster v. Arthur, 513. 
McMlcken v. Commonwealth, 588. 

V. Perln, 306. 
McMillan v. Baker, 299. 

v. Hickman, 204. 

V. Red, 490. 

V. State, 37. 
McMillen v. Lovejoy. 876. 

V. Scott, 983. 
McMlnn v. Whelan, 278. 
McMullen v. Richie, 756, 829. 

V. Wenner, 438. 
McMurran v. Meek, 86. 
McMurrny v. Mfg. Co., 59. 

v. Marsh, 944, 089. 
McMiirray's Heirs v. City of Erie, 352. 
McMurtry v. State, 86. 
McNabb v. Cllpp, 16. 
McNair v. Ingraham, 993. 

V. O'Fallon, 784. 
McXairy v. Castleberry, 164. 

V. Eastland, 377. 
McNamara v. Logan, 740. 

V. Railroad Co., 127, 128, 410, 419. 
McNamee v. Morelaud, 541. 
McXaney v. Hall, 545. 
McXeal v. Banks, 351. 

V. Hunt 1016. 
McNeel's Ex'rs v. Auldrldge, 245. 
McNeely v. Hyde, 609. 
McNees v. Insurance Co., 714. 
McNeil V. McNeil, 356, 360. 
McNeill V. Carter, 434. 

V. Edie, "288. 
Macnevin v. Macnevln, 21. 
McNIcholas v. Lake, 620, 769. 
McNutt V. Trogdon, 536. 

V. Wilcox, 1008. 
McPhall V. Hyatt, 506. 
McPherson v. Bank, 86. 

V. Cunllff, 284. G33, 634. 

V. Hamilton, 644. 

V. Wood, 300. 
MtPike V. Wells, GOO. 

McQuean v. Fletcher, 902. 

V. McQueen, 173. 
McQueen's Appeal, 632. 
McQuillan v. Hunter, 313. 
McRae v. Adams, 342. 

y. Davis, 390. 

V. Mattoon, 227, 290, 917. 

V. Purvis, 378. 
McReady v. Rogers, 682, 774. 

V. Schenck, 587. 
McReynolds v. McReynolds, 5i4. 
McRoberts v. Lyon, 488. 
McSpadden v. Fanner, 284. 
McTavlsh v. Railroad Co., 115. 
McVeagh v. Little, 4M. 

V. Old Dominion Bank, 486. 
McVey, In re, 524. 

V. Man*att, 782. 
McVlcar v. Filer, 387. 

V. Wolcott, 32. 
McVIcker v. Beedy, 229, 904. 906. 
McWhorter v. Norris, 703. 
McWilliams v. Kalback, 590. 
McWillle V. Martin, 317. 
Macy V. Lloyd, 367. 
Madden v. J^eldlng, 220. 
Maddock v. Stevens, Ola. 
Maddox v. Summerlin, 242, 296. 975. 
Madison Tp. v. Dunckle, 677. 
Magarlty v. Succop's Adm'r, 1005. 
Magee, In re, 320a. 
Maglll v. lYust Co.. 721. 
Magnolia Metal Co. v. Supply Co., 882. 
Mngnusson v. Cronholm, 246. 
Magoou V. Callahan. 352. 
Mngoun v. Insurance Co., 814, 818. 
Magowan v. Magowan. 320, 930. 
Magrath v. Hardy, 783. 
Magruder v. Buck, 191. 
Maguire v. Maguire, 927. 932. 

V. Wooila, 29. 
Magurn v. Magum. 929. 
Mahftflfcy v. Rogers, 54, 624, 693. 
Mahnn v. Ca vender, 321. 
Mahaney v. Pan man, 225. 
Mahaska County State Bank v. Christ 

Mahon v. Rosenkrantz, 986. 
Mahoney v. Prendergast, 599. 

V. Van Winkle, 656. 
Mahoning Bank*s Appeal, 1. 
>raliurln v. Blckford, 880, 034, 937. 
Mallhouse v. Inloes, 87, 326, 

[References to tections. fiS 1 to 499 in vol. 1; residue In vol. 2.] 


Main v. Bosworth, 421, 43Da. 

V. JohUKOD, 181. 

Matr V. Beck, 57. 
Maize T. Bowman, 747. 
Majors v. Cowell, 540. 
Malcareth v. Pollard, 9€o. 
Makepeace t. Ckmtee, 1000. 1004. 

y. Lukens, 1(>5. 
Malek y. Kodad, 337. 
Maley y. Railroad Co., 23. 

T. Sbattuck, 817. 
Mallett y. Butcher. 379. 

V. Foxcrof t, 612, WiO. 

y. Parham, 100. 
Mallock y. Krome, 734. 
Malloney y. Horan, 617. 
Mallory y. Clark, 54. 

y. Xorton, 390. 

y. Taylor, 26. 
Mally y. Mally, 754. 
Malona y. Schwing, 638a. 
Malone y. Marriott 48, .'oO. 

y. Mining Co., 316. 324. 
Maloney y. Dewey, 205. 
Mfllooy y. Horan, 732. 
MaUky y. Schumacher, 600. 
Man y. Drexel, 652. 
Mandeyille y. Ayery, 791. 

y. Holey, 77. 

y. Reynolds, 290, 909. 
Mandlebaum y. Gregovich, 958. 
Maneyal y. Township, 54, 349. 
Mangnno & Tomfocaro Co. y. Cly- 

monts, 305. 
Manhattan Co. y. Byertson, 413, 415, 

Manhattan Life Ins. Co. y. Broughton, 

Manigault y. Deas* Adm*rs, 559, 600. 

V. Holmes. 536. 
Manker y. Sine, 1014. 
Mankhi y. Chandler, 792, 801. 
Manley y. Hunt 438. 

y. Hickle, 514. 

y. Tufts, 736. 
Manly y. Kidd, 537. 
Mann y. Edwards, 778i. 

y. Martin, 183. 

y. Peck, 666. 

y. Poole, 981. 

y. Rogers, 656w 

T. Warde, 34& 

Manning v. City of Orl.^ans, 16. 

y. Nelson, 158, 311, 321. 

y. Norwood's Adm'rs, 981. 

y. Railroad Co., 341, 613. 
Mannlon y. Railroad Co., 157. 
Manniz y. State, 291. 
Manns y. Bank, 677. 
Manny y. Harris, 623, 626. 
Mansel y. Castles, 166. 
Mansfield y. Gregory, 401. 

y. Hoa gland, 536. 

y. Mclntyre, 932. 

y. Manslield, 320. 
Mansfield's Case, 205. 
Manson y. Duncanson, 193, 261, 585. 
Mansur y. Pratt, 195. 
Manufacturers' & Mechanics' Bank y. 
Bank, 446. 

y. Boyd, 53. 

y. St John, 61a. 
Manyille y. Parks, 89. 
Manwaring y. Lippincott 836. 
Maple y. Beach, 600, 604. 

y. Havenhill, 307. 

y. Railroad Co., 779. 
Maples y. Mackey, 273. 
Marble y. Keyes, 791. 
Marbury y. Pace, 52, 488. 
Marceau y. Insurance Co., 528. 
March y. McCardle, 191. 

y. Railroad Co., 227. 
Marchal y. Hooker, 109. 
Marchman y. Sewell, 370. 
Marder y. Wright 141. 
Marienthal y. Amburgh, 224. 
Marine Bank Co. y. Mailers, 157. 
Marine Ins. Co. y. Hodgson, 366, 378, 

y. Young, 729. 
Marion y. Regenstein, 81. 
Marion County y. Coler, 985a. 
Marion County Com'rs y. Welch, 664. 
Markham y. Angler, 373. 

y. O'Conner, 576. 
Markle's Estate, In re, 313. 
Markley y. People, 751, 

y. Rand, 359. 
Marks y. Semple, 42. 

y. Sigler, 87, 697. 

y. Sullivan, 614. 

y. Willis, 390. 
Marlatt y. Clary, 572. 


[Referencei to secUoni. tt 1 to 

Marlow v. Barlew, 11)2. 

v. Johnson, 434. 
Marquai'dt v. Hubner, 16. 
Marquez v. Frisbie, 530. 
Marquis, In re, 297. 
Marr v. Marr, 319. 

V. Wetzel, 897. 
Marriner v. Smith, 359, 426. 
Marsh v. Berry, 779. 

V. Edgerton, 378. 

v. Uamux>nd, 699. 

V. Haywood, 299. 

y. Lasher, 349. 

v. Mandeville, 700. 

V. Masterson, 726, 733. 

Y. Nordyke & Marmon Co., 350. 

V. Pier, 726, 729, 787, 788. 

V. Putnam, 824. 

V. Synder, 115. 
Marshall y. Aiken, 754. 

V. Charland, 264. 

V. aothlng Co., 725, 749, 750. 

V. Fisher, 195, 197. 

V. Holmes, 372. 

V. Moore, 457, 999. 

V. Morris, 1007. 

V. Otto, 706. 

V. Rose, 041. 

y. Itough's Heirs, 600. 

y. Shafter, 655. 

y. Taylor, 130. 
Marshall & Ilsley Bank y. Hyman, 181. 
Marshmnn y. Conklin, 183. 
Marsh ton y. Sweet, 787. 

y. Tryon, 1014. 
Martin v. Baldwin, 435, 939a. 

y. Bank, 164. 

y. Barnhill, 500. 

y. Baugh, 315. 

y. Bowie, 270. 

y. Boyce, 632. 

y. Burns, 271. 

y. Charter, 1007. 

y. Cowles, 567. 

y. Crow, 23. 

y. Curley, 335. 

y. Darling, 794. 

y. Ellerbe's Adm'r, 562. 

y. Evans, 722. 

y. Gilmore, 21. 

y. Hewitt, 173, 407. 

y. Judd, 54, 225. 

V. Kennedy, 726. 


499 in vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Martin y. McLean, 245. 

V. Matfleld, 163. 

y. Nicolls, 827. 

V. Parsons, 376, 377. 

y. Porter, 268, 590. 

V. Price, 28. 

V. Railroad Co., 9L 

y. Rex, 53, Ola. 

y. RobUison, 284. 

y. Roney, 731. 

y. Rutt, 607. 

y. Skehan, 305. 

v. Tally, 589. 

V. Teal, 117. 

y. Tobacco Co., 343. 

y. AValker, 609. 

y. Weyman, 193. 195, 197. 

y. Williams, 233, 284. 
Martina v. Muhlke, 246. 
Martindalc y. Brown, 346. 

V. Price, 16. 

y. AVaas, 125a. 
Martinez v. Lindsey, 445. 
Marvel v. Manouyrler, 325, 374. 
Marvin v. Dennison, 655. 

y. Hampton, 600. 

V. Marvin, 121. 

y. Welder, 516. 

V. Wilklns, 299. 
Marx v. Fore, 901, 903, 916. 

v. Logue. 884, 971. 

y. Sanders, 498. 
Marj' Anne, The, 796. 
Maryland Steel Co. v. MsLvney, 323, 372. 
Marj'ott V. Gardner, 261. 
Mashburn v. Gouge, 190. 
Mason, Ex parte, 250. 

v. Alston, 622. 

v. Bair, 041. 

v. Bull. 969. 

v. Cronlse, 985. 

v. Eldred, 770. 

v. House, 365. 

y. .Tones, 387. 

v. Kellogg, 567, 569. 

v. Knowlson, 1003. 

y. McLean, 304. 

y. McNamara, 352. 

v. Messenger, 290. 

y. Miles, 376. 

y. Quinn, 370. 

v. Railroad Co., 326. 

v. Smith, 61. 



[RafereneeB to sections. H 1 to 

Mason County y. Dunbar, 29. 
Maisachusetts Benefit Life Ass'n v. 

LohmiUer, 393. 
Masser v. Dewart, 4S4» 

Y. Strickland, 588. 
Massey v. McCoy, 715. 

Y. Walker, 13. 

V. Westcott. 420. 
Massle y. Mann, 3(X). 
Maasle's Heirs v. Donaldson, 196, 197. 
MasHlnglll Y. Downs, 413, 415. 
Masten v. Foundry Co., 351. 

V. Oieott, U57. 
Masters y. Va mar's Kx'rs, 607. 
Masterson y. Cundiff, 4S2a, 483. 

V. Gibson, 8. 

Y. Matthews, 173, 516, 966. 

Y. Williams, 23. 
Mastick Y. Tborp, 366. 
Martin y. Gray, 275. 
Matheney y. Galloway, 260, 695. 
Matber y. Mather, 63. 
Matheson's Adm'rs y. Grant's Adm'r, 

Mathews y. Bishop, 322. 

Y. llerron, 671. 

Y. Lawrence, 782. 

Y. Mosby, 80. 
)Uto, Ex parte, 257. 
Matson y. Burt, 285. 

Y. Field, 362, 378. 

Y. Swebson. 284. 
Mattalr y. Card, 754. 
Matter y. PhilUps, 986. 
Matthew v. Osborne, 652. 
Matthews y. l>aYis, 958. 

V. Durj-ee, 617. 

Y. Houghton, 106. 

Y, Nance, 459. 

Y. Noble, 174. 

Y.Uussell, 954, 1000, 1005. 
Matthews* lessee y. Thompson, 52. 
Matthls Y. Inhabitants, 341. 
Mattingly v. Elder, 44. 

Y. Lewlsohn, 511. 
Mattoon y. Hinkley, 86. 
Mattox Y. Helm, 647, 663. 
Matula Y. Lane, 455, 460. 
MatEenbaugh v. Doyle, 69, 351. 
Maolden y. Armlstead, 396. 
Maund y. Loeb, 91. 
Maurin y. Games, 110. 
Maury v. Roberts, 28. 

409 in vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Maury's Trustee v. Fltzwater, 313. 
MaYlty Y. Ea8trldg9, 68. 
Mawhinney y. Doane, 958. 
Maxfield v. Carr, 980, 1016, 
Max Meadows Land & Imp. Co. y. 
McGaYock, 449. 

Y. Mendenhall, 22. 
Maxton y. Mount, 989. 
Maxwell y. Bank, 510. 

V. Clarke, 714. 

T. Com*rs, 532. 

V. DeYallnger, 992. 

Y. Owen, 941. 

V. Stewart, 801, 884, 917. 

V. Vaught, 437. 
May Y. Ball, 48. 

Y. Bank, 493. 

Y. Lumber Co., 329. 
Maybee y. Avery, 529. 
Mayberry y. McClurg, 321. 
Mayer y. Blease, 941. 

Y. Brensinger, 96. 

Y. Lawrence, 97. 

V. Mayer, 346a. 

V. Nelson, 363. 

V. Sparks, 1014. 
Mayes y. Woodall, 359. 
Maylleld, Ex parte, OSOc. 

Y. State, 114. 
Mayham y. Ooombs, 446. 
Maynard y. Ass'n, 185. 
Mayo Y. Ah Loy, 247, 278, 809. 

Y. Foley, 247. 809. 

Y. Stoneum, 173, 516. 

Y. Tudor's Heirs, 660. 
Mayor y. Lord, 253a, 518. 
Mayor, etc., of City of DaYenport y. 

Lord, 985b. 
Mayor, etc,, of City of Macon y. Trus- 
tees, 940. 
Mayor, etc., of City of New York y. 
Brady, 332. 574, 575. 

V. Schermerhom, 33. 
Mayor of New Orleans v. IT. S., 253a. 
Mayor of Norwick v. Berry, 126, 127. 
Mayor of Wetumpka y. Wharf Co., 

Mays Y. Compton, 600. 

v. Hassell, 134. 
MaysYille & B. S. R. Co. y. Ball, 972. 
MaysYille & Lexington R. Co. y. Pun- 

nett, 21, 32. 
Meacham v. Dudley, 341, 


CReferencei to soctions. || 1 to 

Mead y. City of Boston, 529. 

V. Brown, 135. 

V. Mitchell, 554. 661. 

V. Weaver, 251. 
Meade, In re, 320a. 

V. Bartlett, 271. 
Meader v. Norton, 530. 
Meador v. Rhyne, HMJO, 1003. 
Meadowcroft v. Huguenln. 320. 
Meadows v. Duchess of Kingston, 320, 

Meagher v. Mfg. Co., 29. 
Means v. Hicks' Adm*r, 589, 591. 

V. Means, 164. 
Mebane v. Mebane, 585. 
Mechanics* Bank v. Gorman, 450, 451. 

V. Mayer, 70. 

V. Mlnthorne, 159, 1(52. 
Mechanics' Banking Ass'n y. Marl- 

poosa Co., 703. 
Meckley's Appeal, 291. 
Medart v. Fasnatch, 392. 
Medford v. Dorsey, 1014. 

V. Harrell, 39. 
Medina v. Medina, 320. 
Meehan v. Valentine, 26. 
Meek v. Howard, 384. 

V. Mathis, 44. 

v. Meek, 892. 

V. Thompson, 440. 
Meeker v. Sprague, 32. 
Meem v. Rucke}*, 381. 
Megee v. Beirne, 801. 
Megerle v. Ashe, 531. 
Mehaffy v. Dobba, 646. 

V. Lytle, 573, 574. 
Mehlin y. Ice, 939c. 
Meily y. Wood, 431. 
Meiners v. Brewing Co., 349, 352. 
Melnweiser y. Hains, 492. 
Meiss V. Gill, 783. 
Meixell y. Klrkpatrick, 359. 
Melde y. Reynolds, 340a, 345. 
Melbop y. Doane, 904. 
Melick y. Bank, 321, 386. 
Mellin y. Horlick, 848. 
Mellon y. Guthrie, 418. 
Mellon's Appeal, 446. 
Mellon y. Howard, 299. 

V. Pace, 536. 
Melvln V. Proprietors. 649. 
Memmer v. Carey, 736. 
Memphis v. Brown, 153. 


499 in vol. 1; residue in toI. 2.] 

Memphis y. U. S., 985f. 
Memphis City Bank y. State of Ten- 
nessee, 609. 
Memphis & C. R. Co. y. Orr, 13. 
Memphis & L. R. R. Co. y. State, eOO. 
Menard y. Sydnor, 191. 
Mendenhall y. Robinson, 487. 

y. Stewart, 207. 
Mendenhairs Ex'rs v. Springer, 55. 
Menderback y. Hopkins, 998. 
Meng y. Coffee, 32. 
Mengis y. Railroad CO., 183. 
Menifee*s Adm^rs y. Ball. 378. 
Mentzer y. Ellison, 279, 3:»9. 
Mercantile Nat. Bank y. Bank, 510, 

y. Hubbard, 750. 
Mercantile Trust Co. y. Ralkoad Co.. 

Mercer y. James, 211, 212. 

y. Watson, 654. 
Merchants' Ad-Sign Co. y. BiU-Po8tins 

Co., 322. 
Merchants' Bank y. Ballon, 4, 399, 463. 

y. Chandler, 583. 

y. Kent, 32. 
Merchants' Ins. Co. y. Algeo, 745. 

y. De Wolf, 299. 
Merchants' International Steam-Boat 

Line y. Lyon, 630. 
Merchants' Mut. Ins. Co. y. Hill, 486. 
Merchants' Nat Bank y. Braithwaite, 

y. Construction Co., 938b. 

y. Cotton Mills, 61, 63, 67, 73. 

y. EusUs, 439. 

y. Gaslin, 958. 

y. Good, 500. 

y. Hagemeyer, 585a. 
Merchants' & Mechanics' Bank y. Br- 
ans, 236. 
Mercler y. Chace, 270, 278, 284. 
Meredith y. Ass'n, 587, 617, 875. 
Meredith Mechanic Ass'n y. Drill Co., 

Meriara y. Rundlett, 593, 598, 923. 
Meridian Nat. Bank y. McConica, 419. 
Merkleln y. Trapnall, (U6. 
Merle y. Andrews, 44, 306. 
Merrlam y. Sewell, 807. 

y. Whittemore, 50(?. 

y. Woodcock, 729, 769. 
Merrick y. City of Baltimore, 328. 

[Ref areneeft to Mellons. H 1 to 

Merrick y. Hill, 699. 

V. Merrick, 253. 
Merrifield v. Bell. 332. 
MerdU v. Bank, 200, 583. 

Y. Com'rs, 710. 

y. Harris, Gi2, 

y. Insurance Co., 5C3. 

y. Roberts, 341. 

y. Sherburne, 298. 

y. Souther, 954. 
Merriman v. Barker, 771. 

y. Railroad Co., 45. 

V. Walton, 362, 35J3b. 
Merrin y. Lewis, 663. 
Merritt y. Bagwell, 791. 

y. Baldwin, 367. 

y. Campbell, 706. 

y. DafDn, 560. 

y. Dearth, 100. 

y. Fowler, 864. 

y. Morse, 627. 

y. Peirano, 615. 

y. Putnam, 341, 354. 

y. Riohey, 440. 

V. White, 84. 
Merrftt's Lessee y. Home, 274. 
Merry v. Hallet, 429. 
Mershon y. Williams, 610, 618, 652. 
Mertz y. Oonstniction Co., 183. 
Merrine y. Parker, 5(H, 754, 986. 
Messier y. Amery, 852. 
Messina y. Petrocochino, 820, 827. 
Messinger y. Insurance Co., 709. 

V. Kintner, 271. 277. 
Messmore y. Williamson, 489. 
Mestier y. Railroad Co., GOO. 
Metcalf y. Gilmore, J)20. 

y. Metcalf, 135, 165. 
Metcalfe y. Alter, 196. 
Methard y. State, 745. 
Methodist Churches of New York y. 

Barker, 587. 
Methodist Protestant Church y. City of 

Baltimore, 367. 
Metropolitan £1. R. Co. y. Johnston, 27, 

y. Railroad Co., 509. 
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. y. Bergen, 

Metropolitan K. Co., In re, 619. 
Metropolitan Washing Mach. Co. y. 

Morris. 206. 
Metz r. Bank, 112, 405, 406. 

CITED. cxxxvii 

499 in Tol. 1; residue In vol. 2.] 

Metzgar y. Metzgar, 1005. 
Metzler y. Kllgore, 450. 
Mexia y. Lewis, 556. 
Mayer v. Barth, 589. 

V. Campbell, 407. 

y. Hartman, 912. 

y. Hearst, 199. 

y. Kuhn, 211, 793. 

V. Meyer, 517, 675. 
Meyers v. Field, 102. 

V. Hill, 651. 

y. Smith, 362, 372, 386. 
Miami Co. Nat. Bank v. Barkalow, 691. 
Michael y. City of Ma: toon, 164. 

V. Knapp, .421, 439n. 
Michaelis y. Brawley, 205, 269. 
Michaels y. Boyd, 460. 

V. Post, 248, 807. 
Michan y. Wyatt, 556. 
Michaux's Adm'r v. Brown, 433. 
Michels v. Stork, 225. 
Michener y. Thrasher Co., 359. 
Michigan Land& Lumber Co. y. Rust, 

Mickel y. Hicks, 633. 
Mickey v. Stratton, 229. 
Mickler y. Reddick, 307. 
MIckles V. Thayer, 358. 
Middlesex Bank y. Butman, 829, 895. 
Middleton y. Thompson, 567. 568. 
Middleton's Ex'rg v. Middleton, 490. 
Miehle Printing Press & Mfg. Co. v. 

Printing Co., 611. 
Mifflin County Nat. Bank's Appeal, 

Mikeska y. Blum, 269. 
Milam Co. v. Robertson, 158, 200, 300. 
Milcreek Road, In re, 109. 
Miles y. Caldwell, 627, 650, 654. 

y. Goodwin, 225. 
Milhous y. Alcardi, 248. 
Millard y. Marmon, 193. 

y. Parsell, 25. 

y. Railroad Co., 745. 
Millcreek Tp. v. Reed, 812. 
Milleisen y. Sensemnn, 316. 
Miller v. Albright, 106. 

y. Alexander, 347. 

y. Allen, 141. 

y. Bailey, 632. 

y. Bank, .59. 

y. Barkeloo, 513. 

y. Beck, 782. 


[References to sections. H 1 to 

Miller V. Bernecker, 375, 527, 

V. Blackett, 553. 

y. Breubam, 892. 

V. Carr, 335. 

T. Clarke, 63. 

V. Covert, 734. 

V. Cox, 445. 

V, Deaver, 630. 

V. Dugan, 949. 

y. Dungau, 900, 904, 949, 972. 

y. Earle, 68. 

V. Bwlng, 273, 897. 

y. Foster, 808. 

y. Oilman, 1003. 

y. Glass Works, 58. 

y. Qorman, 377. 

y. Hardacre, 86. 

V. Harrison, 373. 

y. Hoc, 181. 

y. Justice, 308. 

y. Kosch, 63. 

y. Langworthy, 719. 

y. Leach, 916. 

y. LfOngacre, 209. 

V. Lovell, 973. 

y. McGuckln, 703. 

y. McGulre, 386. 

y. Machine Co., 07. 

y. Mnnlce, 621, 726, 729, 785, 787. 

y. Mans, G99. 

y. Miller, 458, 

y. Morse. 300. 

V, Neidzielska, 321. 

y. Peters, 116. 

y. Preston, 986, 1016. 

y. Railroad Co., 29, 115, 950. 

y. Khoades, 573. 

y. Royce, 159. 

y. Shackelford, 493. 

V. Sherry, 423. 

y. Signal Co., 022. 

y. Smith's Ex'ra, 902. 

V. Snyder, 218, 250, 258. 

V. State, 208. 

V. Vaushan. 600. 

V. White, 252, 583. 

y. Wills, 549. 

V. Wolf, 137, 410. 
Miller's Adm'r y. Cook's Adm'rs, 42. 

V. :MIller, 906. 
Minor's Estate, In re, 542. 
Miller's Ex'rs v. Miller, 906. 
Mlllett y. Lagomarsluo, 657. 


499 in ToL 1; residue in toI. 1] 

MilUgan, Ex parte, 256, 25S. 

y, Browarsky, 744. 
Mllligan's Appeal, 99L 
MllUkan y. City of La Fayette^ 578L 

V. Werts, 655. 
MlUiken y. Lorlng, 596. 

y. Whltehouse, 583. 
Mills V. Conner, 498. 

y. Dennis, 197. 

y. Dickson, 57, 318. 

y. Duryee, 275, 856, 857, 884, 887. 

y. Garrison, 744. 

y. Hoag, 44. 

y. I^umber Co., 119. 

y. Martin, 524. 

y. Miller, 39. 

y. Pettlgrew, 691. 723. 

y. Scott, 374, 

y. Stewart, 593, 875, 896. 

V. Terry, 273. 

y. Van Voorhls. 378, 386. 

y. Witherlngton, 000. 
Mills County y. Brown County, 611. 
Mlllspaugh y. McBride, 301. 341. 
Milne y. Van Busklrk, 888. 
Mllnor y. Banking Co., 358. 
MUtlmore y. Mlltlmore, 261. 
Milwaukee Haryester Co. y. Schroeder, 

Milwaukee Mutual Loan & Building 
Soc. y. Jagodzinski, 311, 340a, 354. 
Milwaukee & M. R. Co. y. James* 419. 
Mlmnaugh y. Partlln, 769. 
Miner y. Clark, 567, 569. 

V. Pearson, 141. 
Mineral Point R. Co. y. Keep, 225. 
Miners'* Ttust Co. Bank y. RosebenT; 

^flngay y. Lackey, 160. 
Mink y. Shaflfer, 875. 
Mlnkhart y. Hankler, 115. 
Minna Craig S. S. Co. y. Bank, 814. 
Minneapolis Trust Co. y. Verhulst, 

Minneapolis & St L. B, Co. y. Wilson, 

Minnesota Thresher Mfg. Co. v. Holz, 

Mlnnlch y. Shaffer, 439a. 
Minor y. Stone, 378. 

V. Walter, 87, 513, 697, 765. 
Mlnter y. Green, 898, 972. 
Mintzer y. Trust Co., 31a. 

[Referencei to sectionB. H 1 to 

Mi88ls8inewa Min. Co. t. Andrews, 

Mississippi Valley Ck>. y. Railroad Co., 

Mississippi & T. R. Co. v. Green, 87. 

V. Wynne, 3(Ki. 
Missouri V. Teidermaun, 544. 
Missouri Glass Co. v. Gregg, 877, 968. 
Missouri, K. & B. R. Co. v. Hoereth, 

y. Holschlag, 135. 
Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Fulmore, 

T, Haber, 995. 

V. McWherter, 721. 

T. Warden, 253, 367. 
Missouri Pac. K. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 37. 

▼. Haynes, 158, 159. 

T. Heldenhelmer. 000. 

T. Levy, 671. 

T. Railroad Co., 617. 

T. Reld, 367. 

T. Scamnion, 741. 

V. Smith, 116. 

V. Twlss, 574. 
Mitchell Y. Allen, 340. 

V. A ten, 83. 

V. Bank, 252. 

V. Brewster, 206, 770. 775. 

V. Campbell, 349. 

T. Cobb, 530. 

V. Cook, 719. 

T. Davis, 663. 

V. French, 617. 

T. Garrett, 897, 901, 906. 

Y. Geisendorff, 142. 

Y. Greenwald, 237. 

V. Hamilton, 492. 

Y. Hawley, 522, 076. 

Y. Hockett, W5, 956, 957. 987. 

Y. Insley, 619. 687. 

Y. Kinnaird, 321. 

Y. Kintzer, 293. 

Y. Klrby, 369. 

Y. Knight, 322. 

Y. Llbbey, 782. 

Y. Lincoln, 165. 

Y. Meuley. 271. 

Y. Overman, 126, 127. 

Y. Robertson, 650, 658. 659. 

Y. Runklc. 279. 

v. St John, 179. 

V. Sanford, 75& 


499 in vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Mitchell V. Schoonover, 200. 

V. Wood. 398. 
Mitchell's Adm'r v. Gray, 231. 
Mitchell's Heirs v. Smith's Ilelrs, 491. 
Mitchell & I^ewis Co. v. Downing, 340. 
Mlze V. Mfg. Co., 320a. 
Moale V. HoUins, 770, 776. 
Mobley v. Mobley, 218, 261. 
Mock V. City of Snirta Rosa. 208. 

V. Cunditr, 383. 
Modawell v. Hudson, 159. 
Moercheu v. Stoll, 641. 
Moffett v. Blckle, 145. 
Moffitt v. Albert, 104. 

V. Moffitt, 273, 282. 
Mogelberg v. Clevinger, 861. 
Mohler's Appeal, 949. 
Moloney v. Nelson, 714. 
Molyneux v. Huey, 180. 

V. Marsh, 995. 

V. Seymour, 229. 
Monarch v. Brey, 130, 135. 
Monarch Cycle Mfg. Co. y. Mueller^ 

Monarque v. Monarque, 661. 
Mondel v. Steel, 768. 
Money v. Dorsey, 438. 
Monger v. Jeffries, 38. 
Monks Y. McGrady, 568. 
Monroe v. Douglas, 813, 818, 829. 

V. May, 425. 

v. Monroe, 309, 691. 

V. Paddock, 338. 
Mouson V. Kill, 136. 
Montague v. McDowell, 769. 

V. Mitchell, 376. 
Monteith v. Gehrig, 661a. 
Montejo v. Owen, 970. 
Montesquieu v. Heil. 504. 
Montford v. Hunt, 938c. 
Montgomery v. Baruett, 77. 

V. Carlton, 193. 

V. McDermott, 938c. 

V. McGimpsey, 473. 

V. Road, 599. 

V. Samory, 811. 

V. Vickery, 995. 
Montgomery County v. Auchley, 135. 
Montgomery Nat. Bank, Appeal of, 34. 
Montreal Min. Co. v. Cuthbertson, 

Montrose v. Wananinker, 734, 747, 790. 
Montross v. State, 216. 


[References to MoUom. fiS 1 to 

Moody y. Grant, 165. 

V. Harper, 201, 432, 460, 1008. 

T. Lyles, 233. 

V. reyton, 5lK). 
Moon V. Crowder, 550. 
Mooney v. Byrne, 20. 

V. Hinds, 917. 
Moons y. De Bemales, 040. 
Moon's Adm'r v. Crowder, 550. 
Moor y. Roberts, 127. 

y. Towle, 958. 
Moore y. Adie's Adm'r, 869, 962. 

y. Alexander, 590. 

y. Barclay, 373. 

y. Brltton, 367. 

y. Byers, 438. 

y. Carey, 992. 

y. Cason, 600. 

V. City of Albany, 648. 

V. Consolidated Co., 44, 

y. Council, 253a, 278. 

y. Court. 311. 

y. Cross, 98. 

y. Dunn, 317. 709. 

y. Easley, 204. 

y. Ellis, 217. 

y. Estes, 236. 

y. Gamble, 368, 373. 

y. Garner, 504. 

y. Granger, 425. 

y. Hill, 22. 

y. Hillebrant, 641. 

y. Hinnant, 306. 

y. Holland, 399. 

y. Horner, 341, 691. 

y. Ireland, 940. 

y. Jeffers, 938. 

y. Johnston, 734. 

y. Jordan, 460. 

y. Kelly & Jones Co.. 335. 

y. Kilgore, 75. 

y. Letchford, 399. 

y. McEwen. 193. 

y. Maitin, 240. 

y. Martin & Hoyt Co., 84. 

y. Nowell, 11, 942, 951. 

y. O'Barr, 513. 

y. Pendergrasfs Heirs, 988. 

y. Terry, 263, 273. 

y. Phillips, 836. 

y. Pitts, 426. 

y. Prince, 252. 

y. Railroad Co., 1016. 


499 in ToL 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Moore y. Red, 986. 

y. Richardson, 326. 

y. Rittenhouse, 473. 

y. Robbins, 530. 

y. Robison, 244. 

y. Rogers, 770, 774, 775. 

y. Russell, 721. 

y. Smith, 951. 

y. Spackman, 593, 923. 

y. State, 132. 

y. Tanner, 261, 635. 

y. Tanner*s Adm'r, 635. 

y. Thomas, 421. 

y. U. S., 33. 

V. Ware, 245, 513. 

y. Watkins, 83. 

y. Williams. 510, 685. 

y. Woodside, 144. 
Moorehead y. McKinney, 432. 
Moorer y. Moorer, 951. 
Moores v. Peycke, 412. 
Moore^s Appeal, 38, 506, 944. 
Moore & Handley Hardware Co. t. 

Curry, 605. 
Mora y. Kuzac, 217. 
Moraga y. E merle, 29. 
Moran y. Hagerman, 981. 

y. Plankinton, 737. 
Morarity y. Calloway, 064, 761. 
Morch y. Raubitschek, 529. 
More y. Bagley, 378. 
Morehead y. Grisham, 873. 
Moreland y. Coke Co.. 549. 
Moreland Tp. y. Gorduer, 699. 
Morenhout y. Hlguera, 660. 
Morey y. Homan, 100. 

V. Hoyt, 261. 

y. King, 509. 

y. Lockhart, 37. 
Morgan, Ex parte, 167. 

y. Bliss, 699. 

y. Burr, 629. 

y. Chester, 580, 774. 

y. Flexner, 115. 

y. Halsey, 638a. 

y. McDonald, 347. 

y. Mitchell, 624. 

y. Morgan, 239, 897. 

y. Neville, 593, 923- 

y. Railroad Co., 308, 717. 

y. Righetti, 208. 

y. Scott, 376. 

y. Simmons, 574. 

[Referencei to sections. IS 1 to 499 In voL 1; residue in vol. 2.] 


Morgan v. Sims, 442, 443. 

y. Skidmore, 745. 

V. Thorne, U86. 

T. Town Clerk, 985b. 

T. Winston, 572. 
Morgan's Heirs v. Patton, 518. 
Moring V. Abies, 655. 
Morley v. Railroad Co., 4. 8, 11, 982. 

V. Stevens, 995. 
Morning Journal Ass'n v. Rutherford, 

Morrell Hardware Co. v. Mining Co., 

Morrill y. Mfg. Co., 615. 

y. Morrill, 291. 

y. Smith County, 600. 
Morris V. Bailey, 894. 

y. BarUett, 796. 

y. Boomer, 970. 

y. Coleman County, 155, 163. 

y. Creed, 248. 

y. Curry, 970. 

y. Edmonds, 196. 

y. Garrison, 557. 

y. Gentry, 245. 

y. Hollls, 1004. 

y. HorreU. 609. 

y. Kahn, 347. 

y. Lucas, 555. 

y. Morange, 48. 

y. Morris, 44, 376. 

y. Mowatt, 420, 469. 

y. Murpbey, 561. 

y, Patchln, 878. 

V. Slatery, 349. 

y. Webber, 320. 
Moiris' Adm*r y. Peyton's Adm'r, 159, 

Morris* Estote, 414. 
Morrison y. Austin, 261. 

y. Bank, 180. 

y. Beckey, 745. 

y. Bernards Tp., 125a. 

y. City of Chicago, 107. 

y. Clark, 657. 

y. Dapman, 165. 

y. Deaderlck, 199. 

y. De Donato, 749. 

y. L*Hommedleu, 138. 

y. Loftin, 600. 

V. Speer, 362. 

V. Wurtz, 422. 
Morrison's Adm'r v. Mullln, 600. 

Morrison's Ex'r v. Ilart, 389. 
Morris & E. R. Co. y. City of Orange, 

Morrow y. Allison, 633. 

V. Geeting, 163. 

y. Robinson, 992. 

y. Weed, 274. 
Morseh v. Besack, 186. 
Morse y. Bishop, 249. 

V. Callantine, 315. 

v. Elms, 609. 

V. Godfrey, 807. 

V. Marshall, 657. 

V. Pearl, 958. 

y. Presby, 240, 270, 273, 279. 

y. Sadler, 585. 

y. Toppan, 7, 10, 188, 190. 
Morsell y. Bank, 433, 434. 
Morton y. Adams, 407. 

V. Palmer, 958. 

y. Sweetser, 716. 

y. Urquhart, 1005. 

V. Walker. 1008. 
Morton's Case, 778. 
Morton's Ex'rs y. Crogan's Terre- 
Tenants, 492. 

V. Nunnelly, 375. 
Mosby y. Gisbom, 252, 360, 371. 

y. Wall, 713, 766. 
Moseley y. Cocke, 219. 
Mosely y. Tuthlll, 173. 
Moses y. Bradley, 529. 

y. Richardson, 190. 

y. U. S., 586. 
Mosgrove y. HaiTis, 005. 
Mosher y. Small, 238. 
Mosley v. Mfg. Co., 200. 
Moss y. Ashbrooks, 32, 720. 

y. Jerome, 208. 

y. McCuUough, 560, 583, 686. 

V. Oakley, 583. 
Moster v. Moster, 320. 
Motley V. Harris, 726. 

V. Jones, 446. 
Mott y. Hospital, 409. 

V. State, 267. 
Motter V. Welty, 893. 
Moulding y. Wllhartz, 586. 
Monlin y. Insurance Cc, 898. 
Moulton y. Cornish, 48. 
Mount y. Manhattan Co., 248, 807. 

y. Scholes, 681a, 790. 

y. Slack, 644. 


CReterencM to sections. 8fi 1 to 

Mountain y. Rowland. 130. 
Mouser ▼. Harmon, 340a. 
Mousseau's Will, In re, 193. 
Mowbray v. Railroad Co., 29. 
Mower v. Fletcher, 34. 

V. Kip, 993. 
Mowry v. Chase, 227. 897, 899. 

v. Cheesman, 8$r2. 

V. Davenport, (506. 

T. Hill, 347. 

V. Nunez, 326. 
Mpy V. Moy, 600. 
Moye V. Petway, 16. 
Moyer v. Hinman, 438. 

V. Lobengeir, 593. 
M. T. Jones Lumber Co. v. Rhoades, 

Mudd T. Rogers, 8. 
Mudge y. Steinhart, 141. 
Mueller v. Henning, 664. 

V. McCuUoch, 312. 

V. Reimer, 316. 
Muffley y. Turner, 664. 
Muhle y. Railway Co., 754. 
Mulr y. Craig, 1010. 

y. Leitch. 461. 
Muirhead y. Klrkpatrlck, 620. 
Mulcahey y. Dow, 393a, 80a 
Mulford V. Estudillo, 1007. 

y. Peterson, 423. 

y. Stratton, 62. 
Mulhollan v. Scoggin, 349. 
Mull y. McKnight, 700. 
Mullane y. Roberge, 340. 
Mullen y. Scott, 588. 

V. Wine, 86. 
Mullendore y. Silvers, 326. 
Muller V. Post, 352. 
Mulligan v. Devlhi. 493. 
MuUlken v. Hull, 160. 
MuUins v. Johnson, 86. 
Mum V. Shannon, 631. 
Mumford v. Spragne, 953. 

v. Stocker. 1013. 
Munday v. Leeper, 250. 

V. Vail, 242. 
Mundine v. Brown, 462. 
Munford v. Overseers, 586, 588. 
Munn V. Cook, 845. 

v. Won-all, 368. 
Munro v. Callahan, 332. 

V. Meech, 724. 
Muusou V. Steamshii) Co., 508. 


499 in vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Munter v. Rogers, 152. 
Murdock y. De Vries, 368. 

y. Ganahl, 121. 

y. Stelner, 326. 
Murfree's Heirs y. Carmack, 443^ 45L 
Muii)hree v. Bishop, 358. 
Murphy v. Cochran, 951. 

v. Cuddlhy, 364. 

v. De France, 250. 

y. Flood, 1016. 

y. Gage, 210. 

v. Granger, 521. 

y. Klein, 462. 

v. Lyons, 278. 

v. Manning, 677. 

y. O'Reiley, 211. 

y. Orr, 211. 

v. Ti-ust Co.. 994. 

y. Smith, 373. 

v. Swadner, 335. 

y. TiUing, 29. 

y. Winter, 227. 
Murray v. Ballon, 550. 

V. Blackledge, 667. 

y. Cooper, 130. 

y. Derrick, 328. 

y. Ebright, 20& 

y. Green, 510. 

v. Lylbum, 956. 

y. Meade, 996, 1008. 

y. Murray. 231. 290, 783. 

y. Southerland, 15. 

y. Stephens, 565. 

v. Surety Co., 279. 

v. Welgle, 263. 

v. Yates, 39. 
Murray*s Adm*r v. Baker, 491, 46%, 
Murrell v. Smith. 754. 
Murtland v. Floyd, 209. 
Mm-zynowskl v. Railroad Co., 250. 
Muscatine v. Railroad Co., 368, 370. 
liluse y. Bank, 701. 

v. Wafer, 363. 
Musselman v. Com., 588. 
Musser v. Gray, 987. 
Mussey v. Bates. 732. 

V. White, 785. 
Mussleman's Appeal, 284, 633. 
Mutual Assur. Soc. v. Stanard, 441. 
Mutual Benefit Co., In re. 313. 
Mutual Beu. Life Ins. Co. y. Tisdale, 
600, 640. 

[BtCerenees to MCtlona. |( 1 to 4d9 in yoI. 1; residue in toI. S.] 


Mutual Fire Ins. Co. ▼. Furniture Ck)., 

Mutual Goanmtee Bldg. & Loan A88*n 

T. Fallen* 73. 
Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Anthony, 33. 

V. Newton, 675, 9G2. 
Mutual Nat Bank v. Moore, ^^il^a, 
Mutual Nat Bank of New Orleans y. 

Moore, 908. 
Myer t. Fegaly, 406. 

T. Kuhn, 232. 
Myers y. Cochran, 79a. 

y. Daniels, 376. 

y. Hewitt 411. 

T. Landrum, 34, 340. 

y. McGavock, 541. 

y. Manny, 48. 

y. Miller, 293. 

y. Sprenkle, 57. 

y. iueeKy vcn^ 


Nabers' Adm*r y. Meredith, 184. 
Nabors y. State, 182. 
Naft^ger y. Gregg, 085, 718. 
Nailer y. Stanley, 440. 
Napier y. Gldlere, 8, 857, 892. 
Napton y. Lea ton, 9U1. 
Nardln y. Battle, 1012. 
Natb y. Church, 281, 546. 

y. Cutler, 660. 

y. Denton, 345. 

y. Hunt ^t82. 

y. Whetmore, 841. 
Naahyille, C. & St L. Ry. y. Jones, 

y. Mattingly, 867. 

y. U. 8., 705. 
Nashua & L. R. Corp. y. Boston & L. 

R. Corp., 728. 
Nason y. Blalsdel], 600. 
Nathans y. Hope, 744. 
National Bank y. Bryant 724. 

y. Gilmer, 109. 

y. Hansee, 692. 

y. Heard, 963. 

y. Iron A R. Co., 448. 

y. Peabody. 904. 

y. Peters, 801. 

V. Smith, 23. 

Naticmal Broadway Bank y. Hutch, 

National Docks A N. J. Junction Con- 
necting Ry. Co. y. Railroad Co., 270. 
National Exchange Bank y. Preston, 

National Fertilizer Co. y. Hinson, 345, 

National Folding Box & Paper Co. y. 

Box Co., 793. 
National Foundry & Pipe Works y. 
Water Co., 583. 
y. Water Supply Co., 146. 
National Horse Importing Co. y. 

Noyak, 185. 
National Mut Bldg. Ass'n y. Kon- 

drak, 351. 
National Say. Bank y. Creswell, 440. 

y. Welcker, 486. 
National Security Bank y. Hunnewell, 

National S. S. Co. y. Tugman, 981. 
National Waterworks v. School Dist, 

Nations y. Johnson, 232, 514, 858, 912, 

Nauer y. Benham, 340. 
Naye ▼. Adams, 535, 543, 599, 613, 
V. Todd, 181. 
y. WilBon, 763. 
Naylor y. Mettler, 604. 
Naylor's Adm'r y. Moffatt, 689. 
Nazro y. Oil Co., 867. 
Neafie y. Neafie, 720. 
Neal y. Brockhan, 982. 
V. Faggert 560. 
y. Foster. 423. 
y. Handley, 989. 
y. Henderson, 378. 
y. Pennington, 235. 
y. Singleton, 239. 
y. Sulliyan, 953. 
Neale y. Utz. 187, 200. 
Kealis y. Dicks, 373. 
Neall y. Hill, 44. 
Nealon y. Frisble, 29. 

y. McNeal, 494. 
Near v. Donnelly, 749. 
Needham y. Bremmer, 682. 
y. McAuley, 101. 
y. Thayer, 275, 959. 


[References to sectlonB. {{ 1 to 

Xeedham v. Wilsou, 246. 

Neely v. Buchanan, 247. 

Neenan v. City of St. Joseph, 160, 315. 

NeesoD v. City of Troy, 556. 

Neff V. Barr, 53. 

y. Beauchamp, 929. 

V. Pennoyer, 281. 

V. Stone Co., 117. 
Neidllnger v. Yoost, 33. 
Nell V. Col well, 418. 

V. McMillan, 127. 

V. Slaten, 477. 
NelU V. Hodge, 641. 
Nellson, In re, 320a. 

V. Oil Co., 614. 
Nell V. Dayton, 157, 169. 
Nelson v. Bank, 358. 

T. BlalBdell, 321. 

V. Bostwick, 235. 

V. Cottingham, 159. 

V. Couch, 731. 

V. Donovan, 29. 

T. Gill, 462. 

v. Jenks, 439a, 

V. Moon, 194. 

V. Nelson, 651. 

V. Potter, 922. 

V. Rockwell, 363. 

V. St. Martin's Parish, 985f. 

V. Turner, 439. 
Xemetty v. Naylor, 661a, 689. 
Neppach v. Jones, 543. 
Ncsbit V. Independent Dist., 506, 744. 

V. Manro, 486. 

V. School Dist., 750. 
Nessler v. Neher, 420, 433. 
Nestlerode v, Foster, 493. 
Netzer v. City of Crookston, 16. 
Neuber v. Shoel, 655. 
Neusbaum v. Keim, 63, 68, 78, 698. 
Nevada Nickel Syndicate t. Nickel 

Co., 250. 
Nevatt V. School, 260. 
Nevill V. Hancock, 773. 
Nevins V. McKee, 305, 366, 378. 
Nevitt V. Bacon, 721. 

V. Bank. 292. 

V. Woodburn, 21, 554. 
Newberry v. Hallway Co., 22. 
Newburg v. Munshower, 211. 
Newburp:h Bank v. Seymour, 156. 
Xewby v. Caldwell, 720. 
Xewcomb v. Dewey, 288, 377. 


499 In vol. 1; residue In vol. S.] 

Newcomb v. Drummond, 969. 

V. Peck, 110, 227, 884, 900, 906. 
Neweomb's Ex'r v. Newcomb, 270. 
Xewcome v. Light, 174. 
New Dunderberg Mln. Co. t. Old, 655. 
Newell V. Carpenter, 614. 
V. Neal, 731. 
V. Newton, 865. 
V. Smith, 205. 
New England Bank v. Lewis, 714. 
New England Loan & Trust Co. v. 

Avery, 112, 118. 
New England Mortgage Security Co. 

V. Tarver, 50. 
New Hampshire Strafford Bank t. 

Cornell, 443. 
New Haven Copper Co. v. Brown, 

New Jersey Franklinite Co. y. Ames, 

Newlin V. Mm'ray, 395. 
Newlon v. Heaton, 237. 
Newman v. Bank, 861. 
V. Bullock, 213. 
V. City of Chicago, 247. 
V. Crowls, 277. 
V. Irwin, 945. 
V. Jenkins, 640. 
V. Manning, 282. 
V. Mayer, 114. 
V. Meek, 373. 
V. Schueck, 378. 
V. Taylor, 376. 
V. Wildenstein, 22. 
New Mexico & S. P. R. Co. T. Mad- 
den. 116. 
New nam's Lessee v. City of Cincin- 
nati, 110, 245. 
Newnan v. Stuart, 373. 

V. Wood, 526. 
New Orleans v. Bank, 609. 

V. Morris. 378. 985a, 
New Orleans, M. & C. B. Co. v. City 

of New Orleans, 630. 
New Orleans, M. & T. R. Ck). y. Cas- 

tello, 744. 
New Orleans & C. R. Co. v. Bosworth, 

Newpcirt & C. Bridge Co. v. Douglass. 

Newsom v. McLendon, 1008. 
Newsom's Adm'r v. Ran, S40l» 
Newson v. Lycan, 600, 

[References to leetloni. (} 1 to 489 in Tol. 1; residue In yol. 2.] 


New South Bulldiug & Loan A8s*n v. 

Heed, 443. 
Newton, In re, 256. 
V. Bronson, 872. 
T. Egmont, 585. 
T. Field. 388. 
▼. Hook, 87, 697, 750. 
Newtou Mfg. Go. t. Wilgus, 624. 

V. White, 624. 
New York Cent. & H. R. R. Ck). v. 

Brennan, 553. 
New York City Baptist Mission Soc. 

T. Church, 110. 
New York, C. & St L. R. Co. v. 
Doane, 21. 

Nicklin v. Robertson, 1G5, 311. 
Nickrans v. Wilk, 270. 
Nickum V. Dan vers, 617. 
NicoU V. Karrick, 703. 

V. NicoU, 1005. 
Nlday v. Hawey, 764. 
Nielsen, Ex parte, 256. 
Nightingale t. Scannell, 734. 
Niles Y. Parks, 310. 

V. Totman, 787. 
Niller y. Johnson, 600. 
Nlmocks v. Shingle Co., 59. 
Nims T. Vaughn, 766. 
Nlspel V. Laparle, 707. 
Nivln V. Stevens, 742. 

New York Fire Ins. Co. v. De Wolf, ; Nixon v. Nichols, 154. 

New York, L. B. & W. R. Co. v. Mc- 

Henry, 829, 847. 
New York Life Ins. Co. y. Aitkin, 906. 

T. Bangs, 194. 
New York Security & Trust Go. v. 

Upman, 161. 
New York & H. R. Co. v. Kyle, 605. 
New York & T. Land Co. v. Votaw, 

631. 6o9, 938. 
New Zealand Ina Co. v. Maaz. 1006. 
Niagara Ins. Co. t. Rodecker, 341, 349. 
Niblett V. Scott, 938. 
Nicely T. Boyles, 660. 
Nichells T. Nichells, 344. 
Nichoi y. Dunn, 23. 
Nicholas y. Farwell, 86a 

y. Maddox, 29. 

y. Phelps, 467. 
Nicholes y. City of Chicago, 3ia 
Nichols. In re, 257. 

y. Bnrton, 776^ 

y. Day. 560. 

y. DibreU, 755. 

T. Hewit, 69. 

▼. Kribs, 63. 

T. Nkrhols, 313. 

T. Stevens, 583. 

y. Stewart 3. 

y. Winimer, 252. 
Nicholson v. Nicholson, 313. 
Nichoifl & Shepard Co. v. Wledmann, 

Nickell y. Fallen, 723. 
Nickelson y. Ingram, 707, 719. 
Nickerson y. Stage Co., 725. 
NicklesB y. Pearson, 733. 

N. K. Fairbank & Co. v. Railroad Co., 

Noble V. Bamer, 406, 406a. 

y. Cullom, 407. 

y. Gold, 855. 

y. Merrill, 593, 970. 

y. Oil Co., 593, 795, 897, 941, 950. 
Nodlne v. Greenfield, 646, 6G1. 
Noe V. Moutray, 446. 
Noel y. Modern Woodmen, 205. 
Noell V. Wells, 634, 635. 
NolensviUe Turnpike Co. v. Quimby, 

Noll y. Chattanooga Co., 368, 372. 
Nolte v. Lowe, 753. 
Norcross v. Hudson, 600. 
Norfolk Lumber Co. v. Simmons, 782. 
Norfolk State Bank v. Murphy, 443. 
Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Compress Co., 

Noi-mau v. Hooker, 86, 326. 
Norris v. Amos. 789. 

V. Denton, 63. 

V. Hume, 385. 
North V. Fisher, 850. 

V. Moore, 220, 278. 

y. Mudge, 58, 77, 78, 211, 212, 

y. Pepper, 133, 

y. Y^orke, 79a, 309. 
Northam v. Gordon, 955. 
North British & M. Ins. Co. v. Cohn. 

North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Ackley, 

Northcut y. Lemery, 279. 


[Roferencea to Mctiona. }( 1 to 

Northern Bank y. Kocsa, 429. 
Northern Bank of Kentucky y. Stone, 

634a, 541. 
Northern Pac. R. Go. y. Kurtzman, 

y. McCormlek, 530. 

y. Railroad Co., 721. 

y. Smith, 656. 
Northern Pac. & P. S. S. R. Ck). y. 

Black, 34, 335. 
Northern Trust Co. y. Ass'n, 666, 607. 

y. College, 92. 
North Pacific Cycle Co. y. Thomas, 

North Point Irr. Co. y. Canal Co., 32. 
Northwestern Bank v. Hays, 261, 731. 
Northwestern Brewing Co. v. Manion, 

32, 750. 
Northwestern Land Co. y. Dewey, 446. 
Norton y. Doherty, 729. 

y. Fruit-Packing Co., 549. 

y. Hood, 32. 

y. House of Mercy, 872. 

y. Jamison, 190. 

y. Jensen, 610. 

y. McLaurin, 340, 341. 

y. Meader, 190. 

y. Norton, 600. 783. 

y. Railroad Co., 312, 324, 847, 351. 

y. Sanders, 165. 

T. Seaton, 320. 

y. Wallace. 293, 589. 

y. Wllliama, 446. 

y. Woods, 385. 
Norton's Estate, In re, 897. 
Noryell y. Lessuenr, 635, 636. 
Norwegian Plow Co. y. Boilman, 368. 
Norwich Union Fire Ins. Soc. y. Stang, 

Norwood, In re, 910. 

y. Cobb, 879, 897, 901, OlO, 

y. Kirby's Adm'r, 663. 

y. Norwood, 1003. 

y. Thorpe, 122, 442. 
Nougue y. Clapp, 297a. 
Nouvion y. Freeman, 845. 
Novelli V. Rossi. 83ri, 843. 
Novotny y. Danforth, 183. 
Nowack y. Knight, 548, 600. 
>Joyes V. Belding, 506. 

y. Butler, 275, 809. 

y. Hall, GOO. 

¥. Loeb. 321. 


189 in TOl. 1; reiidue In toI. 2.] 

Noyee y. Newmarch, 118. 

y. Parker, 98. 

V. Phipps, 36. 
Nuckolls V. Irwin, 163. 304, 34«, 
Nugent y. Railroad Co., 323. 

y. Traction Co., 939a. 
Noll y. Moore, 999. 
Nunn y. Claxton, 486. 

y. Sturges. 857, 896. 
Nusbaum y. Louchheim, 69. 
Nutt y. Cuming, 400. 
Nnttall y. Simls, 536. 
Nye y. Kellam, 282. 

y. Liscombe, 225. 

y. Moody, 405. 

y. Sochor, 383. 

■y. StUlwell, 156, 

Oades t. Oades, 16. 

Oakes y. Ward, 138. 

Oakley y. Asphiwall, 174» 772i 914. 

y. Giles, 213. 

y. Oakley, 644. 

y. Pegler, 116. 
Oates y. Munday, 445. 

y. Parish, 248. 
Obear, In re. 298. 
O'Beirne y. Lloyd, 735. 
Oberbeck y. Mayer. 586. 
Oberholtzer y. Hazen, 300. 
Oberkoetter y. Luebbering, 32. 
Oberlin Loan, Trust & Banking Go. 

y. Kitchen, 964. 
Oberly y. Oberly, 351. 
Obermeyer y. Einstein, 321, 
Obert y. Obert, 650. 
O'Brien v. Ballou, 214. 

y. Browning, 545. 

y. Manwaring, 614. 

y. O'Brien, 157. 158. 

V. Sylvester, 354. 

y. Wheelock, 509, 985e, 

y. Young, 8, 10. 
Oceanic Steam Nay. Co. y. Compania 
Transatlatica Espanola, 569, 574, 
Ocean Ins. Co. y. Francis, 814, 815w 

y. Railroad Co., 923. 

V. Rider, 1005. 
Ocean Nat Bank y. Olcott 24& 

[RafereneM to leetionB. 99 1 to 

Ochi]tr«e y. Railroad Co., 947. 
Ocbflenbein y. Papelier, 844. 
Ockershausen t. Railruad Co., 91. 
Ocklngton v. Rlchey, 597. 
Ck!obock T. Baker, 443. 
Ocoee Bank t. Hughes, 154. 
O'Conuell v. O'Connell, 320. 

V. Railroad Co., 584. 
O'Conner v. Mullen, 159. 
O'Connor t. Felix, 270. 

V. Improvement Co., 590. 

y. Irvine, 725. 

y. Vnmey, 761, 763. 

V. ^Yalter, 538. 
O'Dea V. O'Dea, 929. 
Odell V. Reynolds, 61. 69, 157. 

V. Rogers, 638. 
Odes V. Woodward, 61a, 441. 
Odle y. Frost, 268. 
Odom V. Burch, 297. 

V. Denny. 233, 771. 
Odorilla y. Baizley, 796. 
Oetgen v. Ross, 655. 
Off V. Trust Co., 376. 
Offutt V. John, 504, 787. 
Oyden V. Folllott 841. 

y. Knepler, 428. 

V. I^rraboe, 368. 
Ogden City v. Irrigation Co., 82. 
Ogsbury y. La Farge, 720. 
O'Hairen v. O'Hagen, 179. 
O'Haulon v. Scott, 770, 780. 
O'Uarn v. Baum, 326. 

V. McConnelL 188, 193. 

V. I»arker, 718. 

V. Railroad Co., 599, 938a. 
Ohio V. Beam, 155. 
Ohio Falls Car Co. v. Sweet & Clark 

Co.. 346a. 
Ohio, I. Sc W. R. Co. V. Dooley, 742. 
Ohio & W. Mortgage & Trust Co. y. 

Carter. 370. 378. 387, 393. 
Ohlemacher v. Brown. 824. 
Oil Well Supply Co. v. Koen, 801. 
OKeefe v. Foster. 154. 

V. Real-Estate Co., 721. 
Olander v. Tlghe, 438. 
Okinyer v. Blanchard. 152. 
Olcott V. Kohlsaat, 141. 

y. UtUe, 771. 
Old Dominion Granite Co. y. Clarke. 

112, 406. 
Oldham y. .Mclyer, 614« 

CITBD. CXlvil 

499 in ToL 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Oldham y. Stephens, 809. 
Olds y. Glaze, 889. 
Oleson V. Merrihew, 714. 
Oliphant v. Whitney, 326. 
Oliver y. French, 2a 

y. Gerstle, 340. 

y. Holt, 734, 736. 

v. Lansing, 407, 701. 

V. Riley, 368, 393. 

v. Wilson, 32. 
Olmstead v. Bach, 752. 

v. Hoyt, 255. 

y. Webster, 770. 
Olney v. Angell, 922. 

v. Boyd, 318. 
Olsen V. Newton, 29. 

v. Whitney, 744. 
Olson y. Nnnnally, 355. 
Omaha Coal, Coke & Lime Co. v. 

Suess. 439a. 
Omaha & R. V. R. Co. v. Standen, 

Omaha & St L. R. Co. v. O'Neill, 666. 
O'Malia y. Wentworth, 255. 
O'Malley y. Fricke, 278. 
O'Meara v. Bank, 46. 
O'Neal y. Brown, 621, 734, 73& 

y. Clymer, 50. 

y. Klttredge, 958, 964. 

y. Rumley Co., 16. 
O'Neill's Estate, In re, 321. 
Openheimer v. Robinson, 406. 
Oppenheimer v. Giershofer, 62, 67. 

v. Robinson, 405. 
Orcutt v. Orms. 518. 

V. Ranney, 227. 
Order of Solon v. Gaskill, 576. 
Ordinary v. McClure, 114. 
Ordinary of Charleston Dist y. Con- 

dy, 589. 
Ordway, In re, 807. 

y. Railroad Co.. 699. 

y. Suchard, 308. 341. 
Oregonian R. Co. v. Navigation Co., 

510, 708. 
Oregon R. Co. y. Railroad Co., 87. 
Orendorff v. Utz, 735. 
Orman y. Railroad Co., 28. 
Ormiston y. Trumbo, 33. 
Ormsby y. Conrad, 352. 
Oro Fino & Morning Star Min. Co. y. 

Cullen, 358. 
O'Rourke v. Railroad Co., 599, 928. 

cxlyii^ CASES 

[References to sectioni. 8§ 1 to 

Orr V. Insurance Co., G98. 

V. Morrow, 462. 

V. Spocner, 954. 
Orthwein v. Thomas, 577, 
Orton V. Brown, 183. 
Orvis V. Curtiss, 121. 

T. Elliott, 306, 30f. 
Ory V. Winter, 824. 
Osage City Bank v. Jones, 599. 
Osborn v. Cloud, 947. 

V. Jaines, 892. 

V. Lovell, 149. 

V. U. S., 681. 
Osborne v. Atkins, 735. 

V. Com'rs, 985c. 

v. Graham, 284, 633. 

V. Hill, 449. 

V. LincMrom, 985. 

V. Williams, 761. 
Osbun V. Bartram, 82. 
Osgood V. President etc., 560. 

V. Thurston, 4a3. 
Osman v. Wisted, 324. 
Osprey v. Jenkins, 86. 
Osterhoudt v. Rigney. 532. 
Ostrander v. Hart, 599. 

V. People, 175. 

V. Walters, 1008. 
Oswald V. Kanipmann, 810. 
Otis V. The Rio Grande. 246, 274. 

V. Sweeney, 631. 
Otterson t. Mlddleton, 290. 
Otto V. Halff, 32. 
Ouseley v. Safe Deposit Co., 836. 
Outhwite V. Porter. 220, 906. 
Outram v. Morewood, 503, 504, 647, 

657. 729, 783, 787. 
Overall v. Pero. 115. 
Overby v. Gordon, 922, 

V. Hart, 1006, 1008. 
Overland Gold Min. Co. v. McMaster, 

Overstreet v. Davis, 219. 

v. Shannon, 894. 
Overton v. Searcy, 518. 

V. Stevens, 304. 
Owen V. Boenini, 526. 

V. Conner, 208. 

V. Gerson, 383. 

V. Glover, 1012. 

V. Land Co., 556. 
Owens V. Alexander, 600. 

V. Flynn, 143. 


499 in vol. 1; residue In vol. L] 

Owens V. Gotzian, 938c. 

V. Love, 44. 

V. Machinery Co., 379. 

V. McCloskey, 487, 499, 892. 

V. Ranstead, 377. 

y. Raleigh, 729. 

v. Sims, 320. 
Owensby v. Piatt,- 999. 
Owiugsville & Mt. S. Turnpike Road 

Co. V. Hamilton, 541. 
Oyser v. Bank, 31a. 

Pabst Brewing Co. y. Jensen, 605. 
Pacific Bank v. Hannah, 661. 
Pacific Milt Life Ins. Co. v. Williams, 

Pacific Pneumatic Gas Co. y. Wheel- 

ock, 896. 
Packard v. Hill, 849, 1015. 

V. Matthews. 229. 

y. Smith, 317. 
Packer v. Owens, 36. 

V. Roberts, 54, 61. 

V. Thompson, 857, 921. 
Packer's Appeal, 432. 
Packham v. Insurance Co., 731. 
Pacquette v. Pickness, 652. 
Paddleford v. Bancroft, 299. 
Paddock v. Insurance Co., 29, 152. 

V. Palmer, 367. 

V. Staley, 459. 
Padgitt V. Evans, 341. 
Page, Ex parte, 2.38. 

v. Benson. 478, 950. 

y. Chapin, 132. 

y. Esty, 691. 

V. Freeman, 779, 782. 

y. Simpson, 69, 73. 

y. Thomas. 431. 

V. U. S., 285. 
Page's Estate, 127. 
Pajret v. Melcher, 110. 
Pasrett v. Curtis, 227. 
Pahlnian v. Shumway, 434. 
Pain V. Kinney, 23. 

Paine v. Insurance Co., 510, 621, 800. 
864, 882. 

V. Stone, 633. 
Paine's Lessee v. Mooroland. 446. 
Palethorp's Estate, In re, 38. 

[References to sections. §S 1 to 

Palmateer v. Meredith, 1000. 
Palmer v. Bank, 149, 32U. 

Y. Carlisle, 585. 

T. Crane, 29. 

Y. Hayes, 539. 

T. Hnssey, 615. 

Y. Insurance Co., 543. 

Y. Laberee, 399, 463. 

Y. Malone, 363. 

Y. Martindell, 293. 

Y. Oakley. 639. 

Y. Palmer, 867. 

Y. Rogers, 347. 

Y. Russell, 347. 

Y. Sanger, 628. 
Panesi y. Boswell, 342. 
Panton y. Hall, 491. 
Papworth v. aty of Fitzgerald, 707. 
Paragon Refining Co. t. Lee, 144. 
Pard<m v. Dwire, 270, 273. 
Parish Y. Parish, 278, 320. 
Park Y. Edge, 206. 

Y. Park, 95, 227. 
Parke y. Meyer, 208. 

Y. WlUianis, 876. 
Parker v. Albee, 268, 761« 

Y. Atwood, 248. 

Y. Bacon, 945. 

Y. Bank, 341. 

V. Belcher, 326, 340. 
• Y. Grant, 349. 

Y. Harden, 22. 

Y. Home, 199. 

Y. HotchkJss, 657. 

Y. House, 87. 

Y. Kane, 261, 518. 

Y. Lamb & Sons, 910a* 

Y. Leggett, 657, 658. 

V. Linden, 85. 

Y. Mill Co.. 859. 910a. 

Y. Moore, 541, 548. 

Y. Obenchain, 691. 

Y. Parker. 635, 636. 

V. Poole, 54. 

Y. Roberts. 768. 

Y. Shannon, 620. 

Y. Spencer, 707. 

Y. Stambaugh, 655. 

Y. Standish, 657. 

Y. Starr, 193. 

T. State. 259. 

T. Steed. 189. 

Y. Straat, 543. 

CITED. cxlix 

498 in YoL 1; residue in YOl. 2.] 

Parker v. Thompson, 628. 

V. Wright. 681. 
Parker's Adra'r v. Abrams, 100. 
Parkes v. CUf t, 694, 707. 
Parkhurst v. Berdell, 510. 

Y. Sumner, 586, 587. 
Parks, Ex parte, 255, 250. 

Y. Coffey, 173. 407. 

Y. Dunlap, 703. 

Y. Jackson. 438. 

Y. Moore. 628, 655. 
Parmele y. Schroeder, 48. 
Parmelee y. Dann, 952. 
Pamell y. Hahn, 609. 
Parr y. Lindler, 271. 

Y. State, 540. 

Y. Village of Greenbusb, 726. 
Parrish v. Ferris, 504. 
Parrott v. Den, 347, 349. 

Y. Hodgson. 691. 

Y. Insurance Co.. 905. 

Y. McDevitt, 130. 
Parry v. Opera Co., 752, 

V. Walser, 969. 

V. Woodson, 218. 
Parsley y. Nicholson, 183. 
Parsons. Ex parte. 985b. 

Y. Dennis, 979. 

Y. Hoyt, 447. 

Y. Johnson. 316. 

V. Pierson, 363. 

Y. Robinson, 44. 

Y. Spencer, 190i 

Y. Yenzke, 530. 
Partin y. Luterloh, 376. 
Partridge y. Harrow. 168, 381« 
Parzyk y. Mach, 92. 
Pasek Y. Vockroth, 1005. 
Pasewalk y. BoUman, 587. 
Pasley y. McConnell, 714. 
Pasour Y. Rhyne, 461. 
Passwater y. Edwards, 180. 
Pasteur y. Lewis, 938. 939. 
Pasthoff Y. Banendahl, 782. 
Patapsco Guano Co. v. Hurst, 549. 
Patrick V. Court, 620. 

V. Littell, 192. 

Y. Ridgaway, 91. 

Y. Schaffer. 761. 

Y. Shedden, 827. 
Patten v. Cllley. 37. 

Y. Cunningham, 237. 

V. Ray, 802. 


rReferencei to Bectlona. 8S 1 to 

Patterson v. Baxley, 465. 

y. Gaines, 606. 

V. Hare, 308. 

V. Indiana, 69. 

T. Pressey, 256. 

V. Swan, 1006. 

V. Walton, 401. 

V. Ward, 32, 1004. 1005. 
Patterson's Estate, In re, 600. 
Pattlson V. Hughes. 321, 

v. Jossel^ni, 306. 

V. Smith, 227. 
Patton T. Allison, 806. 

T. Hamner, 1009. 

V. Hayter, 455. 

T. Shanklln, 120. 

V. Stewart, 55, 61, 191. 
Paul V. Eurich, 1016. 

T. Hussey, 287. 

V. Roy, 827, 845. 

T. Smith, 245. 

V. Witman, 569, 571. 
PauUlsseu v. Loock, 284. 
Pawling V. Willson, 229^ 828, 856, 904, 

Paxton V. Boyce, 407. 
Payne v. Bank, 225. 

V. Coles, 548. 

V. O'Shea, 368, 904, 919. 

y. Robinson, 61. 

V. Taylor, 966. 

V. Witberspoon, 229. 
Paynter v. Evans^ 378. 
Pay son, In re, 257. 

V. Payson, 926. 
Payton v. McQuown, 375. 
Peabody v. Phelps, 179, 223. 

V. Thatcher, 217. 
Peacock v. Pembroke, 941. 
Peagram v. King, 372. 
Peak V. Pricer, 196. 

V. Shasted, 193. 
Peake v. Kedd, 329. 
Peale v. Bolton, 1006. 
Pearce v. At wood, 182. 

y. Chastaln, 384, 386. 

V. Jackson, 660. 

V. Olney, 368, 370, 373, 916, 919. 

V. Rice, 592. 
Pearse v. Hill, 252. 
Pearson v. Fishing CJo., 341. 

V. Post, 682. 
Pease v. Howard, 522, 985. 


499 in YOl. 1; roBldue in vol. 2.1 

Peatross y. McLaughlin, 390. 
Peay v. Duncan, 504. 

V. Fleming, 1008. 
Peck T. Hibbard, 824. 

V. Tiffany, 1008. 

v. Vandenberg, 23, 39. 
Peddy v. Street, 125. 
Peel V. January, 909, 917, 973. 
Peerce v. Athey, 753. 
Peet V. Hatcher. 518, 754, 861. 
Peetsch v. Qulnn, 122. 
Pelrce v. Bent, 954, 1000. 

V. Black, 465, 477, 991. 
Pelham v. Moreland, 357. 
Pell V. Lander, 394. 
Pells V. People, 511. 
Pelton V. Mott, 705, 720. 

T. Platner, 857, 860, 875, 904, 935. 
Pelzer Mfg. Co. t. Insurance Co., 16& 
Pemberton t. Hughes, 827. 

T. Johnson, 191. 

V. Pollard, 412. 
Pence v. Armstrong, 677. 

V. Cochran, 456. 
Pender v. Felts, 270. 
Pendergrass v. York Mauuf g Co., 689. 
Pendexter v. Cole, 246. 
Pendleton v. Weed, 275. 
Penfleld v. Harris, 577. 
Penfold V. Slyfleld, 82. 
Penhallow v. Doane, 797. • 

Peninsular Iron Co. y. Eells, 681a. 
Peniston t. Somers, 3. 526. 
Penn, In re, 320a. 

y. Edwards, 995. 

y. Remsen, 1011. 

V. Tollison, 173. 
Pennell v. Felch, 060. 
Pennie v. Visher, 86. 
Pennington v. Gibson, 517. 962. 966,. 
Pennington's Adm'x v. Gibson, 349. 
Pennock v. Hart, 485. 

V. Kennedy, 731. 
Pennoyer v. Neff, 220, 227, 228, 220, 
230, 231, 792, 803, 822, 901, 904, 905, 
90t), 928. 932, 938c, 939. 
Pennsylvania Agricultural & Mfg. 

Bank v. Crevor, 458. 
Pennsylvania Co. v. Smith, 16. 
Pennsylvania F^re Ins. Co. v. Wagley, 

Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Railroad Co., 

[KeCerenGM to Motknis. HI to 

Penny t. Martin, 770. 

Pennywit v. Foote, 173, 853, 897, 901. 

PenolMoot B. Go. y. Weeks, 270, 277, 

Penrose y. McKenzie, 252. 
Pentecost y. Magahee, 32. 
PenU Y. Kuester, 660. 
Penyan y. Berry, 593. 
People Y. Bacon, 326, 967. 

Y. Baker, 928, 929, 932. 

Y. Bangs, 175. 

Y. Barrett. 693. 

Y. Beandry, 534a. 

Y. Beebe, 477. 

Y. BeeYers, 529. 

Y. Brisbln, 809. 

Y. Cassels, 275. 

Y. Cavanagh, 258. 

Y. ChlsholiD, 1007. 

Y. Com'rs, 253a, 529. 

Y. Common Pleas, 1001. 

Y. Council, 158, 253a. 

Y. Court, 155, 165, 254, 407. 

Y. Dalton, 733. 

Y. Dawell, 897. 901, 930. 

Y. Dewey, 860. 881. 

Y. Dodge, 307. 

Y. Downer, 107. 

Y. Downing. 246w 

Y. Dunn, 324. 

Y. Easton, 479. 

Y. Fleming, 945. 

Y. Foster, 255. 

Y. Graham. 107. 

Y. Hagar, 287. 

Y. Harrison. 770, 775. 

Y. Holladny, 534a, 618, 684. 

Y. Hopson. 1006. 

Y. Hovlous, 417. 

Y. Huber, 232. 

Y. Irrigation Dlst, 534a. 

Y. Johnson, 609, 617, 619. 

Y. Judge, 33, 185. 521. 

Y. Judges, 313. 

Y. Kenyon, 529. 

Y. Lafarge. 311. 

Y. Lease, 560. 

Y. Leland, 529. 

Y. Llngle. 247. 

Y. Llacomb. 255, 256» 258. 

Y. Loeffler. 534a. 

Y. McLeod. 255. 

V. Marsh, 985a« 


409 in vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

People V. Medart, 284. 

Y. Mullan. 232. 

Y. Murray, 107. 

Y. O'Counell, 334, 362. 

Y. Organ, 206. 

Y. Plrfenbrlnk, 118. 

Y. Preston, 531. 

Y. Railroad Co., 981. 

Y. Rains. 340a, 341, 347. 849. 

Y. Reuter, 15. 

Y. Rlckert, 685, 726. 

Y. Rodgers, 793. 

Y. SaYings Union, 118. 

Y. Smith, 703. 

Y. Stephens, 710. 

Y. Stevens, 256. 

Y. Sturtevant, 962. 

Y. Supers, 603. 

Y. Temple. 302. 307, 824. 

Y. Townsend. 644. 

Y. Vilas, 699. 

Y. Walters, 258. 

Y. Warden, 256. 

Y. Weber, 247. 

Y. Welmer, 999. 

Y. Zundel. 578. 
Peoples V. Norwood, 183. 
People's Ice Co. y. Schlenker, 347. 
People's Mut. Ben. Soc. v. Frazer, 83. 
People's Nat. Bank v. McArthur, 160. 
People's Pure Ice Co. v. Trumbull, 

People's Sav. Bank y. Hodgdon. 656. 
Peoria, D. & E. By. Co. v. Duggan, 

Peoria Savings. L. & T. Co. v. Eider, 

674. 1008. 
Pepin Y. Lachenmeyer. 173. 175, 877. 
Pepper v. Donnelly, 694. 
Percy v. Foote, 726. 
Perdue v. Bradshaw. 169. 
Perlne v. Dunn, 720. 
Perisho v. Perisho, 246. 
Perkins. Ex parte, 256. 

Y. Brazos, 630. 

Y. Cheney, 590. 

Y. Coal Co., 414. 

Y. Dunlavy, 132.' 

Y. Fourniquet, 44. 

Y. Hume. 482a. 

Y. Jones. 182. 

Y. Moore, 589, 693, 707, 708, 790. 

Y. Oliver, 614. 


[References to seoUoiUk H 1 to 

Perkins v. Parker, 593, 628. 

V. Railroad Co., 387. 

V. Walker, 613, 627, 784. 
Perrine v. Carlisle, 300. 
Perry v. Adams, 194. 

T. Bassett, 228. 

▼. Church, 29. 

V. Dickerson, 752. 

T. Fisher, 322. 

V. Harrington, 747. 

y. Insurance Co., 936w 

▼. Johnston, 365. 

V. Kearney, 357. 

V. King, 273, 682. 

V. Lewis, 729. 

V. Meddowcroft, 293. 

V. Morris, 418. 

V. Pearee, 346. 

Y. Roberts, 962. 

V. Siter, 373. 

T. WUson, 127. 
Perryman v. State, 261. 
Persinger t. Tinkle, 22. 
Persons t. Simons, 21. 
Perth Amboy Terra Cotta Co.'s Ap- 
peal, 57. 
Peru Plow & Wheel Co. t. Enterprise 
Co., 29. 

V. Ward, 751. 
Petalka v. Fitie, 367, 393. 
Peterkln v. New Orleans, 985a. 
Peterman y. Huliug, 651. 

T. Watklns, 513. 
Peters, Es parte, 259. 

T. Crittenden, 209. 

V. Lawson, 990. 

V. League, 392. 

y. McWilliams, 996. 

y. Peters, 284. 

y. Warren Ins. Co., 815i. 
Petersine y. Thomas, 614. 
Peterson y. Albach, 655. 

y. Bank, 154. 

y. Gittlngs, 968. 

y. Lothrop, 534. 

y. Sohl, C17. 

y. Warner, 543, 609. 

y. Willard, 801. 
Petit V. Seaman, 290. 
Petley y. Carpenter, 311. 
Petray y. Howell, 412. 
Petrie y. Badenoch, 766. 

y. Nuttall, 520. 


4M In Yol. 1; residue in yd. 2.] 

Pettes y. Whitehall Bank, 366, 367. 
Petticolas y. City of Richmond, 779. 
Pettigrew y. City of Sioux Falls, 347, 

Pettit y. Shepherd, 466. 
Pettus y. Ass'n, 522. 

y. McClannahan, 165, 307. 

y. Smith, 756. 
Petty. In re, 255. 25a 
Pettys y. Marsh, 13. 
Peyton y. Scott, 206. 
Pfaff y. Thomas, 34. 
Pfau y. Lorain, 770. 
Pfeltz y. Pfeltz, 661. 
Pharr y. Reynolds, 383. 
Phelan y. Fitzpatrick, 768. 

y. Gardner, 614. 

y. Tyler, 655. 
Phelps y. Benson, 280. 

y. Brackett, 190. 

y. Brewer. 227, 901, 906. 91S. 

V. Duffy. 857, 875. 

y. Heaton, 346. 

y. Holker, 229, 894, 904. 

V. Peabody, 378. 

V. Railroad Co., 703. 

V. Reeder, 1004. 
Phifer y. Insurance Co., 340a. 
Philadelphia Bank y. Craft 40a 
Philadelphia W. & B. R. Co. y. Trim- 
ble. 220. 
Philadelphia & R. R. y. Snowdon. 

36, 304a. 
Philbrick y. Andrews, 407. 425. 
Philbrook y. Newman, 938c. 
Philip y. Dayis, 336. 
Philipowski y. Spencer. 790. 
Philipson y. Egreroout, 293. 
Phillips, Ex parte, 255. 

y. Society, 348. 

V. Bachelder, 91. 

V. Behn, 990. 

V. Berick, 628, 744. 

V. Bossard, 737. 

T. Collier, 341. 

T. Dugan, 152. 

y. Dusenberry, 193. 

y. Eyans, 326. 

y. Eyre, 174. 

V. Godfrey, 859. 

y. Hawley, 341. 

y. Hellings, 28. 

y. Hunter. 825, 826, 832. 

[References to leetlona. H 1 to 

PhlUlps y. Israel. 686. 

T. Jamieson, 578. 

Y. Knbn, 390. 

V. Lewis, 514, 681. 

T. McKaig, 406. 

y. Mackay, 1001. 

y. Kegley, 356. 

y. PhiUlps, 273. 

y. PuUen, 367. 

y. Stewart, 189, 

y. Thompson, 548. 

y. Walt, 487, 40a 

y. Ward, 773. 

y. Winter, 660. 
Philpott y. Adams, 849. 

y. Brown, 703. 723. 
Phillpotts y. Blasdel, 706. 
Phllson y. Bampfield's Adm'r, 100. 
Pbinney, In re, 255. 
Pblpps y. Alford, 703. 

V. Nye, 877. 
Phoenix Bridge Co. y. Street 318. 
Phoenix Ins. Co. y. Hedrlck, 87. 
Phoenix Min. & Mill Co. y. Scott, 422. 
Phoenix Mut Life Ins. Co. y. Landis, 

Phonoharp Co. y. Stobbe, 86. 
Piatt y. Ollyer, 685. 

y. St CUir, 990. 
Pick y. GUckman, 346. 
Pickering y. Telephone Co., 100. 
Picket y. Morris, 363. 
Pickett y. Ferguson, 906, 913. 

y. Handy, 92. 

y. Throston, 52. 
Pickett's Ex'rs y. Ford, 572. 
Pickett's Heirs y. Legerwood, 300. 
Pl<toell y. Thompson, 44. 
Pico y. Cohn, 323. 

y. Sonot 367. 

y. Webster, 578, 588. 
Piedmont Wagon Co. y. Byrd, 576. 
Piedmont & A. Ins. Co. v. Ray, 882. 
Pierce y. Bowers. 266. 

y. Brown, 400, 413, 445, 

y. Carletou, 260, 595. 

y. Court 317. 

y. Dayldson, 892. 

y. Hilton, 703. 

y. Ollyer, 660. 

y. Strickland, 293. 

y. Wlmberly, 406. 

CITED. cliii 

499 In YoL 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Piercy v. Sabln, 789. 

Pierpoint v. McGulre, 587. 

Pierro v. Railroad Co., 285. 735, 738. 

Pierson y. Benedict 329. 

V. Catlin. 518. 

y. Conley, CtM), 755. 

V. School Dlst., 100. 

V. Hitchner, 195. 
Pierstofl V. Jorges, 790, 967. 
Pike y. Bright 945. 

y. Hill, 299. 
Pilcher v. Graham, 909. 

y. Ligon, 625, 734. 
Pile V. McBratney. 606. 
Pilger V. Torrence, 393. 
Pillsbury's Lessee y. Dugan's Adm'r. 

Pirn y. Curell, 606. 

y. Grazebrook, 16. 
Pin y. Morris, 530. 
Pinckney's Adm^r y. Singleton, 984. 
Pine Momitain Iron & Coal Co. y. 

Tabour, 354. 
Pinger y. Vanclick, 158. 
Pinkel, In re, 977. 
Pinkney v. Plnkney, 232. 
Pinney y. Barnes, 735. 

y. Russell & Co., 406. 
Plnson y. Puckett, 989. 
Pioneer Land Co. y. Maddux, 278. 
Pioneer Say. & Loan Co. y. Bartsch, 

Pionier y. Alexander, 143. 
Piper y. Aldrich, 340. 
Pipkin y. Adams, 461. 

y. Allen, 39. 
Pirie y. Hughes, 77. 

V. Stem, 53. 
Pishaway y. Runnells, 745. 
Pitkin y. Leavltt 567. 
Pitman y. Albany, 812. 

y. Ijowe, 165. 

y. Town of Albany, 812i 
Pitner y. Flanagan, 246. 
Pitt y. Freed, 864. 
Pittel y. Ass'n, 560, 790. 
Pitts y. Fugate, 102. 

y. Spotts, 431. 
Pittsburg, C. C. & St L. B. Co. y. 
Beck, 157. 

y. Trust Co., 038. 

y. Volkert 944, 950. 


CBeferences to sectionB. S8 1 to 

Pittsburg, C. & St L. R. Co. v. Mar- 
shall, 493. 

V. Railroad Co., 45. 
Pittsburg Coal Min. Co. v. Greenwood, 

Pittsburg, F. W. & C. R. Co. v. Chi- 
cago, 118. 

V. Reno, 683. 
Pittsburg & C. R. Co. v. Shaw, 121. 
Pittsburg & S. L. R. Co.'s Appeal, 872. 
Pittsford V. Chittenden, 805. 
Pitzele T. Lutkins, 343, 351. 
Pitzer T. Russel, 958. 
P. J. Willis & Bro. T. Sommerville, 

Place V. Mfg. Co., 174. 
Placer Co. v. Campbell, 532. 
Plant V. Carpenter, 709. 
Plate V. RaiU-oad Co., 742. 
Platner t. Best, 737. 

T. Johnson, 206. 

V. Patchin, 192. 
Piatt V. Harrison, 257, 

V. Threadgill, 370. 

T. Vermillion, 534a. 
Platte Co. V. Marshall, 109. 
Pleak V. Chambers, 657. 
Pleasants t. Clements, 518. 
Plemmons v. Improvement Co., 27. 
Pleyte v. Pleyte, 162. 
Plowman v. Henderson, 174, 
Plume V. Beale. 635. 

V. Saying Inst, 640. 
Plummer v. Brown, 316, 530. 

V. Douglas, 68, 

V. Hatton, 231, 680. 

V. Woodbume, 845. 
Plunkett V. Black, 360. 
Poe V. Darrah, 1013. 

V. Decker, 371. 
Poindexter v. Waddy, 368, 369. 
Poirier t. Gravel, 351. 
Poledori v. Newman, 141. 
Poley V. Lacert, 567. 
Police Jury of Jefferson v. U. S., 610, 

Police Jury of Lafourche T. Police 

Jury, 514, 630. 
Polk V. Pendleton, 492. 
Polk Co. V. Nelson, 478. 
Polk County Bank v. Fleming, 898. 
Pollard V. Baldwin, 901. 

V. Baylors, 650. 


499 m vol. 1; residue in VOL 1] 

Pollard V. Cocke, 413. 

V. Eekford, 493. 

V. King, 131. 

V. Wegener, 277. 
Pollitz V. Schell, 682. 

V. Trust Co., 583a. 
Pollock V. Boyd, 30a. 

T. Buie, 268. 

V. Cox, 536. 

Y. Gilbert, 378, 386, 618L 

V. Horn, 205. 
Pomeroy v. Betts, 232. 

V. Burnett, 16. 

V. Chandler, 939^ 

V. Wells, 927. 
Ponce V. Underwood, 240, 90^ 
Pond V. Davenport, 63, 68, 7(K 

V. Makepeace, 563, 680# 

y. Simons, 52, 901. 
Ponder v. Cox, 364, 366. 

V. Moseley, 513. 
Pool V. Loomis, 127. 
Poole V. McLeod, 164. 

V. Seney, 517, 683. 
Poorman v. Crane*s Adm*r, 912L 

V. Mitchell, 970. 
Pope V. Brandon, 122, 442. 

V. Dinsmore, 84. 
Porche v. Ledoux, 557. 
Porges V. Cohen, 723. 
Porman v. Frede, 108. 
Portage Canal Co. v. Crittenden, 77. 
Porter v. Bagby, 549, 953. 

V. Bichard, 86. 

V. Bishop, 530. 

y. Bronson, 275. 

y. Burton, 44. 

y. Fralelgh, 709. 

V. Gile, 245, 995. 

V. Hitchcock, 485. 

V. Hower, 85. 

y. Insurance Co., 314. 

y. Leache, 683. 

y. Liscom, 953, 964. 

y. Purdy, 287. 

y. Rountree, 290. 

y. Schendel, 740. 

y. Vaughn, 723. 

y. Wagner, 518, 720. 

V. Waltz, la 
Porterfleld v. Butler, 184. 
Porter's Heirs v. Robinson, 195, 197. 
Porter's Lessee y. Matthews, 667. 

IRdterencM to sectloiw. H 1 to 4M in toL 1; residue in vol. 2.] 


l*ortJ8 V. Ennis, 987. 

T. Talbot. 155, 157, 106. 
Portland Const. Co. ▼. O'Neil, 986. 
Portsmouth Say. Bank v. Judge, 513. 
Post V. Boardman, 382. 

V. Carr, 340. 

Y. Charleswortb, 325. 

T. Neafle, 869, 902. 

V. Pearson, 707. 

V. SmlUe, 624. 

T. Taylor County, 986e, 
Postens T. Postens. 652. 
Poston ▼. Jones, 652. 
Potter Y. Baker, 611, 657. 

y. Beal, 41. 

T. Brown, 824. 

T. Eaton, 115. 

y. Hartnett, 967. 

y. McCormack, 97, 104. 

y. Parsons, 225. 

y. Talkington, 24. 

y. Webb, 635. 
Potts y. Ports, 29. 
Potyln y. McCoryey, 29. 
Potwin y. Oades, 118. 
Powe y. McLeod. 122, 127, 443. 

y. State, 105. 
Powell y. Allred, 446. 

y. Bennett 100. 

y. Davis, 857, 883. 

y. Geissendorff, 593. 

V. Gott, 193, 195, 327. 

y. Heckerman, 549. 

y. Jopling, 308. 

y. Knox, 433. 

y. Redfield, 149. 

y. Stewart, 383. 
Power y. Speckman, 589. 

y. Washington, 200, 204, 339. 
Powers y. Bank, 518. 

y. Council Bluffs, 743. 

y. Irish, 211. 

y. Leith, 530. 

y. People, 282. 

y. Trenor. 325. 
P. P. Mast Buggy Co. y. Implement 

06., 59. 
Pratt y. Jones, 958. 

y. Kells, 351. 

y. McLure, 992. 

y. Xortham, 371. 

y. Ratliff, 726. 

y. Wertheimer, 943, 948. 

Piart V. Weyman, 518. 
Pray y. Hegeman, 614. 

v. Jenkins, 292. 
Preachers' Aid Soc. v. England, 684. 
Predohl v. O'SuUlvan, 085. 
Preferred Ace Ins. Co. v. Barker, 789. 
Prelss y. Cohen, 514. 
Premier Cycle Mfg. Co., In re, 513. 
Prendergast y. Searle, 609. 
Prentiss v. Farnham, 526. 

V. Hinton. 1012. 

y. Holbrook, 552. 

y. Mellen, 83. 
Prescott y. Hull, 945. 
President y. City of Elizabeth, 985e. 
President, etc., of Bank of United 

States y. Bank, 864. 
President, etc., of Middlesex Bank y. 

Butmau, 828, 895. 
President, etc., of North Bank y. 

Brown, 864. 
President, etc., of Planters' Bank v. 

Calyit, 473, 987. 
President of O. Ct. y. Groff, 634. 
Preslar v. Stallworth, 591, 995. 
Press y. Mfg. Co., 84. 
Preston v. Chadwick, 651. 

y. Dunn, 194. 

y. Fitch, 553. 

V. Hutchinson, 777. 

y. Klndrick, 367, 377. 

y. Wright, 116. 
Prewett y. Caruthers, 206L 
Prewitt y. Perry, 378. 
Pricard v. Farrar, 574. 
Price V. Bank, 1013. 

y. Boyd, 1010. 

V. Dewey, 731. 

y. Dewhurst, 844. 

y. Dietrich, 641. 

y. Gwin, 584. 

y. Hickok, 227, 228, 904, 906. 

y. Higgins, 1013. 

y. Hopkln, 802. 

y. Johnston, 872. 

y. Nesbit, 25, 44. 

y. Railroad Co., 138. 

y. Schaffer, 901. 

y. Strange, 32. 

V. Thrash, 398. 

V. Avail's Ex'r, 446. 
Pricket y. Legerwood, 300. 
Priest V. Deayer, 747, 749. 



[References to sectioiM. 19 1 to 

Priest V. Glenn, 751. 
Prlestman v. Priestman, 311. 
Prlmm y. Ransom, 8^. 
Prince v. Fuller, 1004. 

V. Quincy, 729. 
Prlngle v. Woolworth, 874, 896. 
Prltchard v. Henderson, 922. 
Pritchett v. Clark, 828, 857, 900. 
Proctor V. Cole, 686. 

V. Lewis, 233. 

V. Pettltt, 366. 
Produce Bank v. Morton, 32. 
Prondzinski t. Garbutt, 326, 609, 721. 
Propeller Commerce, The, 796. 
Propst V. Meadows, 641. 
Prosser v. Warner, 933. 
Prost V. More, 15. 
Proulx V. Mill Co., 93. 
Prout V. Lomer, 32. 
Prouty V. Matheson, 643. 
Providence Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 

Providence Tool Co. v. Prader, 88. 
Providence Washington Ins. Co. v. 

Morse, 796. 
Provident Loan Trust Co. v. Marks, 

540, 551, 755. 
Provins V. Lovi, 346a. 
Provost V. Provost, 351. 
Prudam v. Phillips, 320. 
Prudential Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 121. 
Prugh V. Bank, 360. 
Pruitt V. Holly, 629. 
Pryor v. Downey, 218. 

V. Emerson, 367. 

V. Smith, 44. 
Publishing House of £)vangelical Ass'n 

V. Heyl, 367. 
Pucket V. Johnson, 195. 
Puckett V. Investment Co., 790. 

V. Pope, 898. 
Puffer V. Graves, 593, 594. 
Puget Mill Co. V. Brown, 530. 
Puget Sound Nat. Bank v. Levy, 62, 

Pugh V. Good, 439. 

V. Holt, 720. 

V. Williamson, 731. 
Pulaski Co. v. Stuart, 279. 
PuUiam v. Dillard, 351. 
PuUis V. Iron Co., 443. 
Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Wash- 
bum, 261. 

499 In VOL 1; residue In vol. S.] 

Purcell V. Kleaver, 77. 

V. Payton, 26. 
Purdy V. Doyle, 565. 

V. Upton, 64. 
Purity Ice Works v. Rountree, 330. 
Purser v. Cady, 510. 
Pursley v. Wlckle, 159. 
Purviance v. Edwards. 373. 
Puryear v. Taylor, 449. 
Puterbaugh v. Puterbaugh, 618. 
Putman v. Lewis, 39, 44. 
Putnam v. Capps, 945. 

v. Clark, 518. 

V. Crombie. 3, 115. 

V. Man, 275. 
Putney v. 0*Brien, 782. 
Putt V. Rawstern, 730. 
Pyke V. Crouch, 554. 
Pyle V. Piercy, 723. 

Quackenbush v. Ehle, 714. 
Quaid V. Cornwall, 186. 
Quarl V. Abbott 231. 
Queen v. City of Atlanta, 532. 
Queen Anne's Oo. v. Pratt, 454. 
Quick V. Bank, 351. 

V. Durham, 1000, 1006. 
Quigley v. Birdseye, 159. 

V. McEvony, 691. 

V. Roberts, 198, 197. 
Quimby v. Boyd, 16. 
Quinby v. Conlan, 530. 
Quincy v. Foot. 349. 
Quinn V. Insurance Co., 29. 

V. Jenks, 614. 

V. Quinn, 604. 

V. Wetherbee, 375. 

V. Wiswall, 122, 443. 
Quinn's Appeal, 55. 
Quinn*s Succession, 260. 
Quivey v. Hall, 984. 

Rabb V. Aiken, 660. 
Rabe v. Heslip, 61. 
Raburn v. Shortridge, 378. 
Race V. Ass*n, 86. 
Rachal v. Smith, 5ia 

[ReferencM to lectlonB. §§ 1 to 189 In yoL 1; residue in vol. 2.1 


Racke y. Ass'n, 661a. 

lUckley v. Fowlkes, 620, 659. 

Uadcllff Y. Insurance Co., 815. 

liadcljflTe t. Barton, 159. 

Kadford v. Folsom, 500. 

Uadzuweit t. Watkins, 362, 383. 

Kae V. Hnlbert, 8, 10, 800, 875. 

Raffanf, In re, 298. 

Rafferty t. Potter, 363. 

Kagland v. Calhoun, 589. 

Kagsdale y. Green, 306. 

Kahm y. Minis, 760. 

Kailroad Equipment Co. y. Blair, 607. 

Rains y. Ware, 165. 

Raisin Fertilizer Co. y. Grubbs, 22. 

y. McKenna, 387. 
Rake's Adm'r y. Vg^, 617, 624, 751. 
Ralston y. BeU, 417. 

y. Field, 432, 439. 

y. La bee, 197*. 

y. Lotbain, 306. 

y. Wood, 589. 
Kamaley y. Ramaley, 110. 
Raimnelsberg y. Mitchell, 192. 
Ramsbottom y. Bailey, 618. 
Puiinsburg y. Kline, 32G. 
Ramsey y. Hemdon, 504, 621« 

y. Hicks, 370. 

y. Linn, 21& 

y. Thomas, 982. 
Ramsey County Bldg. Soc. v. Lawton, 

Ramsey's Appeal, 954. 
Ramsonr y. Raper, 306. 
Rand y. Gamer, 439. 

y. Hanson, 906. 

y. Nutter, 771. 
Randal y. Wale, 487. 
Randall y. Ass'n. 351. 

V. Howard, 297a. 

y. Weld, 80. 
Randalls y. Wilson, 211. 
Randle y. Carter. 560. 
Rand, McNally & Co. v. Hombarger, 

Randolph y. KeUer, 90a 

y. King, 892. 

y. Metcalf, 11& 

y. Singleton, 13. 
Raney y. McRae. 236. 
Ransrely y. Webster, 211, 227, 864, 

Ranken y. Railway Co., 788. 

Rankin y. Barnes, 857, 807. 

V. Goddard, 829, 844. 

y. Kemp, 193. 

y. Lawton, 305. 

V. Scott, 459. 
Kaiisdell v. Threlkeld's Adm'r, 210. 
Hansford y. Maryln, 152. 
Hiuisley v. Stott, 048. 
Ransom v. Brlnkerhoff, 600. 

y. City of Pierre, 510, 578. 685. 

y. Sargent, 447. 
Ransone y. Grist, 331. 
Rape y. Heaton, 860, 897, 901. 
Rapelye y. Prince, 573. 
Rapley v. Price, 53. 
Rappleye y. Bank, 423. 
Rarey y. Lee, 609, 742. 
Rasmussen y. Smith, 354a. 
Ratcliffe y. Anderson, 298. 
Rathbone y. Hooney, 536. 

V. Terry, 857. 897, 906, 

y. Warren, 389. 
Ratliff y. Baldwin, 345. 

V. Stretch, 393. 
Raub y. Ass'n, 59. 
Ranch y. Young, 191. 
Raught y. Lewis, 399. 
Rauh V. Scholl, 176. 
Raun y. Reynolds, 982. 
Rauwolf y. Glass, 756. 
Rawdon y. Rapley, 306. 
Rawlings* E[K*r y. Rawlings, 44 
Ruwlins y. Rawlins, 320. 
Rawson y. McJunklns, 953. 
Ray y. Connor, 156. 

V. Law, 48. 

y. Moore, 305. 

V. Rowley, 270. 

y. Thompson, 173, 309. 
Rayl y. Lapham, 807. 
Raymond y. Butterworth, 1011» 

y. Rallrcad Co., 80, 90. 

y. Raymond, 939c. 

y. Richmond, 605. 

y. Schoonover, 419. 

y. Smith, 109, 135. 

y. White, 749. 
Ray nor v. Rayuor, 45. 
Rea y. Forrest, Ola, 953. 

V. Harrington, 100. 
Reab y. Sherman, 348. 
Read y. Allen, 553, 556, 577. 

Y. City of Buffalo, 176. 


CReferences to sectiong. §§ 1 to 499 In yoI. 1; residue in vol. 1] 

Bead v. French, 63, 83. 

V. Jeffries, 210. 

V. Sutton, 124. 
Keade v. Street, 141. 
Reading v. Price. 680. 

V. Reading, 02. 
Read's Appeal, 1016. 
Ready v. Smith, 26. 
Reagan t.* Fox, 100. 
Reagh T. Spann, 29. 
Real Estate Inv. Go. y. Roop, 55. 
Realty Inv. Co. v. Porter, 36. 
Ream y. Lynch, 590. 
Reams v. Kearus, 174. 
Reast Y. Donald, C24. 

y. Hughes, 367. 
Reay y. Heazelton, 985. 
Reber y. Wright, 227, 877, 896, 905, 

Rector y. Gibbon, 530. 

y. Morehouse, 994. 
Redden y. Metzger, 614. 

y. Tefft, 577, 663. 
Reddick y. Bank, 197. 

y. Meffert, 600. 
Redmond y. Coffin, 548, 561, 787. 

y. Collins, 638. 

y. Staton, 948. 
Redus y. Burnett, 897. 
Redwine y. Brown. 251. 
Reed, Ex parte, 250, 255, 256, 524. 

y. Austin's Heirs, 440. 

y. Chllson, 680, 867, 892. 

y. Cross, 615, 763. 

y. Douglas, 664. 

y. Eldredge, 7, 152. 

y. Hamet, 52. 

y. Jackson. 270, 606. 

y. King, 191. 

V. Lane, 122, 162, 174, 180. 

y. Liston, 23. 

y. McGregor, 540. 

V. Nicholson. 261. 

y. Orton, 573. 

y. Pratt, 272. 

y. Prescott, 362. 

y. Proprietors, 682. 

y. Pruyn, 098. 

y. Ross, 520. 

y. Vaughan, 285. 

V. Whitlow. 691. 

V. Wright, 216, 513. 
Reeder y. Lock wood, 84. 

Reed*s Appeal, 400. 
Reel y. Elder, 240, 897. 
Rees y. Bank, 92. 

y. Richmond, 58. 

y. Watertown, 985b, 985e. 
Reese y. Holmes, 660, 661. 

y. Mahoney, 313, 347. 

y. Meetze, 245. 

y. Reese, 617. 

y. Steams, 152. 
Reeser y. Brenneman, 321. 
Reeves y. Cooper, 394. 

V. Plough, 691. 

V. Townsend, 287. 
Reformed Protestant Dutch Church of 

Westfield y. Brown, 749. 
Reg. y. Drury, 511. 

y. Fontaine Ikf orean, 529. 

y. Haughton, 784. 

y. Inhabitants, 805. 

y. Leigh. 532. 
Regan y. Railroad Co., 91. 

V. West, 655. 
Regester y. Iron Co., 346. 
Reich V. Cochran. 661a, 783. 
Reid y. Boj'd, 875, 892. 

y. Coal & F. Co., 363. 

y. Dunklin, 142. 

y. Hibbard, 976, 989. 

y. Holmes, 200, 203. 

y. Morton, 126, 156. 

y. O'Brien. 1014. 

y. Ross, 040, W9. 

y. Southworth, 70. 

V. Spoon, 250. ' 
Reid, Murdoch & Co. v. Ferris, 671. 

y. Parks, 7^4. 
Reldy v. Blelstift, 92. 

V. Scott, 347. 
Reilly V. Bader. 783. 

y. Daly, 79a. 

y. Paving Co.. 740. 
Relly y. Lancaster. 273. 
Reimers y. Druce. 826, 844. 
Reinach v. Improvement Co., 541. 

V. Railroad Co.. 274, 278. 
Reiner v. Jones, 614. 
Relnhardt v. Nealis. 247. 
Relnhart y. Blackshear, 1. 

y. Lugo, 83, 252, 315. 
Reinig y. Hecht. 270. 
Relfe V. Bibb. 440. 
I y. McComb, 400. 

[References to sectionB. H 1 to 

Remer y. Mackay, 2;U. 872. 
Remick v. Butterfleld, 169. 
Remington v. Cuiumings, 211. 
Remington Paper Co. v. O* Dougherty, 

Rrainant t. Hoffman, 326. 
Renand y. Abbott ^^59, 914. 
Renfroe y. Benfroe, 363. 
Renfcdc V. Ladington, 600. 
Renter y. Hurlbut, 923. 
Renkert y. EUiott, 785. 
Renner y. Marshall, 865. 
Renshaw y. Bank, 723. 
Renwlck y. Wbeeler, 994. 
Republic Ins. Co., In re, 320a. 
Republic Life Ins. Co. y. Swigert, 22. 
Respnblica y. DaYis, 586, 587. 
Resseqnie ▼. Byers, 769. 
Rengger y. Lindenberger, 99. 
ReYere Copper Co. v. Dimock, 891. 
Rer ▼. Butterly, 635. 

Y. Carlile, 255. 

Y. Chapman, 491. 

Y. Grundon, 516. 

Y. Inhabitants. 805. 

Y. Lolley, 822. 

Y. Vincent, 635. 
Reynertson y. Lumber Co., 328. 
Reynolds y. Barnard. 315. 

Y. Bmmagim, 2M, 633. 

Y. Cobb, 401. 

Y. CoUier. 404. 

Y. Crook. 482. 

Y. Dunlap, 360. 

Y. Fenton. 83a 

Y. Fleming, 272. 

Y. Franklin, 744. 

Y. Gamer, 699. 

Y. Harris. 955. 

Y. Hennessy, 701, 721« 

Y. Horine, 367. 

Y. Insurance Co., 600. 

Y. Lincoln, 713. 

Y. Lumber Co.. 955. 

Y. Lyon, 225, 975. 

Y. Mandel, 504, 609. 

Y. Orvls, 266. 
Reynolds y. Powers, 877, 880. 

Y. Railroad Co., 770. 

Y. Robertson, 971. 

Y. Rogers* Ex'rs, 1006. 

Y. Silvers, 77. 

Y. SUnsbury, 326, 785. 

CITED. Clix 

499 in TOl. 1; residue in yoI. 2.] 

Reynolds y. Stockton, 242, 417, 915. 
R. Frank Williams Co. Y. Baking Co., 

Khea v. Preston, 998. 
Rhino V. Emery, 290. 
Rhoad Y. Patrick, 412. 
Rhoades y. Delaney, 680. 

Y. Selin, 601. 
Rhoads y. City of Metropolis, 657. 

Y. Bhoads, 196, 197. 
Rhode V. Green, 571. 
Rhode Island y. Massachusetts, 215. 
Rhodes v. De Bow, 297. 

Y. Rhodes, 312. 

V. Turner, 46. 

Y. Williams, 47. 
Rlcardo y. Garcias, 624, 827, 829. 
Rlcaud Y. Tysen, 624. 
Rice Y. Aiken, 660. 

Y. Bank, 380. 

Y. Commission Co., 285, 930. 

V. Coutant, 902. 

V. Griffith, 347. 

V. Groff, 1009. 

Y. Holmes, 834. 

V. King, 604, 658, 669, T29. 

V. Moore, 487. 892. 

V. Rice, 600. 

V. Sanger, 34. 

V. Stone, 943. 

V. Talmadge, 487. 

V. Troup, 941. 

V. Ward, 641. 

V. West, 655, 657. 
Rice County Com'rs v. I^wrenee, 187. 
Rice's Succession, 985. 
Rich Y. City of Chicago, 306. 

Y. Husson, 209. 

V. Railroad Co., 27. 

y. Thornton. 346. 
Richards y. Barlow, 868. 

Y. McMillan, 67, 68. 

Y. Rote, 218. 

V. Walton, 211. 
Richardson y. Ainsworth, 950, 066. 

Y. Ass'n, 346a, 352. 

Y. Bank, 587. 

Y. Boston, 742. 

Y. Callihan, 663. 

V. City of Baltimore, ,357. 

Y. aty of Eureka, 75a 

V. Finney, 347. 

V. Fuller, 57. 


[References to sections. S§ 1 to 

Uicliardson v. Greeii, 128. 

V. Howk, 153. 

y. Hunter, 217, 227, 278. 

v. Jones, 208, 576. 

V. Lanniug, 526. 

Y. Larpeut, 585. 

V. Loree, 359. 

V. Machine Works, 752. 

T. Melllsh, 162. 

y. Hlcliardson, 29. 

V. Rogers, 118. 

V. Smith, 229. 

V. Stowe. 326. 

V. Turner, 109. 

V. Watson. 576. 
Richardson Drug Co. v. Dunagan, 348. 
Richardson's Adm'r v. Justices, 385. 
Richardson's Ex'r v. Jones, 80Q. 
Richman v. Baldwin, 660. 
Richmond v. Ames, 569. 

V. Atwood, 32. 

V. Bldch, lOOi. 

V. Hays, 624. 
Richmond Bldg. Ass'n v. Ass'n, 952. 
Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Gorman, 917. 
Richmond & P. R. Co. v. Shippen, 381, 

Rlchter v. Cummings, 486. 
Rickard v. Fisk, 299. 
Rickards v. Coon, 32. 
Rickets V. Hitchens, 358. 
Ricketson v. Richardson, 211. 
Rickey v. Hillman, 428. 
Riddle v. Baker, 587. 

V. Hudgins, 48. 
Riddle's Appeal, 438, 1014. 
Rider v. Alexander, 122, 906. 

V. Alleyne, 82. 

V. Kelso, 953. 

V. Rubber Co., 733. 
Ridge V. Prather, 432. 
Ridgely v. Gartrell, 432. 

V. Spenser, 683. 
Ridgely Nat. Bank v. Fairbank, 86. 
Ridgeway v. Bank. 376, 377. 

V. Herbert, 650. 
Ridgley v. SUUwell, 611. 
Rldgway V. Homer, 86. 
Ridgway's Appeal, 406. 
Ridley v. Railway Co., 352, 742, 748. 
Rlehl V. Vockroth. 1005. 
Rleker v. Doerr, 354, 
Riely y. Barton, 90. 


499 In vol. 1; residue in toI. 2.] 

Ries V. Rowland, 674. 
Riffle's Appeal, 999. 
Rigg V. Banbridge, 768. 
Riggs v. Goodricli, 987. 

V. Johnson County, 360, 985b. 
Righter v. Thornton, 263. 
Riglesberger v. Bailey, 305. 
Riker v. Hooper, 529, 726. 
Riley V. Bank, 541. 

V. Hale, 767. 

y. Jaryis, 29, 183, 790. 

V. Murray, 920. 

y. Riley, 975. 
Riley's Adm'r y. McCord's Adm'r, 

Rinchey v.. Stryker, 605. 
Ringgold y. Stone, 644. 
Ringle y. Railroad Co., 186. 
Rio Grande, The, y. Otis, 521, 795. 
Rio Grande Irr. & Colonization Ca t. 

Gildersleeye, 83, 387. 
Rio Grande W. Ry. Co. v. Power 

Transmission Co., 751. 
Riott V. Blackstone, 25. 
Rlsher v. Roush, 367. 
Risk V. Uffelman, 110. 
Risley y. Bank, 709, 942. 
Risser y. Martin, 57, 126. 
Ritch y. Eichelberger, 952, 955. 
Ritchey.y. Buricke's Adm'rs; 467. 

y. Withers, 644. 
Ritchie y. McMuUen, 370, 829, 835, 
838, S49. 

V. Sayers, 277. 
Ritter V. Cost, 956. 

V. Henshaw, 1010. 

y. Hoffman, 859, 861, 868. 
Riyers v. Durr, 197. 

y. Riyers, 714. 

y. West, 321. 
Riyerside Co. y. Townsend, 663, 
Riyerside Land & Irr. Co. v. Jensen, 

Rix y. McHeury, 425. 

y. Nevius, 1001. 
Roach y. Bennett, 433. 

y. Blakey, 116. 

y. Garvan, 822. 

y. Hix, 195. 

y. Martin's Lessee, 633, 635. 

y. Privett 908. 
Roads y. Symmes, 432. 
Roane y. Baker, 447. 

[References to sectloni. 89 1 to 

Roane t. Uamilton, 407. 
Robarge v. Railroad Co., 923. 
Robb Y. Anderson, 487, 892. 

V. Irwin*8 Lessee, 194. 

T. Robb, a06. 

V. Van Horn, 009. 
Robbins y. Bacon, 493. 

Y. Bunn, 530. 

V. Chicago, 575. 

Y. CoIUer, 518. 

Y. Harrison, 761. 

Y. Mount, 378. 

Y. Robbins, 454. 

V. Wells, 710. 

Y. Wcrfcott, 100. 
Roberson y. Crow, 376. 
Robert y. Hodges, 857. 
Robert E. Lee SUYer Min. Co. y. En- 

glebach, 854. 
Roberts, In re, 506. 

Y. CaldweU, 003. 

Y. Corby, 347. 

Y. Dame, 16. 

Y. Hamilton, 713. 

Y. Hinkle, 802. 

Y. Miles, 373. 

Y. Moody, 614. 

Y. Xorrls, 716. 

Y. Pawley, 211, 235, 348. 

Y. Railway Co,, 243, 302, 825. 600. 

Y. Roberts, 232. 

Y. Robinson, 425. 

Y. Sliarp, 70a. 

Y. Stanton, 103. 

Y. State, 38, 115. 

Y. Stowers, 220. 

Y. Yancey, 260. 
Robertson, In re, 16L 

Y. Bergen, 335. 

Y. Caw. 685. 

Y. Hay, 157. 

Y. Huffman, 260l 

Y. King, 156. 

Y. Lane, 206. 

Y. Pharr, 135. 

Y. PiciEreU, 636. 

Y. Smith, 770, 776. 

Y. Strath, 835. 

Y. Van CleaYe, 585. 

Y. Winchester. 218. 

T. Wright, 660. 
Robewon y. Roberts, 953, 956. 
Robk'haad y. Nelson, 880. 
1 LAW JUDG.— k 

CITED. Clxl 

499 In vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Robinson y. Allison, 063. 

Y. Bank, 440. 

Y. Belt, 29. 

Y. Brown, 206. 

y. City of Wilmington, 32. 

Y. Com'rs, 305. 

Y. Court, 29. 

Y. Crownlnshield, 745. 

Y. Dayls, 332, 336. 

Y. Dickey, 617. 

V. Floyd, 209. 

Y. Govers, 115. 

Y. Hodge, 589. 

V. Howard, 707. 

Y. Jones, 816. 

V. Keys, 86. 

V. Kruse, 671. 

Y. Kuukleman, 1001. 

Y. Lane, 592, 624. 

Y. McDowell, 390. 

V. Merrill, 352. 

Y. Moore, 160. 

Y. Morse, 526. 

Y. Prescott, 934. 

Y. Reld's Ex'r, 376. 

Y. Snyder, 770. 

Y. Stevens' Adm'r, 317. 

Y. Thompson, 359. 

V. Tonge, 441. 

Y. Towns, 952. 

Y. Ward's Ex'rs, 904, 912. 

Y. Weeks, 943, 950, 98G. 

V. Wiley, 761. 

V. Wilson, 425. 
Robinson's Adm'r y. MUby's Adm'r, 

992, 993. 
Robinson's Adm'x y. White, 949. 
Robinson's Case, 536. 
Robisson y. Miller, 420. 
Robostelll Y. Railroad Co., 142. 
Robrecht y. Robrecht, 82. 
Robson Y. Eaton, 374. 

V. Shelton, 191. 
Robuck Y. Harklns, 867. 
Roby Y. Eggers, 539. 

V. Rainsber^er, 773. 

V. Updyke, 77. 
Rocco Y. Hackett, «)7, 880. 897. 
Rochester y. Anderson, 210. 
Rocker Spring Co. y. William D. Gib- 
son Co., GIO. 
Rockford Watch Co. v. Manifold. 242. 
Rockhill Y. Hunna, 450, 476. 

Clxii CASES 

CReferences to sections. 89 1 to 

Rock Islaod Nat. Bank t. Thompson^ 

399, 415, 473. 
Rockland Water Co. v. Plllabury. 161, 

Rockwell V. Brown, 739. 

V. CJourt, 692. 

T. Langley, 629. 630. 

y. Tupper, 214. 
Rockwood V. Davenport, 110. 
Roddy T. Elam. 439. 
Roderigas v. Savings Inst., 640. 
Rodgers v. Bonner, 401. 

V. Evans, 513. 

V. Insurance Co., 910. 

V. Levy, 719. 

V. McCluer's Adm'rs. 440, 469. 
Rodini V. Lytle, 58a 
Rodriguez v. Esplnosa, 321. 
Roe V. Roe, 803. 

V. Swart, 468. 
Roenigk's Appeal, 77. 
Rogan V. Walker, 513. 
Rogers v. Beauchamp. 273. 

V. Brent 422. 530. 

y. Brooks, 141. 

y. Bums, 857. 913. 

y. Coleman, 855, 857, 904, 906. 

y. Cross. 383. 

y. Denham's Heirs, 486. 

y. Felker, 174. 

y. Grannis, 562. 

V. Gwinn, 373, 916. 

y. Haines, 537. {\50. 

y. Harrison. 233. 

y. Hatch, 510. 882. 

y. Higglns, G14. 731. 

V. Holden, 528. 

V. Holllngsworth, 484, 40& 

y. Johnson. 261. 

y. Ubbey. 624. 

y. McMillen, 327. 

V. Miller, 274. 

y. Moore, 89. 

V. Odell, 864, 966. 

V. Parker, 376. 

y. Ratcllff, 657. 

y. Rogers, 156, 162. 262, 894. 

y. Russell, 27. 

y. Tucker, 661. 

y. Walker, 802. 

v. Waller, 518. 

V. Watrous, ;]06. 

V. Weil, 192. 


499 In, vol. 1; reiidue in vol. 2.J 

Rogers v. Welte, 999. 

V. Wood, 173. 216. 278, 516. 
Roggenkamp v. Hargreaves, 208. 
Roh V. Vitera, 34. 
Rohm V. Borland, 529. 
Rohr V. Davis, 206. 
Rohrbacker v. Schultz. 34.'a. 
Roland v. Kreyenliiigen. 352. 
Rolfs y. Shallcross, 255. 
Roll V. Davison, 683. 

V. Rea, 411. 
Roller V. Ried, 312, 383. 

V. Wooldridge, ;wr. 
Rollins, Ex parte, 255, 257. 

V. Casket Co., 390. 

V. Henry, 109, 260. 

V. Thompson, 999. 
Remain v. Garth, 1016. 
Roman Catholic Archbishop ▼. Ship- 
man, 600. 
Rome Eb[change Bank v. ESames, 14t 
Rome & D. R. Co. v. Sibert, 31a. 
Rooks v. Williams, 3(18. 
Roosevelt v. Dale, 189. 

v. Kellogg, 250. 
Root V. Bank, 36. 

y. Curtis. 447. 

y. Davis, 261. 

y. Dill, 770. 

V. Fellowes, 116. 

v. Woolworth, 755. 
Roots V. Cohen, 387, 393. 
Roper V. Rowlett, 572. 
Ropes V. Eldridge, 26. 
Roraback v. Stebbins, 55. 
Rorer v. Ass'n, 83. 
Rork V. Smith, 809. 
Roscarla v. Thomas, 96. 
Rose V. City of Yonkers, 714. 

y. Gibson, 29. 872. 

y. Hawley, 716. 

y. Himely, 516. 818, 835. 

y. Insurance Co., J)20, 970. 

V. Turnpike Co.. 686. 
Rosebrough v. Ansley. 52. 
Rosenbaum v. Davis, 511. 
Rosenblatt. "Ex. parte, 257. 
Rosenberger v. Jones, 439. 
Rosenmueller v. Lampe, 735. 
Rosenow v. Gardner, 671. 
Rosenthal v. McMann, 716. 

v. Renick, 503. 

y. Roberson, 26. 



[Befcrences to sections. || 1 to 489 in vol. 1; residue In vol. 2.] 

Bottaia V. Trowbridge, 421. 
Iocs Y. Banta, 357, S63, 549. 

▼. City of Portland, 733. 

T. finaut, 557. 

T. Xoble, 90. 

y. Pitts, 593. 

T. Pleasants, 660. 

V. Railroad Co,, 337, 

T. Koss, 132. 353. 

T. Sims, 13. 

T. Wait, 208. 

▼. Watt, 526. 

T. Wcidd, 372, 681a. 
Boss* Apiieal, 432. 
Kosse V. Uust 723. 
Rossman v. Tilleny, 733. 
Retail's Heirs v. Springer, 393. 
Botch v. Humboldt College, 274. 
Botb T. ColYin, 526. 

y. Roth, 822. 
Rothchild V. Link, 85. 

T. Mannesovitch,* 63. 
Bother r. Monaban, 988. 
Bothrock y. Insurance Co., 897. 
Roalhac v. Brown, 092. 
Roulstou V. Hall, 549. 
Bounds t. Steamship Co., 938. 
BoQDdtree, Ex parte, 340, 344. 
Boandy v. Hunt. 70. 
BoonsariUe v. Haxen, 1017. 
Boantree, Ex parte, 336. 

T. Lathrop, 99. 

V. Walker, 363. 
Bouse V. Peoria County, 97. 
Boosillon V. Ronsillon, 836. 
Boosset T. Boyle, 162. 
Boutiedge v. Hislop, 729. 
Bowan v. Daniel. 207. 
Bowe V. Blake. 9«2. 

V. Coal Co., 323. 

y. Parsons, 284. 

T. Smith, 697. 758. 
Bowes Adm'r v. Hardy's Adm*r, 

Kowen V. RaUroad Co., 90. 
Rowland v. Day, 600. 

V. Ryans, 636. 

V. Harris. 491. 

T. Hobby, 029. 

V. Jones, 340, 387. 

T. Vcale. 9G3. 
BowlandP EasUtc, 317. 
UowlnndsoD. Ex parte, 775. 


Uowlett V. WlUiamson, 302. 
Rowley v. Carron, 935. 

V. Howard, 224. 
Roy V. liowe, 194. 
Hoyall, Ex parte, 257. 
Royairs Adm'rs y. Johnson, 23. 
Royal Trust Co. y. Bank, 306. 
Royalty y. Shirley, 783. 
Royer y. Wolf, 691. 
Royse y. May, 149. 
Royston y. Homer, 756. 
Rubel y. Busbnell, 188. 
Rubinsky y. Patrick, 473. 
Rubush y. State, 246. 
Ruch y. Jones, 86. 
Rucker y. Steelman, 609. 
Ruckman y. Cowell, 285. 

V. Pitcher, 349. 
Rudd y. Bank, 214. 
Rudolph y. Underwood, 703. 
Ruegger y. Railroad Co., 754, 938. 
Ruehlmann y. Ass'n, 737. 
Ruenbuhl y. Heffron, 307. 
Rufe y. Bank, 943, 945. 
Ruff V. Doty, 756. 

y. Elkin, 156. 

y. Ruff, 593. 
Rufty y. Claywell, 772. 
Rugg V. Parker, 135, 163, 165. 
Rumsey y. Railroad Co., 742. 
Rundle y. Ettweln, 432. 
Runkel y. PhUlips, 566. 
Rupe y. Ass'n, 206. 
Rupert y. Martz, 348. 
Rupp y. Swartz, 1005. 
Ruppel y. Patterson, 549. 
Rush y. Rusb, 130, 320, 822. 

y. Valentine, 530. 
Rusbwortb y. Pembroke, 554. 
Russ V. Gilbert, 91. 
Russel y. Field, 847. 

y. Insurance Co., 817. 
Russell y. Brown, 810. 

y. Butler, 899. 

T. Conway, 1002, 1004. 

V. Durham, 263. 

y. Erwin's Adm'r. 155, 160. 

V. Grant. 200. 

V. Hank, 170. 

y. Hogan, 82. 

V. Houston, 433. 

y. Lathrop, 19, 28, 

y. McCaU, 774. 

Clxlv CASES 

[Referencei to MCtions. |§ 1 to 

Russell T. McDougall, 166. 

V. Mcllvoy, 737. 

V. Nail, 446. 

y. Nelson, 1016. 

V. Perry, 936. 

V. Place. 624, 629, 72a 

T. Pottawottamle Co,, 325. 
Russell's Appeal, 439. 
Russell & Ck). y. Lamb, 938c. 
Russell & Erwlne Mfg. O). y. Carpen 

ter, 774. 
Rust V. Faust 109. 

V. Ware, 384, 386. 

V. Waterworks Co., 34. 
Rutan V. Wolters, 214. 
Ruth y. Overbrunuer, 643. 

y. Wells, 461. 
Ruthenberg y. Helberg, 39. 
Rutherford v. Crabb, 1004. 

y. Crawford, 282. 

y. Pope, 305. 
Ruth's Appeal, 458. 
Rutledge y. Fogg, 525. 
Ryan y. Boyd. 370, 377. 

y. Fulghum, 699. 

y. Kingsberry, 754. 

y. Moouey, 352. 

y. Potwin. 611, 629. 

y. Railroad Co., 716. 

y. Staples, 262. 

y. Town of Sumner, 609. 
Ryan's Adm'r y. McLeod, 44. 
Ryckmau y. Parkins, 083. 
Ryder y. Loom Is, 649. 

y. Twiss, 313. 
Ryerson y. Chapman, 571. 
Ryerss y. RIppey, 577. 
Ryghtmyer y. Dunham, 127. 
Ryhlner v. Frank, 443. 
Rynearson v. Parkhurst, 790. 
Ryon y. Thomas, 153. 

Sabater y. Sabater, 163. 
Sabine, The, 792. 
Sablns y. McCJhee, 658. 
Sacket y. Ix)omIs, 758. 
Sackett y. Montgomery, 513. 

V. Wilson, 189. 
Sacramento, P. & N. R. Co. y. Har 
Ian. 40. 



499 In Yol. 1; residue In vol. 2.} 

Sacramento Say. Bank y. Spencer, 

Saddler y. Apple. 738. 
Sadler y. Robblns, b69, 9G2. 
Safe-Deposit & Trust Co. y. Wright, 

252. 294. 
Saffold y, Nayarro, 211. 
SafTord y. Maxwell. 947. 
Sage y. Harpending. 510. 

y. Matheney. 33a 
Sager y. Blaln, 715. 
y. Mead. 293. 
y. Moy, 995. 
Sagory y. Bayless, 305. 
Salnsbury y. Pringle, 491. 
St Clair y. Cox, 220, 910. 939. 

y. Smith, 193. 
St John y. Holmes, 211, 237, 315. 

y. St Johns Church, 574. 
St Johnsbury & L. C. R. Co. y. Hunt 

St Joseph Mfg. "Co. y. Daggett 40a 
St Joseph Union Depot Co. y. Rail- 
road Co., 615. 
St. Joseph & G. I. R. Co. v. Steele. 

St Louis, A. & T. n. R. Co. y. Todd, 

St Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. y, Rey- 
nolds, 358. 
y. Sweet 740. 
y. Winfrey, 130. 
St. Louis Mut Ins. Co. y. Cravens. 

St Louis Nat. Bank y. Bloch, 46. 
St. I^ouls Perpetual Ins. Co. y. Cohen. 

260, 595. 
St Louis Smelting & Refining Co. y. 

Kemp, 530. 
St Louis S. W. R. vyO. y. Denson, 91. 

y. Moss, 738. 
St. Louis Type Foundry y. Jackson, 

867, 985. 
St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. y. McBride, 
V. Trimble, 745. 
St. Louis & S. Coal Co. v. Mining Co., 

St Mary's Hospital y. Benefit Co., 

St. Paul Nat. Bank v. Cannon. 541. 
St Paul & D. R. Co. V. Blaekmar. 

[References to sections. H 1 to 4M In YOl. 1; residue in yoI. 2.] 


St. Romes v. Press Co., 719. 
Salaman y. Warner, 21. 
Sale T. Cburch, 516. 

7. French, 801. 
Salinas v. C. Aultman &, Co., 620. 

Y. State, 213. 
Salisbuy y. Morss, 560. 
Salladay t. Bainhill, 972. 
SaUe T. Light's Ex'rs, 572, 574. 
Salliday ▼. Bainhill, 972. 
Salmon y. Wootton, 865. 
Salomon y. Hopkins, 206. 
Saloy y. CoIUns, 32, 109. 
Salter y. Hilgen, 306. 

y. Salter, 197. 
Saltonstall y. Rllej, 261, 642. 
Salyer y. State, 589. 
Sam, Ex parte, 255. 
Sames' Appeal, 492, 534. 
Sammis y. Wigbtman, 857, 860, 883, 

889, 807, 898, 963. 
Sample y. Bnmes, 379. 

y. Conlson, 536. 
Sampson y. Ohleyer, 550. 
Samnel y. Casualty Co., 735. 

y. Dinklns, 577. 
San Antunio & A. P. K. Co. y. Flato, 

y. Glass, 363. 
Sanborn y. Fellows, 279. 

y. Perry, 31, 922. 
Sanchez y. Carriaga, 358, 377. 
Sanders y. Fisher, 387. 

y. Hall. 345. 

y. McAfee, 459. 

y. Peck, 538. 

y. Price, 272, 290. 

y. Soutter. 618. 
Sanderson y. Caldwell, 779. 

y. Dox, 313. 

y. Peabody, 614. 

y. Voelcker. >58, 373. 
Sandford y. McLean, 420, 454, 999. 
Sandoyal y. Rosser, 541. 
8andwi<^ Mfg. Co. y. Earl, 251, 939. 
Sanford y. College, 504. 

y. Ogden, 457. 

y. Sanford, 530, 912, 917. 

y. Weeks, 346a, 692. 
Banger y. Roberts, 117, 262. 
Sangnlimettl y. Roche, 191. 
San Joaquin I^nd & Water Co. y. 
West, 157, 98L 

San Jose Ranch Co. v. Water Co.. 108. 
San Juan & St. L. Mining & Smelting 

Co. y. Finch, 376. 
Sankey y. Reed, 497. 
San Mateo County v. Cobum, 250. 
Sanner y. Sayne, 98. 
San Pedro & C. Oo. y. U. S., 530. 
Sans y. City of New York, 628. 

y. People, 487. 
Santleben v. Cement Co., 536. 
Santon v. Ballard, 217. 
Sappington y. Lenz, 498. 
Sarchet y. The General Isaac Dayis, 

Sargeant y. Bigelow, 378. 

V. French, 211. 
Sargent y. Fitzpatrick, 763. 

y. Hayne, 992. 

y. Kindred, 311, 335, 347. 
Sargent & Co. y. Steamboat Co., 625. 
Sass y. Hlrschfeld, 155, 214. 
Sasscer y. Walker's Efct'rs, 1008. 
Sasser y. OlUff, 375, 383. 
Sater y. Hunt, 28. 
Satterlee y. BUss, 549, 635. 
Satterwhite y. Sherley, 541. 
Sauer y. City of Kansas, 365. 

y. Railroad Co., 246. 

y. Twining, 245. 
Sauerfield y. McNiemey's Estate, 61a. 
Sauls y. Freeman, 584. 
Saulsbury y. Alexander, 100 
Saunders y. Albritton, 367. 

y. Lipscomb, 52, 76. 
Sayage y. Allen, 388. 

y. Benham, 639. 

y. Eyerman, 976. 

y. Gunter, 699. 

y. Hussey, 267. 

y. Stevens, 779, 782. 

y. Walshe, 239. 
Sayeland y. Green, 570. 
Savery v. Sypher, 761. 
Sayin, Ex parte, 255. 
Sayings & Trust Co. y. Irrigation Oa. 

4^, 475. 
Sawln y. Kenny, 125a. 
Sawtelle y. Muncy, 86. 

V. Weymouth, 423. 
Sawyer y. Boyle, 612. 

y. Doane, 299. 

y. Dozler's Heirs, &35. 

y. Insurance Co., 818. 


[References to sections. §§ 1 to 

Sawyer v. McAdle, 550. 

V. Nelson, 627. 

V. Vilas, 7. 

V. White, 774. 

V. Woodbury, 503, 504, 627, 629, 
657, 658. 
Sazton v. Smitli, 165. 
Sayers y. Auditor General, 754. 

v. Burkhardt, 300. 
Sayles v. Best, 428. 

V. Briggs, 282. 

V. Tibbitts, 608. 
Saylor v. Com., 113. 

v. Hicks, 682. 
Sayre v. Hewes, 72. 
Sayre*s Adm'r t. Harpold, 857. 
Scamahom v. Scott, 81, 503. 
Seaman v. Galligan, 271. 
Scamman t. Bonslett, 162. 
Scanlan v. Campbell, 252. 

V. Murphy, 967. 
Scanlon v. Suter, 26. 
Scarborough, In re, 789. 

V. Dugan, 7, 11, 892. 

y. Myrick, 312. 
Scarritt Furniture Co. v. Moser, 598. 
Schaefer y. City of Fond du Lac, 575. 
Schafer y. Buck, 473. 
Schaffer y. Cadwallader, 407. 
Schai£er*B Estate, In re, 31a. 
Scharff v. Lisso, 13. 
Scharmaun, In re, 89. 
Schart v. Schart, 346. 
Schautz V. Kearney, 1001. 
Scheible v. Slagle. 510. 
Schell y. Stetson, 981. 
Scheuck. In re, 255. 

V. Ellingwood, 585. 
Schenck's Appeal, 321. 
Scherff v. Railroad Co., 707. 
Sohermerhom v. Scbermerhorn, 16. 
Scherr y. Uimmelmau, 1010. 
Schertz y. Bank, 583. 
Scblbsby y. Westeuholz. 227, 289, 835, 

Schindel y. Suman, 713. 
Schirling y. Scites, S'JT). 
Schissel y. Dickson, 281. 
Schive y. Fausold, 651. 
Schloss y. White, 93, 237. 
Schmelzer y. Mfg. Co., 154, 206. 
Schmidt V. Glade, 695. 

V. Rehwinkel, 154. 


4M in vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Schmidt y. Thomas, 306w 

y. Zahensdorf, 616. 
Sehmidtke y. Miller, 483. 
Schmidt's Estate, In re, 260. 
Schnaufer y. Schnaufer, 926i 
Schneider v. Meyer, 987. 
Schneider^^avis Co. y. Brown, 596L 
Schneprs Appeal, 551. 
Schnitker y. Schuitker, 1000. 
Schnitzer y. Fox, 790. 
Sohnitzler y. Bank, 337. 
Sohoch V. Foreman, 742. 
Scboellkopf y. Ohmels, 100. 
School Directors y. Xewman, 118. 

y. Wright, 32. 
School Dist. No. 10 y. Peterson. 446. 
School Dist. No. 13 v. I-ovejoy, 337. 
School Dist. No. 15 y. Brown, 32. 
School Dist. No. 28 y. Stocker, 613. 
School Dist No. 46 y. Lund, 16. 
Schoppenhast y. Bollman, 260, 595. 
Schott y. McFarland, 299. 

V. Youree, 587, 770. 
Schreiner y. Court, 529. 
Schriver y. Eckenrode. 730. 
Schroeder y. Fromme, 50. 

y. Gumey, 434, 446. 

y. Lahrman, 540, o42. 
Schroeder's Estate, In re, 641. 
Schroer v. Pettibone, 370. 

y. WesseU, 340, 341. 
Schuffert y. Grote, 32. 
Schulenburg y. Bank, 849. 
Scbuler v. Collins, lUOO. 

y. Israel, 674, 690. 
Schultz y. McLean. 23. 

V. Meiselbar, 84, 341. 

V. Schultz, G35, 6:J7. 
Schurnieier v. Johnson. 682. 
Schuster v. Rader, 359, 600. 

V. White's Adm'r, 732, 744. 
Schwabacher y. Leibrook, 460. 
Schwan v. Kelly, 767. 
Schwartz, Ex parte, 255. 

V. Schendel, :i52. 
S<-hwarz v. Oppenheimer, 86, 31L 
Schweinfurter v. Schmahl, 321. 
Schweitzer y. Irwin's Ex'x, 33. 
Schwenk y. Widemeyer, 671. 
Schwenke y. Railroad Co., 530. 
Sohweyer y. WAlbert, 330. 
Schwinger v. Ilickok, 229. 
Scoliold y. Bank, 32. 

[References to uctionB. IS 1 to 

Scofield Y. Moore, 940. 
iScogin Y. Perry, 419. 
Sconce y. Lumber Co., 671« 
Scotland Oo. y. Uili, 581. 
Scott Y. Bogart, 237, 913. 

Y. Burton, 31. 116. 

Y. CUYlt, 636. 

Y. Coleman, 875. 

Y. Colmesnil, 776w 

Y. Drennen, 549. 

T. Duun, 469. 

Y. Haines, 744. 

V. Hall, tK>4. 

T. Harking, 953. 

Y. Investment Co., 530. 

Y. Mantouya, 69, 73. 

V. Noble. 906, 913. 

T. nikington, 827, 842, 843, 846. 

Y. Pleasants, 247. 

Y. Rivers, 1000. 

Y. Rohman, 109. 

Y. Seelye, 485. 

Y. Seymour, 847- 

Y. Shearman, 799. 

Y. Smith, 340a. 

Y. Wagner, 541. 

Y. Ware, 660. 

Y. Warren, 447. 
Scott's Account, In re, 590. 
Scottish-American Mortg. Co. T. Fol- 

lansbee, 400. 
Sconton y. Bender, 423. 
Scriba y. Deane, 411. 
Scribner y. Rutherford, 16w 

Y. York, ti66. 
Scrimshire v. Scrimshire, 822. 
Scriven y. Hursh, 27, 373. 
Scroggin v. Grocer Co., 375. 
Scroggins y. Howorth, 378. 
Scudder y. Jones, 302. 
Scully Y. Lowenstein, 609, 6ia 

V. RalU-oad Co., 720. 722. 
Seale y. McLaughlin, 325. 
Seals V. Weldon, 370. 
Seaman y. Clarke, 992. 

V. Drake, 156. 
Seamster y. Blackstock, 242, 
Searcy y. Creditors, 644. 
Searles y. Christensen, 340a. 
Bears y. Dacey, 899. 

Y. McGntw, 210. 

Y. Stone County, 508. 

V. Terry, 279. 

CITED. clxvii 

499 in vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.} 

Sease y. Dobson, 'iB3. 
Seat Y. Cannon, 589. 
Seaton y. Hlxon, 714. 
Seattle Nat Bank v. School Dist., 609, 

Seattle & M. Ry. Co. y. Johnson, 157. 
Seaver y. Siegel, 77. 
Seay y. Fennell, 556. 
Scckler y. Delfs, 712. 
Secombe y. Railroad Co., 279, 287. 
Second Nat. Bank y. Haerliug, 691. 

Y. ToTvnsend, 677. 
Second Nat. Bank's Appeal, 252, 293. 
Second Ward Sav. Bank y. Schranck, 

Secor Y. Sturgis, 744. 

Y. Woodward, 376, 377. 
Secrlst V. Green, 245. 

Y. Zimmerman, 78, 653, 698. 
Security Abstract of Title Co. y. Long- 
acre, 355. 
Security Trust Co. v. Sullivan, 44. 
Seddon v. Tutop, 620. 
Sedgwick Y. Dawkins, 98. 
Seeley y. City of Bridgeport, 80, 90. 
Seely v. Reid, 218. 
Seelye y. People, 100. 
Seeman y. Weippert, 191. 
Seevers y. Clement, 853, 865. 
Segee y. Thomas, 225. 
Seiberling v. Mortinson, 183. 

v. Schuster, 338. 
Seibert y. Railroad Co., 313. 
Seifert v. Caverly, 83. 
Seiffert v. Gaverley, 354. 
Seitz V. McKenzie, 713. 
Seitzinger v. Ridg\<^ay, 651. 
Selders y. Boyle, 261, 482. 
Selleck v. City of Janesville, 556. 
Sellers y. Burk, 28, 408. 

V. B^loyd, 480. 

v. Lumber Co., 22. 
Seller's Lessee v. Corwin, 413, 415. 
Sellick V. Addams, 667. 
Semler, In re, 255. 

Petition of, 259. 
Semple v. Bank, 619, 680. 

V. Eubanks, 406, 475. 

Y. Glenn, 896. 

Y. Hagar, 938. 

Y. McGatagan, 378. 

V. Mown. 433. 

Y. Scarborough, GIO. 

clxviii CASES 

Uleferences to BectionB. §S 1 to 

Senicbka v.* Lowe« 274. 
Sergeant's Ex'rs t. Ewfng, 541. 
Sergeant's Heirs v. Ewlng, 5U0. 
Sergeson t. Sealey, 802. 
Sessions v. Johnson, 770, 775, 777, 780, 

T. Stevens, 593. 
Seventh Day Adventist Pub. Ass'n y. 

Fisher, 761. 
Sever v. Russell, 633. 
Sevey v. Chick, 541. 
Sevier v. Roddle, 867. 

V. Turner, 86. 
Sewall V. Scott, 729. 

V. Sewall, 927, 929. 
Sewairs Falls Bridge v. Flsk, 100. 
Seward v. Clark, 197. 

V. Heflin, 596. 
Sexton V. Bennett, 157. 

V. Gee, 1003. 

V. Mfg. Co., 329. 
Seymour v. Greenwood, 127. 

V. Haines, 986. 

V. Newman, 896. 

V. Seymour, 284, 633. 

V. Smith, 986. 

V. Street, 248. 

V. Sup'rs, 354. 

V. Thomas Harrow Co., 131 
Shackelford v. Levy, 135, 165. 

V. Miller, 180. 

v. Purket, 526. 
Shackleford v. Cunningham, 644. 
Shadbolt v. Flndeisen, 970. 
Shadrack's Adm'r v. Woolfolk, 50, 68. 
Shaefer v. Gates, 194. 220, 534. 
Shaeffcr's Appeal, 469. 
Shafer v. Bank, 982. 

V. Bushnell, 932. 
Shafer v. Hewitt, 20a 
Shafer's Appeal, 331. 
Shaffenburg, Ex parte, 255. 
Shaffer v. McCrackln, 990. 

V. Scuddy, 755. 

V. Sutton, 33b. 
Shalnwald v. Lewis, 962, 995, 1010. 
Shakman v. System Co., 127. 
Shall V. Blscoe, 611. 
Shallcross v. Deats, 293. 

V. Smith, 55, 211. 
Shamlln v. HaU, 260. 
Shand v. Du Boisson, 820. 
Shane v. Francis, 444. 


489 In vol. 1; residue in toI. 2.] 

Shank v. Woodworth, 701« 
Shanklln y. Francis, 714. 
Shanks ▼. Lancaster, 004. 
Shannon y. Dodge, 587. 

y. Frost, 523. 

y. Beese, 382. 

y. Shannon, 508, 929. 

y. Taylor, 660. 
Share v. Becker, 299. 
Sharkey v. Baukstou, 558. 
Sharman v. Morton, 883, 916. 
Sharon v. Hill, 510, 939a. 
Sharp V. Brunuings, 271, 273. 

V. Mayor of New York, 341, 875. 

y. Momtt, 375. 
Sharpe v. Davis, 420. 

y. Earl of Scarborough, 437. 

y. Fowler, 157. 

y. Freeman, 560. 
Shattuc y. McArthur, 15. 
Shattuck y. Bascom, 551. 
Shaul V. Duprey, 132. 
Shaver, In re, 449. 

V. Shell, 522. 
Shaw, Ex parte, 255, 258. 

V. Attorney-General, 822L 

V. Broadbeut, 620, 680. 

y. Clark, 999. 

y. Dwlght, 390. 

y. Gould, 822. 

V. Hurd, 879. 

V. Lindsay, 173. 

V. McGregor, 306. 

y. Railroad Co., 586. 

y. Shaw, 926. 
Shawhan v. Loffer, 223, 274, 287. 

V. Wherritt, 807. 
Shaw's Estate, In re, 639. 
Shay V. Clock Co.. 88, 340. 
Shaylor y. Parsons, 1014. 
Shean v. Cunningham, 118. 
Shearer v. Bank, 246. 

y. Brlnley, 467. 
Shearman v. Jorgensen, 340a, 346a. 

V. State, 182. 
Sheble v. Cummins, 56. 
Sheehy v. Chalmers, 152. 

V. Duffy, 16. 

V. Mandevllle, 770. 
Sheets v. Baldwin's Adm'rs. 349. 

y. Hawk, 248, 807. 

V. Joyner, 577, 
Sheetz v. Baker, 76L 

[References to sections. §§ 1 to 499 in yoL 1; residue in Tol. S.] 


Sheets ▼. Hambest's Ex'rs, 2^ 

y. KIrtiey, 318, 633. 
Sheffield ▼. Murray, 29. 
Shelbina Hotel Ass'n v. Parker, 526. 
Sheldon t. Arnold, 410. 

T. Carpenter, 739. 

T. Edwards, 696. 

T. Hopkins, 875, 966. 

T. Kibbe, 777. 779, 782. 

T. Patterson, IS^ 

T. QniDlen, 211. 

T. Sheldon, 89. 

y. Strj'ker, 67, 78, 69a 

y. Van Vleck. 6»l. 

y. White, 600. 

V. Wright, 287. 
Sheldon's Lessee t. Newton, 215, 261. 
Shell V. Carter Co., 750. 
Shelley y. St Charles Co., 985b. 
Shelly y. Dobbins, 160. 
Shelmire y. Thompson, 38i. 
Sbelton y. Alcox, 667. 

y. Brown, 576. 

y. GiU, 394. 

y. Hadlock, 250. 

y. Hamilton, lOOa 

y. Hurd, 953. 

y. Ketan, 530. 

V. Tiffin, 220, 272. 
Shenandoah Nat Bank y. Read, 176, 

Shepard y. Pebbles, 587. 

y. Rowe, 1006, 1007. 

y. Stockham, 614. 

y. Wright. 829, 837. 
Sbepardson y. Cary, 614. 
Shephard y. Brenton, 121, 126, 130. 
Shepherd y. Haryey's Adm*x, 107. 

y. Maryel, 83, 345a. 

y. Moodhe, 671. 

y. Pepper, 721. 

y. Willis, 609, 742. 

y. Wood, 54, 70. 
Sbepley y. Cowan, 530. 
^beppard y. Kendle, 190. 
Sheppard y. Wilson, 179. 
i^berer y. Akers, 362. 

y. lADgfoid, 744. 
Sheridan y. Andrews, 550, 66S. 

y. City of Chicago, 154. 
y. Fleming, 985a. 
Sherman y. Boyce, 99a 
y. Brett, 995. 

Sherman y. Bnlck, 530. 

V. Christy, 78, 098. 

y. DlUey, 510, 614, 655, 685. 

y. Grlunell, 37, 691. 

y. Nlzon, 156, 159. 

y. Sherman, 613. 
Sheriff y. Judge, 360. 
Sherrard y. Neylns, 903. 
Sherrill y. Hopkins, 824. 
Sherry y. Priest, 159. 
Sherwood y. Baker, 250. 

V. Collier, 9€5. 
Shettlesworth y. Hughey, 657. 
Sheward v. Water Co., 32. 
Shickle v. Watts, 880. 
Shields y. Barden, 79. 

y. Clement, 84. 

y. Moore, 995. 

y. Shiff, 558. 

y. Stark, 985. 

V. Taylor. 29. 

y. Thomas, 225. 
Shlpman y. Fletcher, 158. 

V. Fletcher's Adm'r, SeXk 

y. BolUns, 561. 
Shlpp V. Wheeless, 378. 
Shirley y. Phillips, 137. 

y. Shattuck, 914. 
Shlrtz y. Shirtz, 115. 
Shiyers v. Wilson, 279. 
Shober y. Robinson, 567. 

V. Wheeler, 695. 
Shockey v. Akey, 135. 
Shoe Machinery Co. y. Cutlan, 609. 
Sboemake y. Finlayson, 540. 
Shoemaker y. Brown, 250, 641,. 644. 

y. Pace, 208. 

y. ^park-Arrester Co., 270. 
ShoUe y. Pino, 1002. 
Shores y. Hooper, 6(30. 
Short y. Galway, 872. 

y. Kellogg, 135. 

V. Prettyman, GCO. 
Shorter y. Mims, 253. 
Shortz V. Qulgley, 351. 
Shottenkirk v. Wheeler, 367, 5ia 
Shotwell V. Murray, 4^)0. 
Shrew v. Jones, 413, 415. 
Shrlcker y. Field, 375, 380. 
Shriyer v. Lynn, 220. 
Shroyer y. Richmond, 284, 645. 
Shryock y. Buckmnn, 190. 

y. Waggoner, 443. 


[References to MCtioni. || 1 to 

Shuck y. City of Lebanon, 750. 
Shufeldt Y. Gandy, 3G8. 
Shufeit V. Buckley, 936. 

V. Shufeit, 69, 359. 
Shuford V. Cain, 211, 824. 
Shultz y. Shultz, 290. 
Shumake y. Nelms' Adm'r, 662. 
Shumaker y. Reed, 331. 

y. Stillman, 272, 856, 875, 884, 896, 
897, 898, 901, 908, 9ia 
Shute y. Keyser, 59. 
Sibley V. Alba, 666. 

V. Ratliffe, 740. 
Slcard y. Railroad Co., 616. 
Sldener y. White, 440. 
Sldensparker y. Sidensparker, 260, 298, 

Sieber v. Frink, 179. 
Slebold, Ex parte, 255, 267. 
Sigafus y. Porter, 33. 
Slgle y. Selgley, 77. 
Slgmon y. Hawn, 666. 
Sigoumey y. Sibley, 174, 

y. Stockwell, 493. 
Slkes y. Weatherly, 315. 
Silberman y. Shuklansky, 308. 
SUl y. Rood, 785. 

y. Swackhammer, 400. 
Silner y. Butterfleld, 155. 
Silver y. Rhodes, 13. 
Silyer Bow Mln. & Mill. Co. v. Clark, 

Silyer Lake Bank y. Harding, 935. 
Sllverthorn v. Townsend, 485, 494. 
Simcock V. Bank, 324. 
Siroes.y. Zane, 763. 
Simkins v. Cobb, 589. 
Simmons, Ex parte, 255w 

y. Church, 308. 

y. Craig, 114, 163. 

y. Garrett, 981. 

y. Goodell, 197, 633. 

y. Martin, 381. 

y. McKay, 193, 194, 273. 

y. Reid, 9M. 

V. Saul, 251, 938c. 

V. Shaw, 1004. 

V. Titohe, 116. 
Simms V. Freiherr, 554. 
Simons V. De Bare, 282. 
Simpson y. Alexander, 197. 

V. Bailey, 2G1. 

y. Brown, 340. 


ti» in vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Simpson y. Cochran, 968L 

V. Dugger. 755. 

y. Fogo, 827. 

y. Halt, 3G2, 378, 601. 1001, 

y. Hombeck, 170, 365. 

y. Huston, 1005. 

y. Jones, 548, 600. 

y. Mercer, 998. 

y. XUes, 413. 

V. Norton, 633. 

y. Prather, 236. 
Sims, Ex parte, 306. 

V. College, 193. 

V. Dane, 101. 

y. Hertzf eld, 964, 970. 

V. Sims, 655, 870. 

y. Smith, 655. 
Simson y. Hart. 691, 1000, 1001b 
Sinclair y. Frazer, 825. 

y. Railroad Co., 22. 

y. Sinclair, 822. 

y. Tallmadge, 526. 
Singer, App3al of, 434. 

y. Hutchinson, 583. 

y. Singer, 320. 
Singer Mfg. Co. y. Fleming, 860. 
Singleton y. Boyle, 288. 
Sintzenick y. Lucas, 614, 623. 
Sioux County y. Jameson, 532. 
Sipe V. Copwell, 274, 939. 

V. HoUiday, 009. 
Sipes y. Whitney, 868, 
Sipley y. Wass, 433. 
Sisk y. WoodruflP, 571. 
SIter*8 Appeal, 438. 
Sivers v. Sivera, 707. 
Skeeles y. Shearly, 436. 
Skeen y. Engine & Thresher Go., 738i. 
Skelly y. Jones, 607. 
Skidmore y. Bradford, 253. 

V. Bricket, 529. 
SkiUman v. Greenwood, 88. 
Skhiker y. Smith, 954. 
Skinner, In re, 585a. 

y. Bryce^ 338. 

T. Carter, 39. 

V. Dayton, 707. 

V. Deming, 378* 384. 

T. Franklin Co., 546, 750. 

V. Machine Co., 617. 

y. Moore, 245. 

y. Terry, 89, 297, 335, 346a. 

[References to cecUons. SS 1 to 

Skipw!th*8 Ex*r v. Cunuiughiim, 441, 

V. Strother, 379. 
Kkirving y. Insnrance Co., 285, 36G. 
Sklower t. Abbott, 404, 453. 
8kolt In re, 729. 
Skripe v. Simmons, lUOO. 
Skjm T. Consolidated Co., 138. 
Slack v. Perrine, 858, 881, 889, 922. 

V. Wood, 307. 384. 
Slade V. Le Page, 261. 
Slade*8 Case.. 729. 
Slagie V. Bodmer, 29. 

T. Entrekln, 589. 
Slappey r. Uodge, 381. 
Slater's Appeal, 422. 
SUter T. Skirving, 91, 326, 506, 620, 

624, 627. 
»laUer t. Glover, 644. 
Siattery v. Jones, 423. 
Siauter t. Chenowitli, 677. 
Slarton T. SmlUe, 498. 
Sledge T. £lliott, 273. 
Slee T. Bloom, 583. 
Sievln ▼. Brown, 650. 
Slldell T. Bank. 252. 
Slie V. Finch. 1007. 
Sllnginff y. Slsler, 36. 
SiiTltzki y. Town of Wlen, la 
Sloan v. Cooper, 109. 

V. I^wis, 24a 

V. McKinstry, 271. 

r. Thompson, 273. 
Slocomb, Ex parte. 109. 

V. I.izardi, 673. 
Slocum y. Wheeler, 939. 

y. Wilbour, 714. 
Sloo v. Bank, 300. 

y. Lea, 77(5. 
Slndor y. Graham, 311. 
Sly y. Hunt. ««.•». 
SmaU y. Champeny. 802. 

y. Douthltt 137. 

y. Haskius, 510, 657. 

y. Reeves, 337. 
Smalley v. Edey, 629. 718. 
SmaU's Appeal, 444, 451, 511, 683. 
Smallwood v. Trenwlth, 321. 
Smead Foundry Co. v. Chesbrough, 

Rmedes v. llsley, 372, 917. 
Hmedley v. Tucker, 734. 
Smith, Ex parte, 2.'>5. 258. 


499 in Yol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Smith y. Abbot, 291. 
y. Adams, 34, 713. 
y. Alexander, 998. 
y. Alton, 301. 
y. Armstrong, 154. 
y. Ass n, 443, 444. 
y. Auld, 719. 
v. Bank, 510. 
y. Beard, 189. 
y. Berry, 761. 
v. Black, 351. 770, 776. 
v. Bonsall, 636. 
v. Borden. 188, 681. 
v. Bowditch, 325. 
V. Bowes, 168. 
y. Bowker, 213. 
y. Brannan. 165. - 
y. Briggs, 1005; 
V. Butler, 367. 
v. Chandler, 346. 
y. Chapin, 604. 
V. Chenault, 116. 
v. Chichester, 180. 
v. Chilton, 757. 
V. City of Boston, 27. 
v. City of Newbem, 317. 
y. Coe, 181. 
y. Compton, 507. 
y. Condon, 958. 1008. 
y. Coopers, 772. 
y. Coray, 494. 
y. Curry, 100. 
y. Cuyler, 293. 
y. Delanty, 472. 
v. Deweese, 358. 
V. Dodds, 105. 
V. Durrett, 378. 
v. Eaton, 493. 
V. Elliott, 742, 783, 787. 
v. Evans, 1005. 
y. Everly, 395, 470. 
y. Eyre, 417. 
y. Ferris, 703. 
v. P'loyd County, 699. 
y. Fowle. 279. 
V. Fox, 158. 
y. Frankfleld, 611, 683. 
y. Frost, 968. 
y. Gayle, 577. 
y. Gould, 999. 
V. Grady, 837. 
V. Gray, 2r»5. 
V. Hall, 3G0. 



[References to sections. §§ 1 to 

Smith Y. Harrison, 8. 
V. Hays, 368. 
y. Henderson, 290. 
y. Hess, 254. 
y. Hogg, 442, 4G2. 
V. Hood, 132, 137, 159. 
y. Hughes, 1007. 
y. Ingles, 433. 

y. Inhabitants of Brunswick, 742. 
y. Insurance Ck)., 805. 
y. Iron Ck)., 958, 1>(J3. 
y. Johnson, 33, 374, 162. 
y. Jones, 734. 
y. Kammerer, 3G2. 
y. Kander, 859, 873. 
y. Keen, 267. 
y. Kennedy; 101. 
y. Keruochen; 504. 
y. Knowlton, 240. 
y. Kreager, 810. 
y. Lang, 99(i 

y. Lathrop, 853, 865, 939a. 
y. Lewis, 206, 644, 828. 
y. Los Angeles & P. R. Co., 278. 
y. Lowden, 1000. 
y. Lowry, 372. 
y. McClure, 351. 
y. McGool, 682. 
y. McEvoy, 29. 
y. McCutchen, 231. 
y. McDonald, 195, 197. 
y. McLain, 378. 
y. McNeil. 713. 
y. May, 27. 
y. Mayo, 54. 
y. Meredith, 468. 
y. Mill Co., 83. 
y. Miller, 118, 321, 351, 992. 
y. Moore, 107, 572. 867. 
y. Morrill, 253, 35a 
y. Morse. 423. 
y. Mullins, 155. 
T. Mumford, 958. 
y. Myers. 220. 
y. Nicolls, 838, 845. 847. 
y. Noe. 324. 
T. Ormsby, 253a. 
y. Palmer, 291. 
V. Peck, 945. 
y. Perkins, 305. 
V. Powell. 378. 
y. Powers, 16. 
y. Pringle, 70. 


489 in TOl. 1; residue In toI. 2.] 

Smith y. Quarles, 368. 

V. Railroad Co.. 29. 664. 
V. Ramsey. 248. 
y. Redus, 160. 
V. Reed, 1010. 
y. Rhoades, 898. 
y. Rice, 282. 
,y. Richards, 425. 
y. Rhies, 779. 780. 
y. Robinson, 159. 346. 
y. Rountree. 611, 761. 
y. Sahler, 32. 
y. Sayage, 446. 
y. Saxton, 293. 
y. Bchoenberger, 993. 
y. Schreiner, 510, 685. 
y. Schwartz, 458. 
y. Schwed. 297a, 317. 
y. Shaw, 245, 513. 
y. Shawano Co., 34. 
y. Sherwood, 623, 647, 650. 
y. Simms, 50. 
y. Sims, 641. 
y. Singleton, 782. 
y. Smith [17 111. 482] 857. 
y. Smith [22 Iowa, 5161 290. 
y. Smith 113 Gray (Mass.) 209J 

y. Smith [20 Mo. 166] 320. 
y. Smith [51 N. H. 5711 4. 
V. Smith [56 N. J. Eq. 222, 37 

Atl. 49] 504. 
y. Smith [40 App. DIv. 251, 57 N. 

Y. Supp. 1122] 158. 
y. Smith [2 Johns. 285] 824. 
y. Smith [2 Wend. 624] 16. 
y. Smith [4 Wend. 468] 16. 
y. Smith [117 N. C. 348. 23 S. E. 

270] 63. 
y. Smith [135 Pa. 48, 21 Atl. 168] 

y. Smith [55 S. C. 507. 33 S. K. 

583] 610. 
y. Smith [23 Tex. Civ. App. 304, 

55 S. W. 541] 186. 
y. So RIU, 141. 
y. State. 97. 177, 220. 
y. Storage Co.. 343. 
y. Talbot. 620, 621, 
y. Tallapoosa County. 985b. 
y. Taylor. 368, 390. 
y. Thomasou, 44. 
y. Town of Ontario, 614. 

[ReferencM to secttona. K 1 to 499 in 70l. 1; residue in yoI. 2.] 


Smith ▼. Trust Co., 857, 806. 

T. Timstead, d41. 

T. Tupper, 211, 237. 275. 

T. Wachob, 330. 

T. Walker, 6C8. 

Y. Wallace, 3(rr. 

T. Watson, 340a. 

T. Way, 729, 738. 

T. Weeks. (J07, 75a 

V. Wehrly, 412, 483. 

V. Wells, m. 

T. Weston, 345a. 

T. Whiting, 5(H. 726w 

T. WUlard, 446. 

T. WiUiams, 462. 

T. Wilson. 155, 306, 319. 

T. Wood, 152, 273. 
Soilth's Adm*r y. Rollins, 211, 324. 
Smith's Adm'rs y. Yanderborst, 960. 
Smith's Appeal, 40a 
Smith's Bstate, In re, 513. 
S^mith*s Ex'r y. Miller, 992. 
Sodlth's Lessee y. Trabue's Heirs, 549. 
Smithson y. Dillon, 177. 

y. Smithson, 297. 
Smock y. Dade, 299, 989. 
Smyth y. Balch, 374. 
Snapp y. Commonwealth, 588. 
Sneden, In re, 533. 
Sneed y. Sneed. 1001. 
Sneeden y. Harris, 35. 
Snen y. Dwigbt, 27. 

T. Faussatt, 821. 

T. Iryine, 139. 

y. Maddox, 946. 
Snelling y. Kroger, 641. 

y. Mortg. Co., 359. 585. 
Sneylly y. Wagner, 250. 
Snider y. Croy, 624. 

y. Greatbouse, 574, 990. 

y. Rinehart, 381, 386. 
Snow. Kx parte, 258. 

T. Oarpenter. 128. 

T. Conant 16. 

y. Hawpe, 312. 

y. Mitchell, 883. 970. 

T. Rich, 512. 

T. Russell, 600. 
Snowman y. Harford, 560. 
Snow Steam Pump Co. y. Dunn, 744. 
Snyder y. Berger. 604. 

y. Botkin, 438. 

y. Crltchfield. 857. 868, 883. 916. 

Snyder y. Snyder, 206, 875. 
y. Stafford. 401. 
V. Yannoy. 378* 
Snyder's Lessee y. Snyder. 642. 
Sobey y. Beiler, 549, 655. 
Sobolisk y. Jacobson, 617. 
Society y. Hartland, 504. 
Soden y. Roth, 663. 
Sohier y. Merrll, 365. 
Solomon y. C. M. Schneider & Co., 59. 

y. Fuller, 165. 
Somers y. Losey, 264. 

y. Schmidt, 569. 
Someryille y. Brown, 597. 

T. Donaldson, 654. 
Sommermeyer y. Sommermeyer, 271. 
Sonnenberg y. Stelnbach, 536. 
Sonnenthell y. Moody, 780. 
Soper y. Fry, 57. 

y. Manning, 691, 718. 
S(HrreIl y. Samuels, 270. 
Soulard y. Oil Co., 801. 
Soursin y. Salorgne, 752. 
Souter y. Baymore, 510, 686. 
South American & Mexican Co.. In le^ 

508. 705. 
South Bend Chilled Plow Co. y. Man- 

ahan. 224. 
Southern Bank y. Humphreys, 246. 

y. Ins. Co., 475. 
Southern Bank & Trust Co. y. Folsom^ 

Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph 

Co. y. D'Alemberte, 138. 
Southern Bldg. & Loan Ass*n y. Brack- 

ett, 231. 
Southein Ex. Co. y. Craft, 376. 
Southern Ins. Co. y. Hardware Co., 

897, 939. 
Southern Kansas Ry. Co. y. Brown, 
y. Showalter. 147. 
Southern Minnesota Railway Exten- 
sion Co. y. Railroad Co., 504, 630, 
Southern Pac. R. Co. y. U. S., 504, 606, 
600, 655, 787. 
V. Wiggs, 530. 
Southern R. Co. y. Bouknlght, 004. 
V. Brigman, 685, 790. 
V. Cable Co., 40. 
V. Raney, 745. 
Southgate y. Montgomery, 518, 548. 


CReferences to sectloiiB. S8 1 to 

South Sail Bernardino Land & Imp. 

Co. V. Bank, 673. 
Southside R. Co. y. Daniel, 628. 
Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone 

Co. v. Jennings, 339. 
South & North A. R. Co. v. Donovan, 

V. Henlein. 734. 769. 

v. Railroad Co., 29. 
Soward v. Coppage, 549. 
Sowles V. Witters, 1000. 
Spafford v. Beach, 1006. 

V. City of Janesville, 306. 
Spahr V. Nicklaus, 100. 
Spalding V. Congdon, 127, 12a 

V. Crawford, 351. 

V. Wathen, 190, 200. 
Spangler t. Rambler, 636. 
Spann y. Crummerford, 892. 
Spargur v. Romine, 790. 
Sparhawk y. Buell's Adm'r, 644. 

V. Wills, 609, 747. 
Sparks y. Bank, 446. 

y. Etheredge, 536. 

y. Walton, 651. 
Sparrow y. Strong, 162. 
Spaugh y. Huifei*, 941. 
Spaulding y. Baldwin. 700, 966. 

y. Chamberlain, 522. 

y. Swift, 299. 

y. Thompson, 341. 
Spaur y. McBee, 655. 
Speake y. Richards, 1007. 
Spear y. Carter, 53. 

y. Door County, 723. 

y. Flint, 299. 

y. Tidball, 729. 
Specklemeyer y. Dailey, 875. 
Speed's Bx'rs y. Hann, 155. 
Speer y. McPherson, 407. 
Spence y. Brown, 404. 

y. Morris, 227. 

y. Rutledge, 147. 
Spencer y. Brockway, 227, 677, 857, 

y. Dearth, 504, 500, 574, 592, 604, 

y. Haug, 461. 

T. Johnston, 1005. 

y. McGonagle, 262. 

y. Parsons, 190. 

y. Reynolds, (J la. 

V. BIppe, 399. 


499 in vol. 1; residue In vol. 2.] 

Spencer y. Thistle, 347. 

V. ^'igneaux, 369, 371. 
Spicer y. United States, 707. 

y. Waters, 295. 
Spiedel Grvicery Co. y. Armstrong, 182 
Spiehler y. Asiel, 178, 319. 
Spier y. Corll, 897. 
Spilman y. Payne, 986. 
Spitley y. Frost, 691. 
Spofford y. Smith. 633. 
Sponsler*s Appeal, 264. 
Spoouer y. Leland, 361, 362. 
'Spoors y. Co wen, 619. 
Sprague y. . Bond, 45. 

y. Haiues, 194. 

y. Jones, 160. 

y. Locke, 32. 

y. Tyson. 585. 

y. Waite, 779. 
Spraker y. Bartlett 378. 
Spring y. Short, 445. 
Springer y. Blen, 619. 

y. Gillespie, 340a. 

y. Shavender, 680. 

y. Westcott, 242. 
Springfield F. & M. Ins. Co. ▼. Hambgr» 

Spring Run Coal Co. y. Tosier, 49S. 
Springfield Mfg. Co. y. West, 483. 
Springsteeue y. Gillett, 966. 
Sprott y. Reid, 7, 8, 11, 31. 
Spurgin y. A dam son, 600. 

y. Bowers, 270. 
Spm'lock y. Noe, 205. 

y. Railroad Co., 609. 
Spurr y. Railroad Co., 782. 
Squler y. Squier, 57. 
Stackhonse y. Zuntz, 200. 
Stacy y. Thrasher. 563. 
Stadler y. Allen, 431. 
Stafford y. Clark, 785, 787. 

y. Cronkhite, 655. 

V. McMillan, 322. 

y. Maddox, 742. 

V. Nutt, 208. 
Stahl y. Mitchell. 283. 896. 

y. Railroad Co.. 84. 

V. Webster, 153. 
Stahlman y. Watson, 419. 
Stakke y. Chapman, 989. 
Stallcup y. City of Tacoma. 546, 613. 

Stallings y. Gully, 83. 



tReferencei to lectionB. H 1 to 

Stammers ▼. McNaugbten, 195. 
Stamp V. Franklin, 556. 
Stanard y. Rogers, 387. 
Stanbrough v. Cook, 666, 683. 
StancUl Y. Gay, 193, 194. 

Y. James, 785. 
Standard Distilling Co. v. Freyliau, 22. 
Standard Foundry Co. v. Schloss. 581. 
Standard Steam Laundry v. Dole, 21. 
Standish y. Parker, 657, 742. 
Standley y. Amow, 225. 

Y. Manufactiu-iDg Co., 32. 

Y. Roberts, 28. ti39c. 
Stanford y. Connery. 957. 
Stanhilber y. GraYes, 446. 
Stanley y. Johnson, 577. 

Y. Leahy, 782. 

Y. McWhorter, 462. 

Y. Stanley, 229. 275. 

Y. SuUiYan, 425. 
Stannard y. Hubbell, 616. 
Stannis y. Nicholson, 122, 443. 
Stansell y. Comiog, 185. 
Stansfleid, In re, 977. 
Stanton y. Bmbry, 859. 

Y. Embrey, 939a. 

Y. Heard, 36. 
Stanton-Thompson Co. y. Crane, 325, 

Staples Y. Goodrich, 734. 
Stapleton y. Dee, 657. 
Starbird y. Moore, 299. 
SUr Brewery v. Otto, 279. 
Starbuck y. Dunklee, 22. 

Y. Mnrray, 275, 276, 897, 901. 
Stark Y. BUllngs, 115. 

Y. Ratcliff, 915. 

Y. SUrr. 744. 
Starke y. Wilson, 560. 
Starkweather y. Loom is. 985. 
Starling y. Plow Co., 609. 
Stames y. Loan & Banking Co., 378. 
Starr y. Barton, 255. 

Y. Haskins, 9a3. 956. 

Y. Stark, 664. 
Starr Cash & Package Car Co. Y. 

Starr, 87. 
Starry y. Johnson, 210. 
State Y. Addison, 98. 

Y. Adler, 533. 

Y. Allen, 34. 

Y. AlUng, 173, 516. 

V. Anderson, 541, 690. 

499 in Tol. 1; residue in yoI. 2.] 

St^te Y. Anone, 173, 516. 
Y. Appleby, 985d. 
Y. Armington, 927. 
V. Bank, 16, 216, 307, 750, 973. 
Y. Banks, 586. 
Y. BatcheJder, 530. 
Y. Batt, 584. 
Y. Bechdel, 533. 
Y. Berry, 282. 
Y. Bierwirth, 691. 
Y. Billings, 83. 
Y. Bloom, 255, 256. 
Y. Boiler, 609. 

Y. Bowen, 641, 870, 871, 967. 
Y. Boyce, 939a. 
Y. Bradneck, 529. 
Y. Brandhorst, 246b 
Y. Brown, 483, 754. 
Y. Burton, 584. 
Y. Carroll, 173, 516. 
Y. Casey, 340. 
Y. Cason, 588. 
Y. Castleberry, 174. 
Y. Chamber of Commerce, 516. 
Y. City of Jacksonville, 985c. 
Y. City of Madison, 965a. 
Y. City of New Orleans, 9, 965a. 
Y. Clark, 106. 

Y. Com'rs, 240, 532, 583a, 783. 
Y. Conoly, 2G1. 
Y. Cooley, 697, 754. 
Y. Cornell, 718. 
Y. Coste, 589. 

Y. Court, 21, 32, 297, 302, 324, 641. 
Y. Currie, 113. 
Y. Daniels, 283. 
T. Daugherty, 153. 
Y. Dickinson, 107. 
Y. Donegan, 589. 
Y. Douglass, 98. 
Y. Duncan, 297, 346a, 
Y. Elgin, 341. 
V. Ely, 282. 
Y. Falconer, 29. 
Y. Fenderson, 255. 
Y. Fleak, 897. 
Y. Fosdlck, 217. 
Y. Gachenhelmer, 282. 
Y. George, 98. 
Y. Georgia Co., 30. 
Y. Gibson, 209. 
Y.. Gittings, 86. 
Y. Gleason, 216. 

clxxyi CASES 

[References to sections. §S 1 to 

State V. Gloyd. 754. 

V. Greeu, US. 

V. Harper, 154. 

y. Harrington, 981« 

V. Harris, 985a. 

y. Headlee, 613. 

V. Hearn, 996. 

V. Helmer, 857, 871. 

V. Herod, 29. 

y. Hincliman, 860. 

y. Hoeflluger, 804. 

y. Holt, 589. 

y. Horton, 329. 

V. Hull, 590. 

y. Hunter, 107. 

y. Insurance Co., 609. 

y. Intoxicating Liquors, 529. 

y. James, 98. 

y. Johnson, 540, 790. 

y. Jones, 216. 

V. Judge, 27, 109, 157, 179. 

y. Jumel, 109, 610, 750. 

V. Justices, 29. 

V. Kaye, 610. 

V. Kennedy, 534a, 582. 

V. Kibling, 97. 

V. King, 163, 308. 

V. Kinne, 483. 

V. Klein, 107. 

V. Knight, 180. 

y. Leathers, 97. 

y. Little, 290. 

T. Loclchart, 346a. 

y. Loye, 54. 

y. McArthur, 1. 

V. McBride, 758. 

y. McGlynu, 635. 

y. Mackin, 246. 

y. Mangum, 698. 

V. Metzger, 282. 

y. Moran, 156. 

y. Morton, 628. 

y. Moss, 253a, 707. 

y. Nutter, 586. 

y. O'Neill, 340. 

y. Ottlnger, 32. 

V. Parlcer, 22. 

y. Patterson, 86. 

y. Penney, 804. 

y. Perry, 33. 

y. Porter, 173, 516. 

y. Prinun, 156, 165. 

y. RaUroad CJo., 107. 298, 584, 796. 


499 in Yol. 1; residue in yol. 2.] 

State y. Ralney, 584. 

y. Hamsburg, 514. 

y. Reigart, 641. 

y. Richardson, 321. 

y. Roberts, 177. 

y. Robinson, 486i 

y. Rogers, 261. 

y. Ross, 266. 

y. Roth, 708. 

y. St. Gemme, 261. 

y. Schlachter, 932. 

y. Schoonoyer, 740. 

y. Shaw, 22. 

y. Sheldon, 985f. 

y. Smith, 165. 

y. Sowders, 905. 

y. Spikes, 576^ 783. 

y. Staylor, 707. 

y. Steen, 981. 

y. Stewart, 746i, 

y. Stock, 584. 

y. Sup'ra, 269. 

V. Swift, 103. 

y. Tate, 160, 311. 327. 

T. Thompson, 268. 

y. Torinus, 747. 

y. Tow, 261. 

y. Town of Beloit, 985a. 

y. Town of Union, 2ia 

y. Trammel, 938. 

y. Treasurer, 305. 

y. Trilling, 29. 

y. Vogel, 982. 

V. Wear, 261. 

V. White, 157, 300. 

y. Williams, 176, 209. 

y. Works, 22. 

y. Young, 1016. 
State Bank v. Bartle, 599. 

y. Carson, 417, 425. 

V. CJoxe, 1001. 

y. Green, 22. 

V. Roddy, 27. 

y. Rude, 729. 

y. Stanton, 381. 
State Board of Agriculture ▼. Meyerii 

State Ins. Co. y. Waterhouse, 376. 
State Line & S. R. Co., Appeal of, 

State Nat. Bank y. Ellison. 284. 
States y. Cromwell. 321. 
State Treasurer y. Foster, 482a. 

[Reference! to sections. 93 1 to 

State Trust Co. v. Machine Co., 938c. 

r. Mfg. Co., 830a. 
Stanffer v. Remick, 677. 
^^tau])ton v. Harris, 448. 
Staunton Perpetual Building & Loan 

Co. V. Hadeu, 83, 2U0. 
Steaui-Gauge & Lantern Co. y. Mey- 

roso. 728, 
Steamship Richmond Ilill Go. v. Sea- 

ger, 87. 
Steam V. Anderson, 660. 
Steams v. Lawrence, 585a. 630. 

V. Steams' Adm'r, 100. 

V. Wlborg, 676. 

V. Wright, 271. 
Stehbins t. Savage, 32. 
Stedman v. Patchin, 627. 

V. Poterie, 605. 
Sited V. Knowles, 101. 
Steel T. Long. 540. 

Y. Smith. 228, 004. 
Steele v. Bates, 909. 

r. Dimcan, 315. 

T. Hanna, 971. 

r. Lineberger, 550, 560. 

Y. I'almer. 184. 

Y. Kenn, 635. 

Y. Taylor, 432. 

Y. Thompson, 945, 051. 
Steele County v. Erskine, 683. 
sttN'lman y. Sites' Ex'n, 620. 

V. Watson, 86. 
Steen y. Bennett, 250. 

Y. Steen. 220, 282. 
Steere y. lioagland, 038b. 

V. Tenney, 173. 876. 
Steers y. Daniel, 420. 
St elf ens y. Cameron. 406. 
stettlns Y. (iumey, inni. 
strbr Y. Ollbermann. 235. 
Stein Y. Burden, 376. 

y. The Prairie Rose, 734. 

Y. Railroad Co., 16. 
Steinbach v. Insurance Co.. 678. 
Steinbridge's Appeal. 355. 
stMuer V. Bank, 23. 

Y. I^nz. :C»8. 

Y. SchoU, 3.'>1. 

V. Scholze. 050. 
Sr<Mnhanlt v. Baker. 273. 
Strinhatier y. Colniar. 268. 
SN'liiman v. Kwing. 55. 
Strinjion Y. Board, 715. 
I LAW.irD<i.— I 

CITED. clxxvii 

499 in vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Stelle V. Shannon, 526. 
Steltzer v. Steltzer. 494. 
Stenberg v. State, 253a. 
Stenhbuse y. Bouum, 211. 
Stephen, Ex parte, 533. 
Stepliens v. Cherokae Nation, 4. 

V. Fox, 583. 

V. Hewett, 252. 

V. Howe, 403, 070. 

V. Jack, 571, OOi. 

V. Motl, 538. 

V. Koby, 874. 

Y. Turner, 273. 

V. Wilson, les. 
Stephen's BiX'rs Appeal, 407. 
Stephenson y. Boody, 660. 
Stepp V. Ass'n, 107. 
Sterling y. Fleming, 62. 
Sterling Mfg. Co. v. Early, 112, 405. 
Stem Y. Bank, 620. 

Y. Mayer, 63. 
Sternbergh y. Schoolcraft, 205. 
Sterner v. Gower, 740. 
Stems Y. Marks, 592. 
Stetson Y. City of Bangor, 248. 
Stettauer y. Trust Co., 306. 
SteYens y. Bank, 317, 449. 

V. Briggs, 701. 

Y. Brown, 248. 

V. Damon, 737. 

V. Deering, 190, 190. 

V. Dubarr>', 55. 

V. Fisher, 230. 071. 

V. Fuller, 255. 

Y. Hein, 010a. 

V. Hertzler, 388. 

Y. Hughes, C'O. 057. 

V. Lock wood, 734. 

Y. Man gum, 286. 

V. Miller, 253a, 763, 085a. 

V. Pendleton, 586. 

Y. Pierce, 738. 

V. Reynolds, 281, 511. 

Y. Ross, d5. 

V. Stevens, 510. 

V. Stone, 058. 

Y. Taft. 640. 

Y. Thompson. 600. 

Y. Wadlelgh, 506. 
Stevens' Ex'rs y. Let», 142. 
Stevenson v. Black, 467. 

Y. Bonesteel, 261. 

V. Kleppiuger, 611. 

clxxviii CASES 

[References to sections. §§ 1 to 

Steveuson v. Virtue, 327. 
Stevlsou V. Earnest, 124. 
Stewart v. Anderson, 229, 281. 

V. Aruiel, 1015. 

V. Assurance Co., 906. 

V. Bank, 16. 

V. Beef Co., 214. 

V. BocUoy. -24. 

V. Bryan, 8J). 

V. Cannon, ;i45. 

V. Coder, 4:58. 

V. Colwell. 495. 

V. Dent, 735. 

V. Gibson, 490. 

V. Golden, 311. 

V. Goode, 79. 

y. Jones, 33. 

V. Jury, 98of. 

V. JusUeets, 485. 

V. Lee, 942. 

V. McHarry, rj30. 

V. Martin, 069. 

V. Montgomery, 536, 500. 

V. Parsons, 315. 

V. Perkins. 439a. 

V. Peterson's Ex'rs, 484, 958. 

V. Railroad Co., 100, 415, 449, 600. 

V. Register. 511. 

V. Robinson. 396. 

V. Schaeffer, tX)7. 

V. Scully, :352. 

V. Spaulding. 892. 

V. Stebbins, 731. 

V. Stewart, 154, 857, 890. 897. 

V. Thomas, 573. 
• V. Thomson, 286. 

V. Trust Co., 583. 

V. Village of Ashtabula. 518. 

V. Walters, 50. 

V. Warner, 815, 820. 
Stiikney v. Davis. 204. 
Stifel V. Lynch, 747. 
Stlgers V. Brent. 205. 
Stiles V. Brown, 13S. 

V. HlmnielwrlglU. 749. 

V. Murphy, 432. 

V. Stewart, 966. 
SUll V. liombardl. 674. 
Stille V. Wood, 484. 
Stillwell V. McNeely, 585. 

V. Stillwell. 321. 
Still weirs Estate, In re, 284, 043. 


4D0 in vol. 1: residue in vol. 2.] 

StIIson V. Rankin, 347. 
Stllwell V. Carpenter. 367, :.70. 

V. StUw^ell, 158. 
r.timson v. Van Pelt, 208. 
Stinerville & B, Stone Co. v. White. 

Stinnett v. Bank, 384. 
Stites V. M(.-(;ee. 319. 
Stilt V. Kurtenbach, 153. ICl. 2 r.. 
Stivere v. Ritt, 352. 
Stockdale v. Johnson, 163, 165. 
Stocking V. Hanson, 200, 313. 
Stockton V. Brlggs, 367. 

V. Ford, 737. 
Stockton Combined Harvester & Agri- 
cultural Works V. Insurance Co., -*4. 
Stockton Laundry C:ise, 257. 
Stock well V. Byrne. 716. 

v. Coleman, 935. 

V. McCracken. 8119. 

V. Webster, 351. 
Stoddard v. Benton, 945, 950. 

V. Mcllwain, 617. 

V. Thompson, 576. 
Stoddard Mfg. Co. t. Mattice, 270. 

Stoddart v. Van Dyke, 208. 
Stodghlll V. Railroad Co.. 743. 
Stoetzel V. Fullerton. 200. 
Stoff V. Mc(Jinn, 638a. 
Stokes V. Fraley, 658. 

V. Knarr, 376. 

V. Maxwell, 550. 

V. Morrow, 553. 

V. Pottery Co., 59. 

V. Stokes, 617, 703. 
Stoll V. Mining Co., 21. 
Stoltz V. Coward,. 509. 
Stone V. Anderson, 141. 

V. Bank, 534a. 537. 

V. City of Augusta, 522. 

V. Dickinson, 777. 779, 782. 

V. Ellis, 284. 

V. Lew man, 373, 973. 

V. Mooily, 383. 

V. Myers, 229. 

V. SkeiTy, 377. 

V. Stamping Co., 750. 

V. Tucker, 1008. 

V. V. S., 529. 726. 

V. Wri'-nwright 913, 914. 

V. Williams, 68. 

[References to sections. §§ 1 to 

Stone V. Wood, 412, 500, Wl. 

Stony Island Hotel Co. v. Johnson. 

165, 351. 
Stoops V. Wittier, 58C. 

V. Woods, 5iiU. 
Stoppeubach v. Zohrlaut, 27. 
Storer t. Lane, 291. 
Storey v. Nichols, 79. 

T. Weaver, 348. 
Story V. Goiiimercial Co., G85. 

V. Elliot 182. 

V. Patten, 1000. 

V. Ware. 80. 
Story & Clark Organ Co. v. Rendle- 

man. 97. 
Store T. Boyce. 996. 
Stotz V. Collins, 324. 
Stout V. Baker, 210. 

V. Lewis, 339, 343. 

T. Slocum, 367. 

V. Stout, 677. 

T. Taul. 577. 

V. Van Kirk, 953. 
Stoutenborough v. Board, 313. 
Stoutenburg v. Yandenburgh, 57. 
Stoutimore v. Clark. 549. 
StOTall T. Banks, 25, 586, 589. 

T. Hibbs, 240. 

V. OdeU. 446. 
StOYer V. Dureu, 993. 

V. Hough, 312, 351. 
Stowell V. Chamberlain, 624, 693, 709, 

Strang v. Moog, 518. 720. 
Stntton V. iJewey, 43. 
Stranb v. Simpson, 364. 
Straus V. Bodeker*s Ex*x, 447. 
Strause v. Braunreuter, 58. 
Strauss t. Ayres, 597. 

V. Meertlef, 624, 752. 
Straw V. Murphy, 691. 

V. Railroad Co., 707. 
Strawsine v. Salisbury, 1012. 
Stmj-er v. Johnson, 552, 054. 

V. Beckman, 501. 
Street v. Banking Co., 795, 798. 
Strickland v. Cox, 18. 
Strl«lde V. Saroul. 577. 
Strike, In re. 7M. 
Striker v. Kelly, 279. 
Stringer v. Adams. 618, 726. 

V. Insurance Co., 814. 
Strode v. Broadwell, 1012. 

CITED. elxxix 

499 in Yol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Strong V. Comer, 8G. 

V. Insurance Co., 787. 

V. Lawrence, 605. 

V. Wheaton, 583. 
Stroup V. Sullivan, 387. 
Strozier v. Howes, 360. 
St ruble v. Maloue, 889, 898. 
Stuart V. Aumiller, 248. 

V. City of Logansport, 155. 

V. Hurt, 5J83. 

V. Lander, 7, 058. 

V. Palmer, 221, 226. 

V. reay, 1016. 

V. Saddlery Co., 720. 
Stubbletield v. McRavou, 644. 
Stubbs V. Leavitt, 376. 
Studdert v. Hassell, 80. 
Studebaker Bros. Mfg. Co. v. Hunt 

Stufflebeam y. De Lashmutt, 506. 
Stults V. Forst, 720. 
Stump V. Long, 319. 
Stupp V. Holmes, 193. 
Sturdy V. Jackaway, 655. 

V. Jacoway, 250. 
Sturges V. Beach, 566. 
Sturgess v. Bank, 441. 
Sturgis V. Rogers, 252, 527. 
Sturglss V. Dart, 346. 
Sturm V. School Dist, 317. 
Stuyvesant v. Weil, 277. 
Styles V. Harrison, 182. 

V. McXeirs Heirs, 950. 
.'iiarez v. City of New York, 563. 
.Suber V. Chandler, 269. 
Sublette V. Railroad Co., 960. 
Suddarth v. Lime Co., 310. 
Suesenbach v. W^agner, 939b. 
Sugjr V. Thornton, 153. 
Sulleuberger v. Gest, 16. 
Sullivan v. Ball, 290. 

V. Hendrickson, 425. 

V. Lickle, 434. 

V. Shell, 340, 378. 

v. Sweeney, 309. 
Sullivan's Sav. Inst v. Clark, 166. 
Sully v. Campbell, 774. 
Summar v. Jarrett, 278. 

V. Owen, 15. 
Summerlin v. Dowdle, 79. 
Summers v. Brewing Co., 529. 

v. Dame, 447. 

V. Oberndcrf, 595. 


[References to secttons. 89 1 to 

Summersett v. Summersett's Adm'r, 

Summerslde Bank v. Ramsey, S92. 
Sumner v. Marcy, 359. 

V. Whitley, 378, 391. 
Sumrall v. Smnrall, G41. 
Suudberg v. Temple, 351. 
Sun Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sesligson, 505. 
Superior Consol. .Land Co. v. Dxmphy, 

34<ja, 347. 
Supervisors v. Randolph, 985a. 

V. U. S., 2o3a. 
Supervisors of Carroll County v. U. S., 

Supervisors of Lee County v. Rogere, 

Supervisors of Manitowoc County t. 

Sullivan. 179. 
SuperTioors cf Washington County v. 

Durant, 985b. 
Supplee V. Ilalfmann, 493. 
Supples V. Cannon, 624, 627. 
Supreme Council of Royal Arcanum v. 

Carley, 917. 
Siu-get V. Newman, 683. 
Susquelianna Mut. Fire. Ins. Co. y. 

Mardorf, 628. 
Suter V. Findley, 492. 
Sutherland y. De Leon, 245, 261, 513. 
Sutter V. Cox, 213. 
Sutton V. Dameron, 650. 

V. Pollard, 650. 

V. Read, 530. 

V. Sutton, W7, 963. 

V. Tyrrell, 299. 
Suydam v. Barber, 770, 861. 

V. Hoyfs Adm'rs, 960. 

V. Pitcher, 225, 306. 
Swafford v. Howard, 985. 
Swaim V. U. S., 250, 524. 
Swain v. Naglee, 126, 130, 135, 155, 


v. Smith, 151. 
Swamseot Machine Co. v. Walker, 541. 
Swan, In re, 255. 

V. Horton, 193. 

V. House, 641. 
Swank v. Railroad Co., 787. 
Swann v. Broome, 182, 441.* 442. 
Swanson v. Jordan, 358. 

V. Railroad Co., 701!. 
Swanstrom v. Marvin, 185. 
Swarts V. Stccs, 400. 


499 in vol. 1; residue In vol. 2.] 

Swartz V. D. S. Morgan & Co.. 325. 
Swasey v. Antram, 200. 
Swayne v. Lyon, 55, 190, 191, 628. 
Swearengen v. Gulick, 271. ' 

Sweeney v. Bailey, 1005. 

V. Pratt, 439. 

T. Smith, 191. 

V. Stroud, 75. 
Sweeny v. Delany, 157. 
Sweesey v. Kitchen, 61, 354. 
Sweet V. Brack ley. ^.";v MiKi, 802. 

Y. Jacocks, 434, 445. 

V. Maupin, 624, irM. 

V. Turtle, 616, 617. 
Sweetland v. Buell. 445. 

V. Tuthill, 144. 
Sweetser v. Davis. 585a« 
Sweezy v. Jones, 429. 
Swenk v. Stout, 567. 
Swett V. Black, 579, 
Swift V. Allen, 164. 

V. Calnan, 141. 

V. Green, 233. 

V. Meyers, 897, 904, 939. 

V. Stark, 857, 914. 

V. Yanaway, 274, 275, 557* 
Swift & Co. V. Fue, 101. 
Swlggart V. Barber, 218, 261. 
Swinford v. Teegarden, 754. 
Swing V. Woodruff, 55. 
Swinney v. Watkins, 253. ^ 
Swope V. Schwartz, 541. 
Sydam v. Cannon, 99$). 
Sykes v. Anderson, 79a. 

V. Bonner, 769. 

V. Gerber, 734, 746. 

V. Thornton, 32. 
Sylvester v. Downer, 101. 
Syme v. Trice. 193, 321. 
Symson v. Selheimer, 66. 
Szerlip t. Baier, 324, ;;52. 

Tabler v. Mitchell. 230. 
Tabor v. The Cerro (iordo, 674. 

V. Payne, 21. 
Tacoma Grocery Co. v. Draham, 261. 
Tacoma Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Wolff. 

321, 348. 
Tadloek v. Eccles, 245. 
Taggart v. Wood, 365. 366. 

[Referencef to aections. H 1 to 

Talbot V. rierce, 36. 

Talbott V. Suit. 248, 

Taliaferro v. Steele, 329. 

Taliaferro's Adm^r v. Bank, 35U. 

Talley v. Curtin, 44. 

TaUmadge v. Sill, 436. 

Tallnian v. Farley, 445. 

Tally T. Reynolds, 9(>3. 

Talmage v. Chapel, 563, 677, 963. 

T:im V. Shaw, 571. 

Tarns V. BuUitt, 5W. 597. 

V. Lewis, 611, 624. 
Tanguey t. O'Connell, 556. 
Tankerely v. Pettis, 681, 720. 
Tannenbaum ▼. Rosswog, 296. 
Tanner v. Irwin, 32. 
Tanton v. Keller, 154. 
Tapley t. Goodsell, 127. 587. 
Tappan v. Bruen, 771. 

V. Heath, 970. 

T. Tappan, 320. 
Tarbell t. Downer, 975, 1006. 

Y. Griggs, 938b. 
Tarble, In re, 256. 
Tarbox t. Hays, 250, 252, 286, 
rarleton v. Allhnsen, 674. 

Y. Cox, 199, 204. 

V. Johnson, 547. 

V. Tarleton, 826, 827. 
Tarplee v. Capp, 641. 
Tarpley t. Hamer, 399. 
Tarrant Co. t. Lively, 34L 
Tanrer v. Ellison, 459. 

T. Rankin, 1013. 

V. Tarver, 367. 
Tate V. Bank, 700. 

V. Carney, 530. 
Tatro T. French, 530. 
i'anb y. Commission Co., 784. 
lanziede v. Jumei, 543, 585. 
Taxpayers v. O'Kelley, 584. 
Tay V. Hawley, 963. 
Taylor t. Abbott, 651. 

T. Barnes, 573. 

V. Barron, 563, 790, 829, 853, 857, 

T. Beck, 58, 82. 206. 

▼. Bradshaw, 386. 

T. Bryden. 829, 855. 

V. Castle, 726, 729. 

T. Claypool. 770. 

V. Corley, 98. 


499 In vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Tayltr v. Cornelius, 434, 537. 

V. Cougfalan, 348. 

V. Dawson, 39. 

V. Dustin, 627. 

V. Ervln, 182. 

V. Harris, 970. 

V. Heitz, 734. 

V. Hulme, 1009. 

V. Hunt, 589. ' 

V. llutcbinson, 790. 

y. Johnson, 588. 

V. Larkin, 693. 

V. Lewis, 377. 

V. Levering, 205. 

V. Lusk, 305. 

V. McLaughlin, 79. 

V. MacLee, 29. 

V. McXairy, 86. 

y. Mallory, 368. 

Y. Matteson, 709. 

y. Means, 604. 

y. Megargee, 993. 

y. Neither, 556. 

y. Paper Co., 733. 

y. Phelps, 598, 826, 828. 

y. Place. 298. 

y. Railroad Co., 740. 

y. Ranney, 1006. 

y. Read, 44. 

y. Richman, 138. 

y. Root, 7, 677. 

y. Rossiter, 83. 

y. Rowland, 193. 

y. Runyan, 115. 

y. Shew, 882, 960. 

y. SindaU, 321, 526. 

V. Skrine, 175. 

y. Smith, 33, 88. 683. 684, 857, 877. 

y. State, 290. 

y. Sutton, 384, 386. 

y. Sweet, 32. 

V. Syme, 284. 

y. Taylor, 29, 116, 506, 729. 

V. Trumbull, 305. 

y. Walker, 194. 

y. Williams. 1002. 

V. Wynne, 429. 

V. Yarbrough, 720, 722. 
Taylor's Adm'r v. Spindle, 398. 
Teaff V. Hewitt, 44. 
Teague v. Corbitt. 560. 

y. Whaley, 569. 


[References to sections. $$ 1 to 

Toal V. Terrell, (il(>, (US. 

Teasdal? ComnilsRlon Co. v. Van Hard- 

euberg, «3. 
Toat V. Cocke, 181. 
Tebbets v. Tllton, 634. 
Tebbetta v. Tllton, 288. 
Tedlle v. Dill, 211. 
Teehan v. Bridge Co.. IG. 
Teel V. Miles, 071. 

V. Yost, 8U8. 
Teetor v. Abden, M7. 
Telford v. Barney, 6<X). 

V. Brinkerhoff, 357, 380. 
Tern pel v. Dodge, 227. 
Temple v. Scott, 1000. 
Templeman v. Gibbs, IG. 

V. Steptoe, 39, 44. 
Tennessee v. Virgin, 992. 
Tennessee Goal, Iron & R. Co. y. 

Hayes, 681a. 
Tenney v. Taylor, 275. 

V. Townsend, 875. 
Tenny v. Filer, 53. 
Terney v. Wilson, 954. 
Terre Haute & I. R. Co. v. Baker, 936. 

V. People, 740. 

V. Railroad Co., 360, 518, 731. 
Terr?ll v. Prestell, 433. 

V. State, 86. 
Terreri v. Jutte, 744. 
Terrett v. Improvement Co., 03. 
Territory y. Hopkins, G14. 

V. I.ii8 Vegas Grant, 28. 

V. Railroad Co., 731. 
Terry, Ex parte, 255. 

y. Briggs, 12& 

y. French, 213. 

V. Hammonds, 707. 

y. Hughes, 36. 
Terry's Ex'r y. Drabenstadt, 567. 
Tessier y. Lockwood, 806. 

y. Wyse, iOO. 
Texas Brewing Co. y. Meyer, 186. 
Texas Cent. R. Co. y. Stuart, 23. 
Texas Land & Cattle Co. y. Scott, 37. 
Texas Land & Loan Co. y. Winter, 29, 

130, 346. 
Texas Land & Mortgage Co. y. Wor- 

sham, 390. 
Texas-Mexican R. Co. y. Wright, 363. 
Texas, S. F. & N. R. Co. y. Saxton, 14, 

Texas Say. Loan Ass'n y. Smith, 153. 


499 In TOl. 1; residue in toL 1] 

Texas Trunk R. Co. y. Jackson, 510, 

Texas & V. R. Co. v. Cox, 217. 

V. Nelson, 740. 

V. Smith. 500. 
Teynham y. Tyler, 554. 
Thacker y. Chambers, 2-15. 

V. Thacker, 335. 
Tharpe y. Crunipler, 10«). 
Thatcher v. Gammon, 87, 677, 697. 

y. Ilaun, 349. 

y. Lyons, U85. 

y. I^owell, 279. 

V. Taylor, 148. 
Thaxton v. Smith, 513. 
Thayer v. Cabl?. OOJ. 

V. McGee, 123. 

y. Mowry, 902, 9!J4. 

y. Printing Co., 583. 

y. Trust Co., 767. 

y. Tyler, 493. 
Thelen y. Thelen, 275. 
Theller y. Hershey. iMO. 790. 
Thelusson y. Smith. 448. 
Therkelsen y. Therkelsen, 22. 
Therme v. Bethenoid, 118. 
Thiele y. Axell. 567. 
Thigpen y. Mundlne, S4. 
Third Nat Bank y. Hunsicker, 1014. 

V. Stone, 750. 
Thiry v. Mining Co.. 15. 
Thisler y. Miller, 738. 
Thom y. Wilson's Ex'r, 975. 
Thomas, In re, 320a. 

y. Bland, 707. 

y. Chambers, 341. 

y. Cliurcblll, 250. 

y. Desney, 40(). 

y. Dunning, 585. 

V. Fogarty, 177. 

y. Glazener, 1010. 

y. Hite, 610, 0U3. 

V. Hubbell, 588. 

▼. Hunsucker, 2t55. 

▼. Ireland, 291. 

T. Irrigation Co., 754. 

V. Jones, 248. 

V. Joelyn, 032. 

y. Kennedy, 420, 4:«. 

y. Lowry, 211. 

y. McDanald, 610, 006. 

y. McDaneld, 508. 

y. Markmann, .'88. 

[References to Bections. S§ 1 to 

Tbomas y. Mohler, 770. 

y. Morris, HHj. 

V. Morrlsott, ^22. 

V. Mortjjuge Co., Si), 307. 

v. Mueller, 50. 

V. Xeel. 311. 

V. Pendletou, 800. 

V. PliHlIps, 378. 

V. riatts, 1006. 

V. Porter, 945. 

T. Railroad Co., 29. 

V. Stems, 5<>2. 

V. Tanner, 878. 

T. Thomae, 790. 

V. Van Meter, 462. 

V. Williams, 493. 

T. Wilson, 981. 
Tbomason v. Odum, 15, 123, 700, 730. 
Tbomasson y. KercbeYal, 802. 
Thomas* WiU, In re, 612. 
Thompson v. AYery, 398, 407, 414. 

V. Bank, 948. 

V. Berry, 384. 

T. Bickford, 111. 

T. Brown. 585. 

V. Chnrch, 182. 

V. Clark, 549. 

Y. Clay, 719. 720. 

Y. Connell, 322, 091. 

Y. Crosby, 610. 

Y. Deknm, 589. 

Y. Dickinson. 352. 

Y. Donaldson, 640. 

Y. Emmert. 775, 903, 904, 906. 

Y. Fox. 90. 

Y. Giffin, 510, 685. 

Y. Goulding, 341. 

Y. Hammond, 358. 

Y. Harlow. 335. 

Y. Hintgen, 77. 

Y. Hubbard. 462. 

Y. Jones, 957. 

Y. Kimbrougb. 99. 

Y. Laugblin, 357, 362, 390. 

Y. McCorkle, 252, 260. 

Y. McDermott, 197. 

Y. Mc<;aw, 633. 

Y. McMillan. 988. 

Y. Mankin, 173. 

V. Monrow, 880. 981. 

T. Multnomnb County, 260, 522. 

Y. Myrlek, 620. 

CITED. clxxxiii 

499 in Yol. 1; reeldue in vol. 2.] 

Thompson v. Noble, 956. 

V. X. T. Bushnell Co., Bl7, 629. 

V. Parker, 483. 

V. Railroad Co., 544. 

Y. Roberts, 543. 

V. Saukey, 1)91. 

V. Schuster, 703. 

V. Skinner, 313. 

V. State, 932. 

V. Stetson, 84. 

V. Thompson, 158, 509, 803. 

V. Tolmie, 261. 

V. Turner, 138. 

Y. W^hitman, 227, 278, 289, 897, 
901, 903, 906. 

Y. Wineland, 718. 
Thompson*s Appeal, 291, 293, 294. 
Thorns V. King, 281, 924. 
Thomsen v. McCormIck, 577. 
Thomson v. Blanchard, 642. 

V. Dean, 44. 

V. Joplin, 587. 

V. Lee County, 938, 958. 
Thomson's Adm'r y. Chapman's Adm*r, 
. 473. 

Thoreson y. Hanrester Works, 768. 
Thorn v. Salmonson, 835. 
Thornall v. Turner, 338, 347. 
Thomer v. Batory, 867. 
Thornfaill y. Bank, 55. 
Thornton v. Eppes, 504, 681. 

V. Hogan, 248, 807. 

Y. Lane, 54, 971. 

Y. Perry, 115. 
Thorp V. Gordon, 261. 

V. Piatt, 156. 
Thorpe y. Corwin, 180. 
Thouvenin v. Rodrlgues, 222, 261, 275. 
Thrall y. Waller, 962. 
Threadgill v. Railroad Co., 176. 
Thrift Y. Delaney, 656. 
Throne-Franklin Shoe Co. v. Gunn, 29. 
Thulemeyer y. Jones, 432. 
Thum V. Pike, 335. 
Thiurber v. Blackboume, 853. 
Thurmond v. Andrews, 248, 807. 

Y. Bank, 874, 989. 
Thurston v. Spratt, 572. 

Y. Thurston, 721, 722. 929. 
Thwing V. Doye, 86. 
TIbbetts V. Shapleigh, 771. 
Tidd V. Rines, 118. 

cl!xxxiy CASBs 

[ReterencGB to sections. U 1 to 

Tldloute & Tioua Oil Oo. v. Shear. 351. 
Tlerney v. Abbott, 719. 
Tiers v. Codd, 490. 
Tift V. Keaton, 3. 
Tilford V. Buruham, 450. 

V. Oakley, 962. 
Tilles V. Albright, 63. 
Tillinghast v. McLeod, 16. 
TilUson V. Tllllson, 7«;. 
Tillotson V. Millard, 425. 
Tilman y. Johnson, am, 
Tilson V. Davis, 518. 
Tilton V. BaiTell, 153. 

V. Cofield, 518. 550. 

V. Gordon, 758. 
Timber lake v. Powell, 051. 
Timmons v. Dunn, 768. 
Tindall v. Carson, 483. 
Tinley v. Martin. 46. 
Tinney v. VVolston, 469. 
Tinsley v. Lee. 214. 
Tipton V. Wright, 225. 
Tisdale y. Insurance Co., 640. 
Title Ins., Trust & Safe-Deposit Co. v. 

Rau, 70. 
Titlemore v. Wainwright, 299. 
Titus V. Larsen, 335. 

y. Mabee, 32. 
Tobar y. Losano, 181. 
Tobias V. Dorsey, 199. 
Tobin y. Meyers. 992. 
Toby y. Brown, 674, 795. 
Tobyhanna & L. Lumber Co. t. In- 
surance Co., 79a. 
Todd y. Badger, 16. 

y. Crumb, 8, 892. 

y. Fisk, 378. 

y. Jackson, 363. 

y. Kerr. 548. 

y. Railroad Co., 526. 

y. Todd, 127. 
Toland y. Sprague, 225. 
Tolbert y. Harrison, 1000. 
Toledo, W. & W. R. Co. y. Gates, 347. 

y. Ingraham, 99. 

y. McNulty, 967. 
Tolen y. Tolen, 822, 926, 928^ 932. 
Toliver y. Brownell, 176. 
Tome y. Stump, 38. 
Tomkins y. Tomkins, 371. 
Tomlinson v. Litze. 121. 35a 
Tompkins v. Bank, 995. 

y. Blakey, 91Ca. 


499 in Yol. 1: residue In vol. 2.] 

Tompkins y. Cooper, 867. 

y. Craig, 873. 

y. Dreunen, 518, 766. 

y. Hyatt, 44. 

y. Lang, 3i;3. 393a, 394. 

y. rurc-311, 9381). 

y. Tompkins, 63(», S23. 
Tompson v. Lumber Co., 31a, 
Toney, Ex parte, 253. 
Tongue y. Morton, tW2. 
Tooker v. Booth, 313. 
Toomey y. Rosansky. 252. 
Toope y. Prlgge, 632. 
Toothaker y. Greer, 246. 
Tootle y. Clifton. 16. 
Topliff V. TopUff, 626, 627. 
Topp y. Bank, 857, 995. 
Tdrbett y. Godwin, 583. 
Torrence v. Torrence, 432. 
Torrey y. Pond, 643. 
Toulmin y. Anderson, 127. 
Tourigny y. Houle, 826, 829. 
Tovey v. Young, 372. 
Towe V. Felton, 995. 
Towers y. Tuscarora Academy, 549. 
Towle V. Gouter, 52. 

y. Towle, 586, 587. 
Town y. Lamphere, 615. 

y. Smith, 681, 737. 
Town of Andes y. Ely, 508, 681a. 
Town of Bethlehem y. Town of Watei*- 

town, 806. 
Town of Cabot y. Town of Washing- 
ton, 806. 
Town of Clay y. Hart 678, 719. 
Town of Cloyerdale y. Smith, 600. 
Town of Fletcher y. Blair, 209. 
Town of Haywaixi y. Pimental, 347. 
Town of Huntington y. Town of Char- 
lotte, 279, 443. 
Town of Jericho y. Town of Under- 
bill, 713. 
Town of Lyons y, Cooledge, 578. 
Town of Omro y. Ward. 337, 347. 
Town of Ontario v. Bank, 251. 
Town of Poplin y. Town of Hawke. 

Town of Poultney y. Treasurer. 295». 
Town of St. Albans y. Bush. 938. 
Town of Storm Lake y. Railroad Co.. 

Town of Troy v. Rjiilroad Co., 743. 
Town of Walpole v. Mario w, 100. 


[Referencee to sectlonf. H 1 to 

Towns y. Nims, 504, 014. 

V. Springer, 218, 278. 
Townsand v. Townsand, 83. 
Towusend v. Cox, 197, 1)74. 

T. Gordon, 644. 

V. Riddle, 774. 

T. Smith, 909, 1010. 
Townshend, In re, 717. 

V. Chew, SOIL 

v. We68on, 110. 
Township of Hiawatha v. Judge, 156. 
Tozer y. Jackson, 635. 
Tracy v. Goodwin, 587, 588. 

V. Kerr, 725. 

T. Malonej, 587. 

V. Merrill, 714. 

V. Whitsett, 412. 
Trader v. Lawrence, 404. 
Traders* Nat. Bank v. Schorr, 425. 
Trafton v. United States. 770. 
Tralttenr t. Levingston, 352. 
Trammel! y. Thurmond, 504. 

V. Trammell, 156. 
Trapbagen v. Lyons, 953. 
Trapnall y. Richardson, 413, 415, 484, 

1006. 1006. 
Trapnairs Adm'z y. Bank, 1!j3. 
Traak y. Green, 433. 

T. Railroad Co., 738. 
Trautwein y. Iron Works, 745. 
Trayelers* Ins. Co. v. Weber, 34. 
Travelers* Protective A8s*n v. Gilbert, 

Traver, In re, 388. 
Travis v. Waters, 41. 

V. WUlis, 56, 180. 
Travis County v. Mfg. Co., 332. 
Trawlck*s Heirs v. Trawick's Adm*rs. 

Trayhem v. Colbum, 614. 
Ttaicy V. Ellis, 263. 
Treadway v. E3a8tbum, 273. 
Treadwell v. Pitts, 576. 

v. Temples, 588. 
Treasurers of State v. Bates, 588, 770. 

V. Oswald's Sureties, 745. 
Treat v. McCall. 2:^3. 
Trebilcock v. Wilson, 152. 
Tre!>noox v. MoAlpln?. 868. 
Treoothjck v. Austin, ♦177. 
Trenary v. Cheever. 1(K)8. 
Trenholui. Ex parte. 42c). 

T. Bumplicld, $^81. 


499 In vol. 1; residue In vol. 2.] 

Trescott v. Barnes, 750. 

V. Lewis, (391. 
Trevino v. Fernandez, 846. 
Trevlvan v. Lawrence, 787. 
TTeweek v. Howard, 589. 
Trigg V. Harris, 987, 1007. 
Trimble v. Hunter, 434. 

V. Longworth, 288. 

Y. Miller, 19L 
Triplett V. Gill, 5ia 

V. I^ke, 150. 

V. Scott, 963. 
Tripp Y. Potter, 496* 

Y. Saunders, 212. 

Y. Vincent, 341. 
Trogdon v. Stone Co., 252. 
Troup Y. Horbach, 22, 26, 

Y. Wood, 991. 
Trout Y. Marvin, 399. 
Troutman v. Vernon, 650, 655. 
Trow V. Messer, 13. 

y. Thomas, 16, oa 
Trowbridge v. Hays, 26L 

Y. Spinning, 860, 867, 896. 
Troy Y. Smith, 605. 
Truby v. Case, 351. 
True v. True. 320. 
Trueheart v. Simpson, 314. 
Truesdall v. McCormick, 265. 
Truesdell v. Lehman, 433. 
Truly V. Wanzer, 378. 
Truman, In re, 255, 259. 
Trumbull v. Nicholson, 989. 
Truscott y. King, 71, 991. 
Trustees of Amherst College v. Allen. 

363, 375. 
Trustees of Internal Imp. Fund v. 

Bailey, 306. 
Trustees of Leake & Watts Orphan 

House Y. Lawrence, 5<j6. 
Trustees of Tutnam Free School v. 

Fisher, 600. 
Trustees of School Distiict No. 28 v. 

Stocker, 622. 
Trustees of Village of New burgh v. 

Oalatlan. ."mS. 
Tucker v. Beau, 193, 197. 

Y. Carr, 7.14. 

Y. Gill. 73. 

v. Rohrback, 693. 

Y. Shade, 470. 

Y. Stone, 34. 

Y. Trading Co., 157. 


[References to aectlons. §S 1 to 

Tucker v. Williams. 37G. 

V. Wilson, 721. 
Tudor V. Taylor, 1010. 
Tuffree v. Stearns Kanchos Co., 826. 
Tufts V. Tufts, 4G6. 
Tuggle V. Gilbert, 26. 
Tullis V. Scott, 340. 
Tunis V. Withrow, 232. 
Tunno v. Railroad Co., 20. 
Tunstall v. Robinson, 1)76. 

V. Trappes, 436. 
Tuppery v. Hertung, 15. 
l\irley v. Dreyfus, 8C2, 922, 963. 

V. Taylor, 916. 

V. Turley, 683, 783. 
Tuman v. Temke, 1016. 
Turnbull v. Walker, 837. 
Turner t. Bank, 282. 

V. Brock, 745. 

V. Gates, 541, 720. 

▼. Christy, 158. 

V. City of Houston, 116. 

y. Colson, 370. 

v. Coughran, 318. 

V. Crebill, 43. 

V. Davis, 380. 

V. Donnelly, 530. 

V. Dupree's Adm'r, 484. 

V. Goodrich, 567. 

V. Hitchcock, 777, 779. 

V. Ireland, 286. 

V. Jenkins, 197, 273. 

V. Judge, 311. 

V. Lambeth, 847. 

▼. Leathern, 311. 

y. Malone, 633. 

y. Nachtsheim, 692. 

y. Plowden, 26. 

V. Roby, 966. 

y. Satterlee, 1008. 
Turner's Estate, In re, 46. 
Tumey y. Van Gelder, 292. 
Turpln y. Brannon, 607. 
Turpln, y. Thomas* RepresentatiyeB, 

367, 540. 
Turrell y. Warren, 285. 
Tuska y. O'Brien, 613. 
Tute y. James, 588. 
Tuthlll Spring Co. v. Smith, 290. 
Tutt y. Boyer, 641. 

y. Ferguson, 384. 

y. Trice. 631. 
Tuttle y. Clallin, 24, 31a. 


499 in vol. 1; residue In yoI. 2.] 

Tuttle y. Harrill, 766. 

V. Scott, 349. 

y. Town of Burlington, 299. 
Twambly v. Henley, 5i*»8. 
Twlgg V. Hopkins, 391. 
Twogood V. Pence, 78, 698. 
Twohig, Ex parte, 255. 269. 
Tyler y. Cartwright, 661. 

y. Hamersley, 378. 

y. Peatt, 220, 906. 

y. Shea, 168. 
Tyler's Kx'rs v. Winslow, 6. 
Tynan v. Weinhard, l^o. 
Tyree y. Magness, 574. 
Tyres y. Kennedy, 551. 
TyiTell y. Baldwin, 540. 
Tyson v. Belcher, 250. 
T. & H. Smith & Co. y. Taber, 923. 


Ueland y. Johnson. 87. 

y. Lynch, 352. 
Uhe y. Railway Co.. 181. 
Uhl V. May, 420, 4;iS. 
Ullman y. Herzberg, 745. 
UUmann y. Kline, 94S, 950. 
Ulmer y. Frankland, 496. 
Ulrich y. Drischell. 666. 
Ulshafer y. Stewart, 118. 
Umbria, The, 984. 
Underiiill v. Collins, 749. 
Und3rwood, In re, 257. 

V. French, 616. 

V. Sledge, 305. 

V. Smith, 747. 

V. Underwood, 340a. 
Unfrled y. Heberer, 87. 
Unger v. Lelter, 407. 
Union Associated Press y. Heath, 779. 

y. Publishing Co., 782. 
Union Bank y. Com'rs, (>99. 

y. Hodges, 770. 

y. Manard, 420. 
Union Cent Life Ins. Co. y. Lipscomb, 

91, 340, 349. 
Union Guaranty & Trust Co. y. Rolv 

inson, 586. 
Union Lumbering Co. y. Supers, 364. 
Union MIU & M. Co. y. Dangberg. G(W. 
Union Xat. Bank y. Benjamin, 352. 

y. Lane, 69. 

rReferences to sectiona. §} 1 to 

Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Baliv r. 804. 
V. Kelley, 719. 
T. Railroad Co.. 787. 
L'nion R. & T. Co. v. Traube, 729. 730, 

738. 747. 749. 
Union Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. 

LoQDge Co.. 857. 
Union Terminal R. Co. v. Com'rs, 719. 
Union Trust Co. v. Railroad Co.. 882, 

Union & Planters* Bank v. Allen, 611. 

V. City of Memphis. 750. 
United Security Life Ins. & Trust Co. 
V. Ott, 321. 

T. Vaughn, 63. 
United Society of Shakers v. Under- 
wood, 777, 7T9. 
U. S. V. Ames, 770. 

T. Arredondo. 215, 241. 

T. Badger, 965e. 

T. Beebe, 370, 371, 530. 

T. Biebusch. 876. 

T. Board, 085a, 985b. 985c. 

7. Buchanan County, 965c, 985e. 

T. Budd, 530. 

T. Chung Shee, 292. 

T. City of Key West 985a. 

T. Clark County. 985f . 

T. Council, 985b. 

T. Cushman, 775, 963* 

T. Dashiel, 1O08. 

T. Devereux, 446. 

T. Dewey. 930a. 

T. Drainage Dist. 986c 

V. Duncan, 415. 

T. Eisenbeis. 423. 

v. Gayle, 273. 

V. Gleeson. 823. 

V. Grimley, 250. 524. 

V. Griswold, 248. 1000. 

V. Houston. 490. • 

V. Ingate, 586. 

r. Jaedicke, 529. 

T. Jefferson County, 065b. 

T. Judges. 965b. 

T. Keokuk. 360. 

T. King. 985a. 985b. 

T. Land-Grant Co.. 530. 

T. I^ee County. 965b, 985e. 

Y. Lewis, 448. 

T. Lincoln County, 965b. 

V. McDowell, 531. 

T. McKnight. 328. 

CITED. clxxxvii 

409 In vol. 1; residue In vol. 2. J 

U. S. V. Macon County, 985f. 

V. MIniug Co., 580. 

V. Minor, 530. 

V. Montell, 149. 

V. More, 216. 

V. Morrison, 398. 

V. Muscatine County, 985b. 

V. Xew Orleans, 253a, 985b, 965f. 

V. O'Grady, 5iMa. 

V. Paiker, 700. 

V. Patterson, 256. 

V. Peters,, 216. 

V. Port of Mobile, 965f. 

V. Price, 774, 775. 

V. Pridgeon. 2^8. 259. 

V. Railroad Co., 530, 537. 

V. Rand, 713. 

V. Rose, 530. 

V. Samperyac. 940. 

V. Schneider, 520. 

V. Silverman. 987)6. 

V. Sturgis, 414. 

V. Throckmorton, 323, 370, 874. 

V. Thompson, 493, 494. 

V. Wlnstead, 18. 

V. Tin Co., 530. 

V. Township, 985a, 985d. 

V. Treasurer, 98ob, 985e. 

V. Wallace, 297, 341. 

V. White, 530. 

V. Williams, 297, 530. 
United States Bank v. Winston's Bat'r. 

United States Electric Lighting Go. v. 

Leiter, 246, 358. 
United States Exp. Co. v. Smith, 585a. 
United States Mut. Ace. Ins. Co. v. 

Relsinger, 376. 
United States Nat Bank ▼. Venner. 

United States Trust Co. v. Territory, 

V. Trust Co., 247. 
United Underwriters* Ins. Co. v. Pow- 
ell, 23. 
University of North Carolina v. Lassi- 
ter, 325. 

T. Maultsby, 747. 
Unknown Heirs v. Kimball, 420, 433. 
Upchuivh V. Anderson, R.")!. 
Uppfalt V. Wor?manu, 7G1. 
Upson V. Horn, 261. 


[References to sections. S9 1 to 

Upton V. Betts, 504, G14. 

Urbana Bank v. Baldwin, 443. 

Utah Commercial & Savings Bank y. 

Trumbo, 344. 
Utah Nat Bank v. Sears, 67. 
Utley V. Cameron, 300, 306. 

V. Fee, 064. 
Umle V. Vinson, 63, 302, 317. 

Vahle y. Brackensieok, 66d. 
Vail V. Arkell, 261. 

V. Conant, 089. 

V. Iglehart, 124. 

V. Rinehart, 731. 
Vallance v. Sawyer, 483. 
Valentine v. Cooley, 211. 

V. Duff, 206. 

V. Mahoney, 548, 677. 

y. Seiss, 445. 

y. Sloss, 530. 
Valsain v. Oloutier, 560, 638. 
Van Alen y. Rogers, (i52. 
Van Alstine y. McCarty, 577. 
Van Alstyne, In re, 585a. 
Van Arsdale v. King, 313. 
Vanarsdelen v. Whitaker, 367. 
Van Beuren, In re, 958. 
Van Blarcom y. Kip, 650. 
Van Brough y. Cock. 356. 
Van Busklrk y. Mulock, 962. 
Van Camp v. Fowler, 548. 

V. Peerenboom, 439. 
Vance y. Burbank, 530. 

y. City of Franklin, 16. 

y. Wesley, 582. 
Van Court v. Moore, 568. 
Vandenheuvel v. United Ins. Co., 815. 
Vanderheydeii y. Younp, 524. 
Vanderpoel y. Van Valkenburgh, 635. 
Vanderpool y. Vanderpool, 328, 045. 
Vanderveere y. Gaston, 62. 
Van Deusen v. Sweet, 2vS2, 802. 
Vandlyer y. Hammet, 958. 

V. Roberts, 233. 
Van Doren v. Horton, 522. 
Vandyke v. Johns. 250. 

y. Wells, 1J:0. 
Van Etten v. Kosters, 144. 

V. Test, 130. 
Vanfleet'v. Phillips, 63. 


499 in vol. 1; residue In vol. 2.1 

Van Fossen v. State, 927. 
Van Gunden y. Kane, 128. 
Van Gundy v. Carrlgan, 96. 
Van Hagan, £x parte, 258. 
Van Horn y. Van Horn. 707. 
Van Home y. McLaren, 1010. 

V. Montgomsry, 347. 
Van Houteu v. Reily, 952. 
Van Kleeck y. MeCabe, 600. 
Van Koughnet y. Dennie, 541. 
Vanlandlngham y. Ryan. 603, 707. 
Van Lriew v. Beverage Co., 644. 
Van Loon v. Smith, 993, 994. 
Vanmeter's P3x'rs v. Vanmeter, 41. 
Van Metre y. Wolf, 192. 
Van Ness y. Corklns, 208. 
Van Norman y. Gordon, 53, 859, 8^. 

Vanquelin y. Bouard, 827, 816. 
Van Renselaer y. Whiting, 211. 
Van Rensselaer y. Wright, 992. 
Van Sant v. Butler, 530. 
Vanscoy y. Stlnchcomb, 388. 
Vanstory y. Thornton, 449. 
Vantilburg y. Black, 190. 
Vanuxem y. Burr, 746. 
Van Valkenburgh v. City of Milwa,: 

kee, 87, 629, 697. 
Van Vechten y. Griffiths, 796. 

y. Terry, 585. 
Van Vliet y. Olin, 699. 
Van Wagenen v. Carpenter, 279. 
Van Wyck y. Seward, 650. 
Van Zandt y. Gormley, 20. 
Vamer v. Johnston, 250. 
Vasse y. Ball, 816, 
Vastine v. Bast, 376. 
Vathir y. Zane. 383. 
Vaughan v. Campbell, 834. 

V. Marshall, 993. 

y. Morrison, 614. 

y. O'Brien, 693, 699, 719. 

y. Phebe, 606. 
Vaughn v. Drewry, 609. 

y. Fuller, 378. 

y. Johnson, 367, 389. 
Vaule y. Miller, 252, 261. 972. 
Vans? V. Templeton, 446. 
Vedder's Estate, In re, 560. 
Veite v. McFadden, 896. 
Venable v. Curd, 177. 

V. Dutch. 22S>. 

y. McDonald, 270. 

[RefereocM to sections. 18 1 to 499 in ▼ol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 


Vennum v. Davis, 3«ij. 
Verden v. ODleman. 32. 
Verdln v. Slocum, -UiO. 
Verhein v. Scbultz, aU3. 
Vermllye v. Vennllye, 22, 
Vermont Loan & Ttust Co. v. McGreg- 
or, 986. 
VenDont Marble Co. v. Black, 854. 
Verner t. Bookman, 461. 

T. Canon, 2U0. 
Wrncuil V. Harper. 806. 
Verplanck v. Van Buren, 537, 681a. 
Verree v. Hughes, U^2. 
Verret v. Belanger, 589. 
Vwtal V. Wicko*, WO. 
Vetterlein. In re, 509. 
Vlck T. Baker, 340. 

T. Pope, 190. 
Vickery, In re, 977. 

T. Scott, 246, 513. 
Vicksburg Grocery Co. t. Brennan, 

Vicksburg, S. & P. B. Co. v. Scott 26. 
Vu-ksburg & M. R. Co. t. Ragsdale, 

Vij^eant v. Scully, 574. 
Vila V. Weston, 948. 
VlJas y. Jones, 366. 

y. Railroad Co., 313, 325. 
Village of Cellna v. Bank, 375. 
Village of Port Jervls v. Bank. 975. 
VQlage of Seneca Falls y. Zalinskl, 575. 
Village of Wayzata y. Railroad Co., 

Vinal V. Improvement Co., 726* 
VIncennes, The, 623. 
Vincent y. Davidson, 287. 
y. Hansen, 551. 
y. McXamara, 779. 
Virgin Cotton Mills v. Abemathy, 16. 
Virginia, Ex parte, 2r)5, 256. 
Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Kir- 

ven, «13. 
Vit;:inia & T. Coal & Iron Co. t. 

Klf Ids, 58, Jm. 
Virpo v. Vlriro. 520. 
Vimher v. VlHcher, fl2f>, 1)32. 
Voell V. Kelly, lOKJ. 
Vcigt v. Ticknor, 605. 
Voinet y. Barrett, 836. 
Volkenand v. Drum. <il. 
\olland v. WUcox, ZV.Tk 

Von Hoffman v. Kendall, 5-3. 

V. Quiucy, 98of. 
Von Puhl V. Rucker, 402. 
Von Stein v. Trexler, 406. 
Voogbt y. Winch, 783, 787. 
Voorhees v. Gros, 10(>8. 

v. Jackson, 270. 

v. Seymom*, (505. 
Voorhies, In ra, 4 SO. 

V. Hennessy. 121. 
Voorhis V. Gamble. 211. 
Voris v. Association, icS. 
Vosburgh v. Brown, 192. 
Vose V. Morton, 260, 293, 000. 
Voss V. Lewis, 599. 
Vought v. Sober, 699. 
Vowell y. Railway Co., 703. 
Vredenbiirg y. Morris, 429. 
Vredenburgh v. Snyder, 493. 
Vroom v. Ditmus, 137. 


Wabash, St L. & P. R. Co. v. Ttust 

Co., 551. 
Waddams v. Bumbam, 916. 
Waddell y. Klmendorf, 1008. 

y. Wood, 340. 
Waddell's Adm'r v.^Elmendorre Ad- 

m*r8, 903. 
Waddlll y. Cabell, 802. 

v. Payne, 224. 
Waddle y. Ishe, 713. 
Wade y. Bryant 135. 

y. De Leyer. 313. 

y. Howard, 7110. 

y. Sewell, 421. 

y. Watt 1008. 
Wadhams v. Gay, 705. 
Wadsworth v. Henderson, 8, lO* 

y. Marsh, 598. 

y. Murray, 558. 
Wager y. Insurance Co., .')21. 
Waghome y. Langmead, 441. 
Wagner v. Wagner. 729, 747. 
Wagner The, 360. 
Wagstaff y. Marcy, 509. 
Wahle y. Wahle, Oil. 
Waldner v. Paiily, 2'M\. 
AValte y. Coaracy, 312. 

V. Kllis. 12.'i3. 


[References to Bectiona. §9 1 to 499 in vol. 1 ; residue In toI. 2.] 

Wall, Ex parte, -^21. 

V. Covington, 159. 

V. Galvin, 86. 

V. Heald, 88. 

V. Wall, 201, 504. 638. 
Wallace, In re, 807. 

V. Miller, 779. 

V. Rli)iK>n, 55. 
Walla Walla Printing & Publishiir: 

Co. V. Budd, 347. 
Wnller v. Weston, 352. 
Wallis V. Stuart, 193. 

y. Thomas. 164. 
Walls V. Endel, GC3. 
Walpole V. Mario w, 100. 
Walrad v. Walrad, 320. 
Walrath v. Walrath. 980. 
Walraven v. Bank, 666. 
Walrod v. Shuler, 121. 
Walser v. Sellgman, 862, 938b. 
Walsh V. Diu'kln, 865, 939a. 

V. Ostrander, 604. 

V. Thomasson, 525. 
Walter v. Ass'n, 178. 

V. Erdman, 203. 

V. Fees, 77. 
Walters v. Defenbaugh. 434. 

V. Oyster, 495. 

V. Wood, 534. 
W^alton V. Bethuue, 814, 815. 

y. Bonham, 371. 

y. Campbell, 569. 

V. Coulson, 197. 

V. Cox, 571. 

V. I.efever, 15. 

y. McKesson, 909. 

y. Sugg, 857, 859. 

V. Walton, 317. 
Waifs Adm'rs v. Swinehart, 418. 
Wampler v. Walker. 33. 
Wamsley v. Robinson, 240, 680. 
Wanborg v. Knrst. 663. 
W^andling y. Straw, 938. 
Wann v. MeXulty. 770, 775, 776» 7S3, 

785, 787. 
Wanzer y. De Baun. 745. 

y. Self, 721. 
Ward y. Bond, 574. 

y. Boyce, 220, 894. 

y. Chamberlain. 416. 

y. Derrick, 3(8. 

y. Fnunon. 297. 

V. Green, 227, '2J0, 


V. Teeters, 615. 


Ex'r y. Savftge, 449. 

Wakeileld y. lyes, 932. 


Moore, 318. 

Walbridge v. Hall, 255, 282. 


Shaw, 716. 

Walden v. Bodley, 713, 720. 


Craig, 490. 

W^alden Nat. Bank y. Birch, 745. 


y. Thweatt, 312, 363. 

Waldron y. Hendrickson, 752. 

Waldrop y. I^onard. 213. 


V. Bank. 384. 


Bogrue, 261, 432. 


Lyon, 504. 


Whitney, 255. 256, 524. 


y. Moody, 445. 

Walkenhorst v. Lewis, 193. 194. 

Walker, In re, 993. 


Abt, 146. 


Ames, 758. 


Armour, 246. 


Arthur, 452. 


Carey, 114. 


Chase. 787. 


City of Philadelphia. 556w 


Clay, 205. 


Crawford, 41. 


Cronklte, 273. 


Dayis, 715. 


Elledge, 398. 


Ensign, 77. 


Ferrln, 572, 574. 


Fuller, 142. 729. 


Gilbert, 377. 


Lathrop, 227. 


Leslie, 657. 


^IcDowell, 1008. 


Massey. 84. 


Ferryman, 553, 565. 


Pope, 206. 


Powers. 951, 1006. 


Head, 553. 


Uobbin.s, 377. 


Uobinson. 993. 


Sallada, 330. 


Sargeant 105. 


Villavaso, 3(>7. 


W^alker, 1. 13. 

V. Witter, 825. 

y. Wynne. 37(J. 
Walker's Ex'r v. Page, 123. 
Walkley v. Muscatine, 985b. 

[Referencea to secticns. SS 1 to 

M'ard T. Hudspeth, 250. 

T. Johnson, 770. 

T. Joslin, 583. 

V. Kenner, 1. 

Y, McKenzie, 90L 

V. Mfg. Co., 910. 

V. Obenauer, GG6. 

V. PhUllps. IG. 

T. l»rather'8 Adm'r, 486. 

V. Price. 898, 903. 

T. Quinlivln, 844, 919. 

T. Railway Co., 98. 

T. Sire, 750. 

V. Stanley. 233. 

V. State, 633. 

T. Tliomas, 2ia 

V. Ward, 784. 

V. White, 110, 273. 
Warden v. Eden, 95a 
Warder v. Patterson. 352^ 

T. Talnter, 487. 
Ware v. Baldwin, 309. 

T. Delaliaye, 460. 

Y. Jackson, 438. 

T. Kent, 135, 164. 

V. ^fcCormack, 678. 

V. Percival. 729, 738. 

Y. Purdy, 460. 

Y. Railroad Co., 951. 
Ware Furniture Co., Ex parte, 53. 
Warfield, In re, 250. 

Y. Brewer, 488. 

V. DaYis, 57a 

Y. Fox, 638. 

Y. Warfield. 609. 
Warfleld's Will, In re, 250. • 
Wame y. Irwin, 393. 
Warner y. Bartle, 985. 

Y. Comstoek. 578. 

Y. Conant, 375, 387, 593. 

Y. Crane, 299. 

Y. George, 754. 

Y. Helm, 1010. 

Y. Mnllane, 547. 

Y. Tomlinson, 29. 

Y. Veltch, 434. 
Warren y. Bank. 252, 279. 

Y. Cominj^H, 621, 735. 

Y. Flagg. 934. 

Y. Kennedy. 139. 

Y. Lusk, 903. 

Y. McCarthy. 869. 8S0, 9G2. 

V. Prewett, 138. 


499 In vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Warren v. Slade, 985. 

V. Van Brunt, 530. 

V. Warren, 9oS. 
Warrender v. Warrender, 822. 
Warrener v. KingsniiU. 834, &19. 
Warren Mfg. Co. v. Insurance Co., 83. 

Warren Sav. Bank v. Silverstein, 83. 
Warrington v. Ball, 917. 

V. Mfg. Co., 22. 
Warwick v. Underwood, 7S7. 
Washbon v. Cope, 644. 
Washburn v. Osgood, 1010. 

V. Palace Car Co., 285, 587. 
Washington v. Hackett, 191. 
Washington, A. & G. Steam Packet 

Co. V. Sickles, 624, 625, 630. 
Washington Bridge Co. v. Stewart. 

Washington Gaslight Co. v. District 

of Columbia, 575. 
Washington Ins. Co. v. Price, 174. 
Washington Park Club v. Baldwin. 

Washington & B. Turnpike Road y. 

State, 98. 
AA'ashington & G. R. Co. v. Tobrlner. 

Washington .& N. O. Tel. Co. v. Hob- 
son, 99. 
Wassell Y. English. 54. 

V. Heardon, 61a, (»9. 
Water Com'rs of City of New Bruns- 
wick V. Cramer, 783. 
Waterhouse v. Cousins, 287. 

V. Mining Co., 33. 
Waterman v. Jones. 52. 

V. Town of Waterloo. 985. 
Waters v. Dumas, 121. 

V. Perkins, 766. 

V. Spofford, 809. 
Waters' Appeal, 432, 439. 
Water, Supply & Storage Co. v. Reser- 
voir Co.. 618. 
Watkins, Ex parte, 255,' 259, 285. 

Y. Abrahams, 55. 

V. Davis, 286. 

v. Lan<}on, 372. 

V. Lewis, 250. 

v. State, 493. 

V. Wassell. 421. 

V. Wortniaii, M)2, 802. 
AVatson, In re, 255. 


[References to sections. 98 1 to 

Watson V. Adams, 199. 

V. Bank, 903. 

V. Cowdrey, 715. 

V. Dodd, 428. 

V. Garvin, 523. 

V. Hahn, 271. 

V. Hopkins, 514. 

V. Miller Bros., 83, 

V. Newsham, 347. 

V. Owens, 776. 

V. Railroad Ck)., 152, 354, 740. 

V. Richardson, 510, 600. 

V. Skating Rink Co., 154. 

V. Steinan, 913. 

V. Van Meter, 738. 

V. Watson. 720. 

V. Williams, 251. 
AVatt V. Brookover, 204. 
Watts V. Everett, 958. 

V. Frazer, 370. 

V. Gayle, 366, 375. 

V. Rice, 611. 

V. Taylor's Adm'r, 560. 

V. Watts, 612, 633. 
Waits' Case, 98. 
Way V. Howe, 248. 

V. Lamb, 368. 

V. iewls, 586, 587. 
Wayman v. Cochrane, 082. 
Wearen v. Smith, 36, 182. 
Wearne v. Smith, 182. 
Weatherbee v. Weatherbee, 320. 
Weatherford v. James. 44. 

V. Van Alstyne, 326. 
Weaver v. Brenner. 265. 

V. Cressman, 862. 

V. English, 967. 

V. Gardner, 92. 

V. Laps ley, 7, 11, 298. 

V. Leach, 353. 

V. Poyer, 376. 

y. Smith. 433. 

V. Thornton, 590. 

V. Toney, 269. 

V. Wlble. 493. 
Webb V. Bailey. 749. 

V. Buckelew, 509, 695. 

V. Carr, 240. 

V. Den, 607. 

V. Elliott, ir)8. 

V. Wiltbank. 200. 
Webber v. Boom Co., 530. 

V. llarshbargor, 4i>2. 


499 in vol. 1 ; residue in vol. 2.] 

Webber v. Mackey, 504. 

V. Randall, 45. 

V. Stanton, 200, 204. 
Weber v. Couch, 989. 

V. Detwiller, 496. 

V. Lee County, 985b. 

V. Railroad Co., 737. 

V. Tschetter. 953, 955. 

V. Yanc3% 958. 
W^ebster v. Adams, 593. 

V. Daniel, 286. 

V. Lee, 526, 621. 

V. City of Lowell, 593. 

v. Mann, 549. 

V. McDaniel, 1001. 

v. McMahan, 341. 

V. Page, 193. 

V. Reld, 290. 

V. Trust Co., 106, 682. 
Weed V. Weed, 134. 135, 163, 164, 165. 
Weeks v. Downing. 565. 

V. Edwards, 660. 

V. Harriman, 892. 

V. Lawrence, 299. 

V. Ostrander, 565. 

V. Pearson, 864. 
Wegg-Prosser v. Evans, 770. 
Wegman Piano Co. v. Irvine, 585. 
Wehn V. Fall, 438. 
Wehrly v. Morfoot 747. 
Weigley v. Coffman, 713. 

V. Matson, 75. 
W'Cikel V. Long, 78. 698. 
Weil V. Casey, 445, 447. 

V. Hill, 63. 

V. f^wenthal, 228. 

V. Simmons, 188. 190. 
Weiler v. Henarle, 749. 
Weill V. Fontanel, 752. 
Weinberger v. Insurance Co., 719. 
Weiuerth v. Trendley, 38. 
AVeingnrtner v. Mining Co., 701. 
Weinreich v. Hensley, 600. 
Weintraute v. Solomon, 58. 
Weir V. Pennington, 940, 945. 

V. Vail, 857, 883, 920. 
W^eire v. CItj' of Davenport, 943. 
AVeis V. Aaron, 199. 

v. Meyer, 725. 
Weisebcrger v. Nevil, 81)2. 
Welser v. Kling. 761. 

V. AVoiser. 758. 
Woiss v. Binulan, 13. 

[References to sectiont. SS 1 to 

Welch V. Challen, 341. 
V. Keene, 157. 
T. HflDdeville, 700. 
T. May, 313. 
V. Murray. 442. 
V. SL Genevieve, 98oe. 
T. Sargent, 583. 
V. Sykes. 227. 857, 897, 898, 900, 

903, 906, 916. 
V. Wadsworth, 87, 097. 
Weldy V. Young, 191, 297, 
Wellborn V. Carr, 813. 

V. Sbeppard, 84. 
Weller v. Dickinson, 966, 967. 

V. DlUey. 650. 
Wells, In re, 954. 
Kx parte, 1000. 
r. Atkins, 261. 
V. Baird, 986. 
T. Baldwin, 43a 
T. Bank, 864. 
T. Benton, 445. 
T. Bower, 461. 
T. Coyle, 555. 
V. Graham, 488. 
V. Hickox, 734. 
T. Mathews, 86. 
T. Moore, 603, 709, 7ia 
V. Xeff. 922- 
V. Smith. 195, 197, 35a 
T. Stevens. 282. 
V. Town of Mason, 985a. 
v. Town of Salina, 733. 
V. Vanderwerker, 161. 
Wells, Fargo St Co. v. Clarkson, 964. 
V. Van Sickle, 152. 
V. Wall. 332, 365, 366, 384. 
Wellshear v. Kelley. 247. 
^^>ll«-Stone ^(ercantile Co. T. Truax, 

WWsh V. Childs. 271.' 

V. Kirkpatriok. 213. 

V. Lamliert, 34. 

T. Undo. 785. 

V. Murray. 442. 
Wdsher V. Libby, McNoIU & Llbby, 

l<«tl. 1002. IbOo. 
W elton V. Littlejohn, 34a 
Welty T. Roffner, 250. 
WVndel V. North, 567. 
Wfnroan v. Mackenzie, 548. 
WentAvorth v. Keazer. 9<»8. 

V. Ha cine County, 50G. 
1 LAW .TT'DG.— m 


499 in vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Wentz V. Bealor, 204. 

Werborn v. Piuney, 162. 

Werleln v. City of New Orleans, 613, 

Werner v. Council, 29. 
Wemet's Appeal, 354. 
Wernse v. McPike, 866. 
Wernwag v. Pawling, 857, 897. 
Wessell v. Gross, 489. 
Wesson, In re, 495. 

V. Cllamberlain, 250. 
West V. Bagby, 21. 

V. Carter, 379. 

V. Cole. 609. 

V. Fleming, 91. 

V. Furbish, 771. 

V. Galloway's Adm'r, 165. 

V. Irwin, ^0. 

V. Jordan, 200, 204. 

V. Keeton, 111. 

V. Magness, 36a 

V. Miller, 348. 

V. Moser, 628, 749. 

V. Williamson, 85, 223. 
Westbay v. Gray, 246. 
Westbrook v. Thompson, 376, 638a. 
West Buffalo v. Walker Tp., 805. 
West Chester & W. Plank-Road Co. 

V. Chester Coimty, 159. 
West Chicago Park Com'rs v. Farber, 

West Chicago St. Ry. Co. v. Annis, 

Westcott V. Brown, 897, 900. 

V. Edmunds, 518, 787. 
Western Assur. Co. v. Klein, 346a. 
Western Land Co. v. English, 107. 
Western Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Coal Co., 

518, 614. 
Western Security Co. v. Lafleur, 220. 

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Griffin, 345. 
Western & A. R. Co. v. City of At- 
lanta, 575. 

V. Pitts, 343. 

V. Youii^, 981. 
Westervelt v. Jones, 890. 
Westerwelt v. Lewis, 220, 884. 971. 
West Feliciana R. Co. v. Thornton^ 

Westfleld Gas & Milling Co. v. Abor- 
natliey, 304. 

V. Gravel-Road Co., 599. 


[References to BectlonB. 9§ 1 to 

Westheimer v. Craig, 208, 770. 
Westmoreland v. Richardson, 510, 663. 
West New York SIlk-Mill Co. v. 

Laubsch, 518. 
Weston V. City of Cliarleston, 21. 

V. Clark, 987, 995. 
Westphal v. Westphal, 551. 
West Philadelphia Pass. R. Co. v. 

Turnpike-Road Co., 508. 
West's Appeal, 417. 
Wetliered v. Mays, 693. 
Wetherill v. Stillman, 857, 900. 
Wetmore v. Wetmore, 461. 
Wetter v. Lewis, 583. 
Weyand v. Railroad Co., 713. 
Weyer v. Thomburgh, 770. 
Whaley v. Lawton, 707. 

V. Stevens, 617, 717. 
Wharton v. Harlan. 328. 

V. Wilson, 445. 
Wheaton v. Spooner. 944. 
Wheolberger v. Knights 41. 
Wheeler v. Aldrich, 597. 

V. Dakin, 967. 

V. Foster, 183. 

V. GoflPe, 164. 

V. Maillot, 33. 

V. Mayher, 138. 

V. Miller, 583. 

V. Moore, 324, 34r>n, 347. 

V. Raymond, 857. 

T. Riif'kman. 699, 703, 719. 

V. Sweet, 291. 

V. L. S., 33. 

V. Van Hon ten, 526. 
Wlieeler's Estate, 995. 
Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Co. v. Mona- 

han. 354. 
Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co. v. 

Bridge Co., 40. 
Wheelock v. Godfrey, 1013. 

V. Svensgaard, TM. 
Wheelwright v. Depeystor, 818. 
Whelan v. Wholan, rxS."). 
Whelpley v. Nash, 958. 
Whereatt v. Ellis, 981. 
Wherry v. McCammon, 994. 

V. Wherry, 488. 
Whetstone v. Colley, 152. 
Whidby Land & Development Co. v. 

Xyo. 302. 
Whiley v. Broadway, 737. 
Whiliock V. Uiilc's Heirs, G;;0. 


499 In vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Whitaere v. Martin, 405. 
Whitaker, Ex parte, 259. 

y. Bramson, 2, 682, 690, 605, 097, 

v. Davis, 723, 790. 

V. Gee, 23. 

v. Merrill, 681a. 

V. Smith, 318. 

V. Sparkman, 38. 
Whitaker*s Adm'r v. English, 779. 
Whitaker*8 Estate, 635. 
Whltbeck v. Railroad Co., 311. 
Whltcomb V. Hardy, 543, 790. 

V. Whltcomb, 320. 

y. Williams, 767. 
Whltcomb's Case, 257, 
White, Ex parte, 182. 

In re, 256, 524. 

v. Alberteon, 261. 518. 

V. Baillio, 191. 

V. Bank, 375. 

V. Bhrd, 190. 

y. Cabal's Adm*r, 378. 

V. Caldwell, 98. 

V. Cannon, 173. 

V. Chase. 667, 658. 

V. City of Decatur, 05C>a. 

V. Clapp. 299. 

V. Coatsworth, 787. 

V. Conway, 42. 

V. Crew, 618. 

V. Crow, 59, 85, 2(i:i, 368, 393. 

V. Cuthbert, 754. 

V. Espey, 376, 412. 

V. Gaines, 537. 

y. Graves, lOOJi. 

V. Haffaker, 9S2. 

v. Harden, 487. 

V. Harvey, 33. 

v. Henulon,^JW. 

V. Hinton. 205. rU8. 

v. Kyl(»'s Lessee, 650. 

V. Levy, 13. 

y. McClelian, 232. 

v. Mfg. Co., 188. 

y. Merritt, 291, 7«9. 

y. Miller, 195. 

y. Moseley, 741. 

v. Pease, 33. 

y. Philbrlck, 782. 

y. Prigmore, 587. 

y. Railroad Co., 444. 

y. Reagan, 80. 

[References to sections. 99 1 to 

White T. Rcid, 916. 

v. Savage, (J07. 

V. Savery. 719. 

V. Simouds, G2S). 

V. Smith, 743, 740. 

T. Siiow, 92, 340. 

T. Stage Co., 354. 

y. State, 58a 

y. Sydenatiick^, 108. 

T. TreoD, 87a 

V. Trotter, ©16. 

T. Weatherbee, 589. 

V. White, 31a. 

T. Whiting, 717. 

T. Whitman, 865. 

V. Williams, 567. 
Whitehead t. Henderson, 260, 596. 

V. Jessap, 954, 1000. 

V. Latham, 399. 
WliitehlU V. Wilson, 1017. 
Whitehurst v. Rogers, 504, G24. 

T. Transportation Co., 297. 
White River Bank v. Downer, 958, 

White's Adm'rs v. Williams. 810. 
Whitesell V. Peck, 989, lOia 
Whiteselle v. Jones, 556, 598. 
White's Estate, In re, 643, 
Whiteside v. Ass'n. 114. 

r. Hoskins, 990. 
WTiltfleld T. Howard, 351. 
Whltfofd V. Crooks, 549. 
Whiting T. Bank, 48. 

V. Bnrger, 864. 

V. Johnson, 906. 
Whitley V. Electric Co., 874. 
Whitlock T. Appleby, 714. 

T. Crew, 526. 
Whitman v. Willis, 359. 
Whitman & Barnes Mfg. Co. t. Ham- 
ilton, 85. 
Whltmore t. Johnson's Heirs, 604. 
Whrtney t. Bayer, 682. 

T. Bohlen. 52. 

T. Daggett. 351. 

r. Kelley, 3ia 

V. Nelson. 558. 

T. Porter. 194, 195. 

T. Silver, 299. 

T. Spearman. 35. 

r. Townsend, 110. 

V. Walsh, 799. 
W'hltney Iron Works t. Renss, 31. 

CITED. cxev 

499 in vol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Whitney's. Adm'r v. Town of Claren- 
don, 738, 745. 
Whittaker v. Gee, 160. 

V. Stone, 771. 

V. West Boylston, 33. 
Whittemore v. Carkln, 958. 

V. Oil Co., 944. 

V. Shaw, (jGO. 

V. Whittemore, 526. 628. 
W^hittier v. Collins, 745. 

V. Ileminway. 998. 

V. Wendell, 864, 906. 
Whlttlngton v. Christian, 652. 
Whittlesey v. Delaney, 368. 
Whitton V. Whitton. 52. 
Whitwell V. Emory, 1, 3, 115, 132. 
WJiltworth V. Lyons, 425. 
Whorley v. Railroad Ca, 130. 15G, 

Whyte V. Rose, 278. 
Wiant V. Hays. 434. 
Wichita & W. R. Co. v. Beebe, 738. 
Wicke V. Lake, 340. 
Wickersham v. Comerford, 370. 

V. Johnson, 790. 

V. Whedon, 737. 
Wlckes' Lessee v. Caulk, 282. 
Wlckllffe y. Bascom, 550. 
Wickmam v. Nalty. 36, 109. 
Wicks V. Ludwig, 177. 
Wieland t. Willcox. 752. 
Wierlch v. De Zoya, 373. 
Wiethanpt v. City of St Louis, 699. 
Wiggins V. Chance, 426. 

Y. Klienhans, 58. 

V. Mayer, 85. 

V. Stelner, 329. 
Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Railroad Co., 

707, 715. 859. 
Wight, In re, 165. 

V. Mott, 63. 

T. Warner, 279. 
Wigwall V. Mhiing Co., 593. 
Wilbur V. Abbot, 233, 859, 875, 96a 

V. Abbott, 971. 

V. Gilmore, 706. 
Wllcher v. Robertson, 278. 
Wilcox V. Balger, 720, 722. 

T. Field, 89. 

V. Gilchrist, 641, 731. 

T. Jackson, 530. 

V. Kassick, 690, 857, 865, 897, 

cxctI cases 

[References to secUoniB. Sfi 1 to 

Wilcox V. Lee, 714. 

V. Morrisou, ;)r>0. 

V. WellB, 156. 

V. WUcox, 38, 932. 
Wllcoxson V. Burton, 60. 

V. Miller, 446. 
Wild V. iDstitution, 550. 
Wilday V. McConnel, 37(5. 
Wilde V. Trainor, 16. 
Wilder V. Ireland, 667, 571. 
Wildmau v. Munger. 31. 

V. Wlldman, 734. 
Wiley V. Lewis, 116. 

V. Pdvoy, 248, 261. 

V. Pratt, 270, 272. 
Wilhelm V. Parker, 875, 896, 899. 
Wilhelmi v. Insurance CJo.. 714. • 
Wllkerson v. Goldthwalte, 130. 

y. Schoonmaker, 282. 
Wilkes V. Davles, 784. 

y. Jackson, 779. 

y. Perks, 129. 
Wilkie V. Howe, 600. 
Wilkin V. Wilkin, 141. 
Wllkins y. Bank, 116. 

V. Bums, 138. 

y. Dingley, 680, 588, 

y. Sherwood, 323. 

y. Wainwright, 202. 
Wilkinson y. Bayley, 83. 

y. Brlnn, 615. 

y. Daniel, 97. 

y. Hall, 598. 

V. Holloway, 986. 

y. Klrby, 652. 

y. Nebraska, 37. 

y. Paddock, 455, 481. 

y. Rewey, 361. 

y. Vorce, 613. 

y. Yale, 938b. 
Will y. Sinkwitz, 155. 

V. Water Co., 326, 347. 
Willamette Falls Transportation & 

Milling Go. y. Smith, 86. 
Willamette Real-Estate Co. v. Hen- 

drix, 218, 231. 
Willard y. Fox, 1001. 

y, Ostrander, 610, 686. 

y. Sperry, 734. 
Willaume v. Gorges, 993. 
Willems y. WiUems. 386, 393. 
WlUett y. Clark. 951. 

y. Millman, 354. 


499 in TOl. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Willett y. Otterback, 493. 
Willetts, Appeal of, 639. 
Willey y. Laraway, 654. 

y. Paulk, 689. 

y. Strickland, 966, 967. 
William Deering & Co. y. CrelghtoD, 

Williams, Ex parte, 255. 

V. Amory, 428. 

y. Armroyd, 814, 819. 

y. Ball, 280. 

y. Bank, 880. 

y. Benedict, 413. 

y. Bowdon, lOOa 

T. Boyce, 1008. 

y. Burg, 667, 569. 

V. Butcher. 299. 

V. Carr, 380. 

y. Chalfant, 211. 

y, Clouse, 732. 

V. Cooper, 540, 551. 

V. Eyans, 1000. 

y. Fowler. 373. 

y. Gibbs, 546. 

V. Ooff. 207. 

V. Harris, 92. 

V. Hayes, 157. 

V. Hollingsworth, 722. 

y. Hutchinson, 36. 

V. Ives. 810. 

V. Johnson, 272. 

y. Jones, 57, 378, 768, 814, 831, 

y. Kitchen, 747. 

y. Leblanc, 567. 

y. Lee, ovo. 

y. Lockwood, 382. 

y. Luckett, 750, 752. 

V. Lumber Co.. !>1. 

y. Lumpkin, 321, 37a 

y. McFall. 775. 

y. McGrade, 781. 

y. Martin, 290. 

V. Merritt, 102. 

y. Newcomb, 603. 

y. Pile, 363. 
' y. Preston, 229, 813, 826, S28, 857, 
869, 875, 904, 906, mi2. 

y. Railroad Co., 340, 915. 

y. Reed, 633. 

y. Renwlck, 888. 

y. Rockwell. 89. 

y. Row, 518. 

CBflfereneoi to MCtlona. tt 1 to 

Wmiains T. Saunders, 823. 

V. Sharp, 250. 

T. Sutton, 663, 777. 

V. Terrell, 550. 

T. Tomlln, 513, 558. 

T. Tosser, 685. 

T. Walt, 21. 

V. Waldo, 8. 

V. Walker, 48. 

V. Wells, 39. 

V. Whltaker, 282. 

T. WUliams, 145, 185, 310, 612, 
877, 878, 906. 
Williams* Appeal, 56. 
Willlamsburgta Say. Bank ▼. Town of 

Solon, 501. 
Williamson, In re, 938. 

V. Cllne, 192. . 

T. Cocke, 335. 

T. DrlU Co., 354. 

T. Hartman, 326l 

T. Howtil, 589. 

T. Mayer. 654. 

T. Nicklln, 326. 

T. Tnmio, 815. 

V. White, 541. 

T. Williamson. 567. 
Williamson's Adm*r v. Appleberry, 

Williamson's Case, 256, 533. 
Wm. Wolff & Co. T. Railroad Co., 811, 


Willlard y. WlUiard, 430. 
WlUingham y. Long, 992. 
wniiogs y. Consequa, 770. 
Wlllink y. Banking Co., 58B. 
Willis y. Downes, 406, 400. 

y. Ferguson, 246, 513. 

y. Heath, 445. 

y. Marks, 29. 

T. Morrison. 20a 

▼. Sanger, 406a. 

y. Smith, 406, 44^. 

y. Toaer, 613. 
wnuts y. Walter, 966. 
Wnioughby y. Railroad Co., 604. 

y. Stockyards Co., 583. 
Wills y. Chandler, 691, 986. 

y. Pauly, 719. 

y. Shide, 646. 661. 

y. Spraggins. 197, 635. 
Willsie y. Horse^Ranch Co., 321. 419. 
Willson y. Cleav^and, 308. 


119 in TOl. 1 ; residue in vol. 2.] 

Willson V. WUlson, 91. 
Wilmuus V. Bank, 147. 
Wllmarth v. Gatfleld, 3.30. 
Wilmer v. Brlce, 906. 

V. Lewis, 8G2. 
Wilmington & W. R. Co. v. Alsbrook, 

Wllsle V. Rooney, 297. 
Wilson. Ex parte, 258. 259. 

V. Boiighton, 168, 381. 

V. Breyfogle, 15. 

V. Brookshire, 577, 1014. 

y. Buchanan, 362. 

V. Buell, 770, 790. 

V. Coal Co., 493, 583. 

V. Collins, 77. 

V. Coolidge, 190. 

y. Cox, 77. 

y. Davol, 549. 

y. Dawsoo, 89. 

y. Graham, 228. 

V. Hatfield, 958, 975. 

y. Herbert, 192. 

V. HiUinrd, 903. 

y. Hoffman, 652. 

y. Jackson, 900. 

y. Johnson, 220. 

y. Kelly, 560. 

y. Kiesel, 583. 

y. King, 982. 

y. Lowry, 707, 709. 

y. McBlwee, 667. 

y. Mfg. Co., 878, 879. 

y. Marsh, 983. 

V. Myers. 127. 166, 157. 

y. Nance, 116. 

y. Panne, 144. 

y. Patton. 418. 

V. Railroad Co., r>29. 

y. Ray, 707. 

y. Rodewald. 179. 

y. Scott, 340a, 343. 

y. Seymour, 583. 

y. Smith, 200, 206, 840a, 846. 

T. State, 577. 

y. Stiiwcll. 1016. 

V. Stripo. 611. 

y. Tieman, 483. 

T. Tompkins. 551. 

V. Torbert. 308. 

V. Trowbridge. 376. 

V. Tucker, 958. 

y. Tunstall, 847. 


[References to sections. SS 1 to 

Wilson V. Wadleigh, 941. 

V. Wilson, 38C. 

V. Zeigler, 225. 
Wilson County Gom*rs v. Mcintosh, 

Wilson's Ex'r v. Deen, 624. 
Wilson's Heirs v. Wilson's Adm'r, 

270, 287. 
Wilson S. M. Co. V. Curry, 366. 
Wilson & Toms Inv. Co. t. Hillyer, 

Wilt V. Ogden, 785. 
Wilton V. Railroad Co., 740. 
Wimberley v. Collier, 567. 
AVinans v. Dunbam, 630. 

y. Hassey, 152. 

y. Rooecrans, 625. 
Winberry y. Koonce, 915. 
Winchester y. Beardln, 211, 239. 

V. Coni'rs, 532. 

y. Eyans, 855. 

y. Gleayes, 388. 

y. Grosyenor, 375. 
Windecker v. Insurance Co., 1004. 
Windee y. Barp, 308. 
AVlndett y. Hamilton, 310. 
AVindlsch y. Gussett, 152. 
Windsor y. McVeigh, 215, 220, 226, 

792, 790. 
Windwart y. Allen, 366. 
Winegard y. Fanning, 538. 
Winaeld y. Bacon, 388, 766, 
Wing, In re, 205. 

y. De La Rionda, 461, 691. 

V. Warner, 32. 
Wingate y. Haywood, 270, 366, 368, 

Wingfleld y. Cotton, 311. 
Wing V. Hooper, 002. 
Winham y. Kline. 693, 725. 857, 968, 
Winn y. Dry-Goods Co., 22. 

y. Strickland, 872. 
AVinnebrenner y. Edgerton. 63. 
Winnlngham y. Tnieblood, 209, 281. 
Winona & St P. Land Co. y. Minne- 
sota, 613. 
Winpenny y. Winpenny, 651. 
Winshlp y. Jewett, 347. 
Winslow y. Ancrum's Assignees, 981. 

y. Anderson, 83, 326. 

y. Clark, 991. 

y. Lambard, 82, 211. 

y. Lelaud, 938b. 


499 in TOl. 1; residue tn vol. 2.] 

Winslow y. Newlan, 207. 

V. Stokes, 737. 
Winston, Ex parte. 257 

y. Browning. 411. 

y. Hodges, 440. 

y. Mc Alpine, 191. 

V. McLendon, 194. 

V. Miller, 83. 

V. Starke. 600. 

y. Taylor, 906. 

V. AVestfeldt. 600. 
Winter v. Council, 190. 

y. London, 260. 

y. State, 336. 
Whiterson y. Hltchingg, 1005. 
Wlnthrop Iron Co. y. Meeker, 48. 
Wintcm's Appeal, 956. 
Wlpff y. Heder, 252. 
WiTt y. Dinan, 36. 
Wisdom y. Memphis, 985b. 
Wise y. Hyatt, 211. 

y. Loring, 946, 9^4. 

y. Schloesser, 353. 

y. Shepherd, 960. 

y. Withers, 256. 
Wise's Appeal, 350. 
Wissler v. Herr..898. 
Wistar y. McManes, ni>l. 
W^iswall y. Sampson, 4i».% 537. 
WItcher v. Oldham, 716. 
Witherby t. Mann, 976. 
Witherow v. Keller, 299. 
Withers t. Carter, 442. 

y. Patterson, 278. 
Witherspoon y. Spring, 1009. 

y. Twitty, 498. 
Withington y. Warren, 615. 
Wlthnell y. Wagon Co., 421, 433. 
Witlirow V. Smithson, 206, 300. 
Witt V. Henge, 243. 
Wittemore v. Malcomson, 970, 971. 
Witter y. Bachman, 86. 

y. Dudley, 110. 

y. Fisher, 671. 
Witters v. Sowles, 208. 
Wlttick y. Traun, 3, 672. 
Wittstruck y. Temple, 494, 496. 
Wbcom y. Stephens, 680. 
Wixson y. Deyine, 789. 
Woelf el y. Hammer, 331. 
Woffenden y. Woffenden. 308. 
Wofford y. Booker. 376. 
Wohlford V. Compton, 706. 

[References to sections. §} 1 to 

Wdcott T. Ensign, 975. 

T. Jones, 3!>1. 
Wo Lee, In re, 257. 
Wolf V. Bank, 328, 35L 

T. Butler, 321. 

T. Hamberg, 89. 

▼. Pounsford. 482a, 486. 

T. Water-Power Co., IIL 

T. Yonbert, 280. 
Wolfe V. Davis, 170, 328w 

V. Gardner. 481. 

T. Wllsey, 148. 
Wolff V. City of New Orleans, 985f. 

V. Van Metre, 191. 
Wolffe ▼. Eberlein, 8, 951. 
Wolff & Co. V. Railroad Co., 691. 
Wolford T. Borwen, 143. 
Wolf River Lumber Co. ▼. Brown, 

WoUam V. Brandt, 439a. 
Wolmcrstadt v. Jacobs, 153. 
Wolverton v. Baker, 514. 518, 681. 

V. Glasscock, 631. 
Womack v. Sanford, 134. 

V. Womack. 633. 
Woman's College v. Home, 42. 
Wonderly v. L4ifayette County, 482a, 

481, 493, M6, 985d. 
Wong Yung Qny, In re, 257. 
Wood V. Augustlns, 897. 

V. Bagley. 78. 

V. Bayard. 205. 24S. 

V. Boyle, 204. 

V. BuHens, 152. 

V. Bylngton, 560. 

V. CahiU, 020. 

V. City of Mobile. 251. 939. 

V. City of Xew York, 989. 

V. Conrad. 1006. 

V. Corl, <;2I). 

V. Currey, 991. 

T. Davis. .548. 

V. Ellis, 61. 

V. Ensel. 540. 

V. Faut, 724. 

V. Gamble. 847. 

V. Gary. 460. 

V. Harmison, 41. 

V. Jackson, 511. Gil. C14, 083. 784, 
785, 787. 

T. Keyes, 126. 127. 

V. I^nox. 383. 

V. Mitchell, Oa, 77. 


499 In Tol. 1; residue in vol. 2.] 

Wood V. Newberry, 958. 

V. Olney, 211. 

V. Partridge, 596. 

V. Payea, 306. 

V. Ramond, 609. 

V. Reynolds. 404. 

V. Smith, 211. 

V. Stanberry, 242. 

V. Wallace, 944, 945. 

V. Ward, 187. 

V. Walkinson, 861, 906. 

V. Watson, 200. 

V. Wood, 835, 901, 934. 
Woodbrldge v. Austin, 849. 

V. Banning, 656. 
Woodbrldge & Turner Engineering 

Co. V. Rltter, 882. 
Woodbume v. Plummer, 82d 
Woodbury v. Bowman, 510. 

V. District of Columbia, 981. 

V. Maguire, 274. 

V. Perkins, 977. 

V. Society, 504. 
Wood Co. V. Berry Co., 79a. 
Woodfork v. Bromfleld, 487. 
Woodgate v. Fleet, 428. 
Woodbouse v. Duncan, 754, 938.' 

V. PiUbates, 270, 271. 
Woodland v. Newhall's Adm*r. 730. 
Woodlief v. Logan, 109. 
Woodman v. Smith. 245. 
Woodrow V. O* Conner. 296. 
Woodruff. Ex parte, 163. 

V. Cook, 250. 

V. Johnston, 372. 

V. Matheney, 84. 

V. Richardson, 103. 

V. Rose, 36. 

V. Sanders, 993, 994. 

V. Taylor, 229, 635, 792, 801, 904, 

V. Woodruff, 529. 
Woods, Ex parte. 220. 

V. Ayres. 958. 

V. Bryan, 03. 278. 

V. Dickinson, 325. 

V. Freeman, 118. 

V. Irwin, 351. 

V. Llndvall, 703. 

V. State, 100. 

V. White, 541. 

V. Woo<ls, 61a. 

V. Woodson, 58.'5a. 
Woodslde v. Wagg, 176. 


[References to sectioni. If 1 to 

Woodside y. Woodside, 49. 
Woodson V. Barrett. 379. 
Woodward v. Backus, 347. 

V. Carson, 9(30. 

V. Curtis, 284. 

V. Dean, 438. 

V. Hill, 758. 

y. Jackson, 54S. 

V. Mfg. Co., 304a. 

V. Moore, 592. 

V. Xewhall. 82, 206. 

y. Pike, 362. 

y. Thomas, 560. 

y. Tremere, 906. 

V. Woodward. 305, 461. 
Woodyard v, Polsley, 409. 
Wooldridge v. Brown, 86. 
Woolery y. Grayson, 289. 
Wooley V. U. S., 624. 
Woolfolk y. Degelos, 987. 
Woolley V. Sullivan, 270, 341. 

y. Woolley. 32a 
Woolner y. Leyy, 445. 
Woolaey y. Order, 516. 
Woolyerton y. Baker, 726. 
Woolworth y. Parker, 433. 
Wooster y. Cooper, 725. 

y. Fitzgerald, 536. 

y. Gloyer, 164. 
Wooters y. Smith, 772. 
Wootters y. Hall, 653. 

y. Kauffman, 206. 
Worden y. Jones, 995. 
Work y. Brown, 412. 

y. Harper, 396, 470. 
Worley y. Hineman. ,540. 
Worman's Appeal, 498. 
Wornock y. Loar, 194. 
Worst y. Sgitcoylch, 723. 
Wort V. Flnley, 220. 
Worth y. Wetmore, 346, 346a, 351. 
Wortham y. Com., 6J)9, 790. 
Worthlngton. In re, 182. 

y. Campbell, 153. 

V. Nelson, 478. 
Wortman v. Wortman, 320. 
W. P. Fuller & Co. y. Hull, 406, 411. 
Wray's Adm'rs y. Furniss, 371. 
Wright y. Anderson, 763. 

y. Andrews, 272, 542, 897, 901, 

y. Bank, 409. 


499 in vol. 1; residue In toI. 2.] 

Wright y. Boynton, 884. 

V. Broome, 671. 

V. Bruschke, 42. 

y. Butler, 5(H, 783. 784, 787. 

y. Churchman. 353. 

y. City of Cincinnati, 009. 

y. Cobleigh, 1002, 1004. 

y. Douglass, 275. 

y. Durrett. 242, 

y. Griffey, 537, 613. 

y. Hazen, 280, 600. 

y. Jones. 21. 

y. I^throp, 779. 

y. Leclaire, 758. 

y. Leyy, 956. 

y. McBride, 160i 

y. Marsh, 245. 

y. Miller, 197. 

y. Mills, 122. 200. 

V. Mooney. 1001. 

y. Parks, 943, 947. 

y. PhllUps, 500. 

y. Roseben-y. 530. 

y. Smith, 288. 

y. Snell, 956. 

y. Stanard, 548, 

y. State, 109. 

y. Tatham, 537. 

y. Tileston, 744. 

y. Wright, 246, 633, 822, 982. 

V. Young, 1008. 
Wrightman v. Boone County, 486. 
Wronkow y. Oakley, 473. 
Wuest y. .Tames, 462. 
W^urzberger v. Carroll, 498. 
W. W. Kimball Co. y. Brown, 221 
Wyatt V. Burr, 641. 

V. Fromme, 996. 
Wyche v. Ross, 349. 
Wyer y. Andrews, 986. 
Wygant y. Brown, 313. 
AVyler v. Railroad Co.. 305. 
Wyuinn v. Buekstaff. 155. 

V. Campbell, 513. 

y. DoiT. 715. 

y. Ilallock, 242. 

y. Hardwick. 363, 392. 

y. Mitchell, 8. 
Wynn y. Frost. 341. 

V. Garland, .5.30. 

y. Henlnger, 288. 

y. Wilson, 375, 378. 

[References to secttons. 99 1 to 

Wynne t. Bank, 445. 

y. Newman's Adni*r, 386. 

y. Spiers, 705. 

V. Wynne, 441. 
Wyoming Mfg. Co. y. Mobler, 917. 
Wyoming Nat Bank y. Browii, 4, 8. 
Wythe y. Salem, 790. 

Xlqoea y. Bnjac, 584. 

Vager y. Lemp, 29. 

Yakima Water, Ught & Power Co. v. 

Hathaway, 460. 
Yancey y. Downer, 357, 387. 
Yancy y. Teter, 346. 
Yaple y. Titus, 200, 245. 
Yarborough y. Fitzpatrick, 1005. 
Yarborongh's Ex'r y. Scott's Ex'r, 155. 
Yarbrougb, Ex parte, 255, 257. 
Yarnell v. Brown, 958. 
y. Moore, 993, 994. 
Yates y. Robertson, 442, 443. 
Yeager y. Dayia, 466. 
Yeage^s Appeal, 489. 
Yeates y. Mead, 1016. 
Yeatman y. Yeatman, 250. 
Yentzer y. Thayer, 85. 
Yeoman y. Younger, 245. 
Yerger, Bz parte, 255. 
Yerkes y. McHenry, 311. 

y. Richards, la 
Yetter, In re, 536. 
Yoakom y. Tilden, 986. 
Yocnm y. Bank, 562. 
Yoes y, Moore, 641. 
Yoho y. McGoyem, 771, 772. 
Yon y. Baldwin, 680. 
Yonge y. Broxaon, 135. 

y. Shepperd, 894. 
Tongue y. Blllups, 378. 
Yonley y. Thompson, 99. 
York Bank's Appeal, 57, 58, 77, 211, 

212, 40a ' 
York Draper Mercantile Co. y. Hutch- 

iniion, 83. 
Yorke T. Yorke, 346. 


499 In vol. 1; residue !n vol. 2.] 

Yorks V. Steele, 542. 
Y'orton y. Railroad Co., 054. 
Yost V. Harvester W^orks, 352. 

y. Mensch, 351. 
Young y. Bank, 86. 

V. Bircher, 352. 

V. Black, 504, 785, 787. 

V. Brehi, 512, 684. 

v. Byrd, 644. 

V. Cleveland, 1008. 

y. Conklin, 346a. 

y. Connelly, 118. 

y. Devries, 438, 446. 

y. Farwell, 518. 

V. Harrison, 604. 

y. Lorain, 247. 

•v. Mackall, 25. 

V. O'Neal, 677. 

v. People, 106. 

V. Pickens, 204. 

V. Pritchard, 657. 

V. Read, 1007, 1009. 

y. Ross, 904. 

V. RmnmeU, 624, 784, 785. 

V. Shallenberger, 121. 

V. Sigler, 297a, 360, 393. 

V. Skipwith, 39. 

V. Templeton, 400. 

V. Watson, 261. 

V. Wickliffe, 104. 

V. Young, 194, 320, 449. 
Younger v. Massey, 439a. 
Young's Guardian v. Sadler, 156. 
Youugstown Bridge Co. v. Railroad 

Co., 261. 
Younkin v. Younkin, 509. 
Yung Jon, Bz parte, 257. 

Zabel y. Harshman, 611. 

Zalesky y. Insurance Co., 680. 

Zander y. Coe, 216. 

Zapeda y. Rahm, 659. 

Zebley y. Storey, 313. 

Zecharie y. Bowers, 222. 

Zelders' Appeal, 498. 

Zellerbach v. Allenberg, 321. 

Zepp v. Hager. 227, 857, 884, 897, 899. 

Zerbe v. Railroad Co., 1005. 


tReferences to tectlons. S9 1 to 499 In ▼ol. 1; residue in vol. 2.1 

Zerega v. Will, 750. 
Ziebold, Ex parte, 257. 
Ziegler v. Evans, 54, 332. 
Zimmerman, In re, 524. 

V. Gaumer, 941. 

T. Gerdes, 83. 

Zimmerman v. Helser. STm. Su2. 
Zinc Carbonate Co. v. Bank, 902. 
Zink y. aty of Buffalo, 594. 
Zinn V. Dawson, 391. 1000. 
Zoller V. McDonald, 27. 
Zumbro y. Stump, 498. 




Pakt L The Natcrb of Judoments. 

f 1. Definitions of Judgments, Decrees, and Orders. 

Z. The Langnage of a Judgment 

3. Essentials of a Judgment. 

4. Consequmices of a Judgment 

5. Judgment is not an Assignment 
tt. Judgment is not a Specialty. 

7. Judgments sometimes called Contracts. 

H. The opposite View. 

U. Where tbe Cause of Action Is In Tort. 

10. Judgments are not Contracts. . 

U. Question of Statutory Construction. 

Part II. The Classification of Judomentb. 

12. Methods of Classifying Judgments. 

13. Judgments on an Issue of I«aw. 

14. Judgments upon Verdict. 

15. Judgments without Verdict 
l(i Judgment against the Verdict 

17. Names of Judgments in certain Special Actions. 
Itl. Cross-Classifications of Judgments. 
IV. Classification of Decrees. 

Part I. The Nature of Judgments. 

I 1. DeflaitloAs of JudzatentUf Deorees, and Orders. 

As, in logic, judgment is an affirmation of a relation between a 
particular predicate and a particular subject, so, in law, it is the 
affirmation by the law of the legal consequences attending a proved 
or admitted state of facts. It is not, however, a mere assertion of 

1 LAW JUDG.-l 


the rules of law as applied to given conditions, nor of the legal rela- 
tions of the persons concerned. It is always a declaration that a 
liability, recognized as within the jural sphere, does or does not 
exist. An action is instituted for the enforcement of a right or the 
redress of an injury. Hence a judgment, as the culmination of the 
action, declares the existence of the right, recognizes the commission 
of the injury, or negatives the allegation of one or the other. But 
as no right can exist without a correlative duty, nor any invasion of 
it without a corresponding obligation to make amends, the judgment 
necessarily affirms, or else denies, that such a duty or such a liability 
rests upon the person against whom the aid of the law is invoked. 
Further, a judgment is properly neither hortatory nor imperative. 
It does not advise or recommend, nor, on the other hand, does it 
prescribe any act or course of conduct. In respect to the latter par- 
ticular the case is different, of course, with a decree in equity, but we 
are now using the term "judgment" in its narrowest sense. In gen- 
eral, therefore, it neither counsels nor commands, but simply asserts. 
Again, although it is the affirmation of the law, it is necessarily pro- 
nounced by the mouth of a court pr judge. And the decision of any 
arbiter, self-constituted or chosen by the litigants, is no judgment. 
The law speaks only by its appointed organs. It is only when the 
deliverance comes from a true and competent court that it is entitled 
to be called a judgment. Finally it must be responsive to the state 
of facts laid before the tribunal. It is elementary law that no court 
can travel outside the controversy presented to it, to touch other 
rights or relations not involved. Hence the judgment must be an 
affirmation in regard to the matters submitted to the court for deci- 
sion. We may therefore define a judgment as the determination or 
sentence of the law, pronounced by a competent judge or court, as 
the result of an action or proceeding instituted in such court, affirm- 
ing that, upon the matters submitted for its decision, a legal duty 
or liability does or does not exist.* 

1 "A Judgment is the final consideration and determination of a court of 
^competent jurisdiction upon tbe matters submitted to it" Wbitwell y. Em- 
ory, 3 Mich. 84, 59 Am. Dec. 220. *'The decision or sentence of the law, given 
:by a court of justice or other competent tribunal, as tbe result of proceedings 
Instituted therein for the redress of an injury." Bout. Law Diet. voc. **jQd|^- 



This is the definition of a judgment in its narrow and technical 
sense; that is, as it is understood at common law, as distinguished 
irom the modified significance of the term as used in the codes of 
procedure, and also as distinguished from the definitive sentences of 
courts of equity, admiralty, arbitration, and others.* The term 
which, in equity practice, corresponds to judgment at common law 
is "decree." But there are important differences between judgments 
and decrees, such as to require a distinct definition of the latter ; and 
these we now proceed to consider. 

A decree, then, is the determination, sentence, or judgment of 
equity, pronounced by a competent court, upon the controversy sub- 
mitted for its decision. Or more specifically, it is "a sentence or 
order of the court, pronounced on hearing and understanding all the 
points in issue, and determining the rights of all the parties in the 
suit according to equity and good conscience." • But a decree dif- 
fers from a judgment both in the process which precedes and deter- 
mines it and in its contents. Aside from the differences in the 
courts, — in their organization, process, remedial machinery, rules 
and methods of investigation, principles of decision, and the scope 
of their competence, — it is to be noted that while a judgment at law 
is usually, at least in contested cases, determined by the verdict, the 
conclusion of law following inevitably as soon as the facts are found, 
a judge in equity is called upon to decide upon the whole merits of 
the controversy as it addresses itself to his conscience and sense of 
fairness, of course within the established rules of equity. Hence 
while a decree is, equally with a judgment, the deliverance of the law, 

ment.*' "The conclnsion of law upon facts found, or admitted by the parties, 
or apon their default in the course of the suit." 2 Tldd, Prac. 930. "A judg- 
ment is the determination of the law as the result of proceedings instituted 
fa a court of Justice. A final judgment is such as at once puts an end to the 
action, by determining tbat the plaintiff is or is not entitled to recover, and 
the amount in debt or damages to be recovered." Thompson, J., in Mahoning 
Bank's Appeal, 32 Pa. 160. 

2 A judicial sentence may be designated by a different term than judg- 
ment. In the case of Cooper v. Metzger, 74 Ind. 544, It was held that the 
words '^filial adjustment,*' as used in a statute, were equivalent in meaning to 
**flnal judgment.'* 

• 2 DanieU, Ctu Prac. MMS. "A decree in chancery is the Judgment of the 



it IS also, to a considerable degree, the decision of the man who 
frames it, as the interpreter of that moral standard which equity sets 
up. Another important particular in which they differ is that a de- 
cree is more pliable than a judgment. The latter proceeds upon the 
determination of a narrow issue, of law or fact, and merely decides 
upon the existence of an alleged liability as between two contending 
persons or groups of persons. A decree may be adjusted to meet 
all the exigencies of the litigation, and to settle all t!ie conflictinr; 
rights and claims, however numerous and complicated may be the 
interests involved. Further, a judgment has in general nothing 
whatever to do with the means of enforcing the liability which it de- 
clares. Certain consequences do indeed flow from it, — ^as the right 
to issue execution, the attaching of a lien upon land, — ^but these arc 
no part of the judgment, nor is it concerned with directions for mak- 
ing its sanction effective. It is, as already stated, a bare assertion. 
On the other hand, a decree may, and frequently does, contain more 
or less minute and specific directions for effectuating its object 
Also it may prescribe or forbid a specific act or course of conduct, 
which a judgment never does. Hence it will be perceived that the 
orbit of a decree in chancery, so to speak, is much wider than that 
of a judgment at law. 

This distinction between decrees and judgments has not always 
been strictly preserved in American practice. In some of the states 
there is a sort of border-land where equitable relief is administered 
through common law forms, the amalgamation having occurred 
through the lack of separate chancery courts. Thus in Pennsyl- 
vania, where an action of ejectment may be brought to enforce the 
specific performance of a contract for the sale of land, the sentence 
pronounced is not regarded as an ordinary judgment at law, but as 
containing the substance of a decree in equity, since it directs the 
payment of money by one party and the conveyance of the land by 
the other.* 

In those states which have adopted codes of retormed procedure, 

chancellor upon the facts ascertained and should be signed by him and entered 
on the minutes of the court." Code Ga. § 4212. 
«Coughanour r. Bloodgood, 27 Pa. 286, 


all distinction between law and equity, so far as relates to pleading 
and practice, is abolished, and of course the difference between judg- 
ments and decrees is also swept away. There being but one form of 
civil action, the plaintiff may ask therein for any relief which either 
law or equity would accord him, and the decision in his favor may 
award him damages, specific performance, an injunction, foreclosure 
of a mortgage, or any other legal remedy. Hence the final deter- 
mination of any suit, whether by the proceedings formerly known as 
equity, or at common law, is, under these codes, a judgment.** The 
most usual definition is "the final determination of the rights of the 
parties in an action or proceeding." • And the term "decree'* is no 
'.onger used, except colloquially. It will be observed that the defi- 
nition quoted, while it enlarges the scope of the word by making it 
include decisions which were not formerly called judgments but de- 
crees, also restricts it by the exclusion of those determinations which 
are elsewhere known as interlocutory judgments. 

It is also necessary to distinguish judgments and decrees from 
orders. An order is the mandate or determination of the court upon 
some subsidiary or collateral matter arising in an action, not dis- 
posing of the merits, but adjudicating a preliminary point or direct- 
ing some step in the proceedings. It is defined by the supreme court 
of California as "a decision made during the progress of the cause 
either prior or subsequent to final judgment, settling some point of 
practice or some question collateral to the main issue presented by 
the pleadings and necessary to be disposed of before such issue can 
be passed upon by the court, or necessary to be determined in car- 
rying the execution into effect." ^ It will be observed that orders, 

 SUte V. McArthur, 5 Kan. 280; Hughes v. Shreve, 3 Mete. (Ky.) 547; 
Kramer v. liebmaD, 9 Iowa, 114. 

• Code Civ. Froc. Oal. § 577; Code Civ. Proc. N. Y. § 1200; Code Kan. 
i ay6; Code Or. § 240. MUler's Code Iowa. § 2849, declares that "ever^ 
final adjudication of the rights of the parties In an action is a Judgment" 
iSee Walker v. Walker. 93 Iowa, 643, 61 N. W. 930. In Tennessee, the word 
'-judgment" is usually applied to a determination of the rights of the parties 
in an action at law, and the word '"decree" to a similar determination in 
iy]iiJty; but the words are declared to be interchangeable as used in the 
Cocl«>. Ward v. Kenner (Teim.) 37 S. W. 707. 

7 Loring ▼. lUsley, 1 Cal. 27. 



under the codes, thus include the judgments formerly called inter- 
locutory. An order is granted upon an application to the court 
called a motion.® The term seems to be practically synonymous 
(except for its including interlocutory judgments) with "rule." But 
the latter is more commonly used in those states adhering to the 
common law practice, while order is generally employed in those 
which have adopted codes.* 

i 2. The I*a]i«iiase of a Jndgment. 

"A judgment, though pronounced or awarded by the judges, is 
not their determination and sentence, but the sentence and determi- 
nation of the law, which depends, not upon the arbitrary opinion of 
the judge, but the settled and invariable principles of justice, and is 
the remedy prescribed by law for the redress of injuries, and the suit 
or action is the vehicle or means of administering it ; and therefore 
the style of the judgment is not that *it is ordered or resolved by the 
court,' for then the judgment might be their own, but *it is consid- 
ered' — 'consideratum est per curiam,' which implies that the judg- 
ment is none of their own, but the act of the law, pronounced and 
declared by the court upon determination and inquiry.'' ^® At the 
same time there is no magic in this formula; nor is it a conclusive 
criterion whether a definitive judgment has been rendered that the 
entry employs or omits the usual phrase, "it is considered." A judg- 
ment may be final and subject to review on writ of efror, as well 
when entered without as with that clause.*^ The usual style of a 

8 Code Civ. Froc. Cal. § 1003; Code Qv. Proc. N. Y. § 767. 

» The refusal of a court to Issue the writ of mandamus Is neither a judg- 
ment nor a decree. Craddock v. Croghan, 1 Sneed (Ky.) 100. Neither is a 
decision made by the court upon a matter addressed to its dlscretiouary au- 
thority; as, an application to have a cause brought forward on the docket 
and to vacate a certain Judgment therein rendered. Claggett v. Siraes, 25 
X. H. 402. But in Georgia, it is said that an order passed by a judge of 
the superior court, whether in term or at chambers, granting an application 
presented by a trustee for leave to sell the trust property, has all the sanctity 
of a formal judgment of a court of general jurisdiction, and will be sup- 
ported by the same presumptions. Reinhart v. Blackshear, 105 Ga. 799, 31 
S. K. 748. 

10 Baker v. State, 3 Ark. 491. Dickinson, J. 

11 Whitaker v. Bramson, 2 Paine, 201), Fed. Cas. No. 17,r.2G 



decree is "it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed ;" and of an order or 
rule, "it is ordered," eta 

i 3. EMPentialfl of a Jadememi. 

We are not at present concerned with the tests by which the va- 
lidity of a judgment is to be determined, such as the question of ju- 
risdiction, the status of the parties, the time, place, and manner of 
its rendition. But the object of this section is to indicate the essen- 
tial characteristics which must appear on the face of the decision in 
order to entitle it to be called a judgment for any purpose, even as a 
preliminary to investigating its validity. And first, it must appear 
to be the sentence of a court. As already stated, the award of arbi- 
trators or of any self-constituted tribunal is not a judgment. The 
decision must purport to emanate from some court of justice known 
tu and organized under the laws of the particular sovereignty. At 
the same time, it is usual to recognize the determinations of certain 
bodies invested with minor administrative powers, and acting in a 
judicial capacity in reference to their exercise,** as equivalent to 
judgments of the courts. But it is only by analogy that these deci- 
sions can be called judgments. And in general, a paper purporting 
to be a judgment, but not stating by what court rendered, nor when, 
nor for what cause of action, is a nullity.*' Again, unless in the 
case of purely ex parte proceedings, it must appear to have been ren- 
dered between adverse parties, or, in a certain class of actions, be- 
tween a party plaintiff and some res which stands in place of a de- 
fendant.** The case of a proceeding against "unknown owners" is 

1* Such as road commissioners, In adjudicating upon the necessity of a 
road, and in locating and making assessments for the same. Lon^ellow y. 
t^uimby, */» Me. 196, 48 Am. Dec. 525. Or a town council, in auditing and 
allowing a claim for a certain and ascertained amount Kelly v. Wimberly, 
01 Miss. 548. Bee, infra, § 532. 

IS BeviDgton y. Buck, 18 Ind. 414. 

i*'nie action of a county court incorporating a town, under the statute 
in Missonri, is not a judgment or cHrder, within the meaning of the act 
allowing appeals. Mali y. De Armond, 46 Mo. App. 596. But a decree ad- 
judging against certain persons certain amounts and ordering the same paid 
into court to the credit of an estate, and proyiding for the distribution of the 
fund to designated persons in fixed amounts, is such a final judgment as will 



no real exception to this rule, for there is always a thing or right 
claimed, which may be personified as the plaintiff's adversary. And 
the judgment must of course appear to be in favor of one party and 
against the other. Again, the judgment must be definitive. Itmustpur- 
port to be the actual and absolute sentence of the law, as distin- 
guished from a mere finding that one of the parties is entitled tc a 
judgment, or from a direction to the effect that a judgment may be 
entered. "An order for a judgment is not the judgment, nor does 
the entry of such order partake of the nature and qualities of a judg- 
ment record." ^* It has been held that an order of court allowing 
the plaintiff's attorney to enter up judgment for the plaintiff is in it- 
self a sufficient judgment for the plaintiff for the amount sued fcnr.^' 
But it may well be doubted whether this would hold good for all the 
purposes of a judgment. Where an interlocutory judgment is ren- 
dered by default, upon a claim for unliquidated damages, its amount 
may be left for ascertainment by proper proceedings. But we may 
say in general that if a judgment purports to be final, and is given 
upon a money demand, the amount of the recovery must be stated in 
it with certainty and precision. If the amount remains to be deter- 
mined by a future contingency, or ascertained by referees, or dimin- 
ished by the allowance of an unliquidated credit, or is otherwise in- 
definite and uncertain, it is no proper judgment. ^^ It remains to be 
stated that, in case of ambiguity, a judgment should be construed 
with reference to the pleadings, and when it admits of two construc- 
tions, that one will be adopted which is consonant with the judg- 
ment which should have been rendered on the facts and law of the 

support a writ of error, though not in favor of any person acting Individually 
or In a representative capacity. Haines v. Christie, 27 Colo. 288. 60 Pao. 567. 

15 Whit well V. Emory, 3 Mich. 84, 59 Am. Dec. 220. A written memo- 
randum by tlie judge, of certain couchisious of fact, with a formal order for 
more evidence on certain points, is not a judgment. Putnam v. Crombie, 34 
Barb. (N. 1.) 232. An entry: "I find for the plaintiflC and assess his dam- 
ages at," stating the amount is not a final judgment, but simply a finding 
under the statute regulating the practice before referees. Demens v. Poyntz, 
25 Fla. 054, 6 South. 261. 

10 Tift V. Keaton, 78 Ga. 235, 2 S. B. 690. 

17 Battell V, liowery, 46 Iowa, 49; Dunns v. Batchclor, 20 X. C. 46; Early 
T. Moore, 4 Munf. (Va.) 262; Mudd v. Rogers, IJ La. Ann. 048; Xichols 
V. Stewart, 21 111. 106. See infra, $ 118. 



case,** But where a court inadvertently determines two matters 
standing in such opposition as to be incapable of harmonious con- 
struction^ as, for instance, that the same property belongs absolutely 
to each of two persons, the decision is of no effect.** 

i 4. Conseqnenoes of a Jndsment. 

The first and most obvious consequence of a judgment is that it 
establishes an indisputable obligation and confers upon the success- 
ful party the right to issue execution or other process of the court 
for its enforcement. But this, it must be repeated, is not an in- 
tegral part of the judgment. The judgment is merely the affirma- 
tion of a liability. The right to use the process of the court for its 
enforcement is a consequence which the law attaches to it. A decree 
may direct a particular act to be done; a judgment in rem may 
specify the property out of which satisfaction is to be made ; a judg- 
ment in replevin may require a return of the goods ; in certain cases 
a judgment may be entered for a sum payable in a particular kind 
of money.*® But with these exceptions, the general principle holds 
good that the judgment, after performing its office of declaring the 
existence of a certain liability, leaves the party to pursue the reme- 
dies which the law provides. 

Another important consequence of a judgment is that it creates a 
lien upon real estate owned by the debtor, which endures for a cer- 
tain period, follows the land into the hands of purchasers or other 
lienors, and may be enforced by seizure and sale of the property sub- 
ject to it. A separate chapter will be devoted to the consideration of 
this subject. 

A further consequence of a judgment is that it creates an estop- 
pel upon the litigants ; so that a judgment rendered upon the merits 
will bar any further suit upon the same cause of action, between the 
same parties or their privies; and a point which was once actually 

!• Peniston v. Somers, 15 La. Ann. 679. In detinue for several slaves, 
a Judgment in favor of the plaintiff for all of them except one. as to whom 
tile judgment-entry is entirely silent, is a Judgment In favor of the defendant 
for Uiat one. WIttIck v. Traun, 25 Ala. 317. 

»»Gage V. Downey, 94 Cal. 241, 29 Tac. 035. 

-^iiee, Infra, S 1&2. 


§ 4 IJkW OF JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 1 

and necessarily litigated and decided cannot again be drawn in ques- 
tion, by the same parties or their privies, in any future controversy 
upon the same or a different cause of action. These topics also will 
be discussed in later chapters of this work. 

Another consequence flowing from the rendition of a judgment is 
that it may constitute either an evidence or a source of title. This 
may be illustrated by the result of a real action, by the case of a pur- 
chaser at execution-sale under a judgment, by a decree quieting title 
to lands or enforcing specific performance of a contract for their con- 
veyance. Also in relation to chattels, it is held that satisfaction of 
a judgment recovered in an action of trespass for their conversion 
passes property in such chattels to the defendant, and that his title 
thus acquired takes effect by relation from the time of the conver- 

It has also been said that a judgment constitutes a vested right 
of property in the creditor, which cannot lawfully be diminished or 
destroyed by the legislature.*- Within limits this is no doubt true. 
But it appears that the right to receive interest on the amount of a 
judgment, at the rate fixed by law at the time the judgment was ren- 
dered, is not such a vested right of property as to be beyond the 
control of the legislature; and consequently a statute reducing the 
rate of interest on judgments may validly apply to those in force at 
the date of its enactment, and interest on such existing judgments 
can be recovered only at the reduced rate from the time of the pas- 
sage of the statute.*^ Again, although there was no law allowing 
an appeal from a particular judgment, at the time of its rendition, it 
cannot be said that the successful party has any vested right that 
his judgment shall not be made subject to review by subsequent leg- 

21 Smltn V. Smith, 51 N. H. 571. 

22 Merchants' Bank v. BaUou, 98 Va. 112. 32 S. E. 481, 44 L. R. A. 306. 
81 Am. St. Rep. 715. 

28 Money V. l^ke Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., 146 U. S. 162, 13 Sup. Ct. 54, 
3G U Ed. 925: Wyoming Nat. Bank v. Brown. 9 Wyo. 153. 61 Pac. -iiiTy, 

2 4 Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S. 445, 19 Sup. Ct 722, 43 L. Ed. 



i 5. Jndsmeat is not an Aislcnn&ent. 

Thus far, in discussing the nature of judgments, we have spoken 
only of their essential characteristics. It now becomes necessary to 
distinguish them from certain other legal transactions to which they 
bear a resemblance. And first, since the result of a judgment may 
be to deprive the debtor of his property and transfer it (or its pro- 
ceeds) to the creditor, it has been thought that the judgment, espe- 
cially where it was confessed, might be construed as an assignment. 
There is, however, no validity in this position. As has been said: 
"A judgment is not an assignment. One is the act of the party, 
the other the act of the law ; in the one case the debtor surrenders 
the dominion to another, in the other he submits without opposition 
to the course prescribed by law." ** 

i 6. Jndgment is not a Specialty. 

A judgment of a domestic court of record is not a specialty, within 
the meaning of a statute which provides for the limitation of "actions 
upon the case, covenant, and debt; founded upon a specialty, or any 
agreement, contract, or promise in writing, within fifteen years." *• 

§ 7. JndgmBJktB sometinies called Contracts. 

The notion that a judgment is to be considered as a contract ap- 
pears to have originated with Blackstone.^^ At any rate, the pres- 
tnt writer has been unable to discover any authority for such a prop- 
s' HreflcUng T. Bogf?0, 20 Pa. 33, Lewis, J. 
=• Trier's Kx'rs v. VVinslow. 15 Ohio St. 3W. 

-• 3 BL Comm. 1(K). In speaking of such contracts as are Implied by law, 
l\^ says: "Of this nature are, first, such as are necessarily implied by the 
fuuuamental constitution of government, to which every man is a contracting 
Uarty. And tlius it Is that every person is bound and hath virtually agreed 
to psy such particular sums of money as are charged on him by the sentence, 
<'r assessed by the interpretation, of the law. For it is a part of the original 
coDtnct, entered into by all mankind who partake the benefits of society, 
to submit in aU points to the municipal constitutions and local ordinances 
of that state of which each individual is a member. Whatever, therefore, 
th4' laws order any one to pay, that becomes instantly a debt, which he 
hath beforehand contracted to discharge." 



osition in the earlier reports or text-books. But the statement of 
the learned commentator, to that effect, has been accepted without 
question or demur by many of the succeeding text-writers, and put 
forward as a recognized principle of law in numerous American 
cases.*® Thus in New York it is said: "A judgment is a contract 
of the highest nature known to the law. Actions upon judgment 
are actions on contract. The cause or consideration of the judg- 
ment is of no possible importance; it is merged in the judgment. 
When recovered, the judgment stands as a conclusive declaration, 
that the plaintiff therein is entitled to the sum of money recovered. 
No matter what may have been the original cause of action, the judg- 
ment forever settles the plaintiff's claim and the defendant's assent 
thereto. This assent may have been reluctant, but in law it is an 
assent, and the defendant is estopped by the judgment to dissent 
Forever thereafter any claim on the judgment is setting up a cause 
of action on contract." *• So, in a Massachusetts decision, in hold- 
ing that a judgment by default against a married woman, in the ab- 
sence of an enabling statute, was void, the court said: "A judgment 
is in the nature of a contract; it is a specialty and creates a debt; 
and to have that effect, it must betaken against one capable of con- 
tracting a debt." ^® But in this country the question has chiefly 
arisen in the construction of statutory provisions requiring certain 
formaHties, or prescribing limitations, in actions "founded on con- 
tract," and in the interpretation of that clause of the federal con- 
stitution which prohibits to the states any legislation impairing the 
obligation of contracts. In regard to the former class of cases, it 
has been held that a judgment is a contract within the meaning of a 
statute which provides that several causes of action may be united 
when they arise out of contract express or implied, and hence an 
action upon a judgment may be joined with an action for the breach 

2 8 sawyer v. Vilas, 19 Vt. 43; Morse ▼. Toppan, 3 Gray (Mass.) 411; Mo- 
Gulre V. Gallagher, 2 Sandf. (N. Y.) 402; Humphrey ▼. Persons, 23 Barb. (X. Y.) 
313; Taylor v. Koot, •43 N. Y. 344; Johnson v. Butler, 2 Iowa, 535; Farmers' 
Bank V. Mather, 3U Iowa, 283; Heed v. Eldredge, 27 Cal. 348; Stuart t. Lander, 
1(5 Cal. 372, 76 Am. Dec. 538; Childs v. Harris Manufg Co., 68 Wi& 231, 32 
M. W. 43; Weaver v. Lapsley, 43 Ala. 224; 1 Pars. Cent 7. 

28 Taylor v. Koot, '43 N. Y. 335, Woodruff, J. 

«o Morse V. Toppan, 3 Gray, 411, Shaw, C. J. 



of an express contract.'* In regard to the latter class of cases, 
there are decisions to be found tnai judgments are covered by the 
prohibition against laws impairing the obligation of contracts.** 

i 8. The Opposite View. 

On the other hand, a carefully considered English case, subse- 
quent in date to Blackstone, holds that a judgment is not in any 
sense a contract; and this view is supported by numerous and re- 
spectable American authorities.'* Thus a learned judge has re- 
marked: ''The obhgation of a debt on a judgment does not arise 
from any express contract made by the party charged by it. *J"^^" 
cium redditur in invitum.' Upon a refined and artificial view of the 
obligations imposed by law upon every individual, they may be re- 
solved into a contract which he makes with society to obey the laws 
by which he is protected. And the force of legal obligation has, by 
some elementary writers, been attempted to be strengthened upon 

»i CdUds v. Harris Aianufg Co., 68 Wis. 231, 32 N. W. 43. For other illus- 
iratKms under this liead, see Sawyer v. Vilas, 19 Vt. 43; McGiiire v. Gallagher, 
•^ S^andf. (N. y.) 402. 

»2 Sc-arborough v. Dugan, 10 Cal. 305; Weaver v. Lapsley, 43 Ala. 224. But 
In the latter c&se the question was upon the constitutionality of a certain stat- 
ute entitled "an act to declare void certain judgments and to grant new trials 
in certain cases therein mentioned.'' And the original cause of action in this 
litigation (the judgment in which came under the act) was a contract. So 
that the true ground of the Invalidity of the statute was, not that it impaired 
ttie obligation of the judgment obtained on such contract, but that, by vacating 
the judgment, it canceUed the remedy on the original contract itself, and so 
impaired its obligation. See Black, Ck>nst Prohib. § 197. And see Sprott Y. 
Keid. 3 Iowa, 481^, 56 Am. Dec. 549. 

ss Hidleson v. W'hytel, 3 Burrows, 1548; Morley y. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. 
Co., 14« U. 8. lb"2, 13 Sup. Ct. 54, 36 L. Bd. 925; Wadsworth v. Henderson 
(C C.) 1« Fed. 447; Todd v. Crumb, 5 McLean, 172, Fed. Cas. No. 14,073; Jor- 
dan V. Koblnson, 15 Me. 168; Wyman v. Mitchell, 1 Cow. (X. Y.) 316; O'Brien 
V. Young. tl5 N. Y. 428. 47 Am. Rep. 64; McDonald v. Dickson, 87 N. C. 404; 
Napier v. GIdiere, Speers, *>i. (S. C.) 215, 40 Am. Dec. 613; Keith v. Estill. 9 
I'ort. <Ala.) 069; Smith v. Harrison, 33 Ala. 700; Masterson v. Gibson, 56 Aln. 
:»<*; Lovlns V. Humphries. 67 Ala. 437; Wolffe v. Eberlein, 74 Ala. 99, 49 Am. 
Krp. WW; WiUiams v. Waldo, 3 Scam. (111.) 269; Rae v. Hulbert, 17 111. 572; 
Sprott V. Keid, 3 Iowa. 489, 56 Am. Dec. 549; Larrnbee v. Baldwin, 35 Cal. 
ir.i;: Wyoming Nat Bank v. Brown, 7 Wyo. 494, 53 Pac. 291, 75 Am. St. Rep. 


§ 9 LAW OF JUDQMENTa (Ch. 1 

this principle. (3 Bl. Comm. 160.) But contracts of this descrip- 
tion are not barred by this part of the statute [of limitations]."** 
So again : "A cause of action on contract or tort loses its identity 
when merged in a judgment, and thereafter a new cause of action 
arises out of the judgment whenever it becomes necessary to enforce 
the obligation by suit. The liability of the debtor no longer rests 
upon his voluntary agreement, but upon the adjudication of the 
court into which the former has passed." •• The last sentence is es- 
pecially significant. 

f 9. Where tke Cause of Action Is in Tort. 

Whatever may be said in regard to a judgment which is rendered 
upon the actual contract of the parties, it must be perfectly appar- 
ent that a judgment upon a cause of action sounding in tort cannot 
be considered as in any sense a contract. True, the judgment 
merges the cause of action. But that means that the plaintiff can- 
not afterwards sue upon the original claim or use it otherwise. It 
does not mean that it is metamorphosed into something diametrical- 
ly opposite to what it was before. And it is held, upon the highest 
authority, that a judgment in an action for a tort is not a contract 
within the meaning of that provision of the federal constitution 
which forbids the states to pass any law impairing the obligation of 
contracts.'* "A judgment for damages, estimated in money, is 
sometimes called by text-writers a specialty or contract of record, 
because it establishes a legal obligation to pay the amount recovered, 
and, by a fiction of law, a pfomise to pay is implied where such legal 
obligation exists. But this fiction cannot convert a transaction want- 
ing the assent of parties into one which necessarily implies it. Judg- 
ments for torts are usually the result of violent contests, and, as ob- 
served by the court below, are imposed upon the losing party by a 
higher authority against his will and protest. The prohibition of the 

84 Jordan v. Koblnson, 16 Me. 108. 

8 5 McDonald v. Dickson, 87 N. C. 404. 

88 Garrison v. City of New York, 21 Wall. 196, 22 L. Ed. 612; McAfee T. Cot- 
inprton, 71 (ia. 272, 51 Am. Rep. 263; Freeland v. Williams, 131 U. S. 405, 9 
Sup. Ct. 703, 33 Lr. Kd. 193; City of Slieiman v. Langham, 02 Tex. 13, 42 S. 
VV. IHil. 



itderal constitution was intended to secure the observance of good 
faith in the stipulation of parties against any state action. Where 
a transaction is not based upon any assent of parties, it cannot be 
said that any faith is pledged with respect to it, and no case arises 
for the operation of the prohibition." '^ 

S 10. Jvdsinents are not Contrsets* 

Upon the whole question, we are unable to concede that judg- 
ments can properly be considered contracts under any circumstances 
whatever. So far as concerns the authority of Blackstone, it is not 
difficult to perceive that in dividing contracts into three classes, be- 
ginning with "contracts by record," he was misled by that same love 
of a neat classification which more than once led him into error. 
The mistake lies in grouping under the same technical term things 
which properly belong there and things which belong there only by 
a remote analogy. Further, his whole argument upon this point 
rests upon the assumption of an original "social contract" — a theory 
long since exploded. Admit that society is a natural organism, not 
a compact, and we look in vain for the implied promises supposed 
to have been made by each person on entering into the social state. 

Of the American decisions sharing this view (not very numerous 
or very well considered), some have been content to take the state- 
ment for granted, without probing the arguments advanced in its 
support. Others have followed the same specious reasoning which 
deceived the originator of the theory. And others, begging the 
question, have decided that a particular judgment could not be valid 
because it did not answer to the requirements of a contract, as in 
respect to the capacity of the person to make a contract or incur a 
debt.** But, as we have seen, there is a preponderance of authority 
in favor of the proposition that judgments are not contracts. 

•T i*lel<l, J., In Louisiana v. Mayor of New Orleans, 109 U. S. 285, 3 Sup. Ct. 
'Zlh ^7 U J'^d. U36. See State v. New Orleans, 32 La. Ann. 70U, bolding tiint 
claims arising from a tort,— as a city's statutory obligation to make good 
damages done by a mob,~are not protected by this clause of the federal con- 
stltutfoD, though reduced to Judgment. 

ss As lA Morse v. Toppan, 3 Gray (Mass.) 411, a decision which is probably 
wrong, and which certainly furnishes an illustration of loolclng at a legal ques- 
tion npaide down. 


§ 10 LAW OF JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 1 

But in point of fact, the most distinctive mark of a contract is 
wanting, viz.: the assent of both parties.** To this there are two 
apparent exceptions, the case of judgments by confession and judg- 
ments by default. But in the former instance, the agreement of the 
debtor is that the creditor may take a particular means of securing 
his claim. The judgment is not the agreement; it is the act of the 
law, ir\voked by the parties, in executing the agreement. In the lat- 
ter case, the defendant merely submits to what would, presumably, 
be done with or without his assent. Nor will the theory of an im- 
plied assent fill the gap. If we admit the assumption which lies at 
the base of this doctrine, it is not difficult to transform any imagina- 
ble right of action into a contract. For instance, it is the duty of 
every good citizen to pay his taxes ; yet no one thinks that the entry 
on the asscssor*s book is a contract which he has made. If the duty 
of every member of society to pay the debts which are charged 
against him as the result of legal proceedings can be construed into 
his agreement to pay them, it is illogical to stop at causes of action 
which are strictly and properly ex contractu. It is just as true that 
he impliedly undertakes to make reparation for any delict which he 
may commit, as it is that he impliedly promises to pay judgments 
against him. But it would be rash to conclude that a tort is a con- 
tract.*® Some of the cases speak of this implied assent as a "reluc- 
tant assent.'* But this is practically a contradiction in terms. The 
submission which is wrung from a party who has made his best de- 
fense and can no longer help himself is not the movement of will 
which goes to the making of a contract. 

Another indispensable requisite to a contract is that the parties 
should be legally capable of forming a binding agreement. And yet 

80 "Tiie most Important elements of a contract are wanting. There is no 
aggregatio mentium. The defendant has not voluntarily assented." O^Brien 
V. I'oung. U5 X. Y. 428, 47 Am. Kep. G4. 

*o **A Judgment is no more a contract than is a tort. In one sense it is true 
thnt every member of society impliedly agrees to pay all Judgments which may 
be regularly rendered against him; and in the same sense does he impliedly 
agree to make amends for all torts whicli he may commit No one will pre- 
tend tliat actions for torts are within the spirit and intent of the statute [In 
regard to actions upon 'any contract or agreoment'l, and yet they certainly are 
as much so as are actions ux)on Judgments." Kae v. Hulbert, 17 111. 572, 
Caton, J. 



the immense majority of the cases hold that judgments rendered 
against infants, lunatics, and other persons who are in law disabled 
from contracting, are valid and conclusively binding until vacated or 
reversed.** To push this argument one step further: "It is not 
true that a judgment rests either upon the will or the capacity to 
contract of the party against whom it is rendered. If a judgment 
is a contract, and can only be rendered against one who is then 
capable of contracting by the laws of the forum, there could not be a 
judgment on a contract made in another state [nor on a judgment 
rendered in another state], unless by the law of the forum that con- 
tract would be valid. This would destroy the rule of comity and 
international law which makes the validity of a contract and the 
capacity of the contractor depend on the place where the contract 
is made or is to be performed, or the domicile of the contractor, as 
the case may be, and not upon the law of the forum." ** 

i 11. ^e Qmestlon oonsidered bm one of Statwtorj Comstniotion. 

As already stated, the chief importance of this question arises in 
connection wth the construction of constitutional and statutory pro- 
visions. And we are now prepared to formulate the rules which 
reason and principle seem to point out. 

In the first place, a judgment is not a contract within the meaning 
of the prohibition against law^s impairing the obligation of contracts. 
The cases which hold that it is,*' proceed upon a misapprehension of 
the constitutional principle.* It is true that statutes* have been de- 
clared invalid, as obnoxious to this inhibition, which vacated judg- 
ments, granted new trials, enacted shorter statutes of limitation, ex- 
empted the debtor's property, gave stay of execution, and so on. 
But it was not because they attacked the judgment, but because they 
destroyed or desiccated the remedy on the original contract, which, 
on the authorities, is vital to the maintenance of its obligation.** If 

*i O'Brien v. Young, 96 N. Y. 428. 47 Am. Rep. 64. 

" WadBworth v. Henderson (C. (\) 16 Fed. 451, Barr, J. 

««8ee Weaver v. Lapsley. 43 Ala. 224; Scarborough v. Dugan, 10 Cal. 305. 
But Me Sprott v. Held, 3 Iowa, 480, 56 Am. Dec. 549. Compare Morley v. 
IJike Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., 146 U. S. 162, 13 Sup. Ct. 54, 36 L. £d. 1)2.-). 

«« Blacky Const. Proliib. H 152, 157, 163, 197, 199. 

1 LAW JUDG.— 2 (IT) 


the cause of action was in tort, the constitutional clause does not 
apply.* ^ But it is impossible to hold that view if every judgment is 
a contract. 

In the next place, if a statute — for example, in prescribing limita- 
tions of actions — manifestly intends, on its face, to divide all causes 
of action into two classes, actions on "contract" and actions on 
"tort," then a judgment must be considered as falling within the for- 
mer class. Strictly it belongs to neither. But if the words are used 
in this extended sense, then "contract" must include "quasi-contract." 
And a judgment may reasonably be called a quasi-contract ; for al- 
though it lacks some or all of the elements of a true contract, it is 
more nearly assimilated thereto than it is to a delict.*' It is the 
conclusive evidence of a fixed and ascertained debt, and that is suffi- 
cient to distinguish it from a claim in tort. 

Finally, if the statute relates only to "contracts express or im- 
plied," or intends to divide possible causes of action into a larger 
number of classes than those mentioned above, a judgment cannot 
be considered as coming under the denomination of a "contract." 
In such a case, it must stand in a class by itself, and if not specific- 
ally mentioned, it is not within the purview of the act. 

Part II. The Classification of Judgmknts. 

§ 12. Methods of Clasiifyliis Judgments. 

Several methods of classifying judgments have been proposed, 
none of which, perhaps, is strictly scientific or perfectly accurate. 
The difficulty is that so many complications arise in pleading and 
practice that an entirely regular classification cannot well be made 
without extending the number of groups beyond convenient limits. 
However, as the chief thing is to obtain an orderly arrangement and 
enumeration of the different varieties of judgments, the scientific 
nature of the method pursued is not of prime importance. Aban- 
doning the division commonly acquiesced in, as being too unwieldy, 

*5 Garrison v. City of New York, 21 Wall. 196^ 22 L. Ed. 612; Louisiana v. 
Mayor of Xew Orleans, 109 U. S. 285, 3 Sup. Ct. 211, 27 L. Ed. 986; Freelaud 
V. Williams, 131 U. S. 405, 9 Sup. Ct 763, 33 L. Ed. 193. 

46 Moore y. No well, 94 N. C« 265; Johnson v. Butler, 2 Iowa, 54^ 



we propose to arrange judgments under the four following heads: 
I. Judgments on an issue of law. 2. Judgments upon a verdict. 3. 
Judgments without a verdict. 4. Judgments against a verdict. 

S 13. Jvdsments on an Itume of Law* 

These judgments are given upon the decision of a demurrer. 
They are either for the plaintifl or defendant, as the case may be, 
and are of the following sorts : 

1. For the plaintiff, when the issue raised by a demurrer to any 
of the pleadings is decided in his favor. This judgment is final and 
definitive and concludes the right of action. Its style is "quod re- 
cuperet," that is, "that the plaintiff do recover." *^ 

2. For the plaintiff, when the issue raised by his demurrer to a 
dilatory plea or plea in abatement is found in his favor. This is 
called judgment of "respondeat ouster," that is, that the defendant 
"do answer over" or further. It is not final, since the plea did not 
go to the merits, but requires the defendant, beaten on a preliminary 
point, to present a more substantial defense.*® 

3. For the defendant, when the issue raised by a demurrer is de- 
termined in his favor. This is a final judgment, and disposes of the 
case, unless leave be granted to amend the pleading or withdraw the 
demurrer, as the case may be.*' 

4. For the defendant, when the plaintiff's demurrer to a plea in 
abatement is overruled, and the plea consequently sustained. The 
language of this judgment is "quod cassetur breve," or "billam," that 
is, that the writ or declaration be quashed. 

«T Hale v. Lawrence, 22 N. J. Law. 72; Silver v. Rhodes, 2 Har. (Del.) 360; 
Pettys V. Marsh. 24 Fla. 44» '6 South. 577. But where defendant demurred 
for a variance between declaration and writ, and pending the demurrer leave 
was granted to amend, whereupon the demurrer was overruled, held, that the 
judgment should be respondeat ouster, and not quod recuperet Walker v. 
Walker. 6 Uow. (Miss.) 500. 

«« Trow V. Messer, 32 N. H. 361; Massey v. Walker, 8 Ala. 167; Hej-fron v. 
Bank. 7 Smedes « M. (Miss.) 4.34; Randolph v. Singleton, 20 Miss. 430; O)oke 
T. Crawford, 1 Tex. 0, 46 Am. Dec. 98. 

<• Hale y. Lawrence, 22 N. J. I-aw, 72; Scharfif v. Lisso, 63 Miss. 213; Roks 
r. Sim8. 27 Miss. 359; Memphis & Charleston R. Go. v. On*, 52 Miss. 541; Com- 
stock V. Davis, 51 Mo. 501^; Weiss v. Binnian, 178 lU. 241. 52 N. B. 960; White 
r. Levy, ua Ala. 481, SouUi. 104. 


§ 15 liAW OF JUDOMBNTB. (Oil. 1 

§ 14. Jndsments vppn Verdiot. 

We come next to such judgments as are rendered after the deter- 
mhiation of an issue of fact by the verdict of a jury. They may be 
either for the plaintiff or defendant, and are iii all cases final and 
conclusive, if entered according to the verdict. 

1. For the plaintiff, the judgment is "quod recuperet." ** 

2. For the defendant, if upon the merits, the judgment is "nil 
capiat per breve" or "per billam," that is, that the r' '-^tiff "take 
nothing" by his writ or declaration. If the plea was in ..-atement, 
the judgment is "cassetur breve," as above. 

S 16« ' JvdKsnents without Verdict* 

This class of judgments includes numerous varieties. Those 
which may be rendered for the plaintiff are as follows : 

1. Judgment by default. This is a judgment entered in conse- 
quence of the non-appearance of the defendant. Where the defend- 
ant omits to plead within the time required, the judgment taken 
against him for that cause is more properly called "nil dicit," but the 
term "default" is usually extended to cover this case also. And in 
the code states, the judgment entered upon the defendant's failure to 
serve or file an answer within the prescribed period is called a judg- 
ment by default. 

2. Judgment by nil dicit, which is rendered against a defendant 
for his failure to plead to the declaration. 

3. Judgment by "non sum informatus." This is a judgment which 
is rendered when, instead of pleading, the defendant's attorney de- 
clares that he "is not informed" of any answer or defense to be made. 

4. Judgment by confession. This is a judgment which is entered 
for the plaintiff in case the defendant, instead of entering a plea, 
confesses the action, or at any time before trial confesses the action 
and withdraws his plea and other allegations. This is called, in full, 

50 See Texas, S. F. & N. R. Co. r. Saxton, 3 N. M. 282 (Johns.) 6 Pae. 200. 
Wbere issue has been joined on a plea in abatement (the only plea in the 
case), and the issue submitted to a jury, resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff, 
the court should award a peremptory judgment quod recuperet, and not a de- 
fault for want of a plea. Bishop y. Camp, 39 Fla. 517, 22 South. 735. 



a judgment by confession "relicta verificatione." A more usual form 
oi judgment by corfession is that which is entered where the debtor, 
without suit brought, gives a written instrument confessing that he 
is indebted to the creditor in a certain sum, and authorizing an at- 
torney to appear for him. and enter judgment against him in a court 
of record. 

5. Judgment on motion; a judgment authorized by statute in cer- 
tain kinds of summary proceedings, rendered ex parte and without 
trial. This remedy, being in derogation of the common law, must 
be strictly pursued, and the judgment must show on its face all facts 
necessary to give jurisdiction.*^ 

6. Judgment on the pleadings. This is a form of judgment not 
infrequently used in the practice of the code states. It is rendered, 
on motion of the plaintiff, when the answer admits or leaves undenied 
all the material facts stated in the complaint.** It cannot be entered, 
in a suit for unliquidated damages, over an answer stating matters in 

Of this class of judgments, those which may be rendered for the 
defendant are as follows : — 

I. Judgment of nonsuit. This judgment, given against the plain- 
tiff, is either voluntary or involuntary. It is the former, when the 
plaintiflf throws up his case and consents to a judgment for defend- 
ant for costs. It is the latter, when the plaintiff, on being called or 
demanded, at the instance of the defendant, to be present while the 
jury give their verdict, fails to appear. Also, where the court decides 
that the plaintiff has given no evidence on which the jury could find a 

51 Garner v. Carrol, 7 i'erg. (Tenn.) 365; Jones v. Read, 1 Humph. (Tenn.) 

Si Kotto v. Vandament, 67 Cal. 332, 7 Pac. 753; Amador Co. v. Butterfield, 
51 Cal. 526; Sbattuc v. McArthur (U. C.) 25 Fed. 133; Felch v. Beaudry, 40 Cal. 
4»l; Finley v. City of Tucson (Ariz.) 60 Pac. 872. But where facts showing 
the illegality of a contract sued on are sufficiently alleged in the answer, the 
plaintiff cannot recover upon the pleadings, although such facts are not pleaded 
or insisted on as, a defense. Prost v. More, 40 Cal. 347. And where an issue 
is distinctly raised by the answer, and submitted to the jury without objec- 
tion, and a verdict given for defendant, it is then too late for plaintiff to move 
for Judgment on the pleadings. Lewis v. IToard, 112 N. C. 402, 17 S. E. 9. 

•> tthattuc T. McArthur (C. C.) 25 Fed« 133. 


§ 15 LAW OP JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 1 

verdict in his favor, an involuntary nonsuit is entered against him.** 

2. Judgment of nolle prosequi. This is a judgment entered 

against the plaintiff where, after appearance and before judgment, 
he declares that "he will not further prosecute his suit." It is used 
as a means of abandoning one or more counts in a declaration or 
parts of a cause of action, or releasing one or more of the joint de- 
fendants, while holding to the rest. 

3. Judgment of non prosequitur, or "non pros." A judgment 
given against the plaintiff for his default or neglect to take any of 
those steps in the proceedings which he is required to take in due 
time ; as, a failure to file a declaration or other pleading.** 

4. Judgment of retraxit. This is a judgment given against the 
plaintiff when, after appearance, he voluntarily goes into court and 
enters upon the record a statement that "he withdraws his suit." It 
is an open and voluntary renunciation of his claim in court ; wherein 
it differs from a nonsuit, which is merely his neglect or default ; and 
by a retraxit the plaintiff's cause of action is forever barred.** 

In this class of judgments there is one which may be entered for 
either party, viz.: judgment by consent. It is well known in prac- 
tice. Tbe attorneys of the respective parties to a suit, it is said, have 
undoubtedly the right to agree upon terms and what kind of judg- 
ment shall be entered; but the judgment must be one authorized 
by law.*^ 

84 Where plaintiff's evidence Is excluded from the Jury, the proper Judgment 
is one of nonsuit. Wilson v. Breyfogle, 11 C. C. A. 248, 63 Fed. 379. Also 
where the court holds that plaintiff cannot recover on his pleadings. Murray 
V. JSoiitherland, 125 X. C. 175, 34 S. E. 270. But a nonsuit does not warrant 
a Judgment dismissing the complaint on the merits. Thlry v. Taylor Brewing 
& M. Co., 37 App. Dlv. 391, 56 X. Y. Supp. 85; McCune v. Eaton, 77 Minn. 404, 
»0 N. VV. 355. 

6B A Judgment of non pros, is in effect a Judgment by default for laches. 
Walton V. Lcfever (Pa.) 17 Lane. Law Rev. 203; People v. Reuter, 88 111. App. 
58(>. A plea being bad, so that demurrer thereto is improperly overruled, 
plaintiff is not in default for not replying, and therefore a Judgment of noo 
pros, for want of replication is error. Henderson v. Maryland Home Fire Ins, 
Co., 90 Md. 47, 44 Atl. 1020. 

Be Thomason v. Odum, 33 Ala. 108, 68 Am. Dec. 159; 3 Bl. Comm. 296; Cun- 
ningham V. JSchley, 68 Ga. 105; infra, § 700. 

67 Tuppery v. llertung, 40 Mo. 135. See Jones v. Webb, 8 S. C. 202; Summar 
V. Owen. 62 Teun. 26. 



I 16. JndKHient agalutt tlie Verdiot* 

Where the plea to the declaration confesses a cause of action in 
the plaintiff and sets up matter in avoidance, and such matter, though 
found true by the verdict of the jury, is insufficient in law to consti- 
tute a bar or defense to the action, the court will enter a judgment 
for the plaintiff non obstante veredicto, that is, notwithstanding the 
verdict.** For, "the plea being substantially bad in law, of course 
the verdict which merely shows it to be true in point of fact cannot 
avail to entitle the defendant to judgment; while, on the other hand, 
the plea, being in confession and avoidance, involves a confession of 
the plaintiff's declaration, and shows that he was entitled to main- 
tain his action." ^* For example, a plea of tender of rent after the 
day of its falling due is insufficient, and after a verdict on such plea 
in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment non ob- 
stante veredicto.*® But in order that this judgment may be given, it 
is essential that the plea should distinctly imply an admission of the 
plaintiff's right or title.** 

There are other cases beside the foregoing in which a judgment 
non obstante veredicto may be rendered, or an analogous species of 
judgment. Thus, in some of the states, in cases where the special 
findings of the jury are in direct conflict with the general verdict, it 
is the practice to grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.*^ 

»• Flm y. Grazebrook, 2 C. B. 429; Atkinson v. Davies, 11 Mees. & W. 230; 
Berwick v. Duncan, 3 Kxch. 644; Roberts v. Dame, 11 N. H. 22G; Fitch v. 
Scot 1 Koot (Conn.) 351; Bellows v. Shannon, 2 Hill (X. Y.) 86; Move v. Pet- 
way, 7« N. C. 327; Ward v. Phillips, 89 N. C. 215; State v. Commercial Bank, 
Smede« & M. (Miss.) 218, 45 Am. Dec. 280; Garrett v. Beaumont, 24 Miss. 
377; SoUenberger v. Gest, 14 Ohio, 204; Tootle v. Clifton, 22 Ohio St. 247, 10 
AnL Rep. 732; Berry v. Borden, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 384; Pomeroy v. Burnett, 8 
Blackf. (Ind.) 142; Jones v. Fennlmore, 1 G. Greene, 134; Oades v. Oades, 6 
.Neb. 3(M; Houser v. Harding, 126 N. C. 295, 35 S. E. 586; O'Neal v. Rumley Co., 
iKy.) 53 S. W. 521; Friendly t. I^e, 20 Or. 202, 25 Pac. 300. See Collier v. 
Jenks, 19 R. 1. 493, 34 Atl. 998. 

»• Hour. Law Diet., "Judgment." 

•• Dewey v. Humphrey, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 187. 

•1 Pim V. Grazebrook, 2 C. B. 429. 

e« Felton v. Chicago, R. I. & P. B. Co., 69 Iowa, 577, 29 N, W. 618; Tx)uls- 



But unless the special findings "are so irreconcilably in conflict with 
the general verdict as that both cannot stand, the motion must be 
overruled without regard to the evidence." ®* And the motion for 
this judgment can be made only by the party against whom the ver- 
dict goes ; hence, if the general verdict is in his favor, but the special 
findings do not correspond with it, a motion in that behalf will not 
avail him.** 

Another instance in which this form of judgment may be rendered, 
is where the decision on a "point reserved" negatives the verdict 
of the jury. If a point of law is ruled provisionally at the trial, but 
subject to the further consideration of the court, and if its ultimate 
decision shows that the party in whose favor the verdict goes is not 
entitled to judgment, the court may enter judgment notwithstanding 
the verdict. But the record must show the point of law reserved and 
the specific facts on which it arises.** In Pennsylvania, when the 
court has reserved the question whether there is any evidence en- 
titling the plaintiff to recover, and the evidence has been submitted 
to the jury, and a verdict has been returned for the plaintiff, the court 

ville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Creek. 130 Ind. lol>, 29 N. K. 481, 14 L. R. A. 733; 
School District No. 46 v. Lund, 51 Kan. 731, 33 Pac. 51)3; X. K. Falrbank & 
Co. V. Cincinnati, X. O. & T. P. R. Co. (C. C.) 66 Fed, 471. 

«3 Porter v. Waltz, 108 Ind. 40, 8 X. E. 705; Cox v. Ratchffe, 105 Ind. 374, 3 
X. E. 5; Pennsylvania Co. v. Smith, 98 Ind. 42; Baltimore & O. & C. R. Co. v. 
Rowan, lOi Ind. 88, 3 N. E. 627; McXabb v. Cliip, 5 Ind. App. 204, 31 X. E. 
858; Vance v. City of Franklin, 4 Ind. App. 515, 30 X. E. 149; Todd v. Bad;jer. 
134 Ind. 204, 33 X. E. 963; Fruchey v. Eagleson, 15 Ind. App. 88, 43 X. E. 
146; Stein v. Chicago & G. T. Ry. Co., 41 111. App. 38. 

64 Krown v. Searle, 104 Ind. 218, 3 X. E. 871. 

06 Wilde V. Italnor, .'9 Pa. 442; Fayette City Borough v. Hug-ins, 112 Pa. 
1, 4 Atl. 927; Buckley v. Duff, 111 Pa. 223, 3 Atl. 823; Keifer v. Eldivd Town- 
ship, 110 Pa. 1, 20 All. 592. Where, aftel- reserving a point on certain facts, 
the court submits other evidence to the jury, a judgment non obstante cannot 
be entered if it is uncertain whether the Jury found on tlie facts on which the 
reservation was made or on the other evidence. Keifer v. Eldred Township, 
supra. On a verdict in trespass awarding the plaintiff a specified amount of 
damages as compensation and a specified amount of punitive damages, the 
court, on appeal, may enter judgment for the amount of the compensatory 
damages and Judgment non obstante for the defendant as to the punitive dam- 
ages, although no point was reserved on the record. Gedusky v. Rubinsky, 8 
i'a. DM. R. 10. 



may tlien, on the reservation, enter judgment for the defendant non 
obstante veredicto." 

At the common law, a defendant is not entitled in any circumstan- 
ces to move for judgment non obstante veredicto ; if the verdict is 
for the plaintifl, and the state of the pleadings is such that the latter 
might have asked for this judgment had their positions been reversed. 
the only proper course for the defendant is to move that the judgment 
be arrested,*^ or, in case of conflict between the general verdict and 
the special findings, to move for judgment on such findings.*® But 
in a number of the states, this rule has been relaxed, either by statute 
or by the decisions of the courts, so as to admit of the entry of judg- 
ment notwithstanding the verdict, in proper cases, in favor of the 
defendant.** Thus, in -Nebraska, the code of procedure provides 
that "where, on the statements in pleadings, one party is entitled 
by law to judgment in his favor, judgment shall be so rendered by the 
court, although a verdict has been found against such party." This 
will entitle the defendant to a judgment notwithstanding a verdfct 
for the plaintiff, if the plaintiff's own pleadings show that he ought 

•• nsber V. Scharadin, 186 Pa. 5«5, 40 Atl. lOl^l. Compare Butts v. Armor's 
tjBt&te, IW Fa. 73, 30 Atl. 357. 26 U R. A. 213; Yerkes v. Richards, 170 Pa. 
346. 32 Atl. 10«9; Hosier v. Hursh, 151 Pa. 415, 25 Ati. 52. 

•7 German lU8. Co. v. Frederick, 7 C. C. A. 122, 58 Fed. 144; Smith v. 
I'owere, 15 X. H. 546; Bradley Fertilizer Co. v. Caswell, 65 Vt. 231, 26 Atl. 
U56; Trow t. ITioraas, 7U Vt. 580, 41 Atl. 652; TlUinghast v. McLeod, 17 R. I. 
2UH. 21 AU. 345; Burnhnm v. New York, P. & B. R. Co., 17 R. I. 544, 23 Ati. 
638; Smith v. 8mith, 4 Wend. (X. Y.) 468; Schcrmerhom v. Schermerhorn. 5 
Wend. (X. Y.) 513; Bellows v. sJhannon, 1i Hill (X. Y.) 86; Christian v. Yar- 
twroueb. 124 X. C. 72, 32 S. E. 383; Bowdre r. Hampton. (5 Rich. Law (S. C.) 
2tl»; Barnes v. Rodgers, 54 S. Q 115, 31 S. E. 885; Buckingham v. McCracken, 
•J Ohio St. 287; Bradshaw v. Hedge, 10 Iowa, 402; Lough v. Thornton, 17 
Mlun. 253 (Gil. 1'30); Shee)i5' v. Duffy, 89 W\s. 6, (51 X. W. 205; Quimby v. 
Boyd, 8 Colo. 104, 6 I'ac. 462; Floyd v. Colorado Fuel & Iron Co., 10 Colo. App. 
51. 50 l^ac. 864. 

«• Tei'han v. Union Bridge Co.. 84 111. App. 532. 

•• Martindale v. Price, 14 Ind. 115; Carl v. Granger Coal Co., 60 Iowa, 510, 
'Jlf X. W. 437; Holland v. Kindregan, 155 Pa. 156, 25 Atl. 1077. A Judgment 
for defendant non obstante veredicto will not be» granted where the defense is 
a general denial. Virgin Cotton Mills v. Abernathy, 115 X. 0. 402, 20 S. E. 
r»2:i. Xor where the pleadings and evidence raise questions of fact proper for 
f 1 p Jury. Sli>itzkl v. Town of Wien, 93 Wis. 400, 67 X. W. 7oO. See Temple- 
ii:an v. Gibbs (Tex. Civ. App.) 25 S. W. 736. 



not to recover; but not merely on the ground that the verdict is 
contrary to the weight of the evidence.'^® In Minnesota, the law 
allows an entry of judgment for the defendant, notwithstanding a 
verdict for the plaintiff, in cases where the facts stated in the plain- 
tiff's pleadings are not sufficient, in point of substance, to constitute 
a legal cause of action; but not on the ground of such a failure of 
evidence, in weight or detail, as would warrant the court in ordering a 
new trialJ^ A similar rule obtains in Oregon.^* In Pennsylvania, 
where the plaintiff's evidence is so weak as to amount but to a scintilla, 
judgment may be rendered for the defendant non obstante vere- 
dicto.^' In Kentucky, in an action for damages caused by defend- 
ant's negligence, where a plea of contributory negligence is not con- 
troverted, defendant is entitled to judgment notwithstanding a ver- 
dict for the plaintiff.''* 

A motion for judgment non obstante veredicto is founded on the 
record alone, and its determination cannot be influenced by affida- 
vits or extrinsic evidence.''* In some states, it is held that a party 
will not be entitled to have a judgment of this kind entered in his 
favor, unless he has moved to direct a verdict at the close of the 
testimony ; and moreover, after judgment, he must specifically move 
for judgment non obstante veredicto, a mere motion for a new trial 

70 Code Civ. Proc. Neb. § 440; Manning v. City of Orleans, 42 Neb. 712, GO 
N. W. 953; Gibbon v. American Bldg. & Loan Ass'n, 43 Neb. 132. 61 N. W. 
1*J6; Stewart v. American Exchange Nat. Bank, 64 Neb. 4G1, 74 N. W. 865. 

71 Cniikshank v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 75 Minn. 206, 77 N. W. 
l>58; Kreatz v. St. Cloud School Dlst., 79 Minn. 14, 81 N. W. 533; Marquanlt 
V. Hubuer, 77 Minn. 442, 80 N. W. 617; Bragg v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co.. 
81 Minn. 130, 83 N. W. 511. Compare Baxter v. Covenant Mut. life Ass'n, 81 
Minn. 1, 83 N. W. 459. 

72 Benicia Agricultural Works v. Creighton, 21 Or. 495, 28 Pac. 775. 
78 Holland v. Kindregan, 155 Pa. 156, 25 Atl. 1077. 

7* Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Maj^lield (Ky.) 35 S. W. 924. 

78 Snow v. Conant. 8 Vt. 309; Smith v. Smith, 2 Wend. (N. X.) 624; Chi- 
cago & E. R. Co. V. Kreig, 22 Ind. App. 393, 53 N. E. 1033; Lichtstein v. 
Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co., 23 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 471. In Ohio, the statute cou- 
tines the court to a consideration of the statements in the pleadings, and the 
record, outside of such statements, should not be considered in disposing of the 
motion. McCoy v. Jones, 61 Ohio St, 119, 55 N. E. 219; Beetz v. Strobel <5 
Ohio Dec. 143. 



not being sufficient to authorize the judgment.''* The motion, in the 
absence of an agreement by the parties that it may be filed and con- 
sidered in vacation, cannot be considered by the court when so filed.^" 
And where one judge presided at the trial of an action, another judge 
has no authority, on motion for judgment notwithstanding the ver- 
dict, to make findings of fact on evidence not heard by him.''® 

There is one other form of judgment, entered in disregard of a 
verdict, which must be mentioned in this connection. It is the judg- 
ment "quod partes replacitent" (that the parties replead), or judg- 
ment of repleader. This is entered in a case where issue has been 
taken upon a point so immaterial that, notwithstanding the verdict, 
the court is unable to decide which party should recover upon the 
merits. It requires the parties to frame their pleadings anew, from 
the fault which first occasioned the immaterial issue, taking issue 
upon a substantial ground. A repleader differs from a judgment 
non obstante veredicto in this, that the latter is granted in a case 
where the pica is good in form though the matter pleaded is not avail- 
able as a defense, w^hile the former is only proper where the plead- 
ings do not bring the merits within the issue. Hence the latter kind 
of judgment is always upon the merits, and never granted but in 
a very clear case ; a repleader is upon the form and manner of plead- 
ing.' • 

S IT. Names of Jndsmentfl in oertain Special Actions. 

Before completing our enumeration of the different kinds of judg- 
ments, it is necessary to mention the special names given to the judg- 
ments in certain actions. In the action for partition, the interlocu- 
tory judgment whereby it is directed that partition be made, is called 
judgment "quod partitio fiat;" while the style of the final judgment in 
the same action, confirming the partition made, upon the return of 
the writ, is "quod partitio facta firma et stabilis in perpetuum." ®*^ 

7«»tzer V. City of Oookston. 66 Minn. 355, 68 N. W. 1099; Ilemstad v. 
UaU. m Minn. 136, 66 N. W. 306; Crane v. Knaut 65 Minn. 447, 68 N. W. 79. 

" Soribner v. Rutherford. 65 Iowa, 551, 22 N. W. 670. 

TSAiiltman & 'lYiylor Co. v. O'Dowd, 73 Minn. 58, 75 N. W. 756, 72 Am. 
St Uep. 6rj3. 

'» 2 'ndd, Frac. 922. 

•• 5 ISac. Abr. 292, cited Freem. Judgiu. § 8. 


§ 18 LAW OF JUDOMBNTa (^« 1 

The interlocutory judgment in an action of account, whereby it is 
directed that "the defendant do account," is called judgment "quod 

S 18. Cnws-ClassilLeations of Jndsments. 

There are certain methods of classifying judgments and decrees, 
without regard to the mode of trial, stage of entry, or rendition of a 
verdict, and hence running across the division above adopted, which 
are important to be named. And first, they are either final or inter- 
locutory. A final judgment or decree is one which puts an end to 
the whole action, leaving nothing further to be done or determined 
by the court. It is interlocutory, if it merely settles some preliminary' 
or subordinate point, without reaching the merits, or if, though di- 
rected to the main controversy, it does not dispose of the whole case, 
but leaves something for the further action or consideration of the 
court before the rights of the parties are definitely fixed. This dis- 
tinction will form the subject of the next chapter. 

Judgments and decrees are also either domestic or foreign. A 
judgment is called domestic when it was rendered by a court organ- 
ized by the same state or sovereignty within whose territory it is 
sought to be enforced or is invoked as a defense. It is called foreign 
when rendered by another or independent state or sovereignty. 

In Louisiana, a judgment rendered by default is distinguished from 
a "contradictory judgment •/' the latter being one which is given after 
the parties have been heard either in support of their claims or in 
their defense. 

Judgments and orders may further be classed as absolute or nisi. 
At common law a judgment nisi was one entered on the return of 
the nisi prius record with the postea indorsed, which would become 
absolute according to the terms of the postea, unless the court out 
of which the nisi prius record proceeded should, within the first four 
days, otherwise order.®^ It is otherwise defined as "one that is to 
be valid unless something else should be done within a given time to 
defeat it." ®* A rule or order nisi is one which is to be confirmed or 

81 Bout. Law Diet, sub voce. 

82 United States v. VViiistead (i>. C.) 12 Fed. 50. See Strickland v. Cox, 102 
N. C. 411, 9 S. ifi. 414. 



made absolute, unless cause be shown to the contrary, or something 
be done which has been required, within a specified time. 

Adjudications are also classed as either in rem or in personam. 
This distinction is one of difficulty and importance, and the former 
kind of judgments will form the subject of a later chapter, to which 
the reader is referred for the definitions. 

f 19. GlaisiilcAtion of Deoreei* 

In addition to the divisions indicated in the preceding section, 
decrees in equity are classed as **by default," "by consent," "on the 
hearing," and "pro confesso." The last named — a decree that the 
bill be taken as confessed — is entered where the defendant, by not 
appearing within the time prescribed, is under tood to admit the case 
made by the bill. It is intended to prepare the case for final decree ; 
and its effect is like that of a default at common law, by which the 
defendant is deemed to have admitted all that is well pleaded in the 
declaration.^* A decree nisi is one entered upon the defendant's 
failure to appear when the case is called for hearing, granting the 
relief asked, but coupled with a condition that the defendant is to 
have a certain time within which to show cause against the decree. 

•9 Rnmell v. LAtbrop, 122 Mass. 302. 


§ 20 LAW OF JUDQMENTa. (Ch. 2 



S 20. Reasons for the Disttnction. 

21. Definition of Final Judgments. 

22. Interlocutory and intermediate Orders. 

23. Must be final as to all Parties. 

24. Must settle all the Issues. 

25. Uncertainty of the Amount. 

26. Judgment of Nonsuit. 

27. Dismissal of Suit. 

28. Judgment by Default 
2U. Judgment on Demun'er. 

30. Judgment on Flea In Abatement 
.31. Judgment for Costs. 
31a. Allowance of Claims Against Fund. 

32. Granting or Refusing Extraordinary Remedies. 

33. On Motion for New Trial. 

34. Vacating or Reversing former Judgment. 

36. Orders as to Interpleader, Intervention, and Joinder of Parties. 
3t>. Dissolving Attachments and Executions. 

37. Order removing Cause. 

38. Judgments and Orders of Probate Courts. 

39. Judgment in Partition. 

40. In Condemnation Proceedings. 

41. Finality of Decrees. 

42. Further Action necessary to settle the Equities. 

43. Further Action necessary to execute the Decree, 

44. Decree ordering a Refereoce. 

45. Directing an Account. 

46. Decree suspending Rights until further Orders. 

47. Decree dissolving Partnership. 

48. Foreclosure of Mortgage. 

49. ISending Issue out of Chancery. 

§ 20. Reaiont for the Dlitinotion. 

The distinction between final judgments and decrees and such as 
are merely interlocutory, is one of considerable importance, both as 
a matter of practice and in respect to the consequences which follow 
the entry of a final adjudication. As a general rule, it is only a final 
judgment which has the efTect of creating a lien upon the debtor's 
realty. So also, with certain minor exceptions, it is only a final judg- 


ment or decree upon the merits which will sustain the plea of res 
judicata. At common law, a writ of error could not be brought 
until the last, or final, decision in the cause. In many of the states, 
it is provided by statute that appeals may be taken to their courts of 
last resort only from the final judgments of the trial courts or the 
final decrees of the courts of chancery.* By the federal judiciary 
act • it is enacted that error may be brought to the final judgments 
at law or decrees in equity of the highest courts in the several states 
for the purpose of their re-examination by the supreme court of the 
United States in certain prescribed cases. Thus, for these various 
reasons, it is often necessary to distinguish final decisions from the 
interlocutory class of adjudications. The cases in which such a dis- 
tinction is drawn are numerous, illustrating the wide range of in- 
stances in which the question may arise, and not always harmonious ; 
for the practice, or the statute-law, in some jurisdictions, ascribes 
the character of finality to judgments ox orders which elsewhere are 
considered as merely interlocutory. 

f 21. Definition of Final JndKmentfl* 

A final judgment is such a judgment as at once puts an end to 
the action by declaring that the plaintiff has or has not entitled him- 
self to recover the remedy for which he sues.^ It is sometimes said 
that it is the award of the judicial consequences which the law at- 
taches to the facts, and which determines the subject-matter of the 
controversy between the parties.* It is evident, however, that this 
description is too narrow. For a final judgment means not a final 
determination of the rights of the parties with reference to the sub- 
ject-matter of the litigation, but merely of their rights with reference 
to the particular suit.* In other words, it is not at all necessary that 

1 l^nno v. Jutematlonal K. & S. Co., 34 Fla. 300, 16 South. 180; Van Zandt 
▼. Gormley, (M$ 111. App. 588; City of Bath v. Palmer, 90 Me. 407, 38 Atl. 305. 
« Kev. St. U. S. S 700. 

• 3B1. Comm. 398. 

* West V. Bagby, 12 Tex. 34, 02 Am. Dec. 512, following Hanks t. Thomp- 
son, 5 Tex. 6. And see Uobbs v. Staples, 19 Me. 219. 

» Belt V. Davia, 1 Cal. 134; Weston v. City of Charleston, 2 Pet. 440, 7 L. 
Kd. 481; Klink t. The Cusseta, 30 G a. 504; Williams v. Wait, 2 S. D. 210, 49 
S, W. 2UM, 3U Am. St Hep. 768; State y. Superior Court of Jefferson County, 



the judgment should be upon the merits, if it definitely puts the case 
out of court.® A judgment of nonsuit or dismissal is final, though it 
does not reach the merits. It is the termination of the individual 
action which marks the finality of the judgment. But there must 
be an actual judgment. An order for judgment is not a final judg- 
ment; it is final only when it contains the decision or sentence of 
the law upon the matter contained in the record; the order must 
be followed by the sentence of the law declaring that the party may 
recover the sum adjudged.^ On the other hand, a judgment is as 
final when pronounced by the court as when entered and recorded by 
the clerk. * Where a motion for new trial has been made and enter- 
tained by the court, the judgment in the case does not become final 
and effectual, for purposes of review, until the date of the overruling 
of such motion.* 

A judgment which is not final is called "interlocutory." That is, 
an interlocutory judgment is one which determines some prelimi- 
nary or subordinate point or plea, or settles some step, question, or 
default arising in the prpgress of the cause, but does not adjudicate 

the ultimate rights of the parties or finally put the case out of court. 


3 Wash. St. 696, 29 Pac. 202. A Judgment in a contest to determine whether 
a homestead Is subject to sale on execution is a final Judgment from which 
an appeal will lie. Wright T. Jones, 103 Ala. 539, 15 South. 852, To constitute 
a final Judgment for pm*po8e of appeal, it is not essential that It should 
be a bar to another suit. Colorado Eastern R. Co. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 36 C. 
C. A. 263, 94 Fed. 312. 

« Where a verdict is returned in favor of plaintiff, and the court sustains a 
motion in arrest of judgment, and subsequently orders the cause stricken tnun 
the docket, the case has reached such an end that an appeal wlU lie. Daugh- 
erty v. Midland Steel Co., 23 Ind. App. 78, 53 X. E. 844. W^hen a controversy 
between two parties is ended, so far as the court before which It Is pending 
can end It, the Judgment is then final, regardless of mere matter of form. 
Heegaard v. Dakota Loan & Trust Co., 3 S. D. 569. 54 N. W. 656. 

7 Alacnevin T. Macnevin, 63 Cal. 186; Eastham v. Sallis, OQ Tex, 576; Duraut 
v. Comegys, 2 Idaho, 809, 26 Pac. 755, 35 Am. St. Rep. 267. 

8 Kehoe V. Blethen, 10 Nev. 445. 

• Brown V. Evans (C. C.) 18 Fed. 56; Danielson v.^ Northwestern Fuel Ca 
(C. C.) 5o Fed. 49; New York, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Doane, 105 Ind. 92, 4 
N. E. 419; StoU v. Daily Min. Co., 19 Utah. 271, 57 Pac. 295. So where judg- 
ment rendered against a party not pei-sonally served is liable, by statute, to be 
vacated within three years, it does not become final until after that time. 
Martin v. Gilmore, 72 la 193. 



Thus a judgment or order passed upon any provisional or accessory 
claim or contention is, in general, merely interlocutory, though it 
may finally dispose of that particular matter.^® 

Under the common law system, an order, made in the progress 
of a suit and before judgment, will be considered final if it deter- 
mines the action and prevents a judgment.^ ^ But an order which 
docs not settle and conclude the rights involved in the action, and 
does not deny to the party the means of further prosecuting or de- 
fending the suit, is not so far final as to be a proper subject of 

I 22. Interlooutory and Intermediate Orders. 

The codes of procedure adopted in several of the states define a 
judgment as "the final determination of the rights of the parties in 
an action or proceeding." Under this system, therefore, there is no 
such thing as an interlocutory judgment in a cause, the only judg- 
ment authorized being one which finally disposes of the rights of the 
parties." And the office of an interlocutory judgment at common 
law is, under the code practice, filled by various orders. But as, 

10 But It has been held that a decree allowing temporary alimony and 
eounsel fees is, to aU legal intents and purposes, a final •judgment, from which 
an appeal may be taken. Daniels v. Daniels, 9 Colo. VdS, 10 Pac. 657. Condi- 
tional judgments may be final if they dispose of the case as to all parties be- 
fore the court and as to the entire subject-matter of the litigation. Thus, a 
Ju(]|?ment for the sale of a certain tract of land to satisfy a sum adjudged to 
be a lien thereon, in the event that another tract ordered to be sold shall not 
be sufllcient for that purpose, is a final order from which an appeal can be 
pitwecuted. Talwr v. Payne (Ky.) 41 S. W. 557. Compare Standard Steam 
Laundry t. Dole, 20 Utah, 469, 58 Pac. 1109. 

11 Uobba ▼. Beckwith, 6 Ohio St. 252; Maysville & L. R. Co. v. Punnett, 15 
B. M. (Ky.) 47. An unconditional order for the payment of money within a 
certain time la a final order, from which an appeal lies. Nevitt v. Woodburn, 
45 lll« App. 417. In England, it is said that an order is final only where 
it is made upon an appUcation or proceeding which must in any event, whether 
It fiucoeeds or fails, finally determine the rights of the parties. Salaman v. 
Warner |1«>1J 1 Q. B. 734. 

i2Hazleburst v. Morris, 28 Md. 67. An order refusing an application for 
judgment on the special findings of the jury, contrary to the general verdict, is 
not Una] or appealable. Persons v. Simons, 1 N. D. 243, 46 N. W. 960; Atchi- 
son, T. St 8. F. B. Co. V. Brown, 57 Kan. 785, 48 Pac. 31. 

19 Sellers v. Union Lumbering Co.. 36 Wis. 398. Under this definition, an 
order that a petition be treated as if it had not been filed is appealable. Ilar- 
1 LuVW JUDG.-3 i^y^) 

§ 22 LAW OP JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 2 

among the various orders which may be made in the progress of a 
cause, there may be some which, without finally adjudicating "the 
rights" of the parties, may determine some claim or contention which, 
from its independence and meritorious nature, ought to be the sub- 
ject of an appeal, therefore in these states the statutes usually allow 
appeals from "an order affecting a substantial right" of one of the 
parties.^* The qualifying adjective is used to exclude rulings on 
merely formal or technical points. The code practice is, generally 
speaking, more liberal in allowing appeals than the common law. 
Thus in California,- "an appeal may be taken * *  from an or- 
der granting or refusing a new trial, from an order granting or dis- 
solving an injunction, from an order refusing to grant or dissolve an 
injunction, from an order dissolving or refusing to dissolve an at- 
tachment, from an order granting or refusing to grant a change of the 
place of trial." ^' 

An order setting aside a sale of property made in disregard of an 
injunction issued in the same suit is a final order and appealable.** 
So also is an order in an equity cause committing a witness, not a 
party to the suit, for contempt in refusing to testify ; ^^ and an order 
confirming a sale; ** and an order vacating an arrest; *• and an or- 
der directing a sheriff who has possession of warrants, by virtue of 

rlson V. Lebanon Waterworks, 91 Ky. 255, 15 S. W. 522, 34 Am. St. Rep. 180. 
In South Carolina, the statute gives the supreme court appellate Jurisdfcti(m 
of **any intermediate Judgment, order, or decree Involving the merits," Code 
av. Proc. S. C. § 11. See Du Pont v. Du Bos, 33 S. C. 389, 11 S. E. 1073. An 
order void as an act in excess of the court's jurisdiction is final in its legal 
significance, so as to be appealable. Therkelsen v. Therkelsen, 35 Or. 75, 54 
Pac. 885. In Pennsylvania, the act allowing appeals from interlocutory orders 
was Intended to reach only clear cases of error in law, and thus prevent the 
delay of a trial. Max Meadows Land & Imp. Co. v. Mendenhall, 4 Pa. Super. 
Ct. 398. 

i« For Illustrations of orders affecting substantial rights, see Gllb^t v. 
Thayer, 104 N. Y. 200. 10 N. E. 148; State Bank of Nebraska v. Green, 8 Neb. 
297. 1 N. W. 210; Starbuck v. Dunklee, 10 Minn. 168 (Gil. 136), 88 Am. Dec. 
68; KIngsley v. Oilman, 12 Minn. 515 (Gil. 425); Vermilye v. VermUye, 32 
Minn. 499, 18 N. W. 832. 

IB Code Civ. Proc. Cal. § 939. 

16 Grant v. Lowe, 32 C. C. A. 379, 89 Fed. 881. 

17 Butler V. Fayerweather, 33 C. C. A. 625. 91 Fed. 45& 

18 Edwards v. Maupiu, 7 Mackey (D. C) 39. 

io Kaisin Fertilizer Co. v. Grubbs, 114 X. C. 470, 19 S. E. 597. 

. (31) 


certain replevin proceedings, to deliver them to a certain person, 
made in another suit to which the sheriff is not a party.** An appeal 
will also lie from a judgment sustaining exceptions to a referee's 
report, and an order thereafter overruling a motion for a new trial; *^ 
and from an order directing the receiver of an insolvent corporation 
to sue the stockholders.-- An order of the trial court, refusing to 
proceed with the trial of a case, is an interlocutory judgment.*' 
And an order overruling a motion to correct the date of a judgment 
is a final order and appealable.^^ 

But an order quashing the service of process in a case is not con- 
sidered final in such sense as to be appealable.*"* Nor can an. appeal 
be taken from an order granting or refusing leave to amend the 
pleadings ; *• nor from a judgment allowing a garnishee to file an 
answer after default ; *^ nor from an order granting a change of 
venue ; ** nor from a refusal to grant a continuance.*^ An order 
denying a motion to set aside an order contained in the judgment, 
that execution issue as well against the defendant's person as against 
his property, is not final nor appealable.** And the same is true of 

«o KlweU V. Goodnow, 71 Minn. 390, 73 N. W. 1095. 

ai Hart V. Hlatt, 2 Ind. T. 245. 48 S. W. 1038. 

22 UepnbUc Life ins. Co. ▼. Swlgert, 135 lU. 150, 25 N. E. 680, 12 U R. A. 

«a Kleiber v. McManus, 66 Tex. 48, 17 S. W. 240. 

«* Warrington t. Upham Manuf g Co., 18 Ohio Clr. Ct. R. 311. 

«» Winn T. Carter Dry-Goods Co., 102 Ky. 370, 43 S. W. 436; Brown v. 
Kice. ;J0 Neb. 236, 46 N. W. 480; Persinger v. Tinltle, 34 Neb. 5. 51 N. W. 209; 
8tandard DlstUllng Co. T. Freyhan, 34 Neb. 434, 51 N. W. 976. But In Kansas, 
sucb an order is final and appealable. Newberry v. Arkansas, K. & G. Ry. Co., 
S2 Kan. 613, 35 Pac. 210. 

2« Sinclair v. Western N. C. R. Co., Ill N. C. 507, 16 S. E. 336; State v. Cara- 
leigb Phosphate & Fertilizer Works, 123 N. C. 162, 31 S. E. 373; Parker v. 
Harden, 122 N. C. Ill, 28 S. E. 902; Gunn v. Donoghue, 135 lU. 479, 25 N. E. 
75U; Lamon v. McKee, 7 Mackey (D. C.) 446; Troup v. Horbach, 57 Neb. 644, 
71* N. W. 286; McElwaiu v. Huston, 1 Wash. St. 359, 25 Pac. 465. But iu 
Iowa, an order striking out a cross bill is appealable. Mahaska County State 
Bank v. Christ. 82 Iowa. 56, 47 N. W. 886. 

«T Moore v. Hill, 87 Ga. 91, 13 S. E. 259. 

«• Edgerly v. Stewart, 86 Iowa, 87, 52 N. W. 1121; State v. Shaw, 21 Nev. 
222. 21> I'ac. 321. Compare Code Civ. Proc. Cal. § 939. 

:• Newman y. Wildenstein, 42 La. Ann. 925, 8 South. 607, 

*• Jennings ▼. Bartels, 2 W^ash. T. 306, 24 Pac. 678. 


§ 23 LAW OP JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 2 

an order, appointing an assignee in insolvency in place of the one 
named by the assignor in his deed.'^ Nor will an appeal lie from an 
interlocutory judgment reassigning a homestead and appointing com- 
missioners to admeasure the same ; •' nor from an order in insol- 
vency proceedings, provisionally passing upon the amount a creditor 
is entitled to pay on a purchase of the insolvent's assets.** 

I 23. Mnit be final as to »11 Partiei. 

As a general rule, a judgment must possess the character of finality 
in disposing of the rights of all the parties concerned, before it can 
be considered final with respect to any of them.** Thus when suit 
is instituted against two or more defendants, and judgment is entered 
for or against all of them except one, who is not mentioned or refer- 
red to in the decision, there is no final judgment from which an ap- . 
peal can be taken, no order appearing for the disposal of the cause 
as to the defendant omitted from the judgment.*** For the same 
reason, a decree dismissing a bill in equity as to one of several de- 

»i State V. Parker, 6 Wash. 411, 34 Pac. 149. 

«2 Macke V. JByrd, 109 Mo. 487, 19 S. W. 70. 

«8 Brown v. Minnesota Thresher Manuf'g Co., 44 Minn. 322, 46 N. W. 560. 

»4 Baker v. Old x\at. Bank, 33 C. C. A. 570, 91 Fed. 449; Deadwyler v. Bank 
of the University, 110 Ga. 511, 35 S. E. 779; Martin v. Crow, 28 Tex. 614: 
Whltaker v. Gee, 61 Tex. 217; Gulf City Street Ry. & Real-Estate Co. y. Beck- 
er (Tex. Oiv. App.) 23 S. W. 1015; Reed v. Liston, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 118, 27 S. 
W. 913; Caldwell v. Bryan (Tex. Civ. App.) 37 S W. 335; Burrows v. Cox 
(Tex. Civ. App.) 38 S. W. 50; Delap v. Hunter, 1 Sneed (Tenn.) 101; Champ v. 
Kendrick, 130 Ind. 545, 30 N. E. 635; Keller v. Jordan, 147 Ind. 113, 46 N. E: 
343; Sater v. Hunt, 1 Mo. App. Kep'r, 365, 61 Mo. App. 228; Harman v. 
Blackstone, 1 Mo. App. Rep'r, 391, 61 Mo. App. 254; Peek v. Vandenberg, 30 
Cal. 11. But in Georgia, by statute, an order is final and appealable If it is 
"final as to some material party" to the action; and this allows an appeal 
by such a party when his rights are finally adjudged, though the action re- 
mains pending as to others. United Underwriters' Ins. Co. v. Powell, 94 Ga. 
359, 21 S. E. 565; Deadwyler v. Bank of the University, 110 Ga. 511. 35 S. E. 
779. And see Connell v. Brumback, 18 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 502. 

«5\vhitaker v. Gee, 61 Tex. 217; Masterson v. Williams (Tex.) 11 S. W. 
531; Cit>' of Texarkana v. Rodgers (Tex. Civ. App.) 20 S. W. 447; Maley v. 
Lake Erie & W. R. Co., 84 111. App. 55; Case v. Ingle, 2 Ind. T. 309, 51 S. 
VV. 958; JSchuitz v. McLean, 76 Cal. 606, 18 Pac. 775. In Connecticut, the prac- 
tice act, by authorizing one action against defendants with adverse inter- 
ests, and authorizing the court in such cases to order separate trials, permits 
of the entry of a final and appealable Judgment as to one defendant, although 


fendants sought to be jointly charged is not a final decree from 
which an appeal may be taken.** But these rules do not apply where 
there are parties who are merely formal parties to the record, or as 
to whom there are separable controversies. For example, an order 
dismissing an interpleader,*^ or discharging a garnishee,** may be 
final and appealable. So, the right of appeal is not affected by the 
fact that there is no decree against one of the respondents, who was 
not served with process, and who, though a proper, was not a neces- 
sary, party to the suit.** And a judgment in an action by an infant 
for personal injuries may be final, though it does not in express terms 
dispose of his next friend.** The same is true of a judgment against 
one of the members of a firm separately sued on the firm indorsement 
of a note.*^ And where several actions to enforce mechanics' liens 
ag^ainst the same defendant are consolidated, a judgment against one 
of the plaintiffs is final as to him and may be appealed.*' 

f 24. Muit fettle all the Iiiuei* 

It is also requisite that a judgment, in order to be final, should 
determine all the issues involved in the cause. The decision on an 
issue of law which does not put the case out of court is not of this 
character. So if there are several issues of fact in the same contro- 
versy, the decision of one of them, leaving the others undetermined, 

tbe action remains pending as to tbe other parties. Bunnell v. Berlin Iron 
Bridge Co.. 06 Conn. 24, 33 AU. 'y'.iS. 

«• Holioret T. Hamburg-American Packet Co., 148 U. S. 262, 13 Sup. Ct. 500, 
37 Ll Kd. 443; National Bank of Rondout v. Smith, 156 U. S. 330, 15 Sup. Ct. 
:«58. 39 L. Kd. 441; Dreyer v. Goldy, 171 111. 434, 4l> X. E. 560; Lang v. IngaUs 
Zinc Co., 119 Tenn. 476. 42 S. W. 198. In Illinois, it appears that an appeal may 
be allowed in such a case If it is shown that "peculiar hardship*' would result 
from refusing to allow it. See Pain v. Kinney, 73 111. App. 115, affirmed, 175 
JU. 2IH, 51 X. E. 621, And see Royall's Adm'rs v. Johnson. 1 Rand. (Va.) 421; 
Nir-hol V. Dunn. 25 Ark. 129. 

37 standley v. Roberts, 8 C. C. A. 305, 50 Fed. 836. 

a« Steiner v. l-lrst Sat Bank. 115 Ala. 379. 22 South. 30. 

>» Bradsbaw v. Miners* Bank, 26 C. C. A. 673, 81 Fed. 902. See Harris v. 
i«andert (Tex. Civ. App.) 45 S. W. 29; Davis & Rankin Bldg. & Manufg Co. 
r. UJIlsboro Cteamery Co., 9 Ind. App. 553, 37 N. E. 294. 

*• Texas Cent. Ry. Co. v. Stilhrt, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 642, 20 S. W. 962. 

«i Jameson v. Smith, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 90, 46 S. W. 804. 

4a urman t. Crystal Klver Ry. Co., 5 Colo. App. 4t):j, 39 Pac. 434. 


§ 25 LAW OP JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 2 

is not a final •adjudication. For there cannot be two final judgments 
in the same action.** But this rule does not apply where several dis- 
tinct causes of action are united in the same suit,** or where subordi- 
nate or ancillary matters arise in the course of the action, each capa- 
ble of final determination by itself and independently of the main 

S 26. TJnoertainty of the Amount. 

An uncertainty as to the amount of the recovery will often prevent 
a judgment from becoming final until such amount is liquidated and 
declared.*® The test in these cases seems to be, whether the judi- 
cial action of the court is necessary to be directed to the question 
before the amount of the judgment can be settled, or whether, though 
at present uncertain, it can be determined or computed without the 
intervention of the court. Thus a judgment by default is interlocu- 
tory if the damages remain to be ascertained by writ of inquiry or 
other judicial proceeding. So a decree which settles the rights of the 

48 Brown v. Cranberry Iron & Coal Cp., 25 U. S. App. 107, 13 C. C. A. 66, 65 
Fed. 636; Frank v. Tatum (Tex. Civ. App.) 20 S. W. 869; Stockton Combined 
Harvester & Agricultural Works v. Glen*s Falls Ins. Co.. 98 Cal. 557, 33 
l»ac. 633; McKissack v. Voorhees, 119 Ala. 101, 24 South. 523; Potter v. Talk- 
iugton (idabo) 49 Pac. 14; Low v. Crown Point Min. Co., 2 Xev. 75. Compare 
Hake v. Coach, 105 Mich. 425, 63 N. W. 306. A judgment for plaintiff is not 
final unless it disposes of matters pleaded by way of cross-bill or counterclaim. 
Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. V. Stephenson (Tex. Civ. App.) 26 S. W. 236; Cloplon v. 
Herring (Tex. Civ. App.) 26 S. W. 1104. 

*4 Klever v. Seawall, 12 C. C. A. 653, 65 Fed. 373. In an action for the 
recovery of real estate, of personalty, and of moneys received, a judgment for 
the recovery of a certain sum is final and appealable, though no disi)osition of 
the real estate is made therein. Davies v. Thomson, 92 Tex. 391, 49 S. W. 

*B A decree entered in a proceeding by attorneys to enforce a lien for their 
fees, which adjudges that they are entitled to compensation to a definite 
amount and have a lien therefor on a fund in court, and directs payment there- 
of, is a final and appealable decree, although the residue of the fund may not 
have been finally disposed of. inittle v. Clafiin, 31 C. C. A. 419, 88 Fed. 122, A 
judgment, in an action to establish plaintiff's right under a will, fixing an al- 
lowance for his support during the pendency of the suit, and ordering execution 
therefor, is final; and an appeal may be prosecuted during the pendency of the 
suit. McUreary v. Robinson, 92 Tex. 408, 49 iS. W. 212. 

46 Millard v. Parsell, 57 Neb. 178, 77 X. W. 390; Riott v. Blackstone, 10 
I'a. Super. Ct. 591. 



parties, but does not find the amount to be paid, leaving that for 
iuttire determination, is not final.*^ The same is true of a decree 
which, after finding the equities to be in one of the parties, sends the 
case to a referee or master to ascertain and report the sum which he 
is entitled to recover.** For the report must be examined and con- 
firmed by the court, before there is a final judgment for such sum. 
On* the other hand, where a judgment is entered against one of the 
parties, to be released on payment of such sum as a third person shall 
say is due, it is a final judgment ; because, to make it absolute so far 
as regards the amount, no further action of the court is necessary, 
but only the certificate of the referee."** So a decree in chancery 
which adjudges a certain sum of money to be due from the defendant, 
and awards execution to collect it, is a final decree, notwithstanding 
it also allows as payment to be deducted from the amount therein 
adjudged any note held by the defendant against the complainant.*® 
Also, a decree is final, although an order is added to it suspending 
the decree as to one item of the account, until the decision of another 
suit, in which that item is in litigation.*** 

S 26. JudKmeiit of If oniiili. 

This species of judgment is clearly final, since it completely dis- 
poses of the action, though without passing upon the merits. "By 
a final judgment is to be understood not a final determination of the 
rights of the parties, but merely of the particular suit. Thus, for 
instance, a judgment of nonsuit, other than where the plaintiff sub- 
mits to a voluntary nonsuit, is a final judgment, even though no costs 
be awarded against the plaintiff, inasmuch as he is aggrieved by being 
(fcfeated of his right of action in that suit and of his costs in prosecut- 

41 Follansbee v. Ballard Fa v. Co.. 154 U. S. 051, 14 Sup. Ct. 1189, 25 L. 
t'ja. 8U2; Hunter v. Hunter. 100 111. 519. 

*• BelmoDt T. Ponvert. 3 Rob. (N. Y.) 693; Price v. Nesbit, 1 Hill, Eq. (S. 
<;.) 445: Tuggle v. (Jilbert, 1 Duv. (Ky.) 340; Delckhart v. Rutgers, 45 Mo. 
132. But see Ayer v. Termatt. 8 Minn. 90 (Gil. 71). 

*• Turner v. Plowdcn, 5 Gill & J. (Md.) 52, 23 Am. Dec. 596; Young v. 
Mackail, 3 Md. Ch. Dec. 398. 

»o stovaA V. Banks. 10 Wall. 583. 19 L. Ed. 1036. 
•1 Fleming v. Boiling, 8 Grat. (Va.)^292. 


§ 27 . LAW OP JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 2 

ing it." °* For similar reasons a judgment of non pros, is appealable, 
being final as to the plaintiff.*® But no appeal is ordinarily allowed 
from the plaintiff's voluntary entry of a nonsuit,*** nor, unless the 
statute specially grants it, from an order setting aside a nonsuit.'* 

§ 27. DUmiMal of Suit. 

The dismissal of a bill in chancery or of a suit at law, since it fully 
disposes of that action, is a final judgment ; it is a final decision of 
the case as against all claims made by it, although it may not be 
a final determination of the rights of the parties, as they may be 
presented in some other action. °® Thus a judgment dismissing a 

52 Belt V. Davis, 1 Cal. 134; Meehan v. Valentine, 145 U. S. 611, 12 Sup. 
Ct. 972, 36 L. Ed, 835; Koona v. Bryson, 16 C. C. A. 227, 69 Fed. 207; Vlcks- 
burg, 8. & P. R. Ck). v. Scott, 47 La. Ann. 706, 17 South. 249; Hoiter Lumber 
Uo. V. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 18 Mont. 282, 45 Pac. 207; De Graf v. Seat- 
tle & T. Nav. Ck)., 10 Wash. 468, 38 Pac. 1006. But In Pennsylvania, under 
Act March 11, 1875, providing for a review by the supreme court where a 
nonsuit has been entered and a motion to set aside the Judgment of nonsuit 
has been denied, error does not lie to the entry of a Judgment of nonsuit, but 
only to a refusal to set such Judgment aside. Scanlon y. Suter, 158 Pa. 275, 
27 Atl. 963. 

B3 Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Green, 52 Miss. 332; Henderson v. Maryland 
Home Fire Ins. Co., 90 Md. 47, 44 Atl. 1020; Purcell v. Payton, 58 Mo. App. 442. 

54 Mallory v. Taylor, 90 Va. 348, 18 S. E. 438i Rosenthal v. Roberson, 114 
N. C. 594, 19 S. E. 667; Ropes v. Eldridge. 39 Fla. 47, 21 South. 570. An order 
refusing a party permission to dismiss his action Is not final so as to be ap- 
pealable. Troup v. Horbach, 57 Neb. 644, 78 N. W. 286. 

66 Ready v. Smith, 141 Mo. 305, 42 S. W. 727. 

60 Dowling V. l*olack, 18 Cal. 625; ZoUer v. McDonald, 23 Cal. 130; Leese 
V. Sherwood, 21 Cal. 151; Stoppenbach v. Zohrlaut, 21 Wis. 385; Bowie v. Kan- 
sas City, 51 Mo. 454; Gill v. Jones, 57 Miss. 367; Scriven v. Hursh, 35» 
Mich. 98; Snell v. Dwipht, 121 Mass. 348; Bowler v. Palmer, 2 Gray (Mass.) 
5.j3; Eddleman v. McCilathery, 74 Tex. 280, 11 S. W. 1100; Rogers v. Rus- 
sell, 11 Xeb. 361, 9 X. W. 547; Brush Electric Co. v. Electric Imp. Co., 7 U. 
S. App. 208, 2 0. C. A. 373, 51 Fed. 557; Hodges v. Kimball, .34 C. C. A. 
103, 91 Fed. 845; Colorado i^Iastem K. Co. v. Union Pac. R. Co.. 36 C. C. A. 
2{JS. 94 Fed. 312; Huns took v. Huiistock, 43 La. Ann. 375, 8 South. 922: 
Howeth V. Clark (Tex.) 16 S. W. 175; Fuerman v. Ruble (Tex.) 16 S. W. 53G: 
Hecgaard v. Dakota Loan & T. Co., 3 S. D. 569, 54 N. W. 656; Lawrence 
County V. Meade County, 6 S. D. 026, 62 N. W. 957; Byrne v. E^udson, 127 
Cal. 254, 59 Pac. 597; Smith v. Mayor oi Boston, 1 Gray (Mass.) 72. Where 
one of several defendants pleads to the action and the plaintiff replies, and on 
motion of a co-defendant the original writ of summons is quashed, and 



suit for want of prosecution, in which a temporary injunction had 
been granted, amounts to a determination by the court that the in- 
junction was improperly granted, and is in effect a final judgment in 
favor of the defendant.*^ So a judgment discharging a garnishee is 
a final and complete disposition of the cause, and the court has 
thereafter no jurisdiction over it; so that a judgment against the 
garnishee for costs, at a subsequent term, is void.*^* But an appeal 
does not lie from an order directing the dismissal of the suit, but 
only from the judgment entered on such order.^* Nor is a judg- 
ment appealable which dismisses the suit only as to some among 
the defendants,** nor one which dismisses it conditionally,*^ nor an 
order dismissing a cross-bill in equity.** Where a motion to dismiss 
is denied, this does not constitute such a final judgment as will be 
appealable.** Nor can plaintiff appeal from an order refusing to 
reinstate an action which he has himself dismissed.** It has also 
been held that the action of replevin is an extraordinary remedy, and 
that in such action a judgment dismissing the suit is not final, and 
error cannot be assigned upon such an order until after final judg- 

i 28. Jndsment by Default. 

The rule in regard to a judgment by default is, that if such a judg- 
ment is rendered for a fixed and liquidated sum, or if the amount 
can be ascertained by mere calculation from the pleadings, it is final ; 
but if the amount of the recovery or damages remaiqs to be ascer- 

jiidgment "that he go hence," that is no final Judgment In favor of the de- 
fendant pleading. State Bank v. Koddy, 15 Ark. 401. 

67 DowUng V. Polack, 18 Cal. 625. 

»• Jackson v. St. Louts & S. F. K. Co., m Mo. 104, 1 S. W. 224. 

»• Metropolitan Kl. Ky. Co. v. Johnston, 84 Hun, 83, 32 X. Y. Supp. 49. 

•• Beck & I'auli LIth. Co. v. Wacker & Birk B. & M. Co., 22 C. C. A. 11, 70 
Fed. 10. 

•1 KIch T. Manhattan R. Co., 138 X. Y. 668, 34 X. E. 402. 

•« Lamon v. McKee, 7 Mackey (D. U.) 440; Fleece v. Russell, 13 111. 31. Sec 
SState T. Judge of Civil District Court, 35 La. Ann. 705. 

«» Flenimons v. Southern Imp. Co., 108 X..C. 614, 13 S. E. 188; Cameron v. 
Beooett 110 N. C. 277. 14 S. E. 779; Bach v. Burke, 141 Pa. 049, 21 Ati. 779. 
Compare Henderson v. Henshall, 4 C. C. A. 357, 54 Fed. 320. 

«« Smith V. May, 20 D. C. 07. 

«3 Branch ▼. Branch, 5 Fhi. 447. 


§ 28 LAW OF JUDGMENTS. (Cfa. 2 

tained by a writ of inquiry or other judicial method of computation, 
then the judgment is merely interlocutory, until such amount is set- 
tled and entered on the record.®* "A judgment by default is inter- 
locutory or final. When the action sounds in damages, as covenant, 
trover, trespass, etc., it is only interlocutory, that the plaintiff ought 
to recover his damages, leaving the amount of them to be after- 
wards ascertained. But where the amount of the judgment is en- 
tered by the calculation of the clerk, no further steps being necessary, 
by a jury or otherwise, to ascertain the amount, the judgment is 
final." '^ Where suit is brought against two defendants who are 
jointly and severally liable, and one suffers a default, and the other 
puts in a plea and goes to trial, the judgment entered against the 
former defendant, on his default, is merely interlocutory until the 
case is disposed of as to the other.*' 

"An order that a bill be taken pro confesso is interlocutory and in- 
tended to prepare the case for a final decree. Its effect is similar 
to that of a default in an action at common law, by which the defend- 
ant is deemed to have admitted all that is well pleaded in the dec- 
laration. The defendant has lost his standing in court, and is not 
entitled to notice of its further proceedings, but the matters set forth 
in the bill do not pass in rem judicatam until the final decree." •• 

«• Sellers v. Burk. 47 Pa. 844; McClun^ v. Murphy, 2 Miles (Pa.) 177; Belt- 
ler V. Zeigler, 1 Pen. & W. (Pa.) 135; Martin v. Price, Minor (Ala.) 68; Manty 
V. Roberts, 27 Miss. 225; Hyde v. Pinkard, 25 Ark. 163. See Dorsey v. 
Thompson, 37 Md. 25; Daniel v. Cooper, 2 Houst (Del.) 506; Phillips v. Hel- 
lings, 5 Watts & S. (Pa.) 44. In New York, no appeal can be taken from a 
Judgment by default Code Civ. Proc. X. Y. § 1294; Oliver v. French, 80 Hun, 
175, 30 N. Y. Supp. 52; Hawkins v. Smith, 91 Hun, 299, 36 N. Y. Supp. 333. 
in Minnesota, no appeal lies from a Judgment by default, until an applica> 
tion for relief has been made in the court below. G«derholm v. Davies, 59 
Minn. 1, 60 X. W. 676. An order setting aside a default and allowing defend- 
ant to plead is not appealable. Territory v. Las Vegas Grant, 6 N. M, 87, 27 
Pac. 414. 

e7 aements v. Berry, 11 How. 398, 13 L. Ed. 745, McLean, J. 

•8 Commonwealth v. McCleary, 92 Pa. 188. 

«o liusseU V. Lathrop, 122 Mass. 300. 



S 29. Judgment on Demurrer. 

When the issue of law raised by a demurrer is decided in favor of 
the plaintiflF, and judgment is entered quod recuperet, such judgment 
is of course final if the amount of the recovery is fixed. Similarly, 
where such an issue is found for the defendant, and judgment for 
his discharge is given, it is final ; ^® for the decision has the eflfect of 
disposing of that particular suit. But all the authorities agree that 
a decision or order of the court sustaining or overruling a demurrer, 
but not entering judgment thereon so as to dispose of the case, is 
merely interlocutory.^* Hence no appeal will lie from an order sus- 
taining a demurrer, where leave is granted to the party to amend 
his pleading, or to plead to the merits, as the case may be, unless 
he elects to stand upon his pleading as it is, or unless the time limited 
for amendment or new plea elapses without action on his part, and 
judgment is entered accordingly.^* Nor can an appeal be taken from 

T rem Plow & Wheel Co. v. Sandwich Enterprise Co., 77 lU. App. 653; 
Mctiolas T. Maddox. 52 La. Ann. 490, 2G South. 994. A Judgment for defend- 
ant on demurrer to part of the counts of a declaration is not reviewable on 
error l)efore the case is determined as to the remaining counts. Riley v. Jar- 
via, 43 W. Va. 43, 26 S. E. 366. 

11 Warner t. Tomllnson, 1 Root (Conn.) 201; Paddock v. Springfield Fire 
^ Marine Ins. Co., 12 N. Y. 591 ; Elwell v. Johnson, 74 N. Y. 80; Johnson v. 
I'olk Co.. 24 Fla. 28, 3 South. 414; Rose v. Gibson, 71 Ala. 35; Shields v. Tay- 
lor. IIJ Snedes A M. (Miss.) 127; State v. Falconer (Ark.) 5 S. W. 193; Slagle 
V. Bodmer, 58 Ind. 465; Hayes v. Caldwell, 5 Gllman (111.) 33; Knapp v. Mar- 
ahaU, 2« 111. 6:i; Gage v. Elch, 56 111. 297; Palmer v. Crane, 8 Mo. 619; Rob- 
in«ni T. County Court, 32 Mo. 428; State v. Justices, 58 Mo. 583; Kirchner 
\, Wood, 48 Mich. 199, 12 N. W. 44; Moraga v. Emerlc, 4 Cal. 308; Miller v. 
Burlington & M. R. R. Co., 7 Xeb. 227; Cambridge Valley Nat. Bank v. Lynch, 
7« N. Y. 514: Sheffield v. Murray, 80 Hun, 555, 30 N. Y. Supp. 799; Denslow 
T. Busb, 9 Misc. Rep. :«7, 29 N. Y. Supp. 705; State v. Herod, 21 Ind. App. 
177. 51 N. K. 952; Murphy v. Tilling, 2 App. D. C. 130; Gillespie v. Coleman, 
««8 Va. 276, 36 S. E. 377; State v. Trilling (Tex. Civ. App.) 57 S. W. 311; 
Olnon V. Xewton, 3 Wash. St. 429, 30 Pac. 450; Potvin v. McCorvey, 1 Wash. 
Ht. 38y. 25 Pac. 330; Smith v. Seattle & M. Ry. Co., 6 Wash. 295, 32 Pac. 
1U73. Compare Willis v. Marks, 29 Or. 493, 45 Pac. 293. 

Ts Cambridge Valley Xat. Bank v. Lynch, 76 N. Y. 514; Taylor v. MacLec, 
1» av. Proc. R. 429, 11 N. Y. Supp. (MO; Knickerbocker Co. v. Roskopf, 19 
>'. y. Supp. 391; Mooney v. Byrne. 1 App. Div. 316, 37 >V Y. Supp. 388; 
Koch V. City of New York, 5 App. Div. 276, 39 N. Y. Supp. 164; Potts v. Potts, 


§ 29 LAW OP JUDOMBNTS. (Oh. 2 

an order overruling a demurrer with leave to plead. There is no 
finality in such an order, though there would be in a judgment entered 
upon the demurrant's election to stand upon his demurrer or on his 
failure to plead, and finally disposing of the case.'* It is to be noted 
that the general rule is subject to certain exceptions depending on 
the peculiar nature of the action or the local rules of practice. Thus, 
a final judgment, in an action to recover a penalty imposed by stat- 
ute, to be recovered "on conviction," cannot be entered on demur- 
rer, but only on a trial upon the merits.'* So, in Mississippi, it is 
said that, under the statute, judgments on demurrers are not final 

«8 Md. (MO, 42 Atl. 214; Throne-Franklin Shoe Co. v. Gunn. 123 Ala. 040, 20 
South. ll>8; Texas Land & Loan Co. v. Winter (Tex. Sup.) 57 S. W. 39; Fergu- 
son V. Mason (Ky.) 50 S. W. 15; Gnrley v. Newport News & M. V. R. Co., 91 
Tenn. 480, 19 S. W. 571; Thomas v. Chicago & E. Ry. Co., 139 Ind. 402. 39 
N. K, 44; Maguire v. Woods, 33 111. App. 638; Peru Plow & Wheel Co. v. 
^Sandwich Knterprlse Co., 77 111. App. G53; Clark v. Village of North Muskegon, 
86 Mich. 29, 48 N. W. 647; Perry v. Church, 107 Mich. 480. 65 N. W. 273; 
Mowbray v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 2 Colo. App. 128, 29 Pac. 1016; Yager v. 
Lemp, 39 Neb. 93. 58 N. W. 285; Mason County v. Dunbar, 10 Wash. 163, 38 
Pac. 1003; Case v. Ingle. 2 Ind. T. 309, 51 S. W. 958. See Johnson v. Union 
Switch & Signal Co., 125 N. Y. 720, 26 N. E. 455. It has been hrfd that an 
order sustaining a demurrer to a petition for the removal of an assignee is 
appealable, as it affects a substantial right of both the petitioners and the 
assignee. Biirtt v. Barnes, 87 Wis. 519, 58 N. W. 790. 

T8 Mengher v. Minnesota Thresher Mfg. Co., 145 U. S. 608. 12 Sup. Ct. 876. 
36 L. Ed. 834; Werner v. City Council of Charleston. 151 U. S. 360, 14 Sup. 
Ct. 356, 38 L. Ed. 192; Robinson v. Belt. 5 C. C. A. 521. 56 Fed. 328; Bdelin 
V. Lyon, 1 App. D. C. 87; Richardson v. Richardson, 193 Pa. 279. 44 Atl, 445: 
Ncalon v. Frisbie, 9 Misc. Rep. GOO, 20 N. Y. Supp. 551; Ackerly v. Osborc, 
13 Misc. Rep. 323, 34 N. Y. Supp. 459; Cameron v. Bennett 110 N. C. 277, 14 
«. E. 779; Festorazzl v. St. Joseph's Catholic Church, 96 Ala. 178, 10 South. 
521; Krause v. Stichtenoth, 15 Oliio Cir. Ct. R. 199; Foster v. Lindley, 2i) 
Ind. App. 155, 50 N. E. 367; French v. Bellows Falls Sav. Inst., 67 111. App. 
179; Chicago & N. \V. Ky. Co. v. Andrews, 148 III. 27, 35 N. E. 617; Gold- 
smith V. Wilson, 82 Iowa, 720, 47 N. W. 1016; Quinn v. (^apital Ins. Co., S2 
Iowa, 550, 48 N. W. 935; Taylor v. Taylor, 87 Mich. G4. 49 N. W. 510: Fits- 
Simmons v, Milwaukee, L, S. & W. Ky. Co., 98 Mich. 257, 57 N. W. 127: 
Nelson v. Donovan, 14 Mont. 78, 35 I*ac. 227; (Raines v. Cyrus, 23 Or. 403. 31 
l*ac. 8:^3: Smith v. McEvoy, 8 Utah, 58, 29 Pac. 10:30; Jones v. Quayle < Idaho) 
32 l*ac. 1134. See South & N. A. R. Co. v. Highland Ave. & B. R. Co., liM 
Ala. 233, 16 South. 112. 

T4 Keagh v. Spanu, 3 Stew. (Ala.) 100. 



until the end of the term, until which time, on proper showing, they 
may be set aside.'' • 

S 30. Jndcmest on Plea Ia Abaten&ent. 

Where issue is joined upon a matter of a plea in abatement and 
found against the defendant, the judgment for the plaintiff is final.^' 
It is different in regard to the decision of a preliminary question of 
jurisdiction. Thus, in a litigation respecting the distribution of a 
testator's property, a question arose as to his domicile, and after hear- 
ing testimony the court decided that "his domicile was in the city of 
W.," and "this court has original jurisdiction in the matter of his 
estate/' It was held that this was not a final judgment.' * 

S 31. Jndement for Costa. 

A judgment which merely awards costs to the defendant, without 
more, is not a final judgment.'  In order to have that character, it 
must profess to terminate and completely dispose of the action. 
Hence, if for the defendant, the final judgment must state that he is 
dismissed without day, or that it is considered that the plaintiff 
take nothing by his suit, or otherwise refer to the disposition made of 

T» ShieldB V. l^ylor, 13 Smedes & M. 127; Jacobs v. New York Life Ins. Co., 
71 Mills. ($56, 658» 15 South. 639. 

»« Jewett V. Davis. « X. H. 518; McCartee v. Chambers. 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 649. 
21! Am. Dec. 556; Halght v. Holley, 3 Wend. (X. Y.) 258; Guild v. Bonne- 
mort, 156 Mass. 522, 31 X. E. 645. Compare Lee v. Harper, 90 Ala. 548. 8 
tkrath. 685. For the rule In Missouri, see Mackey v. Hj-att, 42 Mo. App. 443; 
D. M. Osborne ik Co. v. Farmers* Mach. Co., 114 Mo. 579, 21 S. W. 837. No 
appeal lies from an order orerruling a plea in abatement. Bartels v. Son- 
Denschein, 54 Xeb. 68, 74 X. W\ 417. 

T7 Benjamin v. Dubois. 118 U. S. 46, 6 Sup. Ct. 925, 30 L. Ed. 52; ftate v. 
Georgia Co.. 109 X. C. 310, 13 S. E. 861. 

7> Scott V. Burton. 6 Tex. 322, 55 Am. Dec. 782; Green v. Banks, ^ Tex. 
ihTi: Whitney Iron Works Co. t. Heuss, 40 La. Ann. 112. 3 South. 500; Dusing 
T. Xeison, 7 Colo. 184, 2 Pac. 922; Higbee v. Bowers, 9 Mo. 354; Bick v. Seal, 
39 Mo. App. 567; Kern v. Saul, 14 Ind. App. 72, 42 X. E. 496. Compare 
Hantwm v. I'erry. 86 Wis. 361, 66 X. W. 337; Sprott v. Reid, 3 G. Greene 
aowa> 489. 56 Am. Dec. 549. An order denylnj? a motion for costs, on the 
ground that the cause had been withdrawn before the return day, and before 
it had been entered on tlie docket of the court, is a final and appealable 
Jndgment. Wlldraan t. Munger, 70 Conn. 380, 39 Atl. 599. 


§ 31a LAW OP JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 2 

the subject-matter. "The form of the judgment," say the court in 
Texas, "is immaterial, but in substance it must show intrinsically 
and distinctly, and not inferentially, that the matters in the record had 
been determined in favor of one of the litigants, or that the rights of 
the parties in litigation had been adjudicated. The costs are regulat- 
ed by statute, and are an incident or appendage of the judgment, and 
generally are recoverable by the victor in the contest. But, as an 
incident, they cannot be substituted for the principal; and a judg- 
ment for their recovery is not a decision of the matter at issue ; and 
it is therefore no such final judgment as can, by law, come within 
the revisory power of this court."^* 

§ 31a. Allowance of Claims aKainst Fund. 

An application for the allowance of a claim against a fund which 
is before the court, or for a distributive share of such fund, is gen- 
erally so far separable from the main controversy as to constitute a 
distinct, though subordinate, proceeding. Where this is the case, 
the decision of the court on such an application is to be regarded as 
final, quoad hoc, and therefore appealable. This rule applies to a 
decree or order allowing attorneys' fees out of a fund in course of 
administration by the court,*® to an order granting or denying ali- 
mony or an allowance pending the suit,'^ to an order fixing the com- 
pensation of a receiver,®^ or directing him to pay certain claims out 
of the proceeds of a sale of the property,** or to pay a certain rate 
of wages to his employes.** Again, an order of a court of bank- 
ruptcy allowing a claim in bankruptcy is a final decision and appeal- 
able,** and the same is true of an order of the probate court fixing 

7» Scott V. Burton, 6 Tex. 322, 55 Am. Dec. 782. 

80 Jacksonville, T. & K. W. R. Co. v. American Const Ca, 6 C. C. A. 
249. 67 Fed. 66; Tuttle v. Clafiln, 31 C. Q A. 419, 88 Fed. 122; Oyster t. 
Bank, 107 Iowa, 39. 77 N. W. 523. Compare Fraser v. District of Columbia, 
7 Alackey (D. C.) 150. 

81 Daniels v. Daniels, 9 Colo. 133, 10 Pac. 657; White t. Wliite, 86 CaL 
212, 24 Pac. 1030; CampbeU v. Campbell (Ky.) 50 S, W. 849. 

82Tomp8on v. Huron Lumber Co., 5 Wash. 527, 32 Pac. 536. 
88 Rome & D. R. Co. v. Sibert, 97 Ala. 393, 12 South. 69. 

84 Guarantee 'lYust & Safe-Deposit Co, v. Philadelphia, R. & N, E. R. Co.. 
69 Conn. 709, 38 Atl. 792, 38 L. R. A. 804. 

85 Duff V. Carrier, 5 C. C. A. 177, 55 Fed. 433. 


and determining the rights and estate of a surviving husband or wife 
in the homestead.'* But it seems that the refusal of a court to dis- 
tribute a fund before it,'^ or to strike off a mechanic's lien,** is, at 
least in some states, not an appealable order. 

S 32. OrABtiiic or Refvsins Eztraordliutry Beatedieo. 

According to the general consensus of judicial opinion, an order 
or decree granting a provisional or temporary injunction, with a 
reference to ascertain facts, or directing a trial at law, or otherwise 
reserving the merits , or a decree refusing to grant, or dissolving, a 
temporary injunction which is merely an incident of the relief sought, 
is interlocutory only, not final.** But a decree in favor of the com- 
plainant for a perpetual injunction, with costs, is final ; for that com- 
pletely adjudicates the relief asked and speaks the last word in the 
case.** And so, generally, is a decree dissolving an injunction, or 

•« Mintxer t. St. Faul Trust Co., 45 Minn. 323. 47 N. W. 973. 

•Y ui re Hopper's Estate, 192 Pa. 287. 43 Atl. 1020. 

•• Carter v. CaldweU, 147 Pa. 370, 23 Atl. 575. And see In re Schalfer's 
Instate, 155 Pa. 250, 25 Atl. 607. 

••Gibbons v. Ogden, Wbeat 448, 5 L. Ed. 302; Barnard y. Gibson, 
7 «ow. tS50, 12 Ia Kd. 857; Verden t. Coleman, 18 How. 86, 15 L. Ed. 272; 
Norton v. Hood ((;. C.) 12 Fed. 763; Hmniston v. Stalnthorp, 2 Wall. 106, 
17 U Kd. «U5; Price v. Strange, 2 Hen. ft M. (Va.) 615; Ewing t. FnUw, 
7 U. C. 3; Duianey v. Murphy (Ky.) 15 S. W. 7; Cottam v. Currie, 42 La. 
Ann. 875, 8 Sonth. 000; Otto v. Halff (Tex. Civ. App.) 32 S. W. 1052; Green 
▼. Hanks, 24 Tex. 522; Ex parte Hawley, 24 Ark. 586; Moss t. Ashbrooks, 
15 Arte. IW; Pentecost v. Magahee, 4 Scam. (111.) 326; Lucan y. Cadwallader, 
114 lU. 285. 7 N. E. 286; Jefferson t. Bohemian Ass'n, 5 III. App. 230; 
Greve r. Goodson, 142 lU. 355, 31 X. E. 677; School Directors v. Wright, 
43 ItL App. 270; Keenan y. Williams, 45 111. App. 530; Clabby y. Sheldon, 
47 Ul. App. 166; Harrison y. Uush, 15 Mo. 175; Tanner y. Irwin, 1 Mo. 
65; Wing y. Warner, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 288; Chouteau y. Rice, 1 Minn. 24 
IGIL 8): School Dist. y. Brown, 10 Neb. 440, 6 N. W. 770; Smith y. Sahler, 
1 Neb. 31o: Scofleld y. State Nat. Bank. 8 Neb. IG; Clark y. Fitch, 32 Neb. 
511, 49 N. W. 374; Mcng y. Coffee, 52 Neb. 44, 71 N. W. 975; Schufferl 
V. Grote. 83 Mich. 263, 47 N. W. 254; State V; First Judicial District Court, 
.'•2 Miuu. 283. 53 N. W 1157; North Point Irr. Cto. y. Utnh & S. L. Onnal 
I'o., 14 LTtah, 155, 46 Pac. 824. But where the court not only refuses a 
preliminary injunction, bnt enters a decree settling the rights of the parties, 
an appeal lies. Helm y. Gilroy, 20 Or. 517, 26 Pac. 851. 

•♦French v. Shoemaker, 12 Wall. 86, 20 L. Ed. 270; Merchants* Bank 
▼. Kent, 43 Mich. 292, 5 N. W. 627; Rickards y. Coon, 13 Neb. 419. 14 N. 


§ 32 LAW OF JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 2 

refusing to dissolve it, where that is the sole or the main object of 
the bill.®^ It must be noted, however, that these rules may not apply 
in some of the states where the code practice obtains. In those 
jurisdictions, orders granting or dissolving an injunction, or overrul- 
ing a motion to that effect, are frequently found in the enumerated 
classes of appealable orders ; •^ or they may be considered as orders 
"affecting a substantial right" and hence subject to the revisory 
power of the upper courts. 

On analogous principles, it must be held that an order of the court 
granting or refusing the writ of mandamus in the alternative, is not 
a final judgment. But its action in allowing or denying a peremptory- 
mandamus, or in making the interlocutory writ absolute, is final to all 
legal intents and purposes.** And so where the parties to a proceed- 
ing for this writ dispense, by agreement, with a return or answer 
and other formal pleadings authorized by statute, and submit the 
case upon the petition and an agreed statement of facts in lieu of 
such pleading, and the case is heard as an application for a peremp- 
tory mandamus, and a judgment is rendered thereon dismissing the 
petition, this is a final judgment reviewable on error.** 

W. 1U2; Klchmond v. Atwood, 2 C. C. A. 596, 52 Fed. 10, 17 L. R. A. 
tJlO; Carondelet Canal Nav. Co. v. City of New Orleans. 44 La. Ann. 3JM. 
10 SSouth. 871; Davis v. Faslg, 128 Ind. 271, 27 N. E. 726; Sheward v. 
Citizens' Water Co., 90 Oal. 635, 27 Pac. 439; Sprague v. Locke, 1 Colo. 
App. 171, 28 rac. 142. But see Brown v. Swanu, 9 Pet. 1, 9 L. Ed. 29. 

oiJSaloy V. CoIUns, 30 La. Ann. 63; Titns v. Mabee, 25 lU. 257; Front 
V. Lomer, 79 111. 331; Hedges v. Meyers, 5 111. App. 347; Obrrkoetter v. 
Luebberlng, 4 Mo. App. 481; McVlckar v. Wolcott, 4 Johns. (X. Y.) 510; 
Cors V. Tonapklns, 46 111. App. 322; Northwestern Brewing Co. v. Manion. 
67 111. App. 316; Donahue v. Johnson, » Wash. 187, 37 Pac. 322. But see 
Uirlart v. Ballon, 9 Pet. 156, 9 L. Ed. 85. 

2 See Code Civ. Proc. Cal. § 939; Code Civ. Proc. Kan. § &42; Andrexrs 
V. Love, 46 Kan. 26i, 20 Pac. 746. The act of congress establishing the 
circuit courts of appeals (Act March 3, 1891, § 7) authorizes an appeal to those 
courts from an "interlocutory order or decree granting or contiimfng an 
injunction." On the construction of this clause, see Richmond t. Atwood, 
2 C. C. A. Syc, 52 Fed. 10, 17 L. R. A. 615; Robinson v. City of WllmlugtOD, 

9 C. C. A. 84, 60 Fed. 469; Andrews v. National Foundry & Pipe Works, 

10 C. C. A. 60, 61 Fed. 782. 

88 Holden v. Hnscrodt, 2 S. D. 220, 49 X. W. 07; Oliver v. Wilson. 8 N. 
D. 590, 80 N. W. 757, 73 Am. St. Rep. 784. 
»4 State V. Ottinger, 43 Ohio St. 457, 3 N. E. 298. 



A judgment or decree appointing a receiver, to take charge of the 
property in litigation, or to administer the revenues of the defend- 
ant, subject to the direction of the court, during the pendency of the 
suit, is not considered a final judgment."' And an order removing 
a receiver is likewise interlocutory. •* In a few states, nevertheless, 
it is held that orders appointing receivers are final and appealable.*^ 
This is a variance of local practice. But in the system of procedure 
under the codes, where proceedings of this character are classed as 
"special proceedings," and an order made in such proceedings which 
affects a substantial right is final and appealable, it seems reason- 
able that a decision granting or refusing a receiver should be con- 
sidered as final for this purpose, since it does not turn upon a 
formal or technical point, but goes to the claim of the party to secure 
the property in litigation in the most efficacious manner.** An order 
confirming a sale of property made by a receiver is final and appeal- 
able,** and so is an order granting or denying an application for 
leave to sue the receiver,*®** an order authorizing receiver's certificates 
to issue for past and future expenses and making them a lien superior 

•sjf'nller t. Adams. 12 Ind. 559; Produce Bank v. Morton, 40 N. Y. Super. 
Ct 328; KatOD & H. R. Co. v. Vamum, 10 Ohio St 622; Hottenstein v. Con- 
rad, 5 Kan. 249; MaysvlUe & L. R. Co. v. Punnett, 15 B. Mon. (Ky.) 47; 
Kansas HoUing Mill Co. t. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 31 Kan. 90, 1 Pno. 
Zi4; i>ewi« V. McCabe, 16 Mo. App. 398; Stebbins y. Savage, 5 Mont. 253, 
5 Fac. :r78; Bayor v. Ewart, 37 ill. App. 318; Braehtendorf v. Kehm, 72 
lU. App. 228; Robrecht v. Robrecht, 46 W. Va. 738, 34 S. K 801. 

••Farson v. Gorham, 117 111. 137, 7 N. B. 104; Dufour v. Lang, 4 C. 
C. A. 663, 54 Fed. 913. 

•» Lewis V. Campau, 14 Mich. 458, 90 Am. Dec. 245; Taylor v. Sweet, 
40 Mich. 736; In re Graeff, 30 Minn. 3o8, 16 X. W. 396; Clark v. Raymond, 
W Iowa. 251, 50 N. W. 1068; City of Ogden v. Bear Lake & River Water- 
Works A Irrigation Co., 16 Utah, 440, 52 Pac. 697, 41 L. R. A. 305. Com- 
jwre Brown t. Vandermeulen, 41 Mich. 418, 49 N. W. 920. In ^laryland. 
Use statute allows an appeal from an order appointing a receiver, but not 
from an order refusing to rescind the api)ointment. R. Frank Williams Co. 
V. t'Dited States Baking Co., 86 Md. 475, 38 Atl. 990. 

•« Cincinnati, 8. & C. R. Co. v. Sloan, 31 Ohio St. 1; McCord v. Weil, 
33 Xeb. 8tt8» 51 N. W. 300; Anderson v. Matthews, 8 Wyo. 307, 57 Pac. 

••City of New Orleans v. Peake, 2 U. 8. App. 403, 2 C. C. A. 626, 52 
ppd. 74. 

100 >'oekor v. Simiguo, 5 Wash. 242, 31 Pac. 628w 

1 L.\W JUDG.— 4 ^49) 

§ 33 LAW OF JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 2 

to the claims of interveners/*** and an order requiring payment of 
the receiver's compensation and other expenses out of funds in his 
hands.*®^ An order settling the accounts of the receiver, which 
embraces all the transactions of the receivership during the entire 
period of his appointment, is in the nature of a final judgment;*** 
but not an order merely directing the receiver to make a partial dis- 
tribution of the funds in his hands.**** 

An order of a superior court granting a writ of certiorari is not 
appealable,*®' but if the court, on such writ, dismisses the case and 
orders execution and a writ of procedendo, this is a final and ap- 
pealable judgment.*®* So, also, an appeal will lie from a judgment 
of a superior court dismissing an application for a writ of prohibi- 
tion.*®^ But an order denying an application for the writ of habeas 
corpus is not a final judgment from which an appeal may be taken.*** 

f 33. On Motion for New Trial* 

It IS generally held that a judgment or order granting a new 
trial in an action at law is not a final judgment, and an appeal can- 
not be taken until the judgment is rendered which terminates the 
suit.*®* So also, an order overruling a motion to set aside the vcr- 

101 Standley v. Hendrle & Bolthoff Mfg. Co., 25 Colo. 376, 55 Pae. 723. 

102 Ogden City v. Bear Lake & River Waterworks & Irrigatton Co^ 18 
Utah, 279, 55 Pac. 385. 

108 Patterson v. Ward, « X. D. 359, 71 N. W. 543. 
lOiSykes V. Thornton, 152 Pa. 94, 25 Atl. 174. 

105 Bank v. Burns, 107 N. C. 465, 12 S. E. 252. 

106 Holman v. G. A. Stowers Furniture Co. (Tex. Qv. App.) 30 S. W, 1120. 
lOT Fayerweather v. Monson, 61 Conn. 431, 23 Atl. 878; Overland Gold 

Min. Co. V. McMaster, 19 Utah, 177, 56 Pac. 977. 

108 Lambert v. Barrett, 157 U. S. 697, 15 Sup. Ct 722. 39 L. Ed. 865. 
See Commonwealth v. Blatt, 165 Pa. 213, 30 Atl. 674, 

109 Hume v. Bowie, 148 U. S. 245, 13 Sup. Ct. 582, 37 L. Ed. 438; Morn- 
ing Journal Ass'n v. Rutherford, 1 U. S. App. 296, 2 C. C. A. 354, 61 Fed, 
513, 16 U R. A. 803; Baker v. Remington, 45 N. Y. 323; Lawson Y. Moore, 
44 Ala. 274; Fuller v. Boggs, 49 Ala. 127; Wheeler v. Maillot, 15 La. Ann 
059; Brown v. Carraway, 47 Miss. 668; Houston v. Starr, 12 Tex. 424: 
tStewart v. Jones, 9 Tex. 469; Wampler v. Walker, 28 Tex. 598; Schweitaer 
T. Irwin's Ex'x, 101 Ky. 401, 41 S. W. 265; Hennery's Adm'r y. LoulsYille 
JSc N. R. Co., 21 Ky. Law Rep. 532, 51 S. W. 804; State v. Perry, 4 Baxt. 
tTenn.) 438; Louisville & N, R. Co. v. Conley, 10 Lea CToul) 631; Hoyt 



diet of a jury and refusing to grant a new trial, is interlocutory only, 
and an appeal or writ of error must be addressed to the judgment en- 
tered on the verdict.^ ^^ The same remark is true of an order denying 
an application for a rehearing.^ ^^ And in a case where the report of 
a referee appointed by the special term to take proofs and determine 
as to rival claims to surplus money in foreclosure had been confirmed 
at special term, and that adjudication was reversed at general term, 
the latter court ordering a new hearing before another referee to be 
appointed by the special term, it was held that such order of the 
general term was not a final order, and therefore not appealable to 
the court of appeals.^** But in a few states, it is held that an appeal 
may be maintained from an order refusing a new trial, although no 
judgment has been entered on the verdict.**' And in some other 
states, it is provided by statute that an appeal may be taken from an 
order granting or refusing a new trial.*** But where an order re- 
fusing a new trial and dismissing the motion therefor is itself appeal- 
Dry Goods Co. T. Tbomas, 19 Ohio Cir. Ct, E. 638; House v. Wright, 22 
iDd. 383; AVhite r. Harvey, 23 Ind. 55; By era v. Bntterfidd, 33 Mo. 376; 
McDonough r. Nicholson, 46 Mo. 35; Burden v. Homsby, 50 Mo. 238; People 
T. Judge of Circolt Court, 41 Mich. 5, 2 N. W. 181; Johnson v. Parrotte, 
4« Neb. 51, m N. W. 363; Bear niv&c Valley Orchard Oo. y. Hanley, 15 
Utah. 506, 50 Pac. 611. 

110 Waterhouse v. Kock Island Alaska Mln. Co., 38 C. 0. A. 281, 97 Fed. 
466; NeldUnger t. Yoost, 39 G. a A. 494, 99 Fed. 240; Moore t. United 
States. 150 U. S. 57, 14 Sup. Ct. 26^ 37 L. Ed. 996; Wheeler y. United 
SUtes. 159 U.' 8. 523, 16 Sup. Ct. 93, 40 L. Ed. 244; SIgafus v. Porter, 51 
U. 8. App. 693. 28 C. C. A. 443, 84 Fed. 430; Whlttaker y. West Boylston, 
yn Mass. 273; Holdsworth y. Tucker, 147 Mass. 572, 18 N. E. 430; Taylor v. 
Smith, 24 App. Diy. 519, 49 N. Y. Supp. 41; Damron y. Ferguson. 32 W. 
Va. 33. 9 8. E. 39; Roberts v. State, 3 Tex. App. 47; Conord v. Runnels, 
23 Ohio 8t 601; J. W. Reedy Elevator Manuf'g Co. y. Pitvowsky, 35 111. 
App. 361: Little y. l^elghton. 46 Minn. 201, 48 N. W. 778; Smith v. John- 
son, 37 Neb. 675. 56 X. W. 323; Kearney v. Snodgrass, 12 Or. 311, 7 Pac. 
3UU; White V. Pease, 15 Utah, 170, 49 Pac. 416; Bacon v. Thornton, 16 
ttah, 138, 51 Pac. 153. 

1" Mayor of New York y. Schermerhorn, 1 N. Y. 423. 

ii»3fntual Ufe Ins. Co, v. Anthony, 106 N. Y. 57, 11 N. E. 281. 

in Baldwin v. Foss, 71 Iowa, 3W), 32 N. W. 389; Atkinson v. Williams, 
ir»l ind. 431. 51 N. E. 721. And see Keman v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 64 
Miiin. 312, 67 N. W. 71. 

11* Code Civ. l*roo. (>nl. § {KJO: Code Civ. Proc. Kan. S 542; List y. Jock- 
heck, 45 Kau. 349, 748, 27 Vac, 184; Ormiston y. Trumbo, 77 Mo. App. 310. 


§ 34 LAW OP JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 2 

able, no appeal will lie from an order refusing to revoke a prior order 
to that effect."* 

S 34. Vaoatinc or RoTersiiis former Jndement. 

Where, under the code system of procedure, an independent action 
is brought for the purpose of vacating a former judgment between 
the same parties and procuring a new trial of the action, and the re- 
lief is granted as asked, it seems that the judgment to that effect 
must be considered as final and appealable. For the issues in the 
independent suit having been determined and the reHef accorded, the 
decision puts an end to that controversy.^^* But where the applica- 
tion comes in the form of a motion made in the same cause, and 
the court grants an order opening or vacating the judgment already 
entered, it is clear that such an order is no final judgment; on the 
contrary, it merely suspends the finality of the original judgment un- 
til the case has been heard and decided anew.^^^ Nor is the case 
otherwise where the court denies the application. A refusal to open 
a judgment is not a judgment, sentence, or decree ; it concludes noth- 

iiBLarkin y. LArkin, 76 Gal. 323, 18 Pac. 396; Griess y. State Iny. & 
Ins. Co., «3 Cal. 411, 28 Pac. 10«. 

iieMcCall V. Hitchcock, 7 Bush (Ky.) 615; Belt y. Dayla, 1 Oal. 134; 
State y. Allen, 92 Mo. 20, 4 S. W. 414. A Judgment of a federal circuit 
court denying a petition of a receiver of a corporation against which Judg- 
ment was entered, to have the Judgment opened and for leave to answer, 
is reviewable on error. Rust v, United Waterworks Co., 17 C. C. A, 3r., 
70 Fed. 129. And so Is a decree taking from one party the right of re- 
demption given to him by a former decree in the same suit, and conferriDg 
such right on another party. Biu*gess y. Ruggles, 146 IlL 506, 34 N. K. 

117 McCulloch y. Dodge, 8 Kan. 476; Hlgglns y. Brown, 5 Colo. 34r»- 
Brown v. Edgerton, 14 Neb. 453, 16 N. W. 474; Dorsey y. Thompson, 37 
Md. 25; Koh v. Vitera, 38 Neb. 333, 56 X. W. 977; Hirsh y. Welsberger. 44 
Mo. App. 506. In i'ennsj'lvania, under the act of May 20, 1891, an appeal 
may be taken from an order of the court opening a Judgment. Pfaff v. 
Thomas, 3 Pa. Super. Ct. 419; Kelber v. Pittsburg Nat. Plow Co., 146 Pa. 
485, 23 Atl, 335. But not from an order refusing to vacate a former order. 
Lowenstein y. North Schuylkill Ins. Co., 132 Pa. 410, 20 Atl. 688. Nor from 
an order of the orphans' court opening a decree of confirmation of tiie 
sale of land and setting aside the sale, since that Is a matter of Judicial 
discretion. Appeal of Montgomery Nat. Bank, 140 Pa. 187, 21 Atl. 242. 


ing, and is not assignable for error.^^' "It is settled that when a 
judgment or order is itself appealable, the appeal must be taken from 
such judgment or order, and not from a subsequent order refusing to 
set it aside." *^* A writ of error cannot be taken from the supfeme 
court of the United States to the appellate court of a state on a judg- 
ment of the latter court which merely reverses that of the trial court 
and orders a new trial, such judgment not being final.*** But a 
judgment of a superior court remanding a case to an inferior court 
for entry of judgment, and leaving no judicial discretion in the latter 
as to further proceedings, is final.*** 

I 35. Orders as to Interpleader, Interrentton, and Joinder of Parties. 

An order of court requiring parties to interplead is in general 
merely interlocutory, since it settles no rights, and merely serves 
to prepare the case for examination and decision.*** So an order 
directing the payment into court of a garnishee fund claimed by a 
third person, pending the determination of the right to it, is not a 
final judgment.*** An order refusing leave to intervene in a pending 
suit, where such intervention is not essential to the preservation of 
the petitioner's rights, but such rights may be asserted in an inde- 

"• Evans* Adm'r v. Clover, 1 Grant, Cas. (Fa.) Itt4; Lowensteln v. North 
SchuylkiJl Jns. Co., 132 Pa. 410. 20 Atl. 688; Lockwood v. Bock, 46 Minn. 
73. 48 N. W. 458; Smith v. Shawano Co., 77 Wis. 672, 47 N. W. 95; Travel- 
ers' Ins. Co. V. Weber, 2 X. D. 239, 50 N. W. 703; Kubli v. Hawkett, 80 
Cai. 638, 27 Pae. 57; Welsh v, Lambert, 18 Utah, 1, 54 Pac. 975. But 
compare McConnIck v. Belvin, 96 Cal. 182, 31 Pac. 16; Northern Pac. & 
F. 8, s. K, Co. V. Black, 3 Wash. St. 327, 28 Pac. 538; Myers v. Landrum, 
4 Wash. St. 702, 31 Pac. 33; In re Davis* Estate, 11 Mont. 196, 28 Pac. 
C4r>; Tuoker v. Stone, 92 Mich. 298, 52 N. W. 302. In Vermont, where an 
application to set aside a Judgment is denied as a matter of law, the pro- 
<*e«Hling8 may be reviewed on appeal. Johnson v. Shmnway, 65 Yt 389, 26 
AU. .Vju. 

i»»Coyhinech v. Goyhinech, 80 Cal. 409, 410, 22 Pac. 175. 

1 20 Houston V. Moore. 3 Wheat. 433, 4 L. Ed. 428; Smith v. Adams, 130 
r. .s. 167. 9 Sup. Ct. 5UG. 32 L. Ed. 895; Rice v. Sanger, 144 U. S. 197, 12 
Sup. Ct. WW. 36 L. Ed. 403. 

121 Mower V. Kletrher. 114 U. S. 127, 5 Sup. Ct. 799. 29 L. Ed. 117. 
»" Barth v. Uoscnfeid. 36 Md. 604. 

i23LouiKiana Nat Bank y. Whitney, 121 U. S. 284, 7 Sup. Ct 897, 30 
U Kd. 9UL 



§ 36 LAW OP JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 2 

pendent suit, is not a final order from which an appeal lies.*=* Nor 
is an order permitting a party to intervene/** nor an order striking 
out a petition of intervention because not filed in time.^** Nor can 
an appeal be taken from an interlocutory order joining parties de- 
fendant in a cause.^*^ 

S 36. "Dimuolvine Attaelunents and Ezeovtlonfl. 

It IS held, by the almost universal agreement of the authorities, 
that judgments, orders, or decrees, quashing or dissolving attach- 
ments, or refusing to do so, are merely interlocutory.^** For an 
attachment is, in general, only an incident of the suit, and a decision 
upon its validity or applicability is no more than the settlement of a 
preliminary and subordinate question, leaving untouched the ultimate 
rights of the parties and not disposing of the main controversy. Still, 
in one state at least, a contrary view is maintained, and it is thought 
that a judgment dismissing an attachment is in its nature final, and 
error will lie on it, notwithstanding the cause may still be pending 
below on the declaration to have a recovery on the merits, as if the 
suit had been brought by ordinary process.^ ^® There is something 

124 Credits Commutation Co. v. United States, 34 C. C. A. 12, 01 Fed 
570; Liewis v. Baltimore & L. R. Co., 10 a C. A. 446, 62 Fed. 218; Jones 
& JLauglilins v. Sands, 25 C. C. A. 233, 79 Fed. 913; Hamlin v. Toledo. St. 
L.. & K. C. R. Co., 24 C. C. A. 271, 78 Fed. 6^4, 36 L. R. A. 826. Compare 
Henry v. lYavelers' Ins. Co., 16 Colo. 179, 26 Pac. 318. 

125 Jones V. New York Life Ins. Co.. 11 Utah, 401, 40 Pac. 702. 

126 Whitney v. Spearman, 50 Neb. 617, 70 N. W. 240. 

i27jsneeden v. Harris, 107 X. C. 311, 12 S. E. 205; Lamon v. McKee. 7 
Mackey (D. C.) 446. 

128 Hamner v. Scott, 8 C. C. A. 655, 60 Fed. 343; Atlantic Limiber Co. t. 
Bucki & Son Lumber Co., 35 C. C. A. 59. 92 Fed. 8t>4; Philadelphia & R. 
K. K. V. Snowdon, 161 Pa. 201, 28 Atl. 1067; Sllngluff v. Sisler. 1^5 Pa. 
264, 44 Atl. 423; Stanton v. Heard, 100 Ala. 515, 14 South. 359; Realty Inr. 
C3o. V. Porter, 58 Kan. 817, 50 Pac. 879; Noyes v. Phipps, 9 Kan. App. 887, 
58 I'ac. 1007; Wirt v. DInan, 41 Mo. App. 230; Root v. State Bank. 30 
Neb. 772, 47 N. W. 82; Jacobl v. Schloss, 7 Cold. (Tenn.) 385; Cutter v, 
Gumberts, 8 Ark. 449; Butcher v. Taylor, 18 Kan. 558; Abbott v. Zei^ler. 
9 Ind. 611; Woodruff v. Rose, 43 Ala. 382; Bray v. Laird, 44 Ala. 295; 
Wearen v. Smith, 80 Ky. 216; Baldwin v. Wright, 3 Gill (Md.) 241; Talbot 
V. Pierce, 14 B. Mon. (Ky.) 11>5; Hanson v. Bowyer. 4 Mete. (Ky.) 108; 
WIckman t. Nalty, 41 I^. Ann. 284, 6 South. 123. 

120 Bruce V. Couyers, 54 Ga. 678. And see Chappell v. Comins, 44 Kan. 


to be said for this position. For, as the court observed, the whole 
attachment element is disposed of by the order for its dismissal. Any 
judgment which may be thereafter recovered will have no aid from 
the levy of the attachment. Its lien will rank only from the date 
of the judgment, and the security of the replevy bond will be lost. 
'To maintain his attachment, it was the right of the plaintiff to have 
the judgment dismissing it reviewed by a separate writ of error." ^'® 
Similarly it has been held that a decision of the court upon a rule or. 
motion to quash an execution is merely interlocutory, not a final 
judgment."* But this view also has been denied.*** 

f 37. Order remoTing Cause. 

An order for the removal of a cause from a state court to the cir- 
cuit court of the United States, for trial, under the various acts of con- 
gress in that behalf, is without question a final order.**' "An order 
removing or refusing to remove a cause, civil or criminal, to another 
court for trial, finally adjudicates a constitutional right of the party 
affected by the order. And it is regarded as a judgment, from which, 
according to the nature of the case, an appeal or writ of error may 
be immediately prosecuted." *'* Conversely, the decision of the fed- 
eral court upon a motion to remand the cause to the state court 
from which it came, on the ground of its irregular or improper re- 
moval, or for want of jurisdiction, is in its nature final and appealable. 
But the right of appeal in such cases was taken away by the act of 
congress of March 3, 1887, which provides that "whenever any cause 
shall be removed from any state court into any circuit court of the 
United States, and the circuit court shall decide that the cause was 
improperly removed, and order the same to be remanded to the 
state court from whence it came, such remand shall be immediately 

T43, 25 Pac. 216; WiHIams v. Hutchinson, 20 Fla. 513, 7 South. 852; Code 
Ut, Ptoc. CaL S SXJD. 

»»• Bmoe T. Conyers, 54 Ga. 678. 

isi McOargo v. Chapman, 20 How. 555, 15 L. Ed. 1021; Terry v. Hughes, 
W Ala. 432, 8 South. 086; Bond v. Charleen, 1 Dak. 224, 46 X. W. 585. 

"* Loomis V. Lane, 29 Pa. 242, 72 Am. Dec. 625; Pucker v. Owens, 164 
i*t. 1H5. 30 Atl. 314. 

"a Home Wfe Inn. Co. v. Dunn. 20 Ohio St. 175, 5 Am. Rep. 642. 

»** McAlilUiu V. State, 68 Md. 307, 12 Aa 8. 


g 88 LAW OF JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 2 

carried into execution, and no appeal or writ of error from the deci- 
sion of the circuit court so remanding such cause shall be al- 
lowed." ^** Nor will any appeal lie when the circuit court denies the 
motion to remand, and decides to retain jurisdiction; for this, it is 
considered, is not a final judgment or decree, but merely an interlocu- 
tory decision.^** 

S 38. Judgments and Orders of Probate Conrto* 

Orders made by a surrogate or probate court, in the course of tbc 
administration or settlement of an estate before it, such as an order 
appointing or removing an executor, administrator, guardian, or 
trustee, are interlocutory in their nature and not generally appeal- 
able.^^^ But when the final stage of the case is reached, and a decree 
is made for the distribution of the funds or estate under the control 
of the court, and the discharge of the executor or trustee, this is a 
final judgment, from which an appeal is generally allowed.^** An 

1SB24 IStat. 553; Black, Dill. Rem. Causes, § 223; Sherman t. GrinnelU 
123 U. S. 679, 8 Sup. Ct 260, 31 L. Ed. 278; Morey v. Lockhart. 123 U. 
S. 56, 8 Sup. Ct. 03, 31 L. Ed. 68; Wilkinson v. Nebraska. 123 U. S. 28a 
8 Sup. Ct. 120, 31 L. Ed. 152; Blrdseye v. Schaeffer, 140 U. S. 117, 11 
Sup. Ct. 885, 35 L. ^. 402; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Fitzgerald. 160 U. S. 
556, 16 Sup. Ct. 389. 40 L. Ed. 536; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Brown, 156 U. 
S. 386, 15 Sup. Ct. 656, 39 L. Ed. 461. A later statute (25 Stat. 603> al- 
lowed an appeal from a "final Judgment or decree" .of a circuit court in- 
volving the question of its jurisdiction. But it is held that an order of the 
circuit court remanding a cause to the state court on the ground of want 
of Jurisdiction is not a **final judgment or decree," and hence this statute 
does not help the party objecting to tbe remand to procure a review of the 
order. Texas Land & Cattle Co. v. Scott, 137 U. S. 436, 11 Sup. Ct 140. 
34 L. Ed. 730; Joy v. Adelbert College. 146 U. S. 355. 13 Sup. Ct 186, 36 
L. Ed. 1003. The act a*eating the circuit courts of appeals does not give 
those courts jurisdiction to review, on appeal from a circuit court, an order 
of the latter court remanding a cause to a state coiu-t. In re Coe, 5 U. S. 
App. 6, 1 C. C. A. 326. 49 Fed. 481. 

136 Bender v. Pennsylvania Co., 148 U. S. 502, 13 Sup. Ct 640, 37 L. 
Ed. 537; Tatten v. Cilley, 1 C. C. A. 522. 50 Fed. 337. 

137 Mon^'or v. Jeffries, 62 Ohio St. 149. 56 N. E. 654; Grimes v. Barratt. 
60 Kan. 2o9. 56 Fac. 472. Compare Tome v. Stump. 89 Md. 264. 42 Atl. 
902. An order of the probate court amercing a sheriflC is a final and ap- 
pealable judgment Fenton v. White, 4 Okl. 472, 47 Pac. 472. 

i3« NViiitaker v. Spnrknian, 30 Fla. 347, 11 South. 542; In re McFarland's 
Estate, 10 Mont 445, 26 Pac. 185. 



order of such a court merely requiring a personal representative, 
guardian, or trustee to file an account, is not in its nature final,^'** 
nor is an order settling and allowing an annual or partial account of 
an executor or administrator.**® But the case is otherwise when 
settlement is made of the final accounts of such fiduciaries, especially 
vehen distribution is ordered and the discharge of the trustee allowed. 
This is such a final decree as will be the proper subject of an ap- 


S 30. Judgment in Partition. 

According to the usual practice in proceedings for partition of land, 
a preliminary judgment or decree is rendered, directing that partition 
be made, quod partitio fiat, and nominating certain persons to effect 
a division and report to the court. When the report is confirmed, or 
the method of apportionment otherwise fixed, and all the rights of the 
parties adjusted and settled, another judgment is entered declaring 
that the partition shall stand as approved. Now the first decree in 
these proceedings, establishing the existence of a co-tenancy, order- 
ing that partition be made, and appointing commissioners, is gener- 
ally interlocutory.*** But the first decree in partition may be final, 
and it will have that character, if it settles all the rights of the parties 

!«• In re CaUahan's Estate, 139 X. Y. 51, 34 N. E. 756; Wilcox v. Wilcox, 
«3 Vt 137, 21 Atl. 423; In re Palethorp's Estate, 160 Pa. 316, 28 Atl. 689. 

1*0 iiaker V. S?<?hoeneman, 41 Mo. 392; In re Barnes,' 43 Mo. App. 295. 
Hot if a partial distribution is ordered, it seems the decree may be con- 
sidered Una! quoad hoc. McDonald v. McDonald, 68 Miss. 689, 9 South. 

1*1 Moore's Appeal, 10 Pa. 435; Weinerth v. Trendley, 39 Mo. App. 333; 
In re Hlirg Ueirs, 7 Wash. 421, 35 Pac. 131; In re Blgge, 52 Kan. 184, 34 
Pac. 782. 

1*2 Green v. Flsk, 103 U. S. 518, 26 L. Ed. 485; Id., 154 U. S. 668. 14 
Sup. Ct. 1193, 26 I.. Bd. 486; Elder v. McClaskey. 17 G C. A. 251, 70 Fed. 
529: Beebe v. Gritting, 6 N. Y. 465; Gesells Appeal, 84 Pa. 238; Temple- 
man V. Stoptoe, 1 Munf. (Va.) 339; Young v. Skipwith, 2 Wash. (Va.) 300; 
i'utman v. Liewls. 1 FIbl. 455; Medford v. Marrell, 10 N. C. 41; Clester v. 
Gibfton, 15 Ind. lO; Davis v. Davis, 36 Ind. 160; Kern t. Maglnniss, 41 
ind. 'Jim; Pipkin v. Allen, 29 Mo. 229; Durham v. Darby, 34 Mo. 447; Ivory 
V. Delore, 26 Mo. 505; Gates v. Salmon, 28 Cal. 320; Peck t. Vandenberg, 
30 Cal. 11; 311118 v. Miller. 2 Neb. 299; Murray v. Yates. 73 Mo. 13. Com- 
pare CapeU V. Moseft. 36 S. G. 559, 15 S. E. 711; Skinner v. Garter, 108 X. 
<:. 100, 12 2$. E. 908. 


§ 40 LAW OP JUDOMBNT8. (Oh. 2 

and leaves nothing for the future consideration or judicial action of 
the court.^** Thus a decree declaring that the plaintiff is entitled 
to one undivided third of the land in question, and appointing com- 
missioners to make partition, is held to be a final decree and appeal- 
able before the subsequent proceedings are had.^** And so, where 
a judgment was passed for the partition of realty among the heirs 
who were entitled to it, and commissioners were appointed to make 
the division without further orders of the court, it was considered to 
be a final determination of the rights of the parties and therefore 
appealable.^*" But an unauthorized declaration, in the order for par- 
tition, that the plaintiff's share of the rents and profits received by 
defendant as tenant in possession shall constitute a special lien, and 
that a special execution shall issue therefor, cannot have the effect 
to convert an otherwise interlocutory order into a final and appealable 

§ 40. In Condemmttioii Prooeedlnso. 

A judgment rendered in proceedings for the condemnation of land 
under the power of eminent domain, where^ adversary proceedings 
have been had between the petitioner and the parties whose interests 
are to be affected, and the court has confirmed a report of commis- 
sioners appointed to assess the value of the land taken, and it is 
adjudged that the petitioner has complied with the statutory require- 
ments, is a final judgment.**^ And so, it seems, is a judgment for 
condemnation, wliere the right to condemn is contested, although the 
amount of compensation remains still to be determined.*** But 
an order in condemnation proceedings merely appointing commis- 

i*8An8ley v. Robinson, 16 Ala. 793; Banton v. GampbelFs Heirs, 2 Dana 
(Ky.) 421; Damouth v. Klock, 28 Mich. 163; Ruthenberg v. Uelberg, 43 La. 
Ann. 410, 9 South. 99. 

1** Williams v. Wells, 62 Iowa, 740, 16 N. W. 513. See Cannon t. Hemp- 
hill, 7 Tex. 184; Taylor v. Dawson, 65 III. App. 232. 

i*oBeatty y. Beatty's Adm'r (Ky.) 5 S. W. 771; Ames v. Ames, 148 111. 
321, 30 N. E. 110. 

1*0 HoUoway v. Holloway, 97 Mo. 628, 11 S. W. 233, 10 Am. St. Rep, 339. 

1*7 Sacramento, F. & N. R. Co. v. Harlan, 24 Gal. 337; Hutchinson t. 
McLaughlin, 15 Colo. 492, 25 Pac. 317, 11 L. R. A. 287. See City of Johns- 
town V. Wade, 157 N. Y. 50. 51 N. B. 397. 

1*8 Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Oo. v. Wheeling Bridge Co., 138 U. S. 
287, 11 Sup. Ct 301, <^4 U Ed. 967. 



sioners to assess the damages is not a final or appealable order.^** 
On similar principles, a decree of confirmation of a report of viewers 
laying out a road is final until reversed on certiorari; ^"® and so is 
a judgment setting aside the award of commissioners for the assess- 
ment of damages upon the opening of a highway.^** 

i 41. FiBAlity of Decrees* 

In drawing the distinction between final and interlocutory adjudi- 
cations, the greatest difficulty has been experienced in the case of 
decrees in equity, the confusion arising principally from the peculiar 
nature of these decisions and the wide range of means which chancery 
possesses both for informing the mind of the judge and for acting 
upon the parties concerned. Many tests of finality have been pro- 
posed, some proceeding upon opposite principles, some viewing the 
same principle in different aspects. Thus, several cases hold that a 
decree is final when it terminates the litigation between the parties 
on the merits of the case, and leaves nothing to be done but to en- 
force by execution what has been determined.*"* This is perhaps a 
little too broad. For, as we shall see, it does not impair the finality 
of a decree that it has to pass through the hands of a master, for min- 
isterial acts to be done in relation to it, before it is ready for execu- 
tion. Other cases define a final decree as that which is made when 
all the material facts in the cause have been ascertained, so as to 
enable the court to understand and decide on the merits of the case.**^* 
According to another authority, any decree is final which renders 
the equities incapable of change in the further progress of the 
cause.*** Or where nothing remains to be done which may be the 

i4» Southern R. Co. t. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 35 C. C. A. 360, 93 Fed. 
3KJ; L«dlow T. City of Norfolk, 87 Va. 319, 12 S. E. 612. 

!*• In re Hunter's Private Koad, 46 Pa. 'SiO, 

»»i Morris & K. K. Co. v. City of Orange, 63 N. J. Law, 252, 43 Atl. 
TJO, 47 AU. 3<S3. 

i»« Kallroad Co. v. Southern Exp. Co., 108 U. S. 24, 2 Sup. Ct. 6, 27 L. Ed. 
<S8: Grant y. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co., 106 U. S. 429, 1 Sup. Ct. 414, 27 
1^ Jbld. 237; Cook's Heirs v. Bay, 4 How. (Miss.) 485; Vanmeter's Ex'rs v. 
Vttjuneter, 3 Grat. (Va.) 148. 

> »» JnMues v. Methodist Episcopal Church, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 548, 8 Auk 
I><H*. 447. 

&»« Jones V. Wilson, 54 Ala. 50. 


§ 42 LAW OF JUDOMENT& (Ch. 2 

subject of exception or appeal.^'* Or where the decree "completely 
and finally disposes of some branch or part of the cause which is 
separate and distinct from the other parts of the case." ^** Another 
case, coming much nearer to a satisfactory definition, holds that the 
final decree is not necessarily the last decree rendered, by which all 
proceedings in the case are terminated, and nothing is left open for 
the future judgment or action of the court ; but it is a decree which 
determines the substantial merits of the controversy, — all the equities 
of the case, — ^though there may remain a reference to be had, or the 
adjustment of some incidental or dependent matter.^'^ 

The difficulty appears to arise in relation to those decrees which, 
while settling the general equities of the cause, leave something for 
future action or determination. And the true rule seems to be, that 
if that which remains to be done or decided will require the action 
or consideration of the court before the rights involved in the cause 
can be fully and finally disposed of, the decree is interlocutory; but 
it is none the less final if, after settling the equities, it leaves a neces- 
sity for some further action or direction of the court in execution of 
the decree as it stands.^ "^^ 

I 42. Further Action neceiiary to settle tlie Equltios. 

Adopting the rule set forth in the preceding section, it will now be 
desirable to give some illustrations of cases in which the decree has 
been held interlocutory merely, because some further act or decision 
was necessary before the equities could be completely settled and 

IBB Bellamy v. Bellamy, 4 Fla. 242. 

166 Kvans v. Dunn, 2G Ohio St. 439. See Grant v. East Sc West R Co., 
1 C C. A. GSl, 50 Fell. TDo. Where discovery by answer is the only relief 
prayed in the bill, a rule to answer is, in effect, a final decree, and is there- 
fore appealable. Grimes v. Hilliary, 38 111. App. 246. 

1B7 Walker v. Crawford, 70 Ala. 567. See Travis v. Waters, 1 Johns. C3l 
UN. X'.) 8o; Champlin v. Memphis & O. R. Co., 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 683. 

188 Kelley v. Stanbery, 13 Ohio, 408; Desvergers v. Parsons. 8 O. C. A. 
526, 60 Fed. 143; Chase v. Driver, 34 C. C. A. 668, 92 Fed. 780; Wood t. 
HarmiBon, 41 W. Va. 376, 23 S. E. 500; Wheelberger v. Knights, 71 111. 
App. 331. The question whether a decree is final and appealable is not de> 
termiued by the name which the court below gives It, but is to be decided by 
the appellate court on a consideration of the essence of what Is done by the 
decree. Potter v. Beal, 2 a 0. A. 60, 50 Fed. 860. 



disposed of. And first, when the further action of the court in the 
cause is necessary to give completely the relief contemplated by the 
court, the decree upon which the question arises is not to be regarded 
as final.*** Thus, a judgment of foreclosure, directing the sale of 
the mortgaged premises, and the payment by the defendant of any 
deficiency which may arise on such sale, is not such a final judgment 
as that an action will lie upon it, because, on such a judgment, fur- 
ther proceedings, such as the confirmation of the referee's report, 
etc., must be had before a personal judgment can be entered.^ •^ 
So a judgment dissolving a partnership, ascertaining the sum of 
money due by the copartners to the plaintiff, ordering a sale of the 
copartnership property and effects, and decreeing payment therefrom 
of the amount due plaintiff, but providing that in case the amount 
realized from such sale is not sufficient to pay the judgment, that the 
plaintiff shall be entitled to a personal judgment against the individ- 
ual members of the firm for the deficiency, is not a final judgment, but 
merely an interlocutory decree.^** So also, a reservation of the ques- 
tion of costs, in a decree which in other respects disposes of the sub- 
ject-matter of the suit, renders such decree interlocutory.^** Again, 
a decree ordering an act to be done before the decree itself can be 
effectual is interlocutory. *•• And a decree which decides definitely 
in favor of the complainant in respect to one of the claims presented, 
but reserves the consideration of another claim, constituting an in- 
tegral part of the case, is not final. ^•^ So if it directs an act to be 

i5»Mnier'8 Adni'r t. Cook's Adm'rs. 77 Va. 806; Cocke's Adm'r v. Gilpin, 
1 Hob. (Va.) 2U. 

!«• Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Tomllnson, 3 Hun (N. Y.) 630. 

16 1 White T. Conway. 66 Cal. 383, 5 Pac. 672. 

i«a Dickenson v. Cod wise, 11 Talge (N. Y.) 189; Johnson v. Hoover, 75 
Md. 48«». :a Atl. U03. Compare McFarland v. HaH's Heirs, 17 Tex. 691. An 
order directing a receiver to turn over money collected by him, with leave 
to apply to the (t>urt for the payment of his charges, and to have the same 
taxed as costs against the complainant. Is not a final determination of his 
rights, and is not appealable. French y. Genoa Junction Ice Co., 82 III. 
App. 318. 

i«»Hays V. May's Heirs, 1 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 497. 

»««Bond V. Marx, ^^S Ala. 177; Woman's College v. Home (Tenn. Ch.) 
Q3 », \V. WO: Marks v. Semple. Ill Ala. 637, 20 South. 791. Compare 
M'rfght ▼. Bmsctake^ 62 111. App. 35& 


§ 43 LAW OP JUDGMENTS, (Ch. 2 

done, but requires a report to be made of the manner of its per- 
formance; as where the decree authorizes an executor to sell the 
real estate of his testator for the payment of debts, and to report his 
proceedings in execution thereof to the court.^** But it has been 
held, by a high authority, that when a decree passes for a certain 
sum of money, and the complainant is entitled to have it immediately 
carried into execution, it must be regarded as final to that extent, and 
appealable, although so much of the bill is retained in the court be- 
low as is necessary for the purpose of adjusting by a further decree 
the accounts between the parties pursuant to the decree passed.* •* 

i 43. Further Action neceisary to ezeovte the Deoree. 

The second branch of the rule above stated is, that although fur- 
ther acts or directions may be necessary to carry the decree into 
effect, it is still final if it settles the equities. Thus, a decree that 
defendants should assign a certificate of lands to the plaintiff, pro- 
vided he should, before a given day and after a tender of the assign- 
ment, pay a certain sum of money to them, is a final decree.**^ So 
where certain of the stockholders in a corporation filed their bill in 
equity, praying that the proceedings of a meeting of stockholders, 
and of the directors in accordance therewith, might be set aside as 
void for fraud, and for the appointment of a receiver, and the court 
granted the relief prayed in the bill, but added a clause to the decree 
reserving such further directions, as to costs, etc., as might be neces- 
sary to carry the decree into execution, it was held that this was a 
final decree.^ •• Again, a decree which ascertains the sum in the 

i«B Goodwin v. Miller, 2 Munf. (Va.) 42. And see Donaldson v. Fhrmere" 
& Kxcbange Bank, 4 S. C. 106. 

166 Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 201, 12 L. Ed. 404. 

i«7 Turner v. CreblU, 1 Hammond (Ohio) 308. And see Harmon v. Bynum. 
40 Tex. 324. But the general rule appears to be that a decree which makes 
the relief granted conditional upon the performance of certain acts by the 
successful party is not final unless It is shown that the conditions have been 
complied with. See Stratton v. Dewey, 24 C. C. A. 435, 79 Fed. 32; Ugon 
V. l.igou, 105 Ala. 460, 17 South. 89; McAnally v. Haynle, 17 Tex. Civ. 
A pp. 521, 42 S. W. 1049. Compare Dow v. Blake, 148 111. 76. 35 N. E. 761. 
3l> Am. St. Rep. ir)6. 

los wiuthrop Iron Uo. v. Meeker, 109 U. S. 180, 3 Sup. Ct 111, 27 L. Kd. 



hands of a party to be accounted for, and those who are entitled to 
it, and orders it to be paid over to the parties entitled, and directs the 
costs of the suit to be paid first out of the fund, and makes no refer- 
ence to a master, and seeks to ascertain no new fact, but assumes that 
the court is in full possession of all the facts, so as to adjudicate be- 
tween the contestants according to equity and conscience, is a final 
decree, although it also requires the accountant to report to the court 
his distribution and dealing with the fund.^** It is also held that a 
decree for specific performance, requiring a conveyance, is final, 
although it directs the submission of the conveyance to the judges 
for their approval.^^* 

I 44. Deeree orderins a Ref erenee* 

The most difficult cases in which to draw the line between final 
and interlocutory decrees, are those in which the decree, after find- 
ing the general equities, orders a reference to a master for some spe- 
cific purpose. Yet there are not wanting principles upon which to 
base a reasonable and accurate distinction in these cases. As the 
condensed result of the numerous authorities on the subject, we may 
formulate the following specific rules. First, where a decree is made 
disposing of the general equities of the case, but ordering a reference 
to a master to ascertain damages, or to find certain facts, or to do 
anything else necessary to be done before a final adjustment of the 
rights of tlie parties can be had, if the functions of the master are to 
be judicial, and not merely ministerial, and the provisions depending 
on his report are not already incorporated in the decree, then the de- 
cree is interlocutory and not final.^^* Second, where a decree ascer- 


i«*L«dyarcl v. Henderson, 46 Miss. 260; Bank of Lewisburg y. Sheffey, 
140 U. S. 445, 11 Sup. Ct. 755, 35 L. Ed. 493; Lohman y. Cox, 9 N. M. 
903, 56 Fac. 286. 

!?• Long y. MaxweU, 8 G. C. A. 410, 59 Fed. 948. 

i»i Cbace ▼. Vasqnez, 11 Wheat. 429, 6 L. EH. 511; Perkins y. Fonmiqnet, 
e Uow. 2U6, 12 L. Ed. 406; Craighead y. Wilson, 18 How. 199, 15 L. Ed. 
'J32; Uomlston y. Stainthorp, 2 Wall. 106, 17 L. Ed. 905; Beebe y. Russell, 
IV Uow. 283, 15 U Ed. 668; Parsons y. Robinson, 122 U. S. 112, 7 Sup. 
Ct 1153. 30 U Ed. 1122; Talley y. Curtain, 7 C. C. A. 1, 58 Fed. 4; Gunn 
y. BUudi, 8 a C. A. 542, 60 Fed. 159; Security Trust Co. y. Sullivan, 23 C. 
O. A. 45H, 77 Fed. 778; PIckrell y. Thompson, 12 App. D. C. 449; Kane 



tains and fixes all the rights of the parties, but a reference is ordered 
to a master to do or ascertain something that is necessary to carry 
the decree into effect, if the functions of the master are to be merely 
ministerial and not judicial, or if all the consequential directions de- 
pending on the result of the proceedings before him are giv^n in 
the decree itself, then the decree is final and not interlocutory.*^* 

V. Whlttlck, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 219; Johnson v. Everett, 9 Paige (N. Y.) 636: 
Chittenden v. Missionary Society of Methodist Episcopal Church, 8 How. 
Frac. (xN. Y.) 327; Cruger v. Douglass, 2 N. Y. 571; Tompkins v. Hyatt, 
19 N. Y. 534; Moore v. Lincoln Park & Steamboat Gousol. Ck>., 196 Pa. 
519, 46 Atl. 857; Templeman v. Steptoe, 1 Munf. (Va.) 339; Ryan's Adm'r 
V. McLieod, 32 Grat. (Va.) 367; Maekey v. Bell, 2 Munf. (Va.) 523; Price v. 
Nesblt, 1 Hill, Eq. (S. C.) 445; McCrady v. Jones, 36 S. C. 136, 15 S. E. 430; 
Smith V. Thomason, 2G S. C. 607, 12 S. E. 96; Putman v. Lewis, 1 Fla. 455; 
Griffin v. Orman, 9 Fla. 22; Owens v. Love, 9 Fla. 325; Garrard v. Webb, 
4 Port. (Ala.) 73; Garner v. Prewltt, 32 Ala. 13; Broughton v. Wimberly, 
65 Ala. 649; Cook's Heirs v. Bay, 4 How. (Miss.) 4S5; Pryor v. Smith, 4 
Bush (Ky.) 379; BerryhlU v. McKee, 3 Yerg. (Tenn.) 157; Porter v. Burton. 
10 Heisk. (Tenn.) 584; Gaines v. Patton, 8 Ark. 67; Morris v. Morris, 5 
Mich. 171; Caswell v. Comstock, 6 Mich. 391; Enos v. Sutherland, 9 Mich, 
148; Gates v. Salmon, 28 Cal. 320. 

i72Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 201, 12 L. Ed. 404; Beebe v. Russell, 19 
How. 283. 15 L. Ed. 668; Thomson v. Dean, 7 WnU. 342, 19 L. Ed. 94: 
Mills V. Hoag, 7 Paige (N. Y.) 18, 31 Am. Dec. 271; Taylor v. Read, 4 Paige 
(X. Y.) 561; Dickenson v. Cod wise, 11 Paige (N. Y.) 189; Coithe v. Crane, 
1 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 21; Harvey v. Branson. 1 Leigh (Va.) 108; Rawlings* 
Ex'r V. Rawlings, 75 Va. 76; Fleming v. Boiling, 8 Grat. (Va.) 292; Weather- 
ford V. James, 2 Ala. 170; Bank of Mobile v. Hall, 6 Ala. 141, 41 Am. Dee. 41; 
McKinley v. Irvine, 13 Ala. 681; Hastie v. Aiken, 67 Ala. 313; Bradford v. 
Bradley's Adm'rs, 37 Ala. 453; Cochran v. Miller. 74 Ala. 50; Ex parte 
Elyton Land Co., 104 Ala. 88, 15 South. 939; Garry v. Jenkins. 109 Ala. 
471, 20 South. 8; Mattiugly v. Elder (Ky.) 44 S. W. 215; McFarland v. HalPs 
Heirs, 17 Tex. 676; Merle v. Andrews, 4 Tex. 200; Meek v. Mathls, 1 Heisk. 
(Tenn.) 534; Ex parte Crittenden, 10 Ark. 333; Tejiff v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 
511, 59 Am. Dec. 634; Guardian Savings Bank v. Reilly, 8 Mo. App. 514; 
Damouth v. Klock. 28 Mich. 163; Neall v. Hill, 16 Cal. 145, 76 Am. Dec. 
508. The distinction above formulated is well brought out in a decision of 
Chancellor Walworth, from which we quote as follows: "A decree never can 
be said to be final when it is Impossible for the party in whose favor the 
decision is made ever to obtain any benefit therefrom without again setting 
the cause down for hearing before the court, upon the equity reserved, upon 
the coming in and confirmation of the report of the master, to whom it is 
referred to ascertain certain facts which are absolutely necessary to be as- 
certained before the case is finally disposed of by the com"t, or which the 
chaucellor thinks proper to have ascertained before he grants any relief what- 


To take a single illustration, — the reference of a case to a master, to 
take an account upon evidence, and for the examination of the par- 
ties, and to make or refuse allowances affecting the rights of the par- 
ties, and to report his results to the court, is not a final decree. For 
his report is subject to exceptions from either side, which must be 
brought to the notice of the court before it can be available. It can 
only be made so by the court's overruling the exceptions, or by an 
order confirming the report, with a final decree for its appropriation 
and payment.*'* 

i 45. Dlreotias an Aooonnt. 

According to the rules just stated, a decree directing an account 
to be taken is generally interlocutory; *^* that is, unless all the steps 

ever to the complainant. But if the decree not only settles the rights of the 
ptrties, bnt gives all the consequential directions which will be necessary 
to a final disposition of the cause, upon the mere confirmation of the report 
of the master by a common order in the register's otUce, it is a final decree 
and may he em*oiled at the expiration of thirty days, although the amount 
to which the complainant may be entitled under such decree is still to be as- 
certained upon a reference to a master for that purpose. Thus, in the ordi- 
nary case oi a bill for the foreclosure of a mortgage, if the decree merely 
decides or declares the rights of the complainant by virtue of his bond and 
iDortfage, and refers it to a master to compute and ascertain the amount 
due to him, reserving ail further questions and directions until the coming 
in and confirmation of the master's report, it is an interlocutory decree merely, 
as the complainant cannot obtain the benefit of his suit until he brings the 
cause on to be heard again upon the equity reserved and for further di- 
rections as to a sale of the mortgaged premises and the payment of his debt 
tnd costs oat of the proceeds of such sale. But if the decree, in addition 
to the reference to the master to compute the amount due upon the bond 
and mortgage, proceeds further and gives the usual directions in such cases, 
that upon tlie coming in and confirmation of the report of the master, the 
premises shall be sold, and that the master who makes such sale shall pay 
the amoont so r^)orted due, together with the interest and costs, out of the 
proceeds of such sale, and directing the mortgagor to pay the deficiency re- 
ported dne upon such sale, the decree is final, although the mortgagor may 
have the right to exc^t to the master's report of the amount due. For the 
questions arising upon the exceptions to the master's report, in such a case, 
are merely incidental to the carrying of the final decree in the cause into 
full effect." Johnson v. Everett, 9 Paige (N. Y.) U3«. 

iTtBeebe v. RusseU, 19 How. 283, 15 L. Ed. 668. 

iTiLstta V. Kilboum, 150 U. 8. 524, 14 Sup. Ct. 201, 37 L. Ed. 1160; 
Motlander v. Fechheimer, 162 U. B. 826, 16 Sup. Gt. 705, 40 L. Ed. 9S5; 
Ouarantee Co. of North America v. Mechanics' Savings Bank & Trust Co., 

ilawjcdg:-5 (05) 

5 46 LAW OP JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 2 

to be taken after the account is ascertained are specifically prescribed 
in the decree, with no equities or questions reserved and no further 
directions needed.^'* Thus, where a judgment appointed a referee 
who was to take an account of rents and profits and improvements 
upon land, and ascertain the present value of dower, and upon pay- 
ment by the plaintiff of a certain sum to be ascertained by the referee 
in the mode specified in the judgment, the referee was to admeasure 
her dower, and he was to report the evidence taken by him with his 
findings thereon to the court, and all other questions were reserved 
until the coming in of such report and the final hearing thereon, it 
was held that this was not a final but an interlocutory judgment.*'* 

§ 46. Decree suipendliic Bishtg until further Orders. 

Another class of interlocutory decrees comprises those which pro- 
hibit a certain act to be done, or hold the rights of the parties in 
statu quo, until the court shall give further orders or directions.*'^ 
Thus an order that a party is not to pay a sum adjudged against 
him "until further ordered" is not final.*'* So a decree rendered by 
the probate court, upon the application of an executor, by which a 
certain amount is ascertained to be in his hands, a portion of which 
he is ordered to pay over to those entitled to it, and to retain the 
balance until the further order of the court, is not a final decree.*'* 


173 U. S. 582, 1» Sup. Ot. 551, 43 L. Ed. 818; Pittsburg, C. & St Lw R. Co. 
V. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 10 C. C. A. 20, 61 Fed, 705; Merriman ▼. Chicago 

6 E. 1. R. Co., 12 C. C. A. 275, 64 Fed. 535; McKeown v. Officer, 127 X. 
Y. 687, 28 N. E. 401; C. & C. Electric Motor Co. v. Lewis, 47 IlL App. 
576; Kanawha Lodge No. 25 v. Swann, 37 W. Va. 176, 16 S. E. 462; Heffner 
V. Day, 54 Ark. 79, 14 S. W. 1000. Compare Sprague v. Bond, 113 N. C. 
551, 18 8. E. 701. 

iTo Webber v. Randall, 80 Mich. 531, 50 N. W. 877; Hake ▼. Coach, lOo 
Mich. 425, 63 N. W. 306; Decatur Land Co. v. Oook (Ala.) 27 South. 559: 
AlUson y. Drake, 145 111. 500, 32 N. E. 537. 

1T6 Raynor v. Raynor, 04 N. Y. 248. And see Jackson County v. Gullatt. 
M Ala. 243, 3 South. 906; Beebe v. Russell, 19 How. 283, 15 L. Ed. 66S: 
Johnson v. Everett, 9 Paige (X. Y.) 636. 

ITT In re Turner's Estate, 183 Pa. 543, 38 Atl. 1040; O'Meara v. First Xat 
Bank (i<^y.) 37 S. W. 266. See St. Louis Nat Bank T. Bloch, 44 La. Ann. 
^93, 11 South. 466. 

iTSTlnley v. Martin, 80 Ky. 463. 
[ 1T9 Khodes V. Turner, 21 Ala. 210. 


§ 47. Deereo dlssolTins PavtaerBlUp. 

Where a bill in equity is brought for an accounting between part- 
ners and for a termination of the partnership, the first decree, dis- 
solving the partnership and directing accounts to be taken, is gen- 
erally only interlocutory.^** But a decree dissolving a partnership, 
which directs an accounting and a sale of the firm's assets, and specif- 
ically states the manner of their distribution, is final.*** Where, 
upon a bill for the settlement of partnership accounts, the decree 
leaves unsettled the equities as to two items of account, as to which 
a reference is ordered, it cannot be considered a final decree.*** 

i 48. Foreclosure of Morts^Be. 

Upon a bill for the foreclosure of a mortgage, if the decree ascer- 
tains the validity of the mortgage and the amount of the debt, orders 
a sale of the mortgaged premises, describing them, for satisfaction 
of such debt, directs that the sum due on the mortgage with interest 
and costs be paid over to the mortgagee out of the proceeds of the 
sale, and adjudges that the defendant make good any deficiency 
which may be found to exist after the sale, then the decree is final 
and complete ; for it leaves nothing to be adjudicated or reviewed by 
the court.*" But if the decree does not ascertain the amount due; 
or if it orders a sale but does not give any direction as to the dispo- 
sition of the proceeds ; or if it reserves the question of the distribu- 
tion of the fund, in order to adjust conflicting claims or liens; or if, 

without ordering a sale, it directs the cause to stand continued for 


iBOGray v. Palmer. 9 Cal. 616; Kingsbury v. Kingsbury, 20 Mich. 212; 
Ktiodes V. WllUaius. 12 Xev. 20; Huntington v. Moore, 1 N. M. 471; Cocke's 
Admr y. GUpln, 1 Rob. (Va.) 20. 

1*1 Clark v. I>unnam, 46 Cal. 204; Evans v. Dunn, 26 Oliio St. 439; Ar- 
nold v. Sinclair, 11 Mont. 556, 29 Pac. 340, 28 Am. St Rep. 489. 

i»« Gamer v. l»rewltt, 32 Ala. 13. 

i»»Myer« v. Manny. 63 111. 211; Morris r. Morange, 38 N. Y. 172; Baker 
T. Lehman, Wrlgbt K>hlo) 522; Ray v. Law, 3 Crancb, 179, 2 L. Ed. 4(M; 
wnitlng V. Bank of United States, 13 Pet. 6, 10 L. Ed. 33; Bronson y. La 
Crosse Sc M. U. R. Co., 2 Black, 524, 17 L. Ed. 347; Jobnson v. Everett, 
» Paige iS. y.) 636: May v. Ball (Ky.) 56 S. W. 7. Compare Allen v. 
BHclies, 2 Uen. Hl M. (Va.) 595; Malone v. Marriott, 64 Ala. 486. 



further order and decree upon the coming in of a master's report, 
then, and in any such case, it is merely interlocutory.^®* It is to be 
observed that the judgment for the deficiency arising on a sale of the 
property, and directing that execution may issue therefor, is not final, 
so as to be appealable, until there has been a judicial determination 
of the amount of the deficiency after the sale.*®* But where a peti- 
tion of intervention is filed, claiming priority over the mortgage or 
other rights in the property, a decree which settles the rights of the 
intervener, and directs provision to be made for their satisfaction 
in the sale or in the distribution of the proceeds, is final and appeal- 
able, although the main suit has not reached a final decree.*** 

§ 49. Sendins Iisue out of Chancery. 

An order in equity sending an issue of fact to be tried in the law 
court is of course interlocutory. In itself it determines nothing. It 
is merely preparatory to a final decree.*®^ And the same is true of 
a judgment rendered on a feigned issue directed out of chancery.*** 
And on similar principles, an order of a probate court adjudging that 
parties have the right to have issues to determine the validity of a will 
transmitted to a law court for trial by jury, and framing and trans- 
mitting such issues, is not a final order.*** 

18* Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co. v. Simmons, 123 U. S. 52, 8 Sup. Ct. 
58, 31 U Ed. 73; Johnson v. Everett, 9 Paige (N. Y.) 636; WilUams v. 
Walker, 107 N. C. 334, 12 S. E. 43; Illinois Trust & Savings Bank v. Pacific 
Ry. Co., y» Cal. 407, 33 Pac. 1132. An order denying an application for the 
appointment of a special master to sell mortgaged premises is not appealable 
before rendition of a linal decree of foreclosure. American Inv. Co. v. Xye, 
40 Neb. 720, 59 N. W. 355, 42 Am. «t. Rep. 692. See Riddle v. Hudgins, 
7 C. C. A. 335, 58 Fed. 490. 

185 Kggieston V. Morrison, 185 111. 577, 57 N. B. 775; Parmele ▼. Schroeder, 
59 Neb. 553, 81 N. W. 506. 

i8« Central lYust Co. v. Marietta & N. G. R. Co., 1 C. O. A. 116, 48 Fed. 
850; Central Trust Co. v. Madden, 17 C. C. A. 236, 70 Fed, 451; Moulton 
V. Cornish, 138 N. Y. 133, 33 N. E. 842, 20 L. R. A. 370. 

18T Dabbs V. Dabbs, 27 Ala. 646; Eames v. Eames, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 141. 

laswoodside v. Woodslde, 21 111. 207. 

189 Dugan V. Northcutt, 7 App. D. C. 351. 




i 50. Confession of Judgment in Pending Suit 

51. Confession of Judgment without Action. 

52. Authorized by Statutes. 

53. Court must have Jurisdiction. 
M. Who may confess Judgment. 

' 55. Confession by Married Woman. 

56. Married Woman as Creditor. 

57. Confession by Partner. • 
5H. Joint Defendants. 

59. By Officers of a Corporation. 

tiO. Consent of Creditor is necessary. 

()1. Requisites of Warrant of Attorney. 

«la. Revocation or Expiration of Warrant. 

(&!. Affidavit that Debt is due. 

(53. Statement of the Indebtedness. 

64. Signature to Statement. 

65. Verification of Statement. 
66i Amendment of Statement 

67. Judgment voidable for Failure to comply with Statute. 

68. Valid between Parties. 

69. For what Judgment may be confessed. 

70. Debt not yet due. 

71. For Future Advances. 

72. For contingent Lriabilities. 

73. Amount of the Judgment. 

74. Liquidation of Amount by Cleric. 

75. inclusion of Attorney's Fees. 

76. Recording the Judgment. 

77. Reversing and Vacating Judgments by Confession. 

78. Effects of confessed Judgment 

i 50. Conf euion of Jvdsment in Pendins Suit* 

All judgments rendered upon the confession of the defendant may 
be divided into two classes : I. Those entered in an action regularly 
commenced by the issuance and service of process; 2. Those en- 
tered upon the confession of the defendant, or his warrant of attor- 
ney, without the institution of an action. The former class of judg- 
ments are well known to the common law and must be tested and 



§ 50 LAW OP JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 3 

sustained by rules and principles existing independently of statutes, 
while judgments of the latter class derive all their efficacy from posi- 
tive law and must conform, in order to be valid, to all the requirements 
and formalities set up by the legislature. It is frequently a matter 
of importance to determine whether a particular judgment belongs 
to one class or the other, because, if not covered by the statute, it 
is not impeachable for lack of an affidavit, statement of indebtedness, 
or other support required by the act. This distinction is recognized 
by the authorities. Thus a statute which provides that any person 
may, without process, appear in person or by attorney and confess 
judgment for any bona fide debt, but in such case a petition shall be 
filed, and other acts be done, does not apply to cases where the part}' 
is regularly cited, but only to cases of voluntary appearance without 
process.* So where a defendant accepts service of process and after- 
wards confesses judgment, the plaintiff's affidavit of the justness of 
the claim, required in the' case of confession without action, is held 
to be unnecessary.^ Now judgments entered for the plaintiff upon 
the defendant's admission of the facts and law, as the same are 
known to the common law and exist independently of statutes, are 
of two varieties; first, judgment by cognovit actionem, and second, 
by confession relicta verificatione. In the former case the defendant, 
after service, instead of entering a plea, acknowledges and confesses 
that the plaintiff's cause of action is just and rightful. In the lat- 
ter case, ^fter pleading and before trial, the defendant both confesses 
the plaintiff's cause of action and withdraws or abandons his plea or 
other allegations, whereupon judgment is entered against him with- 
out proceeding to trial.^ In order to sustain a judgment of either of 
these sorts, it is essential that process, regularly issued, should have 
been served upon the defendant (though he may accept service with 
the same effect as if the writ had been served as it usually is *) ; and 
an agreement in w-riting made out of court, authorizing the clerk to 

1 Schroeder v. PYomme, 31 Tex. 602, And see Grouse v. Derbyshire. 10 
Mich. 479, 82 Am. Dec. 51; Goodwill v. Elkins. 51 I^. Ann. 521, 25 South, 317. 

2 Gerald v. Burthee, 29 Tex. 202. 

8 Bouv. Law Diet. voc. Judgment. As to judgments by consent, see Ed- 
wards V. inimer (Tenn.) 47 S. W. 144; Goodrich v. Alfred, 72 Conn. 257, 43 
Ati. 1041. 

4 Gerald v. Burthee, 29 Tex. 202; Hart v. Sarvis, 3 Ohio N. P. 316w 



enter up such a judgment, will not sustain it, where there has been 
no appearance by the defendant.* A judgment by cognovit, after 
process has been served, may be entered in vacation, without a 
judge's or commissioner's order, and without affidavits.* The other 
species of judgment by confession, relicta verificatione, is also not 
unknown to modern practice. Thus, where a judgment recited that 
**the defendants, by leave of court, withdraw their pleas and say that 
they cannot deny the plaintiff's cause of action against them, for debt 
and interest in plaintiff's petition claimed," it was held that this was 
in effect a confession of judgment, and a jury was not required to 
ascertain the amount.^ It is also said that where a party confesses 
judgment against himseff under a mistake of fact as to what the 
pleadings contain, he may, upon discovering his error, retract the 
confession, provided it has not been recorded.* 

i kl. Confession of Jndsment withovt Action* 

One method of confessing a judgment without action or process is 
by a warrant of attorney. This is an authority given by the debtor 
to a named attorney, or to any attorney of a given court or in a given 
jurisdiction, empowering him to appear for the defendant and con- 

» Craig V. Glass, Smith (Ind.) 27. See O'Neal v. Clymer, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 3»G, 
52 S. W. «19; Hudson v. McMahon (Ky.) 50 S. W. 259. Compare Shadrack's 
Adm'r v. WoolfoUE, 32 Grat. (Va.) 707. 

• Stewart v. Walters, 38 N. J. Law, 274. A Judgment by agreement may 
be entered In open oourt by the judge on consent of the attorney, orally ex- 
pressed, or may be entered on the record without express sanction of the court 
from the written agreement between counsel, duly filed, in which latter case 
tbe court's assent Is presumed. Beliveau v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co., 68 N. H. 
:J25, 40 Atl. 734, 44 L». R. A. 167, 73 Am. St. Rep. 577. Where a Judgment 
is confessed In open court, it must be presumed that the authority to confess 
was Judicially passed upon by tbe court. Chicago Tip & T. Co. v. Chicago 
Nat. Hank, 74 111. App. 430. As to presumption of authority on the part of 
defendant's attorney to confess Judgment, see Harper v. Cunningham, 5 App. 
11. C. 2U3. 

T Burton r. Lawrence, 4 Tex. 373. And see Hicks v. Ayer, 5 Ga. 298. The 
wltbdrawal of a plea In abatement on the day set for trial, and the filing of 
an answer admitting plaintiff*s claim, and consenting to Judgment, does not 
render tbe Judgment entered one by confession. Adler v. Anderson, 42 Ma 
App. 180. 

« tfmith r. Kimms« 9 Ga. 418. But see New EIngland Mortgage Security Co. 
y. Tarrcr, C. C. A. 100, GO Fed. 660; Little v. Dyer, 35 111. App. 85. 


§ 62 LAW OP JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 3 

fess judgment for a designated amount. This differs from a cognovit 
in that an action must be commenced before a cognovit can be given, 
but not before the execution of a warrant of attorney.* In so far as 
this procedure may be regulated by statute in any jurisdiction, it 
must of course comply strictly with the requirements of the law. But 
in most of the states there are statutes which authorize a judgment 
to be entered upon the confession of the defendant, without action, 
upon the filing of a verified statement showing the facts out of which 
the indebtedness arose, and an affidavit that the debt is just and 
actual, and sometimes upon the observance of certain additional for- 
malities. This is by far the most usual method of confessing judg- 
ments, and therefore will principally engage our attention in this 

§ 52. Authorised by Statutes. 

Inasmuch as the proceeding last adverted to depjends entirely 
upon statute for its validity, it is evident that a strict construction 
must be applied to the statute and that its provisions must be strictly 
complied with in using the authority it grants.^® But on the other 
hand, the judgment must stand or fall by the statute alone, and for- 
malities not therein required are not essential to its validity. For 
instance, it is not necessary to sustain such a judgment that a decla- 
ration should have been filed ; the statement required by the statute 
is sufficient.^^ Again, neither a citation of the defendant nor a pre- 
vious judgment of default is needed as a preliminary to the entry ot 
judgment on his confession." But in some states it is required that 
an office confession of judgment be confirmed by the court before it 
becomes a judgment ; and under this rule its incidents as a judgment 

9 Bouv. Law Diet, voc. "Judgment." 

10 Kdgar v. Greer, 7 Iowa, 13G; Cliapin v. Thompson. 20 Cal. G86; Mf- 
Crairy v. Ware, G Kan. App. 155, 51 Pac. 293; Burr v. Mathers, 51 Mo. App. 
470; Harper v. Uimningham, 5 App. D. C. 203. In Virginia, the statute provid- 
ing for Judgments by confession being merely declaratory of the common law, 
only substantial compliance therewith is required. Saunders y. Lipscomb, SK> 
Va. (U7, 19 S. El 450. 

11 Johnston v. Glasgow, 5 Ark. 311; Choat v. Bennett 11 Ark. 313; Gayle r. 
Foster, Minor (Ala.) i:i5; Matthews' Lessee v. Thompson. 3 Ohio, 272. 

12 Marbury v. Pace, 29 La. Ann. 557. A power of attorney given with a 
note, authorizing Judgment thereon by confession without process, is valid. 
Wliitton V. Whitton, 04 lU. App. 53. 



do not attach until the date of such confirmation.^* So, again, a 
provision that the confession must be signed by the party and by 
witnesses does not admit of evasion.^* And the same is true of a 
requirement that the debtor shall appear in person and confess the 
judgment.*' Since a judgment upon confession is not in the nature 
of an adversary proceeding, it is theoretically immaterial whether it 
is entered during a session of the court or in vacation. And it may 
be stated as the rule, unless modified by the particular statute, that 
a judgment of this character may as well be entered in vacation as in 
term-time.** So a warrant of attorney attached to a note authorizing 
confession of judgment thereon at any time after its date, will sup- 
port a judgment entered in vacation before the note was due.*^ And 
a judgment confessed in the clerk's 'office on the morning of the 
first day of the term of court, before the court was opened, is a valid 

i 53. Court must ItAve Jnriidiotloii* 

Although a judgment by confession is to a certain extent founded 
on the agreement of the parties, instead of a direct adjudication by 
the court, it is none the less, on that account, a judicial act. And 
since their consent cannot create a jurisdiction in excess or contra- 
vention of that conferred by law, it is equally essential to the validity 
of a judgment of this character as to any other that it be entered in a 
court having jurisdiction of the subject-matter. As it is to have all 

IS Bass T. Kstlil, 50 Miss. 300. Miner's Code Iowa. S§ 176, 177, providing 
that judgments by confession shall be signed by the judge, is merely directory, 
and a failure to sign does not vitiate the judgment. Dullard v. Phelan, 83 
Iowa, 471, 50 N. \V. 204. 

1* Beach v. Botsford, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 199, 40 Am. Dec. 145. 

laRonehrough v. Ansley, 35 Ohio St 107. See Reed v. Hamet. 4 Watts 
(Pa.) 441. 

!• Pickett v. Thruston. 7 Ark. 397; Kellogg v. Keith, 4 111. App. 380. Com- 
pare Pond V. Simons, 17 Ind. App. 84, 45 N. E. 48. A power of attorney au- 
thorizing confession of judgment "as of any term" does not authorize the entry 
of judgment In vacation. Graves v. Whitney, 49 111. App. 435; Whitney v. 
Bohlvn, 157 111. 571, 42 N. E. 162. 

17 Towle V. Gonter, 5 IlL App. 409. But it is said that a judgment cannot be 
roof(>«iHed on the day a warrant of attorney and note bear date, although the 
note is payable on demand. Waterman v. Jones, 28 111. 54. 

I* Brown v. Hume, 1« Grat (Va.) 45tJ. 


§ 53 LAW OP JUDOMBNT8. (Ch. 3 

the incidents and consequences of any other judgment, and to have 
the sanction of the law and the authority of the couft behind it, it 
will be invalid unless the court where it is entered might lawfully 
have rendered the same judgment in a contested action.^* And 
where the authority of an inferior court, as that of a justice of the 
peace, to enter judgments upon confession, is limited by law or 
hedged round with prescribed formalities, it must clearly appear upon 
the face of his record that the particular confession came within the 
limitations and that the requirements of the statute were distinctly 
met and complied with.*® Yet after a confession of judgment with- 
out exception to the jurisdiction of the particular court (the subject- 
matter being within its general competence), the judgment rendered 
is valid.*^ And a judgment entered in the district court, by virtue of 
a warrant of attorney authorizing the entry of such judgment in the 
court of common pleas, those courts having concurrent jurisdiction, 
cannot be set aside as erroneous at the instance of a subsequent judg- 
ment-creditor.** Such authority, however, will not run into another 
state. Thus a warrant of attorney to confess a judgment, executed 
in one state between parties residing there and by its terms to be ren- 
dered there, will not support a judgment entered in another state.** 

i» Lanning v. Carpenter, 23 Barb. (N. Y.) 402. So where it is required by 
law that the execution of a power of attorney to confess Judgment be proved 
before the Judgment Is confessed, such proof must affirmatively appear of 
record; otherwise the court would have no Jurisdiction of the person of tbe 
maker, and the Judgment would be invalid. Rapley v. Price, 9 Ark. 428. In 
some states it is held that a Judgment by confession can be entered only in a 
court having Jurisdiction of the county or district where the defendant resides^ 
and where alone a personal Judgment might be recovered against him In a 
contested action. Ex parte Ware Furniture Co., 49 S. C. 20, 27 S. K 9; Mc- 
Clure V. Bowles, 5 Ohio N. P. 327. But elsewhere the doctrine prevails that a 
confessed Judgment is valid if entered in a court having Jurisdiction of the 
subject-matter, and within the state where the note and warrant were made, 
without regard to the defendant's place of residence* and even though he 
may have removed from the state. Kitchen v. Bellefontaine Nat. Bank, 5& 
Kan. 242, 36 Pac. 344, 42 Am. St. Rep. 282. 

20 Spear v. Carter, 1 Mich. 19, 48 Am. Dec. 688; Tenny v. Filer, 8 Wend, 
(N. y.) 569; Camp v. Wood, 10 Watts (Pa.) 118. 

21 Kelly V. Lyons, 40 La. Ann. 498, 4 South. 480. 

22 Hauer's Appeal, 5 Watts & S. (Pa.) 473. 

28 Manufacturers* & Mechanics' Bank v. Boyd, 3 Denio (N. Y.) 257. Bnt a 
Judgment upon the confession of the defendant which is valid In the state 


Authority to confess judgment under a power of attorney is not ex- 
hausted by a confession of a judgment which is subsequently re- 
versed, but another may be confessed under the same power. "The 
intention of the power had not been carried out, consequently the 
object was not accomplished, and the authority was not exhausted 
by the first act." ** A more difficult question arises in the case where 
a judgment by confession is entered upon a bond and warrant of at- 
torney in one county, and afterwards, such judgment remaining in 
force and unsatisfied, a second judgment upon the same bond and 
warrant is entered in another county. Here it would seem that the 
authority conferred by the warrant was fully satisfied by the first 
confession and nothing remained to sustain the second. But since 
this would not appear upon the face of the proceedings, the second 
judgment would not be absolutely void, but at most irregular. It 
would be vacated or set aside upon application to the court in which 
it was entered, but the want of authority to enter the second judg- 
ment could not be taken advantage of on a writ of error. In the 
meantime, if a sheriff's sale was had. under the second judgment, the 
purchaser would no doubt take a good title ; but in that case the at- 
torney who entered the judgment, or the obligee of the bond, if it 
was entered bv him, would be answerable.** 

S 54. WHo Miaj oonfeu Judgment. 

As a general rule, any person may give a confession of judgment 
against whom the same judgment might lawfully have been pro- 
nounced by the court as the result of a suit regularly instituted and 

where it Is entered Is equally valid in every other state. Coleman v. Waters, 
13 W. Va. 278. And a warrant of attorney may be so drawn as to authorize 
a confession of judgment in a foreign state. Van Norman v. Gordon, 172 
Mass. 57(5, 53 N. E. 2(J7, 44 L. R. A. 840, 70 Am. St. Rep. 304. Thus, it is 
held that if the authority is to confess judgment **in any court of record," 
it may be executed in any state in the Union. Pirie v. Stem, 97 Wis. :150, 72 
X. W. 370. «5 Am. St. Rep. 103; First Nat Bank v. McKinney. 16 Ohio Cir. 
(\, R. 80. See First Xat. Bank v. (larland, 109 Mich. 515. 67 N. W. 5r)9, 33 
L. R. A, 83, 63 Am. St. Rep. 697. Compare Davis v. Packer, 8 Ohio Cir. Ct. 
R. 107. 

«• Uuner v. i>oolittle, 3 (}. (ireene (Iowa) 76, 54 Am. Dec. 489. 

» Martin v. Rex, H Serg. & R. (l»a.) 296; Neff v. Barr, 14 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 
KjU; and see also Livezly v. Pennock, 2 Browne (Pa.) 321. 


§ 54 LAW OP JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 3 

contested. The only difficulty occurs in the case of persons who are 
under disabilities ; and here it must be remarked that if the disability 
of infancy or coverture is merely a personal privilege which may be 
waived, then the confession of a judgment is as explicit a waiver as 
could well be imagined, but if, on the other hand, it is regarded as 
an absolute incapacity to contract debts, or certain kinds of debts, 
then a confession of judgment is merely a futile attempt to give valid- 
ity to that which by law can have none. It has been said that a war- 
rant of attorney to confess judgment executed by a minor is under 
all circumstances entirely void.** But this statement U probably too 
strong. The marked tendency of the authorities, as we shall see 
hereafter,*^ is to regard a judgment agaiilst an infant duly before the 
court as valid and effectual for all purposes, unless indeed time is 
given to him to show cause against it after his majority. And if his 
defense of infancy is taken away by his failure duly to plead it when 
sued, it is certain that it is equally waived by his voluntary confession 
of judgment. The case of confessions by married women we reserve 
for the succeeding section. 

In regard to parties plaintiff in confessions of judgment the parallel 
rule appHes.** In cases where the debtor is an officer of the court 
in which the confession is entered, no difficulty has been experienced 
in sustaining the judgment. Thus, under a statute providing that 
judgments may be confessed in the clerk's office, and when recorded 
by him shall be valid, the clerk, acting as a ministerial officer, may 
enter a judgment by confession against himself.** And it is even 
held that a judge, in a suit in his own court to which he is a party, 

26 Knox v. Flack, 22 Pa. 337. Compare Ziogler v. Evans, 8 Kulp (Pa.) 

27 See infra, §§ 193, 196. 

28 A warrant of attorney In a note to confess judgment In favor of the payee 
Is available to his administrator. Drake v. Simpson (Ohio) 30 Wkly. Law 
Bui. 23G. If the warrant does not specify the person in whose favor Judg- 
ment is to be entered, it may be in favor of the legal holder of the note at the 
time of entry. Shepherd v. Wood, 73 111. App. 486. A a to confessions in 
favor of partners, see Mahaffey v. Rogers, 10 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 24. A person 
may confess Judgment for money due the state as well as to an IndlviduaL 
State V. Love, 23 X. C. 264. 

2» Smith V. Mayo, 83 Va. 910, 5 S. E. 276w 



may confess a judgment against himself. •^ Of course any person 
who may himself give a valid confession of judgment may delegate 
his power to that intent to another. Such authorization of a third 
person is commonly seen in warrants of attorney, but may also be 
otherwise conferred. The authority of an attorney appearing in 
open court, it is said, will be presumed to be regular until the con- 
trary is shown, but in vacation his authority to confess judgment 
must affirmatively appear and no presumption will be indulged in 
favor of it.*^ On the same general principle, an agent, within the 
scope of his authority, may confess judgment against his principal.'* 
If the agent transcends his authority and confesses judgment for a 
sum greater than is actually due, it may be a question whether the 
principal is bound at all. But it has been held that in such a case, 
the judgment is valid for the real debt and void only as to the ex- 
cess.'* It is also held that a trustee cannot bind the trust estate by 
a confession of judgment.** 

{ 55. Conf eflitoB bj Married Womuiii* 

In regard to the power of a married woman to bind herself by a 
confession of judgment, we find the greatest difference of opinion in 
the authorities. In fact it is impossible to formulate a general rule ; 
the question must ultimately be referred to the statutes in the several 
states regulating her status and rights. In proportion as the feme 
covert is emancipated from the rigors of the common law, her power 
to confess judgment increases in respect to the variety of obligations 
upon which it may be exercised. The only safe generalization seems 

8* Hiomton T. Lane, 11 Ga. 459. 

^i Martin v. Judd, dO lU. 78. See Jarrett v. Andrews, 19 Ind. 403. 

<3 Parker v. Poole, 12 Tex. 86. A municipal officer, liable to suit on a con- 
tract made by him on behalf of the public, may confess Judgment for the 
amount due. Gere v. Cayuga County Sup'rs, 7 How. Prac. 237; Maneval v. 
Jackson Tt>.. 9 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 28. A Judgment against a vessel as a sub- 
ttantive party and her owners, by confession of the master of the boat, Is 
erroneous. Waas^ v. English, 17 Ark. 480. 

«» Davenport v. Wright, 51 Pa. 292. 

»* Malloiy V. Clark, 20 How. Prac. 418. As to confessions by executors, see 
In re (lagbom*s Estate, 181 Pa, 600, 37 Atl. 918, 59 Am. St. Rep. 680. By 
attignees for benefit of creditors, see Packer v. Roberts, 140 lU. 9, 671, 29 
N. E. 668t 


§ 65 LAW OP JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 3 

to be, that she cannot confess a judgment for any debt for which she 
could not be made liable by judgment rendered in invitum. In Penn- 
sylvania, the bond of a married woman, though she join in it with her 
husband, is held to be absolutely void, and a judgment entered on 
such bond by virtue of a warrant of attorney annexed thereto, ex- 
ecuted by the wife together with her husband, is also void as respects 
the wife and her estate." According to the late authorities, there 
is but one exception to this rule, viz.: In the case where the note 
upon which the judgment is confessed is given for the purchase- 
money of land conveyed to her, and forms part of the transaction; 
the judgment will then be a valid lien against the land, though not a 
charge against the woman personally.'* On the other hand, where 
a statute gives to married women the right to sue and be sued in the 
same manner as if sole, a married woman may confess a judgment 
to secure a debt contracted by her, and for her use and benefit, in 
carrying on her separate business.*^ In other jurisdictions, the stat- 

8 6 Dorrance v. Scott, 3 Whart. (Pa.) 309. 31 Am. Dec. 509; Graham v. Long. 
65 Pa. 383; Caldwell v. Walters. 18 Pa. 79, 55 Am. Dec. 592; Helper v, 
Helfricker, 42 Pa. 325; Keen v. Coleman, 39 Pa. 299, 80 Am. Dee. 524; Bnin- 
ner's Appeal, 47 Pa. 67; Finley's Appeal, 67 Pa. 453; Swayne v. I-yon, 67 
Pa. 436; Steinman v. Ewlng, 43 Pa. 63; Glyde v. Kelster, 32 Pa. 85: 
8hallcros8 t. Smith, 81 Pa. 132. But now in Pennsylvania by the Act of 
June 3, 1887, { 2 (P. L. p. 333), "a married woman shall be capable of enter- 
ing into and rendering herself liable upon any contract relating to any trade 
or business in which she may engage, or for necessaries, and for the use, 
enjoyment, and improvement of her separate estate, and for suing and being 
sued, either upon such contracts or for torts done to or committed by her, 
in all respects as if she were a feme sole, and her husband need not be 
Joined with her as plaintiff or defendant, or be made a party to any ac^ 
tion, suit, or legal proceeding of any kind brought by or against her in her 
Individual right." This statute is construed, with reference to confessicMis 
of Judgment, in Real-Estate Inv. Co. v. Roop, 132 Pa. 496, 19 Atl. 278, 7 I* 
R. A. 211. And see Harris v. Reinhard, 165 Pa. 36, 30 Atl. 510. 

aoChrlstner v. Hochstetler, 109 Pa. 27; Quiuu's Appeal 80 Pa. 447; Brun- 
ner's Appeal, 47 Pa. 67. See, also, Tbornhill v. State Nat. Bank, 34 La. Ann. 

3T First Xat. Bank v. Oarllnghouse, 53 Barb. (X. Y.) 615. See Code Civ. 
Proc. N. Y. § 1273. Compare Watkins v. Abrahams, 24 X. Y. 72. A Judg- 
ment confessed by a married woman Is not void but voidable merelj% and 
her husband, if he assented to the sale of property under an execution there- 
on, is estopped from afterwards claiiuiug it adverselj*. Roraback v. Steb- 
bins, 4 Abb. Dec. 100, 33 How. Prac. 278. 



utc, while enabling a married woman to enter into certain classes of 
engagements, forbids her to make agreements or contract debts of 
other kinds. Under this system, "if the contract of the married 
woman be such as a married woman is still incapacitated from enter- 
ing into, her warrant of attorney to enter judgment upon it is a nul- 
lity, because the obligation to which the warrant of attorney is an- 
nexed is invalid, and judgment entered in pursuance of it will be va- 
cated.** But if the contract be one that the married woman is en- 
abled to make, and on which she may be sued at law, I think a differ- 
ent result must be reached. With respect to such contracts, any ac- 
tion, suit, or proceeding which is adopted for the enforcement of the 
obligation is within the reason and spirit of the statutes which confer 
the capacity to contract and impose liability to actions at law thereon. 
The obligation being valid, the warrant of attorney is simply a part 
of the procedure to enforce it — ^as much so as a suit by summons or a 
cognovit." •• A confession of judgment by a married woman, which 
condemos her to pay her husband's debt, is void. Such a confession 
is but the complement or consummation of a pontract which the law 
prohibits, and which was consequently null.*® 

It has been held that although a judgment entered upon the con- 
fession of a married woman may be invalid, yet it is too late to raise 
that objection to the judgment after the same has been duly revived 
by proper proceedings. For the defendant had an opportunity to 
show cause against the judgment at the time of its revival, and its 
validity was impliedly adjudicated in that proceeding; for there can 
be no judgment of revival until it is determined that there is a valid 
judgment.** This proposition, however, has been denied.** And 
indeed, if the particular judgment was one which the woman had ab- 

•• Swiiis ▼. Woodmff, 41 X. J. Law, 460. 

»• Haywood v. Shreve, 44 N. J. Law, 94. See further Stevens v. Dubarry, 
Minor (Ala.) 370; Baines v. Burbrldge, 15 La. Ann. 628; Dancy v. Martin, 
23 La. Ann. 323; Henchman v. Roberts, 2 Har. (Del.) 74; Mendenhall's £x*rs 
T. Springer, 3 Har. (Del.) 87; Patton v. Stewart, 19 Ind. 233; Harris T. Jen- 
Wna. 72 N. C. 183; WaUace v. Rippon, 2 Bay (S. C.) 112. 

«• Baines ▼. Burbrldge, 15 La. Ann. 628; £dwards v. Edwards, 29 La. Ann. 

«i Crenshaw t. Julian, 26 S. C. 283, 2 S. E. 133, 4 Am. St. Rep. 719. 

«> Dormnce ▼. Scott, 3 Whart (Pa.) 300, 31 Am. Dec. 509. 


§ 66 LAW OP JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 3 

solutely no power to confess, so that it must be held to be a mere 
nullity, it is difficult to see how any vitality could be imparted to it 
by the mere fact of revival. No action will lie upon a void judgment. 
And a judgment of revival, passed upon a nugatory cause of action, 
is, equally with the judgment revived, merely void. 

Another question not without difficulty, which arises in reference 
to this subject, is in relation to a judgment entered against both hus- 
band and wife upon a warrant of attorney executed by them jointly. 
It has been held that such a judgment, though void as to the wife, 
will stand valid as against the husband.*' But there are numerous 
cases holding that a judgment is an entirety, and if void as to one 
defendant is void as to all ; ** and these decisions would seem to ap- 
ply with equal weight whatever may be the ground of the invalidity. 
It seems certain, however, that a married woman may confess a 
judgment for a valid ante-nuptial debt, and such judgment will be 
conclusive and enforceable against her as if rendered by default or 
upon a verdict.**^ And a warrant of attorney to confess judgment, 
given by a feme sole, is not revoked by her subsequent marriage, and 
after such marriage judgment may be entered up on it against the 
husband and wife jointly, leave being obtained on motion.** 

§ 56. Married Woman ai Creditor* 

A married woman may take a cor.'ession of judgment, as sole 
plaintiff, in any case where she could sue for the debt alone, or joint- 
ly with her husband in a case where they have a joint right of action. 
Thus, where a bond and warrant of attorney was given to a woman 
dum sola, and she afterwards married, the court, upon affidavit of 
the fact, allowed judgment to be entered in favor of husband and 
wife together.*^ The indebtedness of a husband to his wife, by note 
or for money or property, is a sufficient consideration to support a 

48 Sliallcross v. Smith, 81 Pa. 132; Wallace v. Rippon, 2 Bay (S. C.) 112. 

4« See infra, § 211. And see, as to Judf^meuts by confession, specifically, 
Mendenhall's Ex*rs v. Springer, 3 Har. (Del.) 87. 

45 Travis V. Willis, 55 Miss. 557. 

4« Baker v. Lultens, 35 Pa. 146; Bneu v. Clark, 2 Pa. 234, 44 Am. Dec 
VJl; Bering v. Burnet, 2 Clark (Pa.) 399. 

*T sheble v. Cummins, 1 Browne (Pa.) 253. 



judgment confessed by him in the wife's favor as against his other 
creditors, when not impeached for fraud,*® And such a judgment, 
admitted to be honest, will not be treated as void in law or equity 
because of the legal unity of the parties; and the relation not ap- 
pearing in the record, the court will n^t, at the instance of creditors, 
inquire into the fact of coverture, when no fraud is alleged.** 

f 57. Confession bj "Pmrtner, 

A member of a firm has no authority, by virtue of his mere rela- 
tion to the partnership or his general power to act as its agent, to 
confess a judgment against the firm; and if judgment be entered on 
such a confession, it will be void as against his co-partners, though 
binding as a personal charge upon himself. ^'^ And a confession of 

"Thomas v. Mueller, 106 111. 36. Per contra, Countz v. Markling, 30 
Ark. 17. 

^•WUUains' Appeal, 47 Pa. 307. 

50 Biteer v. Shunk, 1 Watts & S. (Pa.) 340, 37 Am. Dec. 460; York Bank's 
Appeal, 3(S Pa. 458; Myers v. Sprenkle, 13 York Leg. Rec. 181; Squier v. 
Squler, 1 Lack. Leg. N. 103; Williams v. Jones, 7 Kulp (Pa.) 386; Lehman 
Mach. Co. T. Rood, 8 Kulp (Pa.) 264; Crane v. French, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 
311; 8toutenburgh v. Vandenburgh, 7 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 220; Harper v. 
Omningham, 8 App. D. C. 430; Mills v. Dickson, 6 Rich. Law (S. C.) 487; 
EUlott V. Holbrook, 33 Ala. 650; Hopper v. Lucas, 86 Ind. 43; Davenport 
Mills Co. V. Chambers, 146 Ind. 156, 44 N. B. 1100; Chicago Trust & Sav. 
Bank t. Kinnare, 67 HI. App. 186; Christy v. Sherman, 10 Iowa. 535; Risser 
V. Martin. 86 Iowa. 302, 53 X. W. 270; Fairbanks v. Kraft, 43 Mo. App. 
m; Burr v. Matbei-a, 51 Mo. App. 470; Soper v. Fry, 37 Mich. 236; Rich- 
ardson V. FuUer, 2 Or, 170; Buchanan v. Scandia Plow Co., 6 Colo. App. 34, 
30 Pac. 800. In some states, however, the late decisions show a tendency 
to relax this rule. Thus, in Pennsylvania, while a Judgment confessed 
against a tlrm by one partner without explicit authority from his copartners 
wriU not bind the other members of the firm personally, yet an execution 
issued under it may be levied on property of the partnership. Adams v. 
James L. Leeds Co., 105 Pa. 70, 45 Atl. 666; Mcllvain v. James L. Leeds Co., 
180 Pa. 638, 42 AU. 307; Budd v. Shock, 11 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 480. And the 
debt for which a judgment is confessed by one of the partners in the name 
of the firm will be presumed to be that of the firm. Evans v. Watts, 102 
Ta. 112, 43 Atl. 461. In Illinois and Ohio, a Judgment against a firm con- 
fessed by one partner without authority can be impeached or questioned 
only by the other partners, not by creditors of the firm, unless, perhaps, 
where the judgment is fraudulent. McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. 
«'oe. ?» 111. App. 488; Browne v. Cassem, 74 111. App. 305; Berg v. Com- 
luercial Xat. Bank. HI 111. App. 614; George W. McAlpin Co. v. Finsterwald, 
1I-AWJUDG.-6 ijai) 

§ 58 LAW OP JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 3 

judgment under seal, in the name of a partnership and of a member 
of the firm, is binding only upon such member.'^ So a confession 
pf judgment by a former partner against the firm, while good as 
against the partner confessing it, will not bind property assigned by 
the firm to a remaining partner under terms of agreement to pay 
firm debts.'* 

§ 58. Joint Defendants. 

In a pending action against two defendants, one of them cannot 
in the absence of the other, confess judgment against both; and a 
judgment rendered against both on the confession of one only, with- 
out evidence, will be set aside.'' And where one of several joint 
defendants confesses judgment so far as concerns himself, such judg- 
ment is only interlocutory until the final decision of the cause as to 
the rest ; and the confessing defendant must ultimately receive the 
same judgment as his co-defendants."* In the case of a confession 
of judgment v^ithout action, a question has sometimes arisen as to 
the effect of an authority for such judgment — whether a warrant of 
attorney or a statement of indebtedness — ^which i« signed by only a 
part of the defendants against whom it directs the judgment to be 
entered. As against those not signing the authority, the judgment 
is certainly of no force whatever.**^ But whether it may stand as a 

57 Ohio St. 524, 49 N. E. 784. When a warrant of attorney expressly ath 
thorizes any attorney of any court of record to appear for the maker of a 
note and confess Judgment, the fact that one member of a firm signs the 
declaration, and the other the cognovit, does not render the judgment void. 
Blanck v. Medley, 63 111. App. 211. 

61 Appeal of Jb'erth Amboy Terra-Cotta Co., 124 Pa. 367. 17 Ati. 4. 

82 Mair v. Beck (Pa.) 2 Atl. 218; McCleery v. Thompson, 130 Pa. 443, 18 
Atl. 735. 

68 Wiggins V. Klienhans, 9 N. J. Law, 249; Ballinger v. Sherron. 14 N. 
J. Law, 144; Hutchinson v. Brown, 19 D. C. 136; Rees v. Richmond. iTJ 
Law T. (N. S.) 427. Compare Virginia & T. Coal & Iron Co. v. Fields. 
94 Va. 102, 26 S. E. 426. 

84 Taylor v. Beck, 3 Rand. (Va.) 316; Strause v. Braunreuter, 21 Pa. Co. 
Ct. K. 228. In New York, the Code of Civil Procedure (section 1278). provides 
that a judgment by confession against one joint debtor shaU not bar an 
:action against all the joint debtora upon the same demand. See Harbeck 
V. Pupln, 123 N. Y. 115. 25 X. E. 311. 

A5 A joint judgment cannot be entered on a several warrant of attorney. 
Welntraute v. Solomon, 2 Marv. (Del.) 371, 43 Atl. 267; Liberty Grotto v. 



valid obligation against those who did sign, is not so clear. In one 
state it is held, on the principle that a judgment is an entirety, that 
if the warrant authorizes the entry of judgment against a certain 
number, no judgment can be entered against a less number, and it 
is void as to all.** But other cases hold, and we think with better 
reason, that the judgment entered will bind those who subscribed 
the warrant, though nugatory as to the others.*^ 

{ 59. Bj OAoeri of a Oorporation, 

A private corporation has a right to confess judgment, as an inci- 
dent to its power to sue and be sued.'** But the trend of the modern 
decisions is to the effect that no officer of such a corporation — 
whether it be the president, secretary, treasurer, or manager — has 
authority, merely 4>y virtue of his office, to confess a judgment 
against the company or sign a warrant of attorney for that purpose. 
To do this, he must receive authority from the board of directors, 
or, according to some of the cases, from a majority of the stock- 
holders at a regular meeting.** But, in special circumstances, such 
authority may be inferred from the knowledge and acquiescence of 

Mettde. 11 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 340. And under a Joint warrant of attorney an- 
nexed to a joint note, a Judgment cannot be entered against one of the 
makers alone. Kahn v. Lesser, 97 Wis. 217, 72 N. W. 739. See Frank v. 
Thomas, 35 lU. App. 547. 

'•Chapin y. Thompson, 20 Cal. 681. 

»» North V. Mudge, 13 Iowa, 496^ 81 Am. Dec. 441; Knox t. Wlnsted Sav. 
Bank, 57 111. 330; York Bank's Appeal, 36 Pa. 458. The statute In Penn- 
vylTania, requiring the prothonotary to enter a Judgment by confession on 
a warrant of attorney "against the person or persons who executed the 
same,** does not restrict him to the names appearing In full on the face 
of the warrant, but he may Inquire who are the legal makers of the In- 
ffUnment liable thereon, though they did not put their own hands to it, and 
their names do not appear on its face. Miller v. Royal Flint Glass Works, 
172 Pa. 70, 33 Atl. 350. 

*»Shute V. Ke3'8er (Ariz.) 29 Pac. 386; Solomon v. C. M. Schneider & Co., 
TMJ Xeb. «JSr). 77 X. W. Cm. 

••Stokes V- Xew Jersey I'ottei-y Co., 46 N. J. Law, 237; Raub v. Blairs- 
town Creamery Ass'n, 56 X. J. I^w, 262, 28 Atl. 384; McMurray v. St. Louis 
<H1 Mamifg Co.. 33 Mo. 377; Jackson v. Cartwrlght Lumber Co., 2 Pa. Dist. 
U. m); Ximocks v. Cape Fear Shingle Co., 110 N. C. 20, 14 S. B. 622; P. 
I*. Mast Buggy Co. v. Litchfield Furniture, Hardware & Implement Co., 55 
lU. App. U8; Bailey v. Snyder, 61 111. App. 472; Howell v. Gilt-Edge Manuf g 



§ 60 LAW OF JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 3 

the directors/' or the action of the officer signing the confession 
may be ratified by a subsequent vote of the directors or stockhold- 
ers.®^ If a judgment note executed by an officer of a corporation 
is otherwise valid and binding on the company, it is not avoided by 
the fact that the corporate seal is not attached.** Upon a confes- 
sion of judgment by a corporation, the court in which the action is 
pending must judge of the authority of the person appearing for the 
corporation in that behalf ; and its decision on the point is final and 

S 60. Consent of Creditor ti neeessary. 

A judgment based upon a confession made without any request 
on the part of the creditor, and without his knowledge and consent, 
or against his consent, and entered at the instance of the debtor 
alone, will have no effect in advance of the creditor's acceptance of 
it; it is voidable, it will not bar an action brought by the creditor, 
nor will it estop the debtor from denying the facts set forth.** This 
rule proceeds upon the very obvious consideration that if the assent 
of the creditor were not necessary to a confessed judgment, the debt- 
or might, by confessing for only a part of the real debt, preclude his 
creditor from recovering the residue. For a judgment by confes- 
sion is as conclusive as any other ; ** and if it include only a portion 
of an indivisible demand, no action will lie for the balance. A judg- 
ment so entered, unknown to the creditor or against his will, is there- 
fore voidable at hfs option, and will be vacated on his motion.** But 
on the other hand, he may ratify the debtor's action and accept the 
judgment, and when he does this, it will have the effect to validate 

Co.. 32 Xeb. G127, 49 N. W. 701. Compare Miller v. Bank of British Co- 
lumbia^ 2 Or. 291. 

00 Ford V. HiU, 92 Wis. 188, 66 N. W. 115, 53 Am. St. Rep. 902; Chicagro 
Tip & T. Co. V. Chicago Xat. Bank, 74 111. App. 439. 

«i Smead Foundry Co. v. Chesbrough, 18 Ohio Glr. Ct. R. 783. 

•2 Chicago Tip & T. Co. V. Chicago Nat. Bank, 74 111. App. 439. 

08 White V. Crow (C. C.) 17 Foil. 08. 

04 Wllcoxson v. Burton, 27 Cal. 228, 87 Am. Dec. 66; Farmers* & Mechau- 
ics' Bank v. Mather, 30 Iowa. 283; IngergoH v. Dyott 1 Miles (PjW 24o; 
Cliapin V. McLaren, 105 Ind. 563, 5 N. E. 688. 

05 See infra, vol. 2. § 698. 

00 Farmers* & Mechanics' Bank v. Mather, 30 Iowa, 283. 



the judgment and place it on the same footing in all respects with 
one sanctioned by his previous knowledge and consent. The vali- 
dation of the judgment, however, dates only from its acceptance by 
the creditor, and it will not affect the priority of other creditors who 
came in between the entry of the judgment and its ratification.®^ 
The creditor's assent to the entry of judgment may also be con- 
structive. Thus it is sufficient if done with the knowledge and con- 
sent of his attorney in whose hands he has placed the matter.*' So 
also, if an action is already pending. Where the creditor has 
brought suit for a specified sum of money upon a certain claim, and 
the debtor appears in court and confesses judgment for the amount 
claimed and costs, the assent of the plaintiff will be presumed ; and 
to entitle him to have the judgment set aside, he must make it ap- 
pear to the court that he has been prejudiced by such confession.' ° 
It is held that the confession of a judgment by the defendant in a 
pending suit, after the death of the plaintiff and before substitution 
of his representatives, is void, both as regards the representatives of 
the plaintiff and any third person who may be collaterally interested 
in the payment of the same.^® 

§ 61. Reqntsttei of Warrant of Attomej. 

As already stated, it is the practice in some states to enter con- 
fessed judgments upon a written authority, called a warrant or letter 
of attorney, by which the debtor empowers an attorney to enter an 
appearance for him, waive process, and confess judgment against 
him for a designated sum. This warrant should contain the grant of 
authority clearly and distinctly given, and a designation of the per- 
son by whom it is to be exercised, either by name or description.^^ 
It is usual, however, to confer the authority upon "any attorney" of 

•TWilcoxson V. Burton. 27 Cal. 228, 87 Am. Dec. 66; Buchanan v. Scaudla 
Plow Co., 6 Colo. App. 34, 30 Pac. 890. 

«» Chapln V. Mcl^ren, 105 Ind. 563, 5 N. E. 688. 

«» I-lanagan v. Continental lus. Co., 22 Neb. 235, 34 N. W. 367; McCalmont 
T. Peters, 13 Serg, & R. (Pa.) 106. 

'• Finney v. Ferguson, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.) 413. Compare Ijewis v. Rapelyea, 
1 Barb. (X. Y.) 2J). 

"» Rabe v. llcslip. 4 Pa. 139. See Grubbs v. Blum, 62 Tpx. 426. Au- 
thority to confess a Judgment on a note, or waive the benefit of excmp- 



a particular court or "any attorney of any court of record" in the 
particular state.^" Where the warrant authorizes A., or any other 
attorney of the court in which the judgment is to be confessed, to 
appear and make the confession, and A. and B., both attorneys of 
that court, appear together, the judgment will be valid.^' The war- 
rant should name or describe, with reasonable certainty, the person 
in whose favor judgment is to be entered,^* and state the time of 
entry, though this is usually done by authorizing a confession **at 
any term" of court, or "at any time." '" The warrant should spe- 
cifically state its purpose. But the words used are not of the least 
importance, and it is held that a warrant to "enter" judgment will 
be considered as equivalent to a warrant to "confess" judgment.'* 
And in a case where the warrant was written upon a printed form of 
a judgment-note, and the blanks in that part of the note which re- 
lated to the entry of judgment were not filled out, but the note was 
otherwise regular, it was held that the warrant was not void.^^ It 
also appears that a warrant of attorney to confess judgment need 
not be under seal/® Of course if the warrant is annexed to or in- 
corporated in a note or bond, the debt on which it is based will be 

tlon or inquisition laws, cannot be implied from authority to execute tlie 
note. Payne v. Robinson, 11 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 544. 

72 See McClure v. Bowles, 5 Ohio N. P. 327. 

78 Patton V. Stewart, 19 lud. 233; Kuehne v. Goit, 54 111. App. 596. 

7 4 See Packer v. Roberts, 140 111. 9, 071, 29 N. E. 668; McClure v. Bowles, 
5 Ohio X. P. 327. Where a note and warrant of attorney are written to- 
gether, over one signature, the warrant, though not stating in whose favor 
Judgment may be confessed, is not void for uncertainty, but the Instrument 
as a whole will be construed to authorize confession In favor of the payee. 
Drake v. Simpson, 30 VVkly. Law Bui. (Ohio) 236. 

7 6 Where a warrant of attorney authorizes a confession of Judgment ui)on 
a note **at any time," Judgment may be confessed at any time after the de- 
livery of the note. Elkins v. Wolfe, 44 111. App. 376. This is true eveu 
though the note is postdated. Volkcnand v. Drum, 143 ^a. 525, 22 Atl. 8i^l. 

7 6 Mason v. Smith, 8 Ind. 72. 

7 7 Sweesey v. Kitchen. 80 I'a. 100. As to the effect of failure to fill out 
blanks in the warrant, see, further, t^rst Nat. Bank v. Trout, 58 Ohio St. 
347, 51 N. E. 27; Packer v. Roberts, 140 111. 9, 671, 29 X. E. 608. The cap- 
tion of a cognovit upon which a Judgment is confessed in vacation is not 
an essential part of the instrument, and, if defective, may be treated as 
surplusage. Browne v. Cassem, 74 111. Ai)p. 305. 

7 8 Kneedler's Appeal, 92 Pa. 428. 



sufficiently disclosed. But in any other case the cause of action 
must be described either in a declaration, a sworn statement, or in 
the warrant of attorney itself.^* This is required as an evidence of 
good faith and for the information of other creditors. A judgment 
so confessed is not necessarily void although the warrant of attor- 
ney be void; and such a judgment, it is held, after it has been re- 
vived against the debtor's administrator, cannot be set aside for that 
cause, although the defect in the warrant might have been pleaded in 
avoidance or given in evidence under a plea of nul tiel record.*® 
The warrant of attorney, as the basis of the judgment, must also be 
placed on file in the clerk's office, and no judgment can be entered 
on it before it is actually so filed.®* In some of the states, it is nec- 
essary that proof should have been made of the execution of the 
warrant of attorney before the judgment is confessed, and in the 
case of a confession out of court, this must affirmatively appear of 
record, but where the confession is in open court, the evidence of 
that fact need not be presented in the record, but it will be presumed 
to have been done unless it appears to have been omitted.®' 

S 61a. ReTOoation or Ezptration €»f Warrant. 

A warrant of attorney to confess a judgment is not revocable at 
the pleasure of the principal ; though he endeavors to revoke it, yet 
the court will grant leave to the plaintiff to enter up the judgment.®^ 
But no judgment can be entered on such a warrant after the death 

7* Gambia v. Howe, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 133. Where several obligations or 
installments, all between the same parties and all due, are covered by sep- 
arate warrants of atti)mey, or by one warrant authorizing confession of 
judgment "from time to time," a single Judgment may be entered by con- 
fession for the gross amount then due. Odell v. Reynolds, 17 C. C. A. 317, 
70 Fed. 65(J; Fortune v. Bartolomel, 104 111. 31, 45 N. E. 274. 

•• Wood V. Kills. 10 Mo, 382. 

•1 Chambers v. Denle, 2 Pa. 421. But compare Merchants' Nat. Bank v. 
Newton Cotton Mills, 115 N. C. 507, 20 S. E. 765. 

•»Iglehart v. Chicago Marine & Fire Ins. Co., 35 111. 514; Anderson v. 
Field, 6 m. App. 307; Uambia v. Howe, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 133. 

"Odes V. Woodward, 2 Ld. Raym. 849; WasseU v. Reardon, 11 Ark. 
7<l5. 44 Am. Dec. 245. But in Evans v. Fearne, 16 Ala. G89, 50 Am. Dec. 
l<'7. It is said that a simple power from a principal to his attorney to 
•-onfera Judgment In favor of a tlilrd person, which Is not supported by 
t consideration and Is not given as a security for a debt, or to render 


§ 61a LAW OF* JUDGMENTS. , (Ch. 3 

of the defendant. While the latter event may not operate exactly 
as a revocation of the power, yet there can be no valid judgment 
rendered against a dead man.®* Entry of the judgment, however, 
is not prevented by the supervening insanity of the defendant; for 
this disability does not revoke any power of attorney which the prin- 
cipal could not have revoked had he remained sane.'* 

It was the settled practice under the common law, founded on a 
rule of the court of King's Bench (and still operative in this country 
except where changed by statute or a rule of court), that a judgment 
could not be confessed on a warrant of attorney executed more than 
a year and a day before, unless an affidavit was filed showing that 
the maker was alive, and that the debt or some portion of it was still 
due, and a rule of court, or order of a judge in vacation, must be 
obtained granting leave to enter judgment.^® But entry of the judg- 
ment will not be prevented by the fact that the statute of limitations 
has run against the debt (or which the confession was made, since 
the subject-matter of the power is hot extinguished by the limita- 
tion.®^ But payment of the debt will cancel the power, A warrant 

a security effectual, is not properly speaking a warrant of attorney, and is 
revocable at the pleasure of the maker, so long as it remains unexecuted. 

8 4 Lanning v. Pawson, 38 Pa. 480; Sauerfleld v. McXierney's Pllstate. 30 
Pittsb. Leg. J. (N. S.) 283. In New York, this rule is establisheil by statute. 
Code Civ. Proc. N. Y. § 1275; Maddock v. Stevens, 15 Civ. Proc. R. 248. 3 
X. Y. Supp. 528. 

8 5 Spencer v. Reynolds, Pa. Co. Ct. R. 249. 

86 Hinds V. Hopkins, 28 111. 344; Alldritt v. First Nat. Bank, 22 111. App. 
24; Manufacturers' & Mechanics' Bank v. St. John, 5 Hill (X. Y.) 497. in 
Pennsylvania, a rule of court provides that **if a warrant of attorney to con- 
fess judgment be above ten years [old] and under twenty, the court, or a 
judge thereof in vacation, must be moved for leave to enter judgment. 
which motion must be grounded on an atfidavlt that the warrant was duly 
executed and that the money is unpaid and the party living. When the war- 
rant is above twenty years old, there must be a rule to show cause serveJ 
on the defendant, if he can be found within the county.'* But the court 
may, in a proper case, after the entry of judgment, grant leave to file the 
required affidavit nunc pro tunc. Woods v. Woods, 126 Pa. 396, 17 Atl. 662. 

8 7 Wassell V. Reardon, 11 Ark. 705, 44 Am. Dec. 245; Cross v. Moffat, II 
Colo. 210, 17 Pac. 771. But a judgment on a judgment note not under seal. 
entered more than six years after the execution of the note, may In* opened 
to allow a plea of the statute of limitations. Bennett v. Allen, 10 I'a. Co. 
Ct. I{. 256. See, infra, § 69. 



of attorney contained in a note to confess judgment thereon, for 
example, remains in force only so long as the note remains unpaid ; 
and where the payee, after receiving satisfaction thereof, fraudulent- 
ly conceals the fact, and procures an attorney to appear and con- 
fess judgment without the maker's knowledge or consent, such ap- 
pearance confers no jurisdiction on the court, and the judgment is 
void."* It is held, however, that judgment may be entered on a note 
under a warrant of attorney duly executed, but lost or stolen.*® 
Strictly speaking the authority of the warrant is exhausted by the 
entry of one judgment; yet if another judgment is entered on the 
same obligation under the same warrant, in another county, it will 
not be absolutely void, but merely irregular, insomuch that a pur- 
chaser at a judicial sale under the second judgment may acquire a 
good title.** 

I 62. Affidavit tl&at Debt is due. 

Under the various statutes regulating the practice in confessing 
judgments, it is almost invariably required that the debtor's confes- 
sion be accompanied by an affidavit showing the bona fides of the 
transaction. In some jurisdictions this is directed to be incorpo- 
rated in the statement which forms the basis of the judgment; in 
others it is to be a separate document. The statute usually pre- 
scribes the form of words, as that the debt is "justly due and owing," 
or is '^justly due or to become due." A provision of this character, 
howc\ er, is satisfied by a substantial compliance with the meaning of 
the law, and if the affidavit details facts which show that the debt is 
really just and actually due, it is enough, though the words of the 
statute be not employed. Thus, the affidavit is sufficient in form in 
stating that Jhe debt is "justly and honestly due," instead of "due 
and owing" in the words of the statute, when a present indebtedness 
is shown.** Nor is it required that the affidavit go beyond the stat- 

«• First Xat Bank v. Cunningham (C. C.) 48 Fed. 510; Rea v. Forrest, 88 
IIL 276. 

• » Bauer r. Rihs, 4 Pa. Dist. R. 583. 

•0 Martin v. Rex, 6 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 296; supra, § 53.. 

•1 Mulford V. Stratton, 41 N. J. Law, 460; Reading v. Reading, 24 N. J. 
Ijw. 35S. The requirement of an atlidavlt that the debt is "justly and 
booestly doe and owing*' will prevent an accommodation indorser of notes, 


§ 63 LAW OF JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 3 

ute. Hence it is not necessary for the debtor to deny, in specific 
terms, that the debt has been paid, released, barred, or discharged.** 
A judgment entered upon confession without the afHdavit required 
by statute is voidable only, not void, and it cannot on that ground be 
collaterally attacked by a stranger to the record.** Where the stat- 
ute requires an affidavit to the justness of the debt only upon a con- 
fession of judgment without process, it does not apply where the 
defendant files an answer admitting the debt, and consents to the 

§ 63. Statement of the Indebtedness. 

In many of the states, statutes require a person confessing a judg- 
ment to file a written statement, signed and sworn to, designating 
the amount for which the judgment is to be entered, and "stating 
concisely the facts out of which the indebtedness arose." This re- 
quirement is imperative.** The designation of the amount of the 
debt, in particular, is a vital part of a valid confession; it must be 
set forth explicitly and not be left to inference; and the omission 
of it is a fatal defect.** The requirement that the facts be stated is 

secured by bond and warrant of attorney, from entering up Judgment be- 
fore he has paid the notes, although he has assumed their payment, when 
the payee has not released the maker. Sterling y. I^leming, 53 X. J. Law, 
052, 24 Atl. 1001. 

»2 Lanning v. Carpenter, 20 N. Y. 447. See Oppenheim« v. Giershofer, 
54 Ul. App. 38. 

83 Vauderveere v. Gaston, 24 N. J. Law, 818; Bible v. Voris, 141 Did. 
5G», 40 N. E. 070. Compare Fuget Sound Nat Bank v. Levy, 10 Wash. 499, 
39 Pac. 142, 45 Am. St. Rep. 803. 

04 Lanier v. Blount (Tex. Civ. App.) 45 S. W. 202. 

»5 Winnebrenner v. Edgerton, 30 Barb. (N. Y.) 185; Lanning v. Carpenter, 
20 N. Y. 447; Smith v. Smith, 117 N. C. 348, 23 S. E. 270. Compare 
Hughes v. Helms (Teun.) 52 S. W. 4G0. A judgment confessed without such 
a statement is voidable at the instance of other creditors (Puget Soiuid Nat. 
Bank v. Levy, 10 Wash. 499, 39 Pac. 142, 45 Am. St. Rep. 803), and cannot 
be validated as to one not a party or privy by renewals of execution thereon, 
or by revival of the judgment. Woods v. Bryan, 41 S. C. 74, 19 S. E. 218^ 
44 Am. St. Rep. (>88. A warrant of attorney reciting a bond which is on 
the same sheet of paper, may be detached from the bond, and entered up 
without any statement. United Security Life Ins. & Tnist Co. v. Vaughn, 
22 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 167. • 

»6 Clements v. Gerow, 30 Barb. (N. Y.) 325. A statement tlisU no part of 
the note or interest has been paid, and that the full amount tlioreuf, with 


Ch. 3) JUDGMRNTS BY C0.NF£SS10N. § 63 

intended to enable other creditors to test the bona fides of the trans- 
action by which a particular debt is preferred; and it is said tjiat 
ihe statement is sufficient if it sets forth a consideration such as the 
law recognizes as valuable; and is definite enough to prevent the 
parties from shifting it, and to furnish other creditors with a basis 
for inquiry if they desire to attack it."' To come to specific illus- 
trations, it is held that a recital in the statement that the indebted- 
ness accrued for "borrowed money" or "money loaned," to the debt- 
or, sufficiently states the facts out of which the indebtedness arose.** 
Another authority, drawing the line more strictly, holds that a state- 
ment that the indebtedness "is for a debt justly due from me to said 
plaintiff for moneys to that amount loaned and advanced to me by 
said plaintiff," is sufficient as between the parties, though it might 
be voidable at the instance of a junior judgment-creditor or bona 
fide purchaser.** Probably it is necessary to state the date of the 
loan. But if the whole sum is made up of various items advanced at 
different times, the cases rule that the statement is sufficiently ex- 
plicit in describing the money as loaned to defendant at divers times 
after a specified day.*°^ A confession of judgment for a certain 
sum for **goods, wares, and merchandises" of a specified value, is 
held by some of the authorities to be too indefinite ; it should state 

Inten^t since the date of the note, Ib due and owing thereon, is sufficleDt to 
include interest. Kothchild v. Mannesovltch, 29 App. Dlv. 580, 51 N. Y. 
Snpp. 253. See Tilles v. AlbriKbt. (53 Hun, 633, 18 X. Y. Siipp. 493. 

•^Teasidale Commission Co. v. Van Hardenberg, 53 Mo. App. 326; At- 
watcr V. Manchester ?av. Banlc, 45 Minn. 341, 48 N. W. 187, 12 L. R. A. 
741; McDowell v. Daniels, 38 Barb. (X. Y.) 143; Wight v. Mott, Kirby (Conn.) 


•-Kern v. Chalfaut, 7 Minn. 487 (Gil. 393); Kendig v. Marble, 58 Iowa, 
r»29. 12 X. W. 584. citing Van Fleet v. PhiUips, 11 Iowa, 558; Miller v. 
Clarke. 37 Iowa. 325. 

»» Terrett t. Brooklyn Imp. Co., 18 Hun, 6; Miller v. Kosch, 74 Hun, 50, 
2« X. Y. Supp. 183. .See Wood v. Mitchell, 117 X. Y. 4»), 22 X. E. 1125. 

looKrost V. Koon, 30 X. Y. 428; Johnston v. McAiislaml, 9 Abb. Prac. 
iS. Y.» 214. See Davis v. Morris, 21 Barb. (X. Y.) 152. A statement that 
plaintiff performed services for and loaned money to defendant, and tliat 
thereafter, at a certain time, tliere was an adjustment of accounts betNveen 
them concerning said matters, and a certain sum was found due plaintiff. 
which defendant promised to pay, sntticiently shows an account staterl, so 
ns to sustain an entry of a judgment by confession. Crltten v. Vredenbiirgh, 
4 App. DiT. 210, 38 X, Y. Supp. 542. 



§ H3 law op judgments. ifih. 3 

the nature and quantity of the goods sold, the time of sale, and the 
aggregate price, if not even the price of the several items.^*^ But 
in New York a much looser rule obtains. It is there held to be well 
enough if the indebtedness is stated to be for goods, wares, and mer- 
chandise sold and delivered, with an approximate description of the 
period at or within which the sale took place.**** A statement is not 
sufficient if it merely states and sets out a promissory note executed 
by the defendant to the plaintiff as the consideration of the indebt- 
edness ; for the facts out of which the indebtedness evidenced by the 
note arose should be clearly stated.*®* But a statement which sets 
out the execution and delivery "for value" of a negotiate note for 
$1500, "for money which" the creditor "then and there gave" the 
debtor "for said note, as a loan, which sum of $1500 is justly due 
and owing according to the tenor and effect of said note herein de- 
scribed," is sufficient to satisfy the statute.*®* But a statement that 
the note was "given for goods sold and delivered and money had 
and received" is not sufficient.*®* And an allegation that the consid- 
eration of the judgment is a promissory note given by the debtor for 
value received, but not specifying the amount or consideration of the 

101 Nichols V. Krlbs, 10 Wis. 76, 78 Am. Dec. 2»4; Lawless v. Hackett, 
16 Johns. (N. Y.) 149; Bryan v. Miller, 28 Mo. 32, 75 Am. Dec. 107. Com- 
pare Ex parte Graham, 54 S, C. 163, 32 S. E. 67. 

102 Kead v. French, 28 N. Y. 285; Neusbaum v. Kelm, 24 N. Y. 325; 
Delaware v. Ensign, 21 Barb. (N. Y.) 85; Weil v. Hill, 71 Hun, 133, 24 
N. Y. Snpp. 521. 

108 Chappel v. Chappol, 12 N. Y. 215, 6i Am. Dec. 496; Davidson v. Alex- 
ander, 84 N. 0. 621; Pond v. Davenport, 44 Cal. 481; McHenry v. Shephard. 
2 Mo. App. 378; Woods v. Bryan, 41 S. C. 74, 19 S. E. 218, 44 Am. St. Rep. 
688. But a confession stating the amount of Indebtedness, and anthorizing 
entry of judgment therefor, with interest from a certain date, and further 
stating that it is for the amount due on a bond under seal executed by de- 
fendant on a given date, and that it is justly due for borrowed money, is 
sufficient. Uzzle v. Vinson, 111 N. C. 138, 16 S. E. 6. 

104 Stem V. Mayer, 19 Mo. App. 511. 

105 Cordier v. Schloss, 18 Cal. 576. But compare Merchants' Xat Bank 
V. Newton Cotton Mills, 115 X. C. 507, 20 S. E. 765. Where the state- 
ment sets out that the promissory note annexed was given "for value re- 
ceived in one Sweepstakes separator," the judgment Is not invalid for want 
of a showing as to how the Indebtedness arose. Brown v. Barngrover, ^ 
Iowa, 204, 47 X. W. 1082. 




note, is defective.***" So if it is merely stated that the note was for 
''money due," the judgment entered upon it is prima facie fraudu- 
lent as to the creditors of the defendant, though not so fatally de- 
fective as to be void.***^ On the other hand, a statement, in effect, 
that the defendant had purchased of the plaintiff a certain indebted- 
ness (describing it), due to the plaintiff, for which he had given to 
the plaintiff the promissory notes (describing them) upon which and 
for the amount of which he confessed the judgment, is a sufficient 
statement.*®' So the statement is sufficient if it sets forth that the 
judgment is confessed to secure the plaintiff for a debt justly to be- 
come due upon his indorsement, as the surety of the defendant and 
for his benefit, of bills and notes which are fully described as to 
names, dates, amounts, and times of payment.*®* 

I 64. Sicnatnre to Statement. 

The statutes require the statement of indebtedness and confession 
of judgment to be "made and signed by the defendant." This is con- 
strued to mean a signature by the debtor in person. A signature by 
the defendant's attorney in the case is not sufficient; and where a 
judgment was entered upon a statement signed by two of the defend- 
ants in person and by the attorney of the third, it was held that the 
consent of those signing was only that judgment might be entered 
ag^ainst all; and as there was no authority to enter judgment as to 
the third party, the judgment was unauthorized and void as to all.**® 
In another case, where the defendant had signed the verification, 
but not the statement, which was written upon the same page, this 

!•« Norrifl v. Denton, 30 Barb. (N. Y.) 117. 

!•? Fond V. Davenport. 44 Cal. 481. But see Mather v. Mather, 38 App. 
Dtv. 32, 55 X. y. Supp. 973; Claflin v. Dodson, 111 Mo. 195, 19 S. W. 711. 

!•« Klrby v. Fitzgerald, 31 N. Y. 417. 

!•• Dow V. Platner. 16 X. Y. 562; First Nat. Bank v. Carleton, 43 App. 
IHt. G. Z» N. Y. Supp. 635; Dullard v. Phelan, 83 Iowa, 471, 50 N. W. 204. A 
statement which sets out a eertlflcnte of deposit and then states that on the 
tnck of the certificate Is the following, "We hereby guaranty payment of 
tlie within," is sufficient to support a judgment against the guarantors. Briggs 
▼. Tetzer, 103 Iowa, 342, 72 N. W. 647. 

"•French v. Edwards, 5 Sawy. 206, Fed. Cas. No. 5,098. 


§ 67 LAW OF JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 3 

was considered sufficient, as being a substantial compliance with the 
law.* 11 

I 65. Verifloation of Statement. 

The requirement of the statute, that the statement of facts accom- 
panying a judgment by confession be properly verified by the oath 
of the party, intends that in so far as it relates to things within his 
own knowledge, he should affirm it to be true in unequivocal terms. 
In regard to other matters he may disclose his information and add 
a declaration of his belief in its truth. But where the party merely 
swears that he ^'believes the above statement of confession is true/' 
the affidavit is insufficient, and the judgment, if entered thereon, will 
be vacated.^** The jurat of the notary should also be in due form; 
but a. formal defect in the jurat will not so far invalidate the judg- 
ment as to lay it open to collateral attack.* *' The verification of the 
statement, if faulty but not wholly void, is susceptible of amend- 

S 66. Amendaient of Statement. 

A motion by plaintiff to amend the statement of a confession of 
judgment is addressed to the discretion of the trial court. It is not 
an amendment which he has a legal right to demand, but is one 
which the court may in its discretion refuse or grant upon such 
terms as to it may seem to be just.*** If the defect in the statement 
arose through mere inadvertence, an amendment may be permitted 
as against creditors who have not sought to vacate the judgment; **• 
but not against a creditor who has taken steps to have it set aside.**' 

§ 67. Judgment Toidable for Failure to comply with Statute. 

A judgment upon confession, though it does not conform exactly 
to the statutory requirements, is at most voidable, and not absoluie- 

111 Purdy V. Upton, 10 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 494. 

112 lugrarn v. Kobbins, 33 X. X, 40«, 88 Am. Dec. 3U3. 

113 Grattan v. Matteson, 54 Iowa, 229, 6 N. W. 298. 
11* Cook V. Whipple, 55 N. Y. 150, 14 Am. Rep. 202. 
115 Symson v. Selheimer, 105 N. Y. 600, 12 X. E. 31. 

110 Bradley v. CJlass, 20 App. Div. 200, 4G X. Y. Supp. 790. 

117 Blackmer v, Greene, 4 N. Y. Ann. Cas. 395, 47 X. Y. Supp. 113. 


\y void as against creditors.^" Thus, if it fails to set out all the facts 
required by the statute, it is for that reason irregular and prima facie 
fraudulent, but it is not a nullity ; the presumption of fraud may be 
rebutted by proof that the judgment was fair and for a bona fide 
debt."* It has also been held that such a judgment is not void be- 
cause it does not appear that an affidavit, as required by the statute, 
had been made.**^ But the true rule appears to be, that if there 
has been an attempt to fulfil all the requirements of the law, the 
judgment is at most only voidable, although the execution of such 
attempt be informal or defective; but, on the other hand, the total 
omission of any of the steps prescribed by the statute (as where no 
statement at all is filed) will render the judgment entirely inoper- 
ative and void.^** 

lis Sheldon v. Stryker, 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 116. But in some other decisions 
It is held that a judgment by confession which does not conform to the re- 
quirements of the statute is absolutely void and a mere nullity. Edgar ▼. 
Greer, 10 Iowa, 279; Utah Nat. Bank v. Sears, 13 Utah, 172, 44 Pac. 832. 
And see Aiosworth y. Mobile Fruit & Trading Co., 102 Ga. 123, 29 S. E. 142. 

11* Richards ▼. McMUlan, 6 Cal. 419, 65 Am. Dec. 521; Grouse T. Johnson, 
65 Hnn, 337, 20 N. Y. Supp. 177. That a judgment by confession fails to 
state the facts out of which the indebtedness arose, or to show that the sum 
confessed is Justly due, is a defect of which a subsequent judgment creditot- 
mty STail himself. Bradley v. Glass, 20 App. Dlv. 200, 46 N. Y, Supp. 790. 

"• Dean v. Thatcher, 32 N. J. Law, 470. 

i» Irregularities in a judgment by confession, which do not make It void, 
may be amended. Merchants' Nat. Bank y. Newton Cotton Mills, 115 2^. 
C. 507, 20 S. E. 765. In imnois, it is said that, without proof of the execu- 
tion of the power of attorney to enter judgment by confession, the clerk ac- 
quires no jurisdiction of the debtor, and therefore the judgment, being void, 
may be attacked collaterally. Oppenheimer v. Giershofer, 54 111. App. 38. In 
Bacon r. Raybould, 4 Utah, 357, 10 Pac. 481, Boreman, J., observed: "The 
aotiiorities go to the extent of holding that where there is an incomplete or 
insufficient statement of such facts [the facts out of which the indebtedness 
arose), the failure to make a complete statement will be only prima facie 
evidence of fraud as to creditors, and that it cannot be attacked collaterall3^ 
But no case has been called to our attention where a court has held that a 
uoofession of judgment is merely prima facie fraudulent as to creditors, 
uid not liable to be attacked collaterally, where there was a total absence 
of the statement of any facts whatever. We know of no instance in which 
norfa a case has reached an appellate court The statement of such facts is 
a prerequisite to the confession of judgment— it is not a confession of judg- 
ment without It" Compare Utah Nat Bank v. Sears, 13 Utah, 172, 44 
Pte 832. 


§ 68 LAW OF JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 3 

S 68. Valid between Partiei. 

A judgment upon confession, founded on a statement of facts 
which is defective or insufficient to answer the requirements of the 
statute, will nevertheless be valid and effectual as between the par- 
ties to it, though voidable at the instance of other creditors.*** The 
judgment-debtor himself cannot avoid it, nor can one do so who 
claims rights of property under him, but whose interests are not 
prejudiced thereby.^*^ And such a judgment, upon proof of its 
honesty and good faith, authorizes the creditor to impeach a fraud- 
ulent transfer made by the debtor, for the purpose of making the 
lien of the judgment effectual.^** Where the property of the de- 
fendant has been sold under an execution upon a judgment con- 
fessed without a sufficient statement, the purchaser's title cannot be 
impeached by a creditor having no judgment or lien on the prop- 
erty at the time of the levy.*** At the same time, if another creditor 
attacks a confessed judgment founded upon a defective or insuffi- 
cient statement, it devolves upon the plaintiff therein to negative the 
idea of fraud or collusion, and to show that the judgment is war- 
ranted by facts actually existing, although such facts were not in- 
cluded in the statement.**' The same rule holds true of a judg- 
ment confessed without the affidavit to the justness of the debt re- 
quired by statute; it is valid between the parties, though void or 
voidable as to other creditors.**^ 

122 Coolbangh v. Koemer, 30 Minn. 424, 15 N. W. 869; Miller t. Earle. 24 
N. Y. 110; Xeusbaum v. Keim, 24 N. Y. 325; Kirby v. Fitzgerald, 31 N. X. 
417; Biyaii v. Miller, 28 Mo. 32, 75 Am. Dec. 107; How v. Dorscheimer, 31 
Mo. 340; Lee v. Figg, 37 Cal. 328, 09 Am. Dec. 271; Pond v. Davenport, 44 
Cul. 481; Plummer v. Douglas, 14 Iowa, 69, 81 Am. Dec. 456. See, also, 
bhadrack's Adra'r v. Woolfolk, 32 Grat. (Va.) 707. 

128 Coolbaugh v. Roemer, 30 Minn. 424, 15 X. W. 869; Boyles v. Chytraus, 
175 111. 370, 51 N. E. 563; Krickow v. Pennsylvania Tar Manuf'g CJo., 87 lU. 
App. (;o3. 

124 Neusbaum v. Keira, 24 N. Y. 325. 

125 Miller v. Earle, 24 X. Y. 110. 

126 Cordier v. Schloss, 18 Cal. 576. See Bacon v. Raybould, 4 Utah, 357. 10 
Pac. 481; Richards v. McMillan, 6 Cal. 419, 65 Am. Dec. 521. 

i27Mavity v. Eastridge, 67 Ind. 211; Chapiu v. McLaren, 106 Ind. 563, 5 
X. E. 688; Caley v. Morgan. 114 Ind. 350, 16 X. B. 790; Gardner v. Bonn (IIL) 
21 X. E. 614; Stone v. Williams, 40 Barb. (X. Y.) 322. 



§ 69. For irhat Judgrnient may be oonf eised. 

The statutes commonly provide that the debtor confessing judg- 
ment shall make oath that the debt is '*justly due or to become due." 
It follows of course that if the judgment is for a purely fictitious 
debt, or is in excess of the real debt so far as to interfere with the 
rights of other creditors, it is fraudulent and cannot stand. Thus, 
where a judgment is confessed and execution levied for such an 
amount that subsequent judgment creditors find nothing to levy on, 
a combination between the parties having been proved, fraud will be 
established.*** It is also essential that the debt be a legal debt, — 
that is, one which would not be rejected by a court on account of its 
illegal consideration. Yet it appears that the defendant in the judg- 
ment and those claiming under him (for instance, a subsequent mort- 
gagee of his land) are estopped from denying the validity of the 
judgment, although the demand might not have been recoverable at 
law.'** The word "due," as used in these statutes, must not be 
taken in too narrow a sense. It does not necessarily import a debt 
which might be recovered in an action at law against any defenses 
which the debtor might set up. There are certain defenses which 
the debtor has the option of waiving if he chooses, and he does 
waive them by confessing judgment. For example, such a judg- 
ment is not invalidated by the fact that a part of the claim for which 
it is given would be barred by the statute of limitations, provided the 

issNustMinm y. I^onchhelm (Pa.) 1 Atl. 391. A Judgment coufessed on a 
note given as secnrity for Indorsements is not fraudulent because confessed 
for more than the amount of the notes indorsed, the party not having at liand 
at the time the means of determining tlieir amount, and notliing more than 
«a» due ever having been claimed or received on the Judgment. Page v. 
SlmpMu, 188 I*a. 303, 41 Atl. 638. It is error to render Judgment on Judgment 
notes authorizing entry of Judgment on default in payment of the interest 
notm. in the absence of proof of such default, or production by the payee of 
the hiterest notes, as, in their absence, there would be no presumption of their 
nonpeyuieiit. Crofut v. Aldrich, 54 111. App. 541. A Judgment note may be 
legally given as security for a pre-existing debt and, when so given, is not 
open to the objection of want of consideration. Lane v. ITnion Nat. Bank, 
TTi III. App. 299; Union Nat. Bank v. Lane, 177 111. 171, o2 N. E. 3(n. (;i) Am. 
St. Rep. 2Uk 

i'> SLn'elt V. KItufelt. Paige iX. Y.) 137, 37 Am. Dec. 381. 

lLA\VJUIXl.-7 (07) 


debt be an honest one.**® So where a bankrupt, subsequent to his 
discharge, confesses judgment upon an old debt, the debt is a good 
consideration for the judgment, and the latter is not affected by the 
discharge.*** It is further necessary that a confession of judgment 
be for a certain and specific sum. A judgment entered by a jus- 
tice, on the confession of a defendant, for such sum as A. and B. 
shall award, before the award is declared, is invalid.*** Where sev- 
eral powers of attorney are given to confess judgment on several 
debts in favor of and against the same parties, it is proper and com- 
petent for the court to consolidate them and enter but one judg- 
ment.*'* A judgment cannot be confessed for a claim arising ex 
delicto. A statute which allows confession of judgment "for money 
due or to become due" should not be construed as authorizing the 
confession of a judgment for damages growing out of a tort*** 

§ 70. Debt not yet due* 

Where the language of the statute is that judgment may be con- 
fessed for a debt "justly due and owing," it applies only to a debt 
payable at the time of the confession, for these terms import an 
immediate liability. But where it authorizes a confession "for mon- 
ey due or to become due," this may well include a claim founded 
upon an obligation now existing but not yet demandable. Thus the 

130 Keen v. Kleckner, 42 Pa. 529; Wassell v. Reardon, 11 Ark. 705, 44 Am. 
Dec. 245; Cross v. Moflfat, 11 Colo. 210, 17 Pac. 77L Compare Kahn ▼. Leaser. 
97 Wis. 217, 72 N. W. 739; Matzenbaugh v. Doyle, 156 111. 331, 40 N. K 
935. In Pennsylvania, the court may, ill Its discretion, open a judgm^t en- 
tered by confession on a note not under seal, where it appears on the face 
of tlie note that the statute of limitations had run against the debt at the 
time the judgment was entered. Bates v. CuUum, 183 Pa. 234, 29 Atl. 870; 
Bennett v. Allen, 10 Pa. Co. Ct R. 256. See, supra, § 61a. 

J«i Dewey v. Moyer. 72 N. Y. 70. 

"2 Nichols V. Hewlt, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 423. But a power of attorney to con- 
fess Judjrment "for an amount that may be found due" on the note therein 
described, and sufficient to give the court Jurisdiction, is adequate. Patterson 
V. Indiana, 2 G. Greene (Iowa) 492. See Little v. Dyer, 138 111. 272, 27 K, K. 
905, 32 Am. St. Kep. 140; Scott v. Mantonya, 164 111. 473, 45 N. E. 977. 

138 Genestelle v. Waugh, 11 Mo. 367. See OdeU v. Reynolds, 17 C, C. A. 
517, 70 Ked. 656; Fortune v. Bartoloraei. 1C4 111. 51, 45 N. E. 274. 

i84Burkham v. Van Saun, 14 Abb. Prac. N. S. (N. Y.) 163; Boutel ▼. 
Owens, 2 Sandf. (N. Y.) 055. 



fact that a nafe upon which a confession of judgment was taken was 
not due when the judgment was rendered does not deprive the court 
of jurisdictioQ, and the judgment will not be vacated on that ac- 
count."* "The fact that a note may not be due at the time of a 
confession upon it, might be a suspicious circumstance in a contest 
with other creditors of the debtor, but it would not render the judg- 
ment void in the proper sense of that term." ^'* So a judgment is 
not void as to creditors because the action is commenced before the 
maturity of the note which was the cause of action, and the defend- 
ant confesses judgment without service of process.^*^ Authority 
may be given by a warrant of attorney to confess judgment for a 
debt not yet due, but it must be given in clear and precise terms.^^® 
Thus where the warrant, attached to a promissory note given in 
extension of others, authorized the attorney to appear for the maker 
at any time thereafter and confess judgment "for such amount as 
may appear to be unpaid thereon," it was held that the authority 
given was to confess judgment only for the amount actually due, not 
that accruing."' When a warrant of attorney confers authority, in 
a certain contingency, to confess judgment on a note before it is 
due, the record must show that the specified contingency had hap- 
pened, otherwise the judgment is unwarranted.*** 

itft Black T. Pattlson, 61 Miss. 599; Mechanics' Bank v. Mayer, 93 Mo. 417. 
6 S. W. 237: McClish v. Manning, 3 6. Greene (Iowa) 223; Shepherd v. Wood, 
73 Dl. App. 48G; Illinois Steel Go. v. 0*Donnell, 156 HL 624, 41 N. E. 185, 31 
I^ R. A. 265, 47 Am. St. Rep. 245. 

is« Callorway t. By ram, 95 Ind. 423; Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank v. Spear, 
48 IIL App. 509. See Forrestw v. Stranss, 21 Civ. Proc. R. 166, 18 N. Y. Supp. 

1S7 Pond y. Davenport, 45 Gal. 225. 

i»« Tide Ins., Trust & Safe Deposit Go. v. Ran, 153 Pa. 488, 26 Atl. 220; 
iJermfln-Amerfcan Title & Trust Go. v. Gampbell, 184 Pa. 541, 39 Atl. 291; 
FarweU v. Huston, 151 111. 239, 37 N. E. 864, 42 Am. St. Rep. 237; Gohen v. 
BargesBy 44 IIL App. 206; Blanck v. Medley. 63 III. App. 211. 

liP Keld V. Southworth. 71 Wis. 288, 30 N. W. 860. And see Smith v. Prin- 
ze. 100 Pa. 275. 

!<• Roundy v. Hunt. 24 111. 598. 


§72 lAW OP JUDGMENTS, (Ch.'3 

§ 71. For Future AdTanoes. 

A judgment by confession may be taken to secure future advances 
of notes or other commercial paper to be made by the creditor to the 
' debtor;**^ or to secure both existing and future indorsement? for 
his accommodation.^*^ "A judgment or other security may be taken 
and held for future responsibilities and advances, to the extent of the 
amount of the judgment or security. But to enable a creditor to 
hold a judgment or other security for future responsibilities and ad- 
vances, it must be a part of the original agreement that the judg- 
ment, or security, should be a security for such respcmsibilities and 
advances. It cannot, as against third persons, be held to meet and 
cover new and distinct engagements subsequently entered into by the 
parties." ^** And it seems that advances made or responsibilities 
incurred, after a subsequent judgment has intervened, will not be 
covered by the confessed judgment.^** 

§ 72. For oontinsent Liabllitiefl. 

In those jurisdictions where the more liberal statute is in force, a 
judgment may be confessed to secure a future or contingent liability. 
Thus a judgment confessed as an indemnity for liabilities incurred 
by another is good at law against subsequent judgments, and may be 
enforced before the party assuming the liabilities has discharged 
them.^*** A judgment on confession may be enforced by execution, 
apd is sustained by the same presumptions as other judgments, not- 
withstanding it was recovered on a contingent liability.^** In those 
states, however, where a judgment can only be confessed for a debt 

1*1 Cook V. Whipple, 55 N. Y. 150, 14 Am. Rep. 202. 
. M2 i,ar.siug v. VVoodworth, 1 J^aiulf. (;h. (N. Y.) 43. 

143 AverlU v. Loucks, 6 Barb. (X. Y.) 19; Tiniscott v. King, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 
340. See Frye v. Jones, 78 111. G27. 

m Brinkerhoff v. Marvin, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 320.- 

1*0 Ford V. Elkln, 2 Speers (S. C.) 14(5. And see Ely v. Parkhurst. 25 N. 
J. Law, 188. Where two persons have exchanged accouimodation notes, 
which have not been paid, there is a valid consideration for one of them to 
confess judgment to the other, though they are not due, and the liability is 
contingent. Curtis v. Fox, 191 Pa. 044, 43 Atl. 1093. 

1*6 Allen V. Norton, 6 Or. 344. A confession is valid though the Jadgment 



that is "due and owing," the rule is different in this respect. Thus, 
in a New Jersey case the learned vice-chancellor said: "I think I 
am bound to consider the doctrine as settled, so far at least as this 
court is concerned, that a judgment on bond and warrant of attofi 
ney, under our statute, can only be entered for a debt actually exist- 
ing at the time of its entry, and that a simple liability as indorser or 
surety does not constitute such a debt." ^*^ 

f 73. Amount of tl&e Judsment. 

Where a judgment is entered on a warrant of attorney and in- 
cludes a greater sum than was actually confessed, it is held to be 
void only as to the excess, not in toto, unless the excess was fraud- 
ulently included.^*® Upon a confession of judgment in a pending 
action, if the plaintiff's demand is in the nature of a debt which may 
be ascertained by calculation, it is sufficient to enter judgment gen- 
erally. The judgment is supposed to be for the amount of damages 
laid in the declaration and execution may issue accordingly."® But 
if the plaintiff should indorse upon the declaration the actual amount 
of the debt, and if the defendant complains that injustice has been 
done, the court on motion, upon a proper case being made out, will 
grant immediate relief.**^® Where the confession of judgment does 
not determine the extent of the recovery, and it is not ascertainable 

Is not to t>e entered up except upon the happening of a contingency. Keep 
T. Leikie. S Rich. Law <S. C.) I(j4. 

!*• Sayri* v. Hewes, 32 X. J. Eq. 652. See Clapp v. Ely, 10 N. J. Eq. 178. 

"* Davenport v. Wright. 7>i Pa. 292. Compare Tucker v. Gill, (31 111. 236. 
Where the* power of attorney in a bond limits the sum for which judgment 
may l)e entrrotl, the attorney has no authority to enter judgment for a sum 
oxi'eedlutf such limit. Mutual Guarantee Bldg. & Lioan Ass'n v. Fallen, 21 
Pa. Co. Ct. K. 017. But judgment on a note is not vitiated because confessed 
for a greater rate of interest than the note bears (Merchants* Nat. Banlc v. 
Xewton Cotton Mills. 115 X. C. 507. 20 S. B. 7(>5), nor because the prothono- 
tary made an entry for interest from the date of the note, uo claim for inter- 
c?«t iiaving been made by the plaintiff, and none ever received by him on the 
jud^iuent. Page v. Simpson, 188 Pa. 310, 41 Atl. 638. As to inclusion of 
liitereiit, »ee, further, Cordray v. City of Galveston (Tex. Civ. App.) 2C S. W. 

J*»See Ijitrohe Pldg. ^c Loan Ass'n v. Fritz, 152. Pa. 224, 25 Atl. 558. 

"o Lewis V. .^mith, 2 Si rg. & R. (Pa.) 142. 


§ 75 LAW OF JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 3 

by mere calculation, it must be liquidated by the court and not by 
the clerk."^ 

I 74. Iiiquidation of Axaoiint by Clerk. 

In the case of a confession of judgment without action, the stat- 
utes sometimes authorize the prothonotary or clerk of the court to 
enter up judgment on a warrant, without the actual intervention of 
an attorney appearing for the defendant. But such a statute, it is 
held, does not give him all the powers of an attorney. He can enter 
judgment only when the amount due appears on the face of the in- 
strument, or is ascertainable by calculation from its face.** ^ Thus 
where judgment was confessed for the value of certain land at the 
rate of $io per acre, the quantity to be ascertained by survey, it was 
held that the prothonotary had no power to enter a judgment.*** 
Such a power must also be exercised by the officer without unneces- 
sary delay. Where a judgment was confessed "amount to be ascer- 
tained by the prothonotary/' and no amount was ascertained for 
fourteen years, and the plaintiff and principal defendant were dead, 
the court refused to make an order for ascertaining the amount 
against the surety.*** 

§ 75. Inolusion of Attorney's Feet. 

A judgment entered by confession upon a warrant of attorney may 
include fees to the attorney appearing in the case (nominally for the 
debtor, really in behalf of the creditor), if that be authorized by the 
power.*** And it is altogether usual to incorporate a stipulation for 

iBi Bonta V. Clay, 1 Lltt. (Ky.) 27. Where a power of attorney authorizes 
a ooiifessiou of Judgment for any rent due by the terms of n lease whlcb 
fixes the amount of rent, a judgment In accordance with such power may 
properly be entered, though the lease also binds the lessee to pay damages for 
waste of water and other items, thereby rendering the amount due, aside 
from rent, uncertain. Scott v. Mantonya, GO III. App. 481. 

152 Hope V. Everhart, 70 Pa. 231; Connay v. Halstead, 73 Pa. 354. 

IBS Connay v. Halstead, 73 Pa. 354. The maker of a note authorizing 
judgment by confession and the payment of attorneys' fees cannot question 
the attorneys* fees on the ground that he was insolvent when he made tlie 
note. Blanck v. Medley. 63 111. App. 211. 

IS* Cook V. Cooper, 4 JHar. (Del.) 189. 

150 Ball V. Miller, 38 lU. 110. 



such fees in the warrant. Such a provision rests upon a valid con- 
sideration and is not fraudulent as to other creditors ; ^*' unless the 
amount designated as attorney's fees is grossly in excess of any rea- 
sonable amount, in which case the judgment, at least to the extent 
of such fees, is fraudulent and void as against the other creditors of 
the defendant.*'^ And the attorney's commissions authorized in a 
judgment-note cannot be collected as part of the debt due when the 
debtor was ready to pay at the maturity of the note.^*® It is cus- 
tomary to specify in the warrant or note the sum which may be in- 
corporated in the judgment as a fee for the attorney. But cases 
have sometimes come before the courts in which the provision, in- 
stead of being explicit, merely designated a "reasonable attorney's 
fee." This language, it is held, gives to the court in which the con- 


fession is made the right to determine what is a reasonable fee; it 
does not leave it to the option or the conscience of the attorney ; it 
contemplates a judicial proceeding by the court for the purpose of 
ascertaining the amount which may reasonably be charged up. 
Hence if the attorney himself fixes the sum of his fees, under a power 
so worded, and confesses judgment for the whole, he acts in excess 
of his authority, and the judgment so entered, without the interven- 
tion of the court, is void.^** 

I 76« Reoordine tlie Judsment. 

Under a statute relating to judgments by confession, which re- 
quires the plaintiff to file a sworn statement, and enacts that the 
clerk shall indorse the judgment upon the statement and enter it in 
the judgment-book, the two entries should be deemed to have the 
force of duplicate copies, each having the effect of an original.^*® 
The power of attorney confessing the judgment should be filed as a 
part of the record.*'* In Illinois, wherfe judgment is confessed be- 

"• Weigley v. Matson, 125 111. 64, 16 N. E. 881, 8 Am. St. Rep. 3:^5. 
i^'Hulae V. Mershon, 125 111. 52, 17 N. E. 50. See Sweeney v. Stroud, 
55 X. J. Law, 97, 25 Atl. 273. 
"« Moore v. Kligore, 110 Pa. 433, 1 Atl. 593. 
"•CampbeU v. Goddard, 123 111. 220, 14 N. E. 261. 
>«<»K1ng T. HigRlng, 3 Or. 406. 
i«» Durbam v. Brown, 24 111. 93. 



fore the clerk in vacation, the formal writing up of the judgment in 
the court records is held to be essential; and an execution issued 
before it is so written up is invalid.^®^ But in some other states, it 
appears that the statutory requirements as to the recording of such 
judgments are merely directory, the statement, affidavit, and other 
papers accompanying the confession constituting the judgment roll 
and serving as the basis for an execution.^®* 

§ 77. Beversiiis and Vaoatins Judgments by Confession. 

In what circumstances a judgment entered upon the confession of 
the defendant may be reviewed in the appellate court, or opened or 
vacated in the court below, at the defendant's own instance, is a 
question involved in much doubt. The difficulty arises from the fact 
that the debtor, by his voluntary action in the matter, must be con- 
sidered to have waived his strict technical rights to some extent, and 
yet he should be protected from injustice and from errors sufficient 
to vitiate the whole proceeding. In the first place, it is held in sev- 
eral states that a confession of judgment operates as a release of all 
errors in the record, and consequently it cannot be carried to the 
appellate court either by appeal or certiorari.*** On the other hand, 
it is elsewhere held that a confession of judgment, although a waiver 
of formal errors, does not prevent the defendant from procuring the 
reversal of the judgment for errors of substance.*®' In regard to 
the jurisdiction of the court below, it seems to be conceded that it 
has power to give equitable relief in cases calling for its interposi- 
tion.*®* "The power of the courts to open judgments entered by con- 

162 Knights V. Martin, 155 111. 486, 40 X. E. 358. 

183 SjuiiKlers V. Lipscomb, UO Va. (i47, 19 S. E. 450; Ex parte Graham, 
54 S. C. llxi, 32 S. E. 67. 

164 (Jarner v. Burleson, 26 Tex. 348; Maiideville v. Holey. 1 Pet. l^l 
7 L. E<1. 85; Wilson v. Collins, 9 Ala. 127. See De Riemer v. Cantilloiu 
4 Johns. Ch. (X. Y.) 85. 

105 Bat telle v. Bridgman, 1 Morris (Iowa) 363; Portage Canal Co. y. Crit- 
tenden, 17 Ohio. 4'M). See Montgomery v. Baruett, 8 Tex. 143; Kennedy 
V. Lowe, 9 Iowa, 580; Hopkins v. Howard, 12 Tex. 7. 

106 McAllister's Appeal, 59 Pa. 204; Walker v. Ensign, 1 111. App. IV): 
Wilson V. Cox, 170 Va. 3:^1, 33 Atl. 79: Seaver v. Siegel, 54 lU. App. (ECi: 
Jordan v. Huntington. 58 III. App. 646; Second Ward Sav. Bank v. Schranck. 
97 Wis. 250, 73 X. W. 31, 39 L. li. A. 569. Where, in a suit against a city 



iession, or in default of an appearance or plea, is not denied ; and it 
is the duty of the courts to exercise such power wherever it is satis- 
iactorily shown that in equity the judgment ought not to be collect- 
ed." *•' In order to prevent any question of this kind, the parties 
sometimes incorporate a release of errors in the confession or war- 
rant of attorney, the effect being, of course, to waive any formal ob- 
jections or irregularities. But where this is not done, it is proper to 
examine with care any irregularity in the proceeding, and to vacate 
the judgment if substantial injustice may have been done to the de- 
fendant.**' The opening of such a judgment is therefore a matter 
of sound discretion, and whether such a sound discretion has been 
exercised by the court below depends upon the whole evidence, in 
which the burden of proof is to show a defense.*** The judgment 
should not be opened and the defendant let in to defend, except up- 
on evidence of such weight and clearness as would be sufficient to 
warrant a chancellor in decreeing that the instrument upon which 
the confession was founded was void, or should be reformed for fraud 

to quiet title to land claimed as a street, a decree Is entered by confession, 
the court may, in its discretion, in view of the public interests involvetl, 
open the ca»? and allow an aiiswer to be tiled. Earll v. City of Chicago, 
13« 111. 277, 28 N. E. 370. 

J«7 Earaest v. Hosklns, 100 Pa. 551. 

i«s Mci'abe v. Sunmer, 40 Wis. 386. Thus, a judgment by confession may 
be opened where it is alleged to be usurious (MciJuire v. Campbell, 58 111. 
App. 188), or to let In a plea of the statute of limitations. Bates v. CuUum, 
1«3 Pa. 2:14. 21) Atl. 870; Bennett v. Allen, 10 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 256. But 
there Ih no abuse of discretion In refusing to open the Judgment where the 
only defense is a counterclaim, which is denied by the plaintiff. Walter 
T. Ftes, 155 Pa. 55, 25 Atl. 829. And see Evans v. Barclay, 38 111. App. 
496. Where it appears that a judgment purporting to have been entered by 
agreement was entered without authority. It may be set aside. Foley's Ex*r 
V. Gatliff <Ky.) 43 S. W. 100. But a judgment admitted to be just will not 
be set aside in equity for the mere reason that the attorney confessing It 
under a warrant was not formally admitted to practice in the court wlicre 
the judgment was taken, nor for defective verification of the complaint. 
Pnrcell v. Kleaver. 08 Wis. 102, 73 N. W. 322. In Illinois, it is held that 
where the defendant in a confessed judgment asks for and obtains leave to 
plejid, he thereby waives all technicalities and objections to the judgnioiit. 
Koby V. Updyke. 61 111. App. 328. 

»«»R«cnIgk'8 Appeals (l*a.) 3 Atl. 09; Howie v. Lewis, 196 Pa. 558. 4(; 

AU. 8:x>. 



or mistake.*^* Whether a judgment against two persons, entered 
by confession on a warrant of attorney, may be set aside as to one of 
them and stand good as to the other, is an unsettled point It de- 
pends upon whether, in the particular state, a joint judgment is con- 
sidered as an entirety or as severable.^'^ When the application to 
set aside the judgment proceeds from another creditor of the defend- 
ant, there is less doubt as to the power of the court. It may clearly 
vacate the judgment for fraud or collusion between the parties, or for 
a substantial failure to comply with the statutory requirements.^^* 
Where an application to open a confessed judgment is based on 
grounds going to the merits, and is contested, the issues raised 
should ordinarily be tried by a jury ; but in Pennsylvania, it is held 
that the court to which such an application is made, though there is 
a conflict of testimony, may pass on the weight of evidence and the 
credibility of the witnesses, without sending the case to a jury.*'* 
Terms may be imposed upon the defendant, on granting his applica- 
tion to open the judgment; but it is not proper to require that the 
money supposed to be due should be brought into court, though the 
judgment may be allowed to stand as security to abide the result*'* 

170 Englishes Appeal, 119 Pa. 533, 13 Atl. 479, 4 Am. St. Rep. 656. A 
court ought not to open a confessed judgment on the ground of fraud if. 
upon all the testimony, the evidence of fraud is nat distinct Slgle v. 
Seigley, 9 Kulp (Pa.) 471. Affidavits filed in support of a motion to open 
a Judgment by confession are to be construed most strongly against the 
party making the motion. Chicago Fire-Proofing Co. v. Paj'k Xat Bauk« 
145 111. 481, 32 N. E. 534. 

171 See Reynolds v. Silvers, 17 N. J. Law, 275; York Bank's Appeal 36 
Pa. 458; North v. Mudge, 13 Iowa, 496, 81 Am. Dec. 441; Chapin v. Thomp- 
son, 20 Cal. 681; supra, §§ 58, 64. As to opening the* Judgment for the 
benefit of one of two Joint defendants, who alleges that his signature was 
forged, see Darragh v. Bigger, 172 Pa. 89, 33 Atl. 273. 

17 2 Crescent Canal Co. v. Montgomery, 124 Cal. 134, 56 Pac. 797; Filson 
V. Greenspan, 194 Pa. 546, 45 Atl. 330. See Thompson v. Hintgen, 11 Wis. 
112; Pirie v. Hughes, 43 Wis. 531. In the absence of fraud. Judgments by 
confession will not be set aside simply because they were given by defend- 
ant after obtaining from plaintiff an extension of time to answer in an 
action then pending. Wood v. Mitchell, 63 Hun, 629, 17 N. Y. Supp. 782. 

178 Blauvelt v. Kemon, 196 Pa. 128, 46 Atl. 416. Compare Hughes t. 
Moody, 10 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 305. 

17 4 McGuire v. CampbeU, 58 111. App. 188. 



i 78. Effects of Confessed JTiidgmeiit. 

"In contemplation of law, a judgment on a warrant of attorney is 
as much an act of the court as if it were formally pronounced on nil 
dicit or a cognovit, and till it is reversed or set aside, it has all the 
qualities and effects of a judgment on a verdict." ^^* A judgment 
upon confession is therefore just as conclusive, between the parties 
and their privies, of the facts and points necessarily involved in and 
determined by it, and as final a bar to the maintenance by the cred- 
itor of another suit for the same demand, as any other judgment.^^* 

»7*Braddec v. Srownfield, 4 Watts (Pa.) 474. A Judgment confessed upon 
terms, duly entered, is in effect a conditional judgment, and the court will 
take notice of tlie terms and enforce them. Wood t. Bagley, 34 N. C. 83. 

>7«Braddee v. Erownfield, 4 Watts (Pa.) 474; Sheldon v. Stryker, 34 
Barb. (X. Y.) 116: Neusbaum v. Kelm, 24 X. Y. 325; Dean v. Thatcher, 82 
X. J. Law, 470; Xorth t. Mndge, 13 Iowa, 496. 81 Am. Dec. 441; Twogood 
T. Pence, 22 Iowa, 543; Sherman v. Christy, 17 Iowa, 322; Secrist v. Zim- 
merman, 55 Pa. 446; Kirby v. Fitzgerald, 31 N. Y. 417; Weikel v. Long, 
55 Pa. 238; GolT v. Dabbs, 4 Baxt. (Tenn.) 300. See Hoppock v. Cray 
(X. J.) 21 Atl. 624. The confession of a Judgment by the maker of a note, 
in faTor of the bolder, does not discharge sureties or indorsers who are not 
parties thereto. First Xat. Bank y. Eureka Lumber Co., 123 N. C. 21, 31 S. 


§ 79 I<AW OF JUDQHBNTa. (Cb. 4 



79. Judgment of Nil Diclt 

79a. Judgment for Want of Ailidavit of Defense. 

80. Judgment by Default. 

81. Against Wbom may be taken. 

82. Joint Defendants. 

83. Jurisdiction of the Defendant 

84. Must be founded on good Declaration, 

85. Premature Entity of Default. 

86. Default, when proper. 

87. Conclusiveness of Judgment by Default 

88. Entry by the Clerk. 

89. interlocutory Judgment, when necessary. 

90. Assessment of Damages. 

91. Evidence on Assessment of Damages. 

92. Amount of the Recovery. 

9iJ. Judgment by Default not aided by Presumptfons. 

94. Opening and Vacating Judgments by Default 

95. Review of Judgments by Default 

S 79. Jndgment of NU Dicit. 

When a defendant puts himself in default by failing to plead or 
file an answer within a time prescribed, although he may have en- 
tered an appearance in the action, the judgment given against him 
is technically called judgment of nil dicit, that is, that he "says noth- 
ing" in opposition to the plaintiff's claim, and therefore the latter is 
entitled to recover.^ But if the defendant has put in his plea, and 
issue has been joined, and he then fails to appear when the case is 
called for trial, this species of judgment cannot properly be entered, 
for he is not in default for want of an answer.^ However, the dis- 
tinction betw^een this judgment and the other varieties of judgment 

1 Stewart v. Goode, 29 Ala. 476; SummerHn v. Dowdle, 24 Ala. 428. See 
supra. § 15. 

2 Taylor v. McLaughlin, 2 Colo. 375. In an action on two notes, each set 
out as a distinct cause of action, where defendant answers only as to one 
of the notes, Judgment should be given, on motion, on the other note. Off- 
ran v. Kerchner, 117 N. C. 2G4, 23 S. E. 177. 



against the defendant for failure to take a required step in the action 
is no longer strictly observed, and when the judgment is nil dicit 
when it should have been by default, it is merely informal and will 
not be reversed on that account.* But in Texas it is said that while 
the proceeding to ascertain the amount of damages is the same on 
judgments by nil dicit as on judgments by default, **in other respects, 
a judgmcr.: by nil dicit is held by this court to possess a stronger im- 
plication in favor of the plaintiff's claim than an ordinary judgment 
by default ; it is regarded as partaking of the nature of a judgment 
by confession as well as by default." * The distinction, however, is 
not of practical value, nor is it generally recognized. 

I 79a. Jndcnent for Want of AiBdavit of Defense. 

According to the practice at common law in some of the states, 
where an action is brought upon an obligation for the payment of a 
sum certain in money, if the defendant means to contest it, he is 
required to file, within a limited time after notice of the plaintiff's 
statement, an affidavit setting forth the facts on which he means to 
rely as a defense ; if he fails to do this, judgment may be taken 
against him **for want of an affidavit of defense." ^ If such an affi- 
davit is filed, but the plaintiff deems it inadequate in law to consti- 
tute a defense to the action, he may have a rule on the defendant "to 
show cause why judgment should not be entered against him for 
want of a sufficient affidavit of defense." • A motion for judgment 
on this ground, being in the nature of a demurrer, admits the facts 
averred in the affidavit, and denies their sufficiency as an answer to 

> Shields Y. Barden. B Ark. 4r)D. 

* »torej V. Mchols, 22 Tex. S7. 

^Tobybanna & L. I^umber ("o. v. Home Ins. Co., 167 Pa. 231. 31 Atl. 
'*U: 2 Bright. Purd, Dig. (Pa.) 13r>6. 1357; Laws Pa. 1887, p. 271, § 5; Act 
I'a. May 31, 18S« (P. L. 18o). Plaintiff's right to a default judgment for 
want of an affidavit of defense within the required time is not affected by 
■n appeamn<*e of defendant by attorney within such time. North v, Yorlte, 
174 Pa. :My, 'M Atl. 020. 

* Such a judgment, it is said, is not a Judgment by default or confession. 
Abeles v. Powell, (5 Pa. Super. Ct. 123. It is error to gfve judgment on ac- 
connt of the Insuffleiency of an affidavit of defense flled, when the ease is not 
one in which such an affidavit can legally be required. Bartoe v. Guokert, 
158 Pa. 124, 27 AU. 845. 


§ 79a LAW OP JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 4 

the claim.^ And if the court decides that the allegations of the affi- 
davit are not adequate to constitute a defense to the actkm, Judg- 
ment will be given for the plaintiff, unless, for ^)ecial reasons, leave 
should be granted to file a new or sup|rfemental affidavit of defense.* 
If the defense alleged is good as to part of the claim, but insuffi- 
cient as to the balance, the court may direct judgment for the part 
insufficiently denied, and allow the plaintiff to try the case as to the 
remainder.* And a statute in Pennsylvania provides that, where an 
affidavit of defense is filed to a part of the claim sued for, the plain- 
tiff may take judgment for the amount admitted to be due, and pro- 
ceed to trial for the balance.^® This applies to any action in which 
a part of the claim is admitted to be due, irrespective of how the 
amount is ascertained or the balance computed,^ ^ but not to a case 
where the affidavit applies to the whole of the plaintiff's claim, though 
it may be insufficient in law as to a part of it.^* In Connecticut, a 
statute provides that, in causes where ah attorney appears for the 
defendant, the plaintiff may require him to state to the court whether 
he believes a bona fide defense exists to the action, whether such de- 
fense will be made, and whether there will be a trial, and that if such 
attorney refuses to disclose as required, or shall not satisfy the court 
that such defense will be made or such trial had, the court may or- 
der judgment for the plaintiff. Where this rule is complied with, 
the court has no authority to pass on the legal sufficiency of the de- 

7 Hicks V. National Banli, 168 Pa. 038. 32 Atl. 63. On such a motion, the 
correctness of an averment in the affidavit as to the law of another state 
cannot be tested by reference to the statutes of that state. Wood Oo. t. 
Berry Co., 4 Fa. Dlst. R. 141. 

8 Sykes v. Anderson, 14 Pa. Co. Ct. K. 329; JLaIrd v. CampbeU, itt !*«. 
475; Callan v. Lukens, 89 Pa. 134. Where leave has been ^ven to tile a 
supplemental athdavit It must be tiled within a reasonable time, or else the 
court may enter Judgment without a new rule or further notice to the de- 
fendant. Close V. Hancock, 3 Pa. Super. Ct. 207. 

» Drake v. Irvine, 10 l»a. Co. Ct. K. 48G. 

10 Act Pa. May 31, 1893 (P. L. 185). 

11 Roberts v. Sharp, 14 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 186, affirmed 161 Pa. 185, :» Ati. 

12 Reilly v. Daly, 159 Pa. tK)5. 28 Atl. 493; Myers v. Cochran, 3 Pa. Dlst. 
Jt. 135. 33 VVkly. ^otes Cas. 250. 



fense, and render judgment because it deems such defense insuffi- 

S 80. JTvdsiBeAt by Default. 

Properly speaking, a judgment by default is one taken against a 
defendant when, having been duly summoned or cited in an action, 
he fails to enter an appearance. But the term is frequently (and 
indeed commonly) used in a much wider sense, in which it includes 
judgments given against the defendant for want of a plea, answer, 
affidavit of defense, etc., as well as for want of an appearance. The 
latter is the signification of the word as used in this chapter. The 
characteristic feature of a judgment by default is that it follows upon 
the negligence or omission of the defendant, passing over the steps 
that would otherwise be taken, trial and verdict, and adjudging 
against him immediately upon his failure to defend.** In respect to 
its effects and consequences, — as the foundation of a suit, as a lien, 
as a bar or estoppel, — a judgment by'default does not differ from one 
rendered upon a verdict.** There are, however, certain distinctive 
rules, particularly in reference to its rendition and entry, which re- 
quire separate treatment and which will form the subject-matter of 
the following pages. The rendition of a judgment by default, it is 
held, is no violation or abridgment of the constitutional right of trial 
by jury.** The right is one which (at least in a civil action) may be 

!• Jennings ▼. Farsons, 71 Conn. 413, 42 Atl. 76. 

i«A judgment is by default where there has been no appearance by the 
defendant, even though he was not legally summoned. Brown v. Chapman, 
W) Va. 174« 17 S. K. 855. But a Judgment rendered by a justice of the peace 
when the defendant Is present by attorney, who, however, takes no part in the 
trial, is not a judgment **by default." Borgwald v. Fleming, (fi> Mo. 212. 

i> Where judgment by default is entered against defendant, a final judg- 
ment cannot afterwards be rendered in his favor without first setting aside 
the default. Bateman v. Pool, 84 Tex. 406, 19 B. W. 552. 

^•Cureton t. Stolces, 22 SS. C. 583; Lawrance v. Borm, 86 Pa. 226; Ran- 
dall v. Weld* 86 Pa. 357; Hunt v. Lucas, U9 Mass. 409; Dortlc v. Lockwood, 
to. Ga. 2i33, The right of trial by jury is not impaired by a law giving to 
the court the right to assess damages without a jury in case of default. Hop- 
kins ▼. lAdd, 35 ill. 178; 8eeley v. City of Bridgeport, 53 Conn. 1, 22 Atl. 
lifil; Baymond v. Danbury & N. K. Co., 43 Conn. 51H>, Fed. Cas. No. 11.593; 
Fred Miller Brewing Co. v. Capital Ins. Co., Ill Iowa, 590, 82 N. W. 1023, 
tfi£ Am. »t. Hep. 529. 



waived by the party, and the defendant cannot claim that the privi- 
lege is denied to him if he presents no defense to be tried by a jury. 

S 81. Ag^aimst Wbom may be taken. 

As a general rule, a default may be taken against any natural per- 
son against whom the same judgment might have passed as the re- 
sult of contested proceedings. But there are certain exceptions to 
this statement. Thus, in California, a person summoned as a gar- 
nishee may be punished for contempt for disobeying ah order where- 
by he is required to disclose his indebtedness if any, but a judgment 
by default cannot be taken against him, and such judgment is with- 
out jurisdiction and void.*^ In some other states, however, where 
the court has regularly obtained jurisdiction of the garnishee and 
there is no answer on his part, it is held that a judgment by default 
may be entered against him, and such judgment will be sufficient to 
protect the garnishee if no defense on the merits could have been 
made.*® Judgments by default may be entered against non-resi- 
dents and against persons under disabilities ; but the validity of such 
judgments must be tested by rules which belong to later sections of 
this book.** A default judgment may also be rendered against a 
corporation ; but in order to support it, it must appear of record 
that the person who, as shown by the rcvcirn of the officer, was served 
with process, has such a relation to the corporation that service on 
such person was tantamount to service on the corporation.*® Un- 
der statutes allowing such a course of procedure, a defendant may 
proceed with the case upon the failure of the plaintiff to appear, and 
judgment may be rendered on the merits.*^ But one who is origi- 

iT Hibfrnia fc'avings & l^an Soo. v. Superior Court. 56 Cal. 265. 

isscamahom v. Scott, 42 Iowa, 529; Abell v. Simon. 49 Mel. 318; Oracy 
V. Coates, 2 McCord, 224; Jones v. Tracy, 75 Ta. 417; Lflughlin v. Jan- 
uary, 59 Mo. 3«3; Debs v. Dalton, 7 Ind. App. 84, :U N. E. 23(5. 

i» See, infra, §§ 227-232, §§ 190, 196. Particularly as to the vaUdity of de- 
fault judgments against Infants, luiiatie8, and married women, see Jacksoo 
V. Krunor, 17 Misc. Hep. 339, 39 N. Y. Supp. 1080; Appel v. Brooks. 4 Misc. 
Kop. 626. 24 ^. Y. Supp. 100; Kent v. West, 22 Misc. Hip. 403, 50 X X. 
Supp. 339; Marion v. Kegensteln, 98 Ala. 475, 13 Soutb. 3H4. 

20 tioud V. Inliabitants of Town of I'ierce (Mty, 86 Mo. 357. 

«i Clune V. Qultzow, 125 Cat 213, 57 I'ae. 886w 



nally a defendant, but afterwards, by leave of court, tecomes a plain- 
tiff and files a cross bill, is not entitled to a default judgment against 
his co-defendants, if they had no notice of his cross bill or that he 
had changed his status in the case.*^ 

S 82. Joint Defendants. 

The rule of the common law, in regard to actions in which sev- 
eral persons were joined as defendants, was that judgment must be 
givtn against all or none of them. The plaintiff could not recover 
against a part of the defendants and be defeated of his claim against 
the rest, except in the single case where one of them set up and 
succeeded in establishing a defense entirely personal to himself, as 
his release or discharge or his personal disability to contract. Con- 
sequently, except in so far as the rule is changed by statute, where 
several persons are summoned as defendants, and one of them pleads 
and the other suffers a default, final judgment cannot be entered up- 
on the default until the issue as to the other defendant is disposed of, 
and not even then unless the plaintiff had a verdict on the issue or 
the defendant pleading had set up a merely personal defense.^^ But 
this has been changed, in several of the states, by the statutes, w^hich 
provide that in actions regularly commenced against several joint 
defendants the court may, in its discretion, and whenever a- several 
judgment would be proper, render judgment against one or more of 

" Cole v. Grigsby (Tex. Civ. App.) 35 SS. W. 680. 

2s Russell y. Hogan, 1 Scam, (ill.) 552; CatUn y. Latson, 4 Abb. Prac. (N. Y.) 
:!48; I^yior v. Beck, 3 Kand. (Va.) 316; Woodward v. Newhall, 1 Tick. (Mass.) 
^JU; Uutcbings y. Heal Kstate Bank, 4 Ark. 517. See Curry y. Uoundtree, 
'>1 Cal. IM. if three defendants demur, and, after the demurrer is with- 
drawn, two of them plead, a Judgment nil dicit should be entered against 
the party not pleading, and the Jury should assess the damages against all. 
U but two plead and the other abide by his demuiTer, he cannot be regarded 
as going to trial with the others. I'Yeeland v. Board of Supers of Jasper 
County, Zi HI. 303. Where one of several defendants answers, he is not in 
default for failure to answer an amended peUtlon which does not change 
the effect of the original as to him. Bremen Bank y. Umrath, 55 Mo. App. 
^^ In an action against several defendants on a Joint demand, where one 
defendant, not served, appears and tiles and serves his plea, he is entitled 
to DoUce of trial; and until -such notice is given the court (*annot legally 
«*nter Judgment by default against the remaining defendants. I'eiifold y. 
S^ljtteld, 110 Allch, 343. (58 ^. W. 220, 

1 LAW JUDG.~8 (lilJj 

§ 83 LAW OF JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 4 

them, leaving the action to proceed against the others. Under a 
law of this character, it would be proper to render a judgment 
by default against the defendant not pleading, where the cause of 
action was joint and several. But if the claim were upon a joint 
contract, such a judgment would necessarily remain interlocutory 
until the issues raised were finally disposed of, for in that case the 
defendants must stand or fall together. We shall recur to this sub- 
ject at a later point.** It is also held that where process is served 
on only one of two defendants, judgment cannot be rendered against 
both by default.*' But it seems to be otherwise under the "joint 
debtor acts," existing in several of the states, in actions upon a joint 

f 63. Jnrifldiotion of the Defendaat. 

In order to the validity of a judgment by default, as in the case of 
any other judgment, it is essential that the court should have ac- 
quired jurisdiction .of the person of the defendant.*^ A judgment 
entered by default against a party who has not been served with pro- 
cess and who has not appeared in the action, is irregular and void," 

24 iSee, infra, $S 208, 20». Where a number of defendants are Jointly sued 
on a Joint iiabiiity, and a joint Judgment is asked, it is error for the court 
to render a several Judgment on default against one defendant, without 
tirst trying and determining the liability of aU the defendants. Osbun y. 
Bartram, 15 Ohio Cir. Ot K. 224. Compare German-American Bank v. Stickle, 
59 Meb. 321, 80 N. W. 910. A grantor of realty by warranty deeds, soed with 
his grantees in an action to set aside the titie which he assumed to oonrey* 
may defend in his own name for the defendants served but not answering. 
Bausman v. Kads, 4t$ Minn. 148, 48 N. W. 7($U, 24 Am. iSt. Rep. 201. 

2 0Kider v. AUeyne, 2 Scam. (111.) 474; Winslow v. Lambard, 57 Me. 356. 
in an action against three defendants, service on one only does not authorise 
Judgment by default against the others, where no facts are aUeged maktuj; 
service on one valid as to all. Tilman v. Johnson (Tex.) 16 S. W. 788. See 
Kellogg V. Window, lUO iowa, 552, «« N. W. 875. 

26 See, infra, H 235, 230. 

27 On the general subject of Jurisdiction as essential to the validity of a 
Judgment, see, infra, U 215-244. 

28 Warren Manuf g Co. v. .Etna Ins. Co., 2 Paine, 501, Fed. Obb, Xo. 
17,20(5; Graham v. Graham, 4 Munf. (Va.) 205; Staunton Perpetual Bldg. 
& l^oan Co. V. Haden, 92 Va. 201, 23 S. E. 285; Rorer v. People's Bldg. U 

.& S. Ass'n, 47 VV. Va. 1, 34 S. E. 758; Stallings v. GuUy, 48 N. O. 344;. Wins- 
low V. Anderson, 20 >'. C. 1, 32 Am. Dec. (551; Duncan v. Gerdine, 59 Miss. 
.550; Prentiss v. Mellen, 1 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 521; State v. BUUngs, 23 



And due and proper service must appear upon the record before the 
court is authorized to render a judgment by default ; *• though here 
it is necessary to recollect the presumptions of jurisdiction by which 
any judgment of a superior court is sustained when assailed col- 
laterally or made the basis of a new suit. It being necessary, there- 
fore, that the court should have jurisdiction in the case, it is evi- 
dent that a defect or failure in this respect may arise either from 
some peculiarity in the process itself or from the manner of its serv- 
ice. Now, to be duly served with a summons is said to imply that 
the defendant has been duly served with a summons notifying him 
to appear and answer in the court where the judgment is sought to 
be taken.*' Assuming these to be the essentials of a proper notice, 
it follows that the writ, although properly served, may be so defect- 
ive in itself as to confer no jurisdiction over the defendant. Such 
would be the case if it omitted to apprise him of the court in which 
the action had been commenced or the day on which he was re- 
quired to appear.** It is not true, however, that any irregularities 
in the process, short of this, may be entirely disregarded. The rule 
is, that if the notice is defective or irregular, but not to the extent 
of being substantially worthless, a judgment by default entered there- 
on will be irregular and liable to be corrected or set aside on mo- 
tion, or reversed above, but not absolutely void, and hence not open 
to collateral attack.** In the next place, the process, sufficient in 

La. Ann. 798; Townsaud v. Townsand, 21 ill. 540; Moore y. Watkins, 1 
Ark. 2»8; Shepherd v. Marvel, 16 Ind. App. 417, 45 N. E. 526; IMtch v. 
Fwpte, »1 111. App. 368; Uoitt v. Skinner, im Iowa, 360, 68 N. W. 788; York 
Draper Mercantile Co. v. Hutchinson, 2 Kan. App. 47, 43 Pac. 315; Johnson 
T. l>elbrldge. 35 Mich. 436; Baseom v. Young, 7 Mo. 1; Zimmerman v. 
Gerdes. 106 Wis. 608, 82 N. W. 532; D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Columbia 
County Farmers' AUIance Corp., » Wash. 666, 38 Pac. 160. 

" \\ ilkinson v. Bayley. 71 Wis. 131, 36 N. W. 836; Zimmerman v. Gerdes, 
lOK Wis. 608. 82 N. W. 532; People's Mut. Ben. Soc. v. lYazer, 97 Mloh. 
UlfT. :»6 N. W. tH4; Campbell v. Donovan, 111 Mich. 247, 69 N. W. 514. A 
mere re<Mtal in a default Judgment that process was served Is not sutticlent 
evidence of that fact. Herman's Kx'x v. Martin (Ky.) 55 S. W. 429. 

>« Smith V. iiilendale Mill Co., 4 Or. 70. 

siKitsnUUer t. Kitchen. 24 lews. 163. 

S3 Bishop V. iionnell. 171 Mass. 5<>3, 51 N. E. 170; Dunn v. Hughes (Tex. 
CIV. App.> 36 S. U. 10J«; Harl)Olt v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 639. 40 S. W. 
Iftfl*; Day v. Mcrllock, 87 Wis. 577, 58 X. W. 1037; De Tar y. Boone Co., 


f 83 LAW OF JUDOMBNTa C^h- 4 

itself, must be duly served upon the party or upon some person au- 
thorized to receive service in his stead." But here also, slight ir- 
regularities, not fatal in themselves, will not have the effect of de- 
priving the court of jurisdiction. **If the court to which the process 
is returnable adjudges the service to be sufficient and renders judg- 
ment thereon, such judgment is not void, but only subject to be set 
aside by the court which gave it, upon seasonable and proper ap- 
plication, or reversed upon appeal." ** A voluntary appearance by 
the defendant will of course be sufficient to confer jurisdiction, and 
will amount to a waiver of formal and technical defects in the process 
or its service.'* But a default obtained without proper service and 
on an unauthorized appearance, is an absolute nullity.** The de- 
fendant may also acknowledge service of the writ, and thereby fore- 

M Iowa, 488; Betts ▼. Baxter, 58 Miss. 334; Christian v. O'Neal 46 Miss. 
U«>; CampbeU v. Hays, 41 Miss. 561; Isaacs v. l»rice. 2 Dill. 351, Fed. Cas. 
No. 7,0«T. A Judgment by default against defendant is valid, notwltbstand- 
ing a mistake in ttie summons in the Ciiristian name of the plaintiff. Brad- 
ley V. 8andiland8, 60 Minn. 40, 68 N. W. 321, 61 Am. St. Rep. 386. But a cita- 
tion not authenticated by the seal of the court will not, on appeal, support 
a Judgment by default. Line v. CranlUl (Tex. Civ. App.) 37 S. W. 184. And 
where the copy of the notice delivered to the defendant fails to show that 
the original notice was signed by the plaintiff or his attorney, as required 
by statute, the service is not sufficient to give the court Jurisdiction to enter 
a default Judgment. Hoitt v. Skinner, 99 Iowa, 360, 68 N. W. 788. In New 
York, plaintiff cannot take a Judgment by default if a copy of the complaiut 
is not served with the summons. See Grouse v. Keichert, 61 Htm, 4a 15 N. 
Y. Supp. 369. 

" A Judgment by default on service of a summons on the attorney of de- 
fendant, when the latter in no manner 'voluntarily submits himself to the 
Jurisdiction of the court, is void. Goldberg v. Fowler. 29 Misc. Rep. 32^ 
GO N. Y. Supp. 475. As to service of papers by mall, see Selfert v. Caverly. 
63 Hun, 604, 18 N. Y. Supp. 327. 

3* Isaacs V. Frice, 2 Dill. 351, Fed. Cas. No. 7,097. Compare Reinhart t. 
Lugo, 86 Cal. 395, 24 Fac. 1089, 21 Am. St. Hep. 52. 

3 6 The entry of an order that the cause "is hereby continued by conseut" 
does not show such an appearance and waiver of service as will support a 
Judgment by default. Flowers v. Jackson, 66 Ark. 458. 51 S. W. 462. 

86 Fleming v. Boulevard Highlands Imp. Co., 12 Cclo. App. 187, 54 Fac, 
859; Great West Min. Co. v. Woodmas of Alston Min. Co., 12 Oolo. 46, 20 
Fac. 771, 13 Am. St. Rep. 204; Dillon v. Rand, 15 Colo. ;{72. 25 Pac. IJw: 
Howell V. Campbell, 53 Kan. 742, 37 Pac. 120. An attidavit for continuance 
tiled by defendant is not such an appearance as will warrant Jud^rmeut hy 
default. Hoyt v. Macon, 2 Colo. 113. Mor la service of notice of a motion 



go his objections to the manner of service or the person executing it. 
But it is held in some states that an indorsement upon the process, 
of a written acknowledgment of service, purporting to be signed by 
the party, is not sufficient, without proof of the authenticity of such 
indorsement and signature, to authorize the entry of default for want 
of an appearance. ^^ This rule, however, is probably too severe to 
find general acceptance. On similar principles, in a state where the 
law is that a j'udgment by default cannot be entered except upon 
proof of the personal service of the summons and complaint, an ad- 
mission of ''service," not stating the mode in which the service was 
made, is not sufficient.'® To warrant entering a judgment against 
one who has been made a defendant upon his own motion, there 
must be notice and proof of no answer, the same as in the ordinary 
case of a defendant who has been served and has appeared.'* In 
fact, the cardinal principle is that a defendant cannot be put in de- 
fault without due notice of everj^thing which requires him to take 
affirmative action. Thus in a case where judgment by default was 
rendered on a substituted petition, the substitution having been made 
without notice to the defendant or any one authorized to represent 
him, the judgment was held to be erroneous.*® 


to dissolve an attaciiment on account of irreguiarity, made by defendant's 
auorney. Glidden t. Fackard, 26 Cal. (H9. So where, in foreign .attach- 
ment, defendant appears merely to move for a rule on plaintiff to show his 
cause of action, for the purpose of securing a release of the property, it 
is a special appearance, ahd not sutticient to authorize a Judgment by default. 
Warren Sav. Bank v. JSilversteln, 15 Pa. Co. Ct. K. 584. On the withdrawal 
of his appearance for defendant by the attorney entering the same, though 
without leave of court, a valid judgment by default may be entered against 
the defendant. Klo (Irande Irrigation & Colonization Co. v. Gilderaleeve, 
174 t. », till;:. ll> Sup. Ct. 7G1, 43 Lr. Ed. 1103. But if the defendant was 
personally served, it is immaterial, as affecting a judgment by default against 
him, whetlier or not an attorney who appeared for him was authorized to 
do so, since in either event the judgment is proper. Hunter y. Bryant, 98 
Cal. 252, :« Pac. 55. 

«" Johnson v. Delbridge, 35 Mich. .436; Davis v. Jordon, 5 How. (Miss.) 
2U5. Wh<-rc H judgment by default recited that service of the writ in the 
case was acknowledged by the defendant, it was held sutticient to sustain 
the judgment. Winston v. Miller, 20 Miss. 550. 

3« Kejul V. rrcncii. 28 .\. Y. 285. 

»*l^ii»;;i V. KjiniCH, 14 Fla. 53. 

*o\\at^<Jn V. Miller Bros., W Tex. 175, 5 8. \V. ($80. But a judgment 


§ 84 LAW OF JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 4 

Thus far we have not spoken of judgments by default rendered up- 
on constructive service of process. This proceeding is authorized 
by statute in many of the states, in actions against non-resident de- 
fendants, and cases involving the vaHdity of such judgments arc by 
no means infrequent. The subject properly belongs to another part 
of this work, and in this connection it is onlv necessary to remark 
that the statutes authorizing the entry of such judgments are strictly 
construed and the prescribed procedure must be st^Jctly followed, 
and that such judgments have no extraterritorial validity and are not 
binding on the defendant out of the state where rendered, except in 
actions in rem and quasi in rem (as in divorce), and in cases where 
the jurisdiction is based on attachment of the defendant's property 
found within the state, in which latter instance the judgment is uni- 
versally valid in so far as it affects to dispose of such property.*^ 

§ 84. Must be f ovnded on good Deelxrmtivn. 

A judgment entered by default will be irregular and erroneous 
unless it rests upon a good and sufficient declaration or complaint 
duly filed in the action.** Hence if the plaintiff's pleading sets out 

by default Is not void where it appears that summons upon the petition as 
amended was duly served on the defendant. Little v. Ferguson (Ky.) 55 
S. W. 554. 

*i See Gary v. Northwestern Masonic Aid Ass'n (Iowa) 50 X. W. 27; 
Taylor v. Kosslter, 6 Houst. (Del.) 485. And see, infra, §| 227-232. A 
Judgment by default on constructive service by publication, there being no 
personal service and no appearance by defendant, Is void, where, at the 
commencement of such action, and at the time of the mailing of such publi- 
cation, the defendant was a resident within the jurisdiction, and. by doe 
diligence, service could have been made upon him personally. Hockaday v. 
Jones, 8 Olil. 156, 56 Pac. 1054. 

*2 Amason v. Nash, 19 Ala. 1(H; Wellborn v. Sheppard, 5 Ala. 674; Mer- 
ritt V. White, 37 Miss. 438; Glenn v. Shelburne, 29 Tex. 125; Stahl v. Chi- 
cago, St. 1'., M. & O. K. Co., 94 Wis. 315, 68 X. W. 954. Compare Hibeniia 
SSav. & Lroan Soc. v. Matthai, 116 Cal. 424, 48 Fac. 370. Plaintiff cannot 
talie a default where there is no declaration or complaint on file. Wood- 
ruff V. Matheney, 55 111. App. 350; l*ress v. KIdgway Refrigerator Manufg 
Co., 37 111. App. 269; Haygood v. T^it. 126 Ala. 264, 27 South. 842. But 
a judgment by default is not invalidated by reason of the fact that the de- 
fendant's attorney had taken the papers from the flies before judgment 
was rendered, and then had them In his possession. SSchultz v. Meiselbar, 144 
111. 26, 32 N. K. 500. 



no cause of action, a judgment by default thereon cannot stand.*' 
"A default is an admission of the cause of action stated in the peti- 
tion, and that something is due to the plalntiflF. But where no cause 
of action is stated in the petition a default can have no such effect. 
It is true that a defendant may be concluded by a default where the 
facts stated in the petition do not constitute a good cause of action 
in law, or where the petition is so defective as to be vulnerable to a 
demurrer.** But where the petition omits the necessary averment 
to show liability against the defendant, the court may and should, 
even upon default, refuse to enter judgment." *' A view opposite to 
that here stated has been taken in some of the New York cases,*® 
on the ground that, if the complaint is defective in this particular, 
the remedy by demurrer is open to the defendant, and if he neg- 
lects to avail himself of it, he waives any objections which he might 
thus present, and cannot ask to have the judgment set aside or re- 
versed. But the very obvious answer to this is, that an objection to 
the complaint, on the score of its failure to state a cause of action, 
like an exception to the jurisdiction of the court, is never waived; 
that a default admits nothing more than the plaintiff has chosen to 
allege, and the silence of the defendant should not be made to help 
him out; and that if the plaintiff has not stated a case sufficient to 
justify the intervention of the law in his behalf, he is not entitled to 

«>Tfaigpen v. Mundlne, 24 Tex. 282; Abbe v. Marr, 14 Cal. 210; Barron 
T. FrlnK 30 CaJ. 4«e; HaUock v. Jaudln, 34 Cal. 167; Andrews v. Union 
t)ent IJfe Ina. Co., ^2 Tex. 5»4, 50 S. W. 572; Ide v. Bootn, 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 
U. 4UU. 

*^Hut some of tlie cases hold that, in order to support a Judgment by 
(lefanlt the declaration or complaint must be sulficient to withstand a gen- 
wii demurrer. Globe Ace. ins. Co. v. Reld, 10 Ind. App. 203, 47 N. E. 047; 
Uhmei V. FottB (Tex. Olv. App.) 44 8. W. 615. 

« Bosch V. Kassing, 64 iowa, 312, 20 N. W. 454. See Walker v. Massey, 
lu Ala. 30. in an action to protect a water right, if the complaint states 
a good title, it will support a decree taken by default. Bailey v. Malheur 
Ac H. U lir. Co., 36 Or. 54, 57 Pac. 010. 

*« Adams v. Oaks, 20 Johns. 282; Dorr v. Birge, 8 Barb. 351; Pope v. 
JHnsmore, 8 Abb. Prac. 420; Keeder v. Lockwood, 30 Misc. Rep. 531, 62 
N. Y. 8upp. 713. See, also, Frankfurth v. Anderson, 61 Wis. 107, 20 X. W. 
»iKi; Aftkren v. Squire, 20 Or. 228, 45 Pac. 770; Cowles v. Cowles, 121 N. 
C. 272, 28 8. K 476. 



any judgment, wliether the defendant answers or not.*^ A petition, 
for instance, which does not allege an assignment of the claim sued 
on, when it is not in the plaintiff's name and no assignment is proved, 
will not sustain a judgment by default.** The question is diflFerent 
where the judgment is rendered on a declaration containing both 
good and bad counts. Here it is said that the insufficiency of one count 
to sustain a judgment will not impair the plaintiff*s right to recover 
on the other, and hence the judgment will be allowed to rest on the 
cause of action well pleaded and will not be reversed.** There arc 
cases, however, holding that the damages being general, and noth- 
ing appearing to show that they were in fact assessed upon the good 
count only, there is no authority to presume that they were so as- 
sessed, and hence (just as in the case of a verdict and general dam- 
ages, upon a declaration containing a count bad in substance) the 
judgment will be erroneous.**® 

^ ') ^ LI ^ ^^' ^'®''^'^^^'® Entry of Default. 

A judgment rendered by default against a defendant before the 
expiration of the time allowed to him for filing a plea or answer, is 
irregular and voidable at his instance.** He has the whole of the 
last day in which to plead, and cannot be said to be in default until 

«7 The failure of defendant to appear or answer Is an admission onlj as 
to tlie facts which are properly pleaded by the plaintiff. Doud Sons & Co. v. 
DuUith Milling Co., 55 Minn. 53, 5(J N. W. 4(j;{. 

4 8 Thompson v. JStetson, 15 Seb. 112, 17 N. W. 3(58. So, a default Juds- 
iuent for fraudulent representations cannot stand, unless the intent to dt»- 
fraud was alleged In the complaint. Shields v. Clement, 12 Misc. Rep. j/Oil 
33 A. i. Supp. b'7(i. But it is said that a default Judgment is not void merely 
because the complaint falls to show whether the plaintiff (described as a 
••company") is a corporation or a partnership. Moore v. Martin & Hoyt Co.. 
IL'4 Ala. 2yi, 27 South. 252. 

*o Hunt V. City of San l^Yancisco, 11 Cal. 2.10. 

no Hemmeuway v. Hickes, 4 IMck. (Mass.) 497; Dryden ▼. Dryden, 9 Pick. 
(Mass.) 54(J. 

61 Parker v. Linden, 59 Hun, 6*23, 13 N. Y. Supp. 787; I^sh ▼. Wanvn 
(Tex.) 14 S. \V. (UM; Hole v. Page, 20 Wash. 208, 54 Fac. 1123: Forbes v. 
Muxlow, IS av. Proc. K. 231), 13. N. Y. Supp. 797; GIllotte-Herzog Manufg 
Co. V. Ashton, 55 Minn. 75, 5(J N. W. 576. As to Judgment by default in a 
justices court, rendered, in the absence of defendant and his counsel, prior 
to the hour sot in the citation, see Yentzer v. Thayer, 10 Colo. 63, 14 Pac. 


that day has fully expired ; ** and if the last day falls upon a Sun- 
day or a holiday, he is entitled to the whole of the next succeeding 
day.** But a judgment thus prematurely entered is not absolutely 
void ; if the defendant takes no steps to correct the error, he is pre- 
sumed to have waived it/* The time limited is given for the benefit 
of the defendant, and he may waive it and consent that a judgment 
be entered against him before its expiration.^" So if, after due 
service of summons, judgment by default is entered one day sooner 
than the statute allows, but the defendant is informed of the date of 
the entry, both by an attachment served on him shortly thereafter 
and by a scire facias, duly served, to revive the judgment, several 
years later, but takes no action until after the judgment has been 
revived, the irregularity will be regarded as waived, and a motion to 
strike off the judgment will be denied. '• A decree pro confesso, 
signed after the time for answering has expired, is regular, though 
an order for further time to answer be signed and filed on the same 
day with the signing of the decree.*' In case of a default, judg- 

TkJ. 3 Am. St. Rep. 563. And see Dow v. March, 80 Me. 408, 15 Atl. 2U. 
Where a municipal court orders an answer to be filed, and adjourns to n 
rabsequent day, It cannot In the interim render a legal judgment by default 
on failure to file an answer. Whitman & Barnes Manuf'g Co. v. Hamilton, 
27 Misc. Kep. 1»8, 57 N. Y. Supp. 7«6. 

" Porter v. Hower, 9 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 283; Lohman v. Cox, 9 N. M. 503, 
5tf Paa 286. 

••Kothchlld V. Unk, 29 App. Div. 580, 51 N. Y. Supp. 253. But where 
the time to plead Is limited to a certain number of days, Sundays and holi- 
days are to be counted, except where the last day is dies non, Bailey v. 
KdmuDdson, lt>8 Mass. 2U7, 46 N. E. 1061. 

»« White V. Crow, 110 U. S. 183, 4 Sup. Ct. 71, 28 L. Kd. 113; Burt v. 
8<Tantom, 1 Cal. 416; Mitchell v. Aten, 37 Kan. 33, 14 Pac. 497, 1 Am. St. 
Rep. 231: West r. Williamson, 1 Swan (Tenn.) 277; Glover v. Holman, 3 Helsk. 
(Tenn.) 519. 

•sHoguet V. Wallace, 28 N. J. Law, 523; Beebe v. George H. Beebe Co.. 
64 N. J. Law, 497, 46 Atl. 168; Wiggins t. Mayer, 91 Ga. 778, 18 S. B. 430; 
MclVmald V. Tutty, 99 Ga. 184, 27 S. K 157. But an acceptance of service 
and waiver of citation will not authorize Judgment by default before the 
expiration of the time allowed for pleading. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n 
V. McGowan, 49 La. Ann. 630, 21 South. 766. 

••Harper v. Biles, 115 Pa. 594, 8 Atl. 446. 

•7 Emery t. Downing, 13 ^\ J. Kq. 59. 


§ 86 LAW OF JUDOMBNT8. (Gh. 4 

ment may be entered before the case is reached in its regular order 
on the docket."® 

§ 86. Default, when proper* 

When an answer or other pleading of a defendant, raising an is- 
sue of law or fact, is properly on file in the case, no judgment by 
default can be entered against him; to authorize a default, the an- 
swer or other pleading must be disposed of by motion, demurrer, or 
in some other manner.*^* The authorities do not go to the extent 

58 Brenner v. GundersWemer. 14 Iowa, 82. Wliere an answer is due after 
the commencement of a term of court, and no pleading is Illed nor appearance 
made by tlie defendant, tlie case may be docketed, and judgment by default 
rendered at any time thereafter during sucli term. JLeonard y. Hargis, 50 
Kan. 40, 48 Fac. 586. See Kessler v. Vera; 25 Misc. Kep. 763, S» N. 1. 
Supp. 142. 

08 Plionoliarp Co. v. Stohbe, 20 Misc. Rep. 698, 46 N. Y. Supp. 678; Com. 
V. Krause, 23 Pa. Co. Ct. K. 511; Carolina In v. Co. v. Kelly. 123 N. C. 388, 
31 S. E. 671; Green v. Jones, 102 Ala. 303, 14 Soutb. 630; Taylor v. Me- 
>airy, 42 Miss. 276; Beard v. Orr & Lindsey Shoe Co. (Miss.) 8 South. 512; 
aambrick v. Dent. 70 Miss. 59, 11 South. 608; Blloxi Lrumber & Export 
Co. V. New Orleans Railway & MiU Supply Co. (Miss.) 28 South. 21; Bed- 
well V. 'J'^hompson, 25 Tex. Supp. 245; Sevier v. Turner (Tex. Civ. App.) 
33 S. W. 294; Hepburn v. Danville Nat. Bank (Tex. av. App.) 34 S. W. 
988; Hicks v. Vann, 4 Ark. 526; Boyer v. Robinson, 6 Ark. 552; Alexander 
v. Stewart, 23 Ark. 18; White v. Reagan, 25 Ark. 622; HaiTis v. Muskingum 
Manuf'g Co., 4 Blackf. 267, 29 Am. Dec. 372; Young v. State Bank, 4 Ind. 
IKM; Terrell v. State, 68 Ind. 155; WaU v. Galvin,-80 Ind. 447; Lyon v. 
Baraey, 1 Scam. (111.) 387; Faurot v. Park Nat. Bank, 37 111. App. 322; City 
- of Pana v. Humphreys, 39 ill. App. 641; Wells v. Mathews, 70 111. App. 
r)04; Keck v. McKldowney, 73 111. App. 159; Miller v. Hardacre, 1 G. Greene 
(Iowa) 154; Levi v. Monroe, 11 lo\va, 453; Ruch v. Jones. 33 Mo. 393: Nor- 
man v. Hooker, 35 Mo. 366; McMurtry v. State, 19 Neb. 147. 26 N. W. 915: 
Strong V. Comer, 48 Minn. 66, 50 N. W. 936; Porter v. Richard. 1 Ariz. 87. 
25 Pac. 530. Under a statute providing that either party to a civil actloD 
may propound interrogatories to the other, which must be answered fully, 
and that If the answers are not full and clear, the court may, on motion, 
compel them to be made so, or default or nonsuit the answering party, tlie 
court cannot, without further proceedings, default the answering party be- 
cause the answers are deemed insufficient or evasive. Fels v. Raymond. 139 
Mass. 98, 28 N. E. 691. In some states, the mere filing of an answer will not 
prevent a judgment by default, but thpre must also be a subsequent appear- 
ance by defendant to protect his rights. Lytle v. Custead, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 
490, 23 S. \\\ 451. And see Schwarz v. Oppenheimer, 90 Ala. 462, 8 South. 



of holding that such a judgment would be absolutely void, but it 
Hrould be set aside on motion of the defendant or reversed on ap- 
peal. There appears to be some doubt as to whether the plea should 
be actually on file, in order to prevent a default, or whether it is 
sufficient if duly brought to the notice of the plaintiff or his attor- 
ncy.** The question will be governed to some extent by the local 
practice, and in those jurisdictions where the defendant's answer is 
to be served on the plaintiff's attorney within a specified time, an 
entry of default would probably be regarded as erroneous if made 
after such service, although the pleading were not filed in court. In 
a case where judgment by default was entered against a defendant, 
who filed an answer on the same day the judgment was rendered, but 
it did not appear affirmatively that the answer was filed before the 
judgment, or that the attention of the court was called to the answer 
before giving judgment, it was held to be the legal presumption that 
the judgment was first given. '^ Even though the plea filed by the 
defendant be bad in form or substance, yet, if it does not admit the 
plaintiff's case, the latter cannot have judgment for want of a plea; 
the proper practice is either to move to strike out the plea, or to 
answer it by demurrer or otherwise.** And especially after replying 
to a plea filed in proper time the plaintiff cannot take judgment by 
nil dicit; if the plea is bad, he should withdraw his replication and 

•• Id an early New i'ork ease, where a plea was delivered to the plaintiff's 
attorney, wlio searclied tlie olerk*s otnce, and, finding no plea on tile, entered 
11 <l«*faiiJt for want of a plea, the court considered the default as a nullity; 
ttie porty is to be governed by the pleadings delivered to him, and not search 
ttie ottice to see whether the originals are filed. Smith Y. Wells, 6 Johns. 
:»U. Bnt compare Wall v. Galvln, 80 Ind. 447. 

•1 Wooidridge v. Brown, 1 Tex. 478. See, per contra, Lyon v. Barney, 
1 Scam, (ill.) 387. 

•2Brigg8 T. Sholes, 14 N. H. 262. Where the admissions in an answer 
negative its general denials, the latter may be disregarded, and if the com- 
piamt be verified, judgment may be asked on the former, li'temont v. Seals, 
lb Cai. 433. In Texas, to defeat a judgment by default for want of an an- 
swer. defendaDt must file an answer consisting of a written pleading; It is 
ncrt suUicient for him to request orally, on the appearance daj'. that the ac- 
tion be dismlHsed because of its being brought in the wrong county. State 
r. I'atterson <Tex. Civ. App.) 40 S. W. 224. 

«3 Cox T. Capron, 10 Mo. 01)1. 


§ 86 LAW OF JUDGMBNTa. (Ch. 4 

On similar principles, it is erroneous to render a judgment by de- 
fault against a defendant who has filed a demurrer to the declara- 
tion, when the same remains unanswered and not disposed of in any 
way, and he has not taken any subsequent step in the cause amount- 
ing to a waiver of the demurrer."* And a judgment by default, en- 
tered while exceptions are pending and undetermined, is erroneous 
and irregular."' So, pending the question whether a suit can be 
maintained in the court where it is brought, by reason of the alleged 
non-residence of the defendant, there can be no judgment against 
him for want of a plea."" When a demurrer to the answer is sus- 
tained, in the absence of defendant and his counsel, an opportunity 
must be accorded to the defendant to elect whether he will plead 
over or stand on the demurrer."^ But of course, after the defend- 
ant's demurrer is overruled and judgment of "respondeat ouster*' 
given, he may be put in default for failure to answer further within 
the proper time."* 

For the same reasons, a default cannot be entered while a motion 
is pending."*^ Thus, while an application for the removal of a cause 
from the state court to a federal court remains undetermined, it is 
irregular to enter a default against the party making the application, 
and a motion to set aside the default in such case should be al- 
lowed.'" So of a motion to dismiss, for want of security for costs by 
a non-resident plaintiff, made in due time.'* A motion to quash the 
return or the summons is no waiver of the right to plead, and in such 

fl* Steelman v. Watson, 5 Gllman (Ul.) 249; McKlnney ▼. M'^v, 1 Scam. (HI.) 
534; Key v. Hayden, 13 Iowa, 602; WHlamette Falls Transportation & Milling 
Co. V. Smith, 1 Or. 181; Hlrsh v. Clawsou, 106 Ind. 329, 6 N. K. 919; Fisli v. 
Wheeler, 31 111. App. 596; Race v. Irving Park Hall Ass'n, 50 Ul. App. 131. 

«5 Francis v. Steamer Black Hawk, 18 La. Ann. 029. 

ce state v. Gittings, 35 Md. 169. 

6 7 Thwing V. Doye, 2 Okl. 608, 44 Pac. 381. 

« 8. Jordan v. John Ryan Co., 35 Fla. 259, 17 South. 73. 

6 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. NifhoUs. 8 Colo. 188, 6 Pac. 512; Bld?- 
way V. Horner, 55 N. J. Law, 84, 25 Atl. 386; Hosmer v. Hoitt, 161 Mass. 1T.1 
36 N. E. 835. 

7 ^lattoon V. Hinkley, 33 111. 208. As to the effect of the pendency of an 
application for a change of venue, as preventing a default, see Anderson v. 
Perkins, 52 Mo. App. 527; Pennie v. A'isher, 94 Cal. 323, 29 Pac. TIL 

71 The Osprey v. Jenkins, 9 Mo. 613. 



case a refusal to allow the defendant to plead, and an entry of judg- 
ment as upon default, is error.'* If the defendant's plea is with- 
<\T2LVfT\, the case then stands precisely as if no plea had been filed. 
An appearance is entered and a want or defect of service is waived 
by filing a plea in bar in the action, and if the plea is subsequently 
withdrawn, that does not operate as a withdrawal of the appearance, 
and the plaintiff is entitled to judgment of nil dicit at any time be- 
fore another plea is filed.' ^ And in general, if the defendant aban- 
dons, or fails to establish, any preliminary motion or plea, he must 
seasonably avail himself of the opportunity accorded to answer to 
the merits, or he will be liable to be defaulted.'* Thus, where a de- 
fendant filed a motion to quash a summons, which was overruled, 
and refused to appear further in the action, it was held that a judg- 
ment against him, without showing an entry of default, would not 
be disturbed.'* Leave to the plaintiff to amend his declaration, and 
to the defendant for time to plead, is an abandonment of all exist- 
ing issues, and if the plaintiff amends his declaration, and no plea is 
filed to such amended declaration, the plaintiff is entitled to judg- 
ment by default.' • Still it is irregular to enter judgment as for want 
of an answer, where the complaint is amended after answer but no 
amended answer filed, if the original answer states a defense to the 

"Story V. Ware, 35 Miss. 31)9, 72 Am. Dec. 125; Farrls v. Walter, 2 Colo. 
App. 450. 31 Pac. 231. Compare Higley v. Pollock, 21 Nev. 198, 27 Pac. 895. 

"» Dart V. Hercules, M 111. 395; Grigg v. Gilmer, 54 Ala. 425. When de- 
fendant has withdrawn his appearance, he is not entitled to notice of an appli- 
cation for Judjnnent by default. Day v. Mertlock, 87 Wis. 577, 58 N. W. 1037. 

'** Such is the case where defendant's answer is stricken out as sham and 
frtrolous, and he unwarrantably neglects to file an amended pleading. Mc- 
Mnrran t. Meek. 47 Minn. 245, 49 N. W. 983. 

's McPherson v. First Nat. Bank, 12 Neb. 202. 10 N. W. 707. And see Mc- 
Krtlar v. Lamkin, 22 Tex. 244; London Assur. ::orp. v. Lee, 66 Tex. 247, 18 
». W. 508. 

^« Robinson t. Keys, 9 Humph. (Tenn.) 144; La Barre v. City of WaterbmT, 
«9 Conn. 554, 37 Atl. 1068. Compare Mulllns v. Johnson (Ky.) 52 S. W. MS. 
In California, the rule is that an amendment of the complaint in matter of 
nihstance opens a default. Witter v. Bachman, 117 Cal. 318, 49 Pac. 202. As 
to the effect of the death of the plaintiff and the substitution of his executor, 
extending the time to answer, when the defendant is already in default, see 
KiUie T. Bellegarde, 80 Cal. 556, 25 Pac. 55. 


§ 87 LAW OF JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 4 

cau^e of action shown by the amended complaint/^ Judgment by 
default, without a rule to answer, should not be entered against a 
defendant where a motion to strike out a portion of the complaint 
has been allowed. "We think the defendant should be regarded as 
standing in the same position as though he had successfully attacked 
the complaint by demurrer. Even if the order of the court and the 
circumstances of the cage required no formal amendment of the 
complaint, the necessity for a rule to answer would remain the 
same." ^® When a default has actually been entered against the de- 
fendant, he cannot escape its consequences by filing a plea or an- 
swer, unless by consent of the plaintiff or leave of court.'* But a 
default may be waived ; and it will be considered that this is done, if 
the plaintiff subsequently permits the defendant, without objection, 
to participate in the proceedings, as, by filing an answer or a de- 

S 87. CoBoli&ilTeneM of Ji&dsinent by Def avlt* 

A judgment taken by default is conclusive, by way of estoppel, in 
respect to all such matters and facts as were well pleaded and prop- 
erly raised and material to the case made by the declaration, or oth- 
er pleadings, and such issues cannot be relitigated in any subse- 
quent action between the parties or their privies.*^ But while a de- 

77 First Nat. Bank y. Prescott ^ Wis. 016. Where, In an action of assumpsit, 
the general issue has been pleaded, and an amendment to the declaratlOD to 
aUowed, it is error to enter Judgment by default against the defendant for 
failure to answer the amended declaration. Itidgely Nat. Bank ▼. Fairbaiik, 
54 in. App. 296. 

76 Mullen V. Wine, 9 Colo. 167, 11 Pac. 54. 

7» Irvine v. Davy, 88 Cal. 495, 20 Pac. 500; Camp v. PhiUtps, 88 Ga. 415, 
14 S. E. 580. As to the discretion of the trial court in granting defendant 
lejive to answer after the time, see Lichtenberger v. Worm, 41 Neb. 856, 60 N. 
W. 93. And see Crane v. Crane, 121 Cal. 99, 53 Pac. 433. 

^0 Cornell University v. Denny Hotel Co., 15 Wash. 433, 40 Pac. 654; Saw- 
telle v. Muncy, 110 Cal. 435, 48 Pac. 387. 

81 I^ouard v. Simpson, 2 Bing. N. C. 170; Oregon Ry. Co. v. Oregon Ry. & 
Nav. Co. (C. C.) 28 Fed. 505; Derby v. Jacques. 1 Cliff. 425, Fed. Cas. No. 
3,817; Thatcher v. Gammon, 12 Mass. 208; Briggs v. Richmond, 10 Pick. 
(Mass.) 391, 20 Am. Dec. 520; Minor v. Walter, 17 Mass. 237; GaskiU t. Dud- 
ley, 6 Mete. (Mass.) 540, 39 Am. Dec. 750; Newton v. Hook. 48 N. Y. 07(5: 
Brown v. Mayor, etc., of City of New York, 00 N. Y. 385; McCalley v. Wil- 
burn, 77 Ala. 549; Ellis v. Mills, 2S Tex. 584; Dunn v. Pipes, 20 La. Ann. 



fault 18 conclusive of all that is properly alleged in the complaint, it 
is conclusive of nothing more, and as a general rule it binds the 
defendant only in the character in which he is sued.** "As applica- 
ble, however, to a suit to foreclose a mortgage, or other kindred 
suits in the nature of a proceeding in rem, where a party is made a 
defendant to answer as to his supposed or possible, but unknown or 
undefined, interest in the property, we think that, as against him, a 
default ought to be construed as an admission that, at the time he 
failed to appear as required, he had no interest in the property in 
question, and hence as conclusive of any prior claim of interest or 
title adverse to the plaintiff." *• Further, a judgment by default, 
regularly entered, is as binding as any other, as far as respects the 
power and jurisdiction of the court in declaring the plaintiff's right 
to recover, although the amount of the recovery, in some cases, may 
remain to be ascertained by the assessment of damages.®^ A judg- 
ment by default will also operate as a merger of the cause of action 

276; Ugon v. Triplett, 12 B. Mon. (Ky.) 283; Marks v. Slgler, 3 Ohio St 358; 
McOnrdy ▼. Baughman, 43 Ohio »t 78, 1 N. E. 93; Fletcher y. Holmes, 25 
Ind. 458; Van Valkenburgh v. City of Milwaukee; 43 Wis. 574; Doyle v. Hal- 
Itm, 21 Minn. 515; Kittridge v. Stevens, 16 Cal. 381. Infra, $ 697. 

^'Unfried ▼. Heberor, 63 Ind. 67. Such a judgment. In an notion to en- 
force stockholders* liabiUty, la conclusive that a defendant, duly summoned 
and failing to answer, was a stockholder. Ueland v. Johnson, 77 Minn. 548, 
flO X. W. 700, 77 Am. St. Rep. 698. But it la said that a judgment by default 
tgainst defendants in an action wherein they were alleged to be partners, 
does not establish the existence of the partnership. Baker v. Baer, 59 Ark. 
503, 28 S. W. 28w Where a default is taken in a suit on a contract entered 
Into irith a foreign corporation, its capacity to make the contract is admitted. 
Starr Cash & Padsage Car Go. v. Starr, 69 Conn. 440, 37 Atl. 1057. Judgment 
by default in an action for assessments upon property for public improvements 
Is conclusive that such property was subject to assessment, and after the 
lapse of 20 years will be binding even where the defendant was a municipal 
eorporatioD. City of New Orleans v. Warner, 175 U. S. 120, 20 Sup. Ct. 44, 
44 L. Ed. 96. So also, the allegation that money sought to be recovered was 
received by defendant in a fiduciary capacity is admitted by a default and 
Med not be proved. Steamship Richmond Hill Co. v. Seager, 31 App. Div. 
288, 52 N. Y. Supp. 985. In fact, as stated in an lUinois decision, the entire 
canae of action, except the amount of damages as stated in the declaration, 
is admitted by a default. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Hedrick, 73 lU. App. 601. 

•s Barton v. Anderson, 104 Ind. 578, 4 N. E. 420. 

•« Mailhoose v. Inloes, 18 3Id. 328; Green v. Hamilton, 16 Md. 317, 77 Am. 
Dec 295; Loney v. Bailey, 43 Md. 10; Clark v. Compton, 15 Tex. 32; Missis- 


§ 88 LAW OF JUDQMBNTfl. (Oh. 4 

or bar to another suit for the same demand. Thus, where the de- 
fendant offers to be defaulted for a given sum, and judgment is ac- 
cordingly entered for the plaintiff for that amount, such judgment is 
a bar to a subsequent action between the same parties for the same 
claim.*" But this effect is attributable only to the final judgment in 
the action. A judgment by default merely admits a cause of action; 
but while the precise character of the cause of action, and the extent 
of the defendant's liability, remains to be determined by a hearing 
in damages and final judgment thereon, the cause of action is not 
merged in the judgment, and the rights of the parties, beyond the 
mere admission of a cause of action, are neither strengthened nor 
impaired thereby.®* 

§ 88. Entry by the Clerk. 

Where the defendant makes default, and the nature of the action 
and of the plaintiff's demand is such that there is no necessity for 
judicial action in determining the relief to be granted or the amount 
of the recovery, the statutes generally provide that a judgment may 
be entered by the clerk of the court, without application to the 
judge.*^ But in so entering judgment by default the clerk acts 
merely in a ministerial capacity, no intendments can be made in sup- 
port of the validity of his acts, and unless he conforms strictly to 
the provisions of the statute, his proceedings will be irregular and 

sippi & T. It. Co. V. Green, Heisk. (Tenn.) 588; Parker ▼* House, 66 N. 0. 

86 riansc'om v. Hewes, 12 Gray (Mass.) 334. 

•« Welch V. Wadsworth, 30 Conn. 149, 79 Am. Dec. 239. 

97 See Bullard v. Shei-wood, 85 N. Y. 253; Skillman v. Greenwood, 15 Mlna 
102 (Gil. 77); Bailey v. Sloan, 65 Cal. 387, 4 Pac. 349; Wall v. Heald, »5 
Cal. 304, 30 Pac. 551; KitUe v. Bellegarde, 86 Cal. 556, 25 Pac. 55. On failure 
of a defendant properly served to appear within the time allowed, the court 
may enter judgment against him without a prior formal entry of default by 
the clerk. Hibernia Sav. & Loan Soc. v. Matthai, 116 Cal. 424, 48 Pac. 370. 
Where the statute provides that, if tliere is an allegation of fraud, the plain- 
tiff cannot recover unless he proves the fraud at the trial. Judgment by de- 
fault cannot be entered by the clerk without the intervention of the court 
when the action is predicated on certain acts of defendant which are alleged 
to have been done with a fraudulent intent Fayei-weather v. Tucker, 25 
Abb. N. C. 395, 11 N. Y. Supp. 39. 



not binding.** For instance, under a statute providing that the 
flerk may enter in vacation a judgment by default upon proof of 
personal service of a summons on the defendant, a judgment en- 
tered out of term by the clerk, unless there is such proof, is void.** 
But where the jurisdiction of the clerk to enter the judgment is not 
denied, it may be made a question how far his mistakes, misprisions, 
or irregular actions will impair the validity of the judgment. The 
anthorities would not warrant the statement that the judgment in 
such case would be entirely void. On the contrary, they hold that it 
wottM be merely erroneous, and that the error could be cured by 
motion in the court below or corrected on appeal. This is the posi- 
tion taken with reference to cases in which the clerk, by mistake, 
has entered judgment for an amount in excess of the real recovery.** 

f 89. Interloeiitorj Ji&dsinent, when neoeiiary* 

It is important to be noted that the entry of a default is not nec- 
essarily, or not always, the final judgment in the action. In the 
language of the supreme court of Vermont, "the mere entry of a 
default does not involve and amount to the rendering of a final judg- 
ment. The default is an incident, which entitles the plaintiff to a 
judgment, but does not determine either the kind or amount of such 
judgment. The rendering of the judgment is to supervene upon and 
succeed the entry of the default, and may require intervening pro- 
ceedings in th€ case, in order to enable the court to render such a 
judgment as to law appertains." ** And the general rule is that if 
the action is brought on a contract or promise for a liquidated sum 
of money, or if the amount to be recovered can be ascertained by a 

**Kflly V. Van Austin, 17 Cal, 564; Providence Tool Co. v. Prader, 32 Cal. 
«H. 91 Am. Dec. 598; Curry v. Roundtree, 51 Cal. 184; Files v. Robinson, 30 
Ark. 487; Taylor v. Smltli (Tenn. Ch.) 30 S. W. 970. Where the statute em- 
ptiwens the clerk to enter judgment in actions on contracts to recover money 
or damages, if defendant falls to answer, this does not authorize him to enter 
Judginent by default In an action for trespass. Shay v. Chicago Clock Co., 
Ill Cal. 549, 44 Pac. 237. 

»* MeConkey v. McCraney, 71 Wis. 576, 37 N. W. 822; Elder v. Gnmsky, 
m Cal. 07. 59 Pac. »00. 

•• Lenoir v. Broadhead's Adm'r, 50 Ala. 6S; Bond ▼. Pacheco, 30 Cal. 530. 

•« Sheldon v. Sheldon, 37 Vt 162, 

1 LAW jrDG.-9 (129) 

§ 89 LAW OP JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 4 

mere matter of calculation, then a final judgment may be at once 
entered for such amount; but if the action sounds in tort,*' or 
claims specific relief, or if the damages must be computed or liqui- 
dated otherwise than by simple calculation,*' or depend upon evi- 
dence, then an interlocutory judgment will first be entered, and the 
case proceed to the assessment of damages in some method known 
to the law, after which a final judgment will be rendered for the 
amount so assessed. In a case of the latter kind, the prior entry of 
an interlocutory judgment is important to the regularity of the pro- 
ceedings, though its omission would probably not be absolutely fatal. 
In a case where the record disclosed the fact that the court referred 
the matter to the clerk for the assessment of damages without first 
rendering an interlocutory judgment against the defendants for want 
of a plea, as the law required, the appellate court said : **In this we 
think there is manifest error." •* An action upon an open account 
for goods sold and delivered, for services rendered, or the like, is 
not upon a liquidated demand such that final judgment may be en- 
tered for the amount claimed, upon failure to answer.** Nor can a 
final judgment by default be rendered in an action of detinue.*' Nor 
is such judgment proper upon a note pa3rable in Confederate money. 
**A jury should have assessed the value of the contract [note], upon 

»2 Stewart v. Bryan, 121 N. 0. 46, 28 S. B. 18; Studdert v. HasseU, 6 
Humph. (Tenn.) 137; Wilson v. Dawson, 96 Va. 687, 32 S. B. 461. 

08 Holmes y. Lewis, 2 Wis. 83; Kenum y. Henderson, 6 Ala. 132: Gooley 
v. Tybee Beach Co., 99 Ga. 290, 25 S. E. 691; Paucette y. Ludden. 117 N. C. 
170, 23 S. E. 173; In re Scharmann, 49 App. Diy. 278, 63 N. Y. Supp. 267; 
City of Guthrie v. T. W. Harvey Lumber Co., 5 Okl. 774, 50 Pac. 84. 

0* Wilcox v. Field, 1 Colo. 3. But In a later ease it is said that a default 
may be recited and entered against a defendant who does not plead, as well 
at the time of the rendition of the final Judgment as before. Manvllle v. 
Parks, 7 Colo. 128, 2 Pac. 212. In lUinols, where no plea is filed in an action 
of assumpsit, and the defendant Is absent, It Is error to impanel a Jury and 
assess damages without default first taken and entered. Lehr y. Vandeveer, 
48 III. App. 511. 

»o Woif y. Hamberg, 8 S. C. 82; Rogers y. Moore, 86 N. 0. 85; Jenkins v. 
WMlkerson, 76 Miss. 368, 24 South. 700. Where the cause of acticm Is for 
fiervices rendered as an attorney, but no fixed sum Is alleged to have been 
iigreed on, an Inquiry of damages must be. had upon defendant's default 
Skinner y. Terry, 107 N. C. 103, 12 S. E. 118. 

»« Studdert y. HasseU, 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 137. 

; (130) 


a writ of inquiry, before the judgment was made final." '^ On the 
other hand, a demand founded upon a simple promissory, note for 
a sum certain, not expressed to be payable otherwise than in lawful 
money, will warrant a final judgment upon defendant's default.®* 
And the same is true of a claim for sums alleged to have been ex- 
pended by a mortgagee to protect his security, as, for taxes,'* and 
of a claim by a municipal corporation against a tax collector and his 
sureties upon the official bond.**' 

In some of the states, under statutes authorizing constructive serv- 
ice of process by publication in certain cases, it is provided that an 
interlocutory judgment by default shall be entered upon the defend- 
ant's failure to appear, which can only be made final at the succeed- 
ing term of court.^** There is one other instance in which an inter- 
locutory judgment should precede the entry of final judgment by de- 
fault in an action, viz: upon the overruling of defendant's demurrer 
(in certain cases) or dilatory plea. Here the practice is to give judg- 
ment that he "answer over," after which, and on his failure to plead 
to the merits, he may be defaulted. But if the record shows that 
the defendant had an opportunity to answer over and refused to do 
so, judgment by nil dicit is good, without an entry of a formal judg- 
ment of respondeat ouster.^** 

§ 90* Aflieiiment of Dainas^** 

After the interlocutory judgment by default has been entered in 
an action for unliquidated damages or an unascertained sum, the 
next step is to assess the plaintiff's damages. This process, as fol- 
lowed at common law, consisted of the execution of a writ of in- 

•7 WUUams v. RockweU, 64 N. C. 32S. 

•• Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. y. Pendleton, 87 Ga. 751, 13 8. E. 822. 
Compare Kaiser v. Brown, 98 Ga. 10, 25 S. E. 925; Tbomas v. American Free- 
bold Land & M. Co. (C. C.) 47 Fed. 550, 12 L. R. A. GSl. A note containing 
a stipulation for attorney's fees will support a Judgment by default which in- 
cludes such fees, without a writ of inquiry. Ledbetter & Co. Land & Loan 
Ass'n T. Vinton, 108 Ala. 014, 18 South. 692. 

»• Cbwles V. CowJes. 121 X. C. 272, 28 S. E. 476. 
* !•• Combs T. Breathitt County (Ky.) 38 S. W. 13a» 

101 Lombard v. Clark. 33 Mo. 308. • 

i«s llsildeuian t. Starrett, 23 ill. 393. 


§ 90 LAW OP JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 4 

quiry, whereby the sheriff was directed to summon a jury of twelve 
men, over which he should himself preside, and proceed to assess 
the amount of damages sustained by the plaintiff. The verdict be- 
ing given, the sheriff returned the inquisition, which was entered 
on the roll in the manner of a postea, and thereupon judgment was 
rendered that the plaintiff should recover the exact sum of damages 
so assessed.*®' This common-law metjiod is greatly modified, in the 
different states, by variations of local practice. In few, if any, is 
the writ of inquiry still executed by the sheriff; in some, no such 
writ issues, but the order for assessing damages is executed in court, 
by the judge, with or without the aid of a jury, or by a referee or 
auditor.^** The important question is as to the constitutional right 
of trial by jury. Under the clause found in many of the state con- 
stitutions, providing that in suits at common law, where the value 
jn controversy exceeds a certain sum, the right of trial by jury shall 
be preserved, it has been held that the defendant has an absolute 
and indefeasible right, guarantied by the constitution, to demand that 
the question of damages be tried by a jury.*®' There is, however, 
reasonable ground for the theory that the defendant, by suffering a 
default in the first instance, has voluntarily renounced his right to 
have a jury called in any of the proceedings in the action.*®* 

io« See Hickman v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 30 W. Va. 290, 4 S. E. 654. 

104 For the practice In the several states, and particularly as to the assess- 
ment being made by the court or by a Jury, see Rowen v. New York, N. H. 
& H. R. Co., 59 Conn. 3G4, 21 Atl. 1073; Falken v. Honsa tonic R. Co.. 6:i 
Conn. 258, 27 Atl. 1117; Thompson v. Fox. 21 Misc. Rep. 2t)S. 47 N. Y. Supp. 
17G; Commercial Union Assur. Co. v. Everhart's Adni'r, 88 Va. 952, 14 S. E, 
.S3C; McLeod v. Nimocks, 122 N. C. 437, 29 S. E. 577; Allen v. Lftthrop- 
Hatton Lumber Co.. 90 Ala. 490, S Sonth. 129; Decatur & N. Imp. Co. v. 
Crass. 97 Ala. 524, 12 South. 41; Ross v. Noble, G Kan. App. 361, 51 Pac. 7trJ; 
Coleman v. Floyd, 131 Ind. 330, 31 N. E. 75; Haley v. Eureka County Bank. 

21 Nev. 127, 26 Pac. 64. 12 L. R. A. 815. Where defendant is dlssattefied 
with the assessment of damages on a default, his remedy is by motion to 
correct the assessment. Riely v. Barton, 32 111. App. 524. 

106 Hickman v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 30 W. Va. 296, 4 S. E. f.54. 

106 Hopkins V. Ladd, 35 III. 178; Seeley v. City of Bridgeport. 53 Conn. 1, 

22 Atl. 1017; Raymond v. Danbury & N. R. Co.. 43 Conn. 596, Fed. Cas. No, 



Ch. 4) JUDGMKNIS BY J>fif AULT. & 91 

I 01. Erideiuye on AiieMinent of Damasei* 

A default admits the cause of action and the material and travers- 
able averments of the declaration, although not the amount of dam- 
ages; and upon the proceeding for their assessment, the amount of 
damages is all that the plaintiff is required to prove or the defendant 
is permitted to controvert.*®' The former must produce whatever 
evidence is necessary to fix the amount of his claim with precision. 
Thus a judgment by default in assumpsit, where an account is filed 
in the declaration, is an admission of indebtedness for the articles 
charged, but the value of the articles and the amount of the items 
require to be proved.*®* As for the defendant, he may offer any 
evidence which is confined to the question of damages solely or 
which goes in mitigation or reduction of damages ; but evidence 
tending to deny the cause of action, or to show that a right of action 
does not exist, or to avoid the alleged contract, is irrelevant and 

lOT WiUflon V. Willson, 25 N. H. 229, 57 Am. Dec. 320; Rufis v. GHbert, 19 
Fk. 54; Maund v. Loeb, 87 Ala. 374, 6 South. 376; Union Cent Life Ins. 
Ca v. Lipbcomb (Tex. Civ. App.) 27 S. W. 307; Slater v. Skirvlng, 51 Neb. 
loa 70 X. W. 493. 66 Am. St'Rep. 444; Martin y. New Yoik & N. E. B. Co., 
62 Conn. 331, 25 Atl. 239. But In Florida, it is said that it is error to render 
fiiuil judgment after a default entered in a suit on a bond without production 
of the bond or proper evideuce of It. West v. Fleming, 36 Fla. 298, 18 South. 

io» Patrick v. Kidgawny, 4 Har. & J. (^£d.) 312; Durden v. Carhart, 41 Ga. 

i**The defendant has the right to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses 
and interpoise objections to evidence. St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Denson (Tex. 
CiT. App.) 26 S. \V. 265; Davis v. Wimberly, 86 Ga. 46, 12 S. B. 208. He may 
aliK) offer any evidence which goes In mitigation or reduction of damages, but 
cjinnot have the benefit of a set-off or counterclaim, or other ground for the 
reduction of damages, unless it necessarily arises from the facts pleaded by 
tlie plaintiff. Regan v. New York & N. E. R. Co., 60 Conn. 124, 22 Atl. 503, 
25 Am. St. Rep. 306. And he cannot introduce evidence controverting the 
plaintiff*? entire cause of action, or tending to avoid it, or to show that no 
right of action existed. Phillips v. Bachelder, 47 Mo. App. 52; Garrard v. 
Dollar, 49 N. C. 175, 67 Am. Dec. 271; Foster v. Smith, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 377; 
Umbert v. Sanford, 55 Conn. 437, 12 Atl. 519; Lee v. Knapp, 90 N. C. 171. 
Thus, be cannot defend on the ground that the contract was within the stat- 
ute of frauds. Williams v. Crosby Lumber Co., 118 N. C. 928, 24 S. E. 800. 
But in Connecticut, a statute permits the defendant to notify the plaintiff of any 


§ 92 LAW OF JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 4 

I 02« Amoimt of tli'9 Heeoverj. 

A judgment by default for a sum greater than that prayed for in 
the complaint is irregular and erroneous.**® And, generally speak- 
ing, where the prayer is for specific relief, the plaintiff is confined 
to a recovery in strict accordance with what he has asked for.*" If 
a plea admits a part of the debt sued for, without a tender, the 
plaintiff may take judgment by nil dicit for such amount.*** A 
judgment by default on a note, upon which is an indorsement of a 
credit by the plaintiff, ought to be entered subject to such credit."' 
In an action against joint defendants, where one suffers default, but 
the other proceeds to trial and secures a general verdict against the 
plaintiff, this is equivalent to a finding that nothing is due from the 
defaulted defendant, and no judgment can be entered against him.*" 

special defense to be set up on a hearing in damages on default; and tbis 
enables him to avail himself of the defense of res judicata. Brennan v. Ber- 
lin Iron-Bridge Co.. 73 Conn. 479. 42 Atl. 625. See. also. Ockershnusen v. New 
York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 71 Conn. 617, 42 Atl. 650; Gardner v. City of New 
Loudon, 63 Conn. 267, 28 Atl. 42. 

110 Gage V. Rogers, 20 Cal. 91; White v. Snow, 71 N. C. 232; Johnson v. 
Mantz, 69 Iowa, 710, 27 N. W. 467; Northern Trust Co. v. Albert I^ea College, 
68 Minn. 112, 71 N. W. 9: Reidy v. Bleistift, 31 Misc. Rep. 181. 63 X. Y. Supp. 
974; Bast v. Hysom, 6 Wash. 170. 32 Tac. 997. Where the complaint de- 
mands judgment for the principal of a debt and the costs^ a judgiuent which 
includes interest, as well as the debt and costs. Is erroneous. Pickett v. 
Handy, 9 Colo. App. 357, 48 Pac. 820. But the clerk has authority to add to 
the amount due on a note the sum therein stipulated to be paid for attorneys' 
fees, if within the amount demanded in the summons. Alexander y. McDow. 
108 Cal. 25, 41 Pac. 24. 

111 Burling v. Goodman, 1 Nev. 314; Nortliern Trust Co. v. Albert Lea 
College, 68 Minn. 112, 71 N. W. 9; Parszyk v. Mach, 10 S. D. 555, 74 X. W. 
1027. Where the complaint only seeks subrogation of plaintiff to the right of 
another defendant in a Judgment, plaintiff is not entitled, on default of the 
defendant, to a personal judgment against him. Heins v. Wicke, 102 Iowa. 
396, 71 X. W. 345. But it has been held that, where the action is on a note 
and mortgage, the court may, on default, give judgment for foreclosure of 
the mortgage, though plaintiff has only asked for a personal judgment for the 
amount due. Weaver v. Gardner, 14 Kan. 347. 

112 Williams v. Harris, 2 How. (Miss.) 627. See Allen v. Watt, 69 111. 655. 
118 Rees V. Conococheague Bank, 5 Rand. (Va.) 326. 16 Am, Dec. 755. 

11* Hay den Saddlery Hardware Co. v, Ramsay, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 185, 36 
S. W. 505. 




i 93. Jvdsmeiit by Default not aided by Preswptioiit. 

In several states it is held that on appeal from a judgment by 
default, nothing will be presumed in its favor ; the record must show 
afiinnatively the existence of every material fact to give the court 
jurisdiction, and that all the proceedings were in accordance with 
law.*" "It is a well settled rule of practice that where a judgment 
is taken by default against a defendant in ^n action, the record must 
affirmatively show that process had been duly served the required 
length of time before the default was taken." *^* 

i 94. OpeaiitK and VaeatinK Jndgineiits by Default. 

A judgment taken against a defendant by default will be opened 
or set aside, on his motion, in the court wherein it was entered, for 
a failure of jurisdiction or for certain classes of errors and irregu- 
larities ; and also, by statute in some of the states, when it was given 
in consequence of his "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 
neglect." But in respect to the exercise of this power, judgments 
by default are not differentiated from any other species of judg- 
ment, except in so far as certain special statutes are applicable to 
them, and except that practically they constitute by far the largest 
class of cases in which applications for such relief are made. And 
for this reason it is not proposed to examine the subject in detail 
in this connection, but the reader is referred to the later chapters 
of this work in which the vacating and opening of judgments in 
general will be fully discussed.**^ 

"5 Hudson V. Breeding, 7 Ark. 445; Elligood v. Cannon, 4 Har. (Del,) 17«; 
Tonuoly t. Alabama & T. R. R. Co., 29 Ala. 373; Schloss v. White, 16 Cal. 
•-"n But in Proulx v Stetson & Post Mill Co., 6 Wash. 478, S3 Pac. 1067, 
it is said that the ordinary presumption of regularity in the proceedings of 
a court (ft general Jurisdiction applies in the case of a Judgment by default. 
And lu Florida, it appears that, -where a final Judgment entered by the cler\i: 
on a default is not void on its face, but voidable only, because of matters 
dehors the judgment, it becomes an absolute verity after the lapse of 60 days 
frum the entry of the default, unless set aside or reversed by an appellate 
court. Einstein v. Davidson, 35 Fla. 342, 17 South. 563. 

1" E]t2Totb V. VoriB, 74 Ind. 459. 

iH jsee infra, «« 2U7-355. 


§ 9d LAW OP JUDOMENTfl. (Ch. 4 

S 95. Review •£ Jvdcments ¥y 

An appeal will lie from a judgment entered upon the default of 
the defendant, in a proper case, as well as from any other judgment. 
**There may be error in a judgment by default, as well as in a judg- 
ment rendered upon issue joined in the pleadings and tried by a 
jury, and in the former, as well as in the latter case, the error may 
be corrected on appeal." ^^® We have already seen that such a judg- 
ment will be reversed when founded upon a pleading which docs 
not state a cause of action.^^* And it remains to be stated that the 
appellate court has power to deal with it and to correct or reverse 
it on acco int of a failure to comply with the statutory directions, 
or mistakes of the cour- c: clerk, or any errors or irregularities 
whicH would vitiate a judgment otherwise rendered. 

118 Stevens v. Ross, 1 Cal. 94; Gerhart t. Fout 72 Mo. App. 138. Bnt In 
New York, the statute restricts the right of appeal to parties not in default: 
and consequently the remedy of one aggrieved by an invalid judgment by 
default is by motion to have it corrected. Park v. Park, 24 MIbc. Bep. 3?A 
33 N. Y. Supp. 677. 

11 » Supra, § 84. 


Cb. 5} ARsuuT ov jv0eifBiit» S 96 



i SW.^ Arrest of Judgment at Common I^w. 

\9^. Wbeu the Motion slioold be mnde. 

U8. <vroundft (or Arrest of Judgment 

W. Defect of Parties. 

11)0. insntllclent or Faulty Pleadings. 

101. Joinder of Good and Bad Counts. 

1U2. Misjoinder of Causes of Action. 

103. Objections to the Jury. 

104. Irregular or Defective Verdict 

105. Grounds held insufficient 

I 96b Araesi of Judgammmt at Common I«aw. 

The arrest of judgment is defined as the withholding or staying 
of judgment, notwithstanding a verdict has been given, on the ground 
that there is some error appearing on the face of the record which 
vitiates the proceedings.^ But the errors which will justify a motion 
in this behalf must be errors of substance, and not merely clerical or 
formal mistakes. . If they belong to the latter class, they will be 
cured by the statutes of amendments and jeofails, which have intro- 
duced a much more liberal practice in this respect than had formerly 
obtained. According to Blackstone, "arrests of judgment arise from 
intrinsic causes, appearing upon the face of the record." And he 
enumerates the grounds which will be sufficient to prompt this action 
of the court, as follows : — where the declaration varies totally from 
the original writ ; where the verdict materially differs from the plead- 
ings and issue thereon ; and where the case laid in the declaration is 
not sufficient in point of law to found an action upon." In this 
countr)', motions in arrest of judgment, at least in civil cases, are not 
especially favored. The liberality of the statutes and the indulgence 

»BouT. Law Diet.; Brown, f-aw Diet., citing Steph. PI. 106; Roscarla v. 
lliomas. a Jur. U2U. 

»3 Bl. Comm. :iU3. Also, the ohjectlcn that thp Judfnnent Is not in con- 
ft'imitj with the verdict may he made by motion In arrest. Lee v. Wilkins, 
<^ Mo. App. ITj^. 


§ 97 LAW OP JUDGMENTB. (Ch. 5 

of the courts, in permitting amendments, and in taking defects as 
cured by the verdict if not duly objected to, have taken away most of 
the grounds on which a motion of this character could be predicated, 
and this reduction is still further promoted by the facility of obtaining 
new trials.^ Indeed, a motion in arrest of judgment is now usually 
coupled with a motion for a new trial, the latter being the real and 
important object of the application. And hi some of the states the 
practice of arresting judgments is entirely abolished. In Maine, for 
example, it is, provided by law that no motion in arrest of judgment 
in any civil action shall be sustained in the courts of that state.* It 
is of course only the defendant who can move in arrest of judgment. 
If the defendant has obtained a verdict upon a plea which confesses 
the cause of action and does not sufficiently avoid it, the proper 
course for the plaintiff, as we have already seen, is to move for judg- 
ment non obstante veredicto.' A joint motion by several defendants 
in arrest of judgment cannot be sustained as to a part only.' A mo- 
tion in arrest of judgment need not be in writing, nor point out the 
grounds therefor, nor need it be brought into the record by bill of 

I 97* When the Motion should be made* 

By the English practice, a motion in arrest of judgment may be 
made at any time before judgment is actually entered up. In the 
absence of statutes, it is probable that a similar rule would be applied 
in our own courts. But at all events it seems clear that a motion of 
this kind cannot be granted after the rendition and entry of a final 
judgment in the cause ; at that stage the only remedy is by motion 
to vacate or set aside the judgment.® But where the law provides 

« See Virginia & T. Coal & Iron (3o. v. Fields, 94 Va. 102, 26 S. E. 426. 

* Inhabitants of Stetson v. Inhabitants of Corrlna, 44 Me. 29; Rev. 8t. 
Me. c. £j2. § 31. In Illinois, a statute provides that Judgments shall not 
be arrested because of any mispleading, discontinuance, or misjoining of the 
issue, or any default or negligence by which neither party has been preju- 
diced. Kev. St. 111. c. 7, § (5. See Mayer v. Brensiuger, 180 111. 110, M X 
E. 159, 72 Am. St. Rep. 19«. 

B Supra, § 16. 

• Van Gundy v. Cm ripan, 4 Ind. App. 333, 30 N. E. 933. 

7 Chicago & S. E. Ry. Co. v. Wheeler, 14 Ind. App. 02. '2 N. E. 45D. 

8 State V. Kibling, 03 Vt 636, 22 AtL 613; Keller v. Stevens, 66 Md. 132. 



that the motion may be made at any time before the adjournment of 
the term at which the case is finally disposed of, it is held that the 
defendant's right to so move will not be defeated by the entering up 
of a judgment by the plaintiff on the record before the adjournment of 
such term.' In some states it is provided that a motion in arrest 
shall be made within four days of the rendition of the judgment ; and 
when this is the case, the motion is too late if filed after the final 
adjournment of the term at which the judgment is entered.^® It is 
held to be the correct rule of practice not to entertain a motion in 
arrest of judgment after the overruling of a demurrer to the declara- 
tion, at least where the motion is based on any exceptions which 
might have been considered on the demurrer ; ** and clearly, mai- 
ler which was objected to by demurrer and decided upon cannot 
afterwards be urged in arrest of judgment. ^^ But a motion of this 
character may be received after a decision on a motion for a new 


I 98. Oronndfl for Arrest of Jndgineiit* 

As a general rule, a judgment can be arrested only for some mat- 
ter appearing, or the omission of some matter which ought to ap- 
pear, on the face of the record itself.** And for the purpose of such 

6 AtL 533; Colchen v. Ninde, 120 Ind. 88, 22 N. R 94; Potter v. McCk)rmack, 
127 Ind. 439, 26 N. E. 883; Bay less y. Jones, 10 Ind. App. 102, 37 N. E. 421; 
Smitli V. State. 140 Ind. 343, 39 N. E. lOGO; Barnhart v. Edwards (Cal.) 57 
I'ac. 1004. 

• Hartridge v. Wesson, 4 Ga. lOL 

Instate y. JLeatbers, 61 Mo. 381. 

" Rouse V. Peoria County, 2 Oilman (111.) 99; Independent Order of Mutual 
Aid V. Paine, 122 111. 625, 14 N. E. 42; Chicago & E. I. R. Oo. v. Hines, 132 
IlL i61, 23 N. E. 1021, 22 Am. St Rep. 515; Indiana & I. S. R. Co. v. Samp- 
son, 31 111. App. 513; Crown Coal & Tow Co. v. Yoch Coal Mln. Co., 57 
IlL App. 66C; Mayer y. Lawrence, 58 lU. App. 194; Story & Clark Organ 
Co. y. Uendleman, 63 lU. App. 123; Miller y. McCormick Harvesting Mach. 
Co.. lA llL App. 571. 

« Oeeman y. Camden, 7 Mo. 298; Chicago & A. R. Co. y. Clausen, 173 
111 100, 50 N. E. 680; Qeveland, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Jenkins, 70 111. 
Ai»p. 415; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Pearson, 82 lU. App. 605. 

n Wilkiiiflon y. Daniel, Wright (Ohio) 368. 

i« Burrows y. Mblack, 28 a C. A. 130, 84 Fed. Ill; Xoyes y. Parker, 64 
Vt 379^ 24 Atl. 12; Ward v. Lakeside Ry. Co.. 20 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 494; Burnett 
y. K»nund, 2 .Nott & McC. (S. C.) 4'^; Watt's Case, 4 Leigh (Va.) 672: Gerllug 



§ 98 LAW OF JUDOMENTS. (Cb. 5 

a motion, the evidence does not constitute a part of the record." 
"A motion in arrest of judgment reaches only such defects as arc 
apparent on the face of the record, and as are not cured by the verdict 
or some statute of amendments, or waived by failing to demur." " 
This motion, in other words, *'does not perform the office of calling 
the attention of the court to rulings which constitute matters of ex- 
ception. It can not, therefore, be used as a substitute for a motion 
for a new trial. It reaches only those defects which are apparent on 
the face of the record proper, and does not reach such as require 
to be brought to the notice of the court by proof aliunde." *^ Much 
less, of course, can such a motion be supported by matter which be- 
comes part of the record after the motion has been overruled." 
It is stated to be an invariable rule, with regard to the arrest of judg- 
ment, that whatever is alleged for this purpose must be such matter 
as would, upon demurrer, have been sufficient to overturn the action 

V. Agricultural Ins. Co., 39 W. Va. 689, 20 S. B. 691; State v. George, 30 N. 
C. 324, 49 Am. Dec. 3J>2; State v. Douglass, 63 N. C. 500; Brown v. Lee, 
21 Ga. 159; Gamer ▼. State, 42 Ga. 203; Frank y. State. 39 Miss. 705; State 
V. Addison, 15 La. Ann. 185; State v. Green, 43 La. Ann. 402, 9 South. 42; 
Case y. State, 5 Ind. 1; McGiU v. Rothgeb, 45 111. App. 511; McCarty y. 
O'Bryan, ""7 Mo. 5H4, 38 S. W. 456; Elsenrath y, Kallmeyer, 61 Mo. App. 
430; Floyd v. Colorado Fuel & Iron Co., 10 Colo. App. 54, 50 Pac 864. 

"Burrows v. Mblack, 28 C. C. A. 130, »4 Fed. Ill; Clary y. Hardeeville 
Briok Co. (C. C.) 100 Fed. 915; Ward y. Lakeside Ry. Co., 20 Pa. Co. Ct 
K. 494; lYow v. Thomas, 70 Vt. 580, 41 Atl. 652. After verdict on a moUoa 
in arrest of judgment, the court will presume that every material fact al- 
leged in the declaration, or fairly inferable from what is alleged, was proved 
on the trial. Herman Berghoff Brewing Co. y. Przbylski, 82 111. App. 361. 

i« Balllett y. Humphreys, 78 Ind. 388. See Sanner y. Sayne, 78 Ga. 467, 
3 S. E. 651; Court of Probate v. Sprague, 3 R. I. 205. 

17 White y. Caldwell, 17 Mo. App. 691. In passing upon a motion in ar- 
rest, .it is not allowable for the judge to inyoke his recollection as to what 
occurred at the trial. City of Washington y. Calhoun, 103 Ga. 675, 30 S. E. 
434. r^or can a motion in arrest be aided by statements of the adverse 
party's counsel. Taylor y. Corley, 113 Ala. oSO, 21 South. 404. In an action 
to rescind a deed for fraudulent representations as to incumbrances, the 
fact that the incumbrance has been paid off before trial cannot be consid- 
ered on motion in arrest of judgment. Moore y. Cross, 87 Tex. 557, 29 S. 
W. 1051. 

18 Heward T. State, 21 Miss. 261; Bull y. Mathews, 20 B. L 100, 37 AtL 



or plea.** That is, motions in arrest are governed in general by the 
principles applicable to demurrers, and no greater indulgence is 
shovni to the defendant, in respect to his objections thus urged, than 
if they had taken the shape of a demurrer. In fact, as a consequence 
of the statutes of amendments and the doctrine of cure by verdict, 
much greater severity is shown to motions in arrest. So that it is 
by no means true that any thing which would have supported a 
demurrer will be good ground for arresting the judgment. "Excep- 
tions that are moved in arrest of judgment must be much more mate- 
rial and glaring than such as will maintain a demurrer, or, in other 
words, many inaccuracies and omissions, which would be fatal if 
early observed, are cured by a subsequent verdict, and not suffered, 
in the last stage of a cause, to unravel the whole proceedings." *• 

i 09. Defect of Partiefl. 

The objection that there is a defect of parties cannot be raised by 
motion in arrest of judgment, but only by demurrer or answer, and 
it is waived by going to trial without exception.** So a misjoinder 
of parties as plaintiffs is no ground for arresting the judgment.** 
Neither is an objection that some of the defendants are non-resi- 
dents.** And where an action was pending in the name of a firm, 
as plaintiffs, in the style of L. & Co., and L. died before the trial, 
and the names of the other partners did not appear of record, it was 

1* Washington & B. Tompike Koad t. State, 19 Md. 239; State v. James, 
2 Bay (8. C.) *21o; Sedgwick v. Dawklns, 18 Fla. 335. 

>• 3 Bl. Comm. 3&M. 

*» RonfiCger ▼. Lindenberger, 53 Mo. 304; Yonley v. Thompson, 30 Ark. 
3yj»: Thompson v. Kimbrough, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 350, 57 S. W. 328; Crouoh 
T. Uance, «2 Mo. App. 25; Chandler & Taylor Oo. t. Norwood, 14 App. D. 
C 357. 

" Little Rock & Ft. Smith R. Co. v. Dyer, 35 Ark. 300; Demerltt v. Mills, 
69 X. H. 18. But In an early Massachusetts case. In case by husband and 
wife against defendant for driving his horse and chaise against the plain- 
tilTa chaise, by which the wife was thrown out and injured, it was alleged 
that the husband had lost the labor and comfort of his wife, and had been 
pat to great expense in her cure, etc., and after verdict for the plaintiff, 
judgment was arrested, because injuries were charged in the action for which 
huKband and wife coul^ not be joined. Barnes v. Hurd, 11 Mass. 59. 

ss Washington &, S. U. Tel. Co. T. Hobson, 15 Grat. (Va.) 122. 


S 100 LAW OP JUDaMENT& (Ch. 5 

considered that this furnished no ground for a motion in arrest of 
judgment, the death itself not being shown by the record.'* Xor 
will judgment be arrested because of an ordinary mis-spelling of a 
party's name.*' On the other hand, where an objection of this char- 
acter is supported by the face of the record, it may in some instances 
be adequate ground for arresting the judgment. Thus, where the 
law requires that suits shall be brought in the name of the real party 
in interest, a motion to arrest a judgment in favor of the assignor of 
a note "to the use of" the assignee should prevail.** 

i 100. Insiiffloieiit or Faulty Pleadlnc^ 

A motion in arrest of judgment must be founded on matter of rec- 
ord ; and if the declaration or complaint contains a substantial cause 
of action, the judgment will not be arrested on account of an irregu- 
larity or defect which is amendable, or which has been waived by 
appearance or going to trial.*^ In other words, if the plaintiffs 
manner of stating his title or setting out his cause of action be objec- 
tionable and defective, though the title itself appears to be good in 
law, advantage must be taken of the defect before a verdict is ren- 
dered. But if, giving him the benefit of all intendments and infer- 
ences, the title or cause of action itself appears from the declaration 
to be defective and bad in law, so that his averments do not make out 
a substantial ground of suit, then judgment will be arrested on the 
defendant's motion ; because such a defect cannot be cured by verdict, 
and the court cannot presume that a cause of action was proved 
where aone was stated.** An admirable illustration of this rule is 

«* RouDtree v. Lathrop, 69 G a. 53t). 

25 Toledo, W. & W. Ky. Co. v. Ingraham, 77 Ul. 309. 

seHutchings v. Weems, 35 Mo. 285. 

S7 Parker's Adm'r y. Abrams^ 50 Ala. 35; Lester v. Piedmont & Arlin^on 
Life Ins. Co., 55 Ga. 475; Bpahr v. Nicklaus, 61 Ind. 221; Merritt v. Dearth, 
48 Vt. 65; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Ward, 10 C. 0. A. 166, 61 PW. 827. 

" Bedell v. ^5tevens, 28 N. H. 118; Gould v. KeUey, 16 N. H. 551; Jaccard 
V. Anderson, 32 Mo. 188; Smith v. Curry, 16 lU. 147; Pbllaon v. Bamp- 
field's Adm'r, 1 Brev. (S. C.) 202; Seelye v. People, 40 lU. App. 449; Illinois 
Live-^tock Ins. Co. v. Kirkpatriek, 61 111. App. 74; Plerson y. ladependeot 
School Dist., 106 Iowa, 695, 77 N. W. 49i; Johnson v. MUler, 82 Iowa, 693. 
48 X. W. 1081, 31 Am. St Rep. 614; Consolidated Canal Co. v. Peten (Arix.> 
4U I'ac. 74. In Town of Walpole v. Marlow, 2 N. H. 385, the role is thus 


furnished by a recent decision in Indiana, where an action was 
brought under a statute which provided that the personal representa- 
tive of one killed by. the wrongful act of another might maintain an 
action therefor in his own name for the benefit of the widow and chil- 
dren, or next of kin, of the deceased. The petition in this case failed 
to allege the existence of any widow, children, or next of kin, and it 
was held that a motion in arrest of judgment was properly sustained, 
because the existence of persons beneficially interested was essential 
to the plaintiff's suit, and without that allegation his petition did not 
disclose a cause of action.^* But in stating that a judgment will be 
arrested if the petition fails to disclose a cause of action, reference 
is of course made to substantial and not formal omissions. The lat- 
ter are supplied by intendment, and will be presumed after verdict to 
have been proved. If the defects are merely of omission, and if, when 
supplied, a complete case would be made out, the omission being of 
facts which the jury must have found, then the judgment is a legiti- 
mate sentence of the law.** Thus judgment will not be arrested, 

ttited by CHief Justice Richardson: If tbe titie stated In the declaration 
be defective, the Judgment must be arrested; but if the title be defectively 
ttated, the defect is cured by verdict. The true distinction between tbe 
two is this: When any particular fact is essential to the validity of the 
pltlDtiirs title, if such fact is neither expressly stated in the declaration, nor 
necessarily impUed from the facts which are stated, the title must be con- 
sidered as defective and Judgment must be arrested; but if such fact, al- 
tliongh not expressly stated, be necessarily impUed from what is stated, the 
title must be considered as only defectively stated, and the defect is cured 
by verdict 

>• Stewart v. Terre Uaute & L K. Co., IQS Ind. 44, 2 N. E. 208. So also, 
in an action against a railroad company for klUing a horse, the jurlsdic- 
tlonal defect of failing to allege that it was kiUed in the county where the 
action is brought may be reached by motion in arrest of judgment. Louis- 
Tine; N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v.. Johnson, 11 Ind. App. 328, 36 N. E. 766; Chi- 
ctgo ft S. E. Ky. Co. V. Wheeler, 14 Ind. App. 62, 42 N. E. 489. 

••Saulsbnry v. Alexander, 50 Mo. 142; SewaU's Falls Bridge v. Fisk, 
25 X. U. 171; Uugoes v. Fnim, 41 W. Va. 445, 23 S. E. 604. A motion in 
Mmtt of Judgment will not extend to such defects in the complaint as are 
cored by verdict or the finding of the court. Powell v. Bennett, 131 Ind. 
465, 80 N. E. 618; Bayless v. Jones, 10 Ind. App. 102, 37 N. E. 421. An 
cmlsBloa of the fonnal concluding words of a pleading cannot be taken ad- 
vantage of by a motion in arrest of Judgment. Stearns v. Steams' Adm*r, 
^^ Vt 978; District of Columbia v. Eaton, 13 App. D. a 182. 


§ 100 LAW OF JUDOMBNTB. (Ch. 5 

after verdict, for any defect in pleading which would not hare been 
fatal on general demurrer ; nor then, if the court can presume the 
defect to have been supplied by proof before the jury.** Further, 
upon a motion of this kind, the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of any 
legitimate inference or intendment that can be brought to bear upon 
the allegations of his declaration. Hence the rule that judgment will 
not be arrested for lack of an essential averment in the declaration 
which is contained by implication in the averments used, or which 
may be considered to have been proved as a part of what is al- 
leged." On a motion in arrest the whole record is before the court, 
and where a defect in the petition is waived of record by the defend- 
ant, the motion will not be granted on account of such defect.'* 
Aside from the question of omissions, the general rule also jM'escribes 
that irregularities or informalities m the manner of setting out the 
cause of action are not open to exception after verdict. As an illus- 
tration of this, it is held that an objection that the complaint, in an 
action for damages for breach of contract, treats each breach as a 
separate and independent cause of action, and sets forth the same in 
a distinct count, is not available upon a motion in arrest of judg- 
ment.'* Nor need the plaintiff anticipate defenses; it is no cause 
for arresting judgment that the declaration on its face shows the 
cause of action to have been barred.** Nor that the complaint only 
warrants a recovery of nominal damages.** So again, a traverse by 
one party of matter not alleged by the other, in addition to the mat- 
ter properly in issue, is mere surplusage and not a ground of arrest.*' 

31 Hippins v. Boffan, 4 Har. (Del.) »aO; Woods v. State, 10 Mo. eW; Machon 
V. Handle, «($ Tex. 282, 17 S. W. 477. 

32 Rea V. Harrington, 58 Vt. 181, 2 Atl. 457, 56 Am. Rep. 561 (citfng Mowy 
V. Homan, 10 Vt. 7Ai^; Curtis v. Burdlck. 48 Vt. 166); IBedell v. Stevens. 
28 N. H. 118; Edpciiy v. Kinerson, 23 N. H. 555, 55 Am. Dec. 207. 

ssAuld V. Butcher, 2 Kan. 135. 

3* Pickering v. MlssiRsIppl Val. Nat. Tel. Co., 47 Mo. 457. And see Baden 
V. Clarke, 1 GUI (Md.) 165. So the fact that the praecipe Is In trespass and 
the declaration In rase Is no ground for arrest of Judgment. Homan ▼• Flem- 
ing, 51 111. App. 572. 

8 8 Allen V. Word. 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 284. 

3« Reagan v. Fox. 45 Iml. 8. 

•7 Robhins v. AVolcott, lU Conn. 356, 


Nor can the question of the propriety of allowing an amendment to 
be made in the pleadings be reached on motion in arrest.*' 

S 101. Joinder of Good aj&d Bad Countfl. 

In regard to the misjoinder of counts in a declaration, or the join- 
der of good and bad counts, the English rule is stated to be as fol- 
lows: Where general damages are found on a declaration consist- 
ing of several counts, which are good but cannot be joined, the 
proper course is to arrest the judgment ; where some of the counts 
are good and others bad, a venire de novo issues ; but in the case 
of a single count containing good and bad causes of action, the court 
will neither arrest the judgment nor grant a venire de novo, inasmuch 
as it will be intended that the damages were given in respect of the 
good cause of action only.** And a similar rule obfains in some 
of the American states, viz., that if a general verdict for the plaintiff 
be taken upon several counts in a declaration, and one of the counts 
is fatally defective, judgment will be arriested on motion, though other 
counts, not liable to objection, were covered by the verdict.** As 
wc have already seen, some of the American authorities manifest a 
decided reluctance (though this disposition is not universal) to pre- 
sume in favor of the validity of a judgment which may, for aught that 
appears on the record, be composed in part of damages given in 
respect of a bad count.*^ Still, in several of the states, it is appar- 
ently settled law that where a general verdict is returned, the judg- 
ment will not be arrested unless all the counts of the declaration, or 
paragraphs of the complaint, are so defective as not to have been 
cured by the verdict or finding.** Thus in New Hampshire, judg- 

••Le Strange y. IState, 58 Md. 26. And see Hatfield v. Cummings, 152 
Ind. 587, 58 N. K. 701. 

•• Kitcbenman v. Skeel, 3 Uxcb. 4». 

*• SylTester v. Downer, 18 Vt. 32; Needham v. McAuley, 13 Vt. 68; Bank 
of CarUBle y. Hopkins, 1 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 245, 15 Am. Dec. 113. 

«i 8apra, f 84. 

42Hoag T. Hatch, 23 Conn. 585; Sims v. Dame, 113 Ind. 127, 15 N. E. 
217; Gllmore v. Ward, 22 Ind. App. 10«, 52 X. E. 810; Burrows v. Nlblack, 
28 a C. A. 130, 84 Fed. Ill; Swift ik Co. v. Fue, 167 111. 443, 47 N. E. 761; 
BaltJnoore & O. S. W. Ky. Co. v. Alsop, 176 Xll. 471, 52 N. K. 253; Hayes v. 
Solomon, UO Ala. 520, 7 Kontb. U21. 

1 LAW JUDG.-IO (145) 


§ 108 lULW OP JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 5 

ment will not be arrested because the declaration may contain some 
claims that are illegal, if it also contains others upon which the plain- 
tiflf may properly recover.** 

I 102. HlflJolBder of Oavses of Aetioa* 

A misjoinder of counts and causes of action, apparent upon the 
declaration, with damages assessed entire, is good cause for arrest- 
ing the judgment on motion after verdict, or for reversing the judg- 
ment by writ of error.** Thus a motion in arrest will be granted 
when the petition contains matters of equitable jurisdiction mixed and 
blended with matters of legal cognizance, in the states where the 
distinction is still observed.*^ And in. Missouri, where several causes 
of action are united in the same petition, the verdict, if found for 
the plaintiff, Inust be rendered and the damages assessed upon each 
cause of action separately, otherwise judgment will be arrested.** 

I 103. Objootions to tlie Jury. 

An objection to the mode of drawing and impaneling the grand 
jury cannot be made the ground of a motion in arrest of judgment*^ 
Nor will any objection to an individual juror, which would not be 
sufficient ground for a principal challenge, be good cause for arrest- 
ing the judgment/* It appears, however, that when a cause is tried 
in a court of record before a less number of jurors than a party is 
entitled to, and his consent to such a trial does not expressly appear 
of record, he may take advantage of the objection by motion in ar- 
rest ; and in such case no exceptions to the panel need be saved at 
the trial.** It is generally held — ^in accordance with the rule that judg- 

4» Conway v. Town of Jefferson, 46 N. H. 621. 

** Haskell v. Bowen, 44 Vt. 57U. "Objection to the Joinder of a count In tort 
with one on contract may be taken In arrest of Judgment. Joy T. Hill, 36 
Vt 33a; Bull V. Mathews, 20 R. I, 100, 37 AU. 636. 

*B Meyers v. Field, 37 Mo. 434. 

«6 Pitts v. Jb\igate, 41 Mo. 406. 

*T state V. Swift, 14 La. Ann. 827. 

*« Chapman v. Welles, Kirby (Conn.) 133. 

*» Cox V. Moss, 53 Mo. 432; Brown v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 37 Mo. 29S; 
3rown y. St. Louis & 8. F. Ry. Co., 6» Mo. App. 418. 


mcnt will be arrested only for matter of record — that misconduct of 
the jury, or improper influence brought tp bear upon them, after 
they have retired to make up a verdict, is no ground for a motion in 
arrest, although it may furnish cause for granting a new trial.^® So 
the fact that the jury, when out, were under the charge of an unsworn 
officer, is not technically ground for a motion in arrest of judgment, 
though it may be for a new trial/* 

i 104« Xrresnlar or DefeotlTe Verdict. 

At common law, one of the principal grounds for arresting a Judg- 
ment is the objection that the verdict is not responsive to the issues, 
or that it differs in a material respect from the pleadings and the 
issue formed thereon.^' So if the verdict is upon an insufficient 
count, or finds a fact which disaffirms the plaintiff's right to recover, 
or omits to find a material issue joined in the cause^ the judg:ment 
will be arrested •• 

I 105* Grovndfl lield lasiiffleieiat. 

A motion in arrest of judgment on a verdict, based solely upon the 
ground that the evidence adduced at the trial was not sufficient to 

••Brister v. State, 26 Ala. 107. Connecticut apparently stands alone In 
permitting a different practice. It is there held that on a motion In ar- 
rest of judgment for misconduct of a juror,— as, conyersing with one not 
a the jury upon the merits of the cause,— it must be averred that the party 
mtldjig the motion was ignorant of such misconduct until after the verdict was 
rendered, otherwise the motion wUl not prevaU. Woodruff v. Richardson, 
20 Conn. 238. And In another case, where the jury took with them a paper 
whicb nad been used on the trial to refresh the memory of a witness, but 
which was not read or offered in evidence, nor were its contents communicated 
to the other side, and had the same before them in aU their deliberations, and 
the paper was calculated to affect the verdict, it was held that this was a 
toffident ground for arresting the judgment Claric v. Whitaker, 18 Conn. 
513, i» Am. Dee. 337. 

viHcOum T. State, 17 Miss. 466. 

»s Xoong T. Wickliffe, 7 Dana (Ky.) 447; 8 Bl. Gomm. 393. But in some 
states, a motion in arrest of judgment wUl not reach a defective verdict. 
i'otter T. McCormack, 127 Ind. 43», 26 N. E. 883; Westfield Gas & Milling? 
Co. V. Abemathey, 8 ind. App. 73, 35 N. E. 399. Inconsistency between 
a special finding and the general verdict cannot be taken advantage of by 
moUoD in arrest. Moflltt v. Albert, 97 Iowa, 213, 66 N. W. 162. 

MKelrle T. Shriver, 11 UiU 6l J. (Md.) 406. 



make out the plaintiff's case, will not be sustained ; ■* nor, in general, 
a motion based on any matters which took place on the trial.'* Nor 
can a motion in arrest of judgment reach a defect in the form of the 
judgment, for the obvious reason that the motion must precede the 
rendition of the judgment.^* And the failure to serve the defendants 
in an action with copies of the declaration, as required by the rules 
and practice of the court, constitutes no ground for arresting the 

B4 LoveU V. Sabln, 15 N. H. 29; Bright v. State, 90 Ind. 348; Powe t. 
State, 48 N. J. Law, 34, 2 Atl. 062. But In Allen v. Word. 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 
284, it \a held that a judgment will be arrested on the ground of a yariance 
between the pleadings and the proof. 

B» Walker v. Sargeant, 11 Vt 327. 

B« Smith y. Dodds, 35 Ind. 452. 

»T Loney y. Bailey, 43 Md. 10. 





f 108. Distinction between Rendition and Entry. 

107. Power and Duty of tbe Court to render Judgment. 

108. Application and Order for Judgment 
lUU. Signature of Judge. 

110. Entry by tbe Clerk, 

ill. Entry In wrong Book. 

112. Indexing tbe Judgment 

113. Remedy against Clerk for improper Entry. 

114. Contents of tbe Judgment 
113. Form of tbe Judgment. 

116. Designation of tbe Parties. 

117. Designation of tbe Property. 

118. Designation of Amount of Recovery, 
lltf. Conditions in Judgment 

120. Joint Defendants. 

121. Time of entering Judgment 

122. Date of tbe Judgment. 

123. Construction of Ambiguous Judgments. 

124. Tbe Judgment-Roll, or Record. 

125. Supplying l»8t Records. 

125a. Entry of Judgments in Federal Courts. 

f 106. Distinotion between Rendition and Entry. 

The rendition of a judgment is the judicial act of the court in 
pronouncing the sentence of the law upon the facts in controversy 
as ascertained by the pleadings and the verdict.^ The entry of a 
judj^ment is a ministerial act, which consists in spreading upon the 
record a statement of the final conclusion reached by the court in 
the matter, thus furnishing external and incontestable evidence of 
I he sentence given, and designed to stand as a perpetual memorial 

1 '"i'lie M'bole question, tben, appears to resolve itself into tbis— whether 
tlM' rendition of judgment is a judicial act, to which the direct agency of 
tbf> court is indispensable, and to which tbe mind of the court is to be judi- 
eialiy applied, or whether, after verdict has been rendered, it is a ministerial 
■et. which may be performed by the clerk without an order by the court 
When presented In tbla elementary fcorm, the question appears to me exceed- 


§ 106 LAW OF JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 6 

of its action.* It is the former, therefore, that is the effective result 
of the litigation. In the nature of things, a judgment must be ren- 
dered before it can be entered. And not only that, but though the 
judgment be not entered at all, still it is none the less a judgment. 
The omission to enter it does not destroy it, nor does its vitality 
remain in abeyance until it is put upon the record. The entry may 
be supplied, perhaps after the lapse of years, by an order nunc pro 
tunc. But it must not be supposed that this proceeding is required 
to give existence and force, by retrospection, to that which before 
had none. As is said by the supreme court of California: "The 
enforcement of a judgment does not depend upon its entry or docket- 
ing. These are merely ministerial acts, the first of which is required 
to be done for putting in motion the right of appeal from the judg- 
ment itself, or of limiting the time within which the right may be 
exercised, or in which the judgment may be enforced; and the 
other, for the purpose of creating a lien by the judgment upon the 
real property of the debtor. But neither is necessary for the issu- 
ance of an execution upon a judgment which has been duly ren- 
dered. Without docketing or entry, execution may be issued on 
the judgment and land levied upon and sold, and the deed executed 
by the sheriff, in fulfillment of the sale, not only proves the sale, 
but also estops the defendant from controverting the title acquired 
by it." • And it follows, a fortiori, that if the entry, though attempted 
to be made in due form, does not correctly record the sentence of 
the court, or is defective or ambiguous or otherwise exceptionable, 
still this will not weaken the force of the judgment as a judgment. 

ingly clear and free from doubt. If there be any one thing done In the 
progress of a cause, from its commencement to its conclusion, that is pe- 
culiarly and emphatically a judicial act, it is the rendition of judgmeDt" 
Ware, Dist. J., in Goddard v. Coffin, 2 Ware (Da v. 381) 3KJ, Fed. Cas. No. 
5,490. And see Matthews v. Houghton, 11 Me. 377. 

2 Miller v. Albright, 12 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 533. 

» Los Angeles County Bank v. Kaynor, 61 Cal. 145. A judgment ordered 
by the judge to be entered for a certain amount, though not yet witered or 
signed, is a debt to the judgment creditor capable of being attached. Holtby 
V. Hodgson, 24 Q. B. Div. 103. Where counsel on both sides have treated the 
verdict as serving the office of a judgment as well as of a verdict objec- 
tions on account of the failure to enter judgment are waived- Webster t. 
Dundee Mortg. He Itust Co., U3 Ga. 278, 20 S. E. 310. 



There are certain purposes, however, for which a judgment is re- 
quired to be duly entered before it can become available or be at- 
tended by its usual incidents. Thus, as above remarked, this is a 
prerequisite to the right to appeal. And so a judgment must com- 
monly be docketed before it can create a lien upon land, and in 
some of the states (though not all) the priority among different 
bens is determined by their respective dates of docketing.* And 
again, the record entry of a judgment is indispensable to furnish the 
evidence of it, when it is made the basis of a claim or defense in 
another court.* But with these exceptions, a judgment is independ- 
ent of the fact of its entry. And in all cases, the distinction between 
rendition and entry is substantial and important. 

f 107. Power and Ihktj of the Court to render Jndement* 

It is the duty of the court, when the necessary facts have been 
lawfully determined by regular proceedings, to render the proper 
judgment, and to refrain from any re-opening of the issues.* The 
performance of this duty by the court may be enforced by the writ 
of mandamus. But to make this remedy available it must appear 
that the court had jurisdiction in the premises, that regular and 
sufficient proceedings were had, that the case is ripe for judgment, 
and that the complainant has an absolute right to the judgment 
sought, no constraint upon the judicial discretion of the court being 

«8ee infra, i 44S. 

>Tbe claim of res judicata cannot be made on the showing of a minute 
on the clerk's doclcet, tills not being a judgment. Young t. People, 171 III. 
:5I9, 49 N. £. 503. 

• Isler v. Brown, t57 N. O. 175. There Is no judgment In fact upon a 
renlict until tbe motion for a new trial Is decided. City of Louisyille v. 
MnldooD (Ky.) 43 S. W. 867. 

7 People v. Murray, 2 Misc. Kep. 152, 23 N. Y. Supp. 160; Fairbanks v. 
Amoskeag Nat. Hank (C. C.) 32 Fed. 572; Smith v. Moore, 38 Conn. 105; 
State T. Klein, 140 Mo. 502, 41 S. W. 805; Broder v. Superior Court 103 
CaL 121, 37 Pac. 143; Elder v. Grunsky, 127 Cal. 67, 59 Pac. 300; State 
V. Dickinson, 59 Neb. 753, 82 N. W. 16; People t. Graham, 16 Colo. 347, 26 
Pac 936; l'e<^le v. Downer. 18 Colo. 500, 33 Pac. 162; Corthell v. Mead, 
19 Cola 386, 35 Pac 741; State Y. Hunter, 4 Wash. St 651, 30 Pac. 642. 


§107 LAW OF JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 6 

The failure of the trial court to enter judgment for the plaintiif 
for an amount admitted by the defendant to be due and tendered m 
court, is error for which the judgment will be reversed.* And a 
second final judgment or decree cannot be rendered between the 
same parties upon the same pleadings and subject-matter, until the 
first hafi been reversed, or opened and vacated.* The authority of 
the court to render a judgment does not always depend upon the 
fact that regular proceedings have taken place and culminated in a 
verdict ; it may, in some cases, rest upon the consent or agreement 
of the parties. Thus a stipulation by the parties that when judg- 
ment is entered in a certain cause pending in another county, and a 
transcript thereof forwarded to the district court of defendant's coun- 
ty, where other causes involving the same question are pending, the 
judge of the latter court may order similar judgments in the other 
causes, is valid, and the judgments may be entered in vacation.** 
Where issues are sent from one court to another to be tried, it be- 
longs to the court in which the main litigation is pending to enter 
any judgment that may be necessary in the case. Thus, where is- 
sues are sent by the probate court to a court of law, a judgment 
for costs should be entered by the former court upon receiving the 
certificate of the verdict, and not by the court in which the issues 
were tried.** 

s Mace V. Gaddls, 3 Wash. T. 125. 13 Pac. 545. 

» State V. JacksonviUe, F. ik M. K. Co., 16 Fla. 708; Morrison y. City 
of Chicago, 142 ill. (500, 32 N. B. 172. See, also, Shepherd v. Harvey's Adm'x 
(Ky.) 43 S. \V. 45<i; Biudworth v. Poole, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 551, 53 S. W. 717. 

10 Western Land Co. v. English, 75 Iowa, 507, 3S> N. W. 719. So of an 
agreement of parties that a case shall be beard before a Judge at chambers 
in the same manner and with the same effect as though it were tried by faim 
in court without a Jury. JBeach v. Beck with. 13 Wis. 21. So of an agree- 
ment to refer a pending suit to an arbitrator, and that a judgment in the 
cause shall be entered according to his decision. Bank of Monroe v. Widntf. 
11 I'alge (N. Y.) 529, 43 Am. Dec. 7«8. It is no ground for the reversal of 
a Judgment that the decree is prepared by the attorneys of the succespfal 
party, where the decision as prepared Is adopted by the trial Judge. Stepp 
V. National Life & Maturity Ass'n, 37 S. C. 417, 16 S. E. 134. 

11 Levy V. Levy, 28 Md. 25; Browne v. Browne, 22 Md. 103. 



I 108« Applioation and Order for Jvdsiiieiit. 

Where judgment follows as the result of contested proceedings 
and the finding of a verdict, it is usually not necessary for the suc- 
cessful party, in modern practice, to take active measures to secure 
the rendition of judgment.^' But an application for judgment is in 
some instances required by statute, and is probably always necessary 
in case of default. In California, a statute provides that an action 
may be dismissed, or judgment of nonsuit entered, "when, after ver- 
dict or final submission, the party entitled to judgment neglects to 
demand and have the same entered for more than six months." ^' 
But this does not cause the party to lose his judgment when the 
lapse of the time mentioned was caused by the delay of the court or 
the negligence of the clerk." It is held that a judgment which has 
been entered, and to which the judgment creditor was clearly en- 
titled upon the pleadings, will not be disturbed for failure to give 
notice of the application for the judgment, or for failure of the clerk 
to enter in his minutes, as required by the court rules, a statement 
of the application.** When the court gives to the clerk an order 
for a judgment, that is his authority for entering the same, and by 
that alone he must be guided. Hence a judgment entered by the 
clerk in pursuance of an express order of the court, will not be 
void and a mere nullity, although the court, by a subsequent order 
not noticed by the clerk, have directed the case to be continued, 
although such a judgment would be irregular and voidable, and lia- 
ble to be set aside upon seasonable application to the court.** 

ISA formal motion for judgment on a special verdict is not necessary. 
CartUage Turnpike Co. v. Overman, 19 Ind. App. 309, 48 N. E. 874. See 
Voris v. Star City Bldg. & Loan Ass'n, 20 Ind. App. 630, 50 N. E. 779. 

"Code av. Proc. Cal. S 581. 

i« Jones V. Cbaifant (Cal.) 31 Pac. 257; San Jose Ranch Co. v. San Jose 
Land & Water Co., 126 Cai. 322, 58 Pac. 824. 

isPormann v. Freae, 72 Wis. 226, 39 N. W. 385. See, as to defective no- 
tice of a motion for a judgment, White v. Sydenstricker, W. Va. 46. Ap- 
pUcaUon for an order directing the entry of a judgment may be made ex 
parte; and no notice is necessary unless a stay exists, or the court, for some 
special reason, directs that notice be given. Gould v. Duluth & D. Elevator 
Co., 3 N. D. 96, 54 N. W. 316. 

i« Claggett V. Simes, 31 N. H. 56. 

. (153) 

§ 109 LAW OF JUDQMSNTa. (Ch. 6 

S 109. SisBatiure of Jndse. 

The impression not uncommonly prevails that at common kw a 
judgment required the signature of the court in order to be valid. 
This notion — arising probably from an ambiguous use of the phrase 
"signing judgment" — ^is erroneous; and the ancient practice fur- 
nishes but slight aid in determining the same question in modem 
law.*^ Now in some of the states the statutes require that the 
judgment itself, or the record in which it is entered up, shall be 
signed by the judge ; and in these states some of the decisions hold 
that unless this direction is complied with, the judgment will be en- 
tirely invalid and of no force or effect.^® Still, these statutes re- 
quire the signature only of final and definite judgments which pass 
upon the merits of a controversy and may constitute res judicata; 
interlocutory orders, made in the progress of a cause, have their 
eflfect without being signed by the judge.^* And some of the au- 
thorities show a tendency to construe such statutes in a liberal man- 
ner, instead of requiring an exact compliance with their terms. Thus 
a judgment which the court was competent to render without the 
verdict of a jury will be upheld if found entered on the minutes of 
the day's proceedings, the minutes of the day being regularly signed 
by the judge, though the judgment itself bears only the signature of 
counsel. Such a judgment, it is said, is irregular but not void, and 
can be amended.*® So the signature of the judge affixed by consent 

IT French v. Fease, 10 Kan. 51. 

18 isuccesslon of Asbridge, 1 Lot. Ann. 206; Hatch ▼. Arnault, 3 La. Ann. 
482; »aloy y. ColUns, 80 La. Ann. 63; State v. Jumel, 30 La. Ann. 421; Sloan 
V. Cooper, 54 Ga. 486; Raymond v. Smith, 1 Mete. (Ky.) 65, 71 Am. Dec 
458; Galbraith t. Sidener, 28 Ind. 142. Until a judgment Is signed by the 
judge, It cannot acquire a Uen, although recorded. Marchal v. Hooker, 27 
La. Ann. 454. in Louisiana, a statute requires judgments to be read in 
open court. It is held that this requirement is jurisdictional, and that a judg- 
ment not so read, or which is signed in chambers, is invalid. Woodlief t. 
Logan, 50 La. Ann. 438, 23 South. 716; State v. Judges of Fourth Orcuit 
Court of Appeals, 48 La. Ann. 905, 19 South. 932; Richardson v. Turner. 
52 La. Ann. 1613, 28 South. lo8. 

i» Wickmam v. Nalty. 41 La. Ann. 284, 6 South. 123; State v. Judge of 
Fifth District, 12 La. Ann. 455. 

aoTharpe v. Crumpler, 63 Ga. 273; Huckaby T. Sasser, 69 Ga. 603. A 



in vacation is a sufficient authentication of a decree in an ordinary 
action to authorize an execution.*^ Another group of cases goes 
much further than this, and holds that the requirement that a judge 
shall sign all judgments rendered in his court is merely directory, 
and consequently that his omission to do so will not avoid the judg- 
ment as to strangers, although it might, in connection with other 
evidence, be a proof that the judgment was fraudulent or had not 
been in fact rendered by him.^^ In harmony with these decisions 
it is also held that an irregularity in the signature of the judge — as, 
in his placing it in the body of the decree instead of at the foot,^^ or 
his signing it while he is in another county,** — is immaterial. And 
where the court is composed of several judges, its orders are suffi- 
ciently authenticated by the signature of either.** 

In several of the other states, there being no statutory require- 
ment of this character, it is held to be entirely unnecessary to the 
validity of a judgment that it be signed by the judge ; the presump- 
tion is, that if it is entered by the clerk, it was so directed and au- 
thorized by the court.** And a valid judgment will support an exe- 

jDdgment signed "by the court, H., plalntifTs attorney/' which was put on the 
minutes, signed by the judge, was held valid in Jones v. Word, 61 Ga. 26. 

tiKust V. i«^ust, 15 La. Ann. 477. 

ssKoUins V. Henry, 78 N. U. 342; Keener T. Goodson, 89 N. C. 273; Bart- 
lett y. Lang's Adm'rs, 2 Ala. 161; Cannon v. Hemphill, 7 Tex. 184; Cath- 
cart y. Peck, 11 Minn. 45 (Gil. 24); Chiids v. McChesney, 20 Iowa, 431, 89 
Am. Dec. 545. The omission of the Judge to sign the record at the close 
of the term will not invalidate judgments or decrees of the term, although 
such omission would be gross neglect. Ex parte Slocomb, 9 Ark. 375. 

«» Hurley v. Hewett, 89 Ale. 100, 35 AU. 1026. 

s« National Bank of Greensboro v. Gilmer, 118 N. C. 668, 24 S. E. 423. 

t»ln re Mllcreek Road, 9 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 592. 

«• Califcnila Southern R. Co. v. Southern Pac. R Co., 67 Cal. 59, 7 Pac. 
123: Crim v. Kessing, 89 Cal. 478, 26 Pac. 1074, 23 Am. St. Rep. 491; Catli- 
cart V. Peck, 11 Minn. 45 (Gil. 24); Fontaine v. Hudson, 93 Mo. 62, 5 S. VV. 
€02, 3 Am. St. Rep. 515; Platte County v. MarshaU, 10 Mo. 345; Fulton v. 
State, 103 Wis. 238, 79 N. W. 234; Lockhart v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 149, 22 
S. W. 413; Scott V. Rohman, 43 Neb. 618, 62 N. W. 46; Gordon v. Bodwell, 
o5 Kan. 131, 39 Pac. 104i. Judgments are not invalidated by the failure of 
the judge to sign the minutes of tlie term. Jordan v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 
222. 38 8. W. 780. Nor is it necessary to the validity of orders entered at a 
Fp cial term of court that the minutes of said term be signed by the judge. 
Wright T. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 3, 38 S. W. 81L 


§110 LAW OF JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 6 

cution issued in conformity therewith, although the formal record 
evidence of its rendition may not have been in existence at the time 
execution issued.*^ In New York It is said : "There is no provi- 
sion of the present law requiring such signing. The judge is to 
make his 'decision in writing/ and this, it is presumed, he must sign 
by way of authentication.*® The judgment itself is to be entered in 
the judgment-book, and is in theory entered by the clerk." *• The 
practice in Kansas is thus described: — ^the clerk by order or per- 
mission of the court enters the judgment in all cases in full upon 
the journal, and this judgment (as well as every other proceeding) 
is valid, and has force and effect, as soon as it is entered on the 
journal, whether it is ever signed by the judge or not, and whether 
it is ever transcribed into the complete record or not.*® And it is 
believed that a practice more or less closely analogous to this is in 
vogue in a majority of the states ; so that only in a few jurisdictions 
can the judge's signature be regarded as an indispensable requisite 
to the validity of the judgment. 

S 110. Entry hy the Clerk. 

When a judgment has been rendered in a cause,*^ it becomes the 
duty of the clerk, according to the usual practice, to make a record 
entry of it in an official book kept for that purpose.*" In some 

37 Fontaine v. Hudson, 93 Mo. 62, 5 S. W. 692, 3 Am. St Rep. 515. And 
see Los Angeles County Bank v. Raynor, 61 Cal. 145. 

2 8 Where a "decision in writing" is required, an entry by the clerk at the 
end of the trial of the amount for which plaintiff is entitled to recover does 
not constitute a juclgment. Crim v. Kessing, 89 Cal. 478. 26 Pac. 1074, 23 
Am. St. Rep. 491. If the court does not file the written decision, and a judge- 
ment is rendered and entered without it, the remedy is by motion in the court 
below to set the judgment aside. Garr, JScott & Co. y. Spalding, 2 H, D. 
414, 51 N. W. 8G7. 

20 De Laney v. Blizzard, 7 Hun, 66. 

»o French v. Pease, 10 Kan. 51. 

»i In New York, when an action is referred to a referee to hear and de- 
termine, and bis report directs a judgment to be entered, it stands as a de- 
cision of the court, and the clerk must enter judgment upon it when its form 
has been settled by the referee. Paget v. Melcher, 26 App. Div. 12, 49 N. Y. 
Supp. 922. And see Bentley v. Gardner, 27 Misc. Rep. 674, 58 N. Y. Supp. S-'i. 

»« The clerk must enter the judgment In accordance with the verdict, or 
finding of the court, and the order for judgment; be has no authority to io- 



States, he is required, at this stage, to make up a complete record 
of the case from its inception to its close, or a "judgment-roll ;" in 
others, he merely adds an entry of the judgment to the brief history 
of the case contained in his docket and which consists of consecu- 
tive statements of the steps taken in the cause from the issue of the 
writ on. The object of this entry is to furnish an enduring memorial 
and incontestable evidence of the judgment, and to fix its date for 
purposes of appeal or creating a lien. But, as was stated in the 
beginning of this chapter, this proceeding is ministerial only, and is 
not essential to the validity of the judgment itself. It is none the 
less the judgment of the court because not entered by the clerk.*^' 
And, except for certain special purposes, it does not remain inchoate 
or unfinished until so entered. Hence the neglect or failure of the 
clerk to make a proper entry of record of the judgment, or his de- 
fective or inaccurate entry of it, will not, as between the parties,, 
operate to invalidate the judgment."* "The fact that the clerk did 
not perform his entire duty in making up the record cannot deprive 
parties of their rights. Even although he should entirely fail to 
make up a record, such neglect would not affect those interested in 
the matter decided, if sufficient could be found upon the files and 
books of the court to show what had been done. What we call the 
complete record of a case is nothing but the history of what has 

wrt any additional clansea, as^ that the case was dismissed on the merits, 
wbei the court did not so state. Card v. Meinelse, 70 Hun, 8d2, 24 N. Y. 
Sopp. 375; llamaley ▼. Ramaley, 69 Minn. 491, 72 N. W. 6^. A judgment 
entered by a derlt of court who has no authority to enter the same is void. 
Lacoste v. Eastland, 117 Cal. 673, 49 Pac. 1046. 

ss Unt In California, a Judgment does not become elf ective until filed with 
the clerk, and is of no effect if liled after the expiration of the Judge's term, 
no matter when prepared and signed. Broder v. Conklin, 98 Cal. 360, 33 
Pac 211. And see Danielson v. Northwestern Fuel Co. (C. C.) 55 Fed. 49. 

»* Craig V. Alcorn, 46 Iowa, 560; Bridges v. Thomas, 50 Ga. 378; Bird v. 
McQelland, Stumpf & Pelzer Brick Manuf'g Co. (C. C.) 45 Fed. 458; Risk 
T. Uffelman, 7 Misc. Rep. 133, 27 N. Y. Supp. 392; New York City Baptist 
llisslon 8oc. V. Tabernacle Baptist Church, 10 App. Div. 288, 41 N. Y. Supp. 
976. See Helvete v. Rapp, 7 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 306. Omission properly to re- 
cord the verdict is a mere irregularity which does not destroy the validity of 
the Judgment, at least until it be set aside. Gunn v. Plant, 94 U. S. 664, 24 h. 
Ed. 304. 


§110 LAW OP JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 6 

been done in the case, copied by the clerk into a bo - called the 
'book of records/ It is not the writing of those things in this 
book that gives them validity. It is the previous action of the court 
upon the subject-matter. The record is but evidence of this action, 
and if, in copying, the clerk makes a mistake, that mistake will be 
corrected by entries made from time to time of the action of the 
court, and which entries, made in other books of the court, lay the 
foundation for the complete records," ** The docket of a judgment, 
it is held in New York, is no part of the record of the court; the 
entries upon the docket are directed to be made by the clerk, who, 
in making them, acts in a ministerial capacity, and his erroneous or 
false entries cannot conclude the parties, whatever might be the 
effect of an entry which he was authorized by law to make.'* In 
some of the states it is required by la^ that, before a docket entry 
is made of a judgment, there shall be filed a "judg^ent-roU" con- 
taining all the papers necessary to be attached according to the pro- 
visions of the statute. It appears that unless this provision is com- 
plied with, the docketing of the judgment is an unauthorized and 
illegal act.*^ But it is also held that an order denying a motion to 
set aside a judgment because of the failure to file a proper judgment- 
roll is not reviewable in the appellate court. If what was done 
amounts to a legal nullity, no substantial rights of the defendant 
are impaired by the denial ; and if the roll is not in due form, or the 
filing for any reason is irregular, the granting or refusing the ap- 
plication is discretionary."* According to the law and practice ob- 
taining in other states, to constitute a judgment for the purpose of 
docketing, it must first be entered in the "judgment-book." And a 

»B Kewnam's Lessee v. City of Cincinnati, 18 Ohio, 323, 331, Hitchcock, a J. 

3e Booth V. Farmers' & Mechanic's Nat. Bank, 4 Lens. 301. If the mis- 
takes or defects In docketing the Judgment do not impair the substantial ac- 
curacy and fulness of the recced required, as notice to persons interested, tbey 
'Will not prevent the judgment from becoming a Uen. Hesse t. Mano, 40 
Wis. 560. 

87 Townshend v. Wesson, 4 Duer, 342. But compare Ward v. White, 66 
III. App. 155. 

38 Whitney v. Townsend, 67 N. Y. 40. And see Hardin v. Melton, 28 S. C. 
38, 4 S. E. S05. 



docketing without such entry is of no avail, even though a judgment- 
roU be filed with what purports to be a copy of a judgment in it.** 

The general principle pointed out in this chapter — ^that an unre- 
corded judgment is valid between the parties, though it may not be 
notice to strangers — ^is illustrated by an Alabama decision, in which 
it is held that a statute which requires decrees of the chancery court 
vesting the title to property in either of the parties to a suit, to be 
recorded in the office of the clerk of the county in which the land is 
situated, does not make the vesting of the title dependent on the 
recording of the decree, but the decree is affected by a failure to have 
it so recorded just as a deed would be under the registration laws.*® 
That a judgment duly entered in the judgment-book was not signed 
by the clerk is an irregularity and a deviation from the ordinary 
practice, but it does not vitiate the judgment as to third persons in 
collateral proceedings/^ 

I 111. Eiitrjr in wrons Book. 

When the clerk is directed by law to keep certain books for the 
entry of judgments, or to record judgments in a book specially des- 
ignated by statute for that purpose, and deviates from the course 
prescribed, then in either case, for reasons sufficiently stated in the 
preceding section, the validity of the judgment is not thereby im- 
paired as between the parties.** As concerns third persons the case 

••Rockwood T. Davenport, 37 Minn. 533, 35 N. W. 377, 5 Am. St Rep. 872; 
Manrln v. Carnes, 71 llinn. 300, 74 N. W. 139. See Locke v. Hubbard, 9 ». 
D. 364, G9 N. W. 58& 

«• Witter V. Dudley, 42 Ala. 616. lliere are some cases which seem to 
indicate that confessed judgments are regarded as an exception to the general 
principle above stated. But this is too much a matter of statutory regula- 
tion to be here discussed In detail. See King y. French, 2 Sawyer, 441, Fed. 
Cas. Na 7,793; Johns v. Fritchey, 39 Md. 258. 

*i Artisans* Bank v. Treadwell, 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 553; Hotchkiss v. Cut- 
ting, 14 Minn. 542 (Gil. 408); Jorgensen v. Griffin, 14 Minn. 400 (GU. 340); 
Lythgoe t. Lythgoe, 75 Hun, 147, 26 N. Y. Supp. 1003. 

43 Wolf V. Great Falls Water-Power Co., 15 Mont. 49, 38 Pac. 115; West 
y. Keeton, 17 Tex. Ciy. App. 139, 42 S. W. 1034. In Minnesota, notwithstanding 
the adoption of a code of procedure merging legal and equitable forms in one 
form of action and providing only for a "Judgment" as the determination of 
inaea, the clerk of a certain court kept two books, one labelled "Judgment- 





§113 LAW OF JUDGMBN^S. (Ch. 6 

might be different. Probably one would not be bound by notice of 
a judgment which did not appear in the book designated by law as 
the proper quarter in which to direct his inquiries, although it might 
be recorded in a book regularly kept by the clerk but not recognized 
by law.*' Still, this would not impair the right to issue execution. 
So, under the laws of Maryland, the entry of judgment in the "per- 
manent judgment-record" in the first instance, and without any pre- 
vious entry thereof in the "trial-docket," as required by the ordinary 
practice of the trial courts, does not render the judgment illegal or 
so irregular as to require it to be stricken out.** 

I 112. ladesdiis the Jvdgineiit* 

In some of the states, the index to the record of judgments is 
made, by the effect of the statute, a part of the record ; and a judg- 
ment is not a lien on real property until properly indexed, as against 
a purchaser who has searched the index with due care ; and third 
persons cannot be charged with constructive notice of a judgment 
unless the same is correctly indexed.*' In Virginia, however, an 
exactly opposite doctrine prevails ; the index is no part of the record 
and is not essential to the creation of a valid lien.** We shall re- 
turn to this subject in a later chapter.*' 

S 113. BemedF against Glerk for latproper Entry. 

There is no question that the owner of a judgment may maintain 
an action for damages against the clerk of the court for neglecting 

book," the other "decree-book," and was accustomed to enter causes of 1*15** 
cognizance In the former, and equity causes in the latter. Held, that a Jadg- 
ment of foreclosure was not impaired by the fact that it was entered in the 
•*decree-book'* only. The error in the label was a mere Irregularity, which 
could not affect the riphts of parties. Thompson v. BIckford, 10 Mhin. IT 
(Gil. 1). See Lentllhon v. City of New York, 3 Sandf. 721. 

48 See Hesse v. Mann, 40 Wis. 5tiO. See infra, §§ 404-40G. 

44 Bond V. Citizens' Nat Bank, G5 Md. 498, 4 Atl. 89:5. 

48 Metz V. State Bank, 7 Neb. 105; Sterling Manuf g Co. v. Early, «9 lo^^ 
94. 28 N. W. 458. See Hahn v. Mosely, 119 N. C. 73. 25 S. B. 713; New 
England Loan & Trust Co. v. Avery (Tex. Civ. App.) 41 S. W. 673. 

4« Old Dominion Granite Co. V. Clarke, 28 Grat. 617. 

47 See infra, § 405. 



to make a proper entry of it, provided he shows an absolute loss of 
his judgment in consequence of such neglect."*® And the rule that 
it is the duty of the creditor to see that his judgment is properly 
entered applies only as between the parties and those affected by 
the want of constructive notice, but has no reference to the question 
of the liability of the clerik to the plaintiff whose judgment was 
wrongly entered.** 

f 114. Gontenti of the Judgment. 

No particular form of words is usually considered necessary to 
show the rendition of a judgment. The record of the judgment is 
sufficient if the time, place, parties, matter in dispute, and the re- 
sult, with the relief granted, are clearly stated.^® So, under the 
ordinary practice, it is not required to set out in the judgment itself 
the facts on which it is founded; it is sufficient if they are stated 
in the pleadings and ascertained by the judgment."^ And under 
those systems, of practice which assimilate the legal and equitable 
jurisdiction, it is not necessary that the facts on which a decree in 
equity is based should be recited therein. The case is preserved in 
the same manner as in an action at law, and all the material evi- 
dence must be incorporated in the bill of exceptions."* But it is 

«*Blo8tt>in V. Barry, 1 Lans. 190. If the entry ie incorrect, the party af- 
fected should first avail himself of his remedy by application to the court to 
correct it State t. Currie, 72 Minn. 403. 75 N. W. 742. 

*• Saylor v. Com. (Pa.) 6 Atl. 227; Coyne v. Souther, 61 Pa. 455. 

••Barrett v. Garragan, 16 Iowa, 47; Church v. Grossman, 41 Iowa, 373; 
Ordinary v. McClure, 1 Bailey (S. C.) 7, 19 Am. Dec. G48. For judgment 
entries held sufficient, though Irregular in form, see Simmons v. Craig, 137 N. 
Y. 550. 33 N. E. 76; Cameron v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 8 N. D. 124, 77 N. 
W. 1016; Whiteside v. Noyac Cottage Ass'n, 68 Hun, 565, 23 N. Y. Supp. 63. 
For entries held not sufficient to constitute a judgment, see Bmig v. Medley, 
m III App. 190; Carter v. Elmore, 119 N. C. 296, 26 S. E. 35. 

*i HauUlton v. Ward, 4 Tex. 356. But in New Yorlj, the code requires that 
the decision shall state concisely the grounds on which the issues have been 
decided; and a decision merely directing judgment, without any statement of 
the grounds, wiU not support a judgment. Newman v. Mayer, 7 N. Y. Ann. 
Cas. 497, 65 N. Y. Supp. 294. 

*2 Judge y. Booge, 47 Mo. 544. But in Illinois it is considered the proper 
practice to preserre the evidence by recitals in the decree. Wallier v. Carey, 
u3 lU. 470. 

1 LAW JUDG.-ll (161) 

§ J 15 LAW OF JUDGMBNT& (Cll* ^ 

held that a judgment of conviction should contain the facts judicially 
ascertained, together with the manner of ascertaining them, and the 
recorded declaration of the court pronouncing the legal consequences 
of those facts.'* 

I 115. Form of the Jndsment. 

"The judgment is the remedy prescribed by law for the redress 
of injuries, and the suit or action is the vehicle or means of adminis- 
tering it. What that remedy may be, is indeed the result of de- 
liberation and study to point out, and therefore the style of the 
judgment is, not that it is decreed or resolved by the court, for 
then the judgment might appear to be their own, but *it is consid- 
ered,' 'consideratum est per curiam,' that the plaintiff do recover 
his debt, his damages, his possession, and the like; which implies 
that the judgment is none of their own, but the act of law, pro- 
nounced and declared by the court, after due deliberation and in- 
quiry." ** This being the theory and practice of the common law, 
there was at one time a disposition on the part of some of our courts 
to be very strict in requiring the use of this exact formula, and to 
hold that nothing could be substituted for the word "considered" 
without fatal consequences."' But a more liberal view now obtains, 
and the cases hold that the terms "decreed," "resolved," "ordered," 
"judgment rendered," etc., are fully equivalent to the original tech- 
nical term, provided the entry shows an actual giving of judgment 
and exhibits what it is required to specify with clearness and pse- 
cision/* It may therefore be stated as the modern rule that the 

»« Mayfield v. State, 40 Tex. 289. 

»* 3 Bl. Comm. 396. 

58 Baker v. State, 3 Ark. 491. 

5« Johnson v. GiUett. 52 lU. 360; Minkhart v. Hanklcr, 19 III. 47; Johnson 
V. MUler, 50 III. App. 60; Coats v. Barrett, 49 III. App. 275; Deadrick v. 
Harrington, Hempst 50, Fed. Cas. No. 3,694b; Taylor v. Runyan, 3 Clarke 
(Iowa) 474; City of La Porte v. Organ, 5 Ind. App. 369. 32 N. E. 342: Thorn- 
ton V. Perry, 101 Ga, 608, 29 S. B. 24; Marsh v. Synder, 14 Neb. 8, 14 N. W. 
:804. In Pennsylvania, the entry "Judgment on verdict** may, in a sdre 
facias upon It, be considered as the judgment which the^ plaintiff was entitled 
to have. Shirtz v. Shirtz, 5 Watts, 255. To constitute a sufficient Judgment on 
.a demurrer, there should be a formal entry of the submission on demurrer to 
JEL specified pleading, a recital of consideration thereof by the court, and t 


form of the ^'udg^ent is not very material, provided that in substance 
it shows distinctly and not inferentially that the matter had been 
determined in favor of one of the litigants, or that the rights of the 
parties in litigation had been adjudicated." In other words, the 
sufficiency of the writing claimed to be a judgment should always 
be tested by its substance rather than its form.** But while this 
IS so, there are certain requisites of a judgment which cannot be 
dispensed with. In the first place, the entry must purport to be an 
actual judgment, conveying the sentence of the law, as distinguished 
from a mere memorandum, note, or recital that a judgment had 
been or would be rendered.**' In a case where the record stated as 
follows: '*This cause coming on to be heard on the demurrer to 
the plaintiff's petition heretofore filed, the court, after hearing the 
argument of counsel thereon, and after due consideration, sustained 
said demurrer and rendered judgment for the defendant and against 
the plaintiff for the costs of this action taxed at $11.20," it w^s held 
that this was no judgment, but a mere recital that one had been 
rendered for costs.** In the next place, a true judgment must be 

formal adjudication, Bucb as, "It is therefore considered and adjudged by the 
court that the demurrer be^ and it is hereby, overruled" or sustained, as the 
case may be. Jasper Mercantile Go. v. O'Rear, 112 Ala. 247, 20 South. 583; 
Alabama Nat. Bank y. Hunt 125 Ala. 512, 28 South. 488. A record in the 
foUowIuff. language, "It is therefore ordered by the court that Judgment en- 
ter herein on the verdict of the Jury, formerly entered hi this cause,'* is not 
a Judgment. Fitzsimmons y. Munch, 74 111.' App. 259. 

*^ 8cott V. Burton, 6 Tex. 322, 55 Am. Dec. 782; Hamman v. Lewis, 34 
Tex. 474. 

»• Humboldt MiU & Min. Ca v. Terry, 11 Nev. 237. 

»• Hobinsou t. Govera. G7 Hun, 317. 22 N. Y. Supp. 249; Whitwell v. Emory. 
3 Mich. Si^ 59 Am. Dec. 220; Putnam y. Gromble, 34 Barb. (N. Y.) 232. A 
finding of facts, together with conclusions of law filed by a trial Judge with 
the clerk, is not a Judgment untU actually spread on the court records. 
Christie v. Iowa Life Ins. Co., Ill Iowa, 177, 82 N. W. 499. So. a memoran- 
dum on the minute bools of the Judge, to the effect that an award of arbi- 
trators in a certain sum is approved and accepted, does not constitute a Judg- 
ment. Gage V. Judson {D. C.) 92 Fed. 545. An orally expressed opinion or 
finding of a Judge in a case not tried to a Jury does not, according to the 
practice of the federal courts, constitute a Judgment. Judson v. Gage, 39 
C. C. A. 156, 98 Fed. 640. So also, in Ohio, under Rev. St. f 5310, the de- 
cision of the court must be in writing and entered on the minutes, to consti- 
tute a Judgment. Wiley v. Le^yis, (\ Ohio Dec. 242. 

••MiUer y. Burlington & M. li. Co., 7 ^'eb. 227. An entry thus:— "Judg- 


f 115 . LAW OF JUDOMENT& (Ch. 6 

distinguished from a mere order, or direction, or permission to the 
clerk to enter a judgment. A document of the latter kind has not 
the force or the characteristics of a judgment, and will not support 
an execution.*^ It is further to be noted, in connection with mat- 
ters of form in judgments, that a much less degree of technicality 
and formality is required in the judgments of justices of the peace 
and other inferior courts, than is exacted in respect to the judgments 
of courts of record. In the case of judgments of the former order, 
it is generally held sufficient if the books and papers disclose with 
reasonable certainty that a judgment was in fact rendered for one 
of the parties> and for what amount, or even that a verdict was re- 
turned on which no judgment was actually entered.** It is also to 
be remarked that irregularities and defects of form, in judicial pro- 
ceedings, can be taken advantage of by parties and privies only; 
third persons have no right to interfere.** 

ment accordingly taxing all costs against deft," is not a Judgment Boberts 
V. State, 3 Tex. App. 47. And see Birdsell Manufg Co. v. Independent Fire- 
Sprinkler Co., 87 111. App. 443. An entry of Judgment as foUows: "Where- 
upon the court enters Judgment upon the iinding," is insufficient. Faulk t. 
KeUuins, 54 111. 188. 

«i Morgan v. Flexner, 105 Ala. 356, 16 South. 716. An order for Judgment 
entered in the Judgment book does not constitute a Judgment unless the word- 
ing is such that It expresses the final sentence of the court on the matters 
contained in the record, and at once ends the case, and contemplates no fur- 
ther Judicial action. McTavish v, Great Northern R. Co., 8 N. D. 333, 79 N. 
W. 443. The following entry in the minutes of a court, **verdict for plaintiff, 
let writ issue," is not a Judgment, and execution thereon Is void. Stark t. 
Billings, 15 Fla. 318. But where the record in a cause, after reciting the 
trial and verdict, proceeded: "Therefore it is considered and adjudged by 
the court that the plaintiff in this action have Judgment" etc., held, that ihU 
was a Judgment and not merely an order for Judgment, and the court did 
not err in refusing to set aside the docketing thereof, and subsequent pro- 
ceedings thereon, on the ground that there was no Judgment. Potter y. Eaton, 
26 Wis. 382. 

6« Elliott V. Jordan, 7 Baxt (Tenn.) 376; Gaines v. Betts, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 
98: Overall v. Pero, 7 Mich. 315; Lynch v. Kelly, 41 CaL 232; Felter T. 
Mulliner, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 181. 

es Breading v. Boggs, 20 Pa. 33. 



§ 116. Desisnation of the Parties. 

"To constitute a, valid judgment, the record of it must contain 
sufficient certainty and precision to enable the clerk to issue an exe- 
cution by inspection of the entry, without reference to other entries/' 
In the case from which this quotation is taken, the judgment was 
against "the Captain and Master of the Steamboat MoUie Hamilton," 
and there was nothing in the record to disclose the name of the 
captain or master. It was accordingly held that the judgment was 
void.** The decision was undoubtedly correct on the facts of the 
case, but the general rule announced must not be understood as 
declaring that the judgment itself cannot be aided in this respect by 
reference to other parts of the same record. For numerous au- 
thorities hold that a judgment expressed to be merely for or against 
the "plaintiff" or the "defendant" will be sufficient, if the names of 
the parties thus designated can be ascertained without ambiguity 
from other parts of the record.*" And in a suit against two de- 
fenflants, a judgment against "the defendant," instead of "the de- 
fendants," is not so defective as to be void for uncertainty, where 
the record clearly shows that it is in fact a judgment against both 
of the parties defendant.** So in a case where, although the com- 
plaint states no cause of action .against any but the defendant, a 
third person is permitted on his own petition to appear and answer, 
and a verdict is found against "the defendant," the use of the plural 

•^Captain of The Mollie Hamilton v. Paschal, 9 Helsk. (Tenn.) 203. A 
Judgrneut tbat "It Is considered by this court have and recover of said de- 
fradant*' a sum stated Is void for uncertainty as to the plaintiff. Pull^ 
Watchman's Electrical Detector Co. v. Louis, 50 111. App. 428. 

•sAldrlch v. Maltland, 4 Mich. 206; Smith v. Chenault, 48 Tex. 455; Lit- 
Ue v. Bird well. 2T Tex. C88; Collins v. Hyslop, 11 Ala. 506; Wilson v. Nance, 
11 Humph. (Tenn.) 189; Boiling v. SpeUer, 90 Ala. 2G9, 11 South. 300; Hendry 
V. Crandiill. i:U Ind. 42, 30 N. E. 789. But a judgment ordered for "pUiin- 
tiff/' after overniling a motion for a new trial, without specifying which of 
the two plaint UTa. where the verdict was rendered for "plaintiffs," is fatally 
defective. C. Aultman & Co. v. Wirth, 45 111. App. 614. 

«• Roach v. Blakey, 89 Va. 767. 17 S. B. 228; McMahon v. Perkins. 22 R. 
I. 116. 4G Atl. 405; New Mexico & S. P. R. Ca v. Madden, 7 N. M. 215, 34 
Pac 50; Turner v. City of Houston (Tex. Civ. App.) 43 S. W. 69. See Mis- 
iwari Pac. By. Co. y. Smith (Tex.) 16 S. W. 803. 


§ 116 LAW (HT JUDGMSNTB. (Ch. 6 

"defendants" in the judgment will be treated as a merely clerical 
error, and the judgment be held as one against the original defend- 
ant only.*^ So a judgment for a definite amount should not be set 
aside because it fails to state that it is for the plaintiff against the 
defendant, where the declaration sets forth a cause of action and 
the parties thereto.** Nevertheless, a patent ambiguity on the face 
of the judgment cannot be thus cured or aided. In an Ohio de- 
cision the court said: "The order of the court was that these in- 
stalments should be paid by the parties in partition 'or their repre- 
sentatives or assigns,' and in default that execution should issue 
therefor. This order is void for uncertainty. A judgment against 
A. or B. is no valid judgment against either A. or B., and is simply 
void." •^ On the other hand, in a suit to enforce a resulting trust on 
payment of money due the holders of the legal title, a decree re- 
quiring such holders to convey to "the heirs at law of W. B." is 
proper, without requiring that the persons intended be individually 
named.^® So a judgment rendered against a defendant omitting his 
Christian name cannot be considered void, but an action max ^ 
maintained against him on such judgment, averring his identity, and 
the plaintiff may prove by parol that he is the person against whom 
the judgment was rendered."^ ^ It is sufficient if the memorandum 
of the style of a cause, made by the clerk, indicate with reasonable 
certainty to what suit it relates. The description of the parties by 
the name of their firm is sufficient, and a judgment in favor of the 

«7 Taylor v. Taylor, 64 Ind. 356. And see Holcomb v. Tift, 54 Mich. 647. 
20 N. W. 627; Finnagau y. Manchester, 12 Iowa, 521; Hayues v. Backman 
(Cal.) 31 Puc. 746. 

68 Adams v. Walker, 59 Ga. 506. 

e» Miller v. Peters, 25 Ohio St. 270. 

»oLow V. Graff, 80 111. 360. And see Dietrich v. Dietrich, 154 Pa. 92, 2j 
Atl. lUSO. 

71 Newcomb v. Peck, 17 Vt 302, 44 Am. Dec. 340; Root v. Fellowes. 6 
Ciish. (Mass.) 29. See Preston v. Wright, 60 Iowa, 351, 14 N. W. 352. Where 
a defendant Is in the habit of signing checks, and doing business at banks 
and other places, by the initials of his Christian name, these initials will be 
treated as his business name, and a Judgment recovered against him by tbat 
name Is not subject to collateral attack. Oakley y. Pegler, 30 Neb. 628, 46 
N. W. 920. And where a debtor Is equally well known by two names, a 
Judj;meut against him in either name is good as to him and as to his receiver. 
Isaacs V. Mlntz, 11 N. Y. Supp. 423, 



plaintiffs against the defendants is sufficient, as the pleadings show 
who they are.'* In Ohio it is required by statute that the judg- 
ment shall certify which of the defendants is principal and which 
stircty ; but this, it is held, only applies where they are sued jointly, 
and if judgment is recovered in an action against the surety alone, 
it is not necessary to its validity that it should specify the fact of 
his 'suretyship.'* The title of a case is matter of form only, and a 
clerical error therein will not vitiate.'* 

f 117. Desisnatioii of tlie Property. 

WTien a judgment has to do with specific property, it is essential 
that the property be designated in the judgment with such a degree 
of certainty that it can be identified without reasonable opportunity 
for mistake.^' Thus a decree for the distribution of an estate should 
set out specifically the property to be distributed.'* So a judgment 
of recovery in trespass to try title is void if it does not describe the 
land with sufficient certainty to identify it." But because there is a 
want of certainty in the description of land ordered to be sold to 
satisfy a judgment, it does not follow that the judgment is otherwise 
bad. Though such want of certainty renders void what it refers to, 
unless the plaintiff in the execution be dissatisfied no other person 
has cause of complaint.'* But here also, as in respect to the desig- 
nation of the parties, the judgment may be aided by intendments 
and additional data drawn from the pleadings and other parts of the 

TsGollIiifl T. Hyslop, 11 Ala. 506. But if the judgment entry does not set 
forth the indlvidnal names of the members of a firm, those names must be 
disclosed by other parts of the record. If the action was brought by seyerai 
liersons as partners, but without setting forth their Individual names any- 
where in the cause, a Judgment rendered in the firm name is fataUy defective. 
Hitch V. Gray, 1 Marv. (Del.) 400, 41 Atl. 91; Simmons v. TItche, 102 Ala. 
317, 14 South. 786. 

v> Wilkfns y. Ohio Nat. Bank, 31 Ohio St 565. 

»* Ewing T. Hatfield, 17 Ind. 513. 

f • Whether the description of land in a judgment is sufiiciently definite to 
identify the land is a question for the jury. Birdseye y. Rogers (Tex. Civ. 
A pp.) 26 8. W. 841. 

TcJcmes y. Minogue, 29 Ark. 637. 

T» neame v. Erhard, 33 Tex. 60. 

v» Gear y. Hart, 31 Tex. 135. 


§ 118 LAW OF JUDQMBNTS. (Ch^ 6 

record. Thus a decree is not void, nor incompetent as evidence, 
because it contains no description of the land thereby decreed to be 
conveyed, if it refers to the petition in the action, or other pleadings 
or documents, for such description, in apt and sufficient words." 
Indeed the authorities go even further than this. For it has been 
held that a judgment that plaintiff recover "the property in con- 
troversy," or in default thereof a sum fixed as its value, will not be 
reversed for uncertainty in the recovery, where, although the peti- 
tion claims several articles, the record shows that the controversy 
was reduced to two of them.*® 

^ f 118. Detisnation of Amount of Reoorerj. 

The amount of a judgment must be stated in it with certainty 
and precision. All judgments must be specific and certain; they 
must determine the rights recovered or the penalties imposed, and 
be such as the defendant may readily understand and be capable of 
performing.** A judgment, it is said, must be so certain that the 
clerk can issue an execution by inspection of it, without reference 
tQ other entries.*' Hence a judgment which is uncertain as to the 
amount which it awards is invalid.®* For example, a judgment 
against a garnishee "for the amount of his answer or so much there- 

T» Foster v. Bowman, 55 Iowa, 237, 7 N. W. 513: Jones v. Belt. 2 GIU (Md.) 
106; Martin v. Teal (Tex. Civ. App.) 29 S. W. 691; Sanger v. Roberts, 92 
Tex. 312, 48 S. W. 1. A decree describing the property to be sold as "a lot 
with a livery stable thereon" situated on a certain street, and naming the 
person who conveyed It to defendant, is sufficient. McCue v. Sharp (Ky.) 45 
S. W. 770. It will be presumed that the land described in the judgmeit is 
the same as that In the petition, there being no contradiction In the descrip- 
tion, though that In the judgment is fuller. Leavell v. Seale (Tex. Civ. App.l 
45 S. W. 171. But in Kentucky, it is said that a judgment should be eeriain 
as to tlie description of real property ordered to be sold; and it is not suttl- 
clent that the property may be identified by a reference to the pleadlnps. 
Neff V. Covington Stone Co. (Ky.) 56 S. W. 723; Harrison's Ex'x v. Taylor 
(Ky.) 43 S. W. 723. 
80 Coleman v. Keel, 75 Iowa, 304, 39 N. W. 510, 9 Am. St. Rep. 484, 
SI People V. Plrfenbrink, 96 111. ijS; Etheridge v. Mlddleton, 1 Marv. (Del.) 
130, 40 Atl. 714. 

82 Boyken v. State, 3 Yerg. (Tenn.) 426. 

83 Jones T. Acre, 3klinar (Ala.) 5. A judgment for the recovery of money, 
not stating the amount for which it was rendered, is void, where nothing ap* 



of as will satisfy the plaintiflF's debt and costs" has been held void 
for uncertainty.** And a finding that a garnishee was liable for one 
of two amounts, which are to be determined by a future contingency, 
was not considered a judgment at all.*" 

Nevertheless, "id certum est quod certum reddi potest;" and we 
are unable to discover any good reason why this maxim should not 
apply to the amount of a judgment as well as in any other case. 
An obscure or ambiguous designation of the parties or the subject- 
matter involved may be construed, as we have seen, with reference 
to the other parts of the record. And if the pleadings, or the ver- 
dict, show the actual amount of the recovery, without any doubt or 
room for mistake, it would seem that the judgment should not be 
considered invalid, at least as between the parties, for its failure to 
specify the sum awarded with precision. It must be admitted that 
the authorities hardly go to the length of sanctioning the rule here 
suggested, although the general principle of construing a judgment 
by the record is not disputed. But the cases certainly justify the 
statement that if the judgment-entry itself, without naming the 
amount of recovery, contains data which permit its calculation, a 
sufficient degree of certainty is attained. Thus a judgment for in- 
terest from a day mentioned is sufficiently certain without fixing the 
amount.** So also, if a verdict be found for a fixed and definite 
amount, and the judgment refers to the verdict in explicit terms (as 
if it is expressed to be **for the said sum assessed as aforesaid"), it 
is considered to be sufficiently precise.*^ But it is error to render 

p«» in the record to eupply«the defect Bludworth v. Poole, 21 Tex. Oiv. 
App. r^l, 53 S. W. 717; Board of Ck)m'rs of Custer County v. Moon, 8 Okl. 
206. 57 Pac. 161. 

•* Berry t. Anderson, 2 How. (Miss.) 649. 

••Batten V. Ix)wery, 46 Iowa, 49. See Early v. Moore, 4 Munf. 262. An 
entry, upon the rendition of a verdict for plaintiff, that "defendant is entitled 
to a credit to be ascertained by A. and B., and the clerk is then authorized 
to enter a remittitur. Judgment of the court accordingly and for costs,*' is not 
a judgment then rendered, but an agreement for a Judgment to be rendered 
subsequently, upon the ascertainment by the referees of the credit to which 
the defendant is entitled. Dunns v. Batchelor, 20 N. C. 46. 

•• Dinsmore v. AnstiU. Minor (Ala.) 89. 

•7 Ellis V. Dunn. 3 Ala. 632. A Justice's Judgment "that the plaintiff re- 
corer the sum as claimed In the alx)ve case/' will be sustained, notwithstand- 



judgment on a verdict for the plaintiff which fails to state how 
much he should recover, when all debt is denied by the defendant. 
In such case the jury should have been requested to retire and find 
how much the plaintiff ought to recover.** 

If there are blanks in the judgment, instead of a statement of its 
amount, this will destroy its force and effect for most purposes, or 
at least leave it incomplete until the blanks are filled. For instance, 

a judgment that the party recover "costs of suit taxed at ^," the 

amount of costs not being inserted in the record, will not support a 
declaration upon the judgment as for a fixed sum, nor can the de- 
fect in the record be supplied by resorting to an entry upon the 

clerk's docket.*® So a confession of judgment for " dollars," 

and so entered, creates no lien on the property of the judgment 
debtor while it remains in that condition."** In Pennsylvania, how- 
ever, it appears to be the rule that a judgment entered for an un- 
liquidated sum will sustain an execution and a sheriff's sale thereon, 
if the actual amount of the judgment-debt be indorsed on the exe- 
cutipn."* When the clerk enters a judgment, leaving blanks for 
the amount of damages and costs, the case being one where such 
amount can be ascertained by mere calculation, the court has power 
to order the blanks to be filled up at the next term, the clerk hav- 
ing died during the session ; •* or if the clerk himself fills tip the 
blanks, after the lapse of more than a year from the judgment, his 

ing its Informality, Tvhen the record shows tliat the action was assumpsit for 
1^81, and defendant appeared and contested the claim. Ladnler v. Ladnier, 
C4 Miss. 3C8, 1 South. 492. On overruling a frivolous demurrer to a com- 
plaint for a specific sum for goods sold and <lelivered, and no answer over, 
judgment for the sum claimed is proper, without taking proof of the amount 
of damages. Adrian v. Jackson, 75 N. C. 536. 

88 Bartle v. Plane, G8 Iowa, 227. 26 N. W. 88. 

80 Noyes v. Newmarch, 1 Allen (Mass.) 51. 

•0 Lea V. Vates. 40 G a. 56. So, a Judgment for " dollars," based upon 

a verdict expressed in the same way, is a nullity, and will not bar a subs^ 
queut suit upon the same cause of action. School Directors v. Newman, 47 
111. App. 3G4. The judgment record in a case left the amount of the Judg- 
ment blank, except as to $4.95 costs. In the docket it was entered as $iWS 
damages and $16.95 costs with 10 per cent, interest. Held, good as a Judg- 
ment for $4.95 only. Case v. Plato, 54 Iowa, 64. 6 N. W. 128. 

•1 See Ulshafer v. Stewart, 71 Pa. 170; Gray's HehB v. Coulter, 4 Pa. IbS. 

•2 Hagler v. Mercer, 6 Fla. 721. 



doing so will not invalidate the judgment so far as to expose it to 
collateral impeachment, although it may be ground for a writ of 
error.** Another question arises in the case of a judgment where a 
blank is left for the costs alone. Undoubtedly the judgment is not 
perfect until this blank is filled. But it is held that the record of a 
judgment which is regular in all respects, except that the costs are 
left blank until they are taxed by the court, and then inserted, is 
admissible in evidence in an action of debt on that judgment.** A 
distinction is taken, in one of the recent cases, which we believe to 
be well founded. It is held that as respects the lien or the validity 
of a judgment informally entered and docketed without the taxation 
and insertion of costs therein, the omission is to be treated as a 
mere irregularity; but for the purposes of an appeal, the prevail- 
ing party, seeking to limit the rights of his adversary, is to be held 
to strict practice, and the judgment is not to be deemed perfected 
until the costs to which he is entitled are duly taxed and inserted 
in the judgment.** 

An judgments rendered in this country should be expressed in 
the American denominations of money. A judgment given by the 
court for a certain amount in francs is therefore erroneous, and will 
be amended on appeal so as to express the amount in dbllafs and 
cents.** It has sometimes been made a question whether the state- 
ment of the amount of a judgment in figures merely, instead of the 
sum being written out, would impair its validity. There are cases 
which hold a judgment so expressed to be defective to the point of 
invalidity.*^ Other authorities seem reluctant to admit that this 
alone would absolutely avoid the judgment so as to render it open 

»« LInd T. Adams, 10 Iowa, 398, 77 Am. Dec. 123. 

•* GaUioon T. Terry Porter Co., 21 Conn. 52a See, also. Big Goose & Beaver 
Ditch Co. T. Morrow, 8 Wyo. 537, 59 Pac. 159, 80 Am. St Rep. 955; Young 
r. CouieUy, 112 N. C. 616, 17 S. B. 424. In California, the clerk has no right 
to insert coats after the Judgment Is entered and the record completed. The 
remedy In such case to by a motion to the court for amendment. Chapiu y. 
Broder, 16 CaL 403. 

•> Ricbaidaon t. Rogers, 87 Minn. 461, 35 N. W. 270. 

•• Erlanger t. Aregno, 24 La. Ann, 77. 

•7 8niith V. Miner, S N, J. Law, 175, 14 Am. Dec. 418; Lindcr v. Monroe's 
Exrs, 33 IlL 390. 


§ 1 18 ULW OF JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 6 

to collateral attack.*' While the practice is undoubtedly loose and 
irregular, it is difficult to see in it any sufficient ground for con- 
sidering the judgment entirely void. If the amount of recovery 
stated in figures in a judgment differs from that stated in writing, 
but the recitals in the judgment itself show the former to be the 
true amount, the error is not sufficient cause for the reversal of the 
judgment.*® If the amount of the judgment is written out, the 
designation "dollars" (or "cents," or both, as the case may be) must 
be appended to it. Thus a judgment for "four hundred and sixty- 
one and 53-100 damages" is not for any sum of money and is there- 
fore a nullity.*** But it has also been held, and by a very hi5:h 
authority, that the omission of the word "dollars" in a verdict for 
the plaintiff in an action of assumpsit does not affect the validity of a 
judgment entered thereon according to the manifest intent of the 
jury.*** If the amount of the judgment is expressed in figures, 
the dollar-mark, or some other appropriate sign must be used to 
show the sum intended. The necessity for a statement of this kind 
arises from the loose manner of keeping the records of tax-judg- 
ments which formerly prevailed in some of the states, and was often 
brought to the notice of the courts. The rule is that a judgment 
for taxes is fatally defective if it does not show the amount of the 
tax for which it was rendered; and the use of numerals simply, 
without any words, marks, or signs to indicate that they stand for 
money, and for what denominations of money, is not sufficient.*** 

»» FuHerton v. Kelllher, 48 Mo. 542; Kopperl y. Xagy, 37 lU. App. 23; Da- 
vis V. McCary, 100 Ala. 545, 13 South. 665. 
»» Cave V. City of Houston, 65 Tex. 619. 

100 Carpenter v. Sherfy, 71 111. 427. The court said: "We have no right 
to indulge in presumptions as to what was found by the court; 'we must take 
the record as it reads. A Judgment should be for a certain and definite sum 
of money." 

101 Hopliins V. Orr, 124 U. S. 510, 8 Sup. Ct. 590. 31 L. Ed. 523. 

102 Woods V. Freeman, 1 Wall. 398, 17 L. Ed. 543; Lawrence T. Past 20 
111. 338, 71 Am. Dec. 274; Lane v. Bommelmann, 21 lU. 143; Gibson v. City 
of Chicago, 22 111. 572; Eppinger v. Kirby, 23 111. 521. 76 Am. Dec. 709; Dukes 
V. Kowlcy, 24 111. 210; Baily v. Doolittle, 24 lU. 577; Potwin y. Oadea. 45 
111. 367; People v. San Francisco Savings Union, 31 Cal. 135; Randolpli ▼• 
Metcalf, 6 Cold. (Tenn.) 400; Tidd v. Khies, 26 Minn. 201, 2 N. W. 497; Black. 
Tax Titles c2d Ed.) § 180. 



This rule governs also in case of a judgment for a special assess- 
ment.*** It may be conceded, however, that the use of the dollar- 
mark is not indispensable, if the amount can be indicated with cer- 
tainty by any other device or contrivance.* *** 

An entry of judgment for the right sum, but inaccurately named 
"damages" instead of "debt," — or so much debt and so much dam- 
ages, — ^is not reversible error.*^* And where the record of a judg- 
ment does not show of what the judgment was made up, it is com- 
petent to show that fact by extraneous evidence.*®* 

S 119. Conditions in Jndsment. 

In an ordinary action at law, the court cannot render a conditional 
judgment.*"' But "when a judgment is recovered according to the 
terms and conditions of a written obligation for the payment of 
money, and those terms and conditions expressly either limit the 
lien of any judgment which may be recovered upon it, or waive 

"* l^iltsburgh, t\ W. A .C. R. Co. v. City of Chicago, 53 111. 80. 

i»*In the case of Gutzwiller v. Crowe, 32 Mimi. 70, 19 N. W. 344, It ap- 
peared that, in the entry of a tax- judgment on the official boolcs, there was a 
column headed "Total amonat of judgment," and in this column appeared 
three Arabic numerals, the first separated from the others by a short per- 
pendleulnr line; it was held that, in reasonable intendment, this must denote 
money, and that it was a sufficient designation of the amount of the judg- 
luent. This decision was declared to be consistent with Tidd y. Rines, 2(> 
MloxL 201, 2 N. W. 407; because one of the grounds on which that case was 
ruled was that the figures were not separated by any line or decimal mark. 
And see New England Loan & Trust Co. v. Avery (Tex. Civ. App.) 41 S. W. 
673; Dyke v. Bank of Orange, 00 Cal. 307, 27 Pac. 3(M; Therme v. Bethenoid, 
106 Iowa, G07, 77 N. W. 407. A clerical mistake made in wrltlug a judgment 
with an additional cipher is rendered immaterial by a remittitur. Lowdon 
V. Fisk (Tex. Civ. App.) 27 S. W. 180. 

»•» Carver v. Adams, 40 Vt. 552. In a suit for the recovery of land and 
damages for detention, the judgments for the land and for the rents are as 
distluct as if separate judgments were rendered in different suits. Shean v. 
CaDnlDgkam, 6 Bush (Ky.) 123. 

>•« Gilbert v. Earl, 47 Vt. 0. Where judgment is recovered for compen- 
satory and punitive damages, the court is not required to specify how much 
i« for the one and how much for the other. Hambly v. Hayden, 20 R. I. 
558. 40 AU. 417. 

loWobnson v. Carver, 175 Pa. 200, 34 Atl. 627; Hopkins v. Bowers, 111 
N. C. 175. 16 S. E. 1; Coh v. Bright, 2 Mo. App. Rep'r, 1101, 66 Mo. App. 417. 


§120 LAW OF JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 6 

the benefit of all laws exempting property from levy and sale on 
any execution, or waive the right of inquisition upon the delinquent's 
real estate, and in the entry of the judgment this is set forth upon 
the docket, it must be held to be a part of the record of the judg- 
ment," and therefore will affect subsequent purchasers.*** But a 
judgment on an ordinary promissory note, though given for the 
purchase-money of real estate, should not contain provisions de- 
claring it a lien on such real estate and ordering that the same be 
sold to satisfy it. It should be an ordinary personal judgment 
against the defendant, authorizing an ordinary execution to be is- 
sued against the property in general of the debtor.*®" In an action 
of replevin, where the plaintiff obtains possession of the property 
and retains the same, and is in possession of the property at the 
time the judgment is rendered, it is neither necessary nor proper to 
render a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the value of the prop- 
erty in Case a return thereof cannot be had.*** As a general rule, 
a judgment has properly nothing to do with the means of its enforce- 
ment; it merely pronounces the sentence of the law upon the facts 
ascertained in the case. 

9 120. Jolat DefesdAata. 

At the common law, it was an inflexible rule that if an action was 
brought against two or more defendants jointly, the plaintiff could 
have judgment only against all of them or none of them ; the single 
exception being in the case where one of the defendants succeeded 
in establishing a defense, such as his personal disability, peculiar to 
himself. If one defendant suffered default, no final judgment could 
be given against him, as we have already stated,*** until the case 
was disposed of as to the others, and not even then unless the ver- 
dict was in the plaintiff's favor. Under this practice,, therefore, it 
was error to give judgment against one of the defendants sued vnth- 

108 Hngoioan v. Snlisberry, 74 Ta. 280. And see Little v. White, 3 Ind- MA. 

109 Greeno v. Barnard, 18 Kan. 518. 

110 Mills V. Kansas Lumber Co., 26 Kan. 574. 

111 Supra, § 82. In an action of trover against two, one of whom ia de- 
faulted and the otlier found guilty by the jury, there Is but one assessment 
of damages and a joint judgment. Gerrish y. Cummlngs, 4 Gush. (Mass.) 39L 



out disposing of the suit as to the other defendant; a final con- 
clusion must be reached as to all of them, one way or the other, at 
the same time.^^* But now it is provided by statute in some of the 
states that "in an action against several defendants, the court may, 
in its discretion, render judgment against one or more of them, leav- 
ing the action to proceed against the others, whenever a several 
judgment is proper." *^* In a case where this law was to be ap- 
plied, the court said: "As no order was made as to the other de- 
fendant, the action is still pending against him, and the court had a 
right to render a judgment against one, and continue the action as 
to the other ; although no order of continuance seems to have been 
entered, yet the action stood continued by operation of law." *** 

I 121. Tiate •£ entevias Jndsatest. 

By the rule of the common law, if a judgment was not stayed by 
a motion in arrest, or for a new trial, or other appropriate proceed- 
ing, within the first four days of the next term after the trial, it was 
then to be entered upon the roll or record. Statutes fixing the time 
of entering a judgment upon verdict exist in some of the states, and 
require notice in this connection. Thus the New York Code pre- 
scribes the lapse of four days after the verdict before the rendition 
of judgment ; but it is held that judgment may be entered upon the 
verdict immediately, and relief may be had against the verdict within 
four days afterward, if there be ground for it, notwithstanding the 
judgment.*** But the case is different under a statute which de- 
dares that judgments on the decision of the court may be entered 
"after the expiration of four days from the filing of the decision and 
the service upon the attorney of the adverse party of a copy there- 
of, but not before." Here, it is held, four full calendar days must 
elapse after the filing of a decision and notice thereof before judg- 
ment can be properly entered; and here the rule of interpretation 

"* Johnson v. Vaagban, 9 B. Men. (Ky.) 217. See Creigh y. Hedrlck, 5 
W. Va. 140. 

i»» Code N, Y. f 274; Code Wis. § 184; Code Civ. Prac. Ky. § 370; Code 
Civ. Pn>c Cat I 57& 

ii« Patton V. Shanklin. 14 B. Mon. (Ky.) 15. 

lis DrocB T. Lakey, 2 Sandf. (N. Y.) QSL 


§ 121 LAW OP JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 6 

which, in computing time, excludes the first and includes the last 
day, has no application, the provision being clear and explicit."' 
In Pennsylvania, a law requires **^ that judgment shall not be en- 
tered on the report of a referee until after the expiration of thirty 
days. But in a case where the prothonotary entered a judgment 
on the same day on which the report was filed, it was considered 
that this should not, on error, be treated as material, where it ap- 
peared that exceptions to the report were subsequently filed and 
acted upon, and no attention paid to the mistake.^^' On the other 
hand, the California Code provides that "when trial by jury has 
been had, judgment must be entered by the clerk, in conformity to 
the verdict, within twenty-four hours after the rendition of the ver- 
dict, unless -the court order the case to be reserved for argument or 
further consideration, or grant a stay of proceedings." **• But the 
failure of the clerk to enter judgment within the prescribed time 
does not, according to the authorities, affect the validity of the judg- 
ment afterwards entered ; for the injunction of the statute is merely 
directory and not mandatory.^*® And reading this statute in con- 
nection with another law, which provides, as a penalty, that the 
action shall be dismissed when the judgment is not entered within 
six months after verdict, it is held that the court does not lose juris- 
diction of the cause if judgment is entered within six months after 
the verdict is rendered.^*^ In other states it appears to be required 


ii« Marvin v. Marvin, 75 N. Y*. 240, construing Code Civ. Proc. N. Y. S 1228. 
And see Hutchinson v. Brown, 8 App. D. 0. 157. Where a justice of tiie 
peace decided a cause before him, and made upon the papers in the suit a 
memorandum of his Judgment within four days after the final submission to 
him, hold, tliat the judgment was regular and valid, although no entry thereof 
was made in his docket until after the lapse of four days. Walrod y. Shuler, 
2 N. Y. 134. 

117 Act Va. May 14. 1874. 

118 Pittsburgh & C. R. Co. v. Shaw (Pa.) 14 Atl. 323. 

11 n Code Civil l*roc. Cal. § 6(i4. A similar statute is in force in Ohio (Kev. 
St. § 5o2G); and it is hold that the clerk may enter judgment immediately on 
rendition of the verdict, and before the expiration of the time for moTing 
for a new ti'ial. Young v. Shallenberger, 53 Ohio St. 291, 41 N. E. 518. 

120 First Nat. Bank v. WollT, 79 Cal. 69, 21 Pac. 551; Bundy v. Maghiess. 
7G Cal. 5.'J2, 18 Pac. 608; Hehilen v. Phillips, 88 Cal. 557, 26 Pac 366; Ed- 
wards v. Hellings, 103 Cal. 204, 37 Pac. 218. 

lai Waters v. Dumas, 75 Cal. 563, 17 Pac. 685. 



that the judgment be entered at the same term at which the verdict 
is rctjimed. But the cases rule that if this is omitted, it is com- 
petent for the court to enter the judgment at a subsequent term, 
both parties appearing and being heard.**" 

Rules of the former class — those requiring a certain time to inter- 
vene between verdict and judgment — probably obtain in a majority 
of the states, either by statute or as the settled practice of the courts. 
Their design is to afford the parties an opportunity of proceeding 
against the verdict, either by a motion for judgment non obstante 
veredicto, motion in arrest, or motion for new trial, as the case may 
be. But since the right of a party so to move will not be prejudiced 
by a premature entry of judgment,**^ and since the judgment itself 
can be stayed or set aside as well as the verdict, while, on the other 
hand, it is the right of the prevailing party to have his rights fixed 
by a judgment as soon as he is entitled to it, it is conducive to jus- 
tice not to regard a judgment entered in advance of the time as 
entirely invalid, but to consider the rule as merely directory. 

In some jurisdictions, while judgment may be entered immediately 
upon the verdict, the court may stay the proceedings for a certain 
number of days, for the purpose of giving time for a motion for 
new trial. Where this is done, and judgment is entered up before 
the expiration of the stay, still it is not void. The judgment is only 
provisional, and it does not deprive the losing party of the right so 
to move."* And even where it appeared that judgment was en- 
tered up while a motion for a new trial was actually on file, which 

12S Shepbard y. Brenton, 20 Iowa, 41. And see Murdock y. Ganahl, 47 Mo. 
135; Prudential Ins. Co. y. Taylor, 59 N. J. Law, 352, 35 Atl. 798; Voorhiee 
y. Uennessy, 7 Wash. 243, 34 Pac. 931. A judgment not entered within the 
time provided by law Is not for that reason V9id. Brown v. Porter, 7 Wash. 
327, 34 Pac. 1105. But in New York, it is held that a judgment rendered by 
a Justice of the district court wiU be reversed where it was rendered after 
the time limited by law. OrvJs y. Curtlss, 8 Misc. Rep. 681, 28 N. Y. Supp. 
728. And in Iowa, under a statutory provision that, where a verdict is ren- 
tiered by a Jury in a Justice's court, the Justice shall enter Judgment thereon 
"forthwith," it Is held that a Judgment entered more than 90 days after the 
return of the verdict is void for want of Jurisdiction. Toralinsou v. LiUe, 82 
Iowa, 32, 47 N. W. 1015, 31 Am. St Rep. 468. 

"» Hartrldge v. Wesson, 4 Ga. 101. 

is« Harvey v. McAdnms, 32 Mich. 472. 

1 LAW JUDG.-12 (177) 

{122 LAW OF JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 6 

motion was afterwards overruled, and all the proceedings occurred 
at the same term of court, it was held that the fact that judgment 
was so entered was no ground for reversing the decision on the 
motion.^ ^° 

S 122* Date of the Jndcment. 

The rule of the common law was, that all judgments were pre- 
sumed to have been rendered on the first day of the term, unless 
the contrary appeared. And it is also a patt of the English practice 
to consider all judicial proceedings as taking place at the earliest 
period of the day on which they are done.^** It is still the rule, in 
some of the American states, that all judgments docketed during 
the term shall be deemed to be docketed on the first day of the 
term; and this, it is held, makes them relate to the first day even 
where the judge fails to open court on that day.**^ But in some 
other states, principally in New England, an exactly opposite rule 
is in force, and a judgment is regarded as rendered on the last day 
of the term, unless the contrary is shown.^*® But in a majority of 
the states, a judgment takes effect from the day it is actually ren- 
dered or entered. ^** "The term of the court is not with us regarded 

128 Hasted t. Dodge (Iowa) 35 N. W. 402. 

120 Wright y. Mills, 4 Hurl. & N. 488. In this case, Judgment was signed 
at the opening of the office at its usual hour, eleven a. m., and the defendant 
died at half past nine a. m. on the same morning. It was held that the judg- 
ment was regular. For a similar case, see Peetsch v. Quinn, 6 Misc. Rep. 
50, 26 N. Y. Supp. 728. 

"7 Norwood V. Thorp, 04 N. C. 682. See Coe v. Erb, 59 Ohio St 250, 52 
N. E. 040, 69 Am. St. Rep. 704. But if a case was not ready for trial, ao that 
no judgment could be given on the first day of the term, the judgment does 
not relate back to that date. Dunn's Kx'rs v. Renlck, 40 W. Va. 349, 22 S. 
E. 06. 

128 Bradish v. State, 35 Vt. 452; Herring v. Polley, 8 Mass. 113; Chase v. 
Oilman, 15 Me. 64; Goodall v. Harris, 20 N. H. 363. Accordingly, the time 
within which a motion for new trial must be made (which is limited to two 
years) must be computed from the last day of the term. Bradish v. State. 
.35 Vt. 452. Taxation of additional costs incident to a suit, with award of 
execution therefor, at a term subsequent to that of the recording of the judg- 
ment, cannot be considered as making the Judgment a judgment of the later 
term. Klder v. Alexander, 1 D. Chip. (Vt.) 274. 

120 A judgment is not void merely because it la not dated. Beed t. Lane, 96 
Iowa, 454. 05 N. W. 380. 



as one day, and though until the term expires the orders made and 
judgments rendered are largely under the control of the court, and 
may be altered, modified, or vacated, yet they have been generally 
regarded as taking effect from the day on which they were made or 
rendered, subject to the power of the court, and not from the day 
the term closes/* *•• And the date of a judgment may be fixed by 
reference to the record of the proceedings in the case.*** We shall 
have occasion to discuss this topic more fully in connection with the 
subject of priority among judgment-liens.*'* 

fi 123. Construction of Amblsnovs Judgments. 

The rule for the construction of ambiguous judgments is clearly 
stated by the supreme court of Kansas in the following language : 
**Wherever the entry of a judgment is so obscure as not to clearly 
express the exact determination of the court, reference may be had 
to the pleadings and the other proceedings ; and if, with the light 
thus thrown upon such entry, its obscurity is dispelled and its in- 
tended signification made apparent, the judgment will be upheld and 
carried into effect in the same manner as though its meaning and 
intent were made clear and manifest by its own terms." *'* This 
rule also applies to decrees in equity. The meaning and effect of a 
decree may, in case of doubt, be ascertained by reference to the bill 
and other proceedings, particularly when these are referred to in 
the decree itself.*'* And for this purpose, recourse may be had to 
duly attested stipulations between the parties.*'* But where a judg- 
ment refers to the findings for certain data, and the findings do not 

!•• Ex parte Dillard, GS Ala. 594; Alabama C. & N. Co. y. State, 54 Ala. 
36; Quinn v. Wlswall, 7 Ala. 645; Powe v. McLeod, 76 Ala. 418; Pope v. 
Bniidon, 2 Stew. (Ala.) 401, 20 Am. Dec. 49; Dyson v. Simmons, 48 Md. 
207; Stannls ▼. Nicholson, 2 Or. 332. 

»»i Cooper v. Cooper, 14 La. Ann. 665. 

1" See infra, H 441--444. 

"« Clay V. Hlldebrand, 34 Kan. 694, 9 Pac. 466, Valentine, J. See, to the 
Mme effect Fleenor v. Drisklll, 97 Ind. 27; Hofferbert v. KUnkhardt, 58 111. 
iT4K Saccessioii of Dumford, 1 La. Ann. 92; Fowler y. Doyle, 16 Iowa, 534; 
Konr-Miie Land Co. v. Blusher (Ky.) 55 S. W. 555. 

"* Walker's Ex'r v. Page, 21 Grat (Va.) 636. 

i»» Thayer v. McGee, 2U Mich. 195. 



contain the data, but refer again to the pleadings, which are also 
uncertain, the judgment will be reversed for uncertainty.^*^ A mis- 
take apparent on the face of a judgment, amounting to an impossi- 
bility, will not destroy the judgment, if enough remains, after it is 
corrected or eliminated, to disclose the actual judgment rendered. 
Thus, where a judgment entry recites a demurrer (sustained) as 
having been interposed by the defendant to his own plea, the ap- 
pellate court will intend the recital to have been a clerical mistake 
and that it was the plaintiff who demurred."^ But a judgment must 
follow the verdict ; and in a case wher6 the jury returned two ver- 
dicts, as follows : "We the jury find for the plaintiff and assess his 
damages in the sum of $800," and, "We the jury find for the de- 
fendant on the counterclaim and set-off and assess the damages in 
the sum of $300," it was held to be error in the court to overrule a 
motion for a venire de novo, and render judgment for the plaintiff 
for $500.*" The presumption in support of the judgment extends 
to inferring the presence of the plaintiff in court, for the purpose of 
an act which he only could perform, although the entry only recites 
the presence of his ^ttorney.^'* 

fi 124. Tbe Jndsment-Boll, or Record* 

It seems appropriate, in this connection, to give some account of 
the judgment-roll or record of the judgment. At common law the 
judgment-roll was a roll of parchment upon which all the proceed- 
ings in the cause, up to the issue, and the award of venire inclusive, 
together with the judgment which the court awarded in the cause, 
were entered. It included as well the pleadings and process as the 
signing of judgment.^** In our modern practice, the proceedings 

i»« Kelley v. McKlbben, 53 Cal. 13. 

i»7 Evans v. McMaban, 1 Ala. 43. 

las Baugbn v. Baugbo, 114 Ind. 73, 17 N. E. 181. See Jarboe ▼. Brown, »» 
lud. 549. 

1311 Tbomason v. Odum, 31 Ala. 108, 68 Am. Dec. I.*j9. 

140 Brown, Law Diet: Vall v. Iglebart, 69 111. 332. Brown says that to 
modem English practice '*the making up and depositing the Judgment-ro!! is 
generally neglected, unless in cases wh«re it becomes absolutely necessary to 
do so, as when, for Instance, it is required to give the proceedings In the 
cause in evidence in some other action, for in such case the Judgment-roU 



arc not thus transcribed, although in some states they are required 
to be copied with more or less detail into books kept for that pur- 
pose, and in others a "judgment-roll," consisting of the writ, plead- 
ings, and other papers in the cause, must be on file when the clerk 
enters judgment. And for the purpose of an appeal, or other similar 
use, the "record" comprises a full copy of all the papers and pro- 
ceedings in the cause. The following account of the practice ob- 
taining in Illinois will be found applicable in many of the states. 
"Under our practice, while the pleadings, process, etc., are -not, as 
at common law, required to be copied on a parchment roll, nor in 
the record book in v/hich final judgment is entered, they are re- 
quired to be filed in the office of the clerk ; and when a copy of the 
record of the judgment is required, for the purpose of bringing the 
case by appeal or writ of error into this court, or bringing suit upon 
it in another state, or as evidence under an issue of nul tiel record, 
or to establish a former adjudication of the same subject-matter be- 
tween the same parties, and indeed in all cases where it is essential 
to have a complete record of a judgment, the pleadings and process 
are an indispensable part of it. And the general rule is, that where 
the copy of a record of a judgment is required, it must be of the 
whole record, so that the court may determine the legal effect of the 
whole of it, which may be quite different from that of a part." ^*^ 
In Massachusetts, the clerk's docket is the record of the court, until 
the record is fully extended, and every entry upon it is the state- 
ment of an act of the court, which is presumed to be made by its 
direction, in pursuance either of an order for the particular entry, 
or of a general order, or of a general usage pre-supposing such an 
order.*** A record, it will be remembered, imports absolute verity, 
must be tried by itself, and cannot be contradicted.**' 

or an examined copy thereof, Is The only eyidence of them that wiU \ye ad- 
mitted.'* And gee Steph. PI. 24. 

1*1 Vail T. I$rlebart, G8 111. 332; Stevison v. Earnest, 80 111. 513. And see 
Barjje t. Gandy, 41 Neb. 149, 59 N. W. 359; Boe v. Irish, 09 Minn. 493, TJ 
K. W. 812. 

'*» liead T. Sutton, 2 Cush. 116. A Judgment recovered before a magistrate 
may be proved by his memoranda upon his docket and upon the original writ, 

'«> 8ee note 143 on following page. 


§126 LAW OF JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 6 

I 125. Smpplyimc Iiost Heoords. 

The power of supplying a new record, where the original has been 
lost or destroyed, is one which pertains to courts of general juris- 
diction independent of legislation, and if the statute also confers a 
power, and prescribes a practice, in that behalf, it does not mcr^ 
the inherent authority of the courts.*** Hence if, for example, the 
notice of a motion for leave to substitute a new record is explicit in 
describing a judgment and papers alleged to be lost, it is sufficient, 
although it does not conform to a statute which provides for such a 
proceeding.*** The destruction of the record book in which judg- 
ments are written, does not destroy the judgment-debts, and though 
the judgments are wrongfully restored by the court without notice 
to the debtors, yet when the judgments are revived by scire facias 
with notice to the debtors, they should make their objection by plea 
of nul tiel record.*** On a motion to supply a lost record, the 
proper practice is as follows. The notice of the motion must specify 
when the ntotion will be made, and must contain a copy of that 
which the plaintiff will move the court to enroll as the substance of 
the lost record, and the defendant must have reasonable personal 
service of the notice, and also of the affidavits by which it will be 
supported, which affidavits may be controverted by counter-affi- 
davits. If the court, on hearing the affidavits, is fully satisfied of the 
loss or destruction of the original record and of the correctness of 

and by the production of the original papers in the case, Terifted by the te^ 
timony of the magistrate, if these, taken together, show clearly all the essen- 
tial particulars of a valid judgment, and no extended record has been macJA 
Mc-Grath v. Seagrave, 2 Allen, 443, 79 Am. Dec. 797. 

143 Adams v. Betz, 1 Watts (Pa.) 42o, 2G Am. Dec. 79; Ellis t. EUls, 55 
Minn. 401, 56 N. W. lOuC. Where a judgment roll offered in evidence con- 
tains two judgments, the last in point of time will be treatetl as the true and 
final Judgment, and the other disregarded. Colton Land & Water Co. v. 
Swartz, 99 Cal. 278, 33 Tac. 878. 

i** Doswell V. Stewart 11 Ala. 629; Gammon v. Knudson, 46 Iowa. 455; 
George v. Middough, 62 Mo. 549; Keen v. Jordan, 13 Fla. 327; Garibaldi t, 
Carroll, 33 Ark. 568. 

i*c Doswell V. Stewart, 11 Ala. 629. 
' 1*8 George v. Middough, 62 Mo. 549. And see Gibson v. Vaughan, 61 Mo. 



the proposed substitute, it will order the substitute to stand enrolled 
as and for the original.**' The application must be made to the 
court in which the record originally remained. The courts of chan- 
cery will not entertain jurisdiction of a bill to restore to the judg- 
ment-creditor the benefit of his judgment, for the reason that there 
is an adequate remedy at law, by motion in the court in which the 
judgment was rendered.*** "The inherent power of courts to con- 
trol their own records, and to supply losses therein, is antagonistic 
to the power of any other court to interfere and make records for 
them. By this proceeding, one court of special jurisdiction is in- 
voked to take cognizance of, and to supply to another court of gen- 
eral jurisdiction, a record, in lieu of one which has been destroyed. 
Ihis power, once admitted, will place the records of the courts of 
common law at the mercy of the court of chancery, and might leaid 
to absurd conflict between the law and equity side of the court over 
the records of the common law. * * * There is nothing here 
requiring the exercise of the conscience of the court which may not 
be attained by a simple proceeding, according to the course of the 
common law, and therefore chancery has no office to perform.'* **• 

I 125a. Entry of JvdKments in Federal Covrts. 

An act of congress provides that "the practice, pleadings, and 
forms and modes of proceeding in civil cases, other than equity and 
admiralty causes, in the circuit and district courts [of the United 
States], shall conform, as near as may be, to the practice, pleadings, 
and forms and modes of proceeding existing at the time in like 
causes in the courts of record of the state within which such circuit 
or district courts are held, any rule of court to the contrary notwith- 
standing." *•• This law, it is held, extends to the mode of entering 
and recording judgments, and requires the judgments of the federal 

147 Adkinson ▼. Ke^, 25 Ala. 551. 

»<• Fluher t. Slevres, 05 HI. 90. 

»*• Keen v. Jordan, 13 Pla. 327. On a motion to substitute the record of a 
d^vtroyed judgment, the defendant cannot contest the truth of the recitals 
of the proposed record, though he may show that the lost record contained no 
micb recitals. Peddy v. Street, 87 Ala. 2U9, 6 South. 3. 

!»• Her. St U. S. f U14. 


§ 12oa LAW OP JUDGMB3rTa. (Ch. 6 

circuit and district courts, in actions at law, to be entered and re- 
corded in the same manner as those of the courts of the state wh6^^ 
in such United States courts sit.^*^ Thus, if the state practice au- 
thorizes the entry of a judgment upon the report of a referee, with- 
out any application to the court, no application will be considered 
necessary in an action in a federal court in such state.^" But a 
state law requiring a judge to give his decision in writing upon 
every issue made by the pleadings is not binding on the federal 

i»i Morrison t. Beniards Township (G. C.) 35 Fed. 400; Sawin t. KeoDj, 
9S U. S. 289, 23 L. Ed. a26w 

i» Fotntli Nat. Bank t. Neyliardt 13 Blatchf. 383, Fed. Gas. No. iML 
i«s Martindale t. Waas (G. G.) U Fed. 551. 

• (184) 




i 126. Origin and Nature of the Power, 

urr. Delay by Act of the Court. 

12H. Delay by Motions or AppeaL 

U9. Laches of Party. 

190. Supplying Entry of Judgment 

ISl. Correction of Clerical Errors. 

132. Not a proper Means of changing or revising the Judgment. 

133. Only proper when Mnal Judgment could be entered. 
1S4. Notice of Application. 

135. Evidence. 

136. Reladon back of Order. 

137. Effect upon Third Persons. 

§ 126. Origiiii and Nature of tlie Powev. 

The phrase "nunc pro tunc/' "now for then," is used to indicate 
that something which was omitted to be done at the proper time is 
afterwards performed with a retroactive effect ; that is, it is to have 
the same force and virtue, and be attended by the same consequences 
as if it had been regularly done. In relation to judicial proceedings, 
the performance of acts nunc pro tunc may take place in the various 
stages of the progress of a suit, and instances are not uncommon of 
affidavits or other papers filed in this manner. But in this connec- 
tion we are only concerned with th^ entry and the amendment of 
judgments nunc pro tunc, and in this chapter only with the former. 
The power of the courts, whether of law or equity, to make entries 
of judgments or decrees nunc pro tunc, in proper cases and in fur- 
therance of the interests of justice, is one which has been recognized 
and exercised from ancient times, and as a part of their common law 
jurisdiction.* This power therefore does not depend upon statute; 

» Lord Mohun*s Oase, 6 Mod. 59; Hodges v. Templer, 6 Mod. 191; Mayor 
of .Vorwlck v. Berry. 4 Burrows, 2277; Evans v. Rees, 12 Adol. & E. 167, 175; 
Mitchell v. Ovemmn, 103 U. S. 62, 26 L. Ed. 369; Wood v. Keyes, 6 Paige 
»X. Y.) 478; Hess v. Cole, 23 N. J. Law, 116; Dial v. Holter, 6 Ohio St. 228; 
i^waln t. Naglee, 19 Cal 127; Reid v. Morton, 119 111. 118, 6 N. E. 414; Shep- 


§127 LAW OF JUDQMBNT8. (Gh. 7 

it is inherent.* It rests partly upon the right and duty of the courts 
to do entire justice to every suitor, and partly upon their control 
over their own records and authority to make them speak the truth. 
When a judgment is allowed to be thus entered in order that the 
party may not suffer for what has transpired during a delay caused 
by the court, it exhibits a practical application of the maxim "Actus 
curiae neminem gravabit." But the authority is much wider than 
this, and the power must not be confounded with the illustration of it 
The cases calling for the exercise of this power of the courts are 
chiefly of two kinds ; first, where no judgment was actually rendered, 
although one might or ought to have been ; second, where a judg- 
ment was actually rendered, but never entered or put upon the rec- 
ords. We shall first consider the former class of cases. 

§ 127. Delay by Act of tlie Covrt. 

In any instance where a party has brought his case to trial and 
proceeded to present it on the merits and submit the decision, and 
before any judgment is rendered one of the parties dies, the court, 
in order that the time consumed by it in deliberation, without laches 
of the party who was successful in the suit, may not operate to his 
disadvantage, will not allow the action to abate, but instead will 
enter judgment nunc pro tunc, as of the time of the submission.* Or, 

hard v. Breiiton, 20 Iowa. 41. Statutory provisions requiring a proceeding to 
vacate or modify a judgment to be brouglit within a certain time after the 
judgment is pronounced do not apply to a motion for an entry of judgment 
nunc pro tunc. Hyde v. Michelseii. 52 Xeb. (J80, 72 N. W. 1035, 66 Am. St. 
Kep. 533. And see Risser v. Martin, 80 Iowa, 302, 53 N. W. 270. 

2 Cliissom V. Barbour, 100 Ind. 1. 

3 Mayor of Norwicli v. Berry, 4 Burrows, 2277; Toulmin v. Anderson, 1 
Taunt.. 385; Bridges v. Smyth, 8 Bing. 21>; Blewett v. Tregonning, 4 Adol. & 
E. 1002; Green v. Colxlen, 4 Scott's Cas, 480; Key v. Goodwin, 1 Moore & S. 
020; Harrison v. Heathorn, 1 Dowl, & L. 529; Evans v. Rees, 12 Adol. & K. 
167; Moor v. Roberts, 3 C. B. (N. S.) 844; Seymour v. Gre?nwood. 30 I-aw 
J. Exch. ISO; Abington v. Lipscomb, 11 T-aw J. Q. B. 15; Da vies v. Da vies. 
Ves. 401; Neil v. McMillan, 27 T'. C. Q. B. 257: Mitchell v. Overman, 103 
IT. S. 62, 26 L. Ed. 309; City of New Orleans v. Warner. 176 U. S. 92, 2> 
Sup. Ct. 280, 44 L. Ed. 385: Griswold v. Hill, 1 Paine. 483, Fed. Cas. No. 
5,834; Goddard v. Bolster, ^le. 427, 20 Am. Dec. 320: Blalsdell v. Harris, 
52 N. II. 101; Collins v. PrenUce, 15 Coim. 423; Brown v. Wheeler. 18 Ct>nn. 
199; Perry v. Wilson, 7 Mass. 393; Tapley v. Goodsell, 122 Mass. 170; RygUt- 



if justice so require, the judgment may be entered as of the day in 
the term when the last of the evidence was submitted.* And a 
judgment may be entered nunc pro tunc against one of several de- 
fendants, as well as against a sole defendant, when death takes place 
after verdict and before judgment* The same practice obtains, un- 
der tlM same oonditiofis, in chancery. Thus, a party in interest hav- 
ing died since the argument and before the signing of a. decree, the 
decree and orders in the cause should be signed and filed as of the 
date of the argument.* The case may also be put in an irregular 
position by reason of the death of the plaintiff after a verdict. And 
here also the salutary power of giving judgment retrospectively may 
be invoked. By the common law practice, since the delay of the 
court must not be allowed to prejudice the parties, if the plaintiff die 
during the time the case is under advisement, judgment will be 
entered for him nunc pro tunc as of the time of the return of the 
postea.^ But in English practice (and probably the rule is general) 
the power so to enter judgment does not extend to suits in tort.® 
But it is not only the death of a party that will justify the exercise of 
this power. It may be employed to overreach any event happening 
while the case is in the hands of the court, and which would otherwise 

myer t. Durham, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 245; Spalding v. Congdon, 18 Wend. (N. 
r.) Ma; Holmes v. Honle, 8 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 383; De Agreda v. Mantel, 
I Abb. Prac. (N. Y.) 130; Campbell v. Mesier, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 334, 8 Am. 
Dec. 570; Wood v. Keyes, 6 Paige (N. Y.) 478; Klssam v. HamUton, 20 How. 
Prac, (N. Y.) 3(50; Fulton v. Fulton, 8 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 210; Long v. Stafford, 
103 N. Y. 275, 8 N. E. 522; Arthur v. Sohriever, 60 N. Y. Super. Ct. 59, 16 N. 
Y. gupp. 610; He&s v. Cole, 23 N. J. Law, 116; Wilson v. Myers, 11 N. C. 73, 
13 Am. Dec. 510; Isler v. Brown, 60 N, C. 556; Beard v. Hall, 79 N. O. 506; 
Allston V. Sing. Riley (S. C.) 199; Powe v. McIvCod, 70 Ala. 418; McLean 
T. State, 8 Heisk. <Tenn.) 22; Pool v. Loomis, 5 Ark. 110; Dial v. Holter, 6 
Ohio St. 228; In re Jarrett's Estate, 42 Ohio St. 199; In re Page's Estate, oe 
Gal. 40. The same rule applies where the defendant is a corporation, and is 
disflolTed after the action has been tried and the case taken under advise- 
ment by the court Sliakman v. United States Credit System Co., 92 Wis. 
368, 06 N. W. 528, 32 L. R. A. 383, 53 Am. St. Rep. 920. 

4 Citizens' Bank t. Brooks (C. C.) 23 Fed. 21. 

» Harrison v, Heathom, 1 Dowl. & L. 529. 

• Bamham v. Dalling, 16 N. J. Eq. 310. 

^ Jackson v. Mayor of Berwick, 1 Mod. 36. 

• Ireland v. Champneys, 4 Taunt 884. But see Brown v. Wheolcr. IS Conn. 



§128 LAW OP JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 7 

rob the successful suitor of his judgment.* Thus, in a case in Mass- 
achusetts, where the action was upon a statute which was afterwards 
repealed, but before the repealing statute went into operation the ac- 
tion was tried and verdict rendered for the plaintiff, and questions of 
law were reserved, which, after the repeal took effect, were decided 
in favor of the plaintiff, the court ordered judgment to be entered 
on the verdict as of a day previous to the going into operation of the 
repealing act.^® 

I 128. Delay by Motions or AppeaL 

The principle that a party shall not be prejudiced by the act of 
the court, or the delay incident to legal proceedings, applies equally 
where the successful litigant finds his progress obstructed, after ver- 
dict, by, the pendency of a motion or appeal, during which his 
adversary dies. Hence, where the defendant, after a verdict is given 
against him, moves for a new trial, and dies before the decision of 
the motion, and the motion is subsequently overruled, the judgment 
may be entered up for the plaintiff, nunc pro tunc, as of the term 
when the verdict was returned.^ ^ And conversely, if a verdict be 
found for the plaintiff, and a motion is made in arrest of judgment, 
during the pendency of which the plaintiff dies, the judgment will be 
entered, the motion being denied, as of the day of the verdict, or as 
of a term after the verdict when the plaintiff was still alive; and in 
such a case, it is held, it makes no difference whether the cause of 
action would or would not survive.^* So also if the plaintiff dies dur- 
ing the pendency of a motion, and the motion is subsequently decided 

» The general principle is tliat, whenever delay in entering a judgment is 
caused by the action of the court, Judgment nunc pro tunc will be allowed as 
of the time when tlie party would otherwise have been entitled to it. If Justice 
requires it McNamara v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., 56 N. J. Law. 56, 
28 Ati. 313; Ferrell v. Hales, 119 N. C. 199, 25 S. E. 821; Todd v. Todd, 7 
S. D. 174, 63 N. W. 777. Compare McClain v. Davis, 37 W. Va. 330, 16 S. K 
629, IS L. R. A. 634; Llttlejohn t. Arbogast, 86 111. App. 506. 

10 Inhabitants of Springfield y. Inhabitants of Worcester, 2 Cuah. (Mass.) 51 

11 Den V. Toralin, 18 N. J. Law, 14, 35 Am. Dec. 525; McNamara v. New 
Yorlc, L. E. & W. R. Co., 56 N. J. Law, 56, 28 Atl. 318; Terry v. Briggs, 12 
Cush. (Mass.) 319; Dial v. Holter, 6 Ohio St 228; Fitzgerald v. Stewart, 5? 
Pa. 343; Brown v. Wheeler, 18 Conn. 199; Collins v. Prentice, 15 Conn. 423. 

la Griffith v. Ogle^ 1 Bin. (Pa.) 172; Brown v. Wheeler, 18 Conn. 199. 



in favor of the defendant, the latter may enter up his judgment as of 
a term before the decease of the plaintiff.^' Where an appeal has 
been taken, and one of the parties dies before hearing in the appellate 
court, the proper practice is to affirm or reverse the judgment below 
nunc pro tunc.^* So in a case where the cause was transferred for 
consideration by the court in banc, upon exceptions taken by the 
defendant, and while it was there pending the defendant died, and 
afterwards the exceptions were overruled, it was held that the plain- 
tiff should have judgment as of the term when the verdict was ren- 
dered.** Where an appeal is taken and final judgment not entered, 
and the appeal is afterwards withdrawn or set aside for irregularity, 
the judgment may be entered nunc pro tunc on the verdict.*® And 
in a case in the supreme court of the United States, where the appel- 
lee died after the argument of a motion to dismiss the appeal, the 
order on the motion was entered nunc pro tunc as of the day of the 

I 129. Iiaolies of Party. 

If a delay in the entering of a judgment, after verdict or submis- 
sion, is not attributable to the act of the court in holding the case 
under advisement, or the pendency of a motion or other interruption, 
but is caused by the laches of the party entitled to judgment, and 
during the interval a party dies, judgment nunc pro tunc will not be 
allowed.** There is, of course, no room here for the application of 
the maxim above quoted, and the ends of justice do not require that 
the law should restore to a party an advantage which he may have 
lost through his own negligence or hesitation. 

" Spalding v. Congdon, 18 Wend. (N. T.) 543. 

*«Snow v. Carpenter, 54 Vt. 17. 

i> Blaisdell t. Harris, 52 N. H. 191. Where the defendant In a criminal 
cause has been found guilty by the verdict of a Jury, and appeals before an 
entry of final judgment against him, the district court may enter final Judg- 
ment nunc pro tunc after a term has intervened since the verdict. Ex parte 
Beard. 41 Tex. 234. 

>• Kane t. HIUs, R. M. Charlt. (Ga.) 103; Hardee v. Stovall, 1 Ga. «2; Van 
Gmiden ▼. Kane, 88 Va. 591, 14 S. E. 334. 

3 7 Richardson v. Green, 130 U. S. 104, 9 Sup. Ct. 443, 32 L. Ed. 872. 

!• Fishmongers' Co. T. RobertscA, 8 C. B. 970; Willies y. Perks. 5 Man. ^ 
G. 370. 


§ 130 LAW OF JUDGMENTS. (Oh. 7 

I 130. Suyplying Entry of Jmdgment. 

We come now to the second class of cases mentioned above— 
those where a judgment was actually rendered by the court, but was 
never put upon the records. And the rule is, that in any case where 
the court did actually render a formal judgment, but the same has 
not been entered on the record, in consequence of any accident or 
mistake, or through the neglect or misprision of the clerk, the court 
has power to order that the judgment once pronounced be entered 
nunc pro tunc, upon the production of proper evidence to establish 
the fact of the judgment and to show jts terms and character and the 
relief granted ; and this may be done after the expiration of the term 
at which the judgment was originally given.^* Thus, where, on a 
plea of nul tiel record, the court decided that there was such a rec- 
ord, but in consequence of the mistake of the prothonotary judgment 
was omitted to be entered, after which the defendant died, it was held 
that the court might, in order to do justice, enter judgment as of the 
time when it ought to have been entered, although nearly eight years 
had elapsed, provided third persons were not injured thereby.** The 
rule applies equally to cases of judgment by confession,** and to 
judgments by default.** It may be invoked in proceedings in a 

i» Chichester v. Cande, 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 39. 15 Am. Dec. 238; Hagler ▼. Mer- 
cer, 6 Fla. 721; Wilkerson v. Goldthwalte, 1 Stew. & P (Ala.) 159; Whoriey 
V. Memphis & C. R. Co., 72 Ala. 20; Gotten v. McOehee, 54 Miss. 021; Forbe« 
V. Navra, 63 Miss. 1; Hammer v. McCbunei, 2 Ohio, 31; Howell v. Morlan. 
78 111. 162; Ives v. Hulce, 17 111. App. 30; Shephard v. Brenton, 20 Iowa. 41; 
(Mbsoii V. Chouteau's Heirs, 45 Mo. 171, 100 Am. Dec. 366: Groner r. SmltH. 
49 Mo. 31S; Belkln v. Rhodes, 76 Mo. 643; Swain v. Nagrlee, 19 Cal. 127: 
Drey fuss v. Tompkins, 67 Cal. 339, 7 Pac. 732; St Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Ca 
V. Winfrey (Ark.) 16 S. W. 572; Fitzsimmons v. Munch, 79 111. App. 538: Day 
V. Goodwin, 104 Iowa, 374, 73 N. W. 864, 65 Am. St Rep. 465; Van Etten 
V. Test, 49 Neb. 725, 68 N. W. 1023; Hamer v. McKinley-Lanning L. & T. 
Co., 51 Neb. 496, 71 N. W. 51; Hyde v. Michelson, 52 Neb. 680, 72 N. W. lOSTi. 
66 Am. St. Rep. 533; Guud v. Horrigan. 53 Neb. 794, 74 N. W. 257; Marshall 
V. Taylor, 97 Cal. 422, 32 Pac. 515; Parrott v. McDevitt, 14 Mont. 203, 36 
Pac. 193. 

«o Murray v. Cooper, 6 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 126. 

21 Davis V. Barker, 1 Ga. 559; Doughty v. Meek, 105 Iowa. 16, 74 N. W. 
744, 67 Am. St. Rep. 282. See, also, Mountain y. Rowland, 30 Ga. 929. 

«a Monarch v. Brey (Ky.) 51 S. W. 191. 



probate court,*' and in actions for divorce,** as well as in other cases. 
Afld its application is not confined to final judgments, but extends 
also to orders of the court. Entry of an order sustaining a demur- 
rer to the petition may be thus supplied ; *" and, genially speaking, 
if it shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court that any 
given order was actually made at a former term and omitted to be 
entered by the clerk, it may, at any term, direct such order to be 
entered on the record as of the term when it was made.'* 

§ 131. Conreetion of Clerical Errors. 

'That a court has a right, at a term subsequent to one at which a 
judgment is rendered, to correct, by an order nunc pro tunc, a clerical 
error or omission in the original entry, is indisputable. The error, 
whether of commission or omission, must appear from the record of 
the proceedings in which the entry of judgment is made." *^ Thus 
a judgment is not rendered void by an omission to sig^ it, but may 
be amended, even after the lapse of ten years, by an order to supply 
the proper signature nunc pro tunc.** And even during the pen- 
dency of an appeal a judgment may be amended nunc pro tunc, in 
respect, for example, to proof of acknowledgment of service of pro- 
cess and to the waiver of exemptions, at a subsequent term of the 
trial court, and when properly certified to the appellate court, the 
amendment is before such court for consideration, and will relate 
back and sustain the judgment.** When the clerk is ordered by the 
court at a subsequent term to supply a clerical omission in the rec- 
ord of a judgment by an entry nunc pro tunc, the proper course for 
him to pursue would be to enter anew in the proceedings of that term 
the entire judgment as corrected; and the action of the clerk in sup- 

*s Brooks T. Brooks, 52 Kan. 562, 35 Pac. 215. 

«* Rush v. Kush, d7 Tenn. 279, 37 S. W. 13. 

«» Texas Land & Loon Ck). t. Winter, 93 Tex. 560, 57 S. W. 39. 

<• Burnett ▼. State, 14 Tex. 455, 65 Am. Dec. 131; Ferguson v. Millandon, 
12 La. Ann. 348; Huber Mannfg Co. v. Sweny, 57 Ohio St. 169, 48 N. B. 879. 

ST AUen t. Sales, 56 Mo. 28. 

3* Pollard T. King, 62 Ga. 103. As to the necessity of signing a judgment, 
■ee fi 109 supra. 

>• Seymour t. Thomas Harrow Co., 81 Ala. 250, 1 South. 45. 


§182 LAW OF JT7DOMENTS. (Ch. 7 

plying the omitted part of the judgment, by an interlineation in the 
record of the preceding term, is considered as loose, irregular, and 
reprehensible. Nevertheless such improprieties of the clerk would 
probably not have the eflfect of rendering the judgment a nullity." 

S 132. Not a proper Means of chansins or revlsins the Judsment* 

The power of courts to order the entry of judgments nunc pro 
tunc is not to be used for the purpose of correcting errors, omis- 
sions, or mistakes of the court ; it cannot direct a proper judgment 
to be thus entered when the fault is that the first judgment is one 
which should not have been entered in the case, or is imperfect or 
improper.*^ The object and effect of an amendment nunc pro tunc 
of a judgment is to furnish proper evidence of acts properly done by 
the court, but not properly exhibited by its record ; and such evi- 
dence IS furnished in this manner, for the purpose of supporting those 
acts which, although the proper consequences of a judgment, would 
seem to be irregular and void because there was no proper evidence 
of a judgment.'^ Hence the court cannot at a subsequent term 
change its judgment to one which it neither rendered nor intended 
to render ; '* nor supply an order which it might or ought to have 

t.o Allen V. Sales, 56 Mo. 28. 

»i Brlgnardello v. Gray, 1 Wall. 627, 17 L. Ed. 692; In re Inhabitants of 
Limerick, 18 Me. 183; Smith v. Hood, 25 Pa. 218. 64 Am. Dec. 692; PerkiDS 
V. Dunlary, 61 Tex. 241; Hyde v. Curling, 10 Mo. 359; Gibson v. Choateaas 
Heirs, 45 Mo. 171, 100 Am. Dec. 366; Evans v. Fisher, 26 Mo. App. 541; Whit- 
well V. Emory, 3 Mich. 84, 59 Am. Dec. 220. 

32 Adams v. Higgins, 23 Fla. 13, 1 South. 321. 'The »itire purpose of en- 
tering orders or judgments as of some prior date, Is to supply matters of evi- 
dence. The failure of a court to act does not authorize the entry of a nanc 
pro tunc order or Judgment. If no order or Judgment was In fact rendered, 
the court cannot treat such defect as a clerical error. But when It is dear 
that an order or Judgment was in fact rendered, but was not entered upon 
the Jom'nal through the inadvertence or negligence of the clerk, the court la? 
authority to order it to be supplied. In such a case, the record is merdy 
amended by inserting in the memorial of the proceedings of the coort that 
which has been omitted therefrom." Maxwell, J., 'in Garrison v. People, *> 
Neb. 274, 281. 

«3 Ross v. Ross, 83 Mo. 100; Cleveland leader Prhiting Co. v. Green, ^ 
Ohio St. 487, 40 N. E. 201, 49 Am. St Rep. 725; Page T. Chapin, 80 Mo. App. 



made, but wholly omitted to make.^* Nor can such an entry be 
made by the court for the purpose of reversing its action in respect 
to what it formerly refused to do or assent to.'** Yet the cases hold 
that if, in an action by two or more plaintiffs, or against two or more 
defendants, judgment has been mistakenly entered for one plaintiff 
only, or against one defendant only, as the case may be, a proper 
judgment nunc pro tunc may be subsequently entered, without no- 
tice, if the record furnishes sufficient ground.'* 

I 133. Oaly yroper ivlieii Final Jndsmeiit oould be entered. 

The rule that a judgment may be entered nunc pro tunc, when 
such action is necessary in order to save a party from being un- 
justly prejudiced by a delay caused by the act of the court or the 
course of legal procedure, must be taken with an important restric- 
tion, viz., that such an entry is not proper unless the case was in such 
a condition, at the date to which the judgment is to relate back, that 
a final judgment could then have been entered immediately. If it 
were otherwise, the death of one's adversary, for example, might 
operate to one's positive advantage. But this is not the object of 
the practice. It is intended merely to secure that one shall not suf- 
fer for an event which he could not avoid. As it has been said, "a 
judgment nunc pro tunc in case of death is proper only when a party 
dies after hearing, while the case is under advisement, or after the 
case has proceeded so far that judgment can be entered, if not as a 
merely formal act, at least without the need of further inquiry or 
evidence into matters of fact involved in the controversy." *^ Hence 
if there is no verdict in the record, the court cannot at a subsequent 
term order a verdict and judgment to be entered nunc pro tunc ; if 

»* Hyde t. Curling, 10 Mo. 359. 

»• Moore v. State, 63 Ga. 165. 

»• Alien v. Bradford, 3 Ala. 281, 37 Am. Dec. 689. It Is held In Arkansas 
that If, on appeal from a Justice of the peace, Judgment is recovered against 
the appellant and his sureties in the appeal bond, and the clerk omits to in< 
dude the sureties in the entry of Judgment, a nunc pro tunc Judgment may 
be entered against them at a subsequent term without notice to them. Free- 
man T. Mears, 36 Ark. 278; Shaul v. Duprey. 48 Ark. 331, 3 S. W. 366. 

•T Haard v. Durant, 14 R. I. 25. And see BlrdseU Manurg Co. v. Inde- 
pcDdent Fire-Sprinkler Co., 87 111. App. 443. 

1 LAW JUDO.— 13 (193) 

§135 LAW OF JUBCOnSNTB. (Ch. 7 

the record does not show that a verdict was rendered, it cannot be 
supplied at a subsequent term of the court.** 

S 134. N«Hioe of ApplloatloB. 

In Alabama it is the settled practice of the courts that a judgment 
nunc pro tunc may be entered at a subsequent term without noticf 
to the opposite party, if there is any order or memorandum of record 
to warrant the entry.** In New York, also, it is held that an entry 
of judgment nunc pro tunc may be ordered without notice, and an 
improper notice is a mere irregularity, not a fatal defect.** But in 
some other states the view holds, that although a judgment may be 
entered on a verdict without notice, yet an application to aineiid a 
judgment after the term at which it was rendered, must be made 
upon notice to the adverse party.*^ In general, we may say that flie 
necessity of notice of such an application must depend upon the 
sources which are to furnish the evidence of the judgment to be en- 
tered. If the examination is to be confined to the records, the pres- 
ence of the defendant could not affect the result, nor would he have 
room to contest it. But if it is to be based on extraneous proof, it 
is but just that he should have the opportunity to prepare counter- 
vailing testimony. 

S 135. £vid«]iott» 

It is held in several of the states that the evidence which will jus- 
tify the court in entering a judgment nunc pro tunc must be record 
evidence; that is, that such entry can only be made upon the pro- 
duction of some note, entry, or memorandum from the records or 

> 8 Gray v. Thomas, 12 Smedes & M. (Miss.) Ill; Jennings y. Ashley, 6 
Ark. 128. And see North v. Pepper, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 677; Kissam ▼. Ham- 
ilton, 20 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 375. 

»» Mays V. HasseU, 4 Stew. & P. 222, 24 Am. Dec. 750; Bentley r. Wright 
3 Ala. e07; Allen v. Bradford. 3 Ala. 281, 37 Am. Dec. 68»; Glass v. Gte«, 
24 Ala. 468; Nabers' Adm'r v. Meredith, 67 Ala. 333. Compare Womack ▼. 
Sanford, 37 Ala. 445. 

♦0 Long V. Stafford, 103 N. Y. 274, 8 N. B. 522. 

41 Berthold v. Fox, 21 Minn. 51; Hill v. Hoover, 5 Wla 386, 68 Am. Dec 
70; Weed y. Weed, 25 Conn. 337; King y. Bumham, 12d Mass. 508. See in- 
fra, f 164. 


Ql 7) BNTBY OF JtrOGMSlfrt mjNC 1»R0 TUNC. } 135 

quasi records of the court, which shows in itself, without the aid of 
parol evidence, that the alleged judgment was rendered, alnd what 
were its character and' terms.** "We think,'* said the court in Ala- 
bama, "that no judgment can be amended, or one rendered nunc pro 
tunc, unless such amendment or rendition of judgment be authorized 
by matter of record, or by some entry made by or under the author- 
ity of the court, which entry must be shown by the record of the 
caise, or at the least by some book belonging to the office of the court 
»d required to be there kept by law." *• It is somewhat difficult to 
ascertain from the authorities what will be .considered record evi- 
dence for this purpose. But it is held that the entry may be based 
OB the judge's minutes or the clerk's entries, or some paper on file 
in the case, but cannot be made upon the judge's recollection of what 
took place at the trial or upon outside evidence.** So entries on the 
court and bar docket, which are quasi records, are admissible evi- 
dence; and a recital in the amending judgment that the court "is of 

«s Adams v. Re Qua, 22 FIs. 250, 1 Am. St Rep. 191; Drauglmn y. Tom- 
be^bee Bank, 1 Stew. (AJa.) 66, 18 Am. Dee. 38; Andrews' Adm*r v. Branch 
Bank, 10 Ala. 375; Hudson y. Hudson, 20 Ala. 364, 56 Am. Dec. 200; Met- 
caJf V. Metcalf. 19 Ala. 319, 54 Am. Dec. 188; Yonge y. Broxson, 23 Ala. 681; 
8x parte Joees, 61 Ala. 399; Ex parte GUmer, 64 Ala. 234; Lilly y. Larkln, t» 
Ala. 123; Herring v. Cherry, 75 Ala. 376; Kemp y. Lyon, 76 Ala. 212; Shack- 
elford y. Levy. GS .Ilss. 125; Raymond v. Smith, 1 Mete. (Ky.) 65, 71 Am. 
Dec. 458; Ludlow*8 Heirs y. Johnston, 3 Ohio, 553, 17 Am. Dec. 609; Goughran 
▼. Gutcbeua, 38 IlL 390; Cairo & St. L. R. Co. y. Holbrook, 72 111. 419; Hyde 
y. Curling, 10 Mo. 359; Gibson y. Chouteau's Heirs, 45 Mo. 171, 100 Am. Dec. 
306; Fletctaer ▼. Coombs, 58 Mo. 430; Atkinson y. Atchison, T. A S. F. R. 
Co.. 81 Mo. 50; Bllze y. Castlio, 8 Mo. App. 290; Swain y. Naglee, 19 Cal. 
127; Hegeler y. Henckell. 27 Cal. 491; Ware y. Kent, 123 Ala. 427, 26 South. 
208, 82 Am. St. Rep. 132; Montgomery County y. Auchley, 103 Mo. 492, 15 S. 
W. 626; Boyd v. Schott (Ind.) 50 N. B. 379; Tynan y. Weinhard, 153 lU. 598, 
38 X. E. 1014. An oral announcement of the court's decision is not a suffi- 
cient bosis for an entry of judgment nunc pro tunc. Boyd y. Schott, 152 Ind. 
161, 52 N. E. 752. 

*» Hudson y. Hudson, 20 Ala. 364, 56 Am. Dec. 200. 

«« Belkln y. Rhodes, 76 Mo. 643; Graham y. Lynn, 4 B. Mon. (Ky.) 17, 39 
Am. Dec. 493; Short y. Kellogg, 10 Ga. 180; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. y. Wlng- 
Ut. 165 ni. 634, 46 N. E. 712. The presumption of the yerlty of the record 
vill control where the eyidence afforded by the papers and flies in the case 
iff in conflict with that furnished by the minute book and the judge's docket. 
Missouri, BL & E. Ry. Co. y. Holschlag, 144 Mo. 253, 45 S. W. 1101, 66 Am. 
8t Rep. 417. But in Kansas, it is said that the minutes on the court's docket 


I 136 LAW OF JXJDOMBNTa. (Ch. 7 

opinion" from an inspection of said docket, etc., is equivalent to an 
averment that the court deemed the evidence satisfactory, and is 
sufficient to sustain the amendment, unless the entries themselves 
are shown to be insufficient.** And where an order approving the 
report of commissioners in partition, although informal, taken in 
connection with the report itself, affords sufficient data, there is no 
error in the entry at a subsequent term of a judgment nunc pro tunc 
ratifying and giving effect to the report.** So a memorandum writ- 
ten by the presiding judge across a motion entered on the motion- 
docket will authorize a nunc pro tunc order.*^ 

On the other hand there are numerous cases which hold that an 
entry nunc pro tunc may be -ordered on any evidence that is suffi- 
cient and satisfactory, whether it be parol or otherwise.*' But the 
general balance of authority seems to be with the cases holding that 
so far as concerns the question whether a judgment was ever ren- 
dered, that fact must be established by record evidence and cannot 
be proved by parol, — a rule which, if conservative, is also entirely 
safe. Thus, when a case stands on the docket as not disposed of, and 
no entry on the papers or elsewhere is produced indicating any dispo- 
sition of it, a final judgment cannot be entered nunc pro tunc on parol 
testimony alone, unaided by the judge's recollection, especially where 
counsel for one of the parties denies on oath all knowledge of the 
alleged judgment, and there is no positive affirmative- evidence but 
that of the adverse counsel.** But when the fact that a judgment 

and the testimony of the presiding judge are ordinarily controlling. Shocfcey 
v. Akey, 6 Kan. App. 920, 49 Pac. G94. An entry in the clerk's minutes, giving 
the style of the case and the case number, followed by the abbreviation 
"Judgt," is a sufficient basis for the entry of a Judgment nunc pro tane. 
Monarch v. Brey (Ky.) 51 S. W. 191. 

45 Farmer v. Wilson, 34 Ala. 75. 

*e Mead v. Brown, G5 Mo. 552. And see Wade v. Bryant (Ky.) 7 S. W. 3»7. 

47 Harris v. Bradford, 4 Ala. 214. Where the flies of the court, the motion. 
the enti-y of its filing, its purpose, and the entry of simUar orders in the same 
cause, show that tlie order was made, a nunc prq tunc entry may be made, 
Hanebrough v. Fudge, 80 Mo. 307. 

*8 Frink v. Frink, 43 N. H. 508, 80 Am. Dec. 189, 82 Am. Dec. 172; Rugg 
V. Parker, 7 Gray (Mass.) 172; Weed v. W^eed, 25 Conn. 337; Jacobs v. Burg- 
wyn, 63 N. C. 193; Aydelotte V. Brittaln, 29 Kan. 98; Bobo v. State, 40 Art 
224; BrowDlee v. Board of Com'rs of Grant Co., 101 Ind. 401. 

*» Itobeitson v. Pharr, 5G Ga. 245; Cadwell v. Dullaghan, 74 Iowa, 23^, 3T 


was formerly rendered is established by record evidence, it seems 
entirely reasonable to admit parol proof for the purpose of showing 
its date, character, and terms, and the relief granted. And it is so 
held by many respectable authorities.*® In order to entitle a party 
to have a judgment entered on the minutes nunc pro tunc, he must 
show when it was rendered ; certainly at what term of the court, if 
not on what day of the term.**^ 

S 136. Relation back of Order. 

A nunc pro tunc entry of judgment is made as of the time the pro- 
ceedings of the court actually took place, and becomes a part of the 
entry of that date the same as if entered then.'* Hence the entry, 
by its relation back, will cure any variance between the judgment as 
originally (defectively) entered and the execution issued thereon.*' 
**There can be no doubt that such an entry may operate so as to save 
proceedings which have been had before it is made. For instance, a 
judgment is actually made at one term, but through mistake or neg- 
ligence is not entered of record. Subsequent to the term, the plain- 
tiff, under the impression that the business had all been correctly 
transacted, prays out execution. The property of the judgment- 
debtor is levied upon and sold to a bona fide purchaser, who parts 
with his money in good faith. In such case the court may with pro- 
priety enter a judgment, to be considered of the term in which it was 
actually rendered and should have been entered. Such proceedings 
should be for the furtherance of justice. It would do no injury to 
the parties concerned, and would secure the rights of an innocent 

N. W. 178. Such entry should not be ordered by a Judge other than the one 
who is claimed to have made the original order, upon the mere statement 
ot counsel, excepted to by opposing counsel, that such order was made. Car- 
ter T. McBroom. Ho Tenn. 377, 2 S. W. 803. 

••Camoron v. Thurmond, 56 Tex. 22; Burnett v. State, 14 Tex. 455, 65 
Am. Dec. 131; Johnson v. Wright, 27 Ga. 555; Weed v. Weed, 25 Conn. 337; 
Krink t. Frink, 43 N. H. 508, 80 Am. Dec. 180, 82 Am. Dec. 172; Rugg ▼. 
I'arker, 7 Gray (Mass.) 172; Clark v. Lamb, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 415, 10 Am. Dec. 
332; Darls v. Shaver, 61 N. C. 18, 91 Am. Dec. 92. 

*i Robertson v. Pharr. 56 Ga. 245. 

»3 Bush V. Buah. 46 Ind. 70. 

»« Jonlau T. Petty. 5 Fla. 326. 


§ 137 ULW OF JUDOMBNT8. (Ch. 7 

purchaser." •* But it is held that for the purpose of a statute of lim- 
itations, the date of the entry of a judgment nunc pro tunc is the 
date of the order of such entry, and not the day as of which the judg- 
ment is ordered to take effect. •• 

S 137. Elfe<»t upon Tlilrd PeraoiLB. 

When a judgment is entered nunc pro tunc, its effect, so far as it 
operates by relation back to the earlier date, must be confined to the 
rights and interests of the original parties; at least it will not be 
allowed to work detriment to the rights of innocent third persons ac- 
quiring interests without notice of the rendition of any judgment." 
Thus a purchaser of real estate takes it charged with the lien of only 
such judgments as are actually existing at the time of the purchase, 
and it is not comp^etent for a court to bind by a lien the land of a 
third person by the rendition of a nunc pro tunc judgment against 
his grantor.'^ So an entry nunc pro tunc of a probate decree of in- 
solvency of the estate of a decedent takes effect, as against claims 
filed by creditors thereof, from the date of actual entry.'* In order 
that such an entry of judgment may bind a person who is not a party 
thereto (such as a surety in a supersedeas bond given on appeal 

»« Ludlow's Heirs v. Johnston, 3 Ohio, 558, 575, 17 Am. Dee. 009. Enter- 
ing a decree nunc pro tunc, and thereby restricting the time for appeal, is not 
prejudicial error, where the defeated party succeeds in perfecting his appeal. 
Monson v. KiU, 144 111. 248, 33 N. E. 43. 

»« Borer v. Chapman, 119 U. S. 587, 7 Sup. Ct. 342, 30 L. Ed. 532. 

60 Banlt of Newburgh v. Seymour, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 219; Vroom v. Ditmas, 
5 Paige (N. Y.) 528; Smith v. Uood, 25 Pa. 218, W Am. Dec. 092; Gaipin t. 
Fishbume, 3 McCord (S. C.) 22, 15 Am. Dec. 614; Acklen v. Acklen, 45 Ala. 
609; Graham v. Lynn, 4 B. Mon. (Ky.) 18, 39 Am. Dec. 493; Small v. Douth- 
Itt, 1 Knn. 335; Shirley v. Phillips, 17 111. 471; McCormick v. Wbeeler, »5 
in. 114, Ho Am. Dec. 388; Koch v. Atlantic & P. R. Co., 77 Mo. 354; Hays v. 
Miller, 1 Wash. T. 143. But on motion to enter nunc pro tunc a judgment 
already rendered, a stranger cannot intervene and question the judgment. 
Hillens v. Brinsfleld, 113 Ala. 304, 21 South. 208. 

5T Miller v. Wolf, 63 Iowa, 233, 18 N. W. 880. But a party to an action can- 
not prevent the court from entering nunc pro time the Judgment pronounced 
by it, by showing tliat some third person, not a party to the suit has acquired 
an Interest in the property involved since the rendition of the original Judg- 
ment. Hyde v. Michelsen, 52 Neb. 680, 72 N. W. 1035, 06 Am. St. Rep. SSS, 

5« Acklen v. Acklen, 45 Ala. 609. 


Ch. 7) ENTRY OF 7UDG«n»NT8 KVffC PRO TUNC. § 137 

from the judgment as first entered), it must appear that he had notice 
of the judgment really rendered at the time his rights were acquired 
or his liability fixed thereunder, or that he had notice of the applica- 
tion to have the nunc pro tunc entry made and an opportunity to 
appeal therefrom.** 

•• Koch y. Atlantic A P. R. Co., 77 Mo. 354. 


§ 138 LAW OF JUDQMENTflL (Ch. 8 



8 138. Amount greater than JPlalntifTs Demand. 

139. Assessment of Damages on Default. 

140. Amount indorsed on Summons. 

141. l^ayer for Relief as Measure of Recovery. 

142. Judgment must follow tbe Verdict 

143. Allowance of Credits. 

144. Tender, Counterclaim, Offer of Compromise. 

145. Joint Parties. 

14(>. Affirmatlye Relief to Defendant 

147. Interest. 

148. Conditions as to Payment 

149. Statutory Damages. 

150. Designation of Amount. 

151. Judgment designating Medium of Payment 

152. Judgment for Coined Money. 

S 138. Amomit greater thaii Plaintiire Demaiid. 

Since judgments are usually rendered for a definite sum of money, 
and are intended either to enforce the payment of a legal debt, or to 
establish the existence of a legal right and give compensation for its 
infraction by an award of damages, it becomes important in this 
connection to consider the amount and character of the relief which 
may be granted, the mode of its ascertainment, and the question of 
designating the medium of payment. These matters will constitute 
the subject of the present chapter. And first, it is an undisputed 
rule that if a judgment be rendered for a greater sum, whether by 
way of debt or damages, than is laid in the ad damnum clause, or 
claimed in the declaration, petition, or complaint, or notified to the 
defendant by the demand in the summons, then the judgment will 
be erroneous and liable to reversal.^ Thus, where a complaint con- 

1 Chaffee v. Hooper, 54 Vt 513; Andrews v. Monllaws. 8 Hun, 65; Dennison 
V. Leeeli, » Fa. 164; Jobnson v. Van Doren, 2 X. J. Law, 374; Lester v. 
Cloud, 67 Ga. 770; Hillebrant v. Barton, 39 Tex. 5U9; Janson v. Bank of 
the Republic, 48 Tex. SHU; Price v. Grand Rapids & I. R. Co., 18 Ind. 137; 



tains two paragraphs, and there is a special finding of facts by the 
court, and the facts found support all the material allegations of one 
of the paragraphs, but not of the other, judgment must be rendered 
as upon the paragraph that is supported by the findings, and it can- 
not be for an amount greater than is claimed therein to be due.^ 
Xor is the application of this rule confined to contested actions. It 
is equally true, in cases where the defendant suflfers a default, that 
a judgment for more than the plaintiff has claimed is erroneous, and 
may be set aside, modified on motion, or reversed on appeal.' And 
a judgment for a greater sum than that laid in the declaration can- 
not stand, even though the defendant confesses judgment for the 
larger amount.* Nor will the defendant's withdrawal of his pleas 
authorize or sustain a judgment for a sum in excess of that warranted 
by the cause of action stated in the petition.* But it must be 

Oak« V. Ward, 19 111. 46; Taylor v. Richman, 87 111. App. 419; Stiles v. 
Brown, 3 G. Greene (Iowa) 589; Hayton v. Hope, 3 Mo. 53; Beckwith v. 
Boyce, 12 Mo. 440; Cautliom v. Berry, 09 Mo. App. 404; Wheeler v. Mayher, 
iColo. App.) «1 Fac. 623; Lamping v. Hyatt, 27 Cal. 99; Bond v. Pacheco, 
30 Cal. 530; Foley v. Foley, 120 Cal. 33, 52 Pac. 122, 65 Am. St. Rep. 147; 
Gentry v. United States, 41 C. C. A. 185, 101 Fed. 51; Morrison v. KHomme- 
dien, 15 App. Div. 623, 44 N. Y, Supp. 79; Denison v. Lewis, 5 App. D. 
C. 328; Sontheru Bell Teleplione & Telegraph Co. v. D'Alemberte, 39 Fla. 25, 
21 South. 570; Wilkins v. Bums (Tex. Civ. App.) 25 S. W. 431; Warren v. 
Prewett (Tex. Civ. App.) 25 S. W. 647; Chaney v. Ramey (Ky.) 43 S. W. 
^235. It is immaterial that the evidence may prove a greater debt, or a 
jn^ater amount of damage, than was alleged by the plaintiff in his deelara- 
rion. Denison v. Lewis, 5 App. D. C. 328; Cauthorn v. Berry. 69 Mo. App. 
-KM; Uster v. Vowell. 122 Ala. 264, 25 South. 564. And where the dec- 
laration specially alleges the items of damage, in precise and deflnite sums, 
there can be no greater recovery than their aggregate, notwithstanding that 
the ad damnum clause claims a greater amount in a lump sum. Kerry v. 
Pacific Marine Co., 121 Cal. 564, 54 Pac. 89, 66 Am: St. Rep. 63. But In 
Indiana, It appears that, where the complaint demands a money Judgment 
in a speolHed sum, and defendant has answered, Judgment may be rendered 
for a greater sum than that demanded, should the case Justify it. Bozarth 
V. McGlllicuddy, 19 Ind. App. 26, 47 N. E. 397. And see Code Civ. Proo. Cal. 
f 58(J. 

2 Helms V. Keams, 40 Ind. 124. 

> Andrews v. Monilaws, 8 Hun, 65; Bond v. Pacheco, 30 Cal. 530. See 
lHompson T. Turner, 22 111. 389. 

* Lester v. Cloud, 67 Ga. 770. 

• Janiion v. Bank of the Kepubllc, 48 Tex. 599. 


§ 1 39 lAW OF JVDOMBNT8. (Cb. 8 

observed that a judgment so rendered for an excessive amount is not 
void.* Relief may be had against it, or it may be corrected or set 
aside, in any appropriate mode ; nevertheless it is not a mere nullity. 
Consequently it will stand as a valid adjudication until the proper 
steps are taken against it, and will be binding upon the parties and 
not c^en to collateral attack. And where this is the only error in 
flie judgment, it may be rectified without the necessity of entirely va- 
cating it. For if a judgment is entered for too great an amount, it 
may be reformed by remitting the excess.^ Again, if the plaintiff 
amends his petition, and issue is joined thereon, his recovery will 
not be limited to the amount claimed in the original petition.* Or, 
in proper cases, the complaint will be deemed to have been amended 
so as to demand judgment for the amount actually recovered.* It 
also appears that it is not error to render judgment for an amount 
of damages exceeding the ad damnum in the writ, after the action, 
together with other claims of the plaintiff against the defendant, has 
been referred to arbitrators under a rule of court.** It should also 
be remarked that the rule prohibiting a judgment for a greater sum 
than that demanded by the plaintiff does not apply to the addition of 
costs to the amount of the recovery, though the total may exceed the 
ad damnum,^ ^ but it does prevent the addition of attorneys' fees in 
excess of the sum claimed in the complaint.** 

I 139. AMeasment of Damac®* om Default. 

We have already seen, in the chapter on judgments by default, 
that if the amount which the plaintiff is entitled to recover is defi- 

« Chaffeo v. Hooper, 54 Vt 513; Bond v. Pacheco, 30 Cal. 530; Gum-Elastic 
Rooflng Co. V. Mexico Pub. Co., 140 Ind. 158, 39 X. K. 443, 30 L. R. A. 700. 

T Anthony v. Estes, 101 X. C. 541, 8 S. E. 347; Lister v. Vowell, 122 Ate. 
204, 25 South. 504. In case of remittitur, the Judgment previously entered 
should first be set aside, and a remittitur entered, and this should then be 
followed by judgment for the amount remaining. Bartling v. Thielman, 183 
lU. 88, 55 N. ifl. 077. 

8 Kohn V. Johnson (Iowa) 80 N. W. 543. 

» Carpenter v. Sheldon, 22 ind. 259. 

10 Day V. Berkshire Woolen Co., 1 Gray (Mass.) 420. 
i 11 French v. Goodnow, 175 Mass. 451, 56 N. E. 719. And the same Is troe 

of interest. Georgia Home Ins. Co. v. Goode, 95 Va. 751, 30 S. K. 360. 

" Skym V. Weske Consolidated Co. (Cal.) 47 Pac. 110. 



nitely fixed by the contract or other instrument on which he sues, a 
final judgment may at once be entered, upon the defendant's defauh, 
for such amount; and that the same is true if the amount can be 
ascertained by a matter of simple calculation. But in other cases, an 
interlocutory judgment must first be entered, fixing the plaintiff's 
right to recover, and then the damages assessed by a writ of inquiry 
or some other proper method.^* It is therefore erroneous for the 
court, in an action on an unliquidated claim, to proceed to render 
final judgment for a specific sum, without the preliminary assessment 
of damages.^^ And in an action on an open account, in which the 
defendant was defaulted, the judgment will be set aside if the record 
does not disclose in what manner and upon what proofs the amount 
of the judgment was ascertained.^' 

S 140. Aateiiiit imdorsed on Svnunoajk 

In some of the states, where the code practice is established, it is 
required by law that in all civil actions for the recovery of money 
only, the amount for which judgment will be taken, if the defendant 
fails to appear, shall be indorsed on the summons. When such 
indorsement is made, the defendant has a right to rely upon it as fix- 
ing a limit beyond which the court cannot go in rendering judgment, 
in case he chooses to make no appearance in the action, and it is 
error to exceed it.** 

f 141. PrAFer fer Relief mm Measure of ReooTery. 

According to the settled practice in equity, the rule in regard to de- 
crees is similar to that just stated as governing judgments at law, 

IS Bupra, (^ 8». 

»* Beam v. Hayden, 5 Bosh (Ky.) 426; Evans v. Parks, 10 Ark. 306; War- 
ren T. Kennedy, 1 Ueiak. (Tenn.) 437. 

iftSneU V. Irvine, 17 FU. 234. 

i« Cleveland Co-op. Stove Co. v. Grimes, 9 Neb. 123, 2 N. W. 345; Basset 
V. Mitchell (Kan.) 19 Fac. 671. But a recovery for an amount greater than 
the sum indorsed on the summons is lawful where the excess is for Interest 
Accroed since the commencement of the suit. Elliott v. Knight, 64 111. App. 
V7. And the fact that the Judgment exceeds the sum indorsed on the sum- 
moDB is unimportant where the defendant appears and answers to the merits. 
Krck V. Omaha Nat Bank, 43 Neb. 613, 62 K. W. 67. 


§ 141 LAW OF JUDGMENTS. (Ch. 8 

viz., that it is error to decree relief not sought in the bill, in other 
words, if the complainant has prayed for specific relief in the prem- 
ises, or relief as to a specific subject-matter, no more extensive relief 
can properly be accorded to him.^^ But it is usual to join with the 
demand for specific relief a prayer for general relief also, and where 
this is done, the court is not limited, in its dealing with the matters 
in litigation, to the orders or decrees particularly asked for, but may 
take such other action as may be necessary to fully adjust the equi- 
ties, provided it be not inconsistent with the allegations of the bill 
and the facts in evidence.*' So where there are prayers for both 
specific and general relief, the court, if it refuses the specific relief 
asked, may still grant any other appropriate relief under the general 
prayer.** But it is the settled rule in equity that a party must re- 
cover according to the case made by his bill or not at all, — secundum 
allegata as well as secundum probata. Hence, even under a prayer 
for general relief, the court cannot go outside the case made by the 
pleadings, and decree in favor of the plaintiflF on grounds not stated 
in his complaint, or grant relief for matters not charged, although 
they may appear from other parts ol the pleadings and be improp- 
erly in evidence.*® But the fact that more extensive relief, of the 
same general nature, is prayed in the bill than is warranted by the 

IT Dodge v. Wright, 48 111. 382; Smith v. So RiU (Tex. Civ. App.) 54 S. W. 38. 

18 Laverty v. Sexton, 41 Iowa, 435; Galloway v. Galloway, 61 Tenn. 328; 
Colton V. Ross, 2 Paige (N. Y.) 39(5, 22 Am. Dec. 648; Wilkin v. Wilkin, 1 
Johns. Ch. (x\. Y.) Ill; Kelly v. Payne, 18 Ala. 371; Stone v. AndersoD, 2G 
X. H. 506; Allen v. Coffmau, 1 Bibb (Ky.) 469; Barr v. Haseldon, 10 Rich, 
fcki. (S. C.) 53. 

i« Rogers V. Brooks, 30 Ark. 612. 

20 Rome Exchange Bank v. Eames, 4 Abb. Dec. (N. Y.) 83; Rogers t. 
Brooks, 30 Ark. 612; Carpentier v. Brenham, 50 Cal. 549; Miller v. AUen, 
104 Ky. 114, 46 S. W. 523. For example, where plaintiff seeks to recover for 
a conversion, a Judgment for foreclosure of an alleged lien on the same 
property cannot be granted under his prayer for general relief. Behrens 
Drug Co. V. Hamilton (Tex. Civ. App.) 45 S. W. 622. So, wh»e plaintiffs 
pleadings asked for a lien only on personal property of defendant a Judg- 
ment giving h