(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "A treatise on the modern law of corporations, with reference to formation and operation under general laws"


CORNEL! 



Xj 





^orttfU Slam i'rlioal ffitbratg 



KF1414.MlT" """""■"•>"■""''>' 




3 1924 019 223 738 




Cornell University 
Library 



The original of tiiis book is in 
tine Cornell University Library. 

There are no known copyright restrictions in 
the United States on the use of the text. 



http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924019223738 



A TREATISE 

ON THE 

MODERN LAW OF CORPORATIONS 

WITH REFERENCE TO 

FORMATION AND OPERATION 
UNDER GENERAL LAWS 

ARTHUR W-%ACHEN, Jr. 

OF THE BALTIMORE BAK 



IN TWO VOLUMES 

Volume I. 



BOSTON 
LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY 

1908 



•T '8 "a 'KOMoa "00 v i'iras«Ta 't 'a 



P91U399J SfllBtU ]jy 



'8061 'jhSuMoq 




Onus si tantum opinione prima concipere potuissem quanta me premi 
forens sentio, maturius consuluissem vires meas. Sed initio, pudor omit- 
tendi quae promiseram tenuit : max, quamquam per singulas prope partes 
labor cresceret, ne perderem quae jam effecta erant, per omnes difficultates 
animo me sustentavi. Quare nunc quoque, licet major quam umquam moles 
premat, tamen prospicienti Jiriem mihi constitutum est vel dejicere potius 
quam desperare. — Quintil* De Inst. Orat., Lib. XII, prooem. 



PREFACE 



In these volumes I have aimed to approach the law of our 
ordinary business corporations from a point of view more pecu- 
liarly appropriate to companies incorporated under general 
laws than has heretofore been customary. It seemed to me 
desirable to reject as obsolete much of the old law of corpora- 
tions formed under royal charters in England, together with 
its terminology, and to treat the modem law upon a plan 
which should recognize incorporation under general laws, 
rather than incorporation under royal charters or under 
special acts of the legislature, as the normal method of incor- 
poration. In the second place, I have aimed to treat fully and, 
so far as possible, exhaustively, those topics which the rapid 
development of the law of incorporated companies both in 
Great Britain and in the United States has but recently brought 
into practical importance, and also any other topics which for 
any other reason seemed to me to need fuller or further treat- 
ment than is accorded in the serviceable text-books with which 
American lawyers are famiUar. 

Among the topics which an attempt has been made to analyze 
with especial thoroughness may be mentioned the law of the 
preparation, construction, and filing of incorporation papers, 
the law of promoters, of underwriting agreements, the law of 
preferred shares, of increase and reduction of capital, of trans- 
fers of shares, of directors' and shareholders' meetings, of by- 
laws, and of dividends, and many subdivisions of the law of 
botids and mortgages. 

I have regarded the corporation as a living organism, and 
have not attempted to treat, except incidentally, those parts 
of the law which relate to its death, or winding-up and disso- 
lution, or those parts of the law which existing American 
text-books have treated so fully and satisfactorily as to render 
any other treatment both presumptuous and unnecessary. 



PREFACE 



The branches or sub-divisions of corporation law which have 
been altogether excluded embrace (1) the entire topic of the 
relation of corporations to the state or to the public, including 
all questions as to the constitutional powers of the legislature 
under our American state and federal constitutions in dealing 
with corporations and their affairs, and also including the right 
of the state, or of the attorney-general as its representative, to 
interfere in corporate management by qiio warranto, scire facias, 
injunction or otherwise, and also the criminal liabilities of cor- 
porations and their officers, and also the topic of taxation of 
corporations and corporate securities, (2) the topic of foreign 
corporations, which may fairly be considered a branch of the^ 
subject of conflict of laws, and (3) the topic of winding-up and 
dissolution and the related topics, including especially the 
various statutory liabilities of shareholders and directors to 
creditors, which remain dormant so long as the company is 
prosperous and awake into practical importance only when 
winding-up or liquidation is imminent, and also' including con- 
solidation and reorganization, both of which involve, at least 
in a qualified sense, a dissolution of the old corporation. 

The only important exceptions to these rules of exclusion 
will be found in the chapters on bonds and mortgages, in con- 
nection with which it became necessary to deal with certain 
branches of the law of winding-up and of reorganization. 

In dealing with topics which, although within the general 
scope of the work as outlined above, have yet for many years 
attracted attention from American courts, lawyers, and text- 
writers, I have tried to avoid useless threshing over of old straw, 
and therefore have not descended into detail except where I 
hoped to present some new or different aspect of the subject or 
some particular novel points. To take a concrete instance, a 
very large proportion of all the corpioration cases which have 
been decided in this country have related to liability upon un- 
paid subscriptions to capital. These numerous cases have been 
carefully digested and explained in text-books with which 
every lawyer is acquainted. Consequently, I have tried to 
avoid mere repetition of matter which is already easily accessi- 
ble to every reader; and instead, I have summarized the general 
currents of authority, pointing out or emphasizing certain new 
ways of looking at the subject, and elaborating fully some par- 



PKEFACE 

ticular points which have been heretofore overlooked or slighted 
— such, for example, as the peculiarities of subscriptions to 
shares entered into by signing the incorporation paper or cer- 
tificate, or articles, of incorporation. 

After the citation of a case, the words "headnote inadequate" 
■"will not infrequently be found in parenthesis. These words 
do not indicate an opinion that the case is badly reported. On 
the contrary, no headnote can, consistently with that brevity 
which is indispensable, call attention to all the points or fea- 
tures of a case; and by using the words "headnote inade- 
quate," I design simply to guard the reader against rejecting 
a case as not in point merely because the headnote does not in- 
dicate that the decision involves the particular proposition 
for which the case is cited. 

References are given to the National Reporter System, the 
Lawyers' Reports Annotated, the American Reports, American 
State Reports and American Decisions, as well as to the official 
state reports. Wherever references are given to two or more 
reports of the same case, the report which follows immediately 
after the name of the case — usually, with the exception of 
very recent cases, the official report — is that which I have 
examined and used in the preparation of this book and to 
which alone, therefore, comments with respect to the head- 
note are applied. 

A. W. M., Jr. 

Bai/timore, June 17th, 1908. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

VOL. I 

Page 
Table of Cases xiii 

Addenda ccxxv 

CHAPTER I 

Sections 

1-30. Historical and Intboductort 1 

CHAPTER II 
31-162. The Incorporation Paper 27 

CHAPTER III 
I 163-260. Organization and Issue op Shares .... 144 

CHAPTER IV 

261-294. Irregular Incorporation — Proof of Incor- 
poration 217 

CHAPTER V 

295-306. Incorporation for Illegal Purposes . . . 256 

CHAPTER VI 
307-415. Promoters 268 

CHAPTER VII 
416-446. Underwriting 344 

CHAPTER VIII 

447-468. Corporate Names 367 

iz 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER IX 
Sectioits Page 

469-492. CoEPOKATE Seals 389 

CHAPTER X 

493-573. Capital and Shakes — Classes of Shares . 410 

CHAPTER XI 

574-677. Increase, Reduction, and Other Modifica- 
tions OF Capital 476 

CHAPTER XII 
678-738. Bt-laws and Internal Regulations. . . . 550 

CHAPTER XIII 
739-807. Payment for Shares 597 

CHAPTER XIV 
808-831. Forfeiture of Shares 656 

CHAPTER XV 
532-1011. Transfer and Transmission of Sharss . . . 671 



VOL. II 

CHAPTER XVI 
1012-1072. Ultra Vires Contracts and Torts .... 817 

CHAPTER XVII 
1073-1089. One-Man Companies 871 

CHAPTER XVin 

1090-1117. Pdblicitt in Corporate Affairs — Inspection 

of Books and Records 888 

X 



TABLE OP CONTENTS 



CHAPTER XIX 

Sections PikOE 

1118-1133. Proof of Corporate Matters — Books and 

Records as Evidence 911 

CHAPTER XX 

1134-1189. Judicial Intervention in Management of 

Corporations — Shareholders' Bills . . 926 

CHAPTER XXI 

1190-1295. Shareholders' Meetings 988 

CHAPTER XXII 

1296-1315!. Powers op Majority — Relation op Share- 
holders TO the Company 1075 

CHAPTER XXIII 
1313-1398. Dividends 1087 

CHAPTER XXIV 

1399-1488. Directors — Their Appointment, Qualifica- 
tions, Resignation and Removal, their 
Powers and the Manner op Exercise 
thereof 1158 

CHAPTER XXV 

1489-1509. Rights and Emoluments of Directors . . 1236 

CHAFrER XXVI 

1510-1651. Liabilities and Disabilities of Directors . 1253 

CHAPTER XXVII 
1652-1673. Officers and Agents 1361 

CHAPTER XXVIII 

1674-1825. Bonds and Mortgages — In General . . 1384 

xi 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



CHAPTER XXIX 

Sbctionb Pao£ 

1826-1958. Bonds and Mortgages {continued) — The 

Secubitt 1478 



CHAPTER XXX 

1959-2069. Bonds and Mortgages {continued) — Enfobce- 

MENT OF THE SeOUEITT 1676 



CHAPTER XXXI 

2070-2110. Bonds and Mortgages {continued) — Reor- 
ganization — Powers of Majority — In- 
come Bonds 1657 



Index 1685 



xn 



TABLE OF CASES 

[The references are to pages] 



A 1 Biscuit Co., W. N. (1899) 

115 1241 

Aaron's Reefs v. Twiss (1896), 

A. C. 273 179, 184 

Aaronson v. David Meyer 

Brewing Co., 26 N. Y. 

Misc. 655; 56 N. Y. Supp. 

387 85, 1373, 1375 

Abbot V. Jewett, 25 Hun 

(N. Y.) 603 1634 

Abbott V. American Hard 

Rubber Co., 33 Barb. 

(N. Y.) 578 1188, 1306 
V. Hapgood, 150 Mass. 

248; 22 N. E. 907; 15 

Am. St. Rep. 193; 5 L. 

R. A. 586 311, 311, 311 
V. Omaha Smelting Co., 

4 Nebr. 416 123, 238, 246, 251 
Abby V. Billups, 35 Miss. 618; 

72 Am. Dec. 143 68 

Abeles v. Cochran, 22 Kans. 

405 ; 31 Am. Rep. 194 517, 1354 
Abercrombie v. Riddle, 3 Md. 

Ch. 320 iri5, 1156 

Aberdeen Ry. Co. v. Blailde, 1 

Macq. H. L. 461 1179,1296, 
1296, 1297, 1300, 1304, 1314 
Abemethy v. Church of the 

Puritans, 3 Daly (N. Y.) 1 914 
Aberthaw Const. Co. v. Ran- 

some, 192 Mass. 434; 78 

N. E. 485 879 

Abraham v. New Orleans 

Brewing Ass'n, 110 La. 

1012; 35 So. 268 1460, 1460 

Abraham, S., & Sons (1902), 1 

Ch. 695 1498 

Abstainers, etc. Insurance Co. 

Re (1891), 2 Ch. 124 536 

Acadia Loan Corp. v. Went- 

worth, 40 Nova Scotia 525 156, 170 
Accidental, etc. Ins. Corp. v. 

Davis, 15 L. T. 182 215 

Accles, Re, 51 W. R. 57 1491 



Accountant's Ass'n, 5 Pa. 

Dist. Rep. 699 116 

Acker, Merrall & Condit Co. 

V. McGaw (Md.), 68 Atl. 17 

1272, 1341 
Ackerman v. Halsey, 37 N. J. 

Eq. 356 960, 1285 

Adamant Plaster Co., 137 

Fed. 251 1505, 1520 

Adamantine Brick Co. v. 

Woodruff, MacA. & Mack. 

(D. C.)318. 1183 

Adams v. Adams, 139 Mass. 

449; 1 N. E. 746 1443 
V. Boston, etc. R. R. Co., 

1 Fed. Cas. 90 23 
V. Burke, 201 111. 395; 66 

N. E. 235 982, 1321 
V. Clark (Colo.), 85 Pac. 

642 623 
V. Cross Wood Printing 

Co., 27 111. App. 313 1371 
V. Empire Laundry Ma- 
chinery Co., 4 N.Y.Supp.738 280 
Adams, etc. Co. v. Deyette, 5 

S. Dak. 418; 59N.W.214; 

49 Am. St. Rep. 887 518 

Adams' Case, 13 Eq. 474 159, 196, 
417, 525 
Adams Express Co. v. Harris, 

120 Ind. 73; 21 N. E. 340; 

16 Am. St. Rep. 315; 7 

L. R. A. 214 383 

Adamson's Case, 18 Eq. 670 642, 
1300, 1325 
Addams v. Ferick, 26 Beav. 

384 789 

Addinell's Case, 1 Eq. 225 165, 

509, 510 

Addison v. Lewis, 75 Va. 701 1559, 

1561, 1562, 1566, 1566, 1568, 1571 
Addison v. Pacific Coast Mill- 
ing Co., 79 Fed. 459 612 
Addison's Case, 5 Ch. 294 191, 
191, 523 
Addlestone Linoleum Co., 37 

Ch. D. 191 178, 632 



TABLE OP CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



215 
979 



863 



Adlets V. Progressive Shoe 

Co., 84 Mo. App. 288 1237, 1247 
Adley v. Reeves, 2 M. & S. 

53 582 

Adriance v. Roome, 52 Barb. 

(N. Y.) 399 592, 1369 

Aerators, Ltd. v. ToUitt 

(1902)i 2 Ch. 319 369, 371, 

375, 376 

Aetna Ins. Co. (1871), Ir. 

Rep. 6 Eq. 298 
V. Albany, etc. R. Co., 

156 Fed. 132 
Aetna Nat. Bank v. Charter 

Oak Life Ins. Co., 50 Conn. 

167 
Africa v. Duluth News-Tri- 
bune Co., 82 Minn. 283 ; 84 

N. W. 1019; 83 Am. St. 

Rep. 424 1328, 1381, 1382 

African M. E. Church, 28 Pa. 

Super. Ct. 193 1068 
V. Conover, 27 N. J. Eq. 

167 302, 303, 304 

Agar V. Atheneum Life Soc, 

3 C. B. N. s. 725 1220 

Agency Land & Finance Co., 

20 Times L. R. 41 658, 1545 

Agnew V. Bank of Gettysburg, 

2 H. & G. (Md.) 478 
Agricultural Bank v. Burr, 24 

Me. 256 

V. Wilson, 24 Me. 273 

Agricultural Branch R. R. Co. 

V. Winchester, 13 Allen 

(Mass.) 29 
Agricultural Cattle Ins. Co. v. 

Fitzgerald, 16 Q. B. 432 
Agudath Hakehiloth, 18 N. Y. 

Misc. 717; 42 N. Y. Supp. 

985 113, 1010 

Ainsworth v. Evans (Ariz.), 

80 Pac. 344 936, 985, 985 

A. J. Cranor Co. v. Miller 

(Ala.), 41 So. 678 
Alabama v. Montague, 117 

U. S. 602; 6Sup. a. 911 



228 

154 
701 



529 
229 



339 



1512, 
1512 

Alabama Coal, etc. Co. v. 
Shackelford, 137 Ala. 224; 
34 So. 833; 97 Am. St. Rep. 
23 957 

Alabama Foundry, etc. Works, 
V. Dallas, 127 Ala. 513; 29 
So. 459 181, 185 

Alabama Marble, etc. Co. v. 
Chattanooga Marble Co. 
(Tenn.), 37 S. W. 1004 1118, 

1122, 1413 



1515 
518 



Alabama Nat. Bank v. Mary 

Lee, etc. Co., 108 Ala. 288; 

19 So. 404 
Alabama, etc. Imp. Co. v. 

Hall (Ala.), 44 So. 592 
Alabama, etc. Mfg. Co. v. 

Robinson, 56 Fed. 690; 6 

C. C. A. 79 1462, 1469 
V. Robinson, 72 Fed. 708; 

19 C. C. A. 152 1625 

Alabama, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Rowley, 9 Fla. 508 603, 604, 
893, 895 
Alabama, etc. Ry. Co. v. Annis- 

ton, etc. Trust Co., 57 Fed. 

25; 6 C-C. A. 242 1648, 1651 
Albany Fertilizer Co. v. 

Arnold, 103 Ga. 145; 29 

S. E. 695 1121, 1121 

Albert v. Merchants' Ex- 
change, 39 Mo. App. 583 558, 
560, 560, 582 
Albert v. Savings Bank, 2 Md. 

159 792, 798, 799, 850, 1329 

Albes V. Keith, Simmons & 

Co. (Ala.), 44 So. 693 
Albion Steel Co. v. Martin, 1 

Ch. D. 580 
Albright V. Lafayette, etc. 

Ass'n, 102 Pa. St. 411 
Albro, etc. Co. v. Chinn(Colo.) 

77 Pac. 1097 
Alden Speare's Sons Co. v.- 

Casein Co., 106 N. Y. Supp. 

980 
Aldham v. Brown, 7 E. &. B. 

164; 2E. &. E. 398 
Aldine Mfg. Co. v. Phillips, 

118 Mich. 162; 76 N. W. 

371; 74 Am. St. Rep. 380; 

42 L. R. A. 531 
Aldrioh V. Bingham, 131 Fed. 

363 
V. Chemical Nat. Bank, 

176 U. S. 618; 20 Sup. Ct. 

498 
Aldridge v. Pardee, 24 Tex. 

av. App. 254; 60 S. W. 

789 
Alexander v. Atlanta, etc. 

R. R. Co., 113 Ga. 193; 38 

S. E. 772; 54 L. R. A. 305 

V. Atlantic, etc. R. R. 

- Co., 67 N. Car. 198 

V. Automatic Telephone 

Co. (1899), 2 Ch. 302 
V. Automatic Telephone 

Co. (1900), 2 Ch. 56 599, 625, 
935, 939 



1553 
326 
112 



880 



778 
343 



776 
708 



841 



1510 



983 

1472 

205 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Alexander v. Cauldwell, 83 

N. Y. 480 822 
v. Central R. R. Co., 3 

Dill. 487 1584, 1586 

V. Relfe, 74 Mo. 495 529, 534 

870 
V. Searcy, 81 Ga. 536; 8 

S. E. 630; 12Am. St. Rep. 

337 966, 971 
V. Simpson, 43 Ch. D. 

139 1001, 1001, 1002, 1002 
V. ToUeston Club, 110 

111. 65 303, 848 
i;. Williams, 14 Mo. App. 

13 1306 
V. Winters, 23 Nevada 

475; 49 Pac. 116 283 

Alexander's . Timber Co., 70 

L. J. Ch. 767 1309, 1321, 1369, 

1370 
Alexandra Palace Co., Re, 21 

Ch. D. 149; 46 L. T. 730 462, 
1091, 1108, 1125, 1289 
Alexandria, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Burke, 22 Gratt. (Va.) 254 809, 

1439 
Alexandria, etc. Ry. Co.'s 

Trustee v. Graham,31Gratt. 

(Va.) 769 1509 

Alfred Shaw & Co., 21 Vict. 

L. R. 599 765, 765 

Alianza Co. v. Bell (1906), 

A. C. 18 1099 

Allan r. Manitoba, etc. Ry . Co. , 

10 Manitoba 106 1584, 1598, 
1603, 1606 
Allemong v. Simmons, 124 

Ind. 199; 23 N. E. 768 1708, 

1196 
Allen V. Alston (Ala.), 41 So. 

159 1374 
r- "• Am. Bldg. & Loan 

N.'Ass'n, 49 Minn. 544; 52 

W. 144; 32 Am. St. Rep. 574 666 
V. Brown, 6 Kans. App. 

704; 50 Pac. 505 394, 408 
V. Central R. R. Co., 42 

Iowa 683 1610, 1616 

V. Curtis, 26 Conn. 456 928, 

1350 
V. Dallas, etc. R. R. Co., 

3 Woods 316 1603, 1604 

V. Dillingham, 60 Fedi 

176; 8 C. C. A. 544 1619 

V. Dubois, 117Mich. 115; 

75 N. W. 443; 72 Am. St. 

Rep. 557 418 

V. Freedman's Sav. & 

Trust Co., 14 Fla. 418 855 



Allen V. Gold Reefs of West 

Africa (1900), 1 Ch. 656 568, 

578, 579, 584, 586, 586, 605, 999, 

999 

V. Hill, 16 Cal. 1 13 1017, 1024 

V. Jackson, 122 111. 567; 

13 N. E. 840 1358 

V. Londonderry, etc. Ry. 

Co., 25 W. R. 524 462 

V. Luke, 141 Fed. 694 

1285, 1287 
V. Montgomery R. R. Co., 

11 Ala. 437 65, 667, 1406, 1497 
V. New Jersey Southern 

R. R. Co., 49 How. Pr. 

(N. Y.) 14 975 

v.- North Des Moines 

M. E. Church, 127 Iowa 96; 
102N.W.808; 109 Am. St. 
Rep. 366; 69 L. R. A. 255 

141, 386 

V. South Boston R. R. 

Co., 150 Mass. 200; 22 
N. E. 917; 15Am. St. Rep. 

185; 5 L. R. A. 716 730, 731, 
734, 735 

V. Stewart, 7 Del. Ch. 

287; 44 Atl. 786 693, 715 

V. Windham, etc. Mfg. 

Co., 87 Fed. 786 1503 

V. Woonsocket Co., 11 

R. I. 288 80 

Alliance Marine Ass.' Co. 

(1892), 1 Ch. 300 136 

AUibone v. Hager, 46 Pa. St. 

48 , 176 

Ailing V. Wenzel, 133 111. 264; 

24 N. E. 551 521, 524 

Allison V. Coal Co., 87 Tenn. 

60; 9 S. W. 226 1359 

Allman v. Havana, etc. R. R. 

Co., 88 111. 521 152, 553, 607 

Allnutt V. Subsidiary High 

Court, 62 Mich. 110; 28 

N. W. 802 
Allsop & Sons, 51 W. R. 644 



657 
537, 
544 



Ahnada and Tirito Co., 38 Ch. 

D. 415 628 

Almy V. Ome, 165 Mass. 126; 

42 N. E. 561 1347, 1348 

Alpha Co. (1903), 1 Ch. 203 1587, 

1590 
Alston's Case, 22 Vict. L. R. 

243 n 616 

Alta Silver Mining Co. v. Alta 

Placer Mining Co., 78 Cal. 

629; 21 Pac. 373 1371. 1376, 

1377 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



585 



901 
972 

397 

99 

602 



Altenberg v. Grant, 85 Fed. 

345; 29 C. C. A. 185 339, 355, 

645 
Alters V. Joumeymen, etc. 

Ass'n, 19 Pa. Super. Ct. 272 
Althause v. Giroux, 107 N. Y. 

Supp. 191: 56 N. Y. Misc. 

608 899, 904 
V. Giroux, 107 N. Y. 

Supp. 193; 56 N. Y. Misc. 

511 
Alton V. Curtis, 26 Conn. 456 
Altschul V. Casey, 45 Oreg. 

182; 76 Pac. 1083 
Amalgamated Syndicate 

(1897), 2 Ch. 600 
Ambergate Ry. Co. v. Nor- 

cli£fe, 20 L. J. Ex. 234 
Ambergate, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Mitchell, 4 Exch. 540 547, 611, 
1187, 1189 
V. Mitchell, 6 Eng. Ry. 

Cas. 235 611 

Ambrose Lake Tin Co., 14 Ch. 

D. 390 330, 1290 

American Alkali Co. v. Kurtz, 

134 Fed. 663 621 
V. Salom, 131 Fed. 46; 

65 C. C. A. 284 177, 182, 182, 

419 
American Alkili Co. v. Camp- 
bell, 113 Fed. 398 
American BIdg., etc. Ass'n v. 

Merrick, 39 Nebr. 413; 58 

N. W. 107 
American Bridge Co. v. Hei- 

delbach, 94 U. S. 798 1515, 1516 
American Car & Foundry Co. 

V. Alexandria Water Co. 

(Pa.), 67 Atl. 861 
American Central Ry. Co. v. 

Miles, 52 111. 174 
American Circular Loom Co. 

V. Wilson (Mass.), 84 N. E. 

133 1341, 1341 

American Clay Mfg. Co. v. 

American Clay Mfg. Co., 

198Pa. St. 189; 47 Atl. 936 

373, 378, 379 
American Exchange Bank v. 

First Nat. Bank, 82 Fed. 

961; 27 C. C. A. 274 1198, 

1210 
American Exch. Nat. Bank 

V. Oregon Pottery Co., 55 

Fed. 265 1370, 1373, 1378 

American Exch. Nat. Bank 

V. Woodlawn Cemetery, 
. 105 N. Y. Supp. 305 731 



601 



918 



1370 
1237 



American File Co. v. Garrett, 
110 U. S. 288; 4 S. Ct. 90 



624, 
1438 



American Fruit Co. v. Ward, 

99 N. Y. Supp. 717; 113 

N. Y. App. Div. 319 1072 

American Ins. Co. v. Oakley, 

9 Paige (N. Y.) 496; 38 

Am. Dec. 561 1373 

American Loan, etc. Co. v. 

Central Vt. R. R. Co., 84 

Fed. 917 1617 
V. Minnesota, etc. R. R. 

Co., 157 111. 641; 42 N. E. 

153 243 
V. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co., 

42 Fed. 819 1436 
V. Union Depot Co., 80 

Fed. 36 1466, 1623 

American Matinee Ass'n v. 

Secretary of State, 104 

N. W. 141; 140 Mich. 579 23 

American Mortgage Co. v. 

Tennille, 87 Ga. 28; 13 S. 

E. 158; 12 L. R. A. 529 847 
American Nat. Bank v. Amer- 
ican Wood Paper Co., 19 

R. L 149; 32 Atl. 305; 61 

Am. St. Rep. 746; 29' L. 

R. A. 103 1420, 1423, 1466 
V. Nashville Warehouse, 

etc. Co. (Tenn.), 36 S. W. 

960 1124, 1124 
V. Oriental Mills, 17 R. 

I. 551; 23 Atl. 795 689, 693, 

698, 777, 999, 1006, 1021 
American Novelty & Mfg. Co. 

V. Manufacturing Electrical 

Novelty Co., 36 N. Y. Misc. 

450; 73 N. Y. Supp. 755 373 
American Or^er Scottish 

Clans V. Merrill, 151 Mass. 

558; 24N. E. 918; 8 L. R. 

A. 320 225, 374 

American Paper Bag Co. v. 

Van Nortwick, 52 Fed. 752 ; 

3 C. C. A. 274 309 

American Pastoral Co. v. 

Gumey, 61 Fed. 41 603, 613 

American Press Ass'n v. 

Brantingham, 75 N. Y. 

App. Div. 435; 78 N. Y. 

Sujjp. 305 684 

American Refrigerating, etc. 

Co. V. Linn, 93 Ala. 610; 

7 So. 191 1026, 1026 

American Ry. Frog. Co. v. 

Haven, 101 Mass. 398 1027, 

1249 



TABLE OF CASES 
tThe references are to pages] 



American Salt Co. v. Heiden- 

heimer, 80 Tex. 344; 15 

S. W. 1038; 26 Am. St. Rep. 

743 120, 125, 125, 222, 240 
American Silk Works v. Salo- 
mon, 4 Hun 135 302 
V. Salomon, 6 T. & C. 

(N. Y.) 352 264, 304 

American Soda Foimtain Co. 

V. Stolzenbash (N. J.), 68 

Atl. 1078 1366 

American Spirits Mfg. Co. v. 

Easton, 120 Fed. 440 1259, 

1304 
American Steel, etc. Co. v. 

Bearse (Mass.), 80 N. E. 623 1359 
V. Eddy, 130 Mich. 266; 

89 N. W. 952 449, 514, 529 
V. Eddy, 138 Mich. 403; 

101 N. W. 578 1094, 1127, 

1129 
V. Wire Drawers', etc. 

Unions, 90 Fed. 608 262 

American Tube Works v. 

Boston Machine Co., 139 

Mass. 5; 29 N. E. 63 438, 444, 
493, 1003, 1032 
American Waterworks Co. v. 

Farmers' L. & T. Co., 73 

Fed. 956; 20 C. C. A. 133 1628, 

1628 
American Wire Nail Co. v. 

Gedge, 96 Ky. 513; 29 S. 

W. 353 1134 

American, etc. Trust Co. v. 

East & West R. Co., 46 

Fed. 101 1566 
V. Toledo, etc. Ry. Co., 

29 Fed. 416 1603, 1604 

Ames V. Birkenhead Docks, 

20 Beav. 332 1515, 1605, 1677 
V. New Orleans, etc. R. 

R. Co., 2 Woods 206 1669, 1669, 

1670 
V. Union Pac. R. Co., 4 

Interst. Comm. Rep. 625 1620 
V. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 

60 Fed. 674 1620 
V. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 

60 Fed. 966 1612, 1612 
V. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 

62 Fed. 7 1620 
v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 

73 Fed. 49 1642 
V. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 

74 Fed. 335 1570, 1641, 



Ames's Case, W. N. 
79 
6 



1642, 
1642 
(1896) 

639, 641 



Amesbury v. Bowditch Mut. 

Fire Ins. Co., 6 Gray (Mass.) 

696 561, 677, 677, 594 

A. Mitchell's Case, 4 A. C. 

548 746, 800, 800 

Anacosta Tribe v. Murbach, 

13 Md. 91 ; 71 Am. Dec. 625 577 
Ancient City Sportsman's 

Club V. Miller, 7 Lans. 

(N. Y.) 412 45 

Ancient Order v. Brown, 112 

Ga. 646; 37 S. E. 890 590 

Anderson v. Butler's Wharf 

Co., 48 L. J. Ch. 824 1504 
V. Condict, 93 Fed. 349; 

35 C. C. A. 335; 94 Fed. 

716; 36 C. C. A. 437 1633, 1633, 
1643, 1666 
V. First Nat. Bank, 5 

N. Dak. 451 ; 67 N. W. 821 53 
V. Midland Ry. Co., 

(1902), 1 Ch. 369 928, 961 
V. Nicholas, 28 N. Y. 

600 720, 726, 767 
V. Railroad, 91 Tenn. 

44; 17 S. W. 803 127, 138, 608, 

609 
V. Shawnee Compress 

Co. (Okl.), 87 Pac. 315 71 
V. South Chicago Brew- 
ery Co., 173 111. 213; 60 

N. E. 655 1373 
V. Waco State Bank, 92 

Tex. 506; 49 S. W. 1030; 

71 Am. St. Rep. 867 711 
V. War Eagle, etc. Co., 

8 Idaho 759; 72 Pac. 671 876 
V. W. J. Dyer & Bro., 94 

Minn. 30; 101 N.W. 1061 
Anderson's Case, 7 Ch. D. 76 



1112 
639, 
639 
184 
763 



, 17 Ch. D. 373 

, 8 Eq. 509 

Andes v. Ely, 168 U. S. 312; 

16 Sup. Ct. 964 
Andres v. Fry, 113 Cal. 124; 

46 Pac. 634 
V. Morgan, 62 Oh. St. 

236; 56N. E. 876; 78 Am. 

St. Rep. 712 
Andress's Case, 8 Ch. D. 126 
Andrews v. Gas Meter Co. 

(1897), 1 Ch. 361 431, 440, 441, 

584 
V. Nat. Foundry, etc. 

Works, 76 Fed. 166; 22 0. 

C. A. 110; 36 L. R. A. 139; 

77 Fed. 774; 23 CCA. 

454 620, 645, 1402, 1520, 1521 



248 
1213 



297 
643 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Andrews v. Ohio, etc. R. E. 

Co., 14 Ind. 169 

V. Smith, 5 Fed. 833 

V. Union Mutual Fire 

Ins. Co., 37 Me. 256 563, 565 

• V. Worcester, etc. R. R. 

Co., 159 Mass. 64; 33 N. B. 

1109 
Andrews Co. v. Nat. Bank of 

Columbus (Ga.), 58 S. E. 

633 
Angelo, Re, 5 De G. & Sm. 

278 
Anglesea Colliery Co., 1 Ch. 

555 
Anglo-American Land, etc. 

Co. V. Dyer, 181 Mass. 593; 

64 N. E. 416; 92 Am. St. 

Rep. 437 
Land, etc. Co. v. Lom- 
bard, 132 Fed. 721 58, 619, 
832, 834 
Anglo-American Leather 

Cloth Co., 43 L. T. 43 
Anglo-American Provision 

Co. V. Davis Provision Co., 

112 Fed. 574 
Anglo-American Tel. Co. v. 

Spurling, 5 Q. B. D. 188 
Anglo-Austrian Printing 

Union (1895), 2 Ch. 891 

1514, 1599 
Anglo-Califomian Bank v. 

Field, 146 Cal. 644; 80 Pac. 

1080 233, 384 
V. Grangers' Bank, 63 

Cal. 359 572 

Anglo-Colonial Syndicate, 65 

L. T. 847 641, 641 

Anglo-Continental Corpora- 
tion (1898), 1 Ch. 327 435, 437 
Anglo-Danubian, etc. Co., 20 

Eq. 339 , 1400 

Anglo-French Exploration Co. 

(1902), 2 Ch. 845 533, 539 

Anglo-Greek Steam Co., 2 

Eq. 1 
Anglo-Oriental Carpet Mfg. 

Co. (1903), 1 Ch. 914 
Anglo-Universal Bank v. Bar- 

agnon, 45 L. T. 362 932, 996, 

1195 
Anonymous, 1 Ventr. 257 
Anonymous, 12 Mod. 423 
Ansley Land Co. v. H. Wes- 
ton Lumber Co., 152 Fed. 

841 
Anthony v. Campbell, 112 Fed 

212; 50 C. C. A. 195 1636, 1669 



603 
1619 



716 



963 



414 



434 



607 



1511 



1315 

758 

1514, 



295 
1396 



401 
401 



1372 



84 



120 



Anthony v. Household Sew- 
ing Machine Co., 16 R. I. 

571; 18 Atl. 176; 5 L. R. 

A. 675 444, 483, 484, 494 

Antietam Paper Co. v. Chron- 
icle Pub. Co., 115 N. Car. 

143 1542 

Apperly v. Page, 1 Phill. Ch. 

779 342 

Appleton V. American Malt- 
ing Co., 65 N. J. Eq. 375; 

54 Atl. 454 944, 945, 946, 

966, 1127, 1128, 1185, 1359 
Appleton V. Citizens' Central 

Nat. Bank, 116 N. Y. App. 

Div. 404; 101 N. Y. Supp. 

1027 
Appleton V. Citizens' Nat. 

Bank, 190 N. Y. 418; 83 

N.E. 470 841,856 

Application for Charter, Re, 

27 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 

399 
Apthorpe v. Peter Schoen- 

hofen Brewing Co., 80 L. T. 

395 878, 879 

Aransas Pass., etc. Co. v. 

Manning, 94 Tex. 558; 63 

S. W. 627 992, 1069 

Arapahoe Investment Co. v. 

Piatt, 5 Colo. App. 515; 39 

Pac. 584 288 

Arapahoe, etc. Co. v. Stevens, 

13 Colo. 534; 22 Pac. 823 591, 

635 
Arauco Co., 79 L. T. 336 1548 

Arbuckle v. Woolson Spice 

Co., 21 Oh. Circ. a. 347 890 
V. Woolson Spice Co., 

21 Oh. Circ. Ct. 356 890 

Archer v. American Water 

Works Co., 50 N. J. Eq. 33; 

24 Atl. 508 751, 958, 1062 

Archer's Case (1892), 1 Ch. 322 

328, 1263, 1337, 1338 
Archibald D. Dawney, Ltd., 

iJe, 83 L.T. 47 205,642 

Ardesco Co. v. North Am., etc. 

Co., 66 Pa. St. 375 1188 

Arents v. Commonwealth, 18 

Gratt. (Va.) 750 1437, 1461 

Argus Co., Re, 138 N. Y. 557; 

34 N. E. 388 922, 1020, 

1023, 1065, 1200, 1201 
Argus Printing Co., Re, 1 N. 

Dak. 434; 48 N. W. 347; 

26 Am. St. Rep. 639 998, 1017, 

1017, 1021, 1021, 1022, 1056, 

1060, 1176, 1176, 1117 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



853 



1122 



Arkadelphia Lumber Co. v. 

Posey (Ark.), 85 S. W. 1127 
Arkansas Stables v. Samstag 
_ (Ark.), 94 S. W. 699 1167, 1359 
Arkansas Valley, etc. Co. v. 

Lincoln, 56 Kans. 145; 42 

Pac. 706 853 

Arkansas, etc. Society v. 

Eichholtz, 45 Kans. 164; 

25 Pac. 613 1269, 1318 

Armant v. New Orleans, etc. 

R. R. Co., 41 La. Ann. 1020; 

7 So. 35 
Armington v. Palmer, 21 R. I. 

109; 42 Atl. 308; 79 Am. 

St. Rep. 786; 43L.R.A.95 

373, 387 
Armitage v. Gamett (1893), 

3 Ch. 337 1154 

Arms V. Conant, 36 Vt. 744 1208 
Armstrong v. Burnet, 20 

Beav. 424 789, 789 
V. Karshner, 47 Oh. St. 

276; 24 N. E. 897 609,609 
V. Merchants' Mantle Co. , 

32 Ont. R. 387 659, 660 

Arnold v. Ruggles, 1 R. I. 

165 420, 422, 678 

V. Searing (N. J. Ch.), 

67 Atl. 831 331, 339, 627, 961, 
964 972 

V. Suffolk Bank, 27 

Barb. (N. Y.) 424 197, 197, 

769, 769, 771, 776 
Amot V. Erie Ry. Co., 67 N. 

Y. 315 
V. Union Salt Co., 186 N. 

Y. 501; 79 N. E. 719 
V. United African Lands 

(1901), 1 Ch. 518 
Amot's Case, 36 Ch. D. 702 

155, 171, 199, 632, 639 
Arthur v. Griswold, 55 N. Y. 

400 

V. Oakes, 63 Fed. 310; 

25 L. R. A. 414; 11 C. C. 
A. 209 

V. Weston, 22 Mo. 379 

Artisans' Land & Mortgage 

Co. (1904), 1 Ch. 796 541, 1123 
Ashbuiy v. Watson, 30 Ch. D. 

376 111, 441, 445, 445 

Ashbury Ry. Carriage Co. v. 

Riche, L. R. 7 H. L. 653 10, 

11, 12, 32, 41, 94, 97, 665, 824, 
829, 830, 830 
Ashby V. Blackwell, 2 Eden 

299; Ambler 503 743, 754, 

755, 758, 759 



1437 
1468 
1058 



1356 



1621 
254 



Asher v. Sutton, 31 Kans. 286; 

1 Pac. 535 1372 

Ashley v. Kinnan, 2 N. Y. 

Supp. 574 1299 

Ashley Wire Co. v. Illinois 

Steel Co., 164 111. 149; 45 

N. E. 410; 56Am. St. Rep. 

187 1200, 1200, 1207, 1218, 1222 
Ashley's Case, 9 Eq. 263 177 

Ashpitel V. Sercombe, 19 L. J. 

Ex. 82 341, 342 

Ashtabula, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Smith, 15 Oh. St. 328 147, 175, 

188 
Ashton V. Atlantic Bank, 3 

Allen (Mass.) 217 799 

V. Burbank, 2 Dillon 

435 . 610, 667 

V. Heggerty, 130 Cal. 

616; 62 Pac. 934 754, 765, 791 
V. Heydenfeldt, 124 Cal. 

14; 66 Pac. 624 424 
V. Zeila Mining Co., 134 

Cal. 408; 66 Pac. 494 ,791, 1130 
Ashuelot Mfgl Co. v. Marsh, 

1 Cush. (Mass.) 607 1371 

Ashuelot R. R. Co. v. Elliot, 

57 N. H. 397 1582, 1582 

Ashurst V. Field, 26 N. J. 

Eq. 1 1149 

V. Mason, 20 Eq. 225 1279, 

1280, 1349 
Ashurst's Appeal, 60 Pa. St. 

290 1309, 1311, 1312 

Aspen Water, etc. Co. v. As- 
pen, 5 Colo. App. 12; 37 

Pac. 728 148, 149, 278, 302 

Aspinwall v. Butler, 133 U. S. 

696; 10 Sup. Ct. 417 490 
V. Ohio, etc. R. R. Co., 

20 Ind. 492; 83 Am. Dec. 

329 1008, 1009 

V. Sacchi, 67 N. Y. 33 1 250 

Assignment Mut., etc. Ins. 

Co., 107 Iowa 143; 77 N. 

W. 868; 70 Am. St. Rep. 

149 851, 865 

Associate Presbyterian Con- 
gregation V. Hanna, 113 N. 

Y. App. Div. 12; 98 N. Y. 

Supp. 1082 381 

Astley V. New Tivoli (1899), 

1 Ch. 161 1168, 1179, 1365 

Aston, Re, 27 Beav. 474; 

affirmed in 4 De G. & J. 

320 7 

Atchison, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Fletcher, 35 Kans. 236; 10 

Pac. 596 1433, 1437 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Atchison, etc. Ry. Co. v. 
Cunningham, 59 Kans. 722; 

54 Pac. 1055 1635 
V. Osborn, 148 Fed. 606; 

78 G. C. A. 378 1561, 1568, 
1633 
V. Young, 3 Ind. Ty. 60; 

53S. W. 481; 1634 

Atheneum Life Ass. Co. v. 

Pooley, 3 De G. & J. 294 1421 
Atheneum Society, Re, 4 K. & 

J. 558 1073 

Atherton v. Sugar Creek, etc. 

Co., 67 Ind. 334 147, 147 

Athol Music Hall Co. v. 

Carey, 116 Mass. 471 209 

Athol, etc. R. R. Co. v. Pres- 

cott, 110 Mass. 213 661 

Atkin & Co. v. Wardle, 61 

L. T. 23 369 

Atkins V. Albree, 12 Allen 

(Mass.) 359 502 
V. Gamble, 42 Cal. 86; 

10 Am. Rep. 282 418, 419 
V. Wabash, etc. Ry. Co., 

29 Fed. 161 1602 

Atkins, etc. Co. v. Petersburg 

R. R. Co., 3 Hughes 307 

1561, 1570 
Atkinson v. Atkinson, 8 Allen 

(Mass.) 15 686 
V. Foster, 134 111. 472; 

26 N. E. 528 718, 804 
V. Foster, 27 111. App. 

63 1065 
V. St. Croix Mfg. Co., 24 

Me. 171 1379 

Atlantic & Pae. Tel. Co. v. 

Union Pac. Ry. Co., 1 Fed. 

745 833, 837 

Atlantic Coast Line Dividend 

Cases, 102 Md. 73; 61 Atl. 

295 1151 

Atlantic Cotton Mills v. 

Abbott, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 

423 600 

Atlantic DeLaine Co. v. 

Mason, 5 R. I. 463 652, 1003 

Atlantic Fire Ins. Co. v. San- 
ders, 36 N. H. 252 1198 
Atlantic Mut. Life Ins. Co., 2 

Fed. Cas. 168 416 

Atlantic Nat. Bank v. Harris, 

118 Mass. 147 1346 
Atlantic Trust Co. v. Chap- 
man, 208 U. S. 360 1640 
V. Crystal Water Co., 72 

N. Y. App. Div. 539; 76 

N. Y. Supp. 647 1468 



Atlantic Trust Co. v. Dana, 128 
Fed. 209; 62 C. C. A. 657 

1516, 1517, 1568, 1641 

V. New York City, 75 

N. Y. App. Div. 354; 78 

N. Y. Supp. 120 1637 

V. Woodbridge Canal, 

etc. Co., 79 Fed. 842 1402 

V. Woodbridge Canal, 

etc. Co., 86 Fed. 975 1565, 

1571 

Atlantic, etc. R. R. Case, 4 

Hughes 125 1623, 1624 

Atlas Assurance Co. v. Atlas 
Insurance Co. (Iowa), 112 
N. W. 232 376, 379 

Atlas Loan Co., 9 Ont. L. R. 
468 651 

Atlas Nat. Bank v. Gardner 
Co., 8 Biss. 537 1176, 1225, 

1227 

Attalla Iron Ore Co. v. Vir- 
ginia Coal, etc. Co., Ill 
Tenn. (3 Gates) 527; 77 S. 
W. 774 1296 

Attaway v. Third Nat. Bank, 
93 Mo. 485; 5 S. W. 
16 1347 

Attorney-General, Opinion of, 

18 Pa. Go. Gt. 492 120 

Attorney-General v. Albion 
Academy, 52 Wise. 469; 9 
N. W. 391 1063, 1249 

V. American Tobacco 

Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 352; 36 
Atl. 971 ; affirmed in 56 N. 

J. Eq. 847; 42 Atl. 1117 261, 
262 264 

V. Appleton (1907), 1 Ir. 

252 263, 267, 370 

V. Boston & Maine R. R. 

109 Mass. 99 500 

w. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 

35 Wise. 425 232, 380 

V. Jameson (1904), 2 Ir. 

644 575, 575, 677 

V. Looker, 111 Mich. 498; 

69 N. W. 929; 56 L. R. A. 

947 1249 

V. Manchester Corpora- 
tion (1906), 1 Ch. 643 41 

V. Mayor of Brecon, 10 

Ch. D. 204 88 

V. Mayor, etc, of Liver- 
pool (1902), 1 K. B. 411 1416 

— V. Mersey Ry. Co. (1907), 

1 Ch. 81 35, 37, 91 

— V. Mersey Ry. Co. (1907), 

A. C. 415, 417 4, 62 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Attorney-General v. Middle- 
ton, 2 Ves. Sr. 327 588 

V. Montefiore, 21 Q. B. D. 

461 423 

V. Myddletons (1907), 

1 Ir. 471 263, 267 

V. Regent's Canal & 

Dock Co. (1904), 1 K. B. 

263 1668 

V. Stevens, Saxt. Ch. 

(1 N. J. Eq.) 369 245 

V. Whorwood, 1 Ves. Sr. 

534 54 

Attorney-General ex rd. 
Hurley v. Bridgman, 134 
Mich. 379; 96 N. W. 438 1016 

Attorney-General Miner v. 
Lorman, 59 Mich. 157; 26 
N. W. 311; 60 Am. Rep. 
287 39, 43 

Attorney-General ex rel. Wol- 
verine Fish Co. V. A. Booth 
& Co., 143 Mich. 89; 106 
N. W. 868 263 

Attree v. Hawe, 9 Ch. D. 337 1439 

Atwater v. American Ex- 
change Bank, 152 111. 605; 
38 N. E. 1017 1079, 1082,1382 

Atwood V. Shenandoah Val- 
ley R. R. Co., 85 Va. 966; 
9 S. E. 748 1411, 1414, 1416 

Atwool V. Merryweather, 5 

Eq. 464 n 935, 935, 1312 

Auburn Bolt Works v. Shultz, 
143 Pa. St. 256; 22 Atl. 
904 202 

Audain, Ex parte, 42 Ch. D. 1 

346, 347, 353, 362 

Audenried v. East Coast 
Milling Co., 59 Atl. (N. J.), 
577 115, 189, 511, 1211, 1218 

Auerbach v. Le Sueur Mill Co. , 
28 Minn. 291 ; 41 Am. Rep. 
285; 9 N. W. 799 110, 862, 

1409 

Augir V. Ryan, 63 Minn. 373; 

65 N. W. 640 261 

Augusta Bank v. Augusta, 49 

Me. 507 1425, 1451 

Augusta Trust Co. v. Federal 
Trust Co., 140 Fed. 930; 
153 Fed. 157 1416 

Aultman's Appeal, 98 Pa. St. 

505 617, 618 

Aurora City v. West, 7 Wall. 

82 1449, 1460 

Aurora, etc. R. R. Co. v. City 
of Lawrenceburgh, 56 Ind. 
80, 87 245 



Aurora, etc. Society v. Pad- 
dock, 80 111. 263 1074 

Austin V. M. Ferst's Sons & 

Co. (Ga.), 58 S. E. 318 384 

Austin V. Murdock, 127 N. Car. 

454; 37 S. E. 478 183 

V. Tecumseh Bank, 49 

Nebr. 412; 68 N. W. 628; 
59 Am. St. Rep. 543; 35 
L. R. A. 444 297 

Austin Mining Co. v. Gemmel, 

10 Ont. Rep. 696 1004, 1011, 

^ 1251 

Austin's Case, 24 L. T. 932 658, 

1218 

Australian Producers & Trad- 
ers, 31 Vict. L. R. 511 191, 193 

Australian Widows' Fund Life 
Ass. Soc, 24 Vict. L. R. 
613 135 

Automatic Self-Cleansing Fil- 
ter Syndicate Co. v. Cun- 
ninghame (1906), 2 Ch. 34 992, 
993, 1161, 1193, 1194 

Avegno v. Citizens' Bank, 40 

La. Ann. 799; 5 So. 537 490 

Averill v. Barber, 6 N. Y. 

Supp. 255 1340 

Avery v. Ryan, 74 Wise. 591 ; 

43 N. W. 317 786 

Avon Springs Sanitarium Co. 

V. Weed, 104 N. Y. Supp. 58 209, 
212 215 

A. W. HaU & Co., 37 Ch. D. 

712 647, 648 

Ayer v. Seymour, 15 Daly 
(N. Y.)249; 5N. Y. Supp. 
650 1064 

Ayers v. South Australian 
Banking Co., L. R. 3 P. C. 
548 830 

Ayre v. Skelsey's Adamant 
Cement Co., 20 Times L. R. 
587; affirmed in s. c. 21 
Times L. R. 464 495, 1318 



B 



Babcock v. Schuylkill, etc. 

R. R. Co., 133 N. Y. 420; 

31 N. E. 30 428 

Bachman, Re, 2 Fed. Cas. 310 571, 

701, 767, 771 

, 2 Cent. L. J. 119 571 

Backer v. United States Gas 

Fixture Co., 84 N. Y. Supp. 

149 408 

Bacon v. Mississippi Ins. Co. 

(1856), 31 Miss. 116 63, 1371 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



591 



1246 



Badesch v. Congregation 

Bros., 23 N. Y. Misc. 160; 

50 N. Y. Supp. 958 
Badger Paper Co. v. Rose, 95 

Wis. 145; 70N.W.302; 37 

L. R. A. 162 147, 169, 209, 278 
Bagaleyu. Pittsburgh, etc. Co., 

146 Pa. St. 478 ; 23 Atl. 837 1320 
Bagby & Rivers Co. v. Rivers, 

87 Md. 400; 40 Atl. 171; 

67 Am. St. Rep. 357; 40 

L. R. A. 632 296, 377 

Baggot V. Turner, 21 Wash. 

339; 58 Pac. 212 1226 

Baglan Hall Colliery Co., 5 

Ch. 346 97, 205, 634, 634 

Bagley v. Carthage, etc. R. R. 

Co., 165 N. Y. 179; 58 

N. E. 895 
-■ V. Reno Oil Co., 201 Pa. 

78; 50 Atl. 760; 56 L. R. 

A. 184 583, 1003 

Bagnall v. Carlton, 6 Ch. D. 

371 272, 293, 320, 320, 320, 321 
Bagnalstown & Wexford Ry. 

Co., Ir. Rep. 4 Eq. 505 63, 831, 
1400, 1409 
Bagot Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. 

Clipper Pneumatic Tyre 

Co. (1902), 1 Ch. 146 289, 465, 
1099 
Bagshaw v. Eastern Union 

Ry. Co., 7 Hare 114 963 

V. Eastern Union Ry. 

Co., 2 Mac. & G. 389 73, 963 

Bagshaw, Ex parte, 4 Eq. 

341 _ 59, 59 

Bahamas, etc. Plantation v. 

Griffin, 14 Times L. R. 139 1415 
Bahia & San Francisco Ry. 

Co., L. R. 3 Q. B. 584 728, 730, 

731 
Baile v. Calvert College, etc. 

Soc, 47 Md. 117 95, 603, 606, 
646, 1204 
Bailey v. Birkenhead, etc. Ry. 

Co., 12 Beav. 433 607, 931, 
977, 977 
V. Chaipplain, etc. Co., 

77 Wise. 453; 46 N. W. 

539 487, 492 
V. Farmers' Nat. Bank, 

97 111. App. 66 84 

V. Macaulay, 13 Q. B. 

815 306, 308, 309 

V. Railroad Co., 17 

Wall. 96 457, 457, 458, 460 

V. Railroad Co., 22 Wall. 

604 496, 496, 1114 



Bailey v. Tillinghast, 99 Fed. 

801; 40 C. C. A. 93 165, 489, 
489, 490 
Bailey & Co., Joel T., v. 

Snyder Bros., 61 111. App. 

472 407, 1371, 1376, 1377 

Baillie v. Edinburgh Oil Gas 

Light Co., 3 CI. & Fin. 639 611, 

611 
Baillie's Case (1898), 1 Ch. 

110 
Baily v. British Equitable As- 
surance Co. (1904), 1 Ch. 

374 
V. Burgess, 48 N. J. Eq. 

411; 22 Atl. 73 
Baily's Case, 3 Ch. 592 
Bain v. Whitehaven, etc. Ry. 

Co., 3 H. L. Cas. 1 922, 925 

Bainbridge v. City of Louis- 
ville, 83 Ky. 285; 4 Am. 

St. Rep. 153 1461, 1463, 1472 

' V. Smith, 41 Ch. D. 462 1177, 

1177, 1251 
Baines v. Coos Bay Nav. 

Co., 41 Oreg. 135; 68 Pac. 

397 
V. Coos Bay, etc. Co., 45 

Oreg. 307; 77 Pac. 400 



187 



587 

309 
213 



1248 



Baird v. Bank of Washington, 

11 S. & R. (Pa.) 411 
V. Ross, 2 Macq. H. L. 61 



880, 
1276 



1224 
341, 
342 

Baird's Case, 5 Ch. 725 622, 789 
Baker v. Administrator of 
Backus, 32 111. 79 

V. Beach, 85 Fed. 836 

V. Consolidated Gas, etc. 

Co., 42 N. Y. Misc. 95; 85 

N. Y. Supp. 1030 1467, 1468 

V. Drake, 66 N. Y. 518; 

23 Am. Rep. 80 

V. Guarantee Trust, etc. 

Co., 31 Atl. Rep. 174 
(N. J.) 

V. Marshall, 15 Minn. 

177 

v.. Meloy, 95 Md. 1 ; 51 

Atl. 893 1455, 1455, 1461 

V. Neff, 73 Ind. 68 248 

V. Reeves, 85 Fed. 837 619 

Baker Furniture Co. v. Hall 
(Nebr.), 107 N. W. 117, re- 
versed on rehearing, 111 
N. W. 129 298, 298 

Baker's Appeal, 108 Pa. St. 
510; 1 Atl. 78; 56 Am. 
Rep. 231 745 



219 
791 



809 



1408 
429 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Baker's Case, 1 Dr. & Sm. 55 

1245, 1310, 1318, 1318 

Balaghat Gold Mining Co. 

(1901), 2 K. B. 665 904 

Baloh V. Hallet, 10 Gray 

(Mass.) 402 1110, 1155 

Baldwin v. Canfield, 26 Minn. 

43; IN. W. 261 875, 963, 974, 
1069, 1071, 1071, 1072, 1211 

V. Miller & Lux (Cal.), 

92 Pac. 1030 513, 1091 

Bale V. Michigan Tontine In- 
vestment Co., 132 Mich. 
479; 93 N. W. 1071 850 

Balfour v. Baker, etc. Co., 27 

Oreg. 300; 41 Pac. 164 212 

Balfour-Guthrie Co. v. Wood- 
worth, 124 Cal. 169; 56 
Pac. 891 1201, 1224 

Balkis Consolidated Co. v. 
Tomkinson (1893), A. C. 
396 730, 736) 738, 738 

Ball V. Rutland R. R. Co., 93 

Fed. 513 955, 969 

Balliet v. Brown, 103 Pa. St. 

546 1188 

Ballou V. Famum, 9 Allen 

(Mass.) 47 1582 

Baltimore Bldg., etc. Ass'n v. 
Alderson, 90 Fed. 142; 32 
C. C. A. 542 1650 

Baltimore City Pass. Ry. Co. 
V. Hambleton, 77 Md. 341 ; 
26 Atl. 279 157, 502, 506 

V. Sewell, 35 Md. 239; 

6 Am. Rep. 402 430, 753, 753 
Baltimore Humane Impartial 

Soc. V. Pierce, 100 Md. 520; 

60 Atl. 277; 108 Am. St. 

Rep. 450; 70 L. R. A. 485 1504 
Baltimore Marine Ins. Co. v. 

Dalrymple, 25 Md. 269 808 

Baltimore Retort, etc. Co. v. 

Mali, 65 Md. 93; 3 Atl. 286; 

57 Am. St. Rep. 304 694, 713, 

751 
Baltimore Trust, etc. Co. v. 

Atlanta Traction Co., 69 

Fed. 358 1619 

V. Hofstetter, 85 Fed. 

75; 29 C. C. A. 35 1543, 1633 
Baltimore, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Baltimore, etc. Relief Ass'n, 

77 Md. 566; 26 Atl. 1045 585 
V. Burris, 111 Fed. 882; 

50 C. C. A. 48 1610 
V. Fifth Baptist Church, 

137 U. S. 568; 11 Sup. Ct. 

185 241, 381 



188 
463 



101 
614 



422 



76 



Baltimore, etc. R. R. Co. v. Pum- 

phrey,74 Md.86; 21 Atl.'559 

V. State, 36 Md. 519 

Baltimore, etc. Tel. Co. v. 

Morgan's, etc. Co., 37 La. 

Ann. 883 
Baltimore, etc. Turnpike Co.i;. 
Barnes, 6 H.&J. (Md.) 57 
Baltzen v. Nicolay, 53 N. Y. 

467 
Bancroft & Sons Co., Joseph, 

V. Bloede, 106 Fed. 396; 52 

L. R. A. 754; 45 C. C. A. 

354 
Banet v. Alton, etc. R. R. Co., 

13 111. 504 603, 1214, 1215 

Bange v. Supreme Council 

(Mo.), 105 S. W. 1092 604 

Bangor El. Light, etc. Co. v. 

Robinson, 52 Fed. 520 726, 727 
Bangor Slate Co., 20 Eq. 59 442, 

469 
Bangs V. Nat. Macaroni Co., 

15 N. Y. App. Div. 522; 44 

N. Y. Supp. 546 67, 1377 

Banigan v. Bard, 134 U. S. 

291; 10 Sup. Ct. 565 
Bank v. Bellington Coal, etc. 

Co., 51W. Va. 60; 41 S. E. 

390 
V. Flour Co., 41 Oh. St. 

552 
V. HoUingsworth, 135 N. 

Car. 556 ; 47 S. E. 618 298, 298 

V. Lanier, 11 Wall. 369 526, 

572, 732 
V. Lumber Co., 32 W. Va. 

357; 9 S. E. 243; 3 L. R. 

A. 583 302 
V. Railroad Co., 5 S. Car. 

156; 22 Am. Rep. 12 403 

Bank of America v. McNeil, 

10 Bush. (Ky.) 54 774, 775 

Bank of Ashland v. Jones, 16 

Oh. St. 145 1400, 1437 

Bank of Atchison Co. v. Dur- 

fee, 118 Mo. 431; 24 S. W. 

133; 40 Am. St. Rep. 396 571, 

573 
Bank of Attica v. Manufactur- 
ers, etc. Bank, 20 N. Y. 501 110, 
575, 755 
Bank of Barnwell v. Sixth 

Nat. Bank, 28 Pa. Super. Ct. 

413 
Bank of China v. Morse, 168 

N. Y. 458; 85Am. St. Rep. 

676; 61 N. E. 774; 56 

L. R. A. 139 



444 



635 
1210 



84 



607 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Bank of Columbia v. Patter- 
son, 7 Cranch 299 

Bank of Commerce v. Bank of 
Newport, 63 Fed. 898; 11 
C. C. A. 484 694, 699, 732, 733, 
773, 773 

V. Central Coal, etc. Co., 

115 Fed. 878; 53 C. C. A. 
334 

V. Hart, 37 Nebr. 197; 

55 N. W. 631; 40 Am. St. 
Rep. 479; 20 L. R. A. 780 



398 



1656 



75, 
424 

Bank of Commerce's Appeal, 

73 Pa. St. 59 694, 1130 

Bank of CuUoden v. Bank of 
Forsyth, 120 Ga. 575; 48 
S. E. 226; 102 Am. St. 
Rep. 115 572, 574 

Bank of England v. Cutler 

(1907), 1 K. B. 889 743, 758, 759 

Bank of Forrest v. Orgill 
Bros., etc. Co., 82 Miss. 81; 
34 So. 325 280 

Bank of Fort Madison v. 
Alden, 129 U. S. 372; 9 
Sup. Ct. 332 " 634, 634 

Bank of Hindustan v. Alison, 

L. R. 6 C. P. 222 193, 493 

Bank of Holly Springs v. Pin- 
son, 58 Miss. 421; 38 Am. 
Rep. 330 571, 574, 588, 588, 

589, 593, 773 

Bank of Ireland v. Trustees of 
Evans' Charities, 5 H. L. 
Cas. 389 407, 728, 729 

Bank of Kentucky v. Bonnie 
Bros., 102 Ky. 343; 43 
S. W. 407 775 

V. Schuylkill Bank, 1 

Pars. Eq. Cas. (Pa.) 180 702, 

730, 730, 731, 760, 760, 760, 
760, 761, 911, 912, 914, 924 

■». Winn, 110 Ky. 140; 

61 S. W. 32 797 

Bank of LeRoy v. Purdy, 100 
N. Y. App. Div. 64; 91 

' N. Y. Supp. 310 1295 

Bank of Little Rock v. Mc- 
Carthy, 55 Ark. 473; 18 
S. W. 759; 29 Am. St. 
Rep. 60 1199, 1200 

Bank of Louisville v. Gray 
84 Ky. 565; 2 S. W. 168 



Bank of Manchester v. Allen, 

11 Vt. 302 
Bank of Md. v. Ruff, 7 G. & J. 

(Md.) 448 



1122, 
1122 

230 

1204 



392 



862 



1373 
142 



Bank of the Metropolis v. 

Guttsohlick, 14 Pet. 19 
Bank of Michigan v. Niles, 1 

Doug. (Mich.) 401; 41 Am. 

Dec. 575 
Bank of Middlebury v. Rut- 
land, etc. R. R. Co., 30 Vt. 

159 397, 1210 

Bank of Minneapolis v. Grif- 
fin, 168 111. 314; 48 N. E. 

154 
Bank of Monroe v. Gifford, 72 

Iowa 750; 32 N. W. 669 
Bank of Montreal v. Chicago, 

etc. R. R. Co., 48 Iowa 518 

1651, 1652, 1653 
V. Maritime Sulphite 

Fibre Co., 2 New Brunsw. 

Eq. 328 1598, 1608 

V. Sweeny, 12 A. C. 617 798 

V. Thayer, 7 Fed. 622 1616, 

1652, 1652 
Bank of Mutual Redemption 

V. Hill, 56 Me. 385; 96 Am. 

Dec. 470 
Bank of National City v. 

Johnston, 133 Cal. 185; 

65 Pac. 383 
Bank of New South Wales v. 

Goulbum Valley Butter Co. 

(1902), A. C. 543 
Bank of San Luis Obispo v. 

Wickersham, 99 Cal. 655; 

34 Pac. 444 516, 520, 523 

Bank of South Australia v. 

Abrahams, L. R. 6 P. C. 

265 65, 1513 

Bank of Turkey v. Ottoman 

Co., 2 Eq. 366 
Bank of U. S. v. Dandridge, 

12 Wheat. 64 

V. Dunn, 6 Pet. 51 

Bank of Utica v. Smalley, 2 

Cow. (N. Y.) 770; 14 Am. 

Dec. 526 ' 381, 767 

Bank of Washington v. Bar- 

rington, 2 Pen. & W. (Pa.) 

27 
Bank of Wilmington v. Wol- 

laston, 3 Harr. (Del.) 90 
Bank Commissioners v. Bank 

of Brest, Harr. Ch. (Mich.) 

106 
Bankers' Mut. Casualty Co. v. 

First Nat. Bank (Iowa), 

108 N. W. 1046 
Banks v. Poitiaux, 3 Rand. 

(Va.) 136; 15 Am. Dec. 

706 392, 847 

xxiv 



1165 



1198 



1328 



294 

392 
1372 



1368 
594 



1188 



47 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



1108 
1223 



580 



Bannatyne v. Direct Spanish 

Telegraph Co., 34 Ch. D. 

287 532, 537, 545, 545 

Banque Franco - Egyptienne 

V. Brown, 34 Fed. 162 1419, 1556 
Banwen Iron Co., 8 C. B. 406 221 
Barber, Re, 15 Jur. 51 158, 164 

Barber's Case, 5 Ch. D. 963 1171 
Barclay v. Wainwright, 14 

Ves. 66 1141 

Barcus V. Gates, 89 Fed. 783; 

32 C. C. A. 337 182, 182, 970 

Bardstown, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Metcalfe, 4 Mete. (Ky.) 

199; 81 Am. Dec. 541 1521, 

1521, 1584, 1623, 1635 

Bardwell v. Sheffield Water- 

. works Co., 14 Eq. 517 
Bargate v. Shortridge, 5 H. L. 

Cas. 297 
Barker v. Great Hive, etc. of 

Maccabees, 135 Mich. 499; 

98 N. W. 24 
V. Montana Gold, etc. 

Co. (Mont.), 89 Pac. 66 752, 801 

' V. Stead, 3 C. B. 946 308, 308 

,Be, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 

509 1020, 1022, 1046 

Barna v. Kirczow (N. J.), 63 

Atl. 611 1249, 1250 

Barnard v. Fitzgerald, 23 

N. Y. Misc. 181; 50 N. Y. 

Supp, 309 
V. Norwich, etc. R. R. 

Co., 4 CUff. 351 
V. Vermont, etc. R. R. 

Co., 7 Allen (Mass.) 512 

464, 464, 465, 1114 

, Re, 61 Fed. 531 1617, 1618 

Bamed's Banking Co., 3 Ch. 

105 56, 57, 400, 400, 407, 709 
Barnes v. Brown, 80 N. Y. 

527 632, 1183, 1343 
V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 

122 U. S. 1; 7 Sup. a. 

1043 
V. Mobile, etc. R. R. Co., 

12 Hun (N. Y.) 126 
V. Ontario Bank, 19 N. 

Y. 152 66, 394 
V. Suddard, 117 m. 237; 

7 N. E. 477 
Barnes Bros. v. Coal Co., 101 

Tenn. 354; 47 S. W. 498 
Bamett v. Lambert, 15 M. & 

W. 489 
Barnett's Case, 18 Eq. 507 
Baron de • Beville's Case, 7 

Eq.ll 207,207 



1661 

1503 

457 



1637 
1413 



848 

591 

308 
196 



Barr v. New York, etc. R. R. 

Co., 125 N. Y. 263; 26 N. 

E. 145 1310, 1316 
V. Pittsburgh Plate Glass 

Co., 67 Fed. 86; 6 C. C. A. 

260 1312, 1340 

Barrell v. Lake View Land 

Co., 122 Cal. 129; 54 Pac. 

594 917, 918, 1201, 1222, 

1224 
Barrett v. King, 181 Mass. 

476; 63 N. E. 934 571, 777 
V. Twin City Power Co., 

118 Fed. 861 1486 

Barrie v. United Rys. Co. 

(Mo.), 102 S. W. 1078 1306 

Barron v. Burrill, 86 Me. 66; 

29 Atl. 939 «, 154 

Barrow v. Nashville, etc. 

Turnpike Co., 9 Humph. 

(Tenn.) 304 843, 848 

Barrow's Case, 14 Ch. D. 432 643, 

647, 648, 648 

, 3 Ch. 784 614 

Barrow Haematite Steel Co., 

Re, 39 Ch. D. 582 537, 545, 

545, 545, 545 
Barrow Haematite Steel Co. 

(1900), 2 Ch. 846; af- 
firmed (1901), 2 Ch. 746 536, 
537, 539 
Barrow-in-Furness Land Co., 

14 Ch. D. 400 642, 642 

Barrows v. Natchang Silk Co., 

72 Conn. 658; 45 Atl. 951 492 
V. Nat. Rubber Co., 12 

R. L 173 777 

Barry v. Coffeen, etc. Co., 52 

111. App. 183 1237 
V. Merchants' Exchange 

Co., 1 Sandf. Ch. 280 482, 496, 
1113, 1432, 1447,1452 
V. Missouri, etc. Ry. Co., 

22 Fed. 631 1683 
V. Missouri, etc. Ry. Co., 

27 Fed. 1 1676, 1678, 1679, 

1681 
V. Missouri, etc. Ry. Co., 

34 Fed. 829 1669, 1679 
V. Missouri, etc. Ry. Co., 

36 Fed. 228 1679 
V. Moeller, 59 Atl. (N. J.) 

97 960, 974, 978, 982, 1285 

Barse Live Stock Co. v. Range 

Valley Cattle Co., 16 Utah 

59; SO Pac. 630 715,803 

Barstow v. Pine Bluffs, etc. 

Ry. Co., 57 Ark. 334; 21 

S. W. 652 1440, 1566 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



71 

713 

1014 
995, 



Barstow v. Savage Min. Co., 64 

Cal. 388; ■ 1 Pac. 349; 49 

Am. Rep. 705 682, 726 

Barter v. Wheeler, 49 N. H. 

9; 6 Am. Rep. 434 1582 

Bartholomay Brewing Co. v. 

Wyatt (1893), 2 Q. B. 499 424, 
878, 883 
Bartholomew v. Bentley, 1 

Oh. St. 37 1176, 1177, 1180, 

1182 

V. Derby Rubber Co., 69 

Conn. 521; 38 Atl. 45; 61 

Am. St. Rep. 57 
V. Menzies (1902), 1 Ch. 

680 
Bartlett v. Fourton, 115 La. 

Ann. 26; 38 So. 882 

V. Gates, 118 Fed. 66 

1063, 1194 
V. Hipkins, 76 Md. 5; 23 

Atl. 1089; 24 Atl. 532 15 
V. Keim, 50 N. J. Law 

260; 13 Atl. 7 1615, 1618 
V. Mystic River Corp., 

151 Mass. 433; 24 N. E 

780 
V. Northumberland Ave, 

Co., 53 L. T. 611 

V. Wilbur, 53 Md. 485 126, 22 1 

Bartling-i). Edwards, 84 111. 

App. 471 662 

Barto V. Nix, 15 Wash. 563; 

46 Pac. 1033 517, 526 

Barton v. Barbour, 104 U. S. 

126 
V. International Frater- 
nal Alliance, 85 Md. 14; 36 

Atl. 658 
V. London & N. W. Ry. 

Co., 38 Ch. D. 144 
V. London, etc. Ry. Co., 

24 Q. B. D. 77 679, 727, 728, 
747, 789, 790, 791, 796, 813 
V. North Staffordshire 

Ry. Co. , 38 Ch. D. 458 727, 755 
V. Port Jackson, etc. 

Plank Road Co., 17 Barb. 

(N. Y.) 397 517 

Barton's Case, 4 De G. & J. 46 200, 
' 200, 657 
Barton's Trust, Re, 5 Eq. 238 

496, 1139 
Barwick v. English Joint 

Stock Bank, L. R. 2 Ex. . 

259 1362 

Bash V. Culver Gold Mining 

Co., 7 Wash. 122; 34 Pac. 

462 280 



1246 
1598 



1617 



1260 
755 



Bason v. King's Mountain 

Mining Co., 90 N. Car. 417 400, 
401, 408 
Bassett v. Atwater, 65 Conn. 

355; 32 Atl. 937; 32 

L. R. A. 575 996 
V. Fairchild, 132 Cal. 

637; 64 Pac. 1082; 52 L. 

R. A. 611 1203, 1246, 1247, 1248 
Basshor v. Dressel, 34 Md. 

503 232 

Basshor Co. v. Carrington, 104 

Md. 606 1556 

Bastian v. Modem Woodmen, 

166 111. 595 ; 46 N. E. 109Q 1008, 
1009 
Batard v. Hawes, 2 E. & B. 

287 274, 337, 337 

Batchelder v. Council Grove 

Co., 131N. Y.42; 29 N. E. 

801 1467, 1467 

Bateman v. Straus, 86 N. Y. 

App. Div. 540; 83 N. Y. 

Supp. 785 786 

Bates V. Androscoggin, etc. 

R. R. Co., 49 Me. 491 155, 457, 
458, 463, 463, 466, 1114, 1131, 
1132, 1136 
V. Coronada Beach Co., 

109 Cal. 160; 41 Pac. 855 80,80 
V. Great Western Tel. 

Co., 134 111. 536; 25 N. E. 

521 163 
V. Keith Iron Co., 7 

Mete. (Mass.) 224 1381, 1382 
V. Mackinley, 31 Beav. 

280 1137 
V. N. Y. Ins. Co., 3 Johns 

Cas. (N. Y.) 238 773, 1124 
V. Wilson, 14 Colo. 140; 

24 Pac. 99 105, 122 

Bath's Case, 8 Ch. D 334 92, 525, 

525 
Bath Gas Light Co. v. Claffy, 

151N. Y.24; 45N.E. 390; 

36 L. R. A. 664 852, 855, 863 
Bath Savings Institution v. 

Sagadahoc Nat. • Bank, 89 

Me. 500; 36 Atl. 996 692 

Bathe t). Decatur County Agri- 
cultural Soc, 73 Iowa 11; 

5 Am. St. Rep. 651; 34 

N. W. 484 870 

Battelle v. Northwestern Ce- 
ment, etc. Co., 37 Minn. 89; 

33 N. W. 327 280, 280, 284, 

287, 1309, 1310 
Batten v. Wedgewood Coal 

Co., 28 Ch. D. 317 1655 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Battle's Case, 39 L. J. Ch. 

391 764, 766 

Baty V. Keswick, 85 L. T. 

N. s. 18 360 

Bauer v. Samson Lodge, 102 

Ind. 262; 1 N. E. 571 576, 

593, 948 
Bauernschmidt v. Bauem- 

schmidt, 101 Md. 148; 60 

Atl. 437 884 
V. Md. Trust Co., 89 Md. 

507; 43 Atl. 790 1412 

Bauernschmidt's Estate, Re, 

, 97 Md. 35; 54 Atl. 637 873, 884 
Baueitsmith v. Extreme Gold, 

etc. Co., 146 Fed. 95 354 

Baugher v. Merryman, 32 

Md. 185 812 

Baumhoff v. St. Louis, etc. R. 

R. Co. (Mo.), 104 S. W. 

5 199, 786 

Bausman v. Kimiear, 79 Fed. 

172; 24 C. C. A. 473 612 

Bauter v. Superior Court 

(Cal.), 91 Pac. 749 906, 1367 

Bay City Bridge Co. v. Van 

Etten, 36 Mich. 210 1259, 1285, 

1285 
Bay City Irrigation Co., 135 

Fed. 850 44 

Bayard v. Farmers', etc. 

Bank, 52 Pa. St. 232 748, 792, 
797, 799 
Bayles v. Kansas Pac. Ry. 

Co., 13 Colo. 181; 22 Pac. 

341; 5 L. R. A. 480 1610, 1643 
V. Vanderveer, UN. Y. 

Misc. 207; 32 N. Y. Supp. 

1117 1270 

Bayless v. Bybee, 1 Freem. 

Ch. (Miss.) 161 928, 1183, 1184 
Bayliss v. Lafayette, etc. Ry. 

Co., 9 Biss. 90 1567 

Bayou Cook, etc. Co. v. 

DouUut, 111 La. 517; 35 

So. 729 46, 113 

Beach v. Fulton Bank, 3 

Wend. (N. Y.) 573 86 
V. McKinnon, 148 Fed. 

734 1296, 1327 
V. Miller, 130 111. 162; 

22 N. E. 464; 17 Am. St. 

Rep. 291 1315 

V. Smith, 30 N. Y. 116 645 

V. Stouffer, 84 Mo. App. 

395 912, 917, 1238, 1322 

V. Wakefield, 107 Iowa 

'567; 76 N. W. 688; 78 

N. W. 19':' 109, 852, 867, 1503 



Beacon Trust Co. v. Souther, 

183 Mass. 413; 67 N. E. 

345 86 

Beaconsfield Heights Estate 

Co., 22 Vict. L. R. 97 524, 524, 
1074, 1190 
Beadleson v. Knapp, 13 Abb. 

Pr. N. s. 335 1493 

Beal V. Dillon, 5 Kans. App. 

27; 47 Pac. 317 66 

Beale v. Mouls, 10 Q. B. 976 309 
Beals V. Illinois, etc. R. R. 

Co., 133 U. S. 290; 10 Sup. 

Ct. 314 _ 1485 
V. Illinois, etc. R. R. Co., 

27 Fed. 721 1485 

Bean v. Am. L. & T. Co., 

122 N. Y. 622; 26 N. E. 

11 733, 802 

Bear River, etc. Co. v. Han- 
ley, 15 Utah 506; 50 Pac. 

611 854 

Bear Valley Land, etc. Co. v. 

Savings & Trust Co., 117 

Fed. 941 833 

Beardslee v. Shickler (Pa.), 68 

Atl. 44 511 

Beardsley v. Beardsley, 138 

U. S. 262; 11 Sup. Ct. 318 787, 
1081, 1084 

V. Johnson, 121 N. Y. 

224; 24 N. E. 380 998, 1035, 

1167 
Beasleyv. Aberdeen, etc. R. 

R. Co. (N. Car.), 59S. E. 

60 822 

Beaver Knitting Mills, 154 

Fed. 320 86, 1187 

Becher v. Wells Flouring 

Mill Co., 1 Fed. 276 1062 

Bechuanaland Exploration 

Co. V. London Trading 

Bank (1898), 2 Q. B. 658 1423, 
1424, 1425, 1429 
Beck's Case, 9 Ch. 392 171 

Becker v. Berlin, etc. Soc, 144 

Pa. St. 232; 22 Atl. 699; 

27 Am. St. Rep. 624 684 

V. Farmers' Mut. Ins. 

Co., 48 Mich. 610; 12N.W. 

874 _ 584 

Becket v. Uniontown Bldg. • 

Ass'n, 88 Pa. St. 211 112 

Beckett v. Houston, 32 Ind. 

393 1014, 1017 

Beckhanson & Gibbs v. Ham- 

blet (1901), 2 K. B. 73 779 

Beckwith v. Galice Mines Co. 

(Oreg.), 93 Pac. 453 _ 723 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Beckwith v. Trustees of Hart- 
ford, etc. R. R., 29 Conn. 
268; 76 Am. Dec. S99 1441 

V. Windsor Mfg. Co., 14 

Conn. 594 399 

— — , Ex parte (1898), 1 Ch. 

324 1241 

Bedford v. American Alumi- 
num Co., 61 N. Y. App. Div. 
537 ; 64 N. y . Supp. 856 429, 430 

Bedford R. R. Co. v. Bowser, 
48 Pa. St. 29 189, 

191, 516, 524 

Bedford Springs Co. v. Mc- 
Meen, 161 Pa. St. 639; 29 
Atl. 99 1250 

Bedford, etc. Ry. Co. v. Stan- 
ley, 2 Johns. & H. 746 281 

Beebe v. George H. Beebe & 
Co., 64 N. J. Law, 497; 46 
Atl. 168 1370, 1373, 1382 

V. Richmond Power Co., 

13N.y.Misc.737;35N.Y. 
Supp. 1 1503, 1586 

Beeoher v. Marquette, etc. Co. 

45 Mich. 103 ; 7 N. W. 695 1007, 
1073 

Beekman v. Hudson River, 

etc. Ry. Co., 35 Fed. 3 1587, 
1588, 1593 

Beers v. Bridgeport Spring Co. 

42 Conn. 17 1112, 1116, 1120, 

1121 

V. New York Life Ins. 

Co., 66 Hun 75; 20 N. Y. 
Supp. 788 593, 1189, 1238, 

1299, 1299 

V. Phoenix Glass Co., 14 

Barb. (N. Y.) 358 1377 

V. Wabash, etc. Ry. Co., 

34 Fed. 244 1621 

Behlow V. Fischer, 102 Cal. 

208; 36 Pac. 509 777 

Belch V. Big Store Co. (Wash.), 

89 Pac. 174 80 

Belden v. Burke, 147 N. Y. 

542; 42 N. E. 261 1556 

Belfast, etc. Plank Road Co. 
V. Chamberlain, 32 N. Y. 
651 101, 148 

Belfast, etc. R. R. Co. v. Bel- 
fast, 77 Me. 445 ; 1 Atl. 362 453, 
453, 457, 459, 466, 1104, 1110 

Belknap v. Adams, 49 La. 



Ann. 1350; 22 So. 382 

Belknap Savings Bank 

Lamar Land, etc. Co., 

Colo. 326; 64 Pac. 212 



521 



V. 

28 



1646, 
1650 



Bell V. Chicago, etc. R. R. Co., 

34 La. Ann. 785 1503 
1). City of Louisville 

(Ky.), 106 S. W. 862 877 
V. Standard Quicksilver 

Co., 146 Cal. 699; 81 Pac. 

17 1197, 1200 

Bell & Coggeshall Co. v. Ky. 

Glass-Works Co., 20 Ky. 

Law Rep. 1684; 50 S. W. 2 65, 

109, 110, 115, 142, 859, 1408, 

1409 

Bell Bros., 65 L. T. 245 764, 765, 

765, 765, 765, 795 

Bell's Appeal, 115 Pa. St. 88; 

8 Atl. 177; 2 Am. St. Rep. 

532 617 

Bell's Case, 4 A. C. 547 800 

Bell's Gap R. R. Co. v. Christy, 

79Pa. St. 54; 21 Am. Rep. 

39 293, 294 

Bellerby v. Rowland, etc. S. S. 

Co. (1902), 2 Ch. 14 521, 524, 

524, 524 
Bellina, etc. Tramway Co. 

(1888), 21 L. R. Ir. 497 1171 

Bellona Company's Case, 3 

Bland (Md.) 442 
Bellows V. Todd, 39 Iowa 209 



873 
1008, 
1208 



Belmont v. Erie Ry. Co., 52 

Barb. (N. Y.) 637 485, 485, 485, 
957, 965, 974 
Benbow v. Cook, 115 N. Car. 

324; 20 S. E. 453; 44 Am. 

St. Rep. 454 147, 406, 911, 

1005, 1005, 1006, 1006 
Bend v. Susquehanna Bridge 

Co.,6H. &J. (Md.)128; 14 

Am. Dec. 261 617, 622, 812 

Benedict v. Denton, Walker 

Ch. (Mich.) 336 408 
V. St. Joseph, etc. R. R. 

Co., 19 Fed. 173 1496, 1604 

Benevolent Society, 10 Phila. 

(Pa.) 19 113, 267 

Benjamin v. Ehnira, etc. R. R. 
Co., 49 Barb. (N.Y.) 441 
Bennett v. Milville Imp. Co., 

67 N. J. Law 320; 61 AtL 

706 
Bennett's Case, 5 De G. M. & 

G. 284 766, 1327 

Bensiek v. Thomas, 66 Fed. 

104; 13 C. C. A. 457 1317 

Benson v. Heathom, 1 Y. & 

C. Ch. 326 1331, 1332 
V. San Diego, 100 Fed. 

158 1554, 1587 



1420 



1113 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Bent V. Priest, 86 Mo. 475 1333, 

1346 
V. TJnderdown, 156 Ind. 

516; 60 N. E. 307 111, 115, 142, 

628 
Bentham Mills Co., 11 Ch. D. 

900 679, 793 

Bentinck v. Fenn, 12 App. 

Cas. 652 315, 323, 323, 327, 

328, 1263, 1345 

, Ex parte, 1 Megone 23 764 

, Ex parte, 1 Megone 12 642, 

642, 1230 
Bentley, Ex parte, 12 Ch. D. 

850 642, 1325 

Benzinger v. Kantzler, 112 

111. App. 293 1163 

Bercich v. Marye, 9 Nevada 

312 683, 694 

Berg V. San Antonio Street 

Ry. Co., 17 Tex. Civ. App. 

291;42S.W. 647;43S.W. 

929 486 

BergdoU v. BergdoU Brewing 

Co., 10 Pa. Dist. Rep. 173 1321, 

1322 
Bergen v. Porpoise Fishing 

Co., 41 N. i. Eq. 238; 3 

Atl. 404 279 
V. Porpoise Fishing Co., 

42N.J.Eq.397; 8 Atl. 523 1406 

V. Valentine, 63 How. Pr. 

(N. Y.) 221 1446 

Berger v. U. S. Steel Corp., 63 

N. J. Eq. 809; 53 Atl. 68 519, 
534, 534, 542, 542 
Bergeron v. Hobbs, 96 Wise. 

641; 71 N. W. 1056; 65 

Am. St. Rep. 85 123, 124, 246, 

251 
Bergman v. St. Paul, etc. 

Bldg. Ass'n, 29 Minn. 275; 

13 N. W. 120 562, 565 

Berkhout v. Royal Arcanum, 

62 N. J. Law 103 ; 43 Atl. 1 580 
Berks & Dauphin Turnpike 

Road V. Myers, 6 S. & R. 

(Pa.) 12; 9 Am. Dec. 402 380, 
407, 525 
Berkson, Hughes & Co. v. 

Anderson, 115 Iowa 674; 

87 N. W. 402 . 128 

Berlin v. New Britain, 9 Conn. 

175 (1832) 827 

Bernard v. Union Trust Co., 

159 Fed. 620 1641, 1646, 1651 

Bemheimer v. Converse, 27 

Super. Ct. 755 43 



Bernstein v. Kaplan (Ala.), 43 

So. 581 103, 134, 139 

Berry v. Rood, 168 Mo. 316; 

67 N. W. 644 628, 629, 635, 
647, 649 
V. Yates, 24 Barb.(N. Y.) 

199 76 

Berryville Land, etc. Co. v. 

Lewis, 19 S. E. Rep. 781 

(Va.) 183 

Berwind v. Canadian Pac. 

Ry. Co., 98 Fed. 158 941 

— : — V. Van Home, 104 Fed. 

581 1354 

Besch V. Western Carriage 

Mfg. Co., 36 Mo. App. 333 1211 
Besley, Ex parte, 3 Mac. & G. 

287 309 

Best V. British & Am. Mort- 
gage Co., 131 N. Car. 70; 

42 S. E. 456 1365 

Best Brewing Co. v. Klassen, 

185 111. 37; 57 N. E. 20; 

76 Am.St. Rep. 26; 50 L. R. 

A. 765 42, 84, 851 

Bestor v. Wathen, 60 111. 138 1348 
Bethune v. Wells, 94 Ga. 486; 

21 S. E. 230 972 

Bevan v. Waterhouse, 3 Ch. 

D. 752 815 

Beveridge v. New York 

Elevated R. R. Co., 112 

N. Y. 1; 19 N. E. 489; 2 

L. R. A. 648 1107, 1110, 1187 
Bevier, etc. Coal Co. v. Wat- 
son, 107 Mo. App. 451 ; 80 

S. W. 287 1321 

Bianki v. Greater-American 

Exhibition Co., 3 Nebr. 

(Unof.) 656; 92 N. W. 

615 1355 

Bibb V. Hall, 101 Ala. 79; 14 

So. 98 1234 
V. Montgomery Iron 

Works, 101 Ala. 301; 13 

So. 224 1401, 1527 

Bibber-White Co. v. White 

River, etc. R. Co., 110 Fed. 

473 1607, 1623 
V. White River, etc. Co., 

115 Fed. 786; 53 C. C. A. 

282 1646, 1651 

Bickford v. Grand Junction 

Ry. Co., 1 Can. Sup. Ct. 

Rep. 696 65 

Biddle v. Bayard, 13 Pa. St. 

150 726 

Biddle's Appeal, 99 Pa. St. 

278 502 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Bidwell V. Pittsburgh, etc. 
Ry. Co., 114 Pa. St. 535; 6 
Atl. 729 651 

Bidwell Bros., Be (1893), 1 
Ch. 603 1036, 1044 

Bigbee, etc. Packet Co. v. 
Moore, 121 Ala. 379; 25 So. 
602 846, 1133 

Big Creek, etc. Iron Co. v. 
American L. & T. Co., 127 
Fed. 625; 62 C. C. A. 351 986, 
1399 

Bigelow V. Calumet, etc. Min- 
ing Co., 155 Fed. 869 57, 78, 
947, 949, 1026, 1063 

V. Gregory, 73 lU. 197 123, 

128 251 

Bigg's Case, 1 Eq. 309 ' 660 

Biggerstaff v. Rowatt's 
Wharf (1896), 2 Ch. 93 

1370, 1545 

Biglin V. Friendship Ass'n, 

46 Hun (N. Y.) 223 430 

Bignold, Ex parte, 22 Beav. 

143 1291 

Bill V. Darenth Valley Ry. Co., 

1 H. & N. 305 1223, 1228 

V. Western Union Tel. 

Co., 16 Fed. 14 931, 943, 1080, 
1306, 1313 

Billingham v. Gleason Mfg. 
Co., 43 N.Y. Misc. 681; 88 
N. Y. Supp. 398 908, 908 

V. Gleason Mfg. Co., 101 

N. Y. App. Div. 476; 91 

N. Y. Supp. 1046 1114, 1116 

Bills V. Silver King Mining 

Co., 106 Cal. 9; 39 Pac. 43 1122 

Bimber v. Calivada Coloniza- 
tion Co., 110 Fed. 58 969 

Binney's Case, 2 Bland Ch. 

(Md.) 99 70, 382 

Birch V. Cropper, 14 A. C. 525 433, 
436, 471 

Bird V. Dagett, 97 Mass. 494 95, 

862 

V. People's, etc. Co., 158 

Fed. 963 1587 

Bird Coal & Iron Co. v. 
Humes, 157 Pa. St. 278; 27 
Atl. 750; 37 Am. St. Rep. 
727 972, 1079, 1335 

Bird's Case, 1 Sim. N.s. 47 221,223 

Birdsall v. Russell, 29 N. Y. 
220 1435, 1530 

Birkenhead, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Brownrigg, 4 Ex. 426 922 

Birmingham Banking Co., 
36 L. J. Ch. 150 897 



Birmingham Drug Co. v. Free- 
man, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 451 ; 
39 S. W. 626 

Birmingham Fire Ins. Co. v. 
Comm., 92 Pa. St. 72 

Birmingham Nat. Bank v. 
Roden, 97 Ala. 404; 11 So. 
883 

Birmingham Ry., etc. Co. 
V. Birmingham Traction 
Co., 128 Ala. 110; 29 So. 
187 

Birmingham Trust, etc. Co. v. 
East Lake Land Co., 101 
Ala. 304; 13 So. 72 

V. Louisiana Nat. Bank, 

99 Ala. 379; 13 So. 112; 20 

L. R. A. 600 769, 774, 775 

Birmingham, etc. Ry. Co. v. 
Locke, 1 Q. B. 256 

V. White, 1 Q. B. 282 

Bimey v. Toronto Milk Co., 
5 Ont. L. Rep. 1 

Biron's Case, 26 W. R. 606 

Bisgood V. Nile Valley Co. 

(1906), 1 Ch. 747 72, 78, 654 

Bishop V. American Preser- 
vers Co., 157 111. 284; 41 
N. E. 765; 48 Am. St. Rep. 
317 

V. Globe Co., 135 Mass. 

132 761, 771, 772 

V. Kent & Stanley Co., 20 

R. I. 680; 41 Atl. 255 

V. McKillican, 124 Cal. 

321; 57 Pac. 76; 71 Am. 
St. Rep. 68 

V. Smyrna, etc. Ry. 

(1895), 2 Ch. 265 471, 1101 

V. Smyrna, etc. Ry. 

Co., No. 2 (1895), 2 Ch. 

596 472, 472 

Bissell V. Bradford Tramway 
Co., W. N. (1891) 51 

V. Michigan Southern 

R. R. Co., 22 N. Y. 258 

Bjorgaard v. Goodhue County 

Bank, 49 Minn. 483; 52 

N. W. 48 
Black V. First Nat. Bank, 96 

Md. 399; 54 Atl. 88 844,853 
V. Hobart Trust Co., 64 

N.J. En. 415; 53 Atl. 826; 

affirmed in 65 N. J. Eq. 

769; 56 Atl. 1131 451, 452 
V. Homersham, 4 Ex. D. 

24 1134 
V. Wiedersheim, 143 Fed. 

359 1489 



1188 
751 



195 



912 



776 



925 
895 

391 
1171 



79 



1221 



1495 



1603 
869 



1080 



TABLE OP CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Black i>. Zacharie, 3 How. 483 



697, 
716 



Black & Co.'s Case, 8 Ch. 254 191, 
612, 634 

Black & White Smiths' Soc. v. 
Vandyke, 2 Whart. (Pa.) 
309; 30 Am. Dec. 263 577 

Black River, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Clarke, 25 N. Y. 208 237, 238 

Blackburn Bldg. Soc. v. Cun- 
liffe. Brooks & Co., 22 
Ch. D. 61 831 

V. Cunliffe, Brooks & 

Co., 29 Ch. D. 902 831 

Blackwell v State, 36 Ark. 

178 1164 

Blackwell's Durham Tobacco 

Co. V. Am. Tobacco Co. (N. 

Car.), 59 S.' E. 123 371, 372, 

379 
Blair v. City of Chicago, 201 

U. S. 400; 26 Sup. Ct. 427 107, 
836, 837 
V. Metropolitan Savings 

Bank, 27 Wash. 192; 67 

Pac. 609 70, 588 
V. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co., 

20 Fed. 348 1603, 1621 
V. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co., 

20 Fed. 351 1567, 1621 
V. St. Louis, etc. R. Co., 

22 Fed. 471 1559, 1561, 1564, 

1572 
V. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co., 

23 Fed. 521 1567, 1572 
D.'St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co., 

23 Fed. 524 1416, 1670 
V. St. Louis R. Co., 25 

Fed. 232 1564, 1629 
V. St. Louis, etc. R. R. 

Co., 25 Fed. 684 910 
V. Telegram Newspaper 

Co., 172 Mass. 201; 51 

N. E. 1080 955, 979 

Blair Town Lot, etc. Co. v. 

Walker, 50 Iowa 376 1348 

Blaisdell v. Bohr, 68 Ga. 56 754, 
755, 757 
Blake v. Bayley, 16 Gray 

(Mass.) 531 918, 1166 
V. Buffalo Creek R. R. 

Co., 56 N. Y. 485 1340 

V. Domestic Mfg. Co. 

(N. J.), 38 Atl. 241 1379, 1380 

V. Ray (Ky.), 62 S. W. 

531 _ 1318 
V. Supervisors of Living- 
ston Co., 61 Barb. 149 1424 
Blake's Case, 34 Beav. 639 176 



Blakely Ordnance Co., 3 Ch. 

154 1420, 1421 

Blaker v. Herts, etc. Water- 
works Co., 41 Ch. D. 399 1605, 

1606 
Blalock V. Kemsville Mfg. Co., 

110 N. Car. 99; 14 S. E. 

501 517, 519 

Blanchard v. Cooke, 144 Mass. 

207; 11 N. E. 83 1504 

V. KauU, 44 Cal. 440 252 

Bland's Case (1893), 2 Ch. 

612 319, 320, 329 

Blanks v. Farmers' L. & T. 

Co., 122 Fed. 849; 59 C. C. 

A. 59 1636, 1637 

Blanton v. Kentucky Distil- 
leries, etc. Co., 120 Fed. 318 917 
Blatchford v. Ross, 54 Barb. 

(N. Y.) 42 1189 
V. Ross, 37 How. Pr. 

(N.Y.)llO 976 

Blen V. Bear River, etc. Co., 

20 Cal. 602; 81 Am. Dec. 

132 1374 

Bligh V. Brent, 2 Y. & C. Ex. 

268 420 

Blinn v. Gillett, 208 111. 473; 

70 N. E. 704; 100 Am. St. 

Rep. 234 1144, 1154, 1156 

V. Riggs, 1 10 111. App. 37 1080, 

1250 
Bliss V. Harris (Colo.), 87 Pac. 

1076 407, 408, 408, 1376 
V. Kaweah, etc. Co., 65 

Cal. 502 ; 4 Pac. 507 407, 408, 

1372 
Bloede Co., Victor G., v. 

Joseph Bancroft & Sons Co., - 

98 Fed. 175 890 
V. Bloede, 84 Md. 129 ; 34 

Atl. 1127; 57 Am. St. Rep. 

373; 33L. R. A. 107 571,679 

Blood V. La Serena, etc. Co., 

113 Cal. 221; 41 Pac. 1017; 

45 Pac. 252 299, 408, 

408 
V. Marcause, 38 Cal. 590; 

99 Am. Dec. 435 1377 
Bloom V. Nat. Saving, etc. Co. 

152N.Y. 114;46N.E. 166 1278, 
1350, 1351 
Bloomenthal v. Ford (1897), , 

A. C. 156 649 

Bloomer v. Union Coal, etc. 

Co., 16 Eq. 383 1504 

Blooming-Grove Cotton Oil 

Co. V. First Nat. Bank, 56 

S. W. 552 (Tex.) 695, 1130 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Blount V. Hipkins, 7 Sim. 51 789 

Bloxam v. Metropolitan Ry. 
Co., L. R. 3 Ch. 337 968, 1104 

Bloxam's Case, 33 Beav. 529 166 

Bluck V. Mallalue, 27 Beav. 
398 199 

Bluehill Academy v. Witham, 

13 Maine 403 280 

Blue Mt. Forrest Ass'n v. 
Borrowe, 71 N. H. 69; 51 
Atl. 670 562, 571, 573, 575, 576 

Blum V. Whitney, 185 N. Y. 
232 330 

Blumenf eldt v. Korschuck, 43 

111. App. 434 948 

Blumentnal v. Brainerd, 38 
Vt. 402; 91 Am. Dee. 349 1616 

Blumer v. Ubner (Miss.), 44 

So. 161 949, 1355 

Blundell v. Winsor, 8 Sim. 601 7 

Blyth's Case, 4 Ch. D. 140 154, 

640, 640 

Board of Comm'rs v. Shields, 

62 Mo. 247 244 

Board of Comm'rs of Hamil- 
ton Co. V. State ex rel. 
Cottingham, 115 Ind. 64; 4 
N. E. 589; 17 N. E. 855 1514 

Board of Comm'rs of Ouray 
County V. Geer, 108 Fed. 
478; 47 C. C. A. 450 1449 

Board of Supervisors v. Min- 
eral Point R. R. Co., 24 
Wise. 93 1421, 1485, 1533 

Board of Trustees v. Piedmont 
Realty Co., 134 N. Car. 41; 
46 S. E. 723 853 

Board of Trustees of Seventh 
St., etc. Church v. Campbell, 
48 La. Ann. 1543; 21 So. 
. 184 117 

Boardman v. Boardman, 78 

Conn. 451; 62 Atl. 339 1144 

V. Cutter, 128 Mass. 388 422 

V. Lake Shore, etc. Ry. 

Co., 84 N. Y. 157 " 447, 457, 458, 

459, 459, 460, 465, 466, 467, 

467, 1131, 1132, 1136 

Boatmen's Bank v. Gillespie 

(Mo.), 108 S. W, 74 1208 

Boatmen's Ins. & Trust Co. v. 
Able, 48 Mo. 136 702, 781 

Boca, etc. R. R. Co. v. Sierra 
Valley Ry. Co., 84 Pac. 298 
(Cal.) 138, 141, 250 

BodegaCo. (1904), 1 Ch. 276 1168, 
1179, 1179, 1240, 1240, 1319 

Bodman, Re (1891), 3 Ch. 135 414, 
454, 1397 



Bodwic V. Fennell, 1 Wils. 233 595 
Bogardus v. Trinity Church, 4 

Paige (N. Y.) 178 849 

Bogart V. New York, etc. R. 

Co., 102 N. Y. Supp. 1093 1246, 
1373 
Boggs V. Boggs & Buhl (Pa.), 

66 Atl. 105 573, 786 
V. Lakeport, etc. Ass'n, 

111 Cal. 354; 43 Pac. 1106 917 
Bohm V. Loewer's, etc. Brew- 
ery Co., 9 N. Y. Supp. 514; 

16 Daly's Rep. (N. Y.) 80 592 
Bohmer v. City Bank, 77 Va. 

445 770, 773, 773 

Bohn V. Boone Bide. & Loan 

Ass'n (Iowa), 112 N. W. 199 63 
Bohrer v. Adair, 61 Nebr. 824; 

86 N. W. 495 625 

Boice V. Jones, 106 N. Y. App. 

Div. 547; 94 N. Y. Supp. 

896 336, 336 

Bolckow V. Heme Bay Pier 

Co., 1 E. & B. 74 1528, 1528 

Boldenwick v. BuUis (Colo.), 

90 Pac. 634 967, 971 

Boley V. Sonora Development 

Co. (Mo.), 103 S. W. 975 192 

Bolt & Iron Co., 14 Ont. 211 1238, 

1247 
Bolton V. Natal Land Co. 

(1892), 2 Ch. 124 1092, 1096, 
1098 
V. Nebraska Chicory Co., 

69 Nebr. 681 ; 96 N. W. 148 43 
V. Prather, 35 Tex. Civ. 

App. 295; 80 S. W. 666 143 

Bolton & Co., R. (1894), 3 Ch. 

356 1172, 1173 

Bombay Burmah Trading 

Corp. V. Dorabji Cursetji 

Shroff (1905), A. C. 213 1041, 

1043 
Bomer v. Am. Spiral, etc. Co., 

81 N. Y. 468 286, 288 

Bon Aqua Imp. Co. v. Stand- 
ard Fire Ins. Co., 34 W. Va. 

764; 12 S. E. 771 233 

Bond V. Barrow Haematite 

Steel Co. (1902), 1 Ch. 353 464, 

465, 1091, 1099, 1102, 1102 

V. Bean, 57 N. H. 340 712 

1). Gray Imp. Co., 102 

Md. 426; 62 Atl. 827 938, 984 

V. Mount Hope Iron Co., 

99 Mass. 505; 97 Am. Dec. 

49 748 

V. Pike (Minn.), Ill 

N. W. 916 287, 287, 294 



TABLE OP CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Bond V. Terrell, etc. Mfg. Co., 
82 Tex. 309; 18 S. W. 691 



852, 
867 



847 
452 



1433 



1030 



1206 

904 
1621 

157 



914 



Bondholders of York & Cum- 
berland R. R. Co., Be, 50 
Me. 552 1493, 1495 

Bone V. Delaware, etc. Canal 
Co. (Pa.), 5 Atl. 751 

Boney v. Williams, 55 N. J. 
Eq. 691; 38 Atl. 189 

Bonner v. City of New Orleans, 
2 Woods 135 

Bonnet v. First Nat. Bank, 24 
Tex. Civ. vApp. 613; 60 
S. W. 325 501, 507 

Bonsall v. Piatt, 153 Fed. 126 309 

Bonta V. Gridley, 77 N. Y. 
App. Div. 33; 78 N. Y. 
Supp. 961 

Booker V. Crocker, 132 Fed. 7; 

65 C. C. A. 627 1524, 1529 

V. Young, 12 Gratt. (Va.) 

303 

Boord V. African Consolidated, 
etc. Co. (1898), 1 Ch. 596 

Booths. Brown, 62 Fed. 794 

V. Campbell, 37 Md. 

522 

V. Dexter Steam Fire 

Engine Co., 118 Ala. 369; 
24 So. 405 

V. Land Filling, etc. Co., 

59 Atl. (N. J.) 767 966, 1083, 

1312 

V. New Afrikander Gold 

Mining Co. (1903), 1 Ch. 

295 352, 354, 355 

V. Robinson, 55 Md. 419 63, 

65, 75, 76, 974, 976, 1161, 
1271, 1274, 1274, 1306 

V. Wonderly, 36 N. J. 

Law 250 245, 246, 252 

Booth Bros. v. Baird, 83 N. Y. 

App. "Div. 495; 82 N. Y. 

Supp. 432 
Booz's Appeal, 109 Pa. St. 

592; 1 Atl. 36 
Borax Co. (1901), 1 Ch. 326 
Borden v. Crook, 131 111. 68; 

22 N. E. 793; 19 Am. St. 

Rep. 23 
Borland's Trustee v. Steel 

Bros. & Co. (1901), ICh. 279 

421, 564, 575, 575, 576, 
677, 994, 1010 
Bornstein v. District Grand 

Lodge (Cal.), 84 Pac. 271 

586, 587 
Borough of Portsmouth, etc. 



853 

565 
1548 



1502 
54, 



Tramways Co. (1892), 2 

Ch. 362 1529 

Bosanquet v. St. John D'el 

Rey Mining Co., 77 L. T. 

206 1104, 1545 

Boschoek Proprietary Co. v. 

Fuke (1906), 1 Ch. 148 588, 

996, 1004, 1177, 1320 
Bosher v. Land Co., 89 Va. 

455; 16S. E. 360; 37 Am. 

St. Rep. 879 182, 342 

Bostock V. Blakeney, 2 Bro. 

Ch. 653 1156 
V. Edgar, 24 Vict. L. R. 

677 662, 961, 962 

Boston V. Simmons, 150 Mass. 

461; 23 N. E. 210; 15 Am. 

St. Rep. 230; 6L.R.A.629 1270 
Boston Acid Mfg. Co. v. Mor- 

ing, 15 Gray (Mass.) 211 558 

Boston Deep Sea, etc. Co. v. 

Ansell, 39 Ch. D. 339 1183, 

1241, 1305, 1333 
Boston Music Hall v. Cory, 

129 Mass. 435 715 

Boston Rubber Shoe Co. ■;;. 

Boston Rubber Co., 149 

Mass. 436; 21 N. E. 875 

372, 373 
Boston Tailoring House v. 

Fisher, 59 111. App. 400 

1373, 1382 
Boston, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Coffin, 50 Conn. 150 1511 

V. Graves, 80 Fed. 588 1285 

V. Richardson, 135 Mass. 

473 738, 758, 759 
V. Wellington, 113 Mass. 

79 608 

Boston, etc. R. R. Corp. v. 

Haven, 8 Allen (Mass.) 359 1490, 
1490, 1491 
Boston, etc. Trust Co. v. 

Chamberlain, 66 Fed. 847; 

14 C. C. A. 363 1621, 1621 

Boswell V. Buhl, 213 Pa. 450; 

63 Atl. 56 573 

Bosworth V. Allen, 168 N. Y. 

157; 61 N. E. 163; 85 Am. 

St. Rep. 667; 55 L. R. A. 

751 1161, 1161, 1181, 1259, 

1262, 1337 
Botsford V. New Haven, etc. 

R. R. Co., 41 Conn. 454 1539 

Bottomley's Case, 16 Ch. D. 

681 1205 

Bouch V. Sproule, 12 A. C. 385 

498, 498, 1139, 1139, 1139, 1139, 
1140, 1141, 1142 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



629 
337 



1560 
1560 



907 
260 
528 
230 
618 



1329 
1527 



Bouchard ■». Prince's Hall 

Restaurant, 20 Times L. R. 

574 
Boulter v. Peplow, 9 C. B. 493 
Boulton Carbon Co. v. Mills, 

78 Iowa 460; 43N.W.290; 

5 L. R. A. 649 612, 635 

Bound V. South Carolina Ry. 

Co., 47 Fed. 30 

V. South Carolina Ry. 

Co. 50 Fed. 312 

V. South Carolina Ry. 

Co., 58 Fed. 473; 7C. C. A. 

322 1563, 1624, 1625, 1631 

Bourdette v. Sieward, 107 La. 

258; 31 So. 630 
Bousfield V. Wilson, 16 M. & 

W. 185 
Bouton V. Dement, 123 111. 

142; 14 N. E. 62 
Bow V. AUenstown, 34 N. H. 

351; 69 Am. Dec. 489 
Bowden v. Johnson, 107 U. S. 

251; 2Sup. Ct. 246 
Bowditch V. New England Life 

Ins. Co., 141 Mass. 292 ; 4 N. 

E.798; 55 Am. Rep. 474 
Bowen v. Brecon Ry. Co., 3 

Eq. 541 
V. Kuehn, 79 Wise. 53 ; 

47 N. W. 374 433, 602 
V. Needles Nat. Bank, 94 

Fed. 925; 36 C. C. A. 553 84, 

838 
Bowers v. Hechtman, 45 

Minn. 238 ; 47 N. W. 792 405, 409 

V. Male, 186 N. Y. 28 1266 

Bowlby V. Bell, 3 C. B. 284 422 

Bowler v. American Box 

Strap Co., 22 N. Y. Misc. 

335; 49 N. Y. Supp. 153 
Bowling Green Trust Co. v. 

Virginia Pass. etc. Co., 132 

Fed. 921 1585, 1587 
V. Virginia Pass. etc. Co., 

133 Fed. 186 
Bowman v. Foster, etc. Hard- 
ware Co., 94 Fed. 592 834, 835 
Bowman Dairy Co. v. Mooney, 

41 Mo. App. 665 95, 854, 854 
Bowne v. Smith, 44 N. Y. 

Misc. 575; 90 N. Y. Supp. 

204 
Bowring V. Shepherd, L. R. 6 

Q. B. 309 
Box, Re, 1 Hem. & Mill. 552 

789, 816 
Boyce v. Augusta Camp, 14 

OM. 642; 78 Pac. 322 384 



1238 



1602 



942 

782 



1432 



1288 



Boyce v. Continental Wire 

Co., 125 Fed.740; 60 C. C. 

A. 508 1518, 1638 
V. Trustees Towsontown 

Sta. of M. E. Church, 46 

Md. 359 221, 236, 238, 241 

Boyd V. American Carbon 

Black Co., 182 Pa. St. 206; 

37 Atl. 937 79, 852 
V. Chesapeake, etc. Canal 

Co., 17 Md. 195; 79 Am. 

Dec. 646 1551 
V. Conshohocken Worsted 

Mills, 149 Pa. St. 363; 24 

Atl. 287 810, 811, 1131 
V. Keimedy, 38 N. J. Law 

146 
V. Mutual Fire Ass'n, 116 

Wise. 155; 90 N. W. 1086; 

94 N. W. 171 
V. Peach Bottom Ry. Co. 

90 Pa.,jSt. 169 189, 191 
V. ReSd, 120 N. Car. 335; 

27S.E.35; 58 Am. St. Rep. 

792 768, 775 
V. Schneider, 131 Fed. 

223; 65 C. C. A. 209 1285, 1357 
Boyer, Ltd., Paul,'». Edwardes, 

17 Times L. R. 16 355, 356 

Boylan v. Huguet, 8 Nevada 

345 

V. Kelly, 36 N. J. Eq. 331 

Boyle V. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 

88 Fed. 930; 32 C. C. A. 

142 
Boyle's Case, 54 L. J. Ch. 

550 
Boynton v. Roe, 114 Mich. 

401; 72 N. W. 257 1187, 1201 
Bracken v. Nicol (Ky.), 99 

S. W. 920 616, 696 

Brackett v. Persons Un- 
known, 53 Me. 228 
Braddock v. Philadelphia, etc. 

R. R. Co., 45 N. J. Law 363 



418 
1397 



1631 
168 



924 



602, 
604 
Braddock Borough v. Penn 

Water Co., 189 Pa. St. 379; 

42 Atl. 15 123, 147 

Bradford v. Frankfort, etc. 

R. R". Co., 142 Ind. 383; 40 

N. E. 741; 41 N. E. 819 1224 
V. Harris, 77 Md. 153 ; 26 

Atl. 186 343 

Bradford Banking Co. v. 

Briggs, 12 A. C. 29 769, 774, 796 
Bradlee v. Warren Five Cent 

Sav. Bank, 127 Mass. 107; 

34 Am. Rep. 351 1380 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references ate to pages] 



Bradley v. Ballard, 55 111. 413 ; 

8 Am. Rep. 656 861 
V. Chester Valley R. R. 

Co., 36 Pa. St. 141 1581, 1601 

V. Carritt (1903), A. C. 

253 1029 
V. Holdsworth, 3 M. & 

W. 422 420 

Bradley Fertilizer Co., 19 Pa. 

Co. Ct. 271 129, 375, 379 

Bradley Fertilizer Co. v. South 

Pub.Co.,17N.Y.Supp.587 298 

V. South Pub. Co., 4 

N. Y. Misc. 172; 23 N. Y. 
Supp. 675 236, 246, 247, 279 

Bradshaw, Ex parte, 15 Ch. 

D. 465 1499, 1513, 1639 

Brady v. Johnson, 75 Md. 

445; 26 Atl. 49; 20 L. R. 

A. 737 1508, 1551 

V. State, 26 Md. 290 

1515, 1551 

Brainerd v. New York, etc. 

R. R. Co.,25N. Y. 496 1423, 

1432 

V. Peck, 34 Vt. 496 1512, 

1513, 1551 

Braintree Water Co. v. In- 
habitants of Braintree, 146 
Mass. 482; 16 N. E. 420 219 

Bramblet v. Commonwealth 
Land, etc. Co., 26 Ky. Law 
Rep. 1176; 83 S. W. 599; 
27 Ky. Law Rep. 156; 84 
S. W. 545 1165, 1166, 1304, 

1342 

Brampton & Longtown Ry. 

Co., Re, 10 Ch. 177 295 

Branch v. Augusta Glass 
Works, 95 Ga. 573; 23 
S. E. 128 1211 

V. Jesup, 106 U. S. 468; 

1 Sup. Ct. 495 444, 450, 

450, 1507 

Branch, Sons & Co. v. Atlan- 
tic, etc. R. R. Co., 3 Woods 
481 1495 

Branch of the Bank v. Collins, 

7 Ala. 95 1316, 1321, 1322 

Brand v. Godwin, 15 Daly 
(N. Y.H56; 8N. Y. Supp. 
339; 9 N. Y. Supp. 743 1365 

Brandenstein v. Hoke, 101 

Cal. 131; 35 Pac. 562 244 

Brander v. Brander, 4 Ves. 

800 1141, 1143 

Brandreth, Re, 58 N. Y. App. 
Div. 575; 69 N. Y. Supp. 
142 679, 679 



Brannin v. Loving, 82 Ky. 370 1357 
Brant v. Ehlen, 59 Md. 1 634, 647 
Brass v. Worth, 40 Barb., 

(N. Y.) 648 808 

Brassey v. N. Y., etc. R. R. 

Co., 19 Fed. 663 1604 

Brassfield v. Quincy, etc. 

R. R. Co., 109 Mo. App. 

710; 83 S. W. 1032 380 

Bratten v. Catawissa R. R. 

Co., 211 Pa. 21; 60 Atl. 

319 494, 1474, 1475 

Breck v. Barney, 183 Mass. 

133; 66 N. E. 643 645 

Breeze v. Lone Pine Sur- 
prise, etc. Co., 39 Wash. 

602; 81 Pac. 1050 966 

Breinig v. Sparrow (Ind.), 80 

N. E. 37 80, 853 

Bremen Savings Bank v. 

Branch-Crookes Saw Co., 

104 Mo. 425; 16 S. W. 209 297 
Brendon v. Worley, 8 N. Y. 

Misc. 253; 28 N. Y. Supp. 

557 590 

Brennan v. Emery-Bird- 

Thayer Dry Goods Co., 99 

Fed. 971 300 

Brent v. Bank of Washington, 

10 Pet. 596 768, 769, 774, 1124 
V. Bank of Washington, 

2 Cranch C. C. 517 768, 1124 

Brewer v. Boston Theatre, 

104 Mass. 378 935, 944, 945, 
945, 976, 978 
V. Chelsea Mutual Fire 

Ins.Co.,14Gray(Mass.)203 589 
V. State, 7 Lea (Tenn.) 

682 127 

Brewer Brewing Co. v. Bod- 
die, 181 111. 622; 55 N. E. 

49 861 

Brewster v. Hartley, 37 Cal. 

15; 99 Am. Dec. 237 191, 1022, 
1027, 1031 
V. Hatch, 122 N. Y. 349; 

25 N. E. 505; 19 Am. St. 

Rep. 498 311, 340 

V. Lathrop, 15 Cal. 21 1136 

V. Sime, 42 Cal. 139 799 

Brick V. Brick, 98 U. S. 614 812 
Brick & Stone Co., W. N. 

(1878) 140 994, 1186 

Bridge Co. V. Mayer, 31 Oh. 

St. 317 1009 

Bridgeport Bank v. New 

York, etc. R. R. Co., 30 

Conn. 231 685, 685, 714, 718, 

730, 749 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Bridgeport Sav. Bank v. Eld- 

redge, 28 Conn. 556; 73 

Am. Dec. 688 
Bridgeport, etc. Ice Co 

Header, 72 Fed. 115; 

C. C. A. 451 
Bridget's Case, 5 Ch. 305 
Bridgers and Neill's Case, 4 

Ch. 266 
Bridges V. Nat. Bank of Troy, 

185 N. Y. 146 572, 773, 1124 

Bridgewater Iron Co. v. Liss- 

berger, 116 U. S. 8; 6 Sup. 

Ct. 241 
Bridgewater Navigation Co. 

(1891), 2 Ch. 317 
Bridgman v. City of Keokuk, 

72 Iowa 42; 33 N. W. 355 



1371 

V. 

18 

286, 1007 
633 



668 



716 
471 



421, 
424 
Briggs V. McCuUough, 36 Cal. 

542 231, 384 

V. Spaulding, 141 U. S. 

132; 11 Sup. Ct. 924 1181, 

1182, 1182, 1262, 1274, 1276, 

1276, 1278, 1279, 1281 

V. Traders Co., 145 Fed. 

254 970 

, Ex parte, 1 Eq. 483 181 

Bright V. Hutton, 3 H. L. C. 

341 275, 275, 276, 307 

V. Lord, 51 Ind. 272; 

19 Am. Rep. 732 1135, 1135 
V. Metairie Cemetery Co., 

33 La. Ann. 58 1372 

Brighton Brewery Co., 37 

L. J. Ch. 278 1336 

Brill Co., J. G., V. Norton, etc. 

St. Ry. Co., 189 Mass. 431; 

75 N. E. 1090 863 

Brinckerhoff v. Bostwick, 99 

N. Y. 185; 1 N. E. 663 981,1288 

V. Roosevelt, 143 Fed. 

478; 74 C. C. A. 498 967 

Brinkerhoff v. Holland Trust 

Co., 159 Fed. 191 1354 

Brinkerhoff-Farris Trust, etc. 

Co. V. Home Lumber Co., 

118 Mo. 447; 24 S. W. 129 571, 
571, 574, 589, 712, 752, 773 
Brinkerhoff Zinc Co. v. Boyd, 

192Mo. 597; 91S. W. 523 1211, 
1268, 1360 
Brinkley v. Hambleton, 67 

Md. 169; 8 Atl. 904 617, 782, 

783 
Brinkley Car, etc. Co. v. Curf- 

man (Iowa), 114 N. W. 12 102 
Brinley v. Grou, 50 Conn. 66; 

47 Am. Rep. 618 503, 1138 



Brinley v. Mann, 2 Cush. 
(Mass.) 337; 48 Am. Dec. 
669 398 

Brisbane v. Delaware, etc. 
R. R. Co. , 94 N. Y. 204 732, 753, 
755, 756, 1130 

Bristol County Sav. Bank v. 

Keavy, 128 Mass. 298 1379 

Bristol Creamery Co. v. Til- 
ton, 47 Atl. Rep. 591; 70 
N. H. 239 _ 169, 195 

Bristol United Breweries v. 
Abbot (1908), 1 Ch. 279 1396 

Bristol, etc. Trust Co. v. 
Jonesboro, etc. Trust Co., 
101 Tenn. 545; 48 S. W. 
228 123, 226, 298, 1169, 1169, 

1365 

British & American, etc. 
Corp. V. Couper (1894), 
A. C. 399 532, 534, 534, .534 

British Asbestos Co. v. Boyd 

(1903), 2 Ch. 439 1230, 1230, 

1230, 1231 

British Equitable Ins. Co. v. 

Baily (1906), A. C. 35 584, 587 

British Flax, etc. Co., 60 L. T. 
215 1038 

British Guardian Co., 14 Ch. 

D. 335 1261, 1264, 1267, 1285 

British India, etc. Co. v. In- 
land Revenue Comm'rs, 7 
Q. B. 165 1392 

British Linen Co. v. South 
American, etc. Co. (1894), 
1 Ch. 108 • 1598 

British Nation Life Ass. Ass'n, 

8 Ch. D. 679 77 

British Oil & Coke Mills v. 
Inland Revenue Comm'rs 
(1903), 1 K. B. 689 1495 

British Power Traction, etc. 
Co. (1906), 1 Ch. 497 1643, 1647, 

1648 

British Power Traction Co. 

(No. 2) (1907), 1 Ch. 528 1643, 
1647, 1647 

British Seamless Paper Box 
Co., 17 Ch. D. 467 24 

British Sugar Co., 3 K. & J. 

408 604, 1007, 1007 

British Vacuum Cleaner Co. 
V. New Vacuum Cleaner 
Co. (1907), 2 Ch. 312 369, 371, 
375, 375, 376 

Briton Medical, etc. Ass'n v. 

Jones, 61 L. T. 384 1230 

Brittan v. Oakland Bank of 
Savings, 124 Cal. 282; 57 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Pac. 84; 71 Am. St. Rep. 

58 723, 808, 809, 1329 

Broadway Bank v. McElrath, 

13 N. J. Eq. 24 715 

Broadway Nat. Bank v. 

Baker, 176 Mass. 294; 57 

N. E. 603 70 

Broadwell v. Merritt, 87 Mo. 95 302 
Brockert v. Central Iowa Ry. 

Co., 82 Iowa 369; 47 N. W. 

1026 1609 

Brocklebank v. East London 

Ry. Co., 48 L. J. Ch. 729 1616 
ifoockway v. Gadsden, etc. 

Land Co., 102 Ala. 620; 15 

So. 431 602, 611, 614, 1208 

Brockway Mfg. Co., Re, 89 

Me. 121; 35 Atl. 1012; 56 

Am. St. Rep. 401 1290, 1357 

Bronson v. LaCrosse, etc. 

R. R. Co., 2 Wall. 283 932, 984, 

985 
Bronson Electric Co. v. Rheu- 
♦ bottom, 122 Mich. 608; 81 

N. W. 563 572 

Brooke v. Day (Ga.), 59 S. E. 

769 147, 148, 237 

Brooklyn Heights Realty Co. 

V. Kurtz, 115 N. Y. App. 

Div. 74 1262 

Brooklyn, Queens County, 

etc. R. R. Co., 185 N. Y. 171 141 
Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v. 

City of New York, 115 

N. Y. App. Div. 69 890 

Brooklyn, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Strong, 75 N. Y. 591 1270, 1332 
Brooks V. Railway Co., 101 

U. S. 443 1542 

V. Vermont Central 

R. R. Co., 14 Blatchf. 463 1493, 
1585, 1588 
V. Vermont Central R. R. 

Co., 22 Fed. 211 1622 

Brooks, Jenkins & Co. v. 

Mayor, etc. of Torquay 

(1902), 1 K. B. 601 403, 404 

Broome v. Galena, etc. Packet 

Co., 9 Minn. 239 25 

Brophy v. American Brewing 

Co., 211 Pa. 596; 61 Atl. 123 1245 
Brotherhood of Railroad 

Trainmen v. Newton, 79 

111. App. 500 577, 577, 578, 590 
Broughton v. BroUghton, 5 

De G. M. & G. 160 1325 

V. Manchester Water- 
Works Co. (1819), 3 B. & 

Aid. 1 828 



Brown v. Adams, 5 Biss. 181 696 

V. Andrew, 13 Jur. 938 308 

V. Black, 8 Ch. 939 708, 783 

V. Bokee, 53 Md. 155 424, 

678 

V. Bradford, 103 Iowa 

378; 72 N. W. 648 1188 
V. Brown (N. J.), 65 Atl. 

739 503, 1149 

Brown v. Chesapeake, etc. 

Canal Co., 73 Md. 567 1682 
V. Citizens' Ice, etc. Co. 

(N. J.), 66 Atl. 181 64 

— — V. (ility of Atchison, 39 

Kans. 37; 17 Pac. 465; 7 

Am. St. Rep. 515 855, 859 

V. Commonwealth, 3 

Grant Cas. (Pa.) 209 1040 

V. Commercial Fire Ins. 

Co., 21 App. D. C. 325 402, 402, 

403 
V. Corbin, 40 Minn. 508; 

42 N. W. 481 47 
V. Creston Ice Co., 113 

Iowa 615; 85 N. W. 750 1246 

V. Crown Gold MiUing 

Co. (Cal.), 89 Pac. 86 1234, 1235 
V. De Young, 167 111. 549; 

47 N. E. 863 982, 982 
V. Dibble, 65 Mich. 520; 

32 N. W. 656 1005 
V. Duluth, etc. Ry. Co., 

53 Fed. 889 645, 962, 1402 
V. Florida Southern Ry. 

Co., 19 Fla. 472 509 
V. Galveston Wharf Co., 

92 Tex. 520; 50 S. W. 126 1240, 

1383 
V. Gellatly, 2 Ch. 751 1136 

V. Grand Fountain, 28 

App. D. C. 200 134, 141, 142 

V. Howard Fire Ins. Co., 

42 Md. 384; 20 Am. Rep. 

90 728, 735, 736, 738, 759 

V. Lehigh Coal Co., 49 

Pa. St. 270 1133 

V. Maryland Tel., etc. 

Co., 101 Md. 574; 61 Atl. 

338 141 

V. Morton, 71 N. J. Law 

26; 58 Atl. 95 616 

V. New York, etc. R. R. 

Co., 19 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 84 1571, 

1572 

V. Pacific Mail, etc. Co., 

5 Blatchf. 525 1048, 1050, 1053, 
1061, 1064, 1064, 1064, 1064 

V. Republican Silver 

Mines, 17 Colo. 421; 30 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Pac. 66; 16 L. R. A. 426 1237, 
1245, 1247, 1248, 1322 

V. Republican Silver 

Mines, 55 Fed. 7 554, 1001, 1199 

V. Schleier, 118 Fed. 981; 

194 U. S. 18; 24 Sup. Ct. 

558 107, 836 

V. Scottish-American 

Mortgage Co., 110 111. 235 232 

V. Smith, 122 Mass. 

589 781 

V. Tillinghast, 84 Fed. 

71; 93 Fed. 326; 35 

C. C. A. 323 489 
V. Toledo, etc. R. Co., 35 

Fed. 444 1611 
V. Utopia Land Co., 103 

N. Y. Supp. 50 978, 979 
V. Ward, 3 Duer (N. Y.) 

660 808, 1439 
V. Warner, 78 Tex. 543; 

14 S. W. 1032; 22 Am. St. 

Rep. 67; 11 L. R. A. 394 1611 

V. Weymouth, 36 Me. 

414 1378, 1379, 1379 
V. Winnisimmet Co., 11 

Allen (Mass.) 326 68, 91 
V. Wyandotte, etc. Ry. 

Co., 68 Ark. 134; 56 S. W. 

862 140, 219, 531 

Brown & Gregory, Ltd. 

(1904), 1 Ch. 627; (1904) 

2 Ch. 448 1430 

Brown & Lamed, Re, 14 R. I. 

371 ; 51 Am. Rep. 397 1144, 1152 
Brown's Case, 9 Ch. 102 1171 

Brown, Ex parte, 18 S. Car. 87 1654 

, Ex parte, 19 Beav. 97 1223, 

1276 
Browne v. La Trinidad, 37 Ch. 

D. 1 34, 285, 996, 1184, 1232 

V. Monmouthshire Ry. 

Co., 13 Beav. 32 951, 1109 

V. St. Paul Plow Works, 

62 Minn. 90; 64 N. W. 66 



Brownell v. 
Mass. 442 : 



Anthony, 189 
75 N. E. 746 



Browning v. Hinkle, 48 Minn. 

544; 51 N. W. 605; 31 

Am. St. Rep. 691 
V. Kelly, 124 Ala. 645; 

27 So. 391 
Broyles v. McCoy, 5 Sneed 

(Tenn.) 602 
Bruce v. Piatt, 80 N. Y. 379 

V. Smith, 44 Ind. 1 



192, 
527 

1153, 
1155 



649 
1661 

309 
1182, 
1182 

781 



286 



851 

1500 
1421 



1370 

363 

1547 
809 



Brundage v. Brundage, 60 
N. Y. 544 496, 1156 

Brundred v. Rice, 49 Oh. St. 
640; 32N. E. 169; 34 Am. 
St. Rep. 589 245, 261 

Brunner v. Brown, 139 Ind. 
600; 38 N. E. 318 

Brunswick Gas Light Co. v. 
United Gas, etc. Co., 85 Me. 
532 

Brunswick, etc. R. R. Co. v. 
Hughes, 52 Ga. 557 

Brunton's Case, 19 Eq. 302 

Brush Electric Light, etc. Co. 
V. City Council of Mont- 
gomery, 114 Ala. 433; 21 
So. 960 

Brussels Palace of Varieties v. 
Prockter, 10 Times L. R. 72 

Bruton v. Electrical Engineer- 
ing Corp. (1892), 1 Ch. 434 

Bryan v. Baldwin, 52 N. Y. 232 

V. Sturgis Nat. Bank 

(Tex.), 90 S. W. 704 793, IIU, 

1134 
Bryant v. D. C. Dental Soc, 

26 App. D. C. 461 577, 580 

Bryant's, etc. Mill Co. v. 

Felt, 87 Me. 234; 32 Atl. 

888; 47 Am. St. Rep. 323; 

33 L. R. A. 593 209, 209 

Bryon v. Carter, 22 La. Ann. 98 770 
Bryson v. Rayner, 25 Md. 

424; 90 Am. Dec. 69 803, 811 

Buchan's Case, 4 A. C. 549 622, 

788, 789, 790 

Bucher v. Dillsburg, etc. R. R. 

Co., 76 Pa. St. 306 
Buck V. Buck, 1 Campb. 547 
V. Jones, 18 Colo. App. 

250; 70 Pac. 951 

V. Seymour, 46 Conn. 

156 1502, 1510 

V. Troy Aqueduct Co., 76 

Vt. 75; 56 Atl. 285 588, 1205, 
1210, 1318 
Buckhannon, etc. R. Co. v. 

Davis, 135 Fed. 707; 68 

C. C. A. 345 . 1616, 1617 

Buckmaster v. Consumers' Ice 

Co., 5 Daly (N. Y.) 313 751 

Bucksport, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Brewer, 67 Me. 295 193 

V. Buck, 68 Me. 81 191, 386, 

1007, 1007 
Budd V. Multnomah St. Ry. 

Co., 15 Greg. 413; 15 Pac. 

659; 3 Am. Rep. 169 579, 606, 
607, 657, 666, 1187 



203 
259 

635 



TABLE OP CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Budd V. Munroe, 18 Hun (N. 

Y.) 316 799, 1177 
V. "Walla Walla, etc. Pub. 

Co., 2 Wash. Ty. 347; 7 

Pac.'896 1197, 1201, 1298, 1299 
Buel V. Baltimore, etc. Ry. 

Co., 24 N.Y. Misc. 646; 53 

N. Y. Supp. 749 1677, 1678, 

1679, 1679, 1683 
Buell V. Buckingham, etc. 

Co., 16 Iowa 284; 85 Am. 

Dec. 516 1187, 1205, 1296, 1315 
Buffalo German Ins. Co. v. 

Third Nat. Bank, 19 N. Y. 

Misc. 564; 43 N. Y. Supp. 

550 574, 751 
V. Third Nat. Bank, 162 

N. Y. 163; 56 N. E. 521; 

48 L. R. A. 107 571 

Buffalo Loan, etc. Co. v. 

Medina Gas Co., 12 N. Y. 

App. Div. 199; 42 N. Y. 

Supp. 781 1407, 1450 

Buffalo, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Gary, 26 N. Y. 75 119, 247, 248, 

249 
V. Clark, 22 Hun (N. Y.) 

359 209, 609, 609 
V. Gifford, 87 N. Y. 294 174, 



■ V. Hatch, 20 N. Y. 157 



609 
101, 
240 
Buffett V. Troy, etc. R. R. Co., 

40 N. Y. 168 870 

BuflS^ngton v. Bardon, 80 

Wise. 635 ; 50 N. W. 776 280, 307 
Buford V. Keokuk Northern 

Lme Packet Co., 69 Mo. 611 952 
Bugg, Ex parte, 2 Drewry & 

Sm. 452 175, 620 

Buker v. Leighton Lea Ass'n, 

164 N. Y. 557; 58 N. E. 

1085; s. c. 18 N. Y. App. 

Div. 548; 46 N. Y. Supp. 

35 663 

Bulawayo Market & OfiSces 

Co. (1907), 2 Ch. 458 1161, 1167 
Bulkeley v. Stephens, 10 L. T. 

N. s. 225 1136, 1156 

V. Stephens , (1896), 2 

Ch. 241 1156, 1157 

V. Worthington Ecc. 

Soc, 78 Conn. 526; 63 Atl. 

351 1154, 1155 

BuUard v. Bank, 18 Wall. 

589 112, 572 

Bullen V. Milwaukee Trading 

Co., 109 Wise. 41 ; 85 N. W. 

115. 408 



198 



229 
1072 



1423 



Bullock V. Falmouth, etc. Co., 

85 Ky. 184; 3 S. W. 129 
Bultfontein Sun Diamond 

Mine, 12 Times L. R. 461 ; 

13 Times L. R. 156 351, 363 

Buncombe Turnpike Co. v. 

McCarson, 1 Dev. & B. 

(N. Car.) 306 
Bundy v. Iron Co., 38 Oh. St. 

300 1069, 1071 

Bunting's Admrs. v. Camden, 

etc. R. R. Co., 81 Pa. St. 

254 
Burbank v. Dennis, 101 Cal. 

90; 35 Pac. 444 322, 322, 329 
Burbidge v. Morris, 3 H. & C. 

664 276, 308 

Burden v. Burden, 159 N. Y. 

287; 54 N. E. 17 966, 1110, 
1211, 1305, 1312, 1313, 
1313 
V. Burden Iron Co., 39 

N. Y. Misc. 559; 80 N. Y. 

Supp. 390 1341 

Burdett v. Standard Explora- 
tion Co., 16 Times L. R. 

112 428, 429, 430, 430 

Burdick v. Dillon, 144 Fed. 

737; 75 C. C. A. 603 44 

Burgess v. Seligman, 107 

U. S. 2O7 2 Sup. Ct. 10 191, 622, 
622, 623 
V. St. Louis County R. R. 

Co., 99 Mo. 496; 12 S. W. 

1050 966, 967 

Bureess's Case, 15 Ch. D. 507 179 
Burham v. San Francisco 

Fuse Mfg. Co., 76 Cal. 26; 

17 Pac. 939 
Burke v. Concord Railroad, 61 

N. H. 160 
V. Dillingham, 60 Fed. 

729; 9 C. C. A. 255 
V. Lechmere, L. R. 6 

Q. B. 297 166, 210, 213 
V. Lincoln- Valentine Co., 

28 N. Y. Misc. 202; 58 

N. Y. Supp. 1077, 1124 
V. Short, 79 Fed. 6; 24 

C. C. A. 422 
V. Sidra Bay Co., 116 

Wise. 137; 92 N. W. 568 

V. Smith, 16 Wall. 390 

359, 705 
Burkhead v. Independent 

School District, 107 Iowa 

29; 77N. W. 491 1189 

BurMnshaw v. Nicolls, 3 A. C. 

1004 647, 647, 648 



666 
79 



1619 



297 

1452 

1006 
191, 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Burland v. Earle (1902), A. C. 

83 75, 324, 930, 936, 936, 1110, 
1332 
Burlington City Loan, etc. 

Co. V. Princeton Lighting 

Co. (N. J.), 67 Atl. 1019 1669, 
1669 
Buriington Voluntary Re- 
lief Dept. V. White, 41 

Nebr. 547; 69 N. W. 747; 

43 Am. St. Rep. 701 577, 577, 
577, 589 
Burmeister v. Koster, 107 

N. Y. Supp. 636 1553 

Bum V. London & South 

Wales Coal Co., 7 Times 

L. R. 118 897, 904, 1252 

Bumes v. Bumes, 137 Fed. 

781; 70C. C. A. 357 517 
V. Pennell, 2 Ho. Lds. 

Cas. 497 763 

Bumham v. Bowen, 111 U. S. 

776; 4 Sup. Ct. 675 1562, 1570, 
1571 

, Re, 140 Fed. 926 1553 

Bums V. Beck, 83 Ga. 471 ; 10 

S. E. 121 160, 1240 
V. Commencement Bay, 

etc. Co., 4 Wash. 558; 30 

Pao. 668, 709 1237 
V. St. Paul St. Ry. Co. 

(Minn.), 112 N. W. 412 961 

Bumside v. Dayrell, 3 Ex. 

224 276, 342 

Burr V. M'Donald, 3 Gratt. 

(Va.) 215 63, 1079, 1185, 1224 
V. Sherwood, 3 Bradf. 

(N. Y.) 85 678, 791, 792 

V. Wilcox, 22 N. Y. 551 154, 

156 
Burrill V. Nahant Bank, 2 

Mete. (Mass.) 163; 35 Am. 

Dec. 395 1186, 1213 

Burroughs v. North Carolina 

R. R. Co., 67 N. Car. 376; 

12 Am. Rep. 611 1132, 1135 

Burrows v. Interborough Met. 

Co., 156 Fed. 389 57, 968, 969 
V. Matabele, etc. Co. 

(1901), 2 Ch. 23 354, 626 
V. Niblack, 84 Fed. Ill; 

28 C. C. A. 130 517, 520 

V. Smith, 10 N. Y. 550 198 

Burt V. Batavia Paper Mfg. 

Co., 86 111. 66 300 

V. British Nation Life Ass. 

Ass'n, 4 De G. & J. 158 966, 973 
V. Bull (1895), 1 Q. B. 

276 1614, 1615 



618 

1057 

723 



784 



1242 



Burt V. Rattle, 31 Oh. St. 

116 451,456 
V. Real Estate Exchange, 

175 Pa. St. 619; 34 Atl. 

923; 52 Am. St. Rep. 85» 
Burton V. St. George's Soc, 

28 Mich. 261 
Burton's Appeal, 93 Pa. St. 

214 
Burton, etc. Co., 31 L. J. Q. B. 

62 893, 894 

Burwash v. Balkju, 82 N. E. 

355 (111.) 
Busell Trimmer Co. v. Cobum, 

188 Mass. 254; 74 N. E. 

334; 69 L. R. A. 821 
Busenback v. Attica, etc. 

Gravel Road Co., 43 Ind. 

265 105, 117 

Busey v. Hooper, 35 Md. 15; 

6 Am. Rep. 350 156, 156 

Bush's Case, 6 Ch. 246 1223, 1325 

, 9Ch. 554 154 

Bushee v. Freeborn, 11 R. I. 

149 501, 503, 1152 

Bushnell v. Consolidated Ice 

Machine Co., 138 111. 67; 

27 N. E. 596 124, 124, 126, 149, 

250 
Butchers' Beneficial Ass'n, 

35 Pa. St. 151 
Butchers', etc. Bank, 130 

Mass. 264 
Butler V. American Toy Co., 

46 Conn. 136 
V. Cornwall Iron Co., 22 

Conn. 335 
V. Eaton, 141 U. S. 240; 

11 Sup. Ct. 985 
V. Montgomery Grain 

Co., 85 Mo. App. 50 
V. Murphy, 80 S. W. 337 

(Mo.) 

V. Rahm, 46 Md. 541 

1503, 1523, 1551, 1553, 1588', 
1588 
Butler Paper Co. v. Cleveland, 

220 111. 128; 77 N. E. 99; 

110 Am. St. Rep. 230 
Butler University v. Scoon- 

over, 114Ind.381; 16N.E. 

642; 5 Am. St. Rep. 627 
Butt V. MacNichol Construc- 
tion Co., 140 Fed. 840; 72 

C. C. A. 252 
V. Monteaux, 1 K. & J. 

98 256, 343 

Butterfield v. Cowing, 112 

N. Y. 86; 20 N. E. 3694 1433 



113 

248 

79 

1210 

490 

694 

786 
1498, 



161 



156 



44 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Butterfly-Terrible Gold Min- 
ing Co. V. Brind (Colo.), 91 
Pac. 1101 751, 900 

Butterworth v. Kritzer Mill- 
ing Co., 115 Mich. 1; 72 
N. W. 990 867 

Button V. Hoffman, 61 Wise. 
20; 20N. W. 667; 50 Am. 
Rep. 131 874 

Button r.Wightman, Cro. Eliz. 

338 - 102 

Buttrick V. Nashua, etc. R. R. 
Co., 62 N. H. 413; 13 Am. 
St. Rep. 578 716, 1235 

Butts r.Wood, 37 N.Y. 317 1203, 

1319 

Buvinger v. Evening Union 
Printing Co. (N. J.), 65 
Atl. 482 1239, 1248, 1511, 1512, 

1553 

Bwlch-y-plwm Mining Co. v, 

Baymes, L. R. 2 Ex. 324 182 

Byam v. Bickford, 140 Mass. 

31; 2N. E. 687 254 

Byers v. Rollins, 13 Colo. 22; 

21 Pac. 894 485, 974, 1065 

Byers Bros. v. Maxwell (Tex.), 

73 S. W. 437 184 

Byram v. Sovereign Camp, 
108 Iowa 430; 79 N. W. 
144; 75 Am. St. Rep. 265 948 

Byrne v. Schuyler, etc. Mfg. 
Co., 65 Conn. 336; 31 Atl. 
833; 28L. R. A. 304 71, 75 

V. Supreme Circle (N. J. 

Sup. Ct.), 65 Atl. 839 580 

Byronville Creamery Ass'n v. 
Ivers, 100 N. W. 387; 93 
Minn. 8 124 

C 

Cable Co. v. Rathgeber (S. 

Dak.), 113 N. W. 88 386 

Cackett v. Keswick (1902), 2 

Ch. 456 340 

Cady V. Potter, 55 Barb. 

(N. Y.) 463 714, 714, 754, 754 
Cahill V. Kalamazoo Mut. Ins. 

Co., 2 Doug. (Mich.) 124; 

43 Am. Dec. 457 581, 1185, 

1205 
V. Maryland Life Ins. 

Co., 90 Md. 333; 45 Atl. 

180; 47 L. R. A. 614 394 
V. Original Big Gun, etc. 

Ass'n. 94 Md. 353; 89 Am. 

St. Rep. 434; 50 Atl. 1044 613 
Caho V. Norfolk, etc. Ry. Co. 

(N. Car.), 60 S. E. 640 1192 



Caimey v. Back (1906), 2 

K. B. 746 1375, 1546 

Cake V. Woodbury, 3 App. 
Cas. (D. C.) 60 1621, 1621, 1643, 

1644 

Calculagraph Co. v. Wilson, 

132 Fed. 20 1356 

Calder Nav. Co. v. Pilling, 14 
M. & W. 76 566 

Caldwell v. Mutual Reserve 
Fund Life Ass'n, 65 N. Y. 
Supp. 826 1215, 1215 

Caledonian Ry. Co. v. Helens- 
burgh, 2 Maeq. H. L. 391 



V. Solway Ry. Co., 49 

L. T. 526 
Calgary & Edmonton Land 

Co. (1906), 1 Ch. 141 
Calho\in v. Memphis, etc. 

R. R. Co., 2 Flippin 442 



281, 
281 

87 

542 

1502, 
1511 



xU 



V. St. Louis, etc. Ry. 

Co., 14 Fed. 9 1562, 1570 

California Bank v. Kennedy, 
167 U. S. 362; 17 Sup. Ct. 

831 76, 77, 833, 833, 834, 846 

California Consolidated Min- 
ing Co. V. Manley, 10 Idaho 

786; 81 Pac. SO 300 

California, etc. Hotel Co. v. 

Callender, 94 Cal. 120; 29 

Pac. 859; 28 Am. St. Rep. 

99 154, 428, 600, 625 

Callahan v. Chilcott Ditch Co. 

(Colo.), 86 Pac. 123 998, 1007 

Callanan v. Edwards, 32 N. Y. 

483 544 

Callender v. Painesville & 

Hudson, etc. R. R. Co., 11 

Oh. St. 516 95, 236 

Caloric Engine Co., 52 L. T. 

846 1036, 1044 

Calumet Paper Co. v. Haskell 

Show, etc. Co., 144 Mo. 331 ; 

45S. W..1115; 66 Am. St. 

Rep. 425 1211, 1217 
V. Stotts Investment 

Co., 96 Iowa 147; 64 N. W. 

782; 59 Am. St. Rep. 362 74, 
74, 279, 297, 298 
Calvert v. Idaho Stage Co., 25 

Oreg. 412; 36 Pac. 24 70, 80 

Cambria Iron Co. v. Union 

Trust Co., 154 Ind. 291; 48 

L. R. A. 41; 55N. E. 745; 

56 N. E. 665 1564 

Camden v. Stuart, 144 U. S. 

104; 12 Sup. Ct. 585 634, 634 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Camden Land Co. v. Lewis, 

101 Me. 78; 63Atl. 523 314, 

1310, 1311, 1322, 1340 

Camden Safe Deposit, etc. 
Co. V. Burlington Carpet 
Co., 33 AtL Rep. 479 
(N. J. Ch.) 1175, 1178, 1496 

Camden Safe, etc. Co. v. 
Citizens' Ice, etc. Co. (N. J. 
Ch.), 61 Atl. 529 1342, 1408 

Camden, etc. R. R. Co. v. 
Mays Landing, etc. R. R, 
Co., 48 N. J. Law 530 

Came v. Brigham, 39 Me. 35 



853 
229, 
593 



Cameron v. Tome, 64 Md 

507; 2 Atl. 837 1456, 1456 

Cameron, etc. Ry. Co., 18 

Beav. 339 1303 

Cameron Town, etc. Ins. Co., 

96 Fed. 756 44 

Cammack v. Levy (La.), 45 

So. 925 548 

Cammell, Ex parU (1894), 2 

Ch. 392 925, 1172, 1173 

Cammeyer v. United German 

Lutheran Churches, 2 

Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 186 993, 

1211 
Camp V. Barney, 4 Hun (N. 

Y.) 373 1615, 1617 

V. Byrne, 41 Mo. 525 161, 235 

Campbell v. American Alkili 

Co., 125 Fed. 207; 61 

C. C. A. 317 601, 616, 618 
i;. Am. Zylonite Co., 122 

N. Y. 455; 25 N. E. 853; 

11 L. R. A. 596 440, 440 
V. Argenta, etc. Co., 51 

Fed. 1 1006, 1007 
V. Compagnie de Belle- 
garde, 2 Ch. D. 181 1598 
V. Harrison, 3 N. So. 

Wales State Rep. 432 1395 
V. London & Brighton 

Ry. Co., 5 Hare 519 1475, 1476 

V. Maund, 5 A. & E. 865 1038, 

1039, 1039 
V. McPhee, 36 Wash. 

593; 79Pac. 206 630 
V. Merchants', etc. Ins. 

Co., 37 N. H. 35; 72 Am. 

Deo. 324 592 
V. Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. 

Co., 137 Pa. St. 574; 20 

Atl. 949 1632 
V. Poultney, 6 G. & J. 

(Md.) 94; 26 Am. Dec. 559 

954, 974, 1014 



Campbell v. Railroad Co., 1 

Woods 368 1485, 1584, 1585 
V. Santa Maria, etc. Co. 

(Colo.), 95 Pac. 39 1232 
V. Texas, etc. R. R. Co., 

2 Woods 263 1625, 1625 
V. Upton, 66 N. Y. App. 

Div. 434; 73 N. Y. Supp. 

1084 1328 
V. Watson, 62 N. J. Eq. 

396; 50 Atl. 120 . 588, 1267, 
1274, 1274, 1278 
V. Woodstock Iron Co., 

83 Ala. 351; 3 So. 369 

803, 804 
Campbell & Zell Co. v. Amer- 
ican Surety Co., 129 Fed. 

491 233, 382 

Campbell's Case, 4 Ch. D. 470 

1317, 1319, 1400 
Campbell's Case, 9 Ch. 1 193, 487, 
492, 493 
Canada-Atlantic, etc. Co. v. 

Flanders, 145 Fed. 875; 76 

C. C. A. 1 1215, 1215 

Canada Life Ass. Co. v. Peel 

Gen. Mfg. Co., 26 Grant 

(Ont.) 477 76 

Canada Southern Ry. Co. v. 

Gebhard, 109 U. S. 527; 3 

Sup. a. 363 1671, 1672 

Canadian Imp. Co. i;. Lea 

(N. J.), 69 Atl. 455 1023 

Canadian Tin Plate Co., 12 

Ont. L. R. 594 166, 166, 169 

Canal Company's Case, 83 Md. 

549; 35 Atl. 161, 354, 581 

1676, 1682, 1682 
Canal, etc. Co. v. Paas, 95 

Mich. 372; 54 N. W. 907 230 
Canal, etc. R. R. Co. v. St. 

Charles, etc. R. R. Co., 44 

La. Ann. 1069; 11 So. 702 853 
Canal Co. v. Sansom, 1 

Binney (Pa.) 70 660. 

Canandarqua Academy v. 

McKechnie, 19 Hun (N. 

Y.) 62 404 

Candelaria Mining Co. v. 

Juarez Co., 157 Fed. 315 1260 
Canfield v. Gregory, 66 Conn. 

9; 33 Atl. 536 142, 235 
V. Knights of Maccabees, 

87 Mich. 626; 49 N. W. 

875; 24 Am. St. Rep. 186; 

13 L. R. A. 625; 577 

Cann v. International Trust 

Co. , 40 Nova Scotia, 65 936, 1409 
V. Rector, etc. of Church 



xlii 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



of Holy Redeemer (Mo.), 98 
S. W. 781 1205 

Cannon v. Brush Electric Co., 
96 Md. 446; 54 Atl. 121; 
94 Am. St. Rep. 598 253, 1081 

V. Farmers' Mut. Fire 

Ass'n, 58 N. J. Eq. 102; 

43 Atl. 281 594 

V. Trask, 20 Eq. 669 948, 

954, 996, 1014, 1020, 1062 

Ex parte, 30 Ch. D. 629 1241 

Cantwell v. Columbia Lead 

Co. (Mo.), 97 S. W. 167 959 

Cantwell v. Stockmen's Bldg., 

etc. Union, 88 111. App. 

247 925 

Cape Breton Co., Be, 29 Ch. 

D. 795 323 
Cape May, etc. Nav. Co., 51 N. 

J. Law 78; 16 Atl. 191 1024, 
1024, 1066 
Cape Sable Company's Case, 

3 Bland Ch. (Md.) 606 64, 394, 

420 
Capital City Brick Co. v. 

Jackson, 59 S. E. 92 (Ga.) 

1328 
Capper's Case, 1 Sim. N. S. 

178 
Capper's Case, 3 Ch. 458 
Capps V. Hastings Prospect- 
ing Co., 40 Nebr. 470; 58 

N. W. 956; 24 L. R. A. 

259; 42 Am. St. Rep. 677 
Car Advertising Co. v. New 

York City Advertising Co., 

107 N. Y. Supp. 547 
Caraher v. Royal Ins. Co., 63 

Hun (N. Y.) 82; 17 N. Y. 

Supp. 85S 
Caratal (New) Mines (1902), 

2*Ch. 498 
Card V. Moore, 68 N. Y. App. 

Div. 327; 74 N. Y. Supp. 

18; 173 N. Y. 598; 66 N. 

E. 1105 126, 246, 253 
Cardan v. General Cemetery 

Co., 5 Bins. N. C. 253 
Cardiff Workmen's Cottage 

Co. (1906), 2 Ch. 627 
Carey v. Des Moines, etc. Min- 
ing Co., 81 Iowa 674; 47 
N. W. 882 

V. Houston, etc. Ry. Co., 

45 Fed. 438 1629, 1670 

V. Mayer, 79 Fed. 926; 

25 C. C. A. 239 624 

V. Williams, 79 Fed. 906; 

25 C. C. A. 227 921 



343 
708 



216 



371 



1344 
1058 



295 
1396 



280 



Cargill V. Bower, 10 Ch. D. 

502 1350 

Caridad Copper Mining Co. 

(1902), 2 K. B. 44 1238 

Carting's Case, 1 Ch. D. 115 

1338, 1338, 1338, 1340 
Carling, Ex parte, 56 L. J. Ch. 

321 179, 184 

Carlisle v. Cahawba, etc R. 

R. Co., 4 Ala. 70 603 

V. South Eastern Ry. 

Co., 1 Mac. & G. 689 977 

Carlsbad Water Co. v. New, 

33 Colo. 389; 81 Pac. 34 43 

Carmel, etc. Co. v. Small, 150 

Ind. 427; 47 N. E. 11; 50 

N. E. 476 1250, 125-1 

Carmichael's Case (1896), 2 

Ch. 643 362 

Carmichael and Hewett's Case, 

30 W. R. 742 168, 1175 

Carmody v. Powers, 60 Mich. 

26; 26 N. W. 801 306 

Carney v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 

162N. Y.453; 57N. E.78; 

76 Am. St. Rep. 347; 49 

L. R. A. 471 592, 1189 

Carolina Coal, etc. Co. v. 

Southern Ry. Co. (N. Car.), 

57 S. E. 444 
Carpenter V.Am. Bldg.& Loan 

Ass'n, 54 Minn. 403; 56 N. 

W.95; 40 Am. St. Rep. 345 

666, 667 

V. Black Hawk Gold 

Mining Co., 65 N. Y. 43 1408, 

1495 1523 

V. Catlin, 44 Barb. 75 ' 1664 

V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 

104 N. Y. Supp. 152 1476, 1476 

V. New York, etc. R. R. 

Co., 5 Abb. Pr. 277 973, 1105 

V. Rommel, 5 Phila. 34 1423 

Carr v. Carr, 1 C. B. n. s. 197 660, 

663 

V. Griffith, 12 Ch. D. 655 

24, 1157 

V. Le Fevre, 27 Pa. St. 

413 1423 

V. National Bank, etc. 

Co.,167N.Y. 375;60N.E. 

649; 82 Am. St. Rep. 725 850 
Carriage Co-operative Sup- 
ply Co., 27 (Jh. D. 322 1337, 
1340, 1346 
Carrick v. Wigan Tramways 

Co., W. N. (1893) 98 1591 

Carrington v. Turner, 101 Md. 

437; 61 Atl. 324 1374 



1522 



xliii 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Carroll v. Mullanphy Sav. 

Bank, 8 Mo. App. 249 558, 

560, 693, 744 
Carson v. Arctic Mining Co., 

5 Mich. 288 667, 667 
V. Iowa City Gaslight Co., 

80 Iowa 638; 45 N. W. 

1068 962, 963, 965, 968 

Carson City Sav. Bank v. 

Carson City Elevator Co., 

90 Mich. 550; 51 N. W. 

641; 30 Am. St. Rep. 454 113, 

852 
Carswell v. Farmers' L. & T. 

Co., 74 Fed. 88; 20C. C. A. 

282 1611, 1612, 1612 

Carter v. Gray (Ark.), 96 S. 

W. 377 300 

V. Sanderson, 5 Bing. 79 

582, 582 
V. Union Printing Co., 

54 Ark. 576; 16 S. W. 579 

518, 520 
Carter's Case, 31 Ch. D. 496 1363 
Carter, etc. Co. v. Hazzard, 

65 Minn. 432; 68 N. W. 74 

154, 168, 198, 200, 209, 213 
Cartmell's Case, 9 Ch. 691 1214 

Cartwright v. Dickinson, 88 

Tenn. 476; 12 S. W. 1030; 

17 Am. St. Rep. 910; 7 L. 

R. A. 706 195, 516, 610, 702 

Carver Co., E., v. Manufac- 
turers' Ins. Co., 6 Gray 

(Mass.) 214 
Case V. Bank, 100 U. S. 446 



- V. Hawkins, 53 Miss. 702 



1379 
749, 
750 



1374 
V. Kelly, 133 U. S. 21; 

10 Sup. a. 216 836 
V. New York Mut. Sav. 

etc. Ass'n, 88 N. Y. App. 

Div. 538; 85 N. Y. Supp. 

104 980 

Case Mfg. Co. v. Soxman, 138 

U.S. 431; 11 Sup. Ct. 360 

307, 310 
Case Plow Works, J. I. v. 

Finks, 81 Fed. 529; 26 C. 

C. A. 46 1617 

Case of the Deane and Chap- 
ter of Femes, Davis 43 400, 

401 
Casey v. Galli, 94 U. S. 673 225, 
235, 237 
■ V. Northern Pac. R. R. 

Co., 48 Pac. 53; 15 Wash. 

450 1611 



xliv 



Cass V. Manchester, etc. Co.,. 

9 Fed. 640 1188, 1192 
V. Pittsburg, etc. Ry. 

Co., 80 Pa. St. 31 194, 606 

Cassatt V. Mitchell Coal, etc. 

Co., 150 Fed. 32 890 

Cassell V. Lexington, etc. Co., 

10 Ky. Law Rep. 486; 9 

S. W. Rep. 701 998, 1185 

Cassidy v. Uhlmann, 163 N. 

Y. 380; 57 N. E. 620; 79 

Am. St. Rep. 596 1355 

Castellan v. Hobson, 10 Eq. 47 783 
Castle V. Belfast Foundry Co., 

72 Me. 167 1381, 1382, 1382 

Castle Braid Co., 145 Fed. 

224 518, 519 

Castner v. Twitchell-Champ- 

lin Co., 91 Me. 524; 40 

Atl. 558 1011, 1011, 1012 

Gates V. Baxter, 97 Tenn. 443; 

37 S. W. 219 716 

Catholic Church v. Tobbein, 

82 Mo. 418 244, 304 

Catlin V. Green, 120 N. Y. 

441; 24 N. E. 941 192 

Catskill Bank v. Gray, 14 

Barb. (N. Y.) 471 80 

Cattron v. First Universalist 

Soc, 46 Iowa 106 1372, 

1376, 1377 
Caulkins v. Gas Light Co., 

85 Tenn. 683; 4 S. W. 287; 

4 Am. St. Rep. 786 798, 

798, 814 
Cavanaugh v. Patterson 

(Colo.), 91 Pac. 1117 1360 

Cawley & Co., 42 Ch. D. 209 600, 
603, 745, 766, 767 
Cayley v. Coburg, etc. Ry. 

Co., 14 Grant Ch. (Can.) 

571 r476 

Caylus V. New York, etc. R. 

R. Co., 10 Hun (N. Y.) 295 1494 
Cayuga Lake R. R. Co. v. 

Kyle, 64 N. Y. 185 95, 110, 

204 
Cazelais v. Picotte, 18 Que- 
bec Sup. Ct. 538 148 
Cazier v. Mackie-Lovejoy 

Mfg. Co., 138 Fed. 654; 71 

C. C. A. 104 1356 

C. D. & M. Co. V. Keisel, 43 

Iowa 39 387 

Cecil, Re, 36 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 

477 1043 

Cedar Grove Cemetery Co., 

Be, 61 N. J. Law 422; 39 

Atl. 1024 922, 1017, 1067 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Ceeder v. Loud & Sons Lum- 
ber Co., 86 Mich. 541; 49 
N. W. 575; 24 Am. St. 
Rep. 134 1380 

Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Cellonite 

Mfg. Co., 32 Fed. 94 373 

Center Creek Water, etc. Co. 
V. Lindsay, 21 Utah 192; 
60 Pac. 559 1344 

Central Agricultural, etc. Ass'n 
V. Alabama Gold Life Ins. 
Co., 70 Ala. 120 118, 

126, 232, 619 

Central Bank v. Knowlton, 
12 Wise. 624; 78 Am. Dec. 
769 226 

Central City Savings Bank v. 
Walker, 66 N. Y. 424 252 

Central De Kaap Gold Mines, 

69 L. J. Ch. 18 1241, 1242 

Central Electric Co. v. 
Sprague Electric Co., 120 
Fed. 925; 67 C. C. A. 
197 917 

Central of Georgia Ry. Co. 
V. Paul, 93 Fed. 878; 35 
C. C. A. 639 1659 

V. Union Springs, etc. 

Ry. Co., 144 Ala. 639; 39 

So. 473 250 

Central Land Co. v. Oben- 

chain, 92Va. 130; 22 S. E. 

876 320 

Central Lumber Co. v. Kel- 

ter, 201 111. 503; 66 N. E. 

543 85 

Central Nebraska Nat. Bank 

V. Wilder, 32 Nebr. 454; 49 

N. W. 369 806, 1131 

Central Ohio Natural Gas & 

Fuel Co. V. Capital City 

Dairy Co., 60 Oh. St. 96; 

53 N. E. 711; 64 L. R. A. 

395 68 

Central Park Fire Ins. Co. v. 

Callaghan, 41 Barb. 448 291 

Central R. R. Co. v. Collins, 

40 Ga. 582 ' 76, 965 

V. Pennsylvania R. R. 

Co., 31 N. J. Eq. 475 120, 121, 

121 
Central R. R. & Banking Co. 

V. Ward, 37 Ga. 515 741, 743 

Central R. R., etc. Co. v. 

Farmers' L. & T. Co., 79 

Fed. 158 1611, 1634 
V. Fanners' L. & T. Co., 

116 Fed. 700 836, 1433, 1436, 
1436,. 1472 



Central R. R., etc. Co. v. 

Farmers' L. & T. Co., 114 

Fed. 263 ; 52 C. C. A. 149 85, 836 
1). Smith, 76 Ala. 572; 52 

Am. Rep. 353 80, 869, 870 

Central Ry. Co. v. Kisch, L. R. 

2 H. L. 99 177, 184, 184, 186 

Central Transportation Co. v. 

Pullman's, etc. Co., 139 

U. S. 24; 11 Sup. Ct. 478 

37, 839, 839, 840 
Central Trust Co. v. Bridges, 

57 Fed. 753; 6 C. C. A. 

539 1082, 1535 
V. Central Iowa Ry. Co., 

38 Fed. 889 1543 
V. Central Trust Co. of 

Illinois, 149 Fed. 789 375, 375, 

379 
V. Charlotte, etc. R. R. 

Co., 65 Fed. 264 1568 
V. Chattanooga, etc. R. 

R. Co., 69 Fed. 295 1661, 1564 
V. Chattanoogar, etc. R. 

R. Co., 94 Fed. 275; 36 

C. C. A. 241 1503, 1517 

V. Cincinnati, etc. Ry. 

Co., 58 Fed. 500 1621, 1628, 

1667, 1667 

1). Clark, 81 Fed. 269; 26 

.C. C. A. 397 1571 

V. Columbus, etc. Ry. 

Co., 87 Fed. 815 85 

V. Condon, 67 Fed. 84; 

14 C. C. A. 314 1007, 1221, 

1371, 1562 

V. Continental Iron 

Works, 51 N. J. Eq. 605; 
28 Atl. 595; 40 Am. St. 

Rep. 539 1497 

V. Continental Trust 

Co., 86 Fed. 517; 30 C. C. 

A. 235 1611 
V. Denver, etc. R. Co., 97 

Fed. 239; 38 C. C. A. 143 

1635, 1654 
V. East Tennessee Land 

Co., 116 Fed. 743 322 
V. East Tennessee, etc. 

Ry. Co., 30 Fed. 896 1568 
V. East Tennessee, etc. 

Ry. Co., 69 Fed. 363, 

357 1619 

V. East Tennessee, etc. 

Ry. Co., 69 Fed. 658 1561 

V. East Tennessee, etc. 

Ry. Co., 70 Fed. 764 1543 

V. East Tennessee, etc. 

Co., 79 Fed. 19 1611, 1611 



xlv 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Central Trust Co. v. East Ten- 
nessee, etc. R. R. Co., 80 
Fed. 624; 26 C. C. A. 30 

1568, 

■ V. Georgia Pac. Ry. Co., 

87 Fed. 288; 30 C. C. A. 
648 

V. Hennen, 90 Fed. 593; 

33 C. C. A. 189 

V. Indiana, etc. R. Co., 

98 Fed. 666 

V. Kneeland, 138 U. S. 

414; 11 Sup. a. 357 

1538, 

V. Lappa (Pa.), 65 Atl. 

1111 

V. Louisville Trust Co., 

87 Fed. 23 

V. Louisville, etc. Ry. 

Co., 70 Fed. 282 

V. Louisville, etc.Ry.Co., 

81 Fed. 772 

V. Marietta, etc. R. R. 

Co., 48 Fed. 14 

V. Marietta, etc. Ry. 

Co., 73 Fed. 589 

V. Marietta, etc. Ry. Co., 

75 Fed. 209; 21 C. C. A. 

307; 75 Fed. 193; 21 

C. C. A. 291 
V. New York, etc. R. R. 

Co., 110 N. Y. 250; 18 N. 

E.92; 1L.R.A.260 1617, 
V. New York, etc. Water 

Co., 74 N. Y. Supp. 135; 

176 N. Y. 546; 68 N. E. 

1115 
V. Ohio Central R. Co., 

23 Fed. 306 

V. Peoria, etc. Ry. Co. 

(Chamberlin's Case), 104 
Fed. 418; 43 C. C. A. 613 

V. Peoria, etc. Ry. Co. 

(Baldwin's Case), 104 Fed. 
420; 43 C. C. A. 616 

V. Seasongood, 130 U. S. 

482; 9Sup. Ct. 575 

V. Sloan, 65 Iowa 655; 

22 N. W. 916 

V. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co., 

41 Fed. 551 1561, 
V. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co., 

40 Fed. 426 
V. Texas, etc. Ry. Co., 23 

Fed. 846 
V. Texas, etc. Ry. Co., 27 

Fed. 178 
V. Thurman, 94 Ga. 735; 

20 Sup. Ct. 141 1558, 



1562, 
1572 



1633 

1552 

1437 

1508, 
1539 

332 
1490 
1497 
1543 

985 
1669 

1650 
1618 

1438 
1611 

1636 

1636 
1646 
1655 
1617 
1617 
1593 
1559 



1560 
xlvi 



Central Trust Co. v. Unadilla 

Valley Ry. Co., 72 N. Y. 

Supp. 189; 35 N. Y. Misc. 

604 1585, 1585 
V. U. S. Rolling Stock 

Co., 56 Fed. 5 1628 
V. Utah Central Ry. Co., 

16 Utah 12; 50 Pac. 813 1566, 
1572 
V. Wabash, etc. Ry. Co., 

23 Fed. 863 1612 
V. Wabash, etc. R. Co., 

24 Fed. 98 1567 
V. Wabash, etc. Ry. Co., 

25 Fed. 693 1599 
V. Wabash, etc. Ry. Co., 

26 Fed. 11 1617 
V. Wabash, etc. Ry. Co., 

30 Fed. 332 1569 
V. Wabash, etc. Ry. Co., 

32 Fed. 187 ' 1621 
V. Wabash, etc. Ry. Co., 

32 Fed. 566 1568 
V. Wabash, etc. Ry. Co., 

36 Fed. 622 1490 
V. Warren, 121 Fed. 323; 

-58 C. C. A. 289 45 
V. Washington Co. R. R. 

Co., 124 Fed. 813 984, 1503, 
1585, 1629 
V. Western N. C. R. Co., 

89 Fed. 24 833 
V. Worcester Cycle Mfg. 

Co.,93Fed. 712; 35 CCA. 

547 1501, 1501, 1594, 1595 
V. Worcester Cycle Mfg. 

Co., 114 Fed. 659 1608, 1608 

Central Turnpike Corp. v. Val- 
entine, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 142 189 
Chable v. Nicaragua Canal, 

etc. Co., 59 Fed. 846 898, 898 
Chadwick v. Old Colony R. R. 

Co., 171 Mass. 239; 50 

N. E. 629 1521 

Chaffe II. Ludeling, 27 La. 

Ann. 607 252 

Chaffee v. Middlesex R. R. 

Co., 146 Mass. 224; 16 

N. E. 34 1463, 1464, 1475, 
1476, 1476 
V. Quidneck Co., 14 

R. I. 75 963 
V. Rutland R. R. Co., 55 

Vt. 110 450, 450, 452, 1118, 
1122, 1416, 1421 
V. Rutland R. R. Co., 53 

Vt. 345 1582, 1582, 1582, 1582 
Chamberlain v. Bromberg, 83 

Ala. 576; 3 So. 434 1187 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Chamberlain v. Connecticut 
Central R. R. Co., 54 Conn. 
472;9Atl. 244 1469 

V. New York, etc. R. R. 

Co., 71 Fed. 636 1609, 1609 

V. Painesville, etc. R. R. 

Co., 15 Oh. St. 225 189, 191, 

191, 193, 994 

Chamberlin v. Mammoth Min- 
ing Co., 20 Mo. 96 

Chambers v. Chambers & 
McKee, 185 Pa. St. 105; 
39 Atl. 822 

V. Falkner, 65 Ala. 

448 

V. Manchester, etc. Ry. 

Co., 5 B. & S. 588 

Chambersburg Ins. Co. v. 

Smith, 11 Pa. St. 120 
Chandler v. Bacon, 30 Fed. 

538 274, 1338, 1338 
V. Hoag, 2 Hun (N. Y.) 

613; s. c. 63 N. Y. 624 
V. Monmouth Bank, 13 

N. J. Law 255 
Chandler Mtge. Co. v. Loring, 

113 111. App. 423 
Chapin v. Vermont, etc. R. R. 

Co., 8 Gray (Mass.) 575 
Chapleo v. Brunswick Bldg. 

Soc, 6 Q. B. D. 696 
Chaplin v. Clarke, 4 Ex. 402 
Chapman v. Atlantic Trust 

Co., 119 Fed. 257; 145 

Fed. 820 

V. Bates, 61 N. J. Eq. 

658; 47 Atl. 638; 88 Am. 

St. Rep. 459 1029, 1048, 1052, 

1053 

V. Iron Clad Rheostat 

Co., 62 N. J. Law 497; 41 

Atl. 690 518, 520, 852 

V. Lynch, 156 N. Y. 551.; 

51 N. E. 275 

Chapman's Case (1895), 1 Ch. 

771 634, 637, 639, 639 

Chappelle v. Chappelle (Ky.), 

99 S. W. 959 420, 1115 

Chappell's Case, 6 Ch. 902 766 

Chantable Corp. v. Sutton, 2 

Atk. 400 1161, 1259, 1264, 

1273, 1281, 1281, 1285, 1349 

Charles River Bridge v. War- 
ren Bridge, 11 Pet. 420 

Charles S. Higgins Co. v. 
Higgins Soap Co., 144 
N. Y. 462; 39 N. E. 490; 
43 Am. St. Rep. 769; 27 
L. R. A. 42 376, 387 



1373 



1187 



86 
64 



699, 763 



1182 

1246 

958 

1432 

831 
342 



1640 



856 



35 



Charlestown Boot, etc. Co. v. 

Dunsmore, 60 N. H. 85 
Charlotte, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Blakely, 3 Strob. (S. Car.) 

245 157, 197 
V. Chester, etc. R. R. Co., 

118 N. Car. 1078; 24 S. E. 

Rep. 769 
Charlottesville v. Southern 

Ry. Co., 97 Va. 428; 34 

S. E. 98 
Charlton v. Newcastle, etc. 

Ry. Co., 5 Jur. N. S. 1096 
Charter Acknowledgments, 

Be, 28 Pa. Co. a. Rep. 187 



1192 



1612 



25 
79 



119, 
121 
Charter Gas Engine Co. v. 

Charter, 47 111. App. 36 998, 

1228, 1268, 1317 

Chase v. Lord, 77 N. Y. 1 150, 151 

151, 416 

V. Mich. Tel. Co., 121 

Mich. 631; 80 N. W. 717 512, 

879 
V. Sycamore, etc. R. R. 

Co., 38 111. 215 157, 920, 921 
V. Tuttle, 55 Conn. 455; 

12 Atl. 874; 3 Am. St. 

Rep. 64 1178, 1199, 1201, 
1212 1212 
V. Vanderbilt, 62 N. Y. ' 

307 465, 474, 977, 1354 

Chaytor v. Horn (1905), 1 Ch. 

233 1136 

Cheale v. Kenward, 3 De G. & 

J. 27 785, 787, 787 

Cheever v. Meyer, 52 Vt. 66 716 
Chemical Nat. Bank v. Col- 
well, 132 N. Y. 250; 30 N. 

E. 644 695, 1168, 1176, 1262 
V. Wagner, 93 Ky. 525; 

20 S. W. 535; 40 Am. St. 

Rep. 206 1328, 1378 

Chenango Co., 19 Wend. (N. 

Y.) 635 1038, 1059, 1059, 1065, 

1065 
Chenowith v. Pac. Express 

Co., 93 Mo. App. 185 853, 867 
Chequasset Lumber Co., 112 

Fed. 56 393 

Cheraw, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

White, 14 S. Car. 51 162, 230 

Cherry v. Frost, 7 Lea (Tenn.) 

1 694, 723 

Chesapeake Oyster, etc. Co., 

112 Fed. 960 44 

Chesapeake & Ohio Canal 

Co. V. Blair, 45 Md. 102 1413, 

1414 



xlvii 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Chesapeake, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Deepwater Ry. Co., 57 

W. Va. 641; 50 S. E. 890 305, 
913, 914, 915 
V. Miller, 114 U. S. 176; 

5 Sup. a. 813 1521, 1522, 1522 
Cheshire Banking Co., 32 Ch. 

D. 301 170 

Chester v. Buffalo Car Mfg. 

Co., 70 N. Y. App. Div. 

443; 75 N. Y. Supp. 428 1151 
Chester Glass Co. v. Deevey, 

16 Mass. 94; 8 Am. Dec. 

128 853 

Chesterfield, etc. Colliery Co. 

V. Black, 37 L. T. 740 1311 

Chestnut Hill, etc. Co. v. 

Rutter, 4 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 

6; 8 Am. Dec. 675 869 

Chetlain v. RepubUc Life Ins. 

Co., 86 111. 220 196 

Chew V. Bank of Baltimore, 

14 Md. 299 709, 754, 755 
V. Keck, 4 Rawle (Pa.) 

163 404, 405 
Chewacla Lime Works v. Dis- 

mukes, 87 Ala. 344; 6 So. 

122; 5 L. R. A. 100 851, 856 

Chicago V. Cameron, 120 111. 

447; 11 N. E 899 952, 972 

V. Mills, 204 U. S. 321 970 

Chicago Bldg. & Mfg. Co. v. 

Talbotton Creamery, etc. 

Co., 106 Ga. 84; 31 S. E. 

809 280, 280, 310 

Chicago Deposit Vault Co. v. 

McNulta, 153- U. S. 554; 

14 Sup. Ct. 915 _ 1644 

Chicago Dock Co. v. Garrity, 

116 111. 155; 3N. E. 448 ' 25 

Chicago Edison Co. v. Fay, 

164 111. 323; 45 N. E. 

534 728, 729, 729, 754, 754, 755 
Chicago Hansom Cab Co. v. 

Yerkes, 141 111. 320; 30 

N. E. 667; 33Am. St. Rep. 

315 1080, 1083, 1312 

Chicago-Joplin Lead & Zinc 

Co., 104 Fed. 67 22 

Chicago Macaroni, etc. Co. v. 

Boggiano, 202 111. 312; 67 

N. E. 17 982, 1016, 1056 

Chicago Mut. Life, etc. Ass'n 

V. Hunt, 127 111. 257; 

20 N. E. 55; 2 L. R. A. 

549 1025 

Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. 

V. Munsell, 107 111. App. 

344 1372 



xhiii 



Chicago Tire Co. v. Chicago 
Nat. Bank, 176 111. 224; 52 
N. E. 52 1382 

Chicago Title, etc. Co. v. 
State Bank of Ambia, 86 
Fed. 863; 30 C. C. A. 443 663 

Chicago, etc. Co. v. Biddison, 

46 111. App. 423 1237 
Chicago, etc. Granaries Co. 

(1898), 1 Ch. 263 1419, 1463 

Chicago, etc. R. R. Co. v. 
Coleman, 18 111. 297; 68 
Am. Dec. 544 1374 

V. Fosdick, 106 U. S. 47; 

1 Sup. Ct. 10 1461, 1462, 1462, 

1465, 1466, 1466, 1467, 1467, 

1468, 1484, 1595, 1623, 1624, 

1625, 1638, 1675 

Chicago, etc. R.R. Co. v. Iowa, 

94 U. S. 155 33 

V. Keegan, 185 111. 70; 

56 N. E. 1088 848 
V. Lewis, 53 Iowa 101 ; 4 

N. W. 842 406, 848 

V. Marseilles, 84 111. 145 517 

V. McCammon, 61 Fed. 

772; IOC. C. A. 50 1635 

V. Pyne, 30 Fed. 86 1420, 1472 

V. Stafford Co., 36 Kans. 

121; 12 Pac. 593 147, 149 
V. Towle, 10 Ind. App. 

540; 37 N. E. 358 
Chicago, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Ayres, 140 111. 644; 30 
, N. E. 687 

V. James, 22 Wise. 194 

V. Lowenthal, 93 111. 433 

1534, 1540 

V. McGuire (Ind.), 65 

N. E. 932 

V. Southern Indiana 

Ry. Co. (Ind.), 70 N. E. 
843 

V. State (Ark.), 106 S. 

W. 199 

V. Tice (111.), 83 N. E. 

818 

V. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 

47 Fed. 15 992, 1003, 1003 
Chickering, Re, 56 Vt. 82 1592 
Chicora Co. v. Crews, 6 S. Car. 

243 258, 259 

Chiera v. Brevoort, 97 Mich. 

638; 57 N. W. 193 
Chilberg v. Siebenbaum, 41 

Wash. 663 ; 84 Pac. 598 
Chilcott V. Washington, etc. 

Colonization Co. (Wash.), 

88 Pac. 113 288 



1632 



80 
1374 



1510 



868 

220 

1510 



1061 
614 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Child V. Hudson's Bay Co., 

2 P. Wms. 207 567, 571, 660, 

774 

V. Hugg, 41 Cal. 519 808 

V. New York, etc. R. R. 

Co., 129 Mass. 170 1453, 1457, 
1461, 1665 

Childers v. Shepherd, 142 Ala. 

385; 39 So. 235 1402 

Childs v.Smd, 32 W. Va. 66; 

9 S. E. 362 123, 126, 254 

Chillington Iron Co., 29 Ch. 

D. 159 1038 

Chiniquy v. Bishop of Chi- 
cago, 41 111. 148 

Chorley, Ex parte, 11 Eq. 157 



249 
1420, 
1421 



Chott V. Tivoli Amusement 

Co., 114 111. App. 178 924 

Chouteau v. Allen, 70 Mo. 290 

1425, 1436 
Chouteau Ins. Co. v. Floyd, 74 

Mo. 286 606 

Chouteau Spring Co. v. Har- 
ris, 20 Mo. 382 695, 701, 745 
Choutteau Ins. Co. v. 
Holmes's Adm'r, 68 Mo. 
601; 30 Am. Rep. 807 1201 
Chrisman-Sawyer Banking 
Co. V. Independence Wool 
Mfg. Co., 168 Mo. 634; 68 
S. W. 1026 521, 524 
Christensen v. Eno, 106 N. Y. 
97; 12 N. E. 648; 60 Am. 
Rep. 429 601, 630 
Christian v. Atlantic & North 
Carolina R. R. Co., 133 
U. S. 233; 10 Sup. Ct. 
260 804 
Christian, etc. Grocery Co. v. 
Fniitdale Lumber Co., 121 
Ala. 340; 25 So. 566 239, 245 
Christian Union v. Yount, 101 

U. S. 352 837, 837 

Christie v. Taunton, etc. Co. 

(1893), 2 Ch. 175 1440, 1440 

Christopher v. Nor veil, 201 
U. S. 216; 26 Sup. Ct. 
502 708 

Christopher v. Noxon, 4 Ont. 

672 1005, 1007, 1058, 1226, 

1232 1309 

Chubb V. Upton, 95 U. S. 665 ' 248, 

483, 492 

Church V. Church Cementico 

Co., 75 Minn. 85; 77N.W. 

548 287, 297, 1238 

V. Citizens' St. R. Co., 78 

Fed. 526 941, 969, 980 



Church, M. E. v. Picketts, 19 

N. Y. 482 229 

Church of the Holy Com- 
munion, 14 Phila. 121 127 
Church of St. Stanislaus v. 
Algemeine Verein, 31 N. Y. 
App. Div. 133; 52 N. Y. 
Supp. 922; 164 N. Y. 606; 
58 N. E. 1086 303, 304 
Cincinnati Mut., etc. Ass. Co. 
V. Rosenthal, 55 111. 85; 8 
Am. Rep. 626 865 
Cincinnati Volksblatt Co. v. 
Hoffmeister, 62 Oh. St. 
189; 56 N. E. 1033; 78 
Am. St. Rep. 707; 48 L. R. 
A. 732 902, 902, 903, 904, 905, 

907 
Cincinnati, etc. R. R. Co. v. 
Danville, etc. Ry. Co., 75 
111. 113 250 

V. Duckworth, 1 Oh. Circ. 

Dec. 618 957,958,958 

Cincinnati, etc. Ry. Co. v. 
Citizens' Nat. Bank, 56 
Oh. St. 351; 47 N.E. 249: 
43 L. R. A. 777 734, 738, 741 

V. Third Nat. Bank, 1 

Oh. Circ. Ct. 199 734, 741 

Citizens' Bank v. Kalamazoo 
Co. Bank, 111 Mich. 313; 
69 N. W. 663 772, 776, 776 

Citizens' Bldg., etc. Ass'n v. 
Coriell, 34 N. J. Eq. 383 1264, 
1274, 1274 
Citizens' Life Ass. Co. v. 

Brown (1904), A. C. 423 1362 

Citizens' Loan Ass'n v. Lyon, 

29 N. J. Eq. 110 1259 

Citizens' Mutual Fire Ins. Co. 
V. Sortwell, 8 Allen (Mass.) 
217 994, 996, 1012 

Citizens' Nat. Bank v. El- 
liott, 55 Iowa 104; 7N. W. 
470; 39 Am. Rep. 167 1237, 

1247 
Citizens' State Bank v. Haw- 
kins, 71 Fed. 369; 18 
C. C. A. 78 834 

Citizens' Trust, etc. Co. v. 
Tompkins, 97 Md. 182; 54 
AtL 617 1345, 1602 

Citizens', etc. Trust Co. v. 
Union Mining, etc. Co., 106 
Fed. 97 985 

City V. Lamson, 9 Wall. 477 

1447, 1448, 1448, 1449 
City Bank v. Bruce, 17 N. Y. 

507 517, 523, 526, 1187 



xlix 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



City Council v. Jane Moore- 
head, 2 Rich. Law (S. Car.) 
430 406 

City Electric St. Ry. v. First 
Nat. Bank, 62 Ark. 33; 34 
S. W. 89; 31 L. R. A. 535; 
54 Am. St. Rep. 282 1370, 1376, 
1377 

City Nat. Bank v. Merchants', 
etc. Nat. Bank (Tex.), 105 
S. W. 338 1306, 1306, 1307 

City of Atlanta v. Gate City 

Gas Light Co., 71 Ga. 106 6 

City of Chicago v. Cameron, 
22 111. App. 91 964, 968, 971 

City of Defiance v. Schmidt, 

123 Fed. 1 ; 59 C. C. A. 169 397 

City of Elizabeth v. Force, 29 

N. J. Eq. 587 1435 

City of Franklin v. Caldwell 

(Ky.), 96 S. W. 605 1126 

City of Goodland v. Bank of 
Darlington, 74 Mo. App. 
365 37, 75, 846, 852 

City of Indianapolis v. Con- 
sumers' Gas Trust Co., 
144 Fed. 640; 75 C. C. A. 
442 71 

City of Kalamazoo v. Kala- 
mazoo, etc. Power Co., 124 
Mich. 74; 82 N. W. 811 39 

Qty of Kansas v. Hannibal, 

etc. R. R. Co., 77 Mo. 180 399, 

406 

Gty of Lincoln v. Lincoln St. 
Ry. Co., 67 Nebr. 469; 93 
N. W. 766 1497 

City of London Brewery v. 
Inland Revenue Comm'rs 
(1899), 1 Q. B. 121 1495 

City of London El. Lighting 
Co. V. London Corporation 
(1901), 1 Ch. 602 1305, 1309 

City of Louisville v. Louisville 
Water Co., 26 Ky. Law 
Rep. 425; 81 S. W. 698 876 

Qty of Madison v. Madison 
Gas, etc. Co. (Wise), 108 
N. W. 65 961 

City of Quincy v. Burlington, 
etc. R. R. Co., 94 111. 537 1503, 
1521 

City of South St. Paul v. 
Lamprecht Bros. Co., 88 
Fed. 449; 31 C. C. A. 585 1464 

City of Spokane v. Amster- 
damsch Trustees Kantoor, 
22 Wash. 172; 60 Pac. 141 844, 

963 



I 



Claflin V. South Carolina R. R. 

Co., 8 Fed. 118 1456, 1473, 1531 

1531 
Clancy v. Onondaga Fine Salt 

Mfg. Co., 62 Barb. (N. Y.) 

395 261 

Chandler v. Bacon, 30 Fed. 

Rep. 538 274 

Clap V. Interstate Ry. Co., 61 

Fed. 537 1602 

Clapp V. Astor (N. Y.), 2 Edw. 

Ch. 379 1114, 1137 

V. Peterson, 104 111. 26 518 

Clark V. Am. Coal Co., 86 

Iowa 436; 53 N. W. 291; 

17 L. R. A. 557 680, 969, 1298, 
1320 

V. Balm, Hill & Co. 

(1908), 1 K. B. 667 1395 

V. Bever, 139 U. S. 96; 

11 Sup. Ct. 468 631 

V. Brown (Tex.), 108 

S. W. 421 1189 
ij.Campbell, 23 Utah 569 ; 

65 Pac. 496; 90 Am. St. 

Rep. 716; 54 L. R. A. 508 1135 
V. Central R. R. etc. Co., 

66 Fed. 803; 14 CCA. 112 

1561, 1562 

V. Clark (Mich.), 115 

N. W. 416 517 
V. Continental Imp. Co., 

57 Ind. 135 163 
V. Farmers Mfg. Co., 15 

Wend. (N. Y.) 256 402, 1423 
V. German Mut. Fire Ins. 

Co., 7 Mo. App. 77 384 

V. German Security 

Bank, 61 Miss. 611 715 

V. Iowa aty, 20 WaU. 

583 1449, 1459 

V. Jones, 87 Ala. 474; 6 

So. 362 384 

1;. Lexington Stoveworks, 

24 Ky. Law Rep. 2247; 73 

S. W. 788 645 

V. National Linseed Oil 

Co., 105 Fed. 787; 45 

C C A. 53 957 

V. Rhode Island Locomo- 
tive Works, 24 R. I. 307; 
53 Atl. 47 890 

V. St. Louis, etc. R. R. 

Co., 58 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 21 

1472, 1601 

V. Turner, 73 Ga. 1 483 

Clark Co., James v. Colton, 
91 Md. 195; 46 Atl. 386; 
49 L. R. A. 698 1276, 1305 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Clark's Case, 7 Eg. 550 612, 1242 
Clarke v. Central R. R., etc. 

Co., 50 Fed. 338; 15 L. R. 

A. 683 1026 
V. Central R. R., etc. Co., 

54 Fed. 556 1641 
V. Central R. R., etc. Co., 

66 Fed. 16 1602, 1660 
V. City of Janesville, 1 

Biss. 98 1449, 1451 

V. Eastern Bldg. etc. 

Ass'n, 89 Fed. 779 890, 890, 

904 969 

V. Hart, 6 H. L. Cas. 633 '658, 

661, 665 

V. Lexington Stove- 
works, 24 Ky. Law Rep. 
1755; 72 S. W. 286 645 

V. Lincoln Lumber Co., 

59 Wise. 655; 18N.W.492 632 

V. O. & S. W. R. R., 5 

Nebr. 314 294 

V. Richmond, etc. Co., 

62 Fed. 328; 10 C. C. A. 

387 1026, 1026 

V. Thomas, 34 Oh. St. 46 490, 

492 
Clarke's Case, 27 L. T. 843 662 

, 8 Ch. D. 635 154, 159 

Clarke & Helden's Case, 37 

L. T. 222 568, 1334 

Clarkson v. Clarkson, 18 

Barb. (N. Y.) 646 1150, 1154 
Clarkson Homei). Chesapeake, 

etc. Ry. Co., 92 N. Y. App. 

Div. 491; 87 IST. Y. Supp. 

348; 182 N. Y. 507; 74 

N. E. 1118 1431, 143'1, 1432 
V. Missouri, etc. Ry. Co., 

182N. Y. 47; 74N. E. 571 

758, 758, 1431, 1431, 1432 
Clawson v. Clayton (Utah), 93 

Pac. 729 899, 902, 904, 905 

Clay V. East Tennessee, etc. 

R. R. Co., 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 

421 1503, 1515, 1519, 1551 
V. Selah Valley, etc. Co., 

14 Wash. 543; 45 Pac. 141 

1493, 1586, 1586, 1587, 1594 
Clayton v. Gresham, 10 Ves. 

288 1141 

Clayton Engineering & Elec- 
trical Const. Co., 90 L. T. 

283 1639, 1640 

Cleaveland v. MuUin, 96 Md. 

598; 54 Atl. 665 147, 209, 211 
Clegg V. Hamilton, etc. Co., 

61 Iowa 121; 15 N. W. 

865 128 



Clem V. Newcastle, etc. R. R. 

Co., 9 Ind. 488; 68 Am. 

Dec. 653 185 

Clemens v. Hecksher, 185 Pa. 

St. 476; 40 Atl. 80 799 

Clement v. City of Lathrop, 

18 Fed. 885 379 
«. U.S., 149 Fed. 305; 79 

C. C. A. 243 107, 225 
V. Young-McShea Amuse- 
ment Co. (N.,J.), 60 Atl. 419 1071 
V. Young-McShea Amuse- 
ment Co. (N. J.), 67 Atl. 82 

1078, 1196 
Clements v. Bowes, 17 Simons 

167; 1 Drewry 684 342 
V. Sherwood-Dunn, 95 

N. Y. Supp. 766; 108 

N. Y. App. Div. 327 786,786 

Clergue v. Humphrey, 31 Can. 

Sup. Ct. 66 307 

Cleveland Iron Co., 16 W. R. 

95 178 

Cleveland Paper Co. v. 

Courier Co., 67 Mich. 152; 

34 N. W. 556 79 

Cleveland Rolling-Mill Co. v. 

Texas, etc. Ry. Co., 27 Fed. 

250 600 

Cleveland, etc. Co. v. Taylor 

Bros. Co., 54 Fed. 82 1006 

Cleveland, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Knickerbocker Trust Co., 

64 Fed. 623 1574 

V. Robbins, 35 Oh. St. 483 

732,732,753,753,755,1130 
Clevenger v. Moore, 71 N. J. 

Law 148; 58 Atl. 88 172 

Clews V. Friedman, 182 Mass. 

555; 66 N. E. 201 717 

Clews & Co. V. First Mortgage 

Bondholders, 51 Ga. 131 1452 
Clifton Heights Land Co. v. 

Randell, 82 Iowa 89; 47 

N. W. 905 254 

Clinch V. Financial Corpora- 
tion, 4 Ch. 117 967, 972, 977 
Clinton Novelty Iron Works 

V. Neiting (Iowa), 111 N. W. 

974 128 

Clive V. Clive, Kay 600 815, 1137, 

1157 
Clokey v. Bvansville, etc. R. 

R. Co., 16 N. Y. App. Div. 

304; 44 N. Y. Supp. 631 



Close V. Glenwood Cemetery, 
107 U. S. 466; 2 Sup. Ct. 
267 



1450, 
1452 



237 



TABLE OF CASES 



[The references are to pages] 



Clowe V. Imperial Pine Prod- 
uct Co., 114 N. Car. 304; 

19 S. E. 153 394 

Clowes V. Brettell, 11 M. & W. 

461 295 
V. Miller, 60 N. J. Eq. 

179; 47 Atl. 345 1051, 1052 

Clyde V. Richmond, etc. R. R. 

Co., 55 Fed. 445 1585, 1587 
V. Richmond, etc. R. R. 

Co., 63 Fed. 21 1612 

Clyde Tin Plate Co., 47 L. T. 

439 1513 

Coal Co. V. Land Co., 106 

Tenn. 41; 60S. W. 502 1525 

Coal Belt Electric Ry. Co. v. 

Peabody Coal Co. (111.), 82 

N. E. 627 • 876 

Coalport China Co. (1895), 2 

Ch. 404 765 

Coats, Re, 73 N. Y. App. Div. 

178; 76 N. Y. Supp. 730 895 
, Re, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 

469; 78 N. Y. Supp. 425 430 
, Re, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 

567; 78 N. Y. Supp. 429 



893, 
894 



Coats, J. & P. V. Crossland, 20 

Times L. R. 800 1355 

Cobb V. Bryan, 83 S. "W. 887 

(Tex.) 239, 239, 239, 380 
V. Fant, 36 S. Car. 1; 14 

S. E. 959 1154 
V. Lagarde, 129 Ala. 488 ; 

30 So. 326 894, 902, 906 

Cobbett V. Woodward, 5 

Sawy. 403 1161 

Coble V. Beall, 130 N. Car. 

533; 41 S. E. 793 960 

Cochran v. Arnold, 58 Pa. St. 

399 222, 240, 245, 261 

V. MoGee, 53 S. W. 519 1122 

V. Pittsburg, etc. R. Co., 

150 Fed. 682 1587, 1594, 1595 
Cockburn v. Peel, 3 De G. F. & 

J. 170 1445 
V. Union Bank, 13 La. 

Am. 289 894, 903, 905 

Cockrill V. Abeles, 86 Fed. 

505; 30 C. C. A. 223 91, 489, 
497, 1265 
V. Cooper, 86 Fed. 7; 29 

C. C. A. 529 1259, 1266 

Cocksedge v. Metropolitan, 

etc. Ass'n, 64 L. T. 826 178 

Coddington v. Canaday, 157 

Ind. 243; 61 N. E. 567 634, 

1274, 1284, 1286 

V. Gilbert, 17 N. Y. 489 1413 



lii 



Codman v. Vermont, etc. R. R. 

Co,. 16 Blatchf. 165 1433 

Coe V. Columbus, etc. R. R. 

Co., 10 Oh. St. 372; 75 Am. 

Dec. 518 1400, 1490, 1503, 
1635 
V. Delaware, etc. R. R. 

Co., 34 N. J. Eq. 266 1535 
V. East & West R. R. Co., 

52 Fed. 531 1069, 1306, 1309, 

1402 

V. Johnson, 18 Ind. 218 1495, 

1551 

V. Knox County Bank, 

10 Oh. St. 412 1551 

V. McBrown, 22 Ind. 

252 1551 
V. New Jersey Midland 

Ry. Co., 31 N. J. Eq. 105 405, 
1245, 1466, 1564, 1639 
Coffey V. Coffey, 179 111. 283; 

53 N. E. 590 683, 721 
Coffin V. Collins, 17 Me. 440 915, 

917 
Cogan V. Conover Mfg. Co. 

(N. J.), 60 Atl. 408 1570 

V. Conover Mfg. Co. 

(N. J.), 65 Atl. 484 1372 

Cogswell V. Second Nat. 

Bank, 78 Conn. 75; 60 Atl. 

1059 541, 543 

Cohen v. Wilkinson, 1 Mac. & 

G. 481 73 

Coit V. Gold Amalgamating 

Co., 119 U. S. 343; 7 Sup. 

Ct. 231 635, 636 

Colbum V. Riley, 11 Colo. App. 

184; 52 Pac. 684 811 

Colby V. Equitable Trust Co., 

106 N. Y. Supp. 801; 55 

N. Y. Misc. 355 1307 

Cole V. Millerton Iron Co., 59 

Hun (N. Y.) 217; 13 N. Y. 

Supp. 851 1315, 1328 

Coleman v. Coleman, 78 Ind. 

344 253 
V. Columbia Oil Co., 51 

Pa. St. 74 517, 521, 1134 
V. Howe, 154 111. 458; 39 

N. E. 725; 45 Am. St. Rep. 

133 636, 636 
V. Llanelly Ry., etc. Co., 

17 L. T. Rep. 86 1528 
V. San Rafael, etc. Co., 

49 Cal. 517 845, 862 
V. Second Ave. R. R. Co., 

38 N. Y. 201 1297 

V. Spencer, 5 Blackf. 

(Ind.) 197 157, 716 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Coler V. Grainger County, 74 

Fed. 16; 20 C. C. A. 267 66 
V. Tacoma Ry., etc. Co., 

65 N. J. Eq. 347; 54 Atl. 

413; 103 Am. St. Rep. 786 71, 
646, 1026 
Coleridge Creamery Co. v. 

Jenkins, 66 Nebr. 129; 92 

N. W. 123 861 

Coles V. Bank of England, 10 

Ad. & E. 437 ■ 728 
V. Iowa State, etc. Ins. 

Co., 18 Iowa 425 593 
V. Kennedy, 81 Iowa 

360; 46 N. W. 1088; 25 

Am. St. Rep. 503 185 

Colgate V. U. S. Leather Co. 

(N. J.), 67 Atl. 657 140, 141, 

447, 447, 968, 971, 1081, 1307 
College Park Electric Belt 

Line v. Ide & Son, 15 Tex. 

Civ. App. 273; 40 S. W. 64 

1276, 1318, 1324 
Collie's Claim, 12 Eq. 246 1209 
Collier v. Consolidated Ry., 

etc. Co., 57 Atl. 417; 70 

N. J. Law Rep. 313 1186, 1226 
V. Doe ex dem. Alexan- 
der, 142 Ala. 422 ; 38 So. 244 408 
CoUingham v. Sloper (1893), 2 

Ch. 96 1555, 1556 
V. Sloper (1901), 1 Ch. 

769 1672 

Collingwood v. Berkeley, 15 

C. B. N. 8. 145 308, 308 

Collins V. Collins, 12 Eq. 455 424 
CoUum, Ex parte, 9 Eq. 236 200 
Colman v. Oil Co., 25 W. Va. 

148 1373, 1375 

Colmer, James, Ltd., Re 

(1897), 1 Ch. 524 544 

Colonial Bank v. Cady, 15 

A. C. 267 682, 687, 687, 694, 
722, 722, 725, 788, 790 
V. Hepworth, 36 Ch. D. 

36 722 
v. Whinney, 11 App. 

Cas. 426 422, 423, 685, 732, 

747, 748 

V. Willan, 5 P. C. 417 1073 

Colonial Dames of America 

V. Colonial Dames of New 

York, 29 N. Y. Misc. 10; 60 

N. Y. Supp. 302 ; 63 N. Y. 

App. Div. 615; 71 N. Y. 

Supp. 1134 371 

Colonial Investment & 

Agency Co., 19 Vict. 381 



520, 
620 



Colonial Trust Co. v. McMil- 
lan, 188 Mo. 547; 87 S. W. 
933; 107 Am. St. Rep. 335 622, 

628 

Colonist Printing & Pub. Co. 
V. Dunsmuir, 32 Can. Super. 
Ct. 679 474 

Colorado Land, etc. Co. v. 
Adams, 5 Colo. App. 190; 

37 Pac. 39 284, 286 
Colorado Springs Co. v. Amer- 
ican Pub. Co., 97 Fed. 843; 

38 C. C. A. 433 87, 861, 992, 

1193 

Colorado Trading, etc. Co. v. 
Acres Commission Co., 18 
Colo. App. 253 ; 70 Pac. 954 298 

Colpe V. Jubilee Mining Co. 

(Cal.), 84 Pac. 324 594 

Colquitt V. Howard, 11 Ga. 

556 304 

Colt V. Ives, 31 Conn. 25; 81 
Am. Dec 161 715 

Coltman v. Coltman, 19 Ch. 

D. 64 1260 

Coltness Iron Co. v. Black, 6 
A. C. 315 1099 

Colton V. Williams, 65 111. 
App. 466 698, 702, 712 

Colton Improvement Co. v. 
Richter, 26 N. Y. Misc. 26; 
55 N. Y. Supp. 486 328, 1300 

Coltrane v. Templeton, 106 

Fed. 370; 45 C. C. A. 328 973 

Columbia Bank v. Gospel 
Tabernacle, 127 N. Y. 361 ; 
28 N. E. 29 1210, 1379, 1379 

Columbia Bldg., etc. Ass'n v. 

Junquist, 111 Fed. 645 593 

Columbia Bottom Levee Co. 
V. Meier, 39 Mo. 53 1032 

Columbia Iron Works v. Na- 
tional Lead Co., 127 Fed. 
99; 62 C. C. A. 99 43 

Columbia Nat. Bank v. 
Mathews, 85 Fed. 934; 29 
C. C. A. 491 489, 492, 1045 

Columbia Nat. Bank's Ap- 
peal, 16 Wkly. Notes Cas. 
(Pa.) 357 1006 

Columbia Nat. Sand Dredg- 
ing Co., 136 Fed. 710 958 

Columbia, etc. Trust Co. v. 
Kentucky Union Ry. Co., 
60 Fed. 794; 9 C. C. A. 
264 1457, 1507, 1624, 1627 

Columbian Bank's Estate, 
147 Pa. St. 422; 23 Atl. 
625, 626, 628 518 



liii 



TABLK OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



1107 



523 
422 



894 



214 

1319 
1613 

715 



Coliunbus Trust Co. v. Mo- 

sher, 100 N.Y.Supp. 1066; 

61 N. Y. Misc. 270 . 
Columbus, etc. R. R. Co.'s 

Appeals, 109 Fed. 177; 48 

C. C. A. 275 1450, 1508, 1534, 

1539, 1634, 1634, 1669, 1669 

Colville's Case, 48 L. J. Ch. 

633 
Colvin V. Williams, 3 H. & J. 

(Md.) 38; 5 Am. Dec. 417 
Colwell V. Col well Lead Co., 

76 N. y. App. Div. 615; 78 

N. Y. Supp. 607 
Comanche Cotton Oil Co. v. 

Browne (Tex.), 92 S. W. 

450 
Combina,tion Trust Co. v. 

Weed, 2 Fed. 24 
Combs V. Smith, 78 Mo. 32 
Comeau v. Guild Farm Oil 

Co., 3 Daly (N. Y.) 218 
Commercial Bank v. Chatfield, 

121 Mich. 641; 80 N. W. 

712 1283, 1368 
V. Chatfield, 127 Mich. 

407; 86 N. W. 1015 1283, 1368 
V. French, 21 Pick. 

(Mass.)486;32Am.Dec.280 380 
V. Kortright, 22 Wend. 

(N. Y.) 348; 34 Am. Dec. 

317 685, 694, 749, 753, 
807, 808 
V. Nolan, 7 How. (Miss.) 

508 865, 868 
V. Pfeiffer, 108 N. Y. 

242; 15N. E. 311 
V. Warthen, 119 Ga. 990; 

47 S. E. 536 
Commercial Bank of Canada 

V. Great Western Ry. Co., 

13 L. T. 105 
Commercial Fire Ins. Co. v. 

Board of Revenue of Mont- 
gomery County, 99 Ala. 1; 

14 So. 490; 42 Am. St 
Rep. 17 

Commercial Life Ass., 27 

L. J. Ch. 803 
Commercial Nat. Bank v. 

Brill, 37 Nebr. 626; 56 

N. W. 382 1377 
V. Burch, 141 111. 519; 

31 N. E. 420; 33 Am. St. 

Rep. 331 518 
V. Gibson, 37 Nebr. 750; 

56 N. W. 616 617 

■ V. Vine, 82 Fed. 799; 27 

C. C. A. 171 84 



248 
601 



1221 



75,77 
1240 



Commercial Nat. Bank v. 
Wemhard, 192 U. S. 243; 
24 Sup. Ct. 253 1191 

Commercial Wood, etc. Co. v. 
Northampton Portland Ce- 
ment Co. (N. Y.), 82 N. E. 
730 1216 

Commissioners of Craven v. 
Atlantic, etc. R. R. Co., 77 
N. Car. 289 66, 1401 

Commissioners of Douglas 
County V. BoUes, 94 U. S. 104 241 

Commissioners of Johnson ' 
Co. V. Thayer, 94 U. S. 631 



Commissioners of Knox Co. v. 
Aspinwall, 21 How. 539 



1434, 
1486 

1220, 
1448 



368 

1249 
1435 



1040 
1031 



1522 



Hv 



Common v. McArthur, 29 

Can. Sup. Ct. 239 241, 663 

Commonwealth v. American 

Snuff Co. (Ky.), 101 S. W. 

364 
V. Arrison, 15 Serg. & R. 

(Pa.) 127; 16 Am. Dec. 531 

V. Bank, 98 Mass. 12 

V. Boston & Albany R. 

R. Co., 142 Mass. 146; 7 

N. E. 716 496, 497, 523 
V. Bringhurst, 103 Pa. 

St. 134; 49 Am. Rep. 119 
V. Cain, 5 Serg. & R. 

(Pa.) 510 
V. Central Pass. Ry. Co., 

52 Pa. St. 506 
V. Christian, 9 Phila. 556 

1363, 1364 

V. Conover, 10 Phila. 55 

1013, 1013, 1014 

V. Compton, 137 Pa. St. 

138; 20 Atl. 417 695, 712 
V. CuUen, 13 Pa. St. 133; 

53 Am. Dec. 450 1068, 1186 
V. Dalzell, 152 Pa. St. 

217; 25 Atl. 535; 34 Am. 

St. Rep. 640 1020, 1021, 1023 
V. Det wilier, 131 Pa. St. 

614; 18 Atl. 990; 7 

L. R. A. 357 1013, 1015,1025, 
1040, 1167, 1168, 1184 
V. Eagle Fire Ins. Co., 

14 Allen (Mass.) 344 1239 
V. Empire Pass. Ry. 

Co., 134 Pa. St. 237; 19 

Atl. 629 901, 904 

V. Graham, 64 Pa. St. 339 1249 

V. Keystone Electric 

Light, etc. Co., 193 Pa. St. 

245; 44 Atl. 326 43 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Commonwealth v. Lehigh Ave. 

Ry. Co., 129 Pa. St. 405; 18 

Atl. 414, 498 ; 5 L. R. A. 367 108 
V. Licking Valley Bldg. 

Ass'n, 26 Ky. Law Rep. 

730; 82 S. W. 435 107, 133, 141 
V. Monongahela Bridge 

Co. (Pa.), 64 Atl. 909 877 
V. New York, etc. R. 

Co., 132 Pa. St. 591; 19 

Atl. 291; 7L. R. A. 634 419, 
846, 877 
V. Patterson, 158 Pa. St. 

476; 27 Atl. 998 1017, 1023, 

1056 
V. Phoenix Iron Co., 105 

Pa. St. Ill; 31 Am. Rep. 

184 894, 894, 895, 905 
Pittsburg, etc. Ry. Co., 

74 Pa. St. 83 
V. Reinoehl, 163 Pa. St. 

287; 29 Atl. 896; 25 

L. R. A. 247 

V. Smith, 45 Pa. St. 59 

V. Smith, 10 Allen 

(Mass.) 448; 87 Am. Deo. 

672 63, 66, 1408, 1532 
V. Stevens, 168 Pa. St. 

582; 32 Atl. Ill 1064, 1249 
V. Stevenson, 200 Pa. 

509; 50 Atl. 91 1169 
V. Susquehanna, etc. 

R. R. Co., 122 Pa. St. 306; 

15 Atl. 448; 1 L. R. A. 225 

1527, 1530 
'■ V. Watmough, 6 Whart. 

117 715 
V. Wickersham, 66 Pa. 

St. 134 1032, 1206 
V. Woelper, 3 Serg. & R. 

(Pa.) 29; 8 Am. Dec. 628 913, 
1012, 1037, 1059, 1059 
V. Woodward, 4 Phila. 

124 1023, 1024 
V. Wyman, 8 Mete. 

(Mass.) 247 1365 

Commonwealth of Virginia v. 

Chesapeake, etc. Canal Co., 

35 Md. 1 1670 
V. State of Md., 32 Md. 

501 1450, 1455, 1456, 1457, 

1457, 1677, 1680 
Commonwealth for Mercer 

County Court v. Spring- 
field, etc. Turnpike Co., 10 

Bush (Ky.) 254 1122 

Commonwealth ex rel. Atty.- 

Gen. V. Mononghela Bridge 

Co. (Pa.), 64 Atl. 909 873 



495 



25 
1249 



Commonwealth ex rel. Jack- 
son V. Smith, 45 Pa. St. 59 



996, 
1231 



Commonwealth ex rel. Lacko- 

vic V. Jankovic (Pa.), 65 

Atl. 1099 930 

Commonwealth ex rel. Nick- 

erson v. Conover, 30 Leg. 

Int. (Pa.) 200 116 

Commonwealth Roofing Co. 

V. North American Trust 

Co., 135 Fed. 984; 68 

C. C. A. 418 1614 

Components Tube Co. v. Nay- 

lor (1900), 2 Ir. 1 184 

Compton V. Jesup, 167 U. S. 

1; 17 Sup. Ct. 795 1625, 1629 
V. Railway Co., 45 Oh. 

St. 592; 16 N. E. 110 1500 
V. Van Volkenburgh, 34 

N. J. Law Rep. 134 569 

Conant v. Millaudon, 5 La. 

Ann. 542 1014, 1014, 1020, 

1058, 1065, 1066, 1167 
Conant, Ellis & Co. v. Seneca 

County Bank, 1 Oh. St. 298 774 
Concord First Nat. Bank v. 

Hawkins, 174 U. S. 364; 

19 Sup. a. 739 75, 834 

Cone V. Russell, 48 N. J. Eq. 

208; 21 Atl. 847 1029, 1029 

Congregational Society of 

Bethany v. Sperry, 10 

Conn. 200 994 

Conklin v. U. S. Shipbuilding 

Co., 140 Fed. 219 1598, 1599 

■— — V. U. S. Shipbuilding Co., 

143 Fed. 631 1242 

Conley v. Mathieson Alkali 

Works, 190 U. S. 406; 23 

Sup. Ct. 728 878 

Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. 

Co. V. Cleveland, etc. R. R. 

Co., 41 Barb. (N. Y.) 9 1449, 

1450, 1452 
Connecticut River Sav. Bank 

V. Fiske, 60 N. H. 363 110, 868, 

1409 
Connell v. Stalker, 21 N. Y. 

Misc. 609; 48 N. Y. Supp. 

77 585, 588 

Conner v. Bramble, 6 Oh. 

N. P. 195 1639 

Connor v. Tennessee Central 

Ry. Co., 109 Fed. 931; 48 C. 

C. A. 730 ; 54 L. R. A. 687 1629 
Conro V. Port Henry Iron Co., 

12 Barb. (N. Y.) 27 387, 1193, 

1211 



Iv 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Consett Iron Co. (1901), 1 Ch. 

236 42, 135 

Consolidated Copper Co. v. 

Peddie, 5 Rettie 393 98, 189, 

193, 1175 
Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v. 

Wisner, 103 N. Y. App. 

Div. 453; 93 N. Y. Supp. 

128 1329 

Consolidated Gas Co., 106 

N. Y. Supp. 407 107 

Consolidated Land Co., 20 

W. R. 855 1415 

Consolidated Plaster Co. v. 

Wild (Colo.), 94 Pac. 285 1344 
Consolidated Rendering Co. 

(Vt.), 66 Atl. 790 891, 891 

Consolidated Rendering Co. 

V. Vermont, 28 Sup. Ct. 

178 891, 891 

Consolidated Tel., etc. Co., 43 

Atl. Rep. 433 (N. J.) 922, 1017 
Consolidated Vinegar Works 

V. Brew, 112 Wise. 610; 88 

N. W. 603 1259 

Consolidated Water Co. v. 

City of San Diego, 89 Fed. 

272; 92 Fed. 759 1485, 1554, 

1585 
Consolidated Water Power 

Co. V. Nash, 109 Wise. 490; 

85 N. W. 485 1188 

Consols Ins. Ass'n v. Newall, 

3 Fost. & F. 130 203 

Constant v. St. Alban's 

Church, 4 Daly (N. Y.) 

305 1210 

Consterdine v. Consterdine, 

31 Beav. 330 794, 813 

Consumers' Gas Trust Co. v. 

Quinby, 137 Fed. 882; 70 

C. C. A. 220 46, 469, 982 

Continental Fire Ass'n v. 

Masonic Temple Co. (Tex.), 

62 S. W. 930 853 

Continental Ins. Co. v. New 

York, etc. R. R. Co., 187 

N. Y. 225 ; 79 N. E. 1026 1306, 
1311, 1312 
Continental Ins. Co. v. New 

York, etc. R. R. Co., 103 

N. Y. App. Div. 282; 93 

N. Y. Supp. 27 1307, 1312 

Continental Nat. Bank v. 

Eliot Nat. Bank, 7 Fed. 369 684, 

715 
Continental Nat. Bldg., etc. 

Ass'n V. Miller, 44 Fla. 757; 

33 So. 404 957 



1622 



538, 



1633 
55 



1402 
1570 



134, 



1455 



Continental Oxygen Co. 
(1897), 1 Ch. 511 

Continental Securities Co. v. 
Northern Securities Co., 66 
N.J. Eq. 274; 57 Atl. 876 

542, 637 

Continental Trust Co. v. 
American Surety Co., 80 
Fed. 180; 25 C. C. A. 364 

V. Peterson (Nebr.), 107 

N. W. 786 

V. Toledo, etc. R. Co., 

59 Fed. 514 1602, 1620, 1620 

Continental Trust Co. v. Tole- 
do, etc. R. R. Co., 82 Fed. 
642 

V. Toledo, et8. R. R. 

Co., 93 Fed. 532 

Continental Varnish, etc. Co. 
V. Secretary of State, 128 
Mich. 621; 87 N. W. 901 

149, 442, 486 

Contracting, etc. Bldg. Co. 
V. Continental Trust Co., 
108 Fed. 1; 47 C. C. A. 
143 

Converse v. Hood, 149 Mass. 
471; 21 N. E. 878; 4 L. 
R. A. 521 1030, 1063 

V. United Shoe Machin- 
ery Co., 185 Mass. 422; 70 
N. E. 444 928, 947 

Conway v. John, 14 Colo. 30; 
23 Pac. 170 716 

Conyngham's Appeal, 57 Pa. 

St. 474 808, 809, 1329 

Cooch V. Goodman, 2 Q. B. 

580 396 

Cook V. Am. Tubing, etc. Co. 

(R. I.), 65 Atl. 641 84, 393 

V. Berlin Woolen Mill 

Co., 43 Wise. 433 944, 1312, 

1335, 1367 

V. Carpenter, 212 Pa. 

177; 61 Atl. 804 616, 618, 
697, 746 

V. Carpenter, 212 Pa. 165 ; 

61 Atl. 799; 108 Am. St. 

Rep. 854 614 

V. Chittenden, 25 Fed. 

544 193, 196 
V. Climber Co., 75 Miss. 

121; 21 So. 795 
V. Detroit, etc. Ry. Co., 

43 Mich. 349; 5 N. W. 390 



319 



— V. Equitable Bldg., etc. 
Ass'n, 104 Ga. 814; 30 S. 
E. 911 



1632 



465 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Cook I). Monroe, 45 Nebr. 349; 

63 N. W. 800 1130, 1134, 1134 

V. Sherman, 20 Fed. 167 1348 

V. Sterling Electric Co., 

150 Fed. 766; 80 C. C. A. 

502 281 

Cook County Brick Co. v. 

Kaehler, 83 111. App. 448 1120 

Cook Mfg. Co., Louis v. Ran- 
dall, 62 Iowa 244; 17 N. 
W. 507 297, 297 

Cooley V. Brainerd, 38 Vt. 394 1582 

V. Curran, 104 N. Y. 



Supp. 424 

V. Curran, 

Supp. 751 
. Coolgardie, etc. 

Times L. R. 277 
, 76 L. T. N. s. 269 



761 
104 N. Y. 

426, 761, 1356 
Mines, 14 

640 
96, 98, 99 



Coombs V. Barker, 31 Mont. 

526; 79 Pac. 1 1323, 1344 
V. Harford, 99 Me. 426; 

59 Atl. 529 1012 

Cooney v. Booth Packing Co., 

169 111. 370; 48 N. E. 406 848 
Cooper t>. Dismal Swamp Canal 

Co., 6 N. Car. 195 420, 750, 751 

V. Frederick, 9 Ala. 738 

517, 524 

V. Griffen (1892), 1 Q. 

B. 740 1177, 1177 
V. Hill, 94 Fed. 582; 36 

C. C. A. 402 92, 1259, 1265, 

1284, 1288 
— '■ — V. Illinois Central R. R. 

Co., 38N. Y. App. Div. 22; 

57 N. Y. Supp. 925 791, 1429, 
1430, 1431, 1431 
Coopers & Clark v. Wolf, 15 

Oh. St. 523 1503, 1551, 1553 

Copeland v. Copeland, 7 

Bush (Ky.) 349 420 
V. Johnson Mfg. Co., 47 

Hun (N. Y.) 235 1316 

V. North Eastern Ry. 

Co., 6 E. & B. 277 679 

Coppage V. Hutton, 124 Ind. 

401; 24 N. E. 112; 7 L. R. 

A. 591 ■ 202, 209, 211, 212 

Copper Miners' Co. v. Fox, 16 

Q.B.229(1851);15 Jur.703 825 
Coppes V. Union Nat., etc. 

Loan Ass'n (Ind.), 69 N. E. 

702 920 
V. Union Nat., etc. Ass'n 

(Ind.), 67 N. E. 1022 918 

Coppin V. Greenlees, etc. Co., 

38 Oh. St. 275 ; 43 Am. Rep. 

425 517, 858 



Coquard v. Nat. Linseed Oil 
Co., 171 111. 480; 49 N. E. 
563 907 

V. St. Louis Cotton, etc." 

Co., 7 S. W. Rep. 176 (Ma.) 

519, 542 
Corbett v. Woodward, 5 Sawy. 

403 1199, 1200, 1207, 1276 

Corbin v. E. Taussig & Co., 

132 Fed. 662 372 

Corbus V. Alaska, etc. Mining 

Co., 187 U. S. 455; 23 Sup. 

Ct. 157 938, 946, 947, 949, 

950 
Corcoran v. Chesapeake, etc. 

Canal Co., 1 Mac A. (D. C.) 

358; 94 U. S. 741 1449, 1460, 
1485, 1485, 1678 
V. Snow Cattle Co., 151 

Mass. 74; 23 N. E. 727 1380 
V. Sonora Mining, etc. 

Co., 71 Pac. 127; 8 Idaho 

651 658, 913, 919 

Cordova Union Gold Co. 

(1891), 2 Ch. 580 633 

Corey v. Morrill, 61 Vt. 598; 

17 Atl. 840 120 

Corgan v. George F. Lee Coal 

Co. (Pa.), 67 Atl. 655 1111, 

1134 
Corinne Mill, etc. Co. v. To- 

ponce, 152 U. S. 405; 14 

Sup. Ct. 632 
Cork, etc. Ry. Co. v. Caze- 

nove, 10 Q. B. 935 173, 173 

V. Goode, 13 C. B. 826 601, 

615 
Cork & Youghal Ry. Co., 4 Ch. 

748 63 

Com V. Skillem, 87 S. W. 142 

(Ark.) 519, 1127 

Cornbrook Brewing Co. v. 

Law Debenture Corp. 

(1904), 1 Ch. 103 
Cornell v. Massey, L. R. 8 C. 

P. 328 
Cornell University!). Fiske, 136 

U. S. 152; 10 Sup. Ct. 

775 
Comick V. Richards, 3 Lea 

(Tenn.) 1 684, 715 

Cornwall Minerals Ry. Co., 48 

L. T. N. s. 41 

, (1897) 2 Ch. 74 

Cornwall, etc. Mining Co. 

V. Bennett, 5 H. & N. 423 



1246 



1396 
1365 



848 



1644 
1447 



Corporation of Barnstable v. 
Lathey, 3 T. R. 303 
Ivii 



912, 
914 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Corry v. Londonderry, etc. 

Ry. Co., 29 Beav. 263 459, 

459, 1103, 1104 

Cortes Co. v. Thannhauser, 45 

Fed. 730 314, 316 

Corwith V. Culver, 69 111. 502 

154, 608 

Costa Rica Ry. Co. v. For- 
wood (1900), 1 Ch. 756; 
(1901) 1 Ch. 746 1305, 1308, 

1333, 1334 

Costello V. Outterson, 112 N. 
Y. App. Div. 680; 98 N. 
Y. Supp. 880 1359 

V. Portsmouth Brewing 

Co., 69 N. H. 405; 43 Atl. 

640 572 

Coster V. Parkersburg Branch 

R. R. Co., 131 Fed. 115 1617 

Cotheal v. Brouwer, 5 N. Y. 

562 899, 904, 908 

Cottam V. Eastern Counties 
Ry. Co., IJ. & H. 243 1430 

Cotter V. Butte, etc. Smelt- 
ing Co., 31 Mont. 129; 77 
Pac. 509 154 

Cotterell, Ex parte, 32 L. J. 
Ch. 66 1175 

Cotting V. New York, etc. R. 
R. Co., 54 Conn. 156; 5 
Atl. 851 455, 1098 

Cotton V. Imperial, etc. Cor- 
poration (1892), 3 Ch. 454 

51, 51 

Cotton Jammers, etc. Ass'n 
V. Taylor, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 
367; 56 S. W. 553 580, 596 

Couch V. City Fire Ins. Co., 
38 Conn. 181 ; 9 Am. Rep. 
375 868 

CoughUn V. Knights of Co- 
lumbus (Conn.), 64 Atl. 224 588 

County Court v. B. & O. R. R. 

Co., 35 Fed. 161 1206, 1210, 

1217 

County of Beaver v. Arm- 
strong, 44 Pa. St. 63 1449, 
1451, 1460 

County of Gloucester Bank v. 
Rudry Methyr Colliery 
Co. (1895), 1 Ch. 629 1222 

County of Leavenworth v. 
Barnes, 94 U. S. 70 248 

County of Macon v. Shores, 

97 U. S. 272 219 

County Life Ass. Co., 5 Ch. 
288 1225 

Court of Honor v. Hutchens 

(Ind.), 82 N. E. 89 584 



Iviii 



Covenant Mut. Life Ass'n v. 

Kentner, 188 111. 431; 58 

N. E. 966 584 

Coventry and Dixon's Case, 

14 Ch. D. 660 1170, 1227, 1261 
Covert V. Rogers, 38 Mich. 363 ; 

31 Am. Rep. 319 1199, 1201 

Covington, etc. Plank-Road 

Co. V. Moore, 3 Ind. 510 150, 
152, 1227 
Covington, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Bowlers' Heirs, 9 Bush 

(Ky.) 468 1342, 1343 

Cowan V. Caledonian Club, 46 

N.Y. App. Div. 288; 61 N. 

Y. Supp. 714 1032 

Cowdrey v. Gralveston, etc. 

R. R. Co., 93 U. S. 352 1642, 
1436 
V. Railroad Co., 1 Wood.s 

331 1621, 1621, 1643 

Cowell V. City Water Supply 

Co., 130 Iowa 671; 105 N. 

W. 1016 1662 
V. Springs Co., 100 U. S. 

55 113, 837 
Cox V. Dublin City Distil- 
lery Co. (1906), 1 Ir. 446 1547 
V. First Nat. Bank, 119 

N. Car.302;26S. E.22 792,814 
V. National Coal, etc. Co. 

(W. Va.), 56 S. E. 494 177, 271 

V. Paul, 175 N. Y. 328; 

67 N. E. 586 908 
V. Robinson, 82 Fed. 277; 

27 C. C. A. 120 1375 
V. Stokes, 156 N. Y. 491 ; 

51 N. E. 316 1661, 1663 
V. Terre Haute, etc. R. 

R. Co., 133 Fed. 371; 66 

C. C. A. 433 838, 1612 

Cox's Case, 33 L. J. Ch. 145 618 
Coxe V. Hunteville Gas Co., 

106 Ala. 373; 17 So. 626 1288 
V. State, 144 N. Y. 396, 

409; 39 N. E. 400 244, 250 

Coy V. Title Guarantee, etc. 

Co., 157 Fed. 794 1607 

Coyote, etc. Co. v. Ruble, 8 

Oreg. 284 123, 150, 150, 209, 

280 
Cozart V. Hemdon, 114 N. 

Car. 252; 19 S. E. 158 166 

Craft V. Indiana, etc. Ry. 

Co., 166 111. 580; 46 N. E. 

1132 1496, 1600 

V. South Boston R. R. 

Co., 150 Mass. 207 ; 22 N E 

920; 5 L. R. A. 641 1378, 1380 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Craig V. Benedictine Sisters 
Hospital Ass'n, 88 Minn. 
535; 93 N. W. 669 22, 39 

V. First Presbyterian 

Church, 88 Pa. St. 42; 32 

Am. Rep. 417 1011, 1202 

V. Hesperia, etc. Co., 

113 Cal. 7; 45 Pac. 10; 54 
Am. St. Rep. 316; 35 L. R. 

A. 306 749, 771 

V. Vicksburg, 31 Miss. 

216 1423 
Medicine Co.«. Merchants 

Bank, 59 Him (N. Y.) 

561; 14 N. Y. Supp. 16 1206 

Cram v. Bangor House Pro- 
prietary, 12 Me. 354 912, 1210 
Cramer v. Bird, 6 Eq. 143 977, 

1260 
Crampton v. Varna Ry. Co., 

7 Ch. 562 395, 395 

Crandall v. Lincoln, 52 Conn. 

73; 52 Am. Rep. 560 516, 519, 
519, 520, 620, 520, 520, 525 
Cranor Co., A. J., v. Miller 

(Ala.), 41 So. 678 339 

Cratty v. Peoria Law Library 

Ass'n, 219 ni. 516; 76 N. 

E. 707 451, 464, 465, 466 

Cravens v. Eagle Cotton Mills 

Co., 120 Ind. 6; 21 N. E. 

981; 16 Am. St. Rep. 298 188, 

193 
Crawford v. Albany Ice Co., 

36 Oreg. 535; 60 Pac. 14 1371, 
1376, 1377 
V. Northeastern Ry. Co., 

3 Jur. N. S. 1093 458 
V. Prairie Creek Ditching 

Ass'n, 44 Ind. 361 94 
V. Provincial Ins. Co., 8 

Up. Can. C. P. 263 692, 751 
V. Roney (Ga.), 55 S. E. 

499 522, 600 
V. Roney (Ga.), 61 S. E. 

117 1129 

V. State, 52 Oh. St. 62 1249 

Crawley's Case, 4 Ch. 322 167, 171 
Credit Assurance, etc. Co. 

(1902), 2 Ch. 601 536, 537 
Credit Co., 11 Ch. D. 256 904 
V. Arkansas, etc. R. R. 

Co., 15 Fed. 46 1485, 1649 
V. Howe Machine Co., 54 

Conn. 357; 8 Atl. 472; 1 

Am. St. Rep. 123 862 

Credit Foncier of England, 

Re, L. R.-11 Eq. 3S6 534 

Creek v. State, 77 Ind. 180 1249 



342 

811 



lix 



Crenshaw v. Columbian Min- 
ing Co., 110 Mo. App. 355; 
86 S. W. 260 752 

Crescent City Brewing Co. v. 
Flanner, 44 La. Ann. 22 ; 10 
So. 384 1299 

Cressona Sav. Fund, etc. 

Ass'n, 1 Leg. Rec. (Pa.) 245 139 

Cresswell v. Oberly, 17 111. 

App. 281 123, 246, 253 

Creyke's Case, 5 Ch. 63 668 

Crichton v. Webb Press Co., 
113 La. 167; 36 So. 926; 
104 Am. St. Rep. 500; 67 
L. R. A. 76 1082, 1111, 1112 

Crichton's Oil Co. (1902), 2 
Ch. 86 471, 1101 

Crickmer's Case, 10 Ch. 614 

640, 641 

Cridland v. De Mauley, 1 De 
G. & S. 459 

Crimp V. McCormick Co., 71 
Fed. 356; 18 C. C. A. 70 

Crissey v. Cook, 67 Kans. 20 ; 

72 Pac. 541 658, 661, 661, 665 
Crittenden v. Southern Home 

Bldg., etc. Ass'n, 111 Ga. 

266; 36 S. E. 643 586, 593 

Crittenden, etc. Co. v. Cowles, 

66 N. Y. App. Div. 95; 72 

N. Y. Supp. 701 
Crocker-Wheeler Co. v. Bul- 
lock, 134 Fed. 241 
Cromie's Heirs v. Louisville 

Orphans Home, 3 Bush 

(Ky.) 365 
Cromwell v. County of Sac, 96 

U. S. 51 1433, 1434, 1436, 

1441, 1442, 1450, 1460 

D.Willis, 96Md. 260; 53 

Atl. 1116 
Cronin v. Patrick County, 89 

Fed. 79 
Crook V. Scott, 65 N. Y. App. 

Div. 139 ; 72 N. Y. Supp. 516 ; 

174N.Y.520;66N.E. 1106 

V. Seaford, 6 Ch. 551- 

Crosby v. Morristown, etc. R. 

R. Co. (Tenn.), 42 S. W. 507 

1647, 1648, 1656 
V. New London, etc. R. 

R. Co., 26 Conn. 121 1448 
V. Stratton, 17 Colo. 212 ; 

68 Pac. 130 507, 509, 509 

Crosky v. Bank of Wales, 4 

Giff. 314 295, 625, 633 

Cross V. Eureka Lake, etc. Co. 

73 Cal. 302; 14 Pac. 885; 

2 Am. St. Rep. 808 811 



1341 
890 



848 



1366 
1432 



1106 
395 



TABLE OF CASKS 
[The references are to pages] 



Cross V. Evans, 86 Fed. 1; 29 

C. C. A. 523 1643 

V. Phoenix Bank, 1 R. 

I. 39 769, 770, 774 

V. Pinckneyville Mill Co., 

17 111. 54 126, 239, 239 

V. West Va., etc. Ry. 

Co., 37 W. Va. 342; 16 
S. E. 587; 18 L. R. A. 582, 

1167, 1169 
Ciossman v. Hilltown Turn- 
pike Co., 3 Grant's Cas. 

(Pa.) 225 404, 405, 406 

Crossman's Estate, 14 Fa. 

Dist. Rep. 40 1148 

Crouch V. Credit Foncier of 

England, L. R. 8 Q. B. 

374 1423 

Crow V. Florence Ice, etc. Co., 

143 Ala. 541; 39 So. 401 946, 
1250 
V. Green, 111 Pa. St. 637; 

5 Atl. 23 337 

Crowley v. Genesee Mining 

Co., 55 Cal. 273 392 

V. Sandhurst, etc. Co., 

23 Vict. L. R. 661 56, 70 

Crown Bank, Be, 44 Ch. D. 634 

94, 99, 383 
Crown Lease Proprietary Co., 

14 Times L. R. 47 356 

Crown Slate Co. v. Allen, 199 

Pa. 239; 48 Atl. Rep. 968 618 
Crumlish v. Central Imp. Co., 

38 W. Va. 390; 18 S. E. 

456; 45 Am. St. Rep. 872; 

23 L. R. A. 120 1247 

Crump V. U. S. Mining Co., 7 

Gratt. (Va.) 352; 56 Am. 

Dec. 116 1374 

Cud V. Rutter, 1 P. Wms. 570 785 
Culberson v. Ala. Const. Co. 

(Ga.), 56 S. E. 765 298, 298 

Cullen V. Coal Creek, etc. Co., 

42 S. W. Rep. 693 (Tenn.) 967, 
968, 1288 
CuUerne v. London, etc. Bldg. 

Soc, 25 Q. B. D. 485 1264, 

1267, 1281 
Cullman Fruit & Produce 

Ass'n, 155 Fed. 372 408, 1372 
Culp V. Mulvane, 66 Kans. 

143; 71 Pac. 273 717 

Culver V. Third Nat. Bank, 64 

111. 528 916 

Cumberland Coal Co. v. Sher- 
man, 30 Barb. 553 (N. Y.) 300, 
1045, 1298, 1300, 1303, 1304 
1311, 1312 



1299 
1061 



833 



249 

1626 

594 



831 



Cumberland Coal, etc. Co. v. 

Parish, 42 Md. 598 

V. Sherman, 20 Md. 117 

Cuinberland Land Co. v. 

Daniel, 52 S. W. 446 

(Tenn.) 301, 302 

Cumberland Tel., etc. Co. v. 

Evansville, 127 Fed. 187 

V. St. Louis, etc. Ry. 

Co., 117 La. 199; 41 So. 
492 

Cumming v. Metcalfe's Lon- 
don Hydro, 2 Hanson 418 

Cummings v. Webster, 43 Me. 
192 

Cunliffe, Brooks & Co. v. 
Blackburn Bldg. Soc, 9 
A. C. 857 

Cunningham v. Ala. Life Ins., 

etc. Co., 4 Ala. 652 671, 767, 

776 

V. German Ins. Bank, 

101 Fed. 977; 41 C. C. A. 

609 109, 492, 497, 511, 631, 

992 
V. Holly, Mason, Marks 

&Co., 121 Fed. 720; 58 

C. C. A. 140 
V. Vermont, etc. R. R. 

Co., 12 Gray (Mass.) 411 

V. Wechselberg, 105 

Wise. 359; 81 N. W. 414 

Cunningham's Appeal, 108 

Pa. St. 546 500, 507 

Cunninghame v. City of Glas- 

cow Bank, 4 A. C. 607 706, 812 
Cunyus v. Guenther, 96 Ala. 

564; 11 So. 649 
Cupit V. Park City Bank, 20 

Utah 292; 58 Pac. 839 



628 

1114 

960 



384 



1179, 
1225 



877 
786 



1035 
502, 



Ix 



Curran v. Arkansas, 15 How. 

304 
Currie v. Jones, 138 N. Car. 

189; 50 S. E. 560 
V. Mutual Ass. Soc, 4 

Hen. & Munf. (Va.) 315; 

4 Am. Dec 517 

V. White, 45 N. Y. 822 

502, 1135 
Currie's Case, 11 W. R. 46 206, 

1340 
Chirrier v. Continental Life 

Ins. Co., 53 N. H. 538 588, 589 
V. Lebanon Slate Co., 56 

N. H. 262 517, 518, 534, 534 
^ V. N. Y., etc. R. R. Co., 

35 Hun (N. Y.) 355 944, 961, 
1527, 1554 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Curry v. Scott, 54 Pa. St. 270 



157, 
509 



V. Woodward, 53 Ala, 

371 614 

Curtice v. Crawford County 

Bank, 110 Fed. 830 770, 775 

V. Crawford County 

Bank, 118 Fed. 390 769 

Curtin v. Salmon River, etc. 
Co., 130 Cal. 345; 62 Pac. 
552; 80 Am. St. Rep. 132 993, 

1203 

Curtis V. McCullough, 3 Ne- 
vada 202 1249, 1326 

V. Meeker, 62 111. App. 

49 126, 248 

V. Natalie Anthracite 

Coal Co., 89 N. Y. App. Div. 
61; 85 N. Y. Supp. 413; 
affirmed in 181 N. Y. 543; 
73 N. E. 1122 

V. Osborn (Conn.), 65 

Atl. 968 503, 1154, 1446, 1446 

V. Piedmont Lumber, 

etc. Co., 109 N. Car. 401; 
13 S. E. 944 

V. Tracy, 169 HI. 233; 

48 N. E. 399; 61 Am. St. 
Rep. 168 

Curtiss V. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 1 

66, 856, 861, 865, 867 
Cushing Sulphite Fibre Co. v. 

Cushing, 2 New Brunsw. 

Eq. 539 1259, 1273, 1332 

Cushman v. Bonfield, 36 111. 

App. 436 
V. Cloverland Coal, etc. 

Co. (Ind.), 83 N. E. 390 
V. Thayer Mfg. Jewelry 

Co., 76 N. Y. 365; 32 Am. 

Rep. 315 700, 732, 751, 751, 

752 
Cussons, Re, 73 L. J. Ch. 296 304 
Cutter V. Iowa Co., 128 Fed. 

505 1626, 1660 

Cutting V. B. & O. R. R. Co., 

35 N. Y. Misc. 616; 72 

N. Y. Supp. 27 1636 

V. Damarel, 88 N. Y. 410 616, 

696, 699 

V. Florida, etc. Co., 43 

Fed. 747 1618 

V. Taveres, etc. R. R. 

Co., 61 Fed. 150; 9C. C. A. 

401 1561, 1563 

Cutting, Ex parte, 94 U. S. 14 984, 

986 
Cuykendall v. Douglas, 19 

Hun (N. Y.) 577 118, 1005, 1032 



854 



394 



254 
63, 



1659 
1382 



Cuyler v. City Power Co., 74 

Minn. 22; 76 N. W. 948 31, 43 

Cyclists' Touring Club (1907), 

1 Ch. 269 135, 135 

D 

Dabney v. Stevens, 2 Sweeney 

(N. Y.) 415; 40 How. Pr. 

(N. Y.) 341 592 

Dacovich v. Canizas (Ala.), 44 

So. 473 . 522 

Dadson's Case, 12 Times L. R. 

482 351, 360, 522 

Dady v. Georgia, etc. Ry. Co., 

112 Fed. 838 982 

Daily Telegraph Newspaper 

Co. V. Cohen, 5 New So. 

Wales State Rep. 520 730, 731, 

731 
Dain Mfg. Co. v. Trumbull 

Seed Co., 95 Mo. App. 144; 

68 S. W. 951 616, 692 
Dale V. Hayes, 40 L. J. Ch. 244 1141 
Dale & Plant, Re, 43 Ch. D. 

255 1241 

, Ee, 61 L. T. 206 283, 285, 

286 
Dallas, etc. Cold Storage Co. 

V. Crawford, 18 Tex. Civ. 

App. 176; 44 S. W. 875 1382 

Dalrymple v. Lauman, 23 Md. 

376 1419, 1526 

Dalton Time Lock Co. v. Dal- 

ton, 66 L. T. 704 149, 205 

Daly V. New York, etc. Ry. 

Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 595; 38 

Atl. 202 1539 

Dame v. Crochiti, etc. Imp. 

Co. (N. Mex.), 79 Pac. 296 1465 
Dana v. American Tobacco 

Co. (N. J.), 65 Atl. 730 ; 69 

Atl. 223 788, 789, 999 
V. Bank of U. S., 5 Watts 

& Serg. (Pa.) 223 1187 
V. Brown, 1 J. J. Marsh 

(Ky.) 304 684 

Danbury, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Wilson, 22 Conn. 435 605, 1378 
Dancy v. Clark, 24 App. D. C. 

487 45, 46, 47, 105, 114, 123, 

150, 1175 

Dane v. Young, 61 Me. 160 512, 

513, 576, 762 

Danforth v. Nat. State Bank, 

48 Fed. 271 869 

Daniell v. Royal British Bank, 

1 H. & N. 681 925 

Daniels v. Hart, 1 18 Mass. 543 1582 



Ixi 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Daniher v. Grand Lodge, 10 

Utah 110; 37 Pac. 245 576 

Dannebroge Gold, etc. Co. v. 
Ailment, 26 Cal. 286 118 

Dannmeyer v. Coleman, 11 
. Fed. 97 956, 970, 982 

Danville, etc. R. R. Co. v. 
Brown, 90 Va. 340; 18 
S. E. 278 1165, 1166 

D'Arcy v. Tamar, etc. Ry. 

Co., L. R. 2 Ex. 158 1209, 1209 
1209 

Damall v. Dickens, 4 Yerg. 

(Tenn.) 7 407 

Darrah v. Wheeling Ice, etc. 
Co., 50 W. Va. 417; 40 
S. E. 373 593, 594 

Darrin v. Hoff, 99 Md. 491; 

58 Atl. 196 561, 1012 
Dartmouth College v. Wood- 
ward, 4 Wheat. 518 3, 33, 1251 

Dashwood v. Cornish, 13 
Times L. R. 337 1238 

D. A. Tompkins Co. v. Ca- 
tawba Mills, 82 Fed. 780 958, 
1485, 1586 

V. Chester Mills, 90 Fed. 

37 1492 

Davenport v. Crowell, 65 Atl. 

557 (Vt.) 966 

V. Dows, 18 Wall. 626 974 

V. Lines, 77 Conn. 473 ; 

59 Atl. 603 1095, 1268, 1268 
V. Piano Implement Co., 

70 111. App. 161 429, 429 

V. Receivers, 2 Woods 

519 164 

Davey & Co. i7. Williamson & 

Son (1898), 2 Q. B. 194 1546 

David Bradley Mfg. Co. v. 

Chicago, etc. Traction Co. 

(111.), 82 N. E. 210 60, 113, 133 
David Ireland & Co. (1905), 

1 Ir. 133 1264 

David Lloyd & Co., 6 Ch. D. 

339 1598 

David Payne & Co. (1904), 2 

Ch. 608 861, 1235, 1235, 1407 
David Reus, etc. Co. v. Con- 
rad, 101 Md. 224; 60 Atl. 

737 1274 

Davidson v. Grange, 4 Grant 

(Can.) 377 954, 1250 
V. Hobson, 59 Mo. App. 

130 245 

V. Old People's, etc. 

Soc, 39 Minn. 303; 39 

N. W. 803; 1 L. R. A. 482 589, 

592 



1175 



848 
196 



1222 

1605 
807 
172 



1211 



948 



950 



Ixii 



Davidson v. State, 20 Fla. 784 1249 

V. Westchester Gas- 

Light Co., 99 N. Y. 558; 2 
N. E. 892 

Davidson College v. Cham- 
bers' Extrs., 3 Jones Eq. 
(N. Car.) 253 

Davidson's Case, 4 K. & J. 688 

Davies v. Harvey Steel Co., 6 
N. Y. App. Div. 166; 39 
N. Y. Supp. 791 1373, 1381 

V. Monroe Water Works 

Co., 107 La. 145; 31 So. 

694 965, 1245 

V. R. Bolton, etc. Co. 

(1894), 3 Ch. 678 

V. Vale of Evesham Pre- 
serves, 73 L. T. 150 
Davies' Case, 33 L. T. 834 

, 41 L. J. Ch. 659 

Davis V. Brown County Coal 

Co. (S. Dak.), 110 N. W. 

113 
V. Commercial Pub. Co., 

1 State Rep. (N. So. Wales) 

Eq. 37 
V. Congregation Tephilas 

Israel, 40 N. Y. App. Div. 

424; 57 N. Y. Supp. 1015 

V. Dexter Butter, etc. 

Co., 52 Kans. 693; 35 Pac. 

776 286, 288 

V. Duncan, 19 Fed. 477 1669, 

1615, 1620 

V. Edwards, 41 Wash. 

480; 84 Pac. 22 1372 
V. Flagstaff Silver Mining 

Co., 2 Utah 74 1117, 1189 
V. Gemmell, 70 Md. 356; 

17 Atl. 259 944 
V. Gemmell, 73 Md. 530; 

21 Atl. 712 983, 986 

V. Georgetown Bridge 

Co., 1 Cranch, C. C. 147 1379 
V. Hardwicke (Tex.), 94 

S. W. 359 807 
V. Haycock, L. R. 4 Ex. 

373 782 
V. Hofer, 38 Oreg. 150; 

63 Pac. 56 1350 
V. Jackson, 152 Mass. 58 ; 

25 N. E. 21; 23 Am. St. 

Rep. 801 502, 1140, 1147, 1147 

V. Maysville Creamery 

Ass'n, 63 Mo. App. 477 280 

V. Mempliis City Ry. Co., 

22 Fed. 883 1240 
V. Miller Signal Co., 105 

111. App. 657 684 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



526 



280 



1317 



592 
244, 



Davis V. Mills, 194 U. S. 451; 

24 Sup. Ct. 692 1359 

V. Nat. Eagle Bank 

(R. I.), 50 Atl. 530 792 

V. Old Colony R. R. Co., 

131 Mass. 258; 41 Am. 

Rep. 221 81, 851, 853 

V. Proprietors of Meet- 

ing-House, 8 Mete. (Mass.) 
321 

V. Ravenna Creamery 

Co., 48 Nebr. 471; 67 
N. W. 436 

V. Rock Creek, etc. Co., 

65 Cal. 359; 36 Am. Rep. 

40 

V. Rockingham Invest- 

^ ment Co., 89 Va. 290; 15 

S. E. 547 

V. Stevens, 104 Fed. 235 

251, 252 
V. Thomas & Davis Co., 

63 N. J. Eq. 572; 52 Atl. 

ri7 1322, 1322 
V. U. S. Electric, etc. Co., 

77 Md. 35; 25 Atl. 982 76, 959, 
1026, 1306 
V. Valley Electric Light 

Co., 61 N. Y. Supp. 580 288 
V. West Saratoga Bldg. 

Union, 32 Md. 285 66 

Davis Bros. v. Montgomery 

Furnace, etc. Co., 101 Ala. 

127; 8 So. 496 636, 1415 

Davis Mill Co. v. Bennett, 39 

Mo. App. 460 918, 919, 1034, 

1322 
Davis, etc. Co. v. Hillsboro 

Creamery Co., 10 Ind. App. 

42; 37 N. E. 549 286, 289 

Davis, etc. Wheel Co. v. 

Davis, etc. Wagon Co., 20 

Fed. 699 300 

Davison v. Gillies, 16 Ch. D. 

347 n. 1099, 1100 

Davoue v. Fanning, 2 Johns. 

Ch. (N. Y.) 252 1307 

Dawes' Case, 6 Eg. 232 669 

Dawney, Archibald D., Ltd., 

Be, 83 L. T. 47 205, 642 

Dawson v. African, etc. Co. 

(1898), 1 Ch. 6 1168, 1168, 

1230, 1230 

V. Braime's Tadcaster 

Breweries (1907), 2 Ch. 359 

Day V. Day, 1 Dr. & Sm. 261 



- V. Holmes, 103 Mass. 306 



1558 
789, 

789 
807, 

807 



138 



Day V. Mill Owners' Mut. 

Fire Ins. Co., 75 Iowa 694; 

38 N. W. 113 
V. Ogdensburgh, etc. R. 

R. Co., 107 N. Y. 129; 13 

N. E. 765 1676, 1680 
V. Postal Tel. Co., 66 Md. 

354; 7 Atl. 608 121, 882 
V. Spiral Springs Buggy 

Co., 57 Mich. 146; 58 Am. 

Rep. 352; 23 N. W. 628 854, 

855, 856 

V. Sykes & Co., 55 L. T. 

763 
V. Worcester, etc. R. R. 

Co., 151 Mass. 302; 23 

N. E. 824 
Day, Ex parte, 1 Ch. D. 699 
Dayton Hydraulic Co. v. Fil- 

senthall, 116 Fed. 961; 54 

C. C. A. 537 
Dayton Ins. Co. v. Kelly, 24 

Oh. St. 345; 15 Am. Rep. 

612 394, 868 

Dayton Nat. Bank v. Mer- 
chants' Nat. Bank, 37 Oh. 

St. 208 
Dayton, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Hatch, 1 Disney (Oh.) 84 

634, 636, 1191 
Deaderick v. Wilson, 8 Baxt. 

(Tenn.) 108 
Dean v. Baldwin, 99 111. App. 

582 
V. Biggs, 25 Hun (N. Y.) 

122 
Deane v. Hodge, 35 Minn. 

146; 27 N. W. 917; 59 

Am. Rep. 321 
Dearborn v. Washington Sav. 

Bank, 18 Wash. 8; 50 Pac. 

575 658, 661, 768, 769 

Dearie v. Hall, 3 Russ. 1 684 

Deaton Grocery Co. v. Inter- 
national Harvester Co. 

(Tex.), 105 S. W. 556 86, 851 
De Bardeleben v. 

Land, etc. Co., 

621; 37 So. 511 
Debenture Corp. v. 

8 Times L. R. 496 
De Betz's Petition, 9 Abb. 

N. c. (N. Y.) 246 1585, 1671 

De Beville's Case, Baron, 7 

Eq. 11 207, 207 

De Host V. Palmer Co., 1 

How. Pr. N. s. (N. Y.) 501 592 
De Camp v. Alward, 52 Ind. 

468 1188 



1607 



1476 
260 



1613 



810 
189, 



1351 
635 



1514 



1244 



Bessemer 
140, Ala. 

Marietta, 



1340 
1592 



Ixiii 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



De Camp v. Dobbins, 29 N. J. 
Eq. 36 ; s. c. 31 N. J. Eq. 671 54, 

847 

De Caumont v. Bogert, 36 
Hun (N. Y.) 382 687, 712 

Decker v. Gardner, 124 N. Y. 
334; 26 N. E. 814; 11 
L. R. A. 480 1597, 1599, 1610, 
1613 

Dedham Institution for Sav- 
ings V. Slack, 6 Cush. 
(Mass.) 408 _ 1379 

Deepwater Council v. Renick 
(W- Va.), 53 S. E. 552 408 

Deering v. Hibernian Banking 
Co., 16 W. R. 578 769 

Deffell V. White, L. R. 2 C. P. 

144 405 

Degnan v. Thoroughman, 88 
Mo. App. 62 408 

De Graff v. Thompson, 24 

Minn. 452 1516 

De Graffenried v. Brunsv\-ick, 
etc. R. R. Co., 57 Ga. 22 1616 

De Koven v. Alsop, 205 111. 
309; 68 N. E. 930; 63 
L. R. A. 587 503, 1143, 1144 

De la Cuesta v. Ins. Co., 136 
Pa. St. 62; 20 Atl. 505; 9 
L. R. A. 631 508 

Delacy v. Neuse Nav. Co., 1 
Hawks (N. Car.) 274; 9 
Am. Dec. 636 427, 658, 666 

Deland v. Williams, 101 Mass. 

571 1146 

Delaney v. Delaney, 175 111. 

187; 51 N. E. 961 589 

Delano v. Case, 121 111. 247; 
12 N. E. 676; 2 Am. St. 
Rep. 81 ; s. c. 17 111. App. 
531 1357 

V. Smith Charities, 138 

Mass. 63 1034, 1166 

De la Vergne, etc. Co. v. Ger- 
man Savings Inst., 175 
U. S. 40; 20 Sup. Ct. 20 76 

838, 840, 1069 

Delaware, etc. Canal Co. v. Pa, 
Coal Co., 21 Pa. St. 131 



Delaware, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Irick, 23 N. J. Law Rep. 

321 
V. Oxford Iron Co., 38 

N. J. Eq. 340 
Deloach v. Jones, 18 La. 447 
Demarest v. Flack, 128 N. Y 

205; 28 N. E. 645; 13 

L. R. A. 854 



1225, 
1226 



386 

572 

87 



120 



Lxiv 



Demarest v. Spiral Riveted 
Tube Co., 71 N. J. Law 14; 
58 Atl. 161 880, 1069, 1211 

Deming v. Beatty Oil Co., 72 

Kans. 614; 84 Pac. 385 975, 

975 

Dempster v. Rosehill Ceme- 
tery Co., 206 111. 261; 68 
N. E. 1070 430 

Dempster Mfg. Co. v. Downs, 
126 Iowa 80; 101 N. W. 
735; 106 Am. St. Rep. 340 115 

Den ex dem. American Primi- 
tive Soc. V. Pilling, 24 
N. J. Law 653 1008 

Den ex dem. Tours v. Vreelandt, 
2 Halst (N. J.) 352 404, 404 

Denham & Co., 25 Ch. D. 752 1276 
1278, 1280 

Denney v. Cleveland, etc. 
R. R. Co., 28 Oh. St. 108 190, 

1475, 1475 

Dennis v. Joslin Mfg. Co., 19 
R. I. 666; 36 Atl. 129; 61 
Am. St. Rep. 805 912, 917, 919, 
1069, 1071 

Deunison v. Austin, 15 Wise. 
334 1211 

V. Keasbey (Mo.), 98 

S. W. 546 786 

Denniston v. Chicago, etc. 
R. R. Co., 4 Biss. 414 1559 

Denny v. Lyon, 38 Pa. St. 98; 
80 Am. Dec. 463 723, 724 

Denny Hotel Co. v. Schram, 6 
Wash. 134; 32 Pac. 1002; 
36 Am. St. Rep. 130 121, 607 

Densmore Oil Co. v. Densmore, 

64 Pa. St. 43 123, 150, 312, 322, 
323, 325, 329 

Dent V. London Tramways 
Co., 16 Ch. D. 344 465, 1100 

Denton v. Macniel, 2 Eq. 352 . 337, 

342 

Denver Fire Ins. Co. v Mc- 
Clelland, 9 Colo. 11; 9 Pac. 
771; 59 Am. Rep. 134 142, 

852, 855 

Denver Hotel Co., Be (1893), 

1 Ch. 495 534, 534, 538 

Denver, etc. R. Co. v. U. S. 
Trust Co., 41 Fed. 720 1412, 

1412 

Depew V. Colton (N. J.), 46 
Atl. 728 1371 

De Peyster v. American Fire 

Ins. Co., 6 Paige (N. Y.) 486 1093 

Derby Canal v. Wilmot, 9 
East 360 401, 401 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Deringer's Admr. v Deringer's 

Admr., 5 Houst. (Del.) 416; 

1 Am. St. Rep. 150 56 

Dermatine Co. v. Ashworth, 

21 Times L. R. 510 369 

De Rosaz's Case, 21 L. T. 10 166 
Derry v. Great Hive, etc. of 

Maccabees, 135 Mich. 494; 

98 N. W. 23 580 

— V. Peek, 14 A. C. 337 340 
De Ruvigne's Case, 5 Ch. D. 

306 629, 1169, 1336, 1339, 1340 
Desinge v. Beare, 37 Ch. D. 

481 423 

Des Moines Gas Co. v. West, 

44 Iowa 23 1605 

Des Moines Nat. Bank v. 

Warren County Bank, 97 

Iowa 204; 66 N. W. 154 574 

Des Moines, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Wabash, etc. Ry. Co., 135 

U.S. 576; lOSup. Ct. 753 1500 
Des Moines, etc. Trust Co. v. 

Des Moines Bank, 97 Iowa 

668; 66 N. W. 914 772 

Despatch Line of Packets v. 

Bellamy Mfg. Co., 12 N. H. 

205; 37 Am. Dec. 203 1168, 
1210, 1217, 1225 
D'Esterre v. City of Brooklyn, 

90 Fed. 586 1432, 1432 
Detroit v. Dean, 106 U. S. 

537; 1 Sup. Ct. 560 970, 970 

V. Detroit Citizens' Ry. 

Co., 184 U. S. 368; 22 Sup. 

Ct. 410 107 

Detroit Driving Club v. Fitz- 
gerald, 109 Mich. 670; 67 
N. W. 899 39, 261, 608 

Detroit Schuetzen Bund v. 
Detroit Agitations Verein, 
44 Mich. 313; 6N. W. 675; 
38 Am. Rep. 270 258, 267 

.Devaux, Re, 54 Ga. 673 96 

Development Co. of Central 
& West Africa (1902), 1 Ch. 
547 533 

Deverges v. Sandeman, Clark 

& Co. (1902), 1 Ch. 579 809, 811 

Devine v. Frankford Steel, etc. 
Co., 205 Pa. St. 114, 54Atl. 
57,8 957, 966 

Dewey r. St. Albans Trust Co., 

57 Vt. 332 652 

• — — V. Toledo, etc. Ry. Co., 

91 Mich. 351; 51 N. W. 

1063 852 

Dewing v. Perdioaries, 96 U. 

S. 193 741 



De Witt V. Hastings, 69 N. Y. 

518 216, 247 
v. San Francisco, 2 Cal. 

289 69, 70 

Dexine Patent Packing & 

Rubber Co., 88 L. T. 791 113, 
131, 480, 555 
Dexter v. Phillips, 121 Mass. 

178; 23 Am. Rep. 261 1443 

Dexter Horton & Co. v. Mc- 

Cafferty (Wash.), 84 Pac. 

733 804 

Dexter Savings Bank v. 

Friend, 90 Fed. 703 1374 

Dexterville, etc. Boom Co., Re, 

4 Fed. 873 1568 

Diamond Drill, etc. Co. v. 

Kelley Bros., 130 Fed. 893 310 
Dicido Pier Co., Re (1891), 2 

Ch. 354 545 

Dick V. Lehigh Valley R. R. 

Co., 4 Pa. Dist. Rep. 56 1063 

V. State (Md.), 68 Atl. 826 230 

Dickenson v. Central Nat. 

Bank, 129 Mass. 279; 37 

Am. Rep. 351 717, 717 
V. Chamber of Commerce, 

29 Wise. 45 ; 9 Am. R-p. 544 566 
Dickerman v. Northern Trust 

Co., 176 U.S. 181; 20 Sup. 

Ct. 311 261,262,322,628,1404, 
1424, 1470, 1624, 1625, 1626 
Dickinson v. Consolidated 

Traction Co., 114 Fed. 232; 

119 Fed. 871; 56 C. C. A. 

401 949, 949, 951, 969 

Dickson v. McMurray, 28 

Grant Ch. (Up. Can.) 533 1059, 

1059 
V. Swansea- Vale Co., 

L. R. 4. Q. B. 44 1420 

Dieterle v. . Ann Arbor Paint, 

etc. Co., 143 Mich. 416; 107 

N. W. 79 ISO, 205 

Dietrich v. Rothenberger, 25 

Ky. Law Rep. 338 ; 75 S. W. 

271 1357 

Dillaway v. Boston Gaslight 

Co., 174 Mass. 80; 54 N. E. 

359 963, 1493 

Diller v. Brubaker, 52 Pa. St. 

498; 91 Am. Dec. 177 808 

Dillingham v. Hawk, 60 Fed. 

494; 9 C. C. A. 101; 23 

L. R. A. 517 1617, 1618 
V. Scales, 24 S. W. 975 

(Tex.) 1619 

Dillon V. Barnard 21 Wall. 

430 1557 



Ixv 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Dimmick v. Stokes (Ala.), 43 

So. 854 1251 

Dimock v. Central Rawdon 
Mining Co., 36 Nova Scotia 
337 984 

Dimpfel v. Ohio, etc. Ry. Co., 
110 U. S. 209; 3 Sup. Ct. 
573 970 

Dingeldein v. Third Ave. R. R. 

Co., 9 Bosw. (N. Y.) 79 298 

Dinkier v. Baer, 92 Ga. 432; 

17 S. E. 953 ^ 779, 781 

Dinsmore v. Racine, etc. R. R. 

Co., 12 Wise. 649 1503, 1520 

Discoverers' Finance Corp. 

(1908), 1 Ch. 141 618, 618 

Dissette v. Lawrence Pub. Co., 
9 Oh. Circ. Ct. Rep. N. s. 
118 962, 971 

Distilling, etc. Co. v. People 
ex rel. Malony, 156 111. 448; 
41 N. E. 188; 47 Am. St. 
Rep. 200 263 

District of Columbia v. Cam- 
den Iron Works, 181 U. S. 
453; 21 Sup. Ct. 680 397, 398 
District Grand Lodge v. Cohn, 

20 111. App^ 335 557, 588 

Dittman v. Distilling Co., 54 
Atl. Rep. 570 (N. J. Ch.) 57, 57, 

79 
Dixie Cotton Oil Co. v. Morris 

(Ark.), 94 S. W. 933 1372 

Dixon V. Evans, L. R. 5 H. L. 

606 665 

V. Kennaway & Co. 

(1900), 1 Ch. 833 720, 737, 737, 
737, 738, 1279 
Doak V. Bank of the State, 6 

Ired. Law (N. Car.) 309 803 

Doan V. Vestry of Parish 
of Ascension (Md.), 64 Atl. 
314 380 

Dobbins v. Walton, 37 Ga. 

614; 95 Am. Dec. 371 771 

Dock V. Schlichter Jute Cord- 
age Co., 167 Pa. St. 370; 31 
Atl. 656 496, 498, 517 

Dockstader v. Y. M. C. A. 

(Iowa), 109 N. W. 906 1196 

Doctor V. Harrington, 196 

U. S. 579; 25 Sup. Ct. 355 975 
Dodd V. Pittsburg, etc. R. R. 

Co. (Ky.), 106 S. W. 787 936, 

1085 
Dodds V. Hills, 2 Hem. & 

Mill. 424 710, 711, 711, 814 

Dodge V. Woolsey, 18 How. 
331 950 



Dodge Stationery Co. v. 
Dodge, 145 Cal. 380; 78 
Pac. 879 372, 376, 377 

Doe V. Northwestern Coal, etc. 
Co., 78 Fed. 62 82, 1272, 1319, 

1328 
Doe ex dem. Bank of England 

V. Chambers, 4 Ad. & El. 

410 405 

Doe Kings College v. Kennedy, 

5Up. Can. Q.B. 577 404 

Doembecher v. Columbia City 

Lumber Co., 21 Oreg. 573; 

28 Pac. 899; 28 Am. St. 

Rep. 766 1210, 1210 

Doherty v. Mercantile Trust 

Co., 184 Mass. 590; 69N.E. 

335 956 

Dole V. Wooldredge, 135 Mass. 

140 274, 336 

Domestic Telegraph Co. v. 

Newark, 49 N. J. Law 344; 

8 Atl. 128 59 

Dominion of Canada Co., 55 

L. T. 347 1674 

Donald v. American Smelt- 
ing, etc. Co., 62 N. J. 

Eq. 729; 48 Atl. 771 488, 630, 

635 
V. Manufacturers' Export 

Co., 142 Ala. 578; 38 So. 

841 957 

Donaldson, Cobum & Knox, 

6 New So. Wales St. Rep. 

725 534 
V. Orchard Crude Oil Co. 

(Cal.), 92 Pac. 1046 1377 

Donelly v. Pancoast, 15 N. Y. 

App. Div. 323; 44 N. Y. 

Supp. 104 1227 

Donnell v. Herring-Hall- 
Marvin Co., 208 U. S. 267 377, 
388, 1085 
Donovan v. Purtell, 216 111. 

629; 75 N. E. 334 874, 886' 

D'Ooge V. Leeds, 176 Mass. 

658; 57 N. E. 1025 1142, 

1144, 1145 
Dooley v. Cheshire Glass Co., 

15 Gray (Mass.) 494 119, 127, 
228, 228, 240, 369, 370 

V. Gladiator, etc. Co. 

(Iowa), 109 N. W. 864 749, 753 

V. Wolcott, 4 Allen 

(Mass.) 406 233 

Doolittle, Re, 23 Fed. 544 1620 

Domes v. Supreme Lodge, 75 
Miss. 466; 23 So. 191 552, 556, 
583. 585 



bcvi 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Dorr V. Life Ins. Clearing Co., 
71 Minn. 38; 73N.W. 635; 
70 Am. St. Rep. 309 
Dorris V. French, 4 Hun 292 
V. Sweeney, 60 N. Y. 463 



770 
331 
214, 
216 



925 

230 

1411, 



1467 
72 

1381 

51 



Dorsey Harvester Revolving- 
Rake Co. V. Marsh, 7 Fed. 
Cas. 939 147, 382 

Dorsey Machine Co. v. Mc- 
Caffrey, 139 Ind. 545; 38 
N. E. 208; 47 Am. St. Rep. 
290 182, 183 

Dossett V. Harding, 1 C. B. 
N. s. 524 

Dotson V. Milliken, 27 App. 
D. C. 500 

Doty V. Oriental Print Works 
Co. (R. I.), 67 Atl. 586 

1495, 1520 

V. Patterson, 155 Ind. 

60; 56 N. E. 668 241, 243, 249 
Dougan v. Evansville, etc. R. 

R. Co., 15 N. Y. App. 

Div. 483; 44 N. Y. Supp. 

503 
Dougan's Case, 8 Ch. 540 
Dougherty v. Hunter, 54 Pa. 

St. 380 
Doughty V. Lomagunda Reefs 

(1902), 2 Ch. 837 
Douglass V. Cline, 12 Bush. 

(Ky.) 608 1517, 1559, 1565, 1602 
V. Merchants' Ins. Co., 

118 N. Y. 484; 23 N. E. 

806; 7 L. R. A. 822 594,1276 
Dousman v. Wisconsin, etc. 

Co., 40 Wise. 418 507, 948 

Douthitt V. Stinson, 63 Mo. 

268 254, 303 

Dover Coalfield Extension 

(1907), 2 Ch. 76; (1908), 1 

Ch. 65 1242 

Doveyr. Cory (1901), A.C.477 

769, 1101, 1102, 1104, 

1262, 1268, 1278 

Dow V. Gould, etc. Mining Co., 

31 Cal. 629 
V. Iowa Central Ry. Co., 

70 Hun 186; 24 N. Y. Supp. 

292 
V. Memphis, etc. R. R. 

Co., 20 Fed. 260 1562, 1584, 
1600, 1603 
V. Memphis, etc. R. R. 

Co., 32 Fed. 185 1491 

V. Memphis R. R. Co., 

124 U. S. 652; 8 Sup. Ct. 

673 1516, 1600, 1603 



709 



1664 



Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Higin- 

botham, 15S. Dak.547; 91 

N. W. 330 228 

Dowling V. Wheeler, 117 Mo. 

App. 169; 93 S. W. 924 778 

Downer's Adm'r v. Zanesville 

Bank, Wright (Oh.) 477 771, 774 
Downing v. Marshall, 23 N. Y. 

366; 80 Am. Dec. 290 68 
V. Mount Washington 

Road Co., 40 N. H. 230 42, 851, 
854, 859 

V. Potts, 23 N. J. Law 66 

157, 1016, 1017, 1019, 1019 
V. Thompson, 103 Va. 58; 

48 S. E. 506 732 

Downs V. Farmers' L. & T. 

Co., 79 Fed. 215; 24 C. C. 

A. 500 1517, 1631 

Doyle V. Douglas Machinery 

Co., 73 111. 273 230 
V. Mizner, 42 Mich. 332; 

3N. W. 968 118,238,242 

Drake v. Herndon (Ky.), 91 

S. W. 674 147 
V. Hudson River R. R. 

Co., 7 Barb. (N. Y.) 508 556 

Draper v. Blackwell, 138 Ala. 

182; 35 So. 110 523, 526 
V. Manchester, etc. Ry. 

Co., 3 De G. F. & J. 23 890 

Dreeben v. First Nat. Bank 

(Tex.), 99 S. W. 850 1374, 1379 
Drennen v. Mercantile Trust, 

etc. Co., 115 Ala. 592; 23 

So. 164; 67 Am. St. Rep. 

72; 39 L. R. A. 623 1559, 

1560, 1562, 1570 
Dressel v. North State Lumber 

Co., 107 Fed. 255 103 

Driffield Gas Light Co. (1898), 

1 Ch. 461 434, 435 

DriscoU V. West Bradley, etc. 

Co., 59 N. Y. 96 571, 593 

Driver v. Broad (1893), 1 Q. B. 

744 1393, 1439 

Droege v. Emery (Ky.), 105 

S. W. 374 234 

Drogheda Steam Packet Co. 

(1903), 1 Ir. 512 1123 

Droitwich Patent Salt Co. v. 

Curzon, L. R. 3 Ex. 35 512 

Dronfield Silkstone Coal Co., 

17 Ch. D. 76 516, 657, 830 

Drummond's Case, 4 Ch. 772 205, 

206, 634 

Drury v. Cross, 7 Wall. 299 1637 

V. Midland R. R. Co., 



127 Mass. 571 



1632 



Lxvii 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



933 
613 

928, 



Dublin Drapery Co., 13 L. R. 

Ir. 174 1396, 1504, 1504 

Dublin, etc. Ry. Co. v. Ack- 

erman, 59 S. E. 10 (Ga.) 1382 

Dubuque Female College v. 
Township District, 13 Iowa 
555 283,286 

Duck V. Tower Galvaniz- 
ing Co. (1901), 2 K. B. 314 1224, 
1406 

Duckett V. Grover, 6 Ch. D. 
82 

Duckworth, Re, 2 Ch. 578 

Dudley v. Armenia Ins. Co., 
115 N. Y. App. Div. 380 

962, 1350, 1353 

V. Kentucky High School, 

9 Bush (Ky.) 576 1076 
Dueber, etc. Mfg. Co. v. 

Dougherty, 62 Oh. St. 589; 

57 N. E. 455 711, 712 

Duffield V. Barnum Wire, etc. 
Works, 64 Mich. 293; 31 
N. W. 310 177 

Duggan V. Colorado Mort- 
gage, etc. Co., 11 Colo. 113; 
17 Pac. 105 117, U8, 229, 245 

Duke V. Cahawba Nav. Co., 

10 Ala. 82; 44 Am. Dec: 

472 148, 221, 229, 915 
V. Cahawba Nav. Co., 16 

Ala. 372 
v. Markham, 105 N. Car. 

131; 10 S. E. 1017; 18 

Am. St. Rep. 889 
V. Taylor, 37 Fla. 64; 

19 So. 172 ; 53 Am. St. Rep. 

232; 31 L. R. A. 484 

251, 1009 
Duke's Case, 1 Ch. D. 620 111, 

207 
Dunbar v. American Tel., etc. 

Co., 224 111. 9; 79 N. E. 

423 57, 58, 954, 1026 

Dunbar Box, etc. Co. v. Mar- 
tin, 103 N. Y. Supp. 91; 

53 N. Y. Misc. 312 1372 

Duncan v. Atlantic, etc. R. 

R. Co., 88 Fed. 840 1623, 1624 
V. Maryland Sav. Inst., 

10 G. & J. (Md.) 299 
V. Mobile, etc. R. R. Co., 

2 Woods 542 
V. Trustees, 3 Cent. L. J. 

579 
Duncomb v. New York, etc. 

R. R. Co., 84 N. Y. 190; 

s. c. 98 N. Y. 1 67, 1317, 1342, 

1405 

Ix 



222 



1068 



162, 



423 
1565 
1559 



Duncuft V. Albrecht, 12 Sim. 

189 422, 785, 785, 787 

Dunham v. Cincinnati, etc. 

Ry. Co., 1 Wall. 254 1452, 
1465, 1503, 1534, 1537, 1550 
V. City Trust Co., 101 

N. Y. Supp. 87 761 
V. Earle, 8 Fed. Cas. 41, 

No. 4, 149 1520, 1551 

V. Isett, 15 Iowa 284 1515, 

1551 
Dunlop V. Dunlop, 21 Ch. D. 

583 768, 768, 770, 772 

■ V. Mercer, 156 Fed. 545 

864, 866 
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. 

V. Dunlap Motor Co. (1907), 

A. C. 430 376, 377, 377 

Dunn V. Howe, 107 Fed. 849; 

47 C. C. A. 13 621 
V. New Orleans Bldg. 

Co., 8 La. 483 1005 

Dunn's Adm'r v. Kyle, 14 

Bush (Ky.) 134 1276, 1278 

Dunning v. Bates, 186 Mass. 

123; 71 N. E. 309 302, 1661 

Dunphy v. Traveller News- 
paper Ass'n, 146 Mass. 495; 

16 N. E. 426 938, 941, 942, 

943, 967, 980 
Dunsrauir v. Colonist Printing 

& Pub. Co., 9 British Co- 
lumbia 290 560, 932, 992, 1193, 
1194 
Dunsterv. Bernards Land, etc. 

Co. (N. J.), 65 Atl. 123 1003, 1003 
Dunster's Case (18 4), 3 Ch. 

473 206, 1178 

Dunston v. Imperial Gas 

Light Co., 3 B. & Adol. 125 553, 
1237 
Dupee V. Boston Water Power 

Co., 114 Mass. 37 517 
V. Chicago Horse Shoe 

Co., 117 Fed. 40; 54 C. C. 

A. 426 202 

Dupignac v. Bemstrom, 83 

N. Y. Supp. 350 1120 

Du Pont V. Bushong, 1 Wkly. 

Notes Cas. (Pa.) 378 1527 

V. Tilden, 42 Fed. 87 629, 647 

Dupuy V. Eastern Bldg., etc. 

Ass'n, 93 Va. 460; 25 S. E. 

537; 35 L. R. A. 215 563 
V. Terminal Co., 82 Md. 

408; 33 Atl. 889; 34 Atl. 

910 72, 958 

Duquesne College Charter, 

Re, 12 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 491 376 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



912 



1064 
307 
751 



Du Quoin Star, etc. Co. v. 

Thorwell, 3 111. App. 395 
Durant v. Iowa County, 1 

Woolw. 69 1435, 1448 

Durfee v. Harper, 22 Mont. 

373; 56Pac. 589 
Durgin v. Smith, 133 Mich. 

331; 94N. W. 1044 
Durham v. Monumental Silver 

Mining Co., 9 Oreg. 41 
Durham Bldg. Soc, 12 Eq. 

516 830, 831, 832, 862 

Durkee v. People, 155 111. 354; 

40 N. E. 626; 46 Am. St. 

Rep. 340 474, 1031 

Durlatcher i>.Frazer,8 Wyom. 

59;55Pac. 306; 80 Am. St. 

Rep. 918 
Duryea v. Zimmerman, 106 

N. Y. Supp. 237 
Dutchess, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Mabbett, 58 N. Y. 397 104, 104, 
131, 203, 203 
Dutenhofer v. Adirondack Ry. 

Co., 14 N. Y. Supp. 558 1663, 

1672, 1674 

Du Vivier v. Gallice, 149 Fed. 

118; 80 C. C. A. 556 
Dwight V. Smith, 9 Fed. 795 



297 
340 



■ V. Smith, 13 Fed. 50 



298 
1438, 

1489 
1447, 

1489 



Dwinnell v. Minneapolis Fire 

etc. Ins. Co., 97 Minn. 340; 

106 N. W. 312 483 

Dyerti.Drucker,108N.Y.App. 

Div. 238 ; 95 N. Y. Supp. 749 383 
V. Rich, 1 Mete. (Mass.) 

180 302 

Dykers v. Allen, 7 Hill 

(N. Y.) 497; 42 Am. Dec. 

87 ■ . 418,419 

Dykman v. Keeney, 154 N. 

Y. 483; 48 N. E. 894 1259, 

1285 

E 

Eagle Iron Co. v. Colyar, 156 

Fed. 954 932, 985, 1011 

Eagle, etc. Mfg. Co. v. Browne, 
58 Ga. 240 1238 

Eakins v. Am. White Bronze 
Co., 75 Mich. 668; 42 
N. W. 982 1248 

Eakwright v. Logansport, etc. 

R. R. Co., 13 Ind. 404 105, 604 

Bales V. Cumberland Black- 
lead Mine Co., 6 H. & N. 
481 1296, 1299, 1300, 1321 



Earl of Lindsey v. Great 
Northern Ry. Co., 10 Hare 
664 281, 395 

Earl of Shrewsbury v. North 
Staffordshire Ry. Co., 1 Eq. 
593 281, 281 

Earle v. Carson, 188 U. S. 42; 
23 Sup. Ct. 254 616, 619, 619, 

695 

V. Coyle, 97 Fed. 410; 38 

C. C. A. 226 695, 696, 763 

V. Seattle, etc. Ry. Co., 

56 Fed 909 942, 958, 969, 971 
Earp'sAppeal,28Pa.St.368 1137, 
1147, 1149 
Earp's Will, 1 Pars. Eq. (Pa.) 

453 1137, 1149, 1443 

East Anglian Rys. Co. v. East- 
ern Counties Ry. Co., 11 
C. B. 775 828, 829 

East Birmingham Land Co. 
V. Dennis, 85 Ala. 565; 5 
So. 317; 7Am. St. Rep. 73; 
2 L. R. A. 836 682, 683, 727 

East Gloucestershire Ry. Co. 
V. Bartholomew, L. R. 3 
Ex. 15 155, 157, 159 

East New York, etc. R. R. Co. 
V. Lighthall, 36 How. Pr. 
(N. Y.) 481 637, 1381 

East Norway Church v. 
Froislie, 37 Minn. 447; 35 
N. W. 260 249 

East Pant Du, etc. Co. v. 
Merryweather, 2 Hem. & 
Mill. 254 932, 933, 933, 1080, 

1312 
East St. Louis Connecting Ry. 
Co. V. Jarvis, 92 Fed. 735 838, 

874 
East Tennessee, etc. R. R. 
Co. V. Evans, 6 Heisk. 
(Tenn.) 607 386 

V. Gammon, 5 Sneed 

(Tenn.) 567 586 

East Wheal Mining Co., 33 

Beav. 119 748 

Easterly v. Barber, 65 N. Y. 

252 1225, 1227 

Eastern Bldg., etc. Ass'n v. 
Williamson, 189 U. S. 122; 
23 Sup. Ct. 527 832, 838 

Eastern Cable Co. v. Great 
Western Mfg. Co., 164 
Mass. 274; 41 N. E. 295 1413 
Eastern Counties Ry. Co. v. 
Broom, 6 Exch. 314 869 

V. Hawkes, 5 H. L. C. 

331 283, 861 



Ixix 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



1672 
1607 



1365 



Eastern Plank Road Co. v. 

Vaughan, 20 Barb. (N. Y.) 

155 604 
V. Vaughan, 14 N. Y. 

546 112, 208 

Eastern R. R. Co., Re, 120 

Mass. 412 1493 

Eastern Townships Bank v. 

St. Johnsbury, etc. R. R. 

Co., 40 Fed. 423 1437, 1450, 

1452 
Eastern Tube Co. v. Harrison, 

140 Fed. 519 352, 357, 359, 366 
Eastern & Midlands Ry. Co., 

45 Ch. D. 367, 386 1574, 1606, 

1644 

, 67 L. T. N. 8. 711 

(No. 2), 66L. T. 153 

Eastham v. York State Tele- 
phone Co., 86 N. Y. App. 

Div. 562; 83 N. Y. Supp. 

1019 
Eastman v. Parkinson 

(Wise), 113 N. W. 649 63, 65, 
1221 
Easton v. Houston, etc. Ry. 

Co., 38 Fed. 12 1568 
V. Houston, etc. Ry. Co., 

38 Fed. 784 1611 
V. Houston, etc. Ry. Co., 

40 Fed. 189 1490, 1491, 1621, 
1621 
Easton Nat. Bank v. Am. 

Brick & Tile Co. (N. J.), 64 

Atl. 917; 8. c. 60 Atl. 54 

(N. J.) 627, 628, 647, 1234 
V. Am. Brick & Tile Co. 

(N. J.), 64 Atl. 1095 635 

Eastwick's Case, 34 L. T. 84 1289, 

1340 
Easun v. Buckeye Brewing 

Co., 51 Fed. 156 71, 72, 76 

Eaton V. Aspinwall, 19 N. Y. 

119 241, 250 
V. New England Tel. Co., 

68 Me. 63 729, 729 
V. Robinson, 19 R. I. 

146; 31 Atl. 1058; 32 Atl. 

339; 29 L. R. A. 100 982, 1240 
V. Walker, 76 Mich. 579; 

43 N. W. 638 ; 6 L. R. A. 102 244 
Eaton, etc. R. R. Co. v. Hunt, 

20 Ind. 457 1584, 1588 

Ebbett's Case, 5 Ch. 302 173 

Ebbw Vale Steel, etc. Co., 4 

Ch. D. 827 532, 540 

Ebelhar v. German Am. Sec. 

Co. (Ky.), 91 S. W. 262 1128, 
1268 



Ixx 



Ebenezer Timmins & Sons 

(1902), 1 Ch. 238 149, 155, 205, 

642 
E. Carver Co. v. Manufac- 
turers' Ins. Co., 6 Gray 

(Mass.) 214 1379 

Eckman v. Chicago, etc. R. R. 

Co., 169 111. 312; 48 N. E. 

496; 38 L. R. A. 750 852 

Eckstein v. Downing, 64 N. H. 

248; 9 Atl. 626; 10 Am. 

St. Rep. 404 787 

Eclipse Mining Co., 17 Eq. 

490 433, 434 

Ecuadorian Ass'n v. Ecuador 

Co. (N. J.), 65 Atl. 1051 188, 
198, 630 
V. Ecuador Co., 61 Atl. 

481 632 

Eddleman v. Union County 

Traction, etc. Co., 217 111. 

409; 75 N. E. 510 249 

Eddy V. Co-operative Dress 

Ass'n, 3 N. Y. Gv. Proc. 

Rep. 442 1242 

Eddystone Marine Ins. Co. 

(1893), 3 Ch. 9 637, 639 

Edelhoff V. Homer-Miller 

Mfg. Co., 86 Md. 595; 39 

Atl. 314 1553 
V. State, 5 Wyom. 19; 

36 Pac. 627 228 

Edelstein v. Schuler & Co. 

(1902), 2 K. B. 144 1423, 1425, 
1425 
Eden v. Ridsdale, etc. Co., 23 

Q. B. D. 368 1333, 1334, 1338, 
1339 
Edgerly v. Emerson, 3 Foster 

(23 N. H.) 555; 55 Am. 

Dec. 207 912, 912, 917, 1205, 

1210, 1211 
Edgerton v. Electric Imp. Co., 

50 N. J. Eq. 354; 24 Atl. 

540 199, 632 

Edgewood Borough v. Scott, 

29 Pa. Sup. Ct. 156 35, 61 

Edinburgh, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Hebblewhite, 6 M. & W. 

707 661, 668 

Edison v. Edison United 

Phonograph Co., 52 N. J. 

Eq. 620; 29 Atl. 195 958 

Edison Storage Battery Co. 

V. Edison Automobile Co., 

67N.J. Eq. 44; 56 Atl. 861 374, 
376, 377 
Edmonds v. Blaina Furnace 

Co , 36 Ch. D. 215 1392 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Edmonds v. Company of 

Watermen & Li^termen, 

24 L. J. Magistrate Cases, 

124 564 

Edward Nelson & Co. v. 

Faber & Co. (1903), 2 K. B. 

367 1545, 1548 

Edwards v. Bates County, 99 

Fed. 905; 40 C. C. A. 161 1440 
V. Bates County, 163 

U.S. 269; 16Sup. Ct. 967 1448 
V. Bates County, 117 

Fed. 526 916, 1434, 1436 
V. Bay State Gas Co., 91 

Fed. 942 957, 976 
V. Bay State Gas Co., 91 

Fed. 946 1679 
V. Bay State Gas Co., 

130 Fed. 242 983 
V. Fairbanks, 27 La. Ann. 

449 844 
V. Grand Junction Ry. 

Co., 1 Myl. & C. 650 281 
V. Mercantile Trust Co., 

124 Fed. 381 956, 956, 967, 
969,979 
V. Michigan Tontine In- 
vestment Co., 132 Mich. 1 ; 

92 N. W. 491 850, 856 
V. National Window 

Glass, etc. Ass'n (N. J.), 58 

Atl. 527 
V. Standard Rolling 

Stock Syndicate (1893), 1 

Ch. 574 

, Ex parte, 64 L. T. 561 

Eells V. Johann, 27 Fed. 327 
Efland v. Southern Ry. Co. 

(N. Car.), 59 S. E. 355 
Egilbert v. Superior Court 

(Cal.), 91 Pae. 748 906, 1367, 

1376 
Ehle V. Chittenango Bank, 24 

N. Y. 548 1118, 1119 

Ehrmann Bros. (1906), 2 Ch. 

697 
Eichbaum v. City of Chicago 

Grain Elevators (1891), 3 

Ch. 459 
V. Sample, 213 Pa. 216; 

62 Atl. 837 
Eidman v. Bowman, 58 111. 

444; 11 Am. Rep. 90 487, 499, 

1189 
Einstein v. Rochester Gas, etc. 

Co., 146 N. Y. 46; 40 N. E. 

631 482 

Eisfeld V. Kenworth, 50 Iowa 

389 128 



979 



1604 

181 

1551 

25 



1396 



524 

786 



Ixxi 



Elder v. New Zealand Co., 30 

L. T. 285 160, 189, 608 

Eldred v. American Palace 

Car Co., 105 Fed. 457; 44 

C. C. A. 554 969, 975 
V. American Palace Car 

Co., 99 Fed. 168; s. c. 96 

Fed. 59; 103 Fed. 209; 105 

Fed. 455; 45 C. C. A. 1; 

105 Fed. 457; 44 C. C. A. 

554 969, 975 

- — V. Ripley, 97 111. App. 

503 928, 1350 

Eldridge v. Smith, 34 Vt. 484 1520, 

1522 
Electric Co. v. Edison Elec- 
tric, etc. Co., 200 Pa. 516; 

50 Atl. 164 499, 507 

Electric Fireproofing Co. v. 

Smith, 113 N. Y. App. Div. 

615 339, 1347 

Electric Welding Co. v. Prince 

(Mass.), 81 N. E. 306 175, 178, 
348, 350, 351, 356, 356, 
356, 358, 363, 363, 364 
Elevator, etc. Co. v. Memphis, 

etc. R. R. Co., 85 Tenn. 

703; 5S. W. 52; 4 Am. St. 

Rep. 798 
Eley V. Positive Life Ass. Co., 

1 Ex. D. 20 
V. Positive, etc. Ass. Co., 

1 Ex. D. 88 
Elgin Nat. Watch Co. v. 

Loveland, 132 Fed. 41 123, 371, 
373 373 
Elias, Re, 40 N. Y. Supp. 910; 

17 N. Y. Misc. 718 1025, 1176 
Elizabethtown Gas Light Co. 

V. Green, 46 N. J. Eq. 118; 

49 N. J. Eq. 329 ; 24 Atl. 560 
Elk Brewing Co. v. Neubert, 

213 Pa. 171; 62 Atl. 782 
Elkhom Land, etc. Co. v. 

Childers (Ky.), 100 S. W. 

222 
Elkington's Case, 2 Ch. 511 
Elkins V. Camden, etc. R. R. 

Co., 36 N. J. Eq. 5 
V. Camden, etc. R. R. Co., 

36 N. J. Ea. 233 459, 467, 467 
V. Camden, etc. R. R. 

Co., 36 N. J. Eq. 467 954, 1194, 
1194, 1326 

V. Chicago, 119 Fed. 957 969 

EUerman v. Chicago Grand 

Junction Rys., etc. Co., 49 

N. J. Eq. 217; 23 Atl. 287 39, 
52, 62, 76, 86, 94, 95 



452 

285 

34 



245 
1307 



420 
633 

57 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



1133 



1650 



Elliot V. Richardson, L. R 5 

C. P. 744 1029 

Elliott V. Baker (Mass.), 80 

N. E. 450 510, 1271 
V. Farmers' Bank (W. 

Va.), 57 S. E. 242 1317, 1318 
V. Sibley, 101 Ala. 344; 

13 So. 500 1250 

Ellis V. Barfield, W. N. 

(1891) 84 . 1140 
V. Boston, etc. R. R. Co., 

107 Mass. 1 1517, 1517, 1550 
V. French Canadian, etc. 

Ass'n, 189 Mass. 566; 76 

N. E. 207 1126,1359 
V. Howe Machin ■ Co., 9 

Daly (N. Y. 78 852, 880 
V. N. C. Institution, 68 

N. Car. 423 593, 594, 1224 

V. Proprietors of Essex 

Merrimack Bridge, 2 Pick. 
(Mass.) 243 

V. Vernon, etc. Water 

Co., 86 Tex. 109; 23 S. W. 
858 

V. Ward, 137 111. 509; 25 

N. E. 530 1265, 1288, 1360 

Ellison V. Branstrator, 153 

Ind. 146; 54 S. E. 433 406, 407 
V. Mobile, etc. R. R. Co., 

36 Miss. 572 151, 185 

Ellsworth V. Dorwart, 95 

Iowa 108; 63 N. W. 588; 

58 Am. St. Rep. 427 894, 894 

899, 901, 904, 907 
V. St. Louis, etc. R. R. 

Co., 98 N. Y. 553 1403 

Ellsworth, etc. Mfg. Co. v. 

Faunce, 79Me. 440; lOAtl. 

250 1011, 1225, 1225 

Elmira, etc. Mill Co. v. Erie 

Ry. Co., 26 N. J. Eq. 284 1617 
Eisner and McArthur's Case 

(1895), 2 Ch. 759 640, 640, 641 
Elve V. Boynton (1891), 1 Ch. 

501 20, 20 

Elwell V. Fosdick, 134 U. S. 

500; lOSup. Ct. 598 
V. Grand Street, etc. R. 

R. Co., 67 Barb. (N. Y.) 83 
Ely V. Hanford, 65 111. 267 
V. Sprague, 1 Clarke Ch. 

(N. Y.) 351 
Elyea v. Lehigh Salt Mining 

Co., 169 N. Y. 29; 61 N. 

E. 992 
Elyton Land Co. v. Dowdell, 

113 Ala. 177: 20 So. 981; 

59 Am. St. Rep. 106 72, 78 



1485 

1509 
324 

1114 



1023 



Emerson B. European, etc. Ry. 

Co:, 67 Me. 387; 24 Am. 

Rep. 39 1503, 1512, 1515, 1519 

V. Gaither, 103 Md. 564 

1125, 1259, 1263, 
1285, 1288, 1289 
Emerson Co. v. Nimocks, 88 

Fed. 280 226 

Emery v. Parrott, 107 Mass. 

95. 274, 336, 1270, 1346 

Emlen v. Lehigh Coal, etc. Co., 

47 Pa. St. 76; 86 Am. Dec. 

518 1472 

Emma Silver Mining Co., 10 

Ch. 194 890, 891 

V. Grant, 11 Ch. D. 918 293, 

320, 321 

V. Grant, 17 Ch. D. 122 

327, 1284, 1346, 1346 

V. Lewis, 4 C. P. D. 396 

271, 273, 274, 318, 320 
Emmerling v. First Nat. Bank, 

97 Fed. 739; 38 C. C. A. 

399 841 

Emmitt v. Springfield, etc. R. 

R. Co., 31 Oh. St. 23 609, 625 
Empire Mfg. Co. v. Stuart, 46 

Mich. 482; 9 N. W. 527 248 

Empire Mills v. Alston Gro- 
cery Co., 4 Willson Civ. 

Cas. (Tex.) § 221 252 

Empire Steam, etc. Co. v. 

DeLavel Dairy, etc. Co. 

(N. J.), 67Atl. 711 1362 

Empress Engineering Co., Re, 

16 Ch. D. 125 283 

Engel V. South Metropolitan 

Brewing Co. (1892), 1 Ch. 

442 1513, 1599 

Engelhardt v. Fifth Ward 

Loan Ass'n, 148 N. Y. 281; 

42 N. E. 710; 35 L. R. A. 

289 586 

England v. Dearborn, 141 

Mass. 590; 6 N. E. 837 880, 

1381 
Englefield Colliery Co., 8 Ch. ' 

D. 388 295 

English & Colonial Produce 

Co. (1906), 2 Ch. 435 289, 293, 
294, 296 
Englisli, etc. Investment Co. 

V. Brunton (1892), 2 Q. B. 

700 1534, 1547 

Ennis Cotton Oil Co. v. Burke, 

39 S. W. 966 (Tex. Gv. 

App.) 287, 307, 309 

Ennis & West Clare Ry. Co., 

3 L. R. Ir. 94 224 



Ixxii 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Enterprise Ditch Co. v. Mof- 
fitt,58Nebr.642; 79N.W. 
560; 45 L. R. A. 647; 76 
Am. St. Rep. 122 650, 652 

Enterprise Mut. Beneficial 
Ass'n, 10 Phila. 380 103, 120 

Eppright V. Nickerson, 78 
Mo. 482 66, 1188 

Equitable Endowment Ass'n 
V. Fisher, 71 Md. 430; 18 
Atl. 808 592, 594 

Equitable Gas Light Co. v. 
Baltimore Coal Tar, etc. Co., 
65 Md. 73; 3 Atl. 108 1375 

Equitable Reversionary Int. 
Soc. V. Fuller, 1 J. & H. 379 



Equitable Securities Co.' v. 

Johnson (Cal.), 85 Pac. 

840 
Erd V. Bavarian, etc. Ass'n, 

67 Mich. 233; 34N. W. 555 



1446 



695 



580 



Erie City Iron Works v. Bar- 
ber, 106 Pa. St. 125; 51 

Am. Rep. 508 869 

Erie Lumber Co., 150 Fed. 

817 1650 

Erie Printing Co. v. Erie 

Lithographmg & Printing 

Co., 31 Pa. Co. Ct. 1 371, 375 

Erie, etc. R. R. Co. v. Patrick, 

2 Keyes (N. Y.) 256 176 

Erlanger v. New Sombrero 

Phosphate Co., 3 App. Gas. 

1218 271, 316, 316, 316, 329 

Ernest V. Croysdill, 29 L. J. 

Gh. 580 1260 
V. Loma Gold Mines 

(1897), 1 Ch. 1 1036, 1036, 
1044, 1044 
V. NichoUs, 6 H. L. Gas. 

401 1305 

Ernst V. Elmira Mun. Imp. 

Co.,24N.Y. Misc. 583; 54 

N. Y. Supp. 116 441 

Emy V. G. W. Schmidt Co., 

197 Pa. St. 475; 47 Atl. 

877 969, 980 

Erskine v. Loewenstein, 82 

Mo. 301 648, 736 
V. Mcllrath, 60 Minn. 485 ; 

62 N. W. 1130 1615 

Erskine, Oxenard & Co. v. 

Sachs (1901), 2 K. B. 504 809 

Ervin V. Oregon, etc. R. R. 

Co., 22 Hun (N. Y.) 566 889 
V. Oregon Ry., etc. Co., 

28 Hun (N Y.) 269 968 



Ervin v. Oregon, etc. Naviga- 
tion Co. , 27 Fed. 625 1082, 1082 
Esgen V. Smith, 113 Iowa 25; 

84 N. W. 954 626 

Esparto Trading Co., 12 Ch. 

D. 191 525, 664, 665, 1173, 

1175 
Esper V. Miller, 131 Mich. 

334; 91N. W. 613 287 

Espuela Land, etc. Co., W. N. 

(1900) 139 1000, 1002 

Essex Turnpike Corp. v. Col- 
lins, 8 Mass. 292 169 
Estabrook, Ex parte, 8 Fed. 

Gas. 794; 2 Lowell 547 862, 

1380 
Estell V. University of the 

South, 12 Lea (Tenn.) 476 70 

Estes V. German Nat. Bank, 

62 Ark. 7; 34 S. W. 85 1211 

Estey Mfg. Co. v. Runnels, 55 

Mich. 130; 20 N. W. 823 

234 237 
E. Swindell & Co. v. Bain- 
bridge State Bank (Ga.), 

60 S. E. 13 866 

Etna Coal, etc. Co. v. Marting 

Iron, etc. Co., 127 Fed. 32 1583 
Etna Ins. Co., Re (1871), Ir. 

Rep. 6 Eq^298 178 

Ettlinger v. Persian Rug, etc. 

Co., 142 N. Y. 189; 36 

N. E. 1055; 40 Am. St. Rep. 

587 1587 

Etty V. Bridges, 2 Y. & Colly 

Ch. 486 801 

Eureka Fire Hose Co. v. Eu- 
reka Rubber Mfg. Co. (N. 

J.), 60 Atl. 561 373 

European Central Ry. Co., 

4 Ch. D. 33 1442 

European, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Poor, 59 Me. 277 1303, 1334, 

1335 
Eustace v. Dublin Trunk Ry. 

Co., 6 Eq. 182 200, 201 

Euston V. Edgar (Mo.), 105 S. 

W. 773 262, 628 

Evans v. Boston Heating Co., 

157 Mass. 37; 31 N. E. 

698 1004 

V. Chapman, 86 L. T. 381 

132, 589 
V. Davies (1893), 2 Ch. 

216 423 
V. Johnson, 149 Fed. 

978; 79 C. C. A. 488 84, 838 

V. Lee, 11 Nevada. 194 407, 

1376 



bcxiii 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Evans v. Smallcombe, L. R. 3 
H. L. 249 665 

V. Southern Turnpike 

Co., 18 Ind. 101 • 231 

V. Union Pao. Ry. Co., 58 

Fed. 497 970, 971 

Evans' Case, 2 Ch. 427 203 

Evansville Nat. Bank v. Met- 
ropolitan Nat. Bank, 2 
Biss. 527 571, 769 

Evansville Public Hall Co. 
V. Bank of Commerce, 144 
Ind. 34; 42 N. E. 1097 1306 

Evansville, etc. R. R. Co. v. 
Evansville, 15 Ind. 395 244, 
1109 

Evarts V. Killingsworth Mfg. 
Co., 20 Conn. 447 873, 875, 

875, 924, 924, 1367, 1375 

Evenson v. EUingson, 67 
Wise. 634; 31 N. W. 342 

244 

Everet v. Williams, 9 Law 
Quarterly Review 197 258 

Everitt V. Automatic Weigh- 
ing Machine Co. (1892), 3 
Ch. 506 769 

Evertson v. Nat. Bank of 
Newport, 66 N. Y. 14; 23 
Am. Rep. 9 1451, 1451, 1461, 

1463, 1464 

Excelsior Ins. Co., 38 Barb. 

(N. Y.) 297 1163, 1191 

Excelsior Petroleum Co. v. 

Lacey, 63 N. Y. 422 1358 

Excelsior Water Co. v. Pierce, 

90 Cal. 131; 27 Pac. 44 416, 

416, 1098, 1099, 1099, 1100, 

1103, 1104, 1104, 1104, 1109, 

1117 

Exchange Bank v. Macon 
Construction Co., 97 Ga. 1; 
25 S. E. 326; 33 L. R. A. 
800 873, 878, 1569, 1570 

Exchange Drapery Co., 38 
Ch. D. 171 435 

Exeter, etc. Ry. Co. v. BuUer, 
5 Eng. Ry. & Can. Cas. 211 ; 
16 L. J. Ch. 449 930, 933 

Ex-Mission Land Co. v. 
Flash, 97 Cal. 610; 32 
Pac. 600 272, 321, 327 

Exter V. Sawyer, 146 Mo. 302 ; 

47 S. W. 951 322, 326 

Eyre's Case, 31 Beav. 177 766, 

1327 

Eyster v. Centennial Board of 

Finance, 94 U. S. 500 425, 1091 , 
1099 



Ixxiv 



Factors, etc. Ins. Co. v. Har- 
bor Protection Co., 37 La. 

Ann. 233 121 
V. Marine Dry Docks, 

etc. Co., 31 La. Ann. 149 732 

Fadness v. Baunberg, 73 Wise. 

257; 41 N. W. 84 302 

Fahrney v. Kelly, 102 Fed. 

403 716 

Fairbank «.. Merchants' Nat. 

Bank, 132 111. 120; 22 N. 

E. 524 806, 806, 810, 812, 

1135, 1136 
Fairfield County Turnpike 

Co. V. Thorp, 13 Conn. 173 

1078, 1231 
Fairtitle ex dem. Mytton v. 

Gilbert (1787), 2 T. R. 169 

828, 829 
Falcone v. Societa Sarti, 61 

N. Y. Supp. 873 562 

Fallon V. United States Direct- 

tory Co., 86 N. Y. App. 

Div. 29 ; 83 N. Y. Supp. 359 957 
Falls City Tinware Co.'s 

Trustee v. Levine (Ky.), 

104 S. W. 716 520 
Famous Shoe, etc. Co. v. 

Eagle Iron Works, 51 Mo. 

App. 66 1377 

Faneuil Hall Bank v. Bank 

of Brighton, 16 Gray 

(Mass.) 534 863 

Fanning v. Insurance Co., 37 

Oh. St. 339; 41 Am, Rep. 

517 174 

Farley v. St. Paul, etc. Ry. 

Co., 4 McCrary 138 1636 

Farmers' Bank v. Diebold 

Safe, etc. Co., ,66 Oh. St. 

367; 64N. E. 518; 90 Am. 

St. Rep. 586; 58 L. R. A. 

620 726, 739 

V. McKee, 2 Pa. St. 318 

1372 
Farmers' Bank of Md. v. Igle- 

hart, 6 Gill (Md.) 50 770 

Farmers' Bank of Maryland's 

Case, 2 Bland (Md.) 394 

768, 769, 776 
Farmers' Bank of Vine Grove 

V. Smith, 49 S. W. 810; 

105 Ky. 816; 88 Am. St. 

Rep. 341 293 

Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Amer- 
ican Waterworks Co., 107 
Fed. 23 1516, 1638 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Bank- 
ers, etc. Tel. Co., 148 N. Y. 
315; 42N. E. 707; 51 Am. 
St. Rep. 690 ; 31 L. R. A. 403 1570 

V. Cape Fear, etc. R. R. 

Co., 62 Fed. 675 1602, 1602 

V. Cape Fear, etc. Ry. 

Co., 71 Fed. 38 1585 

V. Cary, 13 Wise. 110 1515 

V. Central R. R. Co., 17 

Fed. 758 1634 
V. Central R., etc. Co., 

120 Fed. 1006 120 
V. Central R. R. of Iowa, 

7 Fed. 537 1615, 1620, 1633 
V. Central R. R. of Iowa, 

8 Fed. 60 1621 
V. Centralia, etc. R. Co., 

96 Fed. 636 1646, 1646, 1647 

. V. Chicago, etc. R. Co., 

118 Fed. 204 1617 
V. Chicago, etc. R. R. Co., 

68 Fed. 412 1494 
V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 

27 Fed. 146 1593, 1602, 1623, 
1626, 1672, 1675 
■». Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 

42 Fed. 6 1612, 1612 
V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 

44 Fed. 653 1634, 1634 

■ V. Clowes, 3 N. Y. 470 87 

' V. Commercial Bank, 11 

Wise. 207 1503 

> V. Commercial Bank, 15 

Wise. 424; 82 Am. Dec. 

689 1532 

'■ V. Denver, etc. Ry. Co., 

126 Fed. 46 1538, 1538 

V. Detroit, etc. R. R. 

Co., 71 Fed. 29 1496, 1516, 
1517, 1518, 1548, 
1568, 1568, 1573 
V. Farmers' L. & T. Co. 

of Kansas, 1 N. Y. Supp. 44 375 
— ' — V. Grape Creek Coal Co., 

65 Fed. 717; 13 C. C. A. 87 

1465, 1465 
V. Green Bay, etc. R. R. 

Co., 6 Fed. 100; 10 Biss. 

203 1628, 1628, 1628, 1630 
V. Green Bay, etc. Ry. 

Co., 45 Fed. 664 1568 
V. Hendrickson, 25 Barb. 

(N. Y.) 484 1396 
■». Housatonic R. R. Co., 

152 N. Y. 251; 46 N. E. 

504 1248 

• -v. Iowa Water Co., 78 

Fed. 881 1456, 1466, 1627 



Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Kansas 
City, etc. R. R. Co., 53 Fed. 
182 1563, 1572 

V. Lake St. Elevated R. 

Co., 122 Fed. 914 1581 

V. Louisville, etc. Ry. 

Co., 103 Fed. 110 1659 
V. Madison Mfg. Co., 153 

Fed. 310 1343, 1434 
V. Mann, 4 Robt. (N. Y.) 

356 1373 
V. Meridian Waterworks 

Co., 139 Fed. 661 1498, 1521, 
1552, 1604 
V. Missouri, etc. Ry. Co., 

21 Fed. 264 1659 
V. New England Water- 
works Co., 137 Fedi 729; 

70 C. C. A. 163 1456 

V. New York, etc. Ry. 

Co., 94 N. Y. Supp. 928 1595 

V. New York, etc. Ry. 

Co., 150 N. Y. 410; 44 
N. E. 1043; 55 Am. St. 

Rep. 689; 34 L. R. A. 76 1082, 
1595, 1593 
V. Northern Pae. R. R. 

Co., 58 Fed. 257 1612 
V. Northern Pac. R. R. 

Co., 60 Fed. 803 1621 
V. Northern Pac. R. R. 

Co., 61 Fed. 546 1602, 1602 
V. Northern Pac. R. R. 

Co., 66 Fed. 169 1585, 1587, 1595 
V. Northern Pac. R. R. 

Co., 68 Fed. 36 1565, 1567 
V. Northern Pac. R. R. 

Co., 70 Fed. 423 1585, 1587 
V. Northern Pac. R. R. 

Co., 71 Fed. 245 
V. Northern Pae. 

Co., 74 Fed. 431 



1567 
R. R. 
1561, 1565, 
1568 



V. Northern Pac. R. R. 

Co., 79 Fed. 227 

— V. Nova Scotia, etc. Ry. 
Co., 24 Nova Scotia 542 

— V. Oregon Pac. R. R. Co., 
SlOreg. 237; 48 Pae. 706; 
65 Am. St. Rep. 822; 38 
L. R. A. 424 

V. Oregon, etc. R. R. Co., 

40 Pae. 1089; 28 Oreg. 44 

— V. Oregon, etc. R. R. Co., 
67 Fed. 404 

— V. Penn Plate Glass Co., 
186 U.S. 434; 22 Sup. Ct. 
842 



1568 
1584 



1640 

1627, 
1629 

1453 



1483 



Ixxv 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Perry, 

3 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.)'339 75, 87 

V. Rockaway Valley 

R. R. Co., 69 Fed. 9 1400 
V. San Diego St. Car Co., 

45 Fed. 518 1080, 1310, 
1402, 1406 
V. San Diego, etc. Co., 49 

Fed. 188 1510, 1608 
V. Stuttgart, etc. R. R. 

Co., 92 Fed. 246 1566 

V. Toledo, etc. R. R. 

Co., 54 Fed. 759 67, 1405, 1405, 
1435 

V. Toledo, etc. Ry. Co., 

67 Fed. 49 109, 492, 986, 1525, 
1526, 1624 

V. Vicksburg, etc. R. R. 

Co., 33 Fed. 778 1565, 1570 

V. Winona, etc. Ry. Co., 

59 Fed. 957 1593, 1603 

Farmers' Mfg. Co. v. Spruks 

Mfg. Co., 119 Fed. 594 1356 

Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Sutton 
Mfg. Co., 52 Fed. 191; 3 C. 
C. A. 1; 17L. R. A. 595 862, 

867 
716 



V. Wilson, 58 Cal. 600 

Farmers' & Mech. Bank v. 
Nelson, 12 Md. 35 

Farmers', etc. Bank v. Bald- 
win, 23 Minn. 198; 23 Am. 
Rep. 683 

V. Champlain, 18 Vt. 131 

V. Downey, 53 Cal. 466; 

31 Am. Rep. 62 

V. Haney, 87 Iowa 101; 

54 N. W. 61 572, 770 

V. Iglehart, 6 Gill (Md.) 

50 773, 791 

V. Mosher, 100 N. W. 

133; 94 N. W. 1003; 68 
Nebr. 713 

V. Waco Electric Ry. 

Co. (Tex.), 36 S. W. 131 



175 



845 

517 

1334 



715 



1435, 
1562 
V. Wasson, 48 Iowa 336; 

30 Am. Rep. 398 571, 1335, 1335 
V. Wayman, 5 Gill (Md.) 

336 814, 814 

Farmers', etc. Ins. Co. v. 

Chase, 56 N. H. 341 1214, 1215 
Farmers', etc. Trust Co. v. St. 

Joseph, etc. Ry. Co., 3 

Dill. 412 1396 

Farmers', etc. Turnpike Co., 

25 Pa. St. 303 404 

Farmington Sav. Bank v. 

Fall, 71 Me. 49 868 



Famesworth v. Robbins, 36 
Minn. 369; 31 N. W. 349 



518, 
524 



Ixxvi 



Famham v. Benedict, 107 

N. Y. 159; 13 N. E. 784 245 

Famsworth v. Drake, 11 Ind. 

101 251 

Farrar v. Walker, 13 Nat. B. 

Reg. 82 177 

Farrell v. Gold Flint Mining 

Co., 32 Mont. 416; 80 Pac. 

1027 1210 

V. Union Trust Co., 77 

Mo. 475 1582 

Farrington v. Putnam, 90 Me. 
405; 37 Atl. 652; 38 L. R. 
A. 339 847 

V. South Boston R. R. 

Co., 150 Mass. 406; 23 
N. E. 109; 15Am. St. Rep. 

222; 5L. R. A. 849 736,741 

Farwell v. Babcock, 27 Tex. 

Civ. App. 162; 65 S. W. 

509 969, 1076 
V. Colonial Trust Co., 147 

Fed. 480; 78 C. C. A. 22 777 

V. Great Western TeL 

Co., 161 111. 522; 44 N. E. 

891 1617 

V. Houghton Copper 

Works, 8 Fed. 66 913, 914, 

1042, 1199, 1210, 1223 
V. Tweddle, 10 Abb. n. c. 

(N. Y.) 94 1446 

Farwell, John V. Co. v. Wolf, 

96 Wise. 10; 70N. W. 289; 

71 N. W. 109; 65 Am. St. 

Rep. 22; 37 L. R. A. 138 844 
Fatman v. Lobach, 1 Duer 

(N. Y.) 354 723 

Faulds V. Yates, 57 111. 416; 

11 Am. Rep. 24 1029 

Faure Electnc, etc. Co., 40 

Ch. D. 141 354, 1274 

V. Phillipart, 58 L. T. 

525 600, 614, 1205, 1205, 1232 
Fawcett v. Charles, 13 Wend. 

(N. Y.) 473 1183 

V. New Haven Organ 

Co., 47 Conn. 224 1376 
Fay V. Gray, 124 Mass. 500 . 418, 
807, 812 
V. Noble, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 

188 252, 252 

V. Noble, 12 Cush. 

(Mass.) 1 591, 1370 

Fayette Land Co. v. Louis- 
ville, etc. R. R. Co., 93 Va. 
274; 24 S. E. 1016 393, 847 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Fayetteville, etc. Ry. v. Aber- 
deen, etc. R. R. Co. (N. 
Car.), 55 S. E. 345 147, 160 

Fear v. Bartlett, 81 Md. 435; 
32 Atl. 322; 33 L. R. A. 

721 180, 181 

Fearing v. Glenn, 73 Fed. 116; 

19 C. C. A. 388 1181, 1182, 

1182 
Featherstone v. Cooke, 16 Eq. 

298 943, 958 

Featherstonebaugh v. Lee 

Moor, etc. Co., 1 Eq. 318 97 

Feckheitner v. Nat. Exchange 

Bank, 79 Va. 80 571, 751 

Fee V. Nat. Masonic Accident 

Ass'n, 110 Iowa 271; 81 

N. W. 483 553, 562, 1214, 1216 
Feige v. Burt, 118 Mich. 243; 

77 N. W. 928; 74 Am. St. 

Rep. 390 807, 808 

Feitel v. Dreyfous, 117 La. 

756; 42 So. 259 
Felgate's Case, 11 L. T. 613 
Felker v. Sullivan (Colo.), 83 

Pac. 213 
Felton V. West Iron, etc. Co., 

16 Mont. 81; 40 Pac. 70 
Ferguson v. Toledo, etc. R. R. 

Co., 85 N. Y. App. Div. 

352; S3 N. Y. Supp. 283; 

183 N. Y. 557 
Femschild v. Yuengling 

Brewing Co., 154 N. Y. 667; 

49 N. E. 151 
Ferrao's Case, 9 Ch. 355 
Ffooks V. South Western Ry. 

Co., 1 Smale & G. 142 965, 969, 

972 
Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. 

National Bank of Com- 
merce (Tex.), 106 S. W. 

782 833, 1354 

Fidelity Insurance Co. v. 

German Savings Bank, 127 

Iowa 591; 103 N.W. 958 74, 

91, 846 

V. Shenandoah Valley R. 

Co., 32W. Va. 244; 9 S. E. 

180 
Fidelity Ins., etc. Co. v. Nor- 
folk, etc. R. R. Co., 72 Fed. 

704 
V. Norfolk, etc. R. R. 

Co., 88 Fed. 815 
V. Norfolk, etc. R. Co., 

90 Fed. 175 
V. Roanoke Iron Co., 68 

Fed. 623 



208 
202 

627 

1247 



1632 



1659 
642 



407 



1536 
1632 
1542 



1650 



Fidelity Ins., etc. Co. v. She- 
nandoah Valley R. R. Co., 
33 W. Va. 761; 11 S. E. 58 

1416, 1473, 1669 

V. Shenandoah Valley 

R. R. Co., 86 Va. 1; 9 8. E. 
759; 19 Am. St. Rep. 858 1457, 
1664, 1567, 1569, 1570, 
1571 

Fidelity Mutual Aid Ass'n, 12 
Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 269 134 

Fidelity Trust Co. i). Hobo- 
ken, etc. R. Co. (N. J.), 63 
Atl. 273 1554, 1555, 1601 

V. Lehigh Valley R. R. 

Co. (Pa.), 64 Atl. 829 458, 460, 

462 

V. Louisville Gas Co., 26 

Ky. Law Rep. 401; 81 

S. W. 927 63, 66, 70 

V. Staten Island Clay Co. 

(N. J. Ch.), 67 Atl. 1078 1507,' 
1509 

Fidelity Trust, etc. Co. v. 
Mobile Street-Railway Co., 
53 Fed. 850 1489 

Fidelity, etc. Co. v. Roanoke 

Iron Co., 81 Fed. 439 1426, 

1439, 1542 

V. United, etc. Canal Co., 

36 N. J. Eq. 405 1472, 1601 

V. West Pa., etc. R. R. 

Co., 138 Pa. St. 494; 21 
Atl. 21; 21 Am. St. Rep. 
911 1408, 1450 

Fidelity, etc. Vault Co. v. 
Mobile Street Ry. Co., 54 
Fed. 26 1660 

Field V. Eastern, etc. Loan 
Ass'n, 117 Iowa 185; 90 
N. W. 717 584 

V. Field, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 

394 1011, 1056 

V. Girard College, 54 Pa. 

St. 233 1363 

V. Lamson, etc. Mfg. Co., 

162 Mass. 388; 38 N. E. 
1126; 27 L. R. A. 136 450, 450, 
464, 466 

V. Union Box Co., 2 

Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 426 1247 

Fielden v. Lancashire, etc. 
Ry. Co., 2 De G. & Sm. 531 443 

Fields V. Cook, 16 La. Ann. 

153 123 

V. United Brotherhood, 

60 III. App. 258 659 

V. U. S., 27 App. D. C. 

433 230 



Ixxvii 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Fifth Ave. Bank v. Forty-sec- 
ond St., etc. R. R. Co., 137 

N. Y. 231; 33 N. E. 378; 

33 Am. St. Rep. 712; 19 

L. R. A. 331 730, 736, 739, 740 
743, 784 
Fifth Nat. Bank v. Navassa 

Phosphate Co., 119 N. Y. 

256; 23 N. E. 737 1370 
V. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. 

Co., 1 Fed. 190 960 

Fifth Ward Sav. Bank v. 

First Nat. Bank, 48 N. J. 

Law 5 13 ; 7 Atl. 3 18 63, 66, 1378 
Fifty-four First Mortgage 

Bonds, Re, 15 S. Car. 304 1473, 
1531, 1607 
Figge V. Bergenthal (Wise), 

109 N.W. 581; 110 N. W. 

798 1076, 1243, 1288 

Fillebrown v. Hayward, 190 

Mass. 472; 77 N. E. 45 1186, 

1321, 1328 
Fillmore v. Great Camp, 66 

N. W. 675; 109 Mich. 13 948 

Finance Co. v. Charleston, etc. 

R. R. Co., 45 Fed. 436 1602 
V. Charleston, etc. R. R. 

Co., 46 Fed. 508 1610, 1613 
V. Charleston, etc. R. R. 

Co., 52 Fed. 524 1563 
V. Charleston, etc R. R. 

Co. (Moon, intervenor), 52 

Fed. 526 1561, 1567 
V. Charleston, etc. R. R. 

Co., 62 Fed. 205; 10 C. C. 

A. 323 1561, 1563, 1567, 1571 
Finance & Issue v. Canadian 

Produce Corp. (1905), 1 Ch. 

37 160, 194, 525 

Financial Corporation, 28 

W. R. 760 77 

,2Ch.714 100,547,547,547, 

548, 549, 659, 664 
Finck V. Schneider Granite 

Co., 187 Mo. 244; 86 S. W. 

213; 106 Am. St. Rep. 452 261, 

263 
Fine v. Homsby, 2 Mo. App. 

61, 64 422 

Fine Cotton Spinners, etc.. 

Ass'n V. Harwood Cash & 

Co. (1907), 2 Ch. 184 376, 377 
Finletter v. Acetylene Light 

Co., 215 Pa. 86; 64 Atl. 

429 617, 636, 645 

Finley Rubber, etc. Co. v. 

Finley, 32 Atl. Rep. 740 

(N. J. Ch.) 1240 



Finley Shoe & Leather Co. v. 

Kurtz, 34 Mich. 89 488, 494, 

1069, 1190 
Finn v. Brown, 142 U. S. 56; 

12 Sup. Ct. 136 705, 706, 706, 
921, 1127, 1128, 1173, 
1276 
Finnegan v. Noerenberg, 52 

Minn. 239; 53 N. W. 1150; 

38 Am. St. Rep. 552 44, 45, 

104, 243, 246, 247 
Finney's Appeal, 59 Pa. St. 

398 715 

Finucane's Case, 17 W. R. 

813 167 

Firemen's Ins. Co., Ex parte, 

6 Hill (N. Y.) 243 751 

Firestone v. First Slavish, etc. 

Church, 215 Pa. 8; 63 Atl. 

1038 557 

Firestone Tire, etc. Co. v. 

Vehicle Equipment Co., 155 

Fed. 676 103 

First Ave. Land Co. v. Hilde- 

brand, 103 Wise. 530; 79 

N. W. 753 317 
V. Parker, 111 Wise. 1; 

86 N. W. 604; 87 Am. St. 

Rep. 841 730, 731 

First Baptist Church v. 

Harper, 191 Mass. 196; 77 

N. E. 778 915, 915 

FirstBaptist Soc. v. Rapalee, 

16 Wend. (N. Y.) 605 118 

First Church of Christ, Scien- 
tist, Re, 205 Pa. St. 543; 

65 Atl. 536; 97 Am. St. 

Rep. 753; 63 L. R. A. 411 261, 

267 
First Division of St. Paul, etc. 

R. R. Co. V. Parcher, 14 

Minn. 297 1521, 1522, 1522 



First Nat. Bank, 152 Fed. 64 
V. Abilene Hotel Co. 

(Tex.), 103 S. W. 1120 
V. Alexander (Ala.), 44 

So. 866 
V. American Nat. Bank, 

173 Mo. 153; 72S.W. 1059 



193 



V. Anderson, 75 Va. 250 
V. Armstrong, 42 Fed. 



44 

1377 

853 

84, 

833 

1551 

301 



- V. Asheville, etc. Lumber 
Co., 116 N. Car. 827; 21 
S. E. 948 1202, 1210, 1381 

— V. Bacon, 113 N. Y. App. 
Div. 612; 98 N. Y. Supp. 
717 804 



bcxviii 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



First Nat. Bank v. Benning- 
ton, 16 Blatchf. 53 1449 

V. Brigg's Estate, 70 Vt. 

599; 41 Atl. 586 1285 

V. Christopher, 40 N. J. 

Law 435; 29 Am. Rep. 262 1235 

V. Church Federation, 

129 Iowa 268; 105 N. W. 

578 291, 306 

V. Converse, 200 U. S. 

425; 26 Sup. Ct. 306 22, 74, 80, 

834 

V. Council Bluffs, etc. 

Co., 56 Hun (N. Y.) 412; ' 

9 N. Y. Supp. 859 1378, 1378 

V. County Comm'rs of 

Scott Co., 14 Minn. 77; 100 

Am. Dec. 194 1436, 1461 

V. Davies, 43 Iowa 424 126 

V. D. Kieffer Milling Co., 

95 Ky. 97; 23 S. W. 675 109, 

110, 142, 859, 1409 

V. De Morse (Tex.), 26 

S. W. 417 1124 
V. Dovetail, etc. Gear Co., 

143 Ind. 534; 42 N. E. 924 227 
V. Drake, 29 Kans. 311; 

44 Am. Rep. 646 1238, 1247, 

1277, 1311, 1321, 1331 
V. Drake, 35 Kans. 564; 

11 Pac. 445 1210 
V. East Omaha Box Co., 

2 Nebr. (Unofficial Rep.) 

820; 90 N. W. 223 1206, 1222 
V. Ewing, 103 Fed. 168; 

43 C. C. A. 150 1542, 1542, 1566, 
1633, 1654, 1655 
V. Garretson, 107 Iowa 

196; 77N. W. 856 1379 

V. Gifford, 47 Iowa 575 689, 

701, 711 
V. Greenville Oil Co., 24 

Tex. Qv. App. 645; 60 

S. W. 828 833 

V. Grosshans, 61 Nebr. 

575; 85 N. W. 542 867 
V. Hartford, etc. Ins. Co., 

45 Conn. 22 769, 770, 776 
V. Hastings, 7 Colo. App. 

129; 42 Pac. 691 697, 716 

V. Hogan, 47 Mo. 472 1377 

V. Holland, 99 Va. 495; 

39 S. E. 126; 86 Am. St. 

Rep. 898; 55 L. R. A. 155 423, 
712, 712 
V. Lamon, 130 N. Y. 366; 

29 N. E. 321 1185 
V. Lucas, 21 Nebr. 280; 

31 N. W. 805 1372 



Ixxix 



First Nat. Bank v. National 

Broadway Bank, 156 N. Y. 

459; 51 N. E. 398; 42 L. 

R. A. 139 748, 798 
V. Nat. Exchange Bank, 

92 U. S. 122 74, 75, 77 
V. New, 146 Ind. 411 ; 45 

N. E. 597 1381 
V. Orinoco Shipping, etc. 

Co., 21 Times L. R. 39 1471, , 

1474 

V. Peavey, 69 Fed. 455 628 

V. Peoria Watch Co., 191 

111. 128; 60 N. E. 859 521, 521 
V. Pierson, 24 Minn. 140 ; 

31 Am. Rep. 341 844, 845 
V. Radford Trust Co., 80 

Fed. 569; 26C. C. A. 1 1586, 
1669, 1669 
V. Rockefeller, 195 Mo. 

15; 93 S. W. 761 118, 129, 221, 

240 
V. Root, 107 Ind. 224; 8 

N. E. 105 810 
V. Salem Capital, etc.Co., 

39 Fed. 89 517, 519 
V. Shedd, 121 U. S. 74; 

7 Sup. Ct. 807 1625,1671 
V. Sioux City Terminal, 

etc. Co., 69 Fed. 441 1496 
V. Stribling, 16 Okl. 41 ; 

86 Pac. 512 690, 732 
V. Taliaferro, 72 Md. 164 ; 

19 Atl. 364 701, 723, 1436 

V. Tisdale, 84 N. Y. 655 920, 

1372 

V. Tisdale, 18 Hun 

(N. Y.) 151 1276 

V. Trebein Co., 59 Oh. 

St. 316; 62 N. E. 834 296, 298, 

886 

V. William R. Trigg Co. 

(Va.), 56 S. E. 158 43, 1624 

V. Winchester, 119 Ala. 

168; 24 So. 351; 72 Am. 
St. Rep. 904 835, 874, 1071, 

1072 

V. Wyman, 16 Colo. App. 

468; 66 Pac. 456 1560, 1570, 

1671 

V. Wyoming Valley Ice 

Co., 136 Fed. 466 43, 491, 492, 

1323 
First Nat. Bank of Charlotte 
V. Nat. Exchange Bank, 39 
Md. 600 74 

First Nat. Fire Ins. Co. v. 

Salisbury, 130 Mass. 303 1584, 
1586, 1594 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



First Parish v. Stearns, 21 
Pick. 148 1065 

Fishel V. Goddard, 30 Colo. 

147; 69 Pac. 607 1315, 1343, 
1357 

Fisher v. Black & White Pub- 
lishing Co. (1901), 1 Ch. 174 40, 
465, 466 

V. Bush, 35 Hun (N. Y.) 

641 1030, 1030 

V. Essex Bank, 5 Gray 

(Mass.) 373 677, 694, 716 

V. Graves, 80 Fed. 590 1280, 

1281 

V. HuU, etc. Ry. Co., 25 

Sol. J. 353 1108 

V. Jones, 82 Ala. 117; 3 

So. 13 698, 699 

V. Parr, 92 Aid. 245; 48 

Atl. 621 1259, 1279, 1281, 

1285, 1286 

, Ex parte, 20 S. Car. 179 1084 

Fisk V. Potter, 2 Abb. Ct. App. 

Dec. (N. Y.) 138 1535, 1540 

Fitch V. Constantine Hydrau- 
Uc Co., 44 Mich. 74; 6 
N. W. 91 1373, 1378 

V. Wetherbee, 110 111. 

475 451 

Fitchburg Savings Bank v. 

Torrey, 134 Mass. 239 695 

Fitchett V. Murphy, 46 N. Y. 

App. Div. 181; 61 N. Y. 

Supp. 182 941, 962 
V. North Pa. R. R. Co., 

5 Phila. 132 1463 

Fitzgeorge', Re (1905), 1 K. B. 

462 1470 

Fitzgerald v. Equitable, etc. 

Life Ass'n, 18 N. Y. St. Rep. 

914; 3 N. Y. Supp. 214 592 

— — V. Fitzgerald, etc. Mal- 

lory Co., 44 Nebr. 463; 62 

N. W. 899 1196, 1306, 1307 
V. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 

45 Fed. 812 874, 876 

V. Persse (1908), 1 Ir. 

279 1474 

Fitzgerald, etc. Co. v. Fitz- 
gerald, 137 U. S. 98; 11 
Sup. Ct. 36 1246, 1381 

Fitzgerald's Estate v. Union 
Sav. Bank, 65 Nebr. 97; 90 
N. W. 994 607, 614 

Fitzhugh V. Bank of Shep- 
herdsville, 3 T. B. Monr. 
(Ky.) 126; 16 Am. Dec. 90 427 

Fitzpatrick v. Dispatch Pub. 
Co., 83 Ala. 604; 2 So. 727 497 



Ixxx 



Fitzpatrick v. Rutter, 160 111. 

282; 43 N. E. 392 248 

Fitzroy Bessemer Steel Co., 

Re, 50 L. T. n. s. 144 327, 1339 
Fitzsimmons v. Lindsay, 205 

Pa. 79; 54 Atl. 488 573 

Fitzwater v. Nat. Bank of 

Seneca, 62 Kans. 163; 61 

Pac. 684 984 

FitzwilUam v. Travis, 65 111. 

App. 183 341, 342 

Flagg V. Stowe, 85 111. 164 254 

Flagler Engraving MachineCo. 

V. Flagler, 19 Fed. 468 331 

Flagstaff Co. v. Patrick, 2 

Utah 304 1214 

Flaherty v. Benevolent Soc, 

99Me. 253; 59 Atl. 58 585,588 
Flanagan v. G. W. Ry. Co., 7 

Eq. 116 1300 
V. Lyon, 54 N. Y. Misc. 

372; 105 N. Y. Supp. 1049 301 
Flanagan Bank v. Graham, 42 

Oreg. 403 ; 71 Pac. 137, 790 1503 
Fleener v. State, 58 Ark. 98; 

23 S. W. 1 230 

Fleishman v. Woods, 135 Cal. 

256; 67 Pac. 276 786 

Fleming v. Wallace, 2 Yeates 

(Pa.) 120 915, 916, 924 

Fletcher v. Ann Arbor R. R. 

Co., 116 Fed. 479; 53 C. C. 

A. 647 1485, 1636 
V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 

67 Mmn. 339; 69 N. W. 

1085 1206 
V. Eagle (Ark.), 86 S. W. 

810 1279 
V. McGill, 110 Ind. 395; 

10 N. E. 651 ; 11 N. E. 779 428 
Fletcher & Sons Co., George 

N.. V. Alpena Circuit Judge, 

136 Mich. 511; 99 N. W. 

748 869, 951 

Fletcher's Case, 17 I;. T. 136 168 
Flinn v. Bagley, 7 Fed. 785 628 

Flint V. Pierce, 99 Mass. 68; 

96 Am. Dec. 691 595, 595, 651 
Flippin V. Kimball, 87 Fed. 

258; 31 C. C. A. 282 1617 

Flitcroft's Case, 21 Ch. D. 

519 1094, 1161, 1261, 1265, 

1287, 1289 
Floating Dock, etc. Co., In Re 

(1895), 1 Ch. 691 530, 536, 536 
Florence Land, etc. Co., 10 

Ch. D. 530 1499, 1504 

, 29 Ch. D. 421 149, 155, 

155, 159, 196, 199, 199, 200 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Florida Sav. Bank v. Rivers, 
36 Fla. 575; 18 So. 850 



1169, 
1366 



Florsheim & Co. v. Fry, 109 
Mo. App. 487; 84 S. W. 
1023 233 

Flour City Nat. Bank v. Shire, 
88N. Y. App. Div. 401; 84 
N.Y. Supp.810; 179 N.Y. 
587; 72 N. E. 1141 156, 635 

Flynn v. Brooklyn City R. R. 
Co., 158 N. Y. 493 936 

V. Columbus Club, 21 

R. I. 534; 45 Atl. 551 1246 
V. Third Nat. Bank, l22 

Mich. 642; 81 N. W. 572 960 
Fogg V. Blair, 139 U. S. 118; 

11 Sup. a. 476 631 

FoUit V. Eddystone Granite 

Quarries (1892), 3 Ch. 75 1674 
Folsom V. Detrick Fertilizer, 

etc. Co., 85 Md. 52; 36 Atl. 

446 885 

Fontana v. Pacific Can Co., 

129 Cal. 51 ; 61 Pac. 580 451 

Foote V. Anderson, 123 Fed. 

659 921 

V. Illinois Trust, etc. 

Bank, 194111.600; 62N.E. 

834 784 
, Appellant, 22 Pick. 

(Mass.) 299 1114, 1137, 1155 

Forbes v. Memphis, etc. R. R. 

Co., 2 Woods 323 
Forbes' Case, 19 Eq. 353 



973 
1174, 
1175 

206 



Forbes & Judd's Case, 5Ch. 270 
Force v. Age-Herald Co., 136 

Ala. 271; 33 So. 866 
Ford V. Central Trust Co., 70 

Fed. 144; 17 C. C. A. 31 
V. Easthampton Rubber 

Co., 158 Mass. 84; 32 

N. E. 1036; 35 Am. St. 

Rep. 462; 20 L. R. A. 65 
V. Hill, 92 Wise. 188; 66 

N. W. 115 ; 53 Am. St. Rep. 

902 394, 1382 
V. Kansas City, etc. Ry. 

Co., 52 Mo. App. 439 
Ford River Lumber Co. v. 

Perron (Mich.), Ill N. W. 

1074 
Forde, Ex parte, 30 Ch. D. 1 53 
Fordyce v. Kansas City, etc. 

R. R. Co., 145 Fed. 566 
■ V. Omaha, etc. R. R. Co., 

145 Fed. 544 1561, 1563, 1563 

1564 



1357 
1571 



1121 



958 



910 
640 

1543 



Foreign & Colonial Govern- 
ment Trust Co. (1891), 2 
Ch. 395 136, 136 

Foreman v. Bigelow, 4 Cliff. 
508 628, 647 

V. Central Trust Co., 71 

Fed. 776; 18 C. C. A. 321 1617, 
1641 
Fore-Street Warehouse Co., 

59 L. T. N. s. 214 533 

Forest Land Co. v. Bjorkquist, 
110 Wise. 547; 86 N. W. 
183 273 

Forrest v. Manchester, etc. 
Ry. Co., 30 Beav. 40; 4 
DeG. F. & J. 125 91, 965 

Forrest of Dean Coal Co., 10 

Ch. D. 450 1283 

Forrest Glen Brick Co. v. 
Gade, 55 111. App. 181 918, 1005 
1342 
Forrest's Executors v. Lud- 

dington, 68 Ala. 1 1623 

Forrester v. Boston, etc. Min- 
ing Co., 21 Mont. 544; 55 
Pac. 229, 353 72, 965, 968, 971 

V. Boston, etc. Mining 

Co., 29 Mont. 397; 74 Pac. 
1088; 76 Pac. 211 983,983 

Forsyth v. Brown, 33 Wkly. 
Notes Cas. (Pa.) 72 995, 1016, 

1045, 1061, 1163, 1163 
Fort Madison Lumber Co. v. 
Batavian Bank, 71 Iowa 
270; 32N.W.336; 60 Am. 
Rep. 789 716 

Fort Miller, etc. Co. v. Payne 

17 Barb. (N. Y.) 567 191 

Fort Payne Rolling Mill v. 
Hill, 174 Mass. 224; 54 
N. E. 532 1299, 1321 

Fort Pitt B. & L. Ass'n v. 
Model Plan B. & L. Ass'n, 
159 Pa. St. 308 ; 28 Atl. 215 134 
139, 140, 371, 371, 385 
Fort Smith Wagon Co. v. 
Baker (Ark.), 105 S. W. 
591 1372 

Fort Wayne Gas Co. v. Nie- 
man, 33 Ind. App. 178; 71 
N. E. 59 383 

Fort Wayne, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Mellett, 92 Ind. 535 1617 

Fortier v. New Orleans Nat. 
Bank, 112 U. S. 439 ; 5 Sup. 
Ct.234 382 

Fortin v. TJ. S. Wind, etc. 
Pump Co., 48 m. 451; 95 
Am. Dec. 560 228 



/ 



Ixxxi 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Fosdick V. Car Co., 99 U. S. 
256 1536, 1569' 

V. Schall, 99 U. S. 235 1393, 

1535, 1536, 1539, 1540, 1558, 

1562, 1566, 1569 

Foss V. Harbottle, 2 Hare 461 928, 

929, 934, 943, 944, 994, 997, 

1231 

Foster v. Bank of Abingdon, 

88 Fed. 604 1357 
V. Bank of England, 8 Q. 

B. 689 893 
V. Bear Valley, etc. Co., 

65 Fed. 836 1310 

V. Borax Co. (1901), 1 

Ch. 326 51, 73 
V. Greenwich Ferry Co., 

5 Times L. R. 16 1183, 1251 
V. Mansfield, etc. Co., 146 

U. S. 88; 13 Sup. Ct. 28 1311 
V. Mansfield, etc. E. R. 

Co., 36 Fed. 627 1636, 1637 
V. Moulton, 35 Minn. 458; 

29 N. W. 155 254 
V. Mullahphy, etc. Co., 

92 Mo. 79; 4 S. W. 260 1315 

V. New Trinidad Lake 

Asphalt Co. (1901), 1 Ch. 

208 1093 

V. Ohio-Colorado, etc. 

Mining Co., 17 Fed. 130 1380 

V. Oxford Ry. Co., 13 

C. B. 200 1179, 1296, 1296 
V. Seymour, 23 Fed. 65 331, 

1290, 1291 

V. Shaw, 7 S. & R. (Pa.) 

156 404 

V. Tyne Pontoon, etc. 

Co., 63 L. J. Q. B. 50 737, 737, 
742, 742, 757 

V. White, 86 Ala. 467; 

6 So. 88 901, 902, 902, 904 
V. "White Cloud City Co., 

32 Mo. 505 229 

Fothergill'sCase,8Ch.270 205,641 
Foulke V. San Diego, etc. R. R. 

Co., 51 Cal. 365 394 

Foulkes V. Quartz Hill, etc. 

Mining Co., Cababe & 

Ellis 156 181 

Fountain Spring Park Co. v. 

Roberts, 92 Wise. 345; 66 

N. W. 399; 53 Am. St. 

Rep. 917 273, 327, 1333 

Fountaine v. Carmathen Ry. 

Co., 5 Eq. 316 1221, 1528 

Fowler v. Broad's Patent 

Night Light Co. (1893), 1 

Ch. 724 1514, 1599 



622 



559 



Ixxxii 



Fowler v. Go wing, 152 Fed. 
801 

V. Great Southern Tel., 

etc. Co., 104 La. 751; 29 
So. 271 

V. Jarvis-Conklin Mge. 

Co., 63 Fed. 888 1602, 1602, 

1660 
Fox V. Mackay, 125 Cal. 57; 

57 Pac. 670 1079 
V. Martin, 64 L. J. Ch. 

473 686, 696, 722 

V. Robbins (Tex.), 62 

S. W. 815 1324 

V. Robbins (Tex.), 70 

S. W. 697 , 884, 1324 

V. Seal, 22 Wall. 424 1542 

Fox's Case, 5 Eq. 118 179, 525 

Frames v. Bultfontein Min- 
ing Co. (1891), 1 Ch. 140 471 
Frances. Clark, 26 Ch.D. 257 690, 
691, 691, 722, 722, 807, 807 
Francis v. New York, etc. 

R. R. Co., 108N. Y. 93; 15 

N. E. 192 
Francklyn v. Sprague, 121 

U. S. 215; 7 Sup. Ct. 951 
Franco-Texan Land Co. v. 

Laigle, 59 Tex. 339 1008, 1009, 

1045, 1225, 1225 

Franey v. Warner, 96 Wise. 

222; 71 N. W. 81 
V. Wauwatosa Park Co., 

99 Wise. 40; 74 N. W. 548 
Frank v. Denver, etc. Ry. Co., 

23 Fed. 123 1538, 1539, 1644 

V. Drenkhahn, 76 Mo. 

508 304 

V. Morrison, 55 Md. 399 613, 

613, 633 

V. Morrison, 58 Md. 423 557 

Franke v. Mann, 106 Wise. 

118; 81N. W. 1014; 48 L. 

R. A. 856 
Frankfort Bank v. Johnson, 

24 Me. 490 
Frankfort, etc. Turnpike Co., 

V. Churchill, 6 T. B. Monr. 

(Ky.) 427; 17 Am. Dec. 

159 
Frankland's Case, Leigh & 

Cave Cr. Cas. 276 230, 230 

Franklin Ave., etc. Sav. Inst. 

V. Board of Education, 75 

Mo. 408 
Franklin Bank v. Commer- 
cial Bank, 36 Oh. St. 350; 

38 Am. Rep. 594 709, 845 

V. Johnson, 24 Me. 490 1204 



182 
299 



336 
181 



118 
1187 



288 



844 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Franklin Co. v. Lewiston In- 
stitution, 68 Me. 43; 28 
Am. Rep. 9 74, 854, 856, 862 

Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. 

Hart, 31 Md. 59 280 

V. Jenkins, 3 Wend. (N. 

Y.) 130 1285, 1286, 1287 

Franklin Nat. Bank v. New- 
combe, 1 N. Y. App. 
Div. 294; 37 N. Y. Supp. 
271 808 

Franklin Trust Co. v. Ruth- 
erford, etc. El. Co., 57 N. 
J. Eq. 42; 41 Atl. 488; 58 
N. J. Eq. 584 ; 43 Atl. 1098 917, 
919, 1012, 1045, 1400 

Franz v. Teutonia Bldg. Ass'n, 
24 Md. 259 233 

Fraser v. Cooper, 21 Ch. D. 

718 1592 

V. Whalley, 2 Hem. & 

Mill. 10 943, 965 

Fraser River Mining, etc. Co. 
V. Gallagher, 5 Britt. Co- 
lumb. 82 647, 928 

Eraser's Adm'r v. Richmond, 
etc. R. R. Co., 81 Va. 388 

1516, 1517 

Frayter v. Old Nat. Bank, 101 

Fed. 391; 42 C. C. A. 133 810 

Frazier v. Ry. Co., 88 Tenn. 

138; 12 S. W. 537 6, 1543 

■». Simmons, 139 Mass. 531 

2 N. E. 112 781 

Freckmann v. Supreme Coun- 
cil, 96 Wise. 133; 70N. W. 
1113 660 

Fred Macey Co. v. Macey, 143 
Mich. 138; 106 N. W. 722 315, 
316, 331 

Frederick EI. Light, etc. Co. 
V. Mayor, etc. of Frederick 
City, 84 Md. 599; 36 Atl. 
362; 36 L. R. A. 130 43 

Frederick Milling Co. v. Fred- 
erick, etc. Co. (S. Dak.), 
106 N. W. 298 985, 1374 

Freeman v. Appleyard, 32 
L. J. Ex. 175 423 

V. Machias Water, etc. 

Co., 38 Me. 343 161 
V. Sea View Hotel Co., 

57 N. J. Eq. 68; 40 Atl. 

218 71, 1302 

Frellsen v. Strader Cypress 

Co., 110 La. 877; 34 So. 

857 1276 

Freman v. Whitbread, 1 Eq. 

266 1156, 1156 



Fremont Carriage Co. v. 

Thomsen, 65 Nebr. 370; 

91 N. W. 376 192, 517, 527 

French v. Donohue, 29 Minn. 

Ill; 12 N. W. 354 233, 844 
V. Fuller, 23 Pick. (Mass.) 

108 1120, 1354 
V.' Jones, 191 Mass. 522; 

78 N. E. 118; 7 L. R. A. 

N. s. 525 
V. White (Vt.), 62 Atl. 35 



1522 
690, 
793 



751 



228 



104 



Ixxxiii 



Frenkel v. Hudson, 82 Ala. 

158; 2 So. 758; 60 Am. 

St. Rep. 736 154, 158 

Freon v. Carriage Co., 42 Oh. 

St. 30; 51 Am. Rep. 794 
Fresno Canal, etc. Co. v. 

Warner, 72 Cal. 379; 14 

Pac. 37 
Frick Co. V. Norfolk, etc. R. 

R. Co., 86 Fed. 725; 32 C. 

C. A. 31 
Fricker v. Americus Mfg., etc. 

Co., 124 Ga. 165; 52 S. E. 

65 1339, 1343 

Fripp V. Chard Ry. Co., 11 

Hare 241 1603, 1606 

Frishmuth v. Farmers' L. & 

T. Co., 107 Fed. 169; 46 C. 

C. A. 222 ; s. c. 95 Fed. 5 1487, 
1488, 1488, 1488, 1489, 1489, 
1489 
Fritze v. Equitable Bldg., etc. 

Soc, 186 111. 183; 57 N. E. 

873 583, 1322 

Front St., etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Drake, 84 Fed. 257 1568 

Frost & Co., S. (1899), 2 Ch. 

207 640, 640 

Frostburg Mining Co. v. Cum- 
berland, etc. R. R. Co., 81 

Md. 28; 31 Atl. 698 
Frye v. Tucker, 24 111. 180 
Fuches V. Hamilton, etc. Pub. 

Co., 10 Ont. 497 529,1190 

Fudickar v. East Riverside, 

etc. Dist., 109 Cal. 29; 41 

Pac. 1024 
Fugure v. Mutual Society, 46 

Vt. 362 
Fulgam V. Macon, etc. R. R. 

Co., 44 Ga. 597 154, 198, 428 
Fuller V. Alexander Hol- 
lander & Co., 61 N. J. Eq. 

648; 47 Atl. 646; 88 Am. 

St. Rep. 456 890, 891, 898, 905, 

907 
V. Rowe, 57 N. Y. 23 252 



107 
1378 



129.8 
586 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Fuller V. Venable, 118 Fed. 

543 ; 55 C. C. A. 309 1664, 1665 

V. White Feather Re- 
ward (1906), 1 Ch. 823 72 

Fullerton v. Fordyce, 121 Mo. 

1; 25 S. W. 587; 42 Am. 

St. Rep. 516 1617 

Funsten v. Funsten Co., 67 

Mo. App. 559 1300, 1320 

Furber v. National Metal Co., 

103 N. Y. Supp. 490 808 

Furbush, etc. Co., M. A., v. 

Liberty Woolen Mills, 81 

Fed. 425 1473 

Furdonjee's Case, 3 Ch. D. 

264 623 

Furness v. Catherham Ry. 

Co., 27 Beav. 358 1546 

Furness's Estate, 12 Phila. 

(Pa.) 130 1446 

G 

Gabert v. Olcott (Tex.), 22 S. 

W. Rep. 286 1608 

Gade v. Forest Glen Brick 

Co., 165 111. 367; 46 N. E. 

286 131, 534 

Gaehle's Piano Mfg. Co. v. 

Berg, 45 Md. 113 192 

Gaff V. Flesher, 33 Oh. St. 107 

244 
Gaffney v. Colvill, 6 Hill (N. 

Y.)567 1128,1268,1268,1286, 
1286, 1287, 1287, 1359, 1360 
Gage V. Fisher, 5 N. Dak. 297; 

65 N. W. 809; 31 L. R. A. 

557 1029, 1030 
V. Pontiac, etc. R. R. Co., 

105 Mich. 335; 63 N. W. 

318 1633 

V. Riverside Trust Co., 

156 Fed. 1002 970, 975 

Gager v. Paul, 111 Wise. 638; 

87 N. W. 875 112.7 

Gaines v. Bank of Mississippi, 

12 Ark. 769 233 

V. Supreme Council, 140 

Fed. 978 586 

Gaither v. Bauemschmidt 
•(Md.), 69 Atl. 425 1286, 1349 

Galbraith v. People's Bldg. & 
Loan Ass'n, 43 N. J. Law 
389 751 

V. Shasta Iron Co., 143 

Cal. 94; 76 Pac. 901 231, 1221 

Galena, etc. R. R. Co. v. Bar- 
rett, 95 111. 467 1415 

. V. Menzies, 26 111. 121 1515, 

1551 



Ixxxiv 



Gallery v. Nat. Exchange 

Bank, 41 Mich. 169; 32 

Am. Rep. 149 1296 

Galveston City Co. v. Sibley, 

56 Tex. 269 430 

Galveston Hotel Co. v. Bol- 
ton, 46 Tex. 633 607 
Galveston R. R. Co. v. Cow- 
drey, 11 Wall. 459 1208, 1515, 
1534, 1550, 1589, 1590, 1592, 
1625 
Galvanized Iron Co. v. Wes- 

toby, 8 Ex. 17 608 

Gamble v. Queens County 

Water Co., 123 N. Y. 91; 

25 N. E. 201 ; 9 L. R. A. 527 

1079, 1080, 1299, 
1312, 1400, 1404 
Gamewell, etc. Co. v. Fire & 

Police, etc. Co., 116 Ky. 

759; 76S. W. 862 876 

Gansey v. Orr, 173 Mo. 532; 

73 S. W. 477 425 

Garcin v. Trenton Rubber 

Mfg. Co. (N. J.), 60 Atl. 

1098 895, 904 

Garden City Sand Co. v. 

American, etc. Crematory 

Co., 205 m. 42; 68 N. E. 

724 648 

Garden Gully Mining Co. v. 

MoLister, 1 A. C. 39 658, 665, 

1069, 1163, 1226, 1226, 1231 
Gardner v. Butler, 30 N. J. 

Eq. 702 1247, 1295, 1316 
V. Canadian Mfg. Co., 31 

Ont. 488 1310 
V. Hope Ins. Co., 9 R. I. 

194; 11 Am. Rep. 238 651 
V. London, etc. Ry. Co., 

2 Ch. 201 1605, 1676, 1677 

Gardner Sav. Bank v. Taber- 

Prang Art Co., 189 Mass. 

363; 75N. E. 705 459 

Garey v. St. Joe Mining Co. 

(Utah), 91 Pac. 369 33, 34, 101 
Garling v. Baechtel, 41 Md. 

305 609 

Garmany v. Lawton, 124 Ga. 

876; 53 S. E. 669; 110 

Am. St. Rep. 207 917, 992, 

1073, 1192 
Garmire v. Am. Mining Co., 93 

111. App. 331 1170, 1250 

Garnett v. Richardson, 35 Ark. 

144 123, 126, 251, 274 

Garretson v. Equitable Mut. 

etc. Ass'n, 93 Iowa 402; 

61 N. W. 952 331, 1214 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Garretson ■?;. Pacific Crude Oil 

Co., 146 Cal. 184; 79 Pac. 

838 330 

Garrett v. Belmont Land 

Co., 94 Tenn. 459; 29 S. 

W. 726 392 
V. Burlington Plow Co., 

70 Iowa 697; 29 N. W. 

395; 59 Am. Rep. 461 109 
V. Dillsburg, etc. R. R. 

Co., 78 Pa. St. 465 202 
V. Kansas City Coal Min. 

Co., 113 Mo. 330; 20 S. W. 

965; 35 Am. St. Rep. 713 199, 
339,632 

V. May, 19 Md. 177 1677 

Garrison Canning Co. v. Stan- 
ley (Iowa), 110 N. W. 171 87, 
857, 1329 
Gartside v. Silkstone, etc. Co., 

21 Ch. D. 762 401, 401, 1410, 

1530, 1532 
Gartside Coal Co. v. Maxwell, 

22 Fed. 197 245 
Garwood v. Ede, 1 Ex. 

264 341 

Gary v. York Mining Co., 9 

Utah 464; 35 Pac. 494 652 

Gashwilerr. Willis, 33 Cal. 11; 

91 Am. Dec. 607 706, 993, 

1193, 1211 
Gaskell v. Chambers (No. 3), 

26 Beav. 360 1320 

Gasquet v. Crescent City 

Brewing Co., 49 Fed. 496 649 

Gastonia Cotton Mfg. Cq. v. 

W. L. Wells Co., 128 Fed. 

369; 63C. C. A. Ill 249 

Gates V. Boston, etc. R. R. 

Co., 53 Conn. 333; 5 Atl. 

695 1468, 1671 

Gatling Gun Co., Re, 43 Ch. 

D. 628 534, 534 

Gaty V. HoUiday, 8 Mo. App. 

118 806, 806 

Gause v. Commonwealth 

Trust Co., 106 N. Y. Supp. 

288 78, 346, 854 

Gauthier, etc. Co. v. Ham, 3 

Colo. App. 559; 34 Pac. 

484 230 

Gavin v. Pacific Coast, etc. 

Union (Cal.), 84 Pac. 270 905 
Gay V. Kohlsaat, 223 111. 260; 

79 N. E. 77 1359 

G. E. B., Re (1903), 2 K. B. 

340 612, 613 

Geisse v. Taylor (1905), 2 K. 

B. 658 1546 



Gellerman v. Atlas Foundry, 

etc. Co. (Wash.), 87 Pac. 

1059 433, 584, 918 

Gelpcke v. Blake, 19 Iowa 

263 525 

Gemmell v. Bavis, 75 Md. 546 ; 

23 Atl. 1032; 32 Am. St. 

Rep. 412 768, 773, 806, 805 

811, 1124, 1124, 1134 
General Auction, etc. Co. v. 

Smith (1891), 3 Ch. 432 1317 
General Electric Co. v. La 

Grande, etc. Co., 79 Fed. 25 1586 
V. La Grande, etc. Co., 

87 Fed. 590; 31 C. C. A. 

118 1586 
V. West Ashville Imp. 

Co., 73 Fed. 386 961, 984 

General Exchange Bank, 6 

Ch. 818 
V. Homer, 9 Eq. 480 



773 
1320, 
1333 



1364 



922 



Ixxxv 



General Provident Ass. Co., 

Re, 14 Eq. 507 
General South American Co., ' 

2 Ch. D. 337 1393, 1396 

Geneva Mineral Springs Co. 

V. Steele, 111 N. Y. App. 

Div. 706; 97 N. Y. Supp. 

996 
Genoa v. Woodruff, 92 U. S. 

502 1449, 1460 

Gent V. Manufacturers, etc. 

Ins. Co., 107 111. 652 278, 280 

Gentel v. Raps (1902), 1 K. B. 

160 564 

George v. Central R. R., etc. 

Co., 101 Ala. 607; 14 So. 

752 942, 960, 1026, 1063, 1082 
V. Nevada Central R. R. 

Co., 22 Nevada 228; 38 

Pac. 441 
George E. Lloyd & Co. v. 

Matthews, 223 111. 477; 79 

N. E. 172; 7 L. R. A. n. s. 

376 
George N. Fletcher & Sons 

Co. V. Alpena Circuit Judge, 

136 Mich. 511; 99 N. W. 

748 869, 951, 1401 

George Newman & Co. (1895), 

1 Ch. 674 83, 1069, 1283, 1321 
George Routledge & Sons 

(1904), 2 Ch. 474 1418, 1473 

George Whitechurch, Ltd., v. 

Cavanagh (1902), A C. 117 

649, 703, 743, 744^ 
George's Creek Co. v. Detmold 

1 Md. Ch. 371 393, 394 



822 



1373 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Georgetown College, Pres., 

etc. of, V. Browne, 34 Md. 

450 55 

Geoi^etown Water Co. v. 

Central, etc. Co., 17 Ky. 

Law Rep. 1270; 34 S. W. 

435; 35 S. W. 636 1221 
V. Fidelity Trust, etc. Co., 

117 Ky. 325; 78 S. W. 113 1405, 
1424, 1517 
Georgia Co. v. Castleberry, 

43 Ga. 187 298, 298 

Georgia Co-op., etc. Ass'n v. 

Borchardt, 123 Ga. 181; 51 

S. E. 429 383 

Georgia Ice Co. v. Meakin, 

70 Ga. 637 279 

Georgia Southern, etc. R. R. 

Co. V. Mercantile Trust, 

etc. Co., 94 Ga. 306; 21 S. 

E. 701; 47 Am. St. Rep. 

153 ; 32 L. R. A. 208 244, 246, 
249, 1401, 1503 
Georgia, etc. Ry. Co. v. Bar- 
ton, 101 Ga. 466; 28 S. E. 

842 1503, 1515 

German Aged People's 

Home V. Hammerbacker, 

64Md. 595; 3 Atl. 678; 54 

Am. Rep. 782 853 

German Bank v. Stumpf, 6 

Mo. App. 17 235 

German Date Coffee Co., 20 

Ch. D. 169 98 

German Ins. Co. v. Strahl, 13 

Phila. (Pa.) 512 ' 222 

German Land Ass'n v. Schol- 

ler, 10 Minn. 331 254, 255 

German Nat. Bank v. Ky. 

Trust Co., 19 Ky. Law Rep. 

361; 40 8. W. 458 772 

German Savings Bank v. Des 

Moines Nat. Bank, 122 

Iowa 737; 98 N. W. 606 1328 
V. Renshaw, 78 Md. 475 ; 

28 Atl. 281 701, 723, 808, 808 
V. Wulfekuhler, 19 Kans. 

60 517, 526 

German Security Bank v. 

Jefferson, 10 Bush (Ky.) 

326 769 

German Union, etc. Ass'n v. 

Sendmeyer, 50 Pa. St. 67 752 

Germania Iron, etc. Co. v. 

King, 94 Wise. 439; 69 

N.W. 181; 36L. R. A. 51 



Germania Sangerbund, 12 Pa. 
Co. Ct. Rep. 89 



603, 
605 

104 



868 



1007 
1029 



1316 

183 
274, 



Ixxxvi 



Germantown Passenger Ry. 

Co. V. Fitler, 60 Pa. St. 

124; 100 Am. Dec. 546 658, 

658, 662 
Germantown, etc. Ins. Co. v. 

Dhein, 43 Wise. 420; 28 

Am. Rep. 549 
Germer v. Triple State Oil 

Co. (W. Va.), 54 S. E. 

509 
Germicide Co., 65 Hun (N. Y.) 

606; 20 N. Y. Supp. 495 
Gemsheim v. Central Trust 

Co., 61 Hun (N. Y.) 625; 

16 N. Y. Supp. 127; 40 N. 

Y. St. 967 1662, 1662, 1662, 

1663 

Gerry v. Bismark Bank, 19 

Mont. 191; 47 Pac. 810 
Getchell v. Dusenbury 

(Mich.), 108 N. W. 723 
Getty V. Devlin, 54 N. Y. 403 

310, 336 
Gettysburg Nat. Bank v. 

Brown, 95 Md. 367; 52 Atl. 

975 490, 490, 548, 609 

Geyer v. Western Ins. Co., 3 

Pittsburg (Pa.) 41 571, 770, 

773 
Geyser-Marion Co. v. Stark, 

106 Fed. 558; 45 C. C. A. 

467 797, 797, 798 

Gibbes v. G. & C. R. R. Co., 

13 S. Car. 228 1457, 1669 

Gibbons v. Anderson, 80 Fed. 

345 - 1279 
V. Mahon, 136 U. S. 549; 

10 Sup. Ct. 1057 1144, 1151 

Gibbs V. Long Island Bank, 

83 Hun (N. Y.) 92; 31 

N. Y. Supp. 406 111, 572, 574 

775 
Gibbs & West's Case, 10 Eq. 

312 66, 1245 

Gibert v. Washington City, 

etc. R. R. Co., 33 Gratt. 

(Va.) 586 1449, 1460, 1508, 

1586, 1607, 1629, 1670 
Gibson v. Barton, L. R. 10 

Q. B. 329 1213, 1214, 1227, 1233 
V. Goldthwaite, 7 Ala. 

281 ; 42 Am. Dec. 592 408, 1371 
V. Lenhardt, 101 Pa. St. 

522 1423 

Giesen v. London, etc. Mge. 

Co., 102 Fed. 584; 42 

C. C. A. 515 576, 616, 697, 697 
Gifford V. Thompson, 115 

Mass. 478 1153 



TABLE OP CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



1265 

848 

381 

84 
744 

1423, 



1397 



393 
663 

1517 

1671 



Gilbert v. Erie BIdg. Ass'n, 

184 Pa. St. 554; 39 Atl. 

291 723, 808 
V. Finch, 173 N. Y. 455; 

66 N. E. 133; 93 Am. St. 

Rep. 623; 61 L. R. A. 807 
V. Hole, 2 S. Dak. 164; 

49 N. W. 1 

V. Nantucket Bank, 5 

Mass. 97 

V. Seatco Mfg. Co., 98 

Fed. 208 

Gilbert's Case, 5 Ch. 559 
Gilbough V. Norfolk, etc. 

R. R. Co., 1 Hughes 410 

1436, 1461 
Gilchrist V. CoUopy, 26 Ky. 

Law Rep. 1003; 82 S. W. 

1018 1010, 1011, 1163, 1250 
V. Helena, etc. R. R. Co., 

47 Fed. 593 
Gildersleeve v. Wolf Islan 

Ry., etc. Co., 3 Ch. Chamber 

Rep. (Ont.) 358 
Giles V. Hutt, 3 Ex. 18 
V. Stanton, 86 Tex. 620; 

26 S. W. 615 
GilfiUan v. Union Canal Co., 

109 U. S. 401; 3 Sup. Ct. 304 
Gilkey v. Paine, 80 Me. 319; 

14 Atl. 205 1143, 1145 

V. Town of How, 105 

Wise. 41 ; 81 N. W. 120 241 

Gilkinson v. Third Ave. R. R. 

Co.,47N.Y.App.Div.472; 

63 N. Y. Supp. 792 712, 751 
Gill V. Balis, 72 Mo. 424 525 
V. New York Cab Co., 48 

Hun (N. Y.) 524; 1 N. Y. 

Supp. 202 
Gill's Adm'x v. Ky., etc. Min- 
ing Co., 7 Bush (Ky.) 635 
Gillespie v. City of Glascow 

Bank, 4 A. C. 632 795, 813 

Gillett V. Dodge (Oreg.), 89 

Pac. 741 333 
V. Missouri Valley R. R. 

Co., 55 Mo. 315; 17 Am. 

Rep. 653 870, 870 

V. Whiting, 120 N. Y. 

402; 24 N. E. 790; s. c. 
141N. Y. 71; 35N. E. 939; 
38 Am. St. Rep. 762 

Gillette v. Aurora Ry. Co., 
228111.261; 81 N. E. 1005 

244, 250 

Gillig, Mott & Co. V. Inde- 
pendent Gold, etc. Co., 1 
Nevada 247 24, 25 



Gillis V. Bailey, 21 N. H. 149 



1248 
147 



808 
243, 



1213, 
1214 



Gilman v. Des Moines, etc. 

R. R. Co., 41 Iowa 22 
V. Gross, 97 Wise. 224; 

72 N. W. 885 
V. Illinois, etc. Tel. Co., 

91 U. S. 603 
V. Sheboygan, etc. R. R. 

Co., 37 Wise. 317 
Gilman, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Kelly, 77 111. 426 1331, 1335 
Gilman's Case, 31 Ch. D. 420 206 
Gilmer v. Morris, 43 Fed. 456 
V. Morris, 80 Ala. 78; 60 

Am. Rep. 85 
Gilpin V. Howell, 5 Pa. St. 41 ; 

45 Am. Dec. 720 
Ginz V. Stumph, 73 Ind. 209 
Gipson V. Morris, 36 Tex. Civ. 

App. 593; 83 S. W. 226; 

73 Tex. 85 1034, 1057 
Girard Ins. Co. v. Cooper, 162 

U.S. 529; 16Sup. Ct. 879 
Girard Life Ins. Co. v. An- 
nuity, etc. Iron Co., 20 Pa. 
Sup. Ct. 304 
Girard Life Ins., etc. Co. v. 
Loving (Kans.), 81 Pac. 200 
Girard Trust Co. v. Cooper, 

51 Fed. 332; 2 C. C. A. 245 

V. McKinley-Lanning, 

etc. Trust Co., 143 Fed. 355 

V. Mellor, 156 Pa. St. 

579; 27 Atl. 662 

V. Summit Branch Coal 

Co., 22 Pa. Sup. Ct. 495 
Gitzhoffen v. Sisters of Holy 

Cross Hospital Ass'n 

(Utah), 88 Pac. 691 22, 39 

Giveen v. Gans, 91 N. Y. App. 

Div. 37; 86 N. Y. Supp. 

450; 181 N. Y. 538; 73 

N. E. 1124 1310, 1313 

Given v. Times-Republican 

Printing Co., 114 Fed. 92; 

52 C. C. A. 40 875 
Glasdir Copper Mines (1906), 

1 Ch. 365 1614, 1615, 1655, 

1656 
Glass V. Basin, etc. Mining Co., 
77 Pac, 302; 31 Mont. 21 

V. Pioneer Rubber 

Works, 31 Vict. L. R. 754 

1033, 1330 

V. Tipton, etc. Co., 32 

Ind. 376 381 

Gleadow v. Hull Glass Co., 19 

L. J. Ch. 44 1244 



1492 

166 

1516 

1632 



811 

811 

418 
812 



1644 



1490 
921 

1612 

1492 
804 

1416 



1163 
34, 



Ixxxvii 



TABLK OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Gleason v. Canterbury, etc. 
Ins. Co., 73 N. H. 583; 64 
Atl. 187 1224 

GledhiU's Case, 3 DeG. F. & 

J. 713 169 

Glen V. Breard, 35 La. Ann. 

875 47 

Glen Iron Works, 17 Fed. 324; 

20 Fed. 674 600 

Glen Salt Co., 17 N. Y. App. 
Div. 234; 45 N. Y. Supp. 
568 1019, 1050, 1053 

Glengary Consolidated Min- 
ing Co. V. Boehmer, 28 
Colo. 1; 62 Pac. 839 1082, 

1083 
771 



238 
208 
624 



Glenn v. Abell, 39 Fed. 10 
V. Bergman, 20 5to. App. 

343 
V. Busey, 5 Mack.( D. C.) 

233 
V. Clabaugh, 65 Md. 65; 

3 Atl. 902 
V. Hatohett, 91 Ala. 316; 

8 So. 656 517, 524 
V. Howard, 81 Ga. 383; 

8 S. E. 636; 12 Am. St. Rep. 

318 614 
V. Howard, 65 Md. 40; 3 

Atl. 895 623, 623, 624, 793, 

1514 

V. Liggett, 47 Fed. 472 915, 

916, 920, 921 
V. Liggett, 135 U. S. 533; 

10 Sup. Ct. 867 

V. Macon, 32 Fed. 7 

V. Marbury, 145 U. S. 

499; 12 Sup. Ct. 914 
V. Porter, 73 Fed. 275; 

19 C. C. A. 503 

V. Springs, 26 Fed. 494 

V. Williams, 60 Md. 93' 

Glenwood Coal Co., 6 Pa. Co. 

Ct. Rep. 575 
Glenwood Mfg. Co. v. Syme, 

109 Wise. 355; 85 N. W. 

432 1342, 1342 

Globe Blocks Gold Mining Co., 

12 Times L. R. 92 362, 364 

Globe Mutual Benefit Ass'n, 

iJe, 135N. Y.280; 32 N. E. 

122; 17L.R.A. 547 
Globe Publishing Co. v. State 

Bank, 41 Nebr. 175; 59 

N. W. 683; 27 L. R. A. 

854 
Gloninger v. Pittsburgh, etc. 

R. R. Co., 139 Pa. St. 13; 

21 Atl. 211 



614 
614 

614 

617 
921 
614 

95 



120 



252 



64 



Ixxxviii 



Glossop V. Glossop (1907), 2 

Ch. 370 1182, 1182, 1182, 1367, 
1367 
Glover v. Giles, 18 Ch. D. 173 222 
V. Manila, etc. Milling 

Co. (S. Dak.), 104 N. W. 

261 944, 959 

Gluckstein v. Barnes (1900), 

A. C. 240 315, 324, 328, 329 

Glucose Sugar Refining Co. v. 

American Glucose Sugar 

Refining Co. (N. J.), 56 Atl. 

861 369, 371, 372 

Glymont, etc. Co. v. Toler, 80 

Md. 278; 30 Atl. 651 141, 147, 

278 
Godbold V. Branch Bank, 11 

Ala. 191; 46 Am. Dec. 211 

1264, 1286 
Goddard v. Chicago, etc. Ry. 

Co., 202 111. 362; 66 N. E. 

1066 25, 25 
V. Merchants' Exchange, 

9 Mo. App. 290; 78 Mo. 

609 565 

Godfrey v. McConnell, 151 

Fed. 783 1271 
V. Ohio, etc. Ry. Co., 116 

Ind. 30; 18 N. E. 61 1609 

Goetz V. Knie, 103 Wise. 366; 

79 N. W. 401 1187 

Gogebic Investment Co. v. 

Iron Chief Min. Co., 78 

Wise. 427; 47 N. W. 726; 

23 Am. St. Rep. 417 628 

Gold V. Paynter, 101 Va. 714; 

44 S. E. Rep. 920 601 

Gold Bluff Mining, etc. Corp. 

V. Whitlock, 75 Conn. 669; 

55 Atl. 175 1006, 1062, 1062, 

1164, 1181, 1183 
Gold Co., 11 Ch. D. 701 627 

Gold Mining Co. v. National 

Bank, 96 U. S. 640 866, 868 
Gold Reefs of Western Aus- 
tralia V. Dawson (1897), 1 

Ch. 115 933 

Golden Age, etc. Co. v. Lang- 
ridge (Colo.), 88 Pac. 1070 1379 
Goldshear v. Barron, 42 N. Y. 

Misc. 198; 85 N. Y. Supp. 

395 1330 

Goldsmith v. Swift, 25 Hun 

(N. Y.) 201 1150, 1151 

Good V. Ash, 3 Keb. 307 401 

Good Land Co. v. Cole (Wise.), 

110 N. W. 895 117, 120 

Goodale Lumber Co. v. Shaw, 

41 Greg. 544; 69 Pac. 546 123 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Gooday v. Colchester, etc. Ry. 

Co., 17 Beav. 132 281, 283 

Goodell V. Verdugo Canon 

Water Co., 138 Cal. 308; 71 

Pac. 354 1296, 1330 

Gooderham v. Toronto, etc. 

Ry. Co., 8 Ont. App. Rep. 

685 1574 

Goodin v. Cincinnati, etc. Co., 

18 Oh. St. 169 1305, 1311, 1332 
1333 
Goodman v. Am. Writing 

Paper Co. (N. J.), 66 Atl. 

607 627, 1096, 1096 

. V. Cincinnati, etc. R. R. 

Co., 2 Disn. (Oh.) 176 1623 

Goodwin v. Hardy, 57 Me. 

143; 99 Am. Dec. 758 1107, 

1131 

V. McGehee, 15 Ala. 232 612 

V. Ottawa, etc. Ry. Co., 

13 Up. Can. C. P. 254 747, 751 
V. Robarts, 1 A. C. 476; 

L. R. 10 Ex. 337 1423 
V. U. S. Annuity, etc. Co., 

24 Conn. 591 912, 918, 923 
V. Wilbur, 104 111. App. 

45 340 

Goodwin Gas Stove, etc. Co.'s 

Appeal, 117 Pa. St. 514; 12 

Atl. 736; 2 Am. St. Rep. 

696 786 

Goodyear's India Rubber 

Glove Mfg. Co. V. Goodyear 

Rubber Co., 128 U. S. 598; 

9 Sup. a. 166 371 

Gorder v. Plattsmouth, etc. 

Co.,36Nebr.548; 54N.W. 

830 407, 1317, 1318 

Gordon v. Newman, 62 Fed. 

686; 10 C. C. A. 587 1653 

V. Parker, 10 La. 56 782 

V. Preston, 1 Watts (Pa.) 

385; 26 Am. Dec. 75 409, 1080, 
1210, 1217, 1218 
V. Sea Fire Life Ass. Soc, - 

1 H. & N. 599 109, 831, 862, 

1409 

V. Tweedy, 71 Ala. 202 923 

Gordon's Exrs. v. Richmond, 

etc. R. R. Co., 78 Va. 501 443, 
451, 451, 455, 462, 463 
Gorest). Day, 99Wisc.276; 74 

N. W. 787 961, 1357 
V. Elliott, 108 Wise. 465; 

84 N. W. 865 1357 
V. Field, 109 Wise. 408; 

84 N. W. 867; 85 N. W. 

411 1288 



Gorman- Wright Co. v. Wright, 

134 Fed. 363; 67 CCA 

345 422, 963 

Gorrissen's Case, 8 Ch. 507 171, 
347, 347 
Gosden v. Dotterill, 1 Myl. & 

K. 56 421 

Gosling V. Gaskell (1897), A. C 

575 1580 

Gottschalk v: Stover, 85 Mo. 

App. 566 619 

Goulburn Valley Butter, etc. 

Co. V. Bank of New South 

Wales, 26 Vict. L. R. 351 873, 

874 
Gould V. Fuller, 79 Minn. 414; 

82 N. W. 673 22 

V. Head, 41 Fed. 240 751, 752 

V. Olympic Min. Co., 49 

N. Y. Misc. 612; 96 N. Y. 

Supp. 455 908, 908 
V. Oneonta, 71 N. Y. 298 428, 



— V. W. J. Gould & Co., 134 
Mich. 515; 97 N. W. 576 



613 

1372, 
1377 



995 
187 
48, 



Goulding v. Clark, 34 N. H. 
148 , 

Gourlie v. Chandler, 41 Nova 
Scotia 341 

Governments Stock Invest- 
ment Co. (1891), 1 Ch. 649 

136, 383 

Governments Stock Invest- 
ment Co. (No. 2), (1892), 1 
Ch. 597 136, 137 

Governments Stock Invest- 
ment Co. V. Manila Ry. Co. 
(1897), A. C 81 1546, 1548 

Gow V. Collin, etc. Lumber 
Co., 109 Mich. 45; 66N.W. 
676 

Gowdy Gas, etc. Co. v. Patti- 
son, 29 Ind. App. 261; 64 
N. E. 485 

Gowen's Appeal, 10 Wkly. N. 
Cases (Pa.) 85 

Gower's Case, 6 Eq. 77 

Goy & Co. (1900), 2 Ch. 149 

1426, 1429 

Goyer, etc. Co. v. Wildberger, 

71 Miss. 438; 15 So. 235 716 

Graebner v. Post, 119 Wise. 
392; 96 N. W. 783; 100 
Am. St. Rep. 890 557, 605 

GrafBin v. Robb, 84 Md. 451; 

35 Atl. 971 798, 799 

Grafflin Co. v. Woodside; 87 

Md. 146; 39 Atl. 413 572, 573 



237 



492 

1011 

665 

1426, 



Ixxxix 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



381 



578 



Grafner v. Pittsburg, etc. Ry. 

Co., 207 Pa. St. 217; 56 

Atl. 426 1238, 1319 

Grafton Grocery Co. v. Home 

Brewing Co. (W. Va.), 54 

S. E. 349 
Graftstrom v. Frost Council, 

19 N. Y. Misc. 180; 43 

N. Y. Supp. 266 
Graham v. Birkenhead, etc. 

,Ry. Co.,2Mac. &G. 146 73,966 
V. Boston, etc. R. R. Co., 

118 U. S. 161; 6 Sup. Ct. 

1009 1625, 1637 

V. Dubuque Specialty 

etc. Works (Iowa), 114 

N. W. 619 983, 983 

V. First Nat. Bank, 84 

N. Y. 393 ; 38 Am. Rep. 528 792 

V. House-building, etc. 

Ass'n, 52 S. W. 1011 
(Tenn.) 580, 582 

V. Partee, 139 Ala. 310; 

35 So. 1016; 101 Am. St. 

Rep. 32 407, 408 
V. Piatt, 28 Colo. 421 ; 65 

Pac. 30 624 
V. Railroad Co., 102 U. S. 

148 ■ 1315 

V. Van Diemen's Land 

Co., 1 H. & N. 541 660, 793, 

1002, 1004 

Gramophone & Typewriter v. 

Stanley (1906), 2 K. B. 856 
Granby Mining Co. v. Rich- 
ards, 95 Mo. 106; 8 S. W. 

246 
Grand Central Lodge v. Gro- 

gan, 44 111. App. Ill 
Grand Lodge v. Graham, 96 

Iowa 592; 65 N. W. 837; 

31 L. R. A. 133 371, 372, 374 
V. Reneau, 75 Mo. App. 

402 589 

V. Waddill, 36 Ala. 313 86, 857 

Grand Rapids, etc. R. R. Co. 

V. Sanders, 54 How. Pr. 

(N. Y.) 214 1461 

Grand Rapids Furniture Co. 

V. Grand Hotel, etc. Co., 11 

Wyom. 128; 70 Pac. 838; 

72 Pac. 687 296, 300, 1186 

Grand Rapids Safety Deposit 

Co. V. Cincinnati Safe, etc. 

Co., 45 Fed. Rep. 671 272, 319 
319, 1338, 1339 
Grand River Bridge Co. v. 

Rollins, 13 Colo. 4; 21 Pac. 

897 279, 293 



878 



219 
949 



Grand River Colleger. Robert- 
son, 67 Mo. App. 329 141 

Grand Tower Mfg. Co. v. 
UUman, 89 111. 244 1582 

Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 88 

Fed. 636 1642 

V. Central Vermont R. 

Co., 78 Fed. 690 1562 

V. Central Vermont R. 

Co., 81 Fed. 60 1643 

V. Central Vermont R. 

Co., 81 Fed. 541 1611 

V. Central Vermont R. 

Co., 88 Fed. 620 1573 

V. Ctentral Vermont R. 

Co., 88 Fed. 622 1584, 1585 

V. Central Vermont R. 

Co., 90 Fed. 163 1568 

V. Central Vermont R. 

Co., 91 Fed. 569 ' 1654 

V. Central Vermont R. 

Co., 103 Fed. 740 1635 

V. Central Vermont R. 

Co., 105 Fed. 411 1449, 1453, 

1460 
Grand Valley, etc. Co. v. Fruita 

Imp. Co. (Colo.), 86 Pac. 

324 688, 604, 666, 879 

Granger v. Bassett, 89 Mass. 

462 1157 
V. Grubb, 7 Phila. (Pa.) 

350 559, 560, 566, 569, 

569, 992, 1005, 1011 
Grangers' Ins. Co. v. Turner, 

61 Ga. 561 182 

Grangers' Life, etc. Ins. Co. 

V. ICamper, 73 Ala. 325 111, 

112, 480, 483 
Granite Roofing Co. v. 

Michael, 54 Md. 65 629 

Grant v. East & West R. R. 

Co., 54 Fed. 569; 4C. C. A. 

511 645 
V. Langstaff, 52 111. App. 

128 948 
V. Mechanics Bank, 15 S. 

& R. (Pa.) 140 774, 775 

V. Norway, 10 C. B. 665 739 

V. Ross, 100 Ky. 44; 37 

S. W. 263 1128 
V. Southern Contract Co., 

104 Ky. 781; 47S.W. 1091 



— V. United Kingdom, 
etc. Co., 40 Ch. D. 135 

V. Winona, etc. Ry. Co., 

85Minn.422;89N.W. 60 



1127 

1310, 
1332 

1494, 



1639, 1639 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Grape Creek Coal Co. v. 

Farmers' L. & T. Co., 63 

Fed. 891; 12 CCA. 350 1465 
1466, 1507, 1625, 1625 
Grape Sugar, etc. Co. v. 

Small, 40 Md. 395 278, 281 

Graton & Knight Mfg. Co. v. 

Redelsheimer, 28 Wash. 

370; 68 Pao. 879 844 

Gratz V. Redd, 4 B. Monr. 

(Ky.) 178 1094, 1104, 1105, 

1259 
Graves ». Colby, 9 Ad. &E. 356 595 
V. Mono Lake, etc. Co., 

81Cal.303; 22Pac. 665 1298, 
1813, 1317, 1319 
Gray v. Christian Soc, 137 

Mass. 329; 50 Am. Rep. 

310 580, 1003 
V. Fuller, 17 N. Y. App. 

Div. 29; 44 N. Y. Supp. 

883 1285, 1286 

1). Monongahela Nav. 

Co., 2 Watts & S. (Pa.) 156; 

37 Am. Dec. 500 381, 386 

V. Portland Bank, 3 

Mass. 364; 3 Am. Dec. 156 

481, 499, 500, 500, 507, 508 
: V. South & North R. R. 

Co., 43 So. 859 956, 985, 986 
V. Stevenson, 25 Vict. L. 

R. 476 
V. Stone, 69 L. T. 282 



659 
771, 
771 



Graydon's Exrs. v. Graydon, 

23 N. J. Eq. 229 424 

Graye v. Turnpike Co., 4 

Rand. (Va.) 578 229 

Great Central Freehold Mines 

V. Brandon, 30 Vict. L. 

R. 97 992, 1192 

Great Falls, etc., Ins. Co. v. 

Harvey, 45 N. H. 292 563 

Great Falls, etc. R. R. v. 

Copp, 38 N. H. 124 650 

Great Luxembourg Ry. Co. 

V. Magnay, 25 Beav. 586 1316, 

1332 
Great North of England Ry. 

Co. V. Biddulph, 7 M. & W. 

243 603 

Great Northern Ry. Co. v. 

Coal Co-operative Soc. 

(1896), 1 Ch. 187 26, 1395 
V. Kennedy, 4 Exch. 

417 667, 769 

Great Northern Salt, etc. 

Works, 44 Ch. D. 472 911, 

1213 



Great North-West Central 
Ry. Co. V. Charlebois (1899), 
A. C 114 829 

Great Western, etc. Mfg. Co. 
V. Harris, 128 Fed. 321; 63 
C C A. 51 1128 

Great Western Ry. Co. v. 
Birmingham, etc. Ry. Co., 
2 Phill. 597 283, 951 

V. Rushout, 5 DeG. & 

Sm. 290 87, 946, 950, 962 

Great Western Tel. Co. v. 

Bumham, 79 Wise. 47; 47 

N. W. 373; 24 Am. St. 

Rep. 698 433, 602 
V. Gray, 122 111. 630; 14 

N. E. 214 614 

V. Haight, 49 111. App. 

633 191 
V. Purdy, 83 Iowa 430; 

50N. W. 45; 162 U. S. 329 

16 Sup. Ct. 810 614 

Great Wheal Polgroth, 49 L. 

T. 20 272, 1363 

Greater Pittsburg Real Es- 
tate Co. V. Riley, 210 Pa. 

St. 283; 59 Atl. 1068 208 

Greathouse v. Martin (Tex.), 

94 S. W. 322 1248, 1316, 

1322 
Greeley v. Provident Savings 

Bank, 98 Mo. 458; 11 S. 

W. 980 1617 

Green v. Abietine Medical 

Co., 96 Cal. 322; 31 Pac. 

100 428, 627, 653 
V. Barrett, 1 Simons 45 ■ 342 

V. Bissell (Conn.), 65 

Atl. 1056 1137, 1146 

V. Board of Trade, 174 

111. 585; 51 N. E. 599; 49 

L. R. A. 365 580, 580 

V. Coast Line R. R. Co., 

97 Ga. 15; 24S. E. 814; 54 
Am. St. Rep. 379; 33 L. R. 
A. 806 1568 

V. Compton, 41 N. Y. 

Misc. 21; 83 N. Y. Supp. 

588 974 
V. Felton (Ind.), 84 N. E. 

166 1080, 1312 
V. Grigg, 98 N. Y. App. 

Div. 445; 90 N. Y. Supp. 

565 238 

V. Hedenberg, 159 111. 

489; 42N. E. 851; 50 Am. 

St. Rep. 178 944, 963 
V. London General Om- 
nibus Co., 7 C B. N. s. 290 869 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Green w. Seymour, 3 Sandf. Ch. 

(N. Y.) 285 1032 

Green Mount, etc. Co. v. 

Bulla, 45 Ind. 1 700, 750 

Green's Case, 18 Ecj. 428 1166 

Greenbrier Industrial Exposi- 
tion V. Ocheltree, 44 W. Va. 
626; 30 S. E. 78 490 

V. Rodes, 37 W. Va. 738; 

17 S. E. 305 118, 130, 202, 

202, 214 
Greene v. Buckley, 120 Fed. 

955 1356 

V. Dennis, 6 Conn. 292 54, 

54, 230 

V. Dispeau, 14 R. I. 575 803, 

811, 811 

V. Hereford (Ariz.), 95 

Pac. 105 918 

V. Middlesborough Town 

& Lands Co. (Ky.), 89 
S. W. 228; 28 Ky. Law 
Rep. 303 84, 97, 851 

V. Sigua Iron Co., 88 

Fed. 203; 31 C. C. A. 458 706, 

706 

V. Smith, 17 R. I. 28; 

19 Atl. 1081 503, 1152 

Greenfield Savings Bank v. 

Simons, 133 Mass. 415 1272 

Greenleaf v. Ludington, 15 
Wise. 558; 82 Am. Dec. 698 

732, 732, 756 
Greenough v. Alabama, etc. 
R. R. Co., 64 Fed. 22 1170, 

1170 
Greenpoint Co. v. Whitin, 

69 N. Y. 328 1011 

Greensboro, etc. Turnpike 
Co. V. Stratton, 120 Ind. 
294; 22 N. E. 247 1244, 1246 

Greenville Compress, etc. Co. 
V. Planters Compress, etc. 
Co., 70 Miss. 669; 13 So. 
879; 35 Am. St. Rep. 681 852, 

854 
Greenville Gas Co. v. Reis, 54 
Oh. St. 549; 44N. E. 271 1276, 
1277 
Greenwell v. Porter (1902), 1 

Ch. 530 1029, 1029, 1348 

Greenwood v. Algeciras Ry. 
Co. (1894), 2 Ch. 205 1645, 

1649 

V. Freight Co., 105 IT. S. 

13 939, 945 

Greenwood Ice Co. v. Georgia 
Home Ins. Co., 72 Miss. 
46; 17 So. 83 1306 



Greer v. Chartiers Ry. Co., 96 

Pa. St. 391; 42 Am. Rep. 

548 164, 166, 170 

Gregg V. Granby Mining, etc. . 

Co. (Mo.), 65 S. W. 312 6 
V. Mercantile Trust Co., 

109 Fed. 220; 48 C. C. A. 

318; 124 Fed. 721; 59C. C. 

A. 637; 197 U. S. 183; 25 

Sup. Ct. 415 1559, 1562, 1567 

1567, 1567, 1568 

V. Metropolitan Trust 

Co., 197 U.S. 183; 25 Sup. 
Ct. 415; 109 Fed. 220; 48 
CCA. 318; 124 Fed. 721; 

59 C C. A. 637 1564 

Gregg's Case, 15 W. R. 82 168 

Gregory v. Patchett, 33 Beav. 

595 966, 975 

Gresham v. Island City Sav- 
ings Bank, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 

52; 21 S. W. 556 650, 749, 

751 
Greymouth Point, etc. Coal 

Co. (1904), 1 Ch. 32 1203 

Gridley v. Lafayette, etc. Ry. 

Co., 71 111. 200 1237 

Grier v. Hazard, Hazard & 

Co., 13 N. Y. Supp. 583 293 

Grifiin v. Clinton Line, etc. R. 

R. Co., 11 Fed. Cas. 27 118, 
233, 233, 238, 242 
V. Inman, Swann & Co., 

57 Ga. 370 1306 
V. Knoblock (Colo.), 77 

Pac. 370 713 

V. Macon County, 36 

Fed. 885; 2 L. R. A. 353 1459 
Griffing v. Griffing Iron Co., 

61 N. J. Eq. 269; 48 Atl. 

910 1113 
V. Griffing Iron Co., 96 

Fed. 577 957 

Griffing Bros. Co. v. Winfield 

(Fla.), 43 So. 687 392, 404, 

406 
Griffing Iron Co., Re, 63 N. J. 

Law Rep. 168; 41 Atl. 931 ; 

63 N. J. Law Rep. 357; 46 

Atl. 1097 560, 992, 1002, 

1006, 1164, 1183, 1183, 1192 
Griffith V. Blackwater Boom, 

etc. Co., 48 S. E. 442; 55 

W. Va. 604; 69 L. R. A. 

124; 46 W. Va. 56; 33 S. 

E. 125 1300, 1310, 1316 

V. Paget, 6 Ch. D. 511 469 

Griffiths Cycle Corp., 85 L. T. 

675; 85 L. T. 776 1642 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Grimbly v. Harrold, 125 Cal. 

24; 57 Pac. 558; 73 Am. 

St. Rep. 19 
Grimwade v. Mutual Society, 

52.L. T. 409 
Grissell's Case, 1 Ch. 528 

612, 613 
Groel V. United Electric Co., 

132 Fed. 252 

V. United Electric Co. 

(N. J.), 61 Atl. 1061 

Groeltz v. Armstrong Real 

Estate Co., 115 Iowa 602; 

89 N. W. 21 
Groh's Sons, M., v. Groh, 80 

N. Y. App. Div. 85; 80 N. 

Y. Supp. 438 
Groton Bridge, etc. Co. v. Am. 

Bridge Co., 151 Fed. 871 
Grover v. Cavanaugh (Ind.), 

82 N. E. 104 163, 184, 448 

Grubb V. Mahoning Naviga- 
tion Co., 14 Pa. St. 302 
Gnibbs-Wiley Grocery Co., 

96 Fed. 183 
Gruber v. Washington, etc. 

R. R. Co., 92 N. Car. 1 
Grundy v. Pine Hill Coal Co., 

10 Ky. Law Rep. 833; 9 S. 

W. Rep. 414 
Grymes v. Hone, 49 N. Y. 17; 

10 Am. Rep. 313 
Guarantee Co. v. East Rome 

Town Co., 96 Ga. 511; 23 

S. E. 503; 51 Am. St. Rep. 

150 797, 806, 806, 811, 1131 

Guarantee Trust, etc. Co. v. 

Philadelphia, etc. R. Co., 

52 N. Y. Supp. 116; 31 N. 

Y. App. Div. 511 1561, 1571 

Guaranty Trust Co. v. Atlan- 
tic Coast El. R. R. Co., 138 

Fed. 517; 71 C. C. A. 41 876, 
1509, 1509, 1510 
V. Chicago, etc. Co., 158 

Fed. 1015 1649 
' V. Galveston City R. R. 

Co., 107 Fed. 311; 46 CCA. 

305 451, 451, 1540, 1571, 1572 
V. Green Cove, etc. R. R. 

Co., 139 U. S. 137; 11 Sup. 

Ct. 512 1433, 1593, 1593, 1593 

1596 

V. North Chicago, etc. 

Co., 130 Fed. 801; 65 C C 
A. 65 

V. Troy Steel Co., 33 

N. Y. Misc. 484; 68 N. Y. 
Supp. 915 



949 

1282 
612, 



975 
939 



34 



1069 
866 



229 

1239 

870 



1238 
712 



960 



1528 



1029 



844 



Guardian Trust, etc. Co. v. 

Fisher, 200 U. S. 57; 26 

Sup. Ct. 186 1543, 1552 

Guardian Trust Co. v. White 

CUffs, etc. Co., 109 Fed. 

523 1584, 1593, 1593, 1596, 

1600 
Guckert v. Hacke, 159 Pa. St. 

303; 28 Atl. 249 123, 231, 

248, 251, 384 

Guernsey v. Cook, 120 Mass. 

501 
Guffey Petroleum Co. v. Chai- 

son TownsiteCo. (Tex.), 107 

S. W. 609 
Guilford v. Minneapolis, etc. 

Ry. Co., 48 Minn. 560; 51 

N.W. 658; 31Am. St. Rep. 

694 1420, 1423, 1425, 1528 
V. Western Union Tel. 

Co., 43 Minn. 434; 46 N. W. 

70 431, 431 
V. Western Union Tel. Co. 

59 Minn. 332; 61 N. W. 

324; 50 Am. St. Rep. 407 431, 
431, 732, 733 
Guillaume v. K. S. D. Fruit 

Co. (Greg.), 86 Pac. 883 1196 
Guinness ?;. Land Corporation, 

22 Ch. D. 349 40, 97, 111, 431, 
452, 564 
Guinzberg v. H. W. Downs 

Co., 165 Mass. 467; 43 N. 

E. 195; 52 Am. St. Rep. 525 
Gulliver v. Roelle, 100 111. 141 
Gumaer v. Cripple Creek, etc. 

Co. (Colo.), 90 Pac. 81 969, 1203 
1205, 1247, 1371 
Gump V. Sibley, 79 Md. 165 849 
Gund V. Ballard (Nebr.), 103 

N. W. 309 1323, 1329 

Gunderson v. Illinois Trust, 

etc. Bank, 199 111. 422; 6'5 

N. E. 326 
Gundlach v. Germania, etc. 

Inst., 49 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 

190 
Gunn V. Central R. R. etc. Co., 

74 Ga. 409 79, 870 

— ■ — V. London, etc. Fire Ins. 

Co.,12C B. N. s. 694 280,284 
Gunn's Case, 3 Ch. 40 166 

Gunnison Gas & Water Co. v. 

Whitaker, 91 Fed. 191 
Gunther & Bro. v. Baskett 

Coal Co., 107 Ky. 44; 52 

S. W. 931 
Guriey v. Reed, 190 Mass. 509 ; 

77 N. E. 642 683, 711 



809 
416 



984 



590 



843 



1354 



TABLE OP CASES 
[The references are to pageB] 



512 
643 

1220, 



Gumey v. Atlantic, etc. Ry. 

Co., 58 N. Y. 358 1567 

Custard's Case, 8 Eq. 438 165, 

548, 782 
Guthrie V. Harkness, 199 U. S. 

148; 26 Sup. Ct. 4 894, 896 

Gutta Percha Corp., 15 Times 

L. R. 183 350, 364, 750 

Gutterson v. Lebanon Iron, 

etc. Co., 151 Fed. 72 1616 

G. V. B. Mining Co. v. First 

Nat. Bank, 95 Fed. 23; 36 

C. C. A. 633 397, 860 

H 

Haacke v. Knights of Liberty, 

etc. Club, 76 Md. 429; 25 

Atl. 422 222, 261 

Haas V. Bank of Commerce, 

41 Nebr. 754; 60 N. W. 85 229, 

231 249 

Haas Co., 131 Fed. 232; 65 

C. C. A. 218 
Habershon's Case, 5 Eq. 286 
Hackensack Water Co. v. De 

Kay, 36 N. J. Eq. 548 

1225, 1408 
Hackett v. Multnomah Ry. 

Co., 12 Oreg. 124; 6 Pac. 

659; 53 Am. Rep. 327 70, 80 
V. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 

140 Fed. 717 457 
V. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 

36 N. Y. Misc. 583; 73 

N. Y. Supp. 1087 192, 443, 527, 

1190 
Hackettstown Nat. Bank v. 

Yuenling Brewing Co., 74 

Fed. 110; 20 C. C. A. 327 1527, 
1672 
Hadden v. Linville, 86 Md. 

210; 38 Atl. 37, 900 1373, 1381 
Haden v. Farmers', etc. Fire 

Ass'n, 80 Va. 683 
Hadleigh Castle Gold Mines 

(1900), 2 Ch. 419 
Hadley &'Co. v. Hadley, 77 

L. T. 131 
Haebler v. N. Y. Produce 

Exchange, 149 N. Y. 414; 

44 N. E. 87 
Hagar v. Union Bank, 63 Me. 

509 773, 1122, 1124 

Hager v. Cleveland, 36 Md. 

476 608, 913, 915 

Hagerman v. Ohio Bldg. etc., 

Ass'n, 25 Oh. St.- 186 119, 248, 
557, 581, 590, 595, 624 



592 
1058 
1310 



581 



Hagerstown Mfg. Co. v. Keedy, 
91Md. 430; 46 Atl. 965 

Hagerstown Turnpike Road 
Co. V. Creeger, 5 H. & J. 
(Md.) 122; 9 Am. Dec. 495 



844, 
1306 



230, 
380 



Haggert Bros. Mfg. Co., 19 

Ont. App. 582 199, 203, 204, 

614 
Hahn's Appeal, 7 Atl. Rep. 

482 (Pa.) 490 

Haines v. Kinderhook, etc. 

Ry. Co., 33 N. Y. App. Div. 

154; 53 N. Y. Supp. 368 1050, 
1053, 1054, 1054, 1176 
Haines Mercantile Co. v. 

Highland Gold Mines Co. 

(Oreg.), 88 Pac. 865 884 

Hair v. Burnell, 106 Fed. 280 429, 
716, 750 
Halbert v. San Saba, etc. 

Ass'n (Tex.), 34 S. W. 636 120 
Hale V. Burlington, etc. Ry. 

Co., 13 Fed. 203 1542 
V. Cheshire R. R. Co., 

161 Mass. 443; 37 N. E. 307 
V. Frost, 99 U. S. 389 



470 
1566, 
1572 



V. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43; 

26 Sup. a. 370 891, 891 
V. Mason, 160 N. Y. 561 ; 

55 N. E. 202 1270 
1). Nashua, etc. R.R. Co., 

60 N. H. 333 1493, 1493, 1586, 
1640 
Haley v. Halifax Street Ry. 

Co., 25 Nova Scotia L. R. 

140 1603, 1607 

Halifax Sugar Refining Co. v. 

Francklyn,59 L. J. Ch. 591 1198, 
1199, 1222 
Hall V. Alabama, etc. Imp. 

Co., 143 Ala. 464; 39 So. 

385 

V. Carey, 5 Ga. 239 

V. Henderson, 126 Ala. 

449; 28 So. 531; 85 Am. St. 

Rep. 53; 61 L. R. A. 621 

520, 520, 1276, 1276 
V. Herter Bros., 83 Hun 

19; 31N.Y. Supp. 692; 90 

Hun 280; 35 N. Y. Supp. 

769; 157 N. Y. 694; 51 

N. E. 1091 290, 297 
V. MuUanphy Planing 

Mill Co., 16 Mo. App. 454 1542 
V. Nieukirk (Idaho), 85 

Pac. 485 959 



518 
915 



518, 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Hall V. Old Talaigooh Lead 

Mining Co., 3 Ch. D. 749 183 
V. Publishing Co., 180 Pa. 

St. 561; 37 Atl. 106 1224 
V. Rose Hill, etc. Road 

Co., 70 111. 673 739 
V. Sullivan R. R. Co., 1 

Brunner Coll. Cas. 613; 11 

Fed. Cas. 257 1521, 1584, 1584, 

1635 
V. U. S. Ins. Co., 5 Gill 

(Md.) 484 604, 612, 767, 771 
V. Vermont, etc. R. R. 

Co., 28 Vt. 401 278, 293, 1237, 

1246 
V. Wagner, 111 N. Y. 

App. Div. 70; 97 N. Y. 

Supp. 570 727,727 

Hall & Co., A. W., 37 Ch. D. 

712 647, 648 

Hall Mfg. Co. V. Am. Ry. 

Supply Co., 48 Mich. 331 852 
HaU's Case, S Ch. 707 524, 663, 

664 
Hall's Safe Co. v. Herring- 
Hall-Marvin Safe Co., 146 

Fed. 37; 76 C. C. A. 495 377 
Hallam v. Indianola Hotel Co., 

56 Iowa 178; 9 N. W. Ill 1324, 

1344 
Hallenborg v. Corre Grande 

Copper Co. (Ariz.), 74 Pac. 

1052 958 

Hallett, Ex parte, 1 Manson 

380 793 

Hallmark's Case, 9 Ch. D. 

329 1276 

Hallowell, etc. Bank v. 

Hamlin, 14 Mass. 178 925 

Halpin v. Mutual Brewing 

Co., 20 N. Y. App. Div. 583; 

47 N. Y. Supp. 412 1166, 1180 
Halsey v. Ackerman, 38 N. J. 

Eq. 501 1259 

Halstead v. Dodge, 1 How. 

Pr. N. s. (N. Y.) 170 1227, 1359 
Hambleton v. Central Ohio 

R. R. Co., 44 Md. 551 736, 738, 
742 759 
V. Glenn, 72 Md. 351 ; 20 

Atl. 121 602 
V. Glenn, 72 Md. 331 ; 20 

Atl. 115 602, 606, 613, 613 
V. Rhind, 84 Md. 456; 

36 Atl. 597 ; 40 L. R. A. 2 16 277 
Hambro v. Hull, etc. Fire Ins. 

Co.,3H. &N. 789 379 

Hamburger v. Miller, 48 Md. 

317 403 



Hamill v. Royal Arcanum, 152 

Pa. 537; 25 Atl. 645 919 

Hamilton v. Clarion, etc. 

R. R. Co., 144 Pa. St. 34; 

23 Atl. 53; 13 L. R. A. 779 250 
V. Desjardins Canal Co., 

1 Grant (Can.) 1 932, 943 
V. Grant, 30 Can. Sup. 

Ct. 566 
V. Smith, 5 Jur. n. s. 32 



Co. 



696 
275, 
276 



173 



V. Vaughan, etc. 

(1894), 3 Ch. 589 
Hamilton, etc. Co. v. Rice, 7 

Barb. (N. Y.) 157 208, 607, 914 
Hamilton Nat. Bank v. 
American Loan, etc. Co., 
66 Nebr. 67; 92 N. W. 189 37, 

383 
Hamilton Road Co. v. Town- 
send, 13 Ont. Rep. 534 117, 120, 
120, 221 
Hamilton Trust Co. v. Clemes, 
17 N. Y. App. Div. 152; 45 
N.Y. Supp. 141; 163 N.Y. 
423; 57 N. E. 614 152, 1175, 

1225, 1499 
1176 



1510 
1509 



1210 



1564 



Hamilton's Case, 8 Ch. 548 
Hamlin v. European, etc. Ry. 
Co., 72 Me. 83 

V. Jerrard, 72 Me. 62 

V. Toledo, etc. R. R. Co., 

78 Fed. 664; 24 C. C. A. 
271 ; 36 L. R. A. 826 415, 450, 
450, 451, 451, 452, 469, 474, 
977, 984, 1028 

V. Union Brass Co., 68 

N. H. 292; 44 Atl. 385 

Hammerly v. Mercantile 
Trust, etc. Co. 123 Ala. 
596; 26 So. 646 

Hammock v. Loan & Trust 

Co., 105 U. S. 77 1496, 1627, 

1630 

Hammond v. Edison Illumi- 
nating Co., 131 Mich. 79; 
90 N. "W. 1040; 100 Am. 
St. Rep. 582 499, 500, 507 

V. Hastings, 134 U. S. 

401; 10 Sup. Ct. 727 680, 770, 

773 

V. Port Royal, etc. Ry. 

Co., 15 S. Car. 10 1632 

V. Straus, 53 Md. 1 160, 219, 

220 921 

, Be, 139 Fed. 898 998, 1035 

Hamor v. Taylor-Rice En- 
gineering Co., 84 Fed. 392 518, 
518, 520 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



1221 

82 

249 
620 

1568 

847 



1134 

1312 

1659 
1614 



Hampshire Land Co. (1896), 

2 Ch. 743 
Hampson v. Price's Patent 

Candle Co., 45 L. J. Ch. 437 
Hampton v. Clinton Co., 65 

N.J. Law 158; 46 Atl. 650 

V. Foster, 127 Fed. 468 

V. Norfolk, etc. Ry. Co., 

127 Fed. 662 
Hamsher v. Hamsher, 132 111. 

273; 23 N. E. 1123 
Hanchett v. Blair, 100 Fed. 

817; 41 C. C. A. 76 875, 1081, 

1083 

Hancock v. Clark, 68 Vt. 302; 

36 Atl. 317 
V. Holbrook, 40 La. Ann. 

53; 3 So. 351 
V. Toledo, etc. R. R. Co., 

9 Fed. 738 
Hand v. Blow, 82 L. T. 750 
V. Evans Marble Co., 88 

Md. 226; 40 Atl. 899 298, 298 
V. Savannah, etc. R. R. 

Co., 21 S. Car. 162 1591 
V. Savannah, etc. R. R. 

Co., 12 S. Car. 314 1535, 1670 
V. Savannah, etc. R. R. 

Co., 17 S. Car. 219 1456, 1640, 
1643, 1670 
Handley v. Stutz, 139 U. S. 

417; 11 Sup. Ct. 530 492, 627, 
628, 630, 630, 911, 1006, 1009 
Handy v. Cleveland, etc. R. R. 

Co., 31 Fed. 689 1602, 1618 

Hankins v. Newell (N. J.), 66 

Atl. 929 1041, 1249 

Hanly, Ex parte, 41 Ch. D. 215 278, 

295 
Hanna v. Lyon, 179 N. Y. 107; 

71 N.'E. 778 944, 962, 974 
V. People's Nat. Bank, 71) 

N. Y. App. Div. 224; 78 

N. Y. Supp. 516; 76 N. Y. 

Supp. 224 1282, 1350 
V. State Trust Co., 70 

Fed. 2; 16 CCA. 586; 30 

L. R. A. 201 1650, 1650, 1650, 

1651 
Hannan's King Mining Co., 

14 Times L. R. 314 764, 764 

Hanson v. Little Sisters of the 

Poor, 79 Md. 434; 32 Atl. 

1052; 32 L. R. A. 293' 
V. Minnesota Scandina- 
vian, etc. Ass'n, 59 Minn, 

123; 60 N. W. 1091 
Hapgoods V. Lusch, 107 N. Y, 

Supp. 331 



847 



590 
175 



890 



1201 



495 



1210 

621 

1259 



Harbaugh v. Middlesex Secu- 
rities Co., 110 N. Y. App. 

Div. 633; 97 N. Y. Supp. 

350 
Harben v, Phillips, 23 Ch. D. 

14 1040, 1042, 1058, 1194, 

1207, 1230, 1251 
Hardin v. Iowa Ry., etc. Co., 

78 Iowa 726; 43N.W.543; 

6 L. R. A. 52 
Hardin County v. Louisville, 

etc. R. R. Co., 92 Ky. 412; 

17 S. W. 860 
Harding v. American Glucose 

Co., 182 111. 551; 55 N. E. 

577; 74 Am. St. Rep. 189; 

64 L. R. A. 738 940, 951 
V. Vanderwater, 40 Cal. 

77 
Hardoon v. Belilios (1901), 

A. C 118 
Hardy v. Metropolitan Land 

Co., 7 Ch. 427 
Hare v. L. & N. W. Ry. Co., 

Johns. 722 729, 962, 968 

Harpending v. Dutch Church, 

16 Pet. 455 848 

V. Munson, 91 N. Y. 650 1324, 

1344, 1636, 1636 
Harper v. Smith, 93 N. Y. 

App. Div. 608; 87 N. Y. 

Supp. 516 
Harpold v. Stobart, 46 Oh. St. 

397; 21N. E. 637; 15 Am. 

St. Rep. 618 
Harriman v. Northern Secu- 
rities Co., 197 U. S. 244; 25 

Sup. a. 493 
V. Southam, 16 Ind. 190 

V. Wobum Electric 

Light Co., 163 Mass. 85; 39 

N. E. 1004 1496, 1503 

Harrington v. Victoria, etc. 

Dock Co., 3 Q. B. D. 549 
Harris v. Bank of Mobile, 5 

La. Ann. 538 
V. Franklin Bank, 77 Md. 

423; 26 Atl. 523 
— — V. Gateway Land Co., 

128 Ala. 652; 29 So. 611 

599, 614 

V. Independence Gas 

Co. (Kans.), 92 Pac. 1123 



1063 



699 



542 
244 



320 
717 
810 
250, 



V. Leming Harris, etc. 

Works, 43 S. W. Rep. 

(Tenn.) 869 
V. McGregor, 29 Cal. 124 



858, 
867 



1247 
103, 



103, 104, 246 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Harris v. Muskingum Mfg. Co., 
4 Blackf. (Ind.) 267; 29 
Am. Dec. 372 383, 1078 

V. Quincy, etc. Ry. Co. 

(Mo.), 101 S. W. 601 1609, 1609 

V. Runnels, 12 How. 79 864 

V. San Francisco Sugar 

Ref. Co., 41 Cal. 393 497, 1111, 

1119 

V. Stevens, 7 N. H. 454 1135 

V. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 13 

Fed. 522 1342 

V. Youngstown Bridge 

Co., 90 Fed. 322; 33 C. C. A. 
69; 93 Fed. 355; 35 CCA. 

341 1535, 1536, 1537, 1537, 1628 
Harris's Appeal, 12 Atl. Rep. 

743 (Pa.) 804 

Harris's Case, 7 Ch. 587 167, 1216 
Harrison v. Annapolis, etc. 

R. R. Co., 50 Md. 490 1496 
■ V. Heathorn, 6 Man. & 

Gr. 81 7 
V. Mexican Ry. Co., 19 

Eq. 358 439, 441, 441, 442 
V. Morton, 83 Md. 456; 

35 Atl. 99 915, 916, 916 
V. Piyse, Barnard. Ch. 

324 757 
V. Remington Paper Co., 

140 Fed. 385; 72 CCA. 405 921 
V. St. Etienne Brewery 

Co. (1893), W. N. 108 1514, 

1599 
V. Thomas, 112 Fed. 22; 

50 C C A. 98 941, 1259, 1316, 

1316 
V. Union Trust Co., 144 

N. Y. 326; 39 N. E. 353 1493 

V. Vermont Manganese 

Co., 1 N. Y. Misc. 402; 20 

N. Y. Supp. 894 278 

, Ex parte, 69 L. T. 204 350, 

364 

, Ex parte, 28 Ch. D. 363 767, 

767, 793 
Harrison's Case, 3 Ch. 633 166 

, 6 Ch. 286 766 

Harrod v. Hamer, 32 Wise. 

162 123, 127, 220 

Harrogate's Estates (1903), 1 

Ch. 498 1396, 1497 

Harrold v. Plenty (1901), 2 

Ch. 314 805, 809 

Hart V. American Cotton Co., 

41 N. Y. Misc. 436; 84 

N. Y. Supp. 1065 890 
V. Evanson (N. Dak.), 

105 N. W. 942 1357, 1357 

g xc 



Hart V. Frontino Gold Mining 
Co., L. R. 5 Ex. Ill 736, 742, 742 

V. Globe Ins. Co., 113 

Fed. 307 620 

V. Ogdensburg. etc. 

- R. R. Co., 89 Hun (N. Y.) 

316; 35 N. Y. Supp. 566 968, 

1312 
V. Seymour, 147 Jll. 598; 

35 N. E. 246 254 
V. St. Charles St. R. R. 

Co., 30 La. Ann. 758 504, 507 
Hart's Case, 6 Eq. 512 173 

Harter v. Eltzroth, 111 Ind. 

159; 12N.E. 129 784 

Hartford v. Co-operative 

Homestead Co., 128 Mass. 

494 590 

Hartford, etc. R. R. Co. v.- 

Croswell, 5 Hill (N. Y.) 383 610 
Hartley v. Pioneer Iron 

Works, 181 N. Y. 73; 73 

N. E. 576 523, 523 

Hartley's Case, 10 Ch. 167 642 

Hartman v. Pennsylvania 

Range Boiler Co., 24 Pa. 

Co. a. Rep. 324 222 

Hartridge v. Rockwell, R. M. 

Charlt. (Ga.) 260 509, 517, 522 
Harts V. Brown, 77 111. 226 1317, 
1317, 1344, 1344 
Hartt V. Harvey, 32 Barb. 55 

(N. Y.) 1057, 1058, 1065, 1250 
Harvard College v. Amory, 9 

Pick. (Mass.) 446 413, 1091, 

1143 
Harvey v. Board of Trustees, 

142 Cal. 391; 75 Pac. 1086 398 
V. Grand Lodge, 50 Mo. 

App. 472 593, 663 
V. Linville Improvement 

Co., 118 N. Car. 693; 24 

S. E. 489; 54 Am. St. Rep. 

749 1052 

V. Schuylkill Real Es- 
tate, etc. Co., 24 Pa. Co. Ct. 

Rep. 593 592 

V. West Side Elevated 

(Patented) Ry. Co., 13 Hun 

(N. Y.) 392 1379 

Harvey-Watts Co. v. Wor- 
cester Umbrella Co. (Mass.), 
78 N. E. 886 645 

Harwood v. Railroad Co., 17 
Wall. 78 1637, 1637 

Hasbrouck v. Rich, 113 Mo. 
App. 389; 88 S. W. 131 1552 

V. Vandevoort, 4 Sandf. 

(N. Y.) 74 803, 811 



TABLE OF CASES 
[Tj^ references are to pages] 



Eascard v. Somany, Freem. 

504 1011, 1202, 1203 

Hasenritter v. Kirchhoffer, 79 

Mo. 239 235 

Haskell v. Read, 68 Nebr. 107 ; 

93 N. W. 997; 96 N. W. » 

1007 1022, 1056, 1250 
V. Worthington, 94 Mo. 

560; 7 S. W. 481 98, 185, 214, 
214, 607 
Haskins v. Albany, etc. Ry. 

Co., 74N. Y. App. Div. 31; 

76 N. Y. Supp. 667 1448 

Haslett V. Wotherspoon, 2 

Rich. Eq. (S. Car.) 395 297, 309 
Hassall v. Wilcox, 130 U. 

S. 493; 9 Sup. Ct. 590 



Hasselman v. TJ. S. Mtge. Co., 

97 Ind. 365 
Hastings v. Blue Hill, etc. 

Corp., 9 Pick. (Mass.) 80 

V. Brooklyn Life Ins. Co., 

138N.Y.473; 34N.E.289 



1542, 
1552 

237 

1225, 
1226 

1377, 
1381 
1127 



V. Drew, 76 N. Y. 9 

Hastings Lumber Co. v. Ed- 
wards, 188 Mass. 587; 75 

N. E. 57 606, 1190 

Hastings, Re, 105 N. Y. Supp. 

834 901 

, 106 N. Y. Supp. 938 901 

Hatch V. City Bank, 1 Rob. 

(La.) 470 894, 897, 905 
V. Coddington, 95 U. S. 

48 67 

V. Dana, 101 U. S. 205 600 

V. Lucky Bill Mining Co., 

25 Utah 405; 71 Pac. 865 1185, 
1210 
Hatcher v. Toledo, etc. R. R. 

Co., 62 111. 477 1522 

Hattersley v. Earl of Shel- 

bume, 31 L. J. Ch. 873 87, 931, 
951, 965 
Haun V. Mulberry, etc. Co., 33 

Ind. 103 607 

Hause v. Mannheimer, 67 

Minn. 194; 69 N. W. 810 248 
Havana Electric Ry. Co. v. 

Central Trust Co., 107 N. Y. 

Supp. 680 1557 

Havemeyer v. Havemeyer, 43 

N.Y. Sup. Ct. 506 1029 
V. Havemeyer, 45 N. Y. 

Sup. Ct. 464 1030 
V. Havemeyer, 86 N. Y. 

618 1030 



Haven v. Adams, 4 Allen 

(Mass.) 80 1549 

V. Emery, 33 N. H. 66 1486 

V. Grand Junction, etc. 

Co., 109 Mass. 88 1449, 1451, 

1456 
Haven Gold Mining Co., 20 

Ch. D. 151 98 

Havens v. Bank of Tarboro, 

132 N. Car. 214; 43 S. E. 

639; 95 Am. St. Rep. 627 731, 
739, 741 

V. Hoyt, 6 Jones Eq. 

(N. Car.) 115 1312 

Hawes v. Anglo-Saxon Petro- 
leum Co., 101 Mass. 385 147, 
149 150 417 

V. Oakland, 104 U. S. 450 '945, 

970 

Hawkeye Co. v. Bank, 157 
Fed. 253 294 

Hawkins v. Citizens Real Es- 
tate, etc. Co. (Oreg.), 64 
Pac. 320 189, 613 

V. Glenn, 131 U. S. 319; 

9 Sup. Ct. 739 614, 620 

V. Maltby, 4 Ch. 200 782 

Hawley v. Gray Bros., etc. 
Co., 106 Cal. 337; 37 Pac. 
609 1382 

V. Upton, 102 U. S. 314 154, 

154, 166, 167, 198, 
615, 628 

Hax V. Davis Mill Co., 39 Mo. 
App. 453 1202, 1205, 1223, 

1248 

Hay V. Swedish, etc. Ry. Co., 
5 Times L. R. 460 1674 

V. Swedish, etc. Ry Co., 

8 Times L. R. 775 1612 

V. Washington, etc. R. 

• R. Co., 4 Hughes 327 1638 . 

Hay's Case, 10 Ch. 593 1333, 

1337, 1340, 1340 
Haycraft Gold Reduction, 
etc. Co. (1900), 2 Ch. 230 



996, 
1209 



Hayden v. Atlanta Cotton 

Co., 61 Ga. 233 

V. Brown, 94 Fed. 15 

V. Charter Oak Driving 

Park, 63 Conn. 142; 27 Atl. 

232 
V. Official Hotel Red 

Book Co., 42 Fed. 875 1310, 1313 
V. Thompson, 36 U. S. 

App. 361; 71 Fed. 60; 17 

C. C. A. 592 1128, 1129, 1129, 

1259 



922 
1259 



735 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Hayden v. Williams, 96 Fed. 

279; 37 C. C. A. 479 912, 920, 

1128 
Hayes v. Columbus, etc. Ry. 

Co., 67 Fed. 630 1616 
V. Fidelity Ins., etc. Co., 

105 Fed. 160 621 

V. Jasper Land Co. 

(Ala.), 41 So. 909 959 

V. Morgan's La., etc. Co., 

117 La. 593; 42 So. 150 6 

V. Pierson, 65 N. J. Eq. 

353;45Atl.l091;58Atl.728 1315 

V. Shoemaker, 39 Fed. 

319 616, 695 
V. Stirling, 14 Ir. C. L. 

Rep. 277 341, 342 

Haynes v. Brown (Okl.), 89 

Pac. 1124 689, 781 

Hays V. Franklin Co. Lumber 

Co.,35Nebr.511; 53N.W. 

381 661 
V. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. 

Co., 38 Pa. St. 81 173, 603 

Hayt, iJe, 39 N. Y. Misc. 356; 

'79 N. Y. Supp. 845 430 

Hayward v. Leeson, 176 Mass. 

310; 57 N. E. 656; 49 

L. R. A. 725' 320, 320, 326, 328, 
329, 330, 1338, 1338, 1339 

V. Pilgrim Society, 21 

Pick. (Mass.) 270 913 

Haywood v. Lincoln Lumber 
Co., 64 Wise. 639; 26N.W. 
184 958, 1299, 1315 

Hazard v. Durant, 11 R. L 

195 937, 939, 944, 955 

Hazeltine v. Belfast, etc. R. 
R. Co., 79 Me. 411; 10 Atl. 
328; 1 Am. St. Rep. 330 464, 
466, 1104 

Hazelton Boiler Co. v. Hazel- 
ton Tripod Boiler, Co. 137 
lU. 231; 28 N. E. 248 371 

V. Hazelton Tripod 

Boiler Co., 142 111. 494; 30 

N. E. 339 377 

Hazlehurst v. Savannah, etc. 

R. R. Co., 43 Ga. 13 76, 440, 

558, 1169 
Head v. Providence Ins. Co., 

2 Cranch 127 394, 827 

, Ex parte, 15 L. T. 262 782, 

787 
Heald v. Owen, 79 Iowa 23; 

44 N. W. 210 253 

Heard v. Eldridge, 109 Mass. 

258; 12 Am. Rep. 687 1091, 

1155 



Hearst v. Putnam Mining Co., 
28 Utah 184; 77 Pac. 753; 
107 Am. St. Rep. 698; 66 
L. R. A. 784 972, 981 

Heart v. State Bank, 2 Dev. 
Eq. (N. Car.) Ill 744, 768 

Heartt v. Sherman, 82 N. E. 

417(111.) 1171 

Heaston v. Cincinnati, etc. 
R. R. Co., 16 Ind. 275; 79 
Am. Dec. 430 202, 604 

Heath v. Erie Ry. Co., 8 

Blatchf. 347 949, 962, 1354 

V. Silverthom,etc.Co.,39 

Wise. 146 161, 1009, 1022, 1023 

Hebb's Case, 4 Eq. 9 167 

Hebberd v. Southwestern 
Land Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 18; 
36 Atl. 122 1404 

Hebgen v. KoefBer, 97 Wise. 
313; 72 N. W. 745 313, 316 

Hecht, Liebmann & Co. v. 
Phoenix Woolen Co., 121 
Fed. 188 172 

Heck V. Bulkeley (Tenn.), 1 
S. W. 612 1123 

V. McEwen, 12 Lea 

(Tenn.) 97 113, 253 

Heckman's Estate, 172 Pa. 
St. 185; 33 Atl. 552 291, 310 

Hecla, etc. Mining Co. v. 

O'Neill, 19 N. Y. Supp. 592 282, 
289, 303 

Hedges v. Paquett, 3 Oreg. 77 1320, 

1325 

Heggie v. People's Bldg. & 
Loan Ass'n, 107 N. Car. 
581; 12 S. E. 275 518 

Heights of Maribymong Es- 
tate Co., 22 Vict. L. R. 432 700, 

782 

Heineman v. Marshall, 117 
Mo. App. 546; 92 S. W. 
1131 1337 

Heinig v. Adams, etc. Mfg. 
Co., 81 Ky. 300 128 

Heinze v. South Green Bay, 
etc. Co., 109 Wise. 99; 85 
N. W. 145 1224, 1382 

Heinzelman v. Druids Relief 
Ass'n, 38 Minn. 138; 36 
N. W. 100 558, 560, 914, 1032 

Heironimous v. Sweeney, 83 
Md. 146; 34 Atl. 823; 55 
Am. St. Rep. 333; 33 
L. R. A. 99 63, 853 

Helton V. Waverly Hydro- 
pathic Co., 4 Rettie Sc. 830 1068, 

1221 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Heller v. Nat. Marine Bank, 

89 Md. 602; 43 Atl. 800; 

73 Am. St. Rep. 212; 45 L. 

R. A. 438 425, 455, 1398 

Hellman v. Forty-second St., 

etc. R. R. Co., 74 Hun 529; 

26 N. Y. Supp. 553; 148 

N. Y. 727; 42 N. E. 723 740 
V. Pennsylvania Electric 

Vehicle Co. (N. J.), 67 Atl. 

834 
Helm V. Swiggett, 12 Ind. 194 



469 
752, 
775 



Helmore v. Smith (No. 2), 35 

Ch. D. 449 1620 

Helping Hand Marriage 

Ass'n, 15 Phila. 644 117, 267 

Hemenway v. Hemenway, 134 ' 

Mass. 446 1444, 1445, 1446 
V. Hemenway, 181 Mass. 

408; 63 N. E. 919 1092, 1144, 
1154 
Heminway v. Heminway, 58 

Conn. 443; 19 Atl. 766 897 

Hempfling v. Burr, 59 Mich. 

294; 26 N. W. 496 808 

Hendee v. Pinkerton, 14 Allen 

(Mass.) 381 1187, 1189 
Henderson v. Bank of Aus- 
tralasia, 40 Ch. D. 170 82, 82 
V. Bank of Australasia, 

45 Ch. D. 330 954, 1004, 1004, 
1034, 1034, 1056 

V. Lacon, 5 Eq. 249 162 

V. Royal British Bank, 

7 E. & B. 356 
V. Virden Coal Co., 78 

111. App. 437 . 

V. Walker, 55 Ga. 481 

, Ex parte, 19 Beav. 107 

Henderson Woolen Mills v. 

Edwards, 84 Mo. App. 448 
Hendon v. North Carolina 

R. R. Co., 127 N. Car. 110; 

37 S. E. 155 

V. North Carolina R. R. 

' Co., 125 N. Car. 124; 34 

S. E. 227 
Hendricks v. Montagu, 17 Ch. 

D. 638 
Hendrickson v. Bradley, 85 

Fed. 508 ; 29 C. C. A. 303 938, 980 
Hendrie, etc. Mfg. Co. v. 

Parry (Colo.), 86 Pac. 113 
Hennell v. Strong, 25 L. J. Ch. 

407 
Hennesey v. Muhleman, 40 

N. Y. App. Div. 175; 57 

N. Y. Supp. 854 1188 



925 

847 
1619 
1223 

309 



430 



430 
373 



1640 
815 



298 

338 

458 
588 



1246 

1246 

306 

1581 



226 



Hennessy v. Griggs, 1 N. Dak. 

52; 44 N. W. 1010 
Henriech v. Lidberg, 105 111. 

App. 495 
Henry v. Great Northern Ry. 

Co., 1 DeG. & J. 606 

V. Jackson, 37 Vt. 431 

V. Michigan Sanitarium, 

etc. Ass'n (Mich.), 110 

N. W. 523 

V. Rutland, etc. R. R. 

Co., 27 Vt. 435 

V. Simanton, 64 N. J. Eq. 

572; 54 Atl. 153 

Henry Pound, Son & Hutch- 
ins, 42 Ch. D. 402 

Herald Shoe Co. v. Okla- 
homa Pub. Co. (Okl.), 79 
Pac. Ill 

H. E. Randall, Ltd. v. 
British & American Shoe 
Co. (1902), 2 Ch. 354 387, 387 

Herbert v. Kenton, etc. Ass'n, 

74 Ky. 296 563 

Herbert Kraft Co. v. Bank of 
Orland, 133 Cal. 64; 65 
Pac. 143 665, 666, 754, 807 

Hercules Oil Ref. Co. v. 
Hocknell (Cal.), 91 Pac. 
341 

Hercules Mut. Life Ass. Soc, 
12 Fed. Cas. 12 

Hercynia Copper Co. (1894), 
2 Ch. 403 

Herdegen v. Cotzhausen, 70 
Wise. 589; 36N.W.385 744,771 

Hereford Waggon Co., Re, 2 
Ch. D. 621 293, 335 

Heritage, Ex -parte, 9 Eq. 5 705, 705 

Herman v. Rhode, 34 Hun 
(N. Y.) 161 

V. Supreme Lodge, 66 

N. J. Law 77; 48 Atl. 
1000 

Hermann v. Hodges, 16 Eq. 
18 

V. Maxwell, 47 N. Y. 

Sup. a. 347 

Heme Bay Waterworks Co., 
10 Ch. D. 42 

Herrick v. Humphrey Hard- 
ware Co. (Nebr.), 103 N. W. 
685 744, 753, 768 

Herring v. New York, etc. 
R. R. Co., 105 N. Y. 340; 
12 N. E. 763 

V. Ruskin, etc. Ass'n 

(Tenn.), 52 S. W. Rep. 327 



1280 

23 

1172 



1250 



923 
1415 

806 
1683 



1598 



571, 
572, 573 



TABLE OP CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Herring-Hall-Marvin Co. v. 

Hall's Safe Co., 208 U. S. 

554 377, 388 

Herrington v. Lisbon, 47 Iowa 

H 1210 

Hersey v. Tully, 8 Colo. App. 

110; 44 Pac. §54 306, 307 
V. Veazie, 24 Me. 9; 41 

Am. Dec. 364 928, 944, 974 

Hershey v. Welch, 96 Mian. 

145; 104 N.W. 821 810 

Heslin v. Eastern Bldg., etc. 

Ass'i, 28 N. Y. Misc. 376; 

59 N. Y. Supp. 572 577 
Hess V. Sloane, 66 N. Y. App. 

Div. 522; 73 N. Y. Supp. 

313; 173 N. Y. 616; 66 

N. E. 1110 85 
V. Tnimbo, 27 Ky. Law 

Rep. 320; 84 S. W. 1153 648 

Hess Manufacturing Co., 23 

Can. Sup. Ct. 644; 21 Ont. 

App. 66 272, 322, 634 

Heuer v. Carmichael, 82 Iowa 

288; 47 N. W. 1034 108, 253 

Hewel V. Hogin (Cal.), 84 Pac. 

1002 1450 

Hewitt's Case, 25 Ch. D. 283 1170, 
1171, 1172 
Hey V. Dolphin, 92 Hun 

(N. Y.) 230; 36 N. Y. 

Supp. 627 1030, 1048, 1053 

Hiatt V. Griswold, 5 Fed. 573 807 
Hibblewhite v. McMorine, 6 

M. & W. 200 685, 685 

Hibbs V. Brown, 190 N. Y. 

167; 82 N. E. 1108 1448 

Hibernia Bldg. Ass'n v. 

McGrath, 154 Pa. St. 296; 

26 Atl. 377; 35 Am. St. 

Rep. 828 1367 

Hibernia Fire, etc. Co. v. 

Commonwealth ex rel. Har- 
rison, 93 Pa. St. 264 569, 569 
Hichens v. Congreve, 4 Sim. 

420; 4Russ. 562 319,320 

Hicks V. Steel, 126 Mich. 408; 

85 N. W. 1121 1299 
V. Steel, 142 Mich. 292; 

105 N. W. 767 _ 1272 

Higgins V. California Petro- 
leum, etc. Co., 122 Cal. 373; 

55 Pac. 155 296 
V. California Petroleum, 

etc. Co., 147 Cal. 363; 81 

Pac. 1070 296 
V. Fidelity Ins., etc. Co., 

108 Fed. 475; 46 C. C. A. 

509 621, 807 



Higgins V. Hopkins, 3 Ex. 163 



306, 
310 



V. Illinois Trust, etc. 

Bank, 193 111. 394; 61 

N. E. 1024 648, 784 
V. Lansingh, 154 111. 301 ; 

40 N. E. 362 439, 1295, 1342, 

1405 
Higgins Co., Chas. S., v. Hig- 
gins Soap Co., 144 N. Y. . 

462; 39N. E. 490; 43 Am. 

St. Rep. 769; 27 L. R. A. 

42 376, 387 

Higgins, Ex parte, 60 L. T. 383 628 

, Ee, 27 Fed. 443 1620 

Higgs V. Northern Assam Tea 

Co., L. R. 4 Ex. 387 1421 

High Court v. Zak, 136 111. 

185; 26 N. E. 593; 29 

Am. St. Rep. 318 917 

Highett V. Highett, 22 Vict. 

L. R. 352 806 

Highland Turnpike Co. v. 

McKean, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 

154; 6 Am. Dec. 324 915, 9-23, 

923 
Hightower v. Ansley (Ga.), 

54 S. E. 939 422 

Highway Advertising Co. v. 

Ellis, 7 Ont. L. R. 504 322 

Hilder v. Dexter (1902), A. C. 

474 354, 626 

Hildyard v. South Sea Co., 2 

P. Wms. 76 728, 738, 754, 757, 
758, 759 
Hiles V. Case, 9 Biss. 549; 14 

Fed. 141 1559, 1568 

Hill V. Atlantic, etc. R. R. Co. 

(N. Car.), 55 S. E. 854 107, 966, 
1005, 1006, 1008, 1060 
V. Atoka Coal, etc. Co. 

(Mo.), 21 S. W. 508 713, 753, 

1111, 1116, 1130 

— V. Beach, 12 N. J. Eq. 31 254 

V. Frazier, 22 Pa. St. 320 1342 

V. Gould, 129 Mo. 106; 

30 S. W. 181 1305, 1313 

— — ■ V. Great "Western Ry. 

Co., 10 C. B. N. s. 148 SSQ' 
V. Jewett Publishing Co., 

154 Mass. 172; 28 N. E. 

142; 26 Am. St. Rep. 230; 

13 L. R. A. 193 740 
V. Manchester, etc. 

Water Works Co., 5 B. & 

Ad. 866 400, 914 
V. Newichawanick Co., 8 

Hun 459; 71 N. Y. 593 806, 

1131, 1135 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Hill V. Nisbet, 100 Ind. 341 76, 

604, 659, 966, 1312 

V. Pine River Bank, 45 

N. H. 300 
V. Rich Hill, etc. Co., 119 

Mo. 9; 24 S. W. 223 
V. Weidinger, 110 N. Y. 

App. Div. 683; 97 N. Y. 

Supp. 473 
Hill Co., T. E., 148 Fed. 832; 

78 C. C. A. 522 
Hill's Case, 20 Eq. 597 
Hilles V. Parrish, 14 N. J. Eq. 

380 1.008, 1063, 1208, 1208 

Hilliard v. Lyman, 138 Fed. 

469 
Hilton Bridge, etc. Co. v. 

Foster, 26 N. Y. Misc. 338; 

57 N. Y. Supp. 140 
Hinchman v. Point Defiance 

Ry. Co., 14 Wash. 349; 44 

Pac. 867 1509 

Hinckley v. Pfister, 83 Wise. 

64; 53 N. W. 21 1130, 1402, 

1403 

1;. Schwartzsohild, etc. 

Co., 45 N. Y. Misc. 176; 91 

N. Y. Supp. 893 
i;. Union Pac. R. R. Co., 

129 Mass. 52; 37 Am. Rep. 

297 1461, 1463, 1463 

Hindley's Case (1896), 2 Ch. 

121 171, 171, 350, 352 

Hindman v. Great Western 

Coal, etc. Co. (Wash.), 92 

Pac. 139 
Hinds V. Buenos Ayres Tram- 
ways Co. (1906), 2 Ch. 654 

1108, 1680 
Montgomery 



771 
1197 



1359 

44 
813 



1359 



1649 



1538 



441 



1585 
1104, 



Hingston v. 

(Mo.), 97 S. W. 202 

Hinkley v. Sac Oil, etc. 
(Iowa), 107 N. W. 629 



595, 942, 

962, 1320 

Co. 

177, 180, 

294 

Co. 

612 



Hiram Maxim Lamp 

(1903), 1 Ch. 70 
Hirsch v. Bums, 77 L. T. 377 172, 
189, 197, 197 
V. Jones, 115 N. Y. App. 

Div. 156 1242 
, Be, 116 N. Y. App. Div. 

367 1021, 1242 

Hirsche v. Sims (1894), A. C. 

654 1266, 1269, 1326, 1339 

Hirth, Be (1899), 1 Q. B. 612 886 
Hiscock V. Lacy, 9 N. Y. 

Misc. 578; 30 N. Y. Supp. 

860 1112 



Hitchcock V. Galveston, 96 

U. S. 342 
V. Midland R. R. Co., 33 

N. J. Eq. 86 
V. Midland R. R. Co., 37 

N. J. Eq. 549 
Hitchings v. St. touis, etc. 

Transportation Co., 68 

Hun (N. Y.) 33; 22 N. Y. 

Supp. 719 
Hite«. Hite, 93 Ky. 257; 20 

S. W. 778; 40 Am. St. Rep. 

189; 19 L. R. A. 173 502, 1092, 
1151, 1151, 1152, 1446 
Hix V. Edison Electric Co., 10 

N. Y. App. Div. 75; 41 

N. Y. Supp. 680 
Hoadley v. County Comm'rs, 

105 Mass. 519 
Hoag V. Lamont, 16 Abb. Pr. 

N. s. (N. Y.) 91 
Hoagland v. Beall, 36 Barb. 

(N. Y.) 57 
Hoare & Co. (1904), 2 Ch. 208 

536, 1101/ 1105, 1106 
Hoare's Case, 30 Beav. 225 832 
Hobbs V. Dane Mfg. Co., 5 

Allen (Mass.) 581 
Hobgood V. Ehlen (N. Car.), 

53 S. E. 857' 
Hoboken Beef Co. v. Hand, 

104 N. Y. App. Div. 390; 

93 N. Y. Supp. 834 
Hodge V. U. S. Steel Corp., 64 

N.J. Eq. 807; 54Atl. 1;60 

L. R. A. 742 328, 578, 962, 965, 
969, 1296, 1309, 1311, 1312, 1313 
Hodge's Excrs. v. First Nat. 

Bank, 22 Gratt. (Va.) 51 1371 
Hodgens v. United Copper 

Co. (N. J.), 67 Atl. 756 898, 

903, 905 
— , Ex parte (1847), 11 Ir. 

Eq. 99 1141 

Hodges V. New England 

Screw Co., 1 R. I. 312; 53 

Am. Dec. 624 ; 3 R. I. 9 75, 944, 
951, 1259, 1268 
V. Planters' Bank, 7 G. 

& J. (Md.) 306 771 
V. Rutland, etc. R. R. 

Co., 29 Vt. 220 1247, 1248, 

1371 

V. Schuler, 22 N. Y. 114 1530 

Hodgson V. Duluth, etc. R. R. 

Co., 46 Minn. 454; 49 

N. W. 197 941, 942, 1008, 1010 
Hodgson V. Powis, 12 Beav. 

392 73 



838 
1665 
1665 



1381 



1033 

16 

287 

921 
435, 



985 
635 



1262 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



398 



492 



Hodson V. Tea Co., 14 Ch. D. 

859 1426, 1470, 1547 

Hoe V. Lee, 3 New So. Wales 

St. Rep. 30 
Hoeft V. Kock, 123 Mich. 171 ; 

81 N. W. 1070; 81 Am. St. 

Rep. 159 
Hoenev. PoUak, 118 Ala. 617; 

24 So. 349; 72 Am. St. Rep. 

189 1041, 1044 

Hoffman v. Reichert, 147 111. 

274; 35N. E. 527; 37 Am. 

St. Rep. 219 1323, 1343 

Hoffman, etc. Co. v. Cximber- 

land, etc. Co., 16 Md. 456; 

77 Am. Dec. 311 300, 886, 1295, 
1304, 1311, 1311, 1333 
Holbrooki). Holbrook (N. H.), 

66 Atl. 124 503, 1150 
V. New Jersey Zinc Co., 

57 N. Y. 616 683, 684, 733 

Holcomb V. Cable Co., 119 Ga. 

466; 46 S. E. 671 
Holden v. Phelps, 135 Mass. 

61 
i;. Trust Co., 100 U. S. 

72 

V. Upton, 134 Mass. 177 

Holden's Case, 8 Eq. 444 612, 1400 
Holder v. Lafayette, etc. Ry. 

Co., 71 111. 106; 22 Am. 

Rep. 89 1247, 1321 

Holdsworth V. Davenport, 3 

Ch. D. 185 
Holladay v. Elliott, 8 Oreg. 84 
Holland v. Ball (Mass.), 78 

N. E. 772 

V. Cruft, 3 Gray 162 

V. Dickson, 37 Ch. D. 

669 900, 901, 907 
V. Lee, 71 Md. 338; 18 

Atl. 661 306, 1522, 1600 
V. Lewiston Falls Bank, 

52 Me. 564 
Hollingshead v. Woodward, 

35 Hun (N. Y.) 410 
HoUis V. Allan, 14 W. R. 980 
HoUister v. DeForest Wire- 
less Tel. Co., 47 N. Y. 

Misc. 674; 94 N. Y. Supp. 

504 692, 900 
V. Stewart, 111 N. Y. 

644; 19 N. E. 782 1453, 1456, 
1486, 1488, 1560 
Holloway & McRaney v. 

Brame, 83 Miss. 335; 36 

So. 1 
Hollywood V. First Parish in 

Brockton, 19? Mass. 269 



383 

1379 

1441 
1380 



1439 
176 

790 
304 



1237 

494 
1141 



300 
71 



Holm V. Atlas Nat. Bank, 84 

Fed. 119; 28 C. C. A. 297 1329 
Holman v. State ex rel. Gib- 
son, 105 Ind. 569; 5 N. E. 

702 240 

Holmes v. Gilliland, 41 Barb. 

(N. Y.) 568 127, 248 

V. Higgins, 1 B. & C. 74 274 

V. Newcastle-upon-Tyne 

Abattoir Co., 45 L. J. Ch. 

N. s. 383 , 512, 513 
V. Newcastle-upon-Tyne 

Freehold Abattoir Co., 1 

Ch. D. 682 1127 
V. Royal Loan Ass'n 

(Mo.), 107 S. W. 1005 1007 

V. Salamanca Gold, etc. 

■ Co. (Cal.), 91 Pac. 160 402 
V. Seashore Electric Ry. 

Co., 57 N. J. Law 16 ; 29 Atl. 

419 1528 
V. Willard, 125 N. Y. 75; 

25N. E. 1083; 11 L. R. A. 

170 86, 86, 1161, 1290, 1368 

Holmes, Booth & Haydens v. 

Holmes, Booth & Atwood 

Mfg. Co., 37 Conn. 278; 9 

Am. Rep. 324 372, 373 

Holmes, etc. Mfg. Co. v. 

Holmes, etc. Metal Co., 

127 N. Y. 252; 27 N. E. 

831; 24 Am. St. Rep. 448 75, 
75, 846 
Holmes, Ex parte, 5 Cow. 

(N. Y.) 426 526, 526, 977, 

1020, 1027 

Holomany v. Nat. Slavonic , 

Soc, 39 N. Y. App. Div. 

673; 57 N. Y. Supp. 720 948 

Holophane v. Hesseftine, 13 

Times L. R. 7 364, 364 
Holt V. Dewell, 4 Hare 446 684 
V. Winfield Bank, 25 

Fed. 812 838, 839, 1354 

Holyford Mining Co., Ir. R. 3 

Eq. 208 437 

Holyoke, etc. Ass'n v. Lewis, 

1 Colo. App. 127; 27 Pac. 

872 684 

Holyoke Envelope Co. v. U. S. 

Envelope Co., 182 Mass. 

171 ; 65 N. E. 54 285, 286 

Home Fire Ins. Co. v. Barber, 

67 Nebr. 644; 93 N. W. 

1024; 60L. R. A. 927; 108 

Am. St. Rep. 716 971, 971 

Home Mixtiire Guano Co. v. 

Tillman, 125 Ga. 172; 53 

S. E. 1019 1245, 1247 



TABLE OP CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



1321 



1352 



Home Savings, etc. Bank v. 

Peoria Agricultural, etc. 

Soc.,206111.9; 69N.E. 17; 

99 Am. St. Rep. 132 1235 

Home Stock Ins. Co. v. Sher- 
wood, 72 Mo. 461 697 
Homer Gold Mines, 39 Ch. D. 

546 1201 

Honeyman v. Haughey (N. 

J.), 66 Atl. 582 628, 635 

Hood V. Eden, 36 Can. Sup. 

Ct. 476 635 

Hook V. Bosworth, 64 Fed. 

443; 12 C. C. A. 208 1517, 1608 
Hooke V. Financier Co., 99 

N. Y. App. Div. 186; 90 

N. Y. Supp. 1012 
Hooker v. Midland Steel Co., 

215 111. 444; 74 N. E. 445; 

106 Am. St. Rep. 170 
Hoole V. Great Western Ry. 

Co., 3 Ch. 262 497, 497, 972, 
977, 977, 1117 
V. Speak (1904), 2 Ch. 

732 1282 

Hooley, Be (1899), 2 Q. B. 

579 190, 198, 199, 347, 624 

Hooper v. Central Trust Co., 

81 Md. 559; 32 Atl. 505; 

29 L. R. A. 262 1533, 1650 
V. Herts (1906), 1 Ch. 

549 760, 760 
V. Kerr, Stuart & Co., 83 

L. T. 729 997, 1001 

V. Rossiter, McCl. 527 1141 

Hoopes V. Basic Co. (N. J.), 

61 Atl. 979 963, 1177 

Hoover v. Mbntclair, etc. Ry. 

Co., 29 N. J. Eq. 4 1653 

Hopcroft V. Parker, 16 L. T. 

N. s. 123 306 

Hope V. Croydon Tramways, 

34 Ch. D. 730 1638 
V. International Finan- 
cial Soc, 4 Ch. D. 327 516, 568, 
576, 657 
V. Valley City Salt Co., 

25 W. Va. 789 1309, 1315 

Hopkins v. Gallatin Turn- 
pike Co., 4 Humph. (Tenn.) 

403 399, 407 
V. Roseclare Lead Co., 

72 111. 373 1078 
V. Worcester, etc. Canal 

Proprietors, 6 Eq. 437 1464, 

1464, 1603 
Hopkins County v. St. Ber- 
nard Coal Co., 24 Ky. Law 

Rep. 942; 70S. W. 289 844 



1141 



409 



1344 
1366 
1036, 



Hopkins' Trust, Be, 18 Eq. 

696 
Hopper V. Lovejoy, 21 Atl. 

298; 47 N. J. Eq. 573; 12 

L. R. A. 588 
V. Sage, 112 N. Y. 

530; 20 N. E. 350; 8 Am. 

St. Rep. 771 1132, 1135 

Hoppin V. Buffum, 9 R. I. 

513; 11 Am. Rep. 291 1020, 

1021, 1021, 1022, 1022 
Hopson V. Aetna Axle, etc. 

Co.," 50 Conn. 597 64, 1317 

Horbach v. Marsh, 37 Nebr. 

22; 55 N. W. 286 
V. Tyrrell, 48 Nebr. 514; 

67 N. W. 485 
Horbury Bridge Co., 11 Ch. D. 

109 1013, 1013, 1034, 

1036, 1038, 1058 
Horn Silver Mining Co. v. 

Ryan, 42 Minn. 196; 44 

N. W. 56 1286, 1286 

Homblower v. Crandall, 7 Mo. 

App. 220; 78 Mo. 581 274, 310 
Home V. Hellard, 29 Ch. D. 

736 1548 

Home & Sons, W. C. (1906), 

1 Ch. 271 1591, 1621, 1621 

Hornsby v. Eddy, 56 Fed. 

461; 5 C. C. A. 560 1619 

Horowitz V. Broads Mfg. Co., 

104 N. Y. Supp. 988 287, 300 
Horsey's Claim, 5 Eq. 561 91 

Horst V. Lewis, 103 N. W. 460 

(Nebr.); 98 N. W. 1046 85 

Horton v. Morgan, 19 N. Y. 

170; 75 Am. Deo. 311 418, 807 
V. Wilder, 48 Kans. 222; 

29 Pac. 566 1066 

Hoskins v. Seaside Ice, etc. 

Co. (N. J.), 59 Atl. 645 519, 1423 
Hotchkiss V. Brainerd Quarry 

Co., 58 Conn. 120; 19 Atl. 

521 
V. National Banks, 21 

Wall. 354 
V. Norwood Park Bldg., 

etc. Ass'n (111.), 82 N. E. 

257 
Hotchkiss, etc. Co. v. Union 

Nat. Bank, 68 Fed. 76; 15 

C. C. A. 264 697, 774, 775 
Hotel Co. V. Wade, 97 U. S. 

13 1309, 1484, 1484, 1586, 1587 
Ho Tung V. Manon Insurance 

Co. (1902), A. C. 232 554, 557 
Hough V. Cook County Land 

Co., 73 111. 23 843, 847 



1144 
1435 



919 



TABLE OP CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Houghton V. Hubbell, 91 Fed. 

453; 33 C. C. A. 574 621 

Houldsworth V. City of Glas- 

cow Bank, 5 A. C. 317 183 

V. Evans, L. R. 3 H. 

L. 263 622, 665, 789, 789 

House of Mercy v. Davidson, 

90 Tex. 529; 39 S. W. 924 848 
Household, etc. Ins. v. Co. 

Grant, 4 Ex. D. 216 167 

Houser v. Richardson, 90 Mo. 

App. 134 684, 684, 801, 1134 

Houston V. Thornton, 122 N. 

Car. 365; 29 S. E. 827; 65 

Am. St. Rep. 699 1355 

Houston, etc. Ry. Co. v. Bell 

(Tex.), 42 S. W. 772 1634 
V. Crawford, 88 Tex. 277; 

31S.W.176;53Ain.St.Rep. 

752; 28 L. R. A. 761 1633, 1634 
V. Keller, 90 Tex. 214; 

37 S. W. 1062 1666 
V. Kelley, 35 S. W. Rep. 

878 (Tex.) 1633 

V. McFadden, 91 Tex. 

194; 40 S. W. 216; 42 

S. W. 593 1633 
V. Strycharski (Tex.), 

35 S. W. 851 1610, 1633 
V. Van Alstyne, 56 Tex. 

439 734, 735, 738 

Howard v. Glenn, 85 Ga. 238; 

11 S. E. 610; 21 Am. St. . 

Rep. 156 177, 180, 180, 386 
V. Hatch, 29 Barb. 

(N Y.) 297 1379 
V. Iron & Land Co., 62 

Minn. 298; 64 N. W. 896 1499 
V. Patent Ivory Co., 38 

Ch. D. 156 286 

V. Sadler (1893), 1 Q. 

B. 1 1177, 1177 

V. Turner, 155 Pa. St. 

349; 26 Atl. 753; 35 Am. 

St. Rep. 883 180, 180 

Howard's Case, 1 Ch. 561 1214 

Howbeach Coal Co. v. Teague, 

5 H. & N. 151 608, 1203, 1213, 
1213, 1226, 1232 
Howe V. Boston Carpet Co., 

16 Gray (Mass.) 493 74 
V. Freeman, 14 Gray 

(Mass.) 566 1551 
V. Harding, 76 Tex. 17; 

13 S. W. 41; 18 Am. St. 

Rep, 17 1611, 1612 

V. Keeler, 27 Conn. 538 400 

V. Sanford Fork & Tool 

Co., 44 Fed. 231 1316 



Howe Grain & Mercantile Co. 

V. Jones, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 

198; 61 S. W. 24 517, 572 

Howe, Re, 1 Paige (N. Y.) 214 54 
Howe Scale Co. v. Wyckoff, 

Seamans & Benedict, 198 

U. S. 118; 25 Sup. Ct. 609 377 
Howell V. Chicago, etc. Ry. 

Co., 51 Barb. (N. Y.) 378 463, 
463, 473, 495, 497 
V. Western R. R. Co., 94 

U. S. 463 1409, 1465, 1466, 

1623, 1624 
Howell Lithographic Co. v. 

Brethour, 30 Ont. R. 204 369, 

369 
Hower v. Weiss, etc. Co., 55 

Fed. 356; 5 C. C. A. 129 786, 

811 
Howie V. Scarbrough, 138 

Ala. 148; 35 So. 113 1167 

Hoyle V. Plattsburgh, etc. R. 

R. Co., 54 N. Y. 314 1300, 1323, 

1343 
Howling's Trustees v. Smith, 

7 Frazer (Sc.) 390 1011 

Hoyt V. Am. Exchange Bank, 

1 Duer (N. Y.) 652 890 

V. Shenango Valley 

Steel Co., 207 Pa. 208; 56 

Atl. 422 505 

V. Thompson, 5 N. Y. 

320 1372 
V. Thompson's Ex'r, 19 

N. Y. 207 1203, 1214 

Hub Construction Co. v. 

New England Breeders' 

Club (N. H.), 67 Atl. 574 891, 
899, 901, 905 
Hub Publishing Co. v. Rich- 
ardson, 13 N. Y. Supp. 665 306 
Hubbard v. Bank of U. S., 12 

Fed. Cas. 777 694, 715, 751 
V. International Meiv 

eantile Agency (N. J.), 59 

Atl. 24 185 
V. Manhattan Trust Co., 

87 Fed. 51 ; 30 C. C. A. 520 201, 
764, 801, 1418 
■». New York, etc. R. R. 

Co., 36 Barb. (N. Y.) 286 1432 
V. New York Investment 

Co., 14 Fed. 675 1262, 1299 
V. Weare, 79 Iowa 678; 

44 N. W. 915 1092, 1095 

Hubbard & Co., 68 L. J. Ch. 

54 1524, 1546, 1548 

Hubbell V. Drexel, 11 Fed. 

115 418, 418, 807 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



1601 

617 

424 
915 

244 



Hubbuck V. Helms, 56 L. J. 

Ch. 536 1545, 1548 

Hubinger v. Central Trust 

Co., 94 Fed. 788; 36 C. C. 

A. 494 
Huddersfield Canal Co. v. 

Buckley, 7 T. R. 36 
Huddleston v. Gouldsbury, 10 

Beav. 547 
Hudson V. Carman, 41 Me. 84 
■ V. Green Hill Cemetery, 

113 111. 618 
V. Parker Machine Co., 

173 Mass. 242; 53 N. E. 

867 912, 1227 
V. West, 189 Pa. St. 491 ; 

42 Atl. 190 341, 342 

Hudson Real Estate v. Tower, 

161 Mass. 10; 36N. E. 680; 

42 Am. St. Rep. 379; 156 

Mass. 82; 30N. E. 465; 32 

Am. St. Rep. 434 169, 209, 209, 

210 
Hudson River, etc. Co. v. 

Hanfield, 36 N. Y. App. 

Div. 605; 55 N. Y. Supp. 

877 1373, 1402 

Hudson River, etc. R. R. Co. 

V. Hay, 14 Abb. Pr. n. s. 

(N. Y.) 191 932, 1229, 1251 

Hudson Valley Ry. Co. v. 

O'Connor, 95 N. Y. App. 

Div. 6; 88 N. Y. Supp. 742 

358, 1458 
Huffaker v. Krieger's As- 
signee, 107 Ky. 200; 53 

S. W. 288; 46L. R. A. 384 83 
Hughes V. Antietam Mfg. Co., 

34Md.316 95,100,106,131, 

202, 600, 603, 603, 604, 607 

V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 

47 N. Y. Super. Ct. 531 
V. Drovers', etc. Bank, 

86 Md. 418; 38 Atl. 936 

V. Parker, 19 N. H. 181 

V. Parker, 20 N. H. 58 998, 

1035, 1250 
V. Vermont Copper Min- 
ing Co., 72 N. Y. 207 1130, 1131 
V. Wisconsin, etc. Ins. 

Co., 98 Wise. 292; 73N. W. 

1015 
Hughes County v. Livingston, 

104 Fed. 306; 43 CCA. 541 
Hughesdale Mfg. Co. v. Van- 

ner, 12 R. I. 491 
Huguenot Mills v. Jempson 

& Co., 68 S. Car. 363; 47 

S. E. 687 844 



1493 

815 
1035 



559 
1460 



219 



Huguenot Nat. Bank v. Stud- 
well, 6 Daly (N. Y.) 13 



1185, 
1186 



Hukle V. Atchison, etc. Ry. 

Co. (Kans.), 80 Pac. 603 
Hulett's Case, 2 Johns. & 

Hem. 306 
Hulitt V. Bell, 85 Fed. 98 
V. Ohio Valley Nat. 

Bank, 137 Fed. 461; 69 

C. C. A. 609 
Hullman v. Honcomp, 5 Oh. 

St. 237 
Humaston v. Telegraph Co., 

20 Wall. 20 
Humbert v. Trinity Church, 

24 Wend. (N. Y.) 587 
Humble v. Langston, 7 M. & 

W. 517 
Humboldt Driving Park 

Ass'n V. Stevens, 34 Nebr. 

528; 52N.W.568; 33 Am. 

St. Rep. 654 487, 499, 1250 

Humboldt Mining Co. v. Am. 

Mfg., etc. Co., 62 Fed. 356; 

10 C. C. A. 415 84, 838 

Humboldt Township v. Long, 

92 U. S. 642 
Hume V. Eagon, 83 Mo. App. 

576 
Humphrey v. Patrons' Mer- 
cantile Ass'n, 50 Iowa 607 



1634 

1421 
1191 



621 
1250 
163 
84S 
782 



1220 
912 



110, 
139 

V. Tatman, 198 U. S. 91; 

25 Sup. Ct. 567 1506 

Humphreys v. Allen, 100 111. 

511 1529 

V. McKissock, 140 U. S. 

304; 11 Sup. Ct. 779 1073, 1510 

V. Minnesota Clay Co., 

94 Minn. 469; 103 S. W. 

338 749 

V. Mooney, 5 Colo. 282 101, 

113, 119, 120, 124, 126, 
252, 1009 

V. Morton, 100 111. 592 1449, 

1452, 1453, 1460 

V. N. Y., etc. R. R. Co., 

121 N. Y. 435; 24 N. E. 
695 1541 

Hun V. Cary, 82 N. Y. 65; 37 
Am. Rep. 546 1259, 1273, 1275, 
1284, 1286, 1289 
Hunt V. American Grocery 
Co., 81 Fed. 532 71 

V. Bay State Iron Co., 

97 Mass. 279 1537 

V. Bullock, 23 111. 320 1396, 

1503 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Hunt V. Hauser Malting Co., 

90 Minn. 282; 96 N. W. 85 846 
■!;. Hauser Malting Co., 

95 Minn. 206; 103 N. W. 

1032 846 
V. Kansas, etc. Bridge 

Co., 11 Kans. 412 147, 148, 150, 

608 
V. Laconia, etc. Ry. Co., 

68 N. H. 561; 39 Atl. 437 810 
V. O'Shea, 69 N. H. 600; 

45 Atl. 480 1121 
V. Seeger, 91 Minn. 264 ; 

98 N. W. 91 616, 695 

Hunt & Bro. v. Memphis, etc. 

Co.,95Tenn. 136; 31 S. W. 

1006 1405, 1564 

Hunter v. Burlington, etc. 

Ry. Co., 76 Iowa 490; 41 

N. W. 305 1632 

V. Robbins, 117 Fed. 920 928 

V. Roberts; Throp & Co., 

83Mich. 63; 47N.W. 131 1111, 

1112 
V. Sun Mutual Ins. Co., 

26 La. Ann. 13 593, 593, 594, 
1276, 1364 
Huntington v. Palmer, 104 

U. S. 482 950 

Huntington Fuel Co. v. Mc- 

Dwaine (Ind.), 82 N. E. 

1001 1078, 1079, 1196, 1383 

Huntington Mfg. Co. v. Scho- 

field, 28 Ind. App. 95; 62 

N. E. 106 127 

Hurd V. Hotchkiss, 72 Conn. 

472; 45 Atl. 11 917 

Hurlburt v. Arthur, 140 Cal. 

103; 73 Pac. 734; 98 Am. 

St. Rep. 17 616, 623 

Hurlbut V. Tayler, 62 Wise. 

607; 22 N. W. 855 1128 

Hurt V. Salisbury, 55 Mo. 310 123, 
127, 242, 252, 306 
Hussey v. Gallagher, 61 Ga. 

86 . 580, 998, 1250 
V. Manufacturers', etc. 

Bank, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 415 



156, 
752 



V. Norfolk, etc. R. R. 

Co., 98N. Car. 34; 3 S. E. 

923; 2 Am. St. Rep. 312 869 

Hutchins v. Byrnes, 9 Gray 

(Mass.) 367 399, 400 
V. State Bank, 12 Met. 

(Mass.) 421 _ 792 

Hutchinson v. American 

Palace Car Co., 104 Fed. 

182 957 



Hutchinsonc.Colorado United 

Mining Co., 3 Times L. R. 

265 722 
V. Curtiss, 45 N. Y. 

Misc. 484; 92 N. Y. Supp. 

70 1110, 1125, 1283 
V. Green, 91 Mo. 367; 1 

S. W; 853 1187 

V. Simpson, 92 N. Y. 

App. Biv. 382; 87 N. Y. 
Supp. 369 325, 326, 330 

V. Sutton Mfg. Co., 57 

Fed. 998 1265 

V. Western, etc. R. R. 

Co.; 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 634 

869, 877 

Hutchinson's Case (1895), 1 

Ch. 226 1170, 1171, 1172, 

1172, 1172, 1172 

Huter V. Union Trust Co. 

(Ind.), 51 N. E. 1071 852 

Hutter V. DeQ. Bottle Stop- 
per Co., 128 Fed. 283 1356 

Hutton V. Bancroft & Sons 

Co., 83 Fed. 17 950, 951 

V. Scarborough Hotel 

Co., 2 Dr. & Sm. 521 431, 440, 
441, 442, 583 

V. Scarborough Hotel Co., 

4DeG.J.&S.672; 2Dr.& 

Sm. 514 440 

V. Thompson, 3 H. L. C. 

161 274 

V. Upfill, 2 H. L. C. 674 275 

V. West Cork Ry. Co., 

23 Ch. D. 654 82, 82, 1237 

Hutzler v. Lord, 64 Md. 534; 

3 Atl. 891 782, 782 

Huylar v. Cragin Cattle Co., 

40 N. J. Eq. 392 ; 2 Atl. 274 ; 

42 N. J. Eq. 139; 7 Atl. 

521 894, 898, 900 

Hyatt V. Allen, 56 N. Y. 553; 

15 Am. Rep. 449 1135 

V. Van Riper, 105 Mo. 



App. 664; 78S. W. 1043 
Hyde v. Doe, 4 Sawy. 133 



252 
126 



V. Holmes (Mass.), 84 
N. E. 318 1146 

V. Larkin, 35 Mo. App. 

365 1381, 1382 

Hyderbad Co., 75 L. T. 23 530, 
536, 537, 545, 546 

Hygeia . Water Ice Co. v. 
New York Hygeia Ice Co., 
140 N. Y. 94; 35 N. E. 417 373 

Hynes v. Illinois Trust, etc. 
Bank, 226 111. 95; 80N. E. 
753 1426 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are fo pages] 



Hyslop V. Morrel Bros., W. 
N. (1891) 19 



175 



I. C. Johnson & Co. (1902), 2 

Ch. 101 1497, 1498, 1525 

Ide V. Bascomb, 72 Pac. 62 931 

Ijams V. Andrews, 151 Fed. 725 305 
Ikelheimer v. Consolidated 

Tobacco Co. (N. J.), 59 

Atl. 363 1674, 1674 

Ilfracombe Permanent Mut. 

Benefit Bldg. Soc. (1901), 

1 Ch. 102 257 

Ilion Bank v. Carver, 31 Barb. 

(N. Y.) 230 1288 

lUingworth v. Houldsworth 

(1904), A. C. 355 1393, 1396, 

1547 
Illinois, etc. Bank v. Pacific 

Ry. Co., 117 Cal. 332; 49 

Pac. 197 840, 861, 1402, 

1409, 1414, 1531 
Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. 

Barrett, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 

1755; 66S.W. 9 
Illinois Linen Co. v. Hough, 

91 111. 63 
Illinois State Hospital v. 

Higgins, 15 111. 185 
Illinois Steel Co. v. O'Donnell, 

156 111. 624; 41 N. E. 185; 

47 Am. St. Rep. 245; 31 L. 

R. A. 265 
Illinois Trust, etc. Bank v. 

Doud, 105 Fed. 123; 44 

C. C. A. 389; 52 L. R. A. 

481 73, 1455, 1566 

V. Minton, 120 Fed. 187 

1484, 1554 
V. Seattle El. Ry., etc. 

Co., 82 Fed. 936; 27 C. C. 

A. 268 1495 

Illinois Watch Case Co. v. 

Pearson, 140 111. 423; 31 

N. E. 400; 16 L. R. A. 429 

125, 222, 372, 385 
Imperial Gas Co. v. Clarke, 7 

Bing. 95 890 

Imperial Hydropathic Hotel 

Co. V. Hampson, 23 Ch. 

D. 1 1162, 1183, 1183 
Imperial Land Corporation, 

16 W. R. 1191 189 

Imperial Land Co. of Mar- 
seilles, 10 Eq. 298 1364 

, 11 Eq. 478 1420, 1422, 

, 1422, 1426, 1441 



920 

1238 

381 



1317 



Imperial Mercantile Ass'n v. 

Coleman, L. R. 6 H. L. 189 

1179, 1179, 1296, 1300, 1309, 
1331, 1333 
Imperial Mercantile Credit 

Ass'n V. London, etc. Ry. 

Co., 15W. R. 1187 65 

Imperial Mercantile Credit 

Co., 5 Eq. 264 1266 

Imperial Mfg. Co. v. Schwartz, 

105 111. App. 525 371, 373/384 
Imperial Starch Co., 10 Ont. 

L. R. 22 571, 744 

Importing & Exporting Co. v. 

Locke, 50 Ala. 332 259, 261 

Ince Hall, etc. Co., 23 Ch. D. 

545 n 628 

Ind's Case, 7 Ch. 485 417 

Independent Order v. Hag- 

gerty, 86 111. App. 31 589 

Inderwick v. Snell, 2 Mac. & 

G. 216 1184 

Indian Mechanical Gold Ex- 
tracting Co. (1891), 3 Ch. 

538 137 

Indian Zoedone Co., 26 Ch. 

D. 70 1042, 1042, 1043, 1057, 

1058 
Indiana Bermudez, etc. Co. v. 

Robinson, 29 Ind. App. 59; 

63 N. E. 797 1212 

Indiana Bond Co. v. Ogle, 22 

Ind. App. 593; 54 N. E. 

407; 72 Am. St. Rep. 326 45, 
111, 238, 244 
Indiana, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Swannell, 157 111. 616; 41 

N. E. 989; 30 L. R. A. 290 

1661, 1661, 1664 
Indianapolis, etc. Co. v. Her- 
kimer, 46 Ind. 142 127, 232, 
233, 242 
Indianapolis, etc. R. R. Co. 

V. Morganstem, 103 111. 

149 407 

Indianapolis Rolling Mill v. 

St. Louis, etc. R. R. Co., 

120 U. S. 256; 7 Sup. a. 

542 1373, 1382 

Industrial Land Develop- 
ment Co. V. Post, 55 N. J. 

Eq. 559; 37 Atl. 892 1468 

Industrial Mutual Deposit Co. 

V. Central Mutual Deposit 

Co., 112 Ky. 937; 66 S. W. 

1032 371 

Industrial, etc. Trust v. Tod, 

180N. Y.215; 73 N. E. 7 1660, 
1662, 1663 



TABLE OP CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Inglehart v. Thousand Island 

Hotel Co., 109 N. Y. 454; 

17 N. E. 358 1315 

Inglis V. Great Northern Ry. 

Co., 1 Macq. H. L. Cas. 112 

667, 667 
V. Trustees of Sailors' 

Snug Harbour, 3 Pet. 99 302 

Ingraham v. National Salt Co., 

130 Fed. 676; 65 C. C. A. 

54 440, 440, 452 

Inhabitants of Anson, 85 Me. 

79; 26 Atl. 996 1493, 1493, 

1493, 1494, 1586 
Inman v. Ackroyd & Best 

(1901), 1 K. B. 613 1241 

Innes & Co. (1903), 2 Ch. 

254 24, 330, 627, 629, 635, 

1290, 1340 
Inns of Court Hotel Co., 6 

Ch. 82 1399 

Instone v. Frankfort Bridge 

Co., 2 Bibb (Ky.) 576; 5 

Am. Dec. 638 667 

Insurance Bank v. Bank of 

U. S., 4 Clark (Pa.) 125 992, 

1193 
Insurance Co. v. Connor, 17 

Pa. St. 136 584 

Insurance Press v. Montauk, 

etc. Wire Co., 103 N. Y. 

App. Div. 472; 93 N. Y. 

Supp. 134 324 

Interior Woodwork Co. v. 

Prassar, 108 Wise. 557; 84 

N. W. 833 85 

International Bank v. Faber, 

86 Fed. 443; 30 C. C. A 

178 1182, 1367 

International Boom Co. v. 

Rainy Lake River Boom 

Co., 97 Minn. 513; 107 

N. W. 735 21, 39, 60 

International Cable Co., 66 L. 

T. 253 1170, 1170, 1170 

International Coal Mining Co. 

V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 152 

Fed. 557 _ 891 
V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 

152 Fed. 551 _ 1514 

International Committee Y. 

W. C. A. V. Y. W. C. A., 194 

111. 194; 62 N. E. 551; 66 

L. R. A. 888 371 

International Fair, etc. Ass'n 

V. Walker, 83 Mich. 386; 

47 N. W. 338 212, 601, 608 

International Life Ass. Soc, 

39 L. J. Ch. 271 1244 



International Savings, etc. 

Co. V. Stenger, 31 Pa. Super. 

Ct. 294 140, 386 

International Silver Co. v. 

Simeon, etc. Rogers Co., 

110 Fed. 955 377 
V. William G. Rogers Co., 

113 Fed. 526 377 
International Trust Co. v. 

Davis, etc. Mfg. Co., 70 
N. H. 118; 46 Atl. 1054 110, 

859, 1497, 1498 

V. Decker Bros., 152 

Fed. 78 1606, 1625, 1560 
V. International L. & T. 

Co., 153 Mass. 271; 26 

N. E. 693 ; 10 L. R. A. 758 375, 

377 
V. Townsend Brick, etc. 

Co., 95 Fed. 850; 37 C. C. 

A. 396 1564, 1566 

International Wrecking, etc. 

Co. V. McMorran, 73 Mich. 

467; 41 N. W. 510 1080 

International, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Herndon, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 

465; 33 S. W. Rep. 377 1643 

V. Wentworth, 8 Tex. 

Civ. App. 5; 27 S. W. 680 1643 
Interoceanic Ry. of Mexico, 3 

Hanson 162 1672 

Interstate Hotel Co. v. Wood- 
ward, etc. Amusement Co., 
103 Mo. App. 198; 77S.W. 

114 856 
Investment Co. v. Eldridge, 2 

Pa. Dist. Rep. 394 895, 897 
V. Ohio, etc. R. R. Co., 

36 Fed. 48 1649, 1649, 1650 
V. Ohio, etc. R. R. Co., 

46 Fed. 696 1490, 1591 

Iowa Lumber Co. v. Foster, 

49 Iowa 25; 31 Am. Rep. 

140 517 

Iowa Nat. Bank v. Cooper 

(Iowa), 107 N. W. 625 810 
V. Sherman, 17 S. Dak. 

396; 97 N. W. 12; 106 

Am. St. Rep. 778 1372 

Iowa, etc. R. R. Co. ■;;. Per- 
kins, 28 Iowa 281 609 
Ipswich Taylor's Case, 11 

Coke 53 569 

Ireland v. Globe Milling Co., 

19 R. L 180; 32 Atl. 921; 
61 Am. St. Rep. 756; 29 

L. R. A. 429 567 
V. Globe Milling, etc. Co., 

20 R. I. 190; 38 Atl. 116 301 



TABLE OP CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Ireland v. Globe Milling Co., 21 

R. I. 9; 41 Atl. 258; 79 

Am. St. Rep. 769 567, 571, 573 

V. Hart (1902), 1 Ch. 522 

696, 710, 711, 718, 747 
V. Palestine, etc. Turn- 
pike Co., 19 Oh. St. 369 652 
Ireland & Co., David (1905), 

1 Ir. 133 1264 

Iron Clay Brick Mfg. Co., 19 

Ont. 113 1343 

Iron Ship Coating Co. •;;. 

Blunt, L. R; 3 C. P. 484 1178, 
1179 
Irvine Co. v. Bond, 74 Fed. 

849 266, 882, 884 

Irving V. Houstoun, 4 Paton 

Sc. App. 521 1141, 1142 

Irving Park Ass'n v. Watson, 

410reg. 95; 67Pac. 945 803 

Irwin V. McKechnie, 58 Minn. 

145; 59N.W.987; 49 Am. 

St. Rep. 495; 26 L. R. A. 

218 1617, 1618 

Isaac's Case (1892), 2 Ch. 158 

1172, 1175 
Isbell V. Graybill, 19 Colo. 

App. 508; 76 Pac. 550 716, 747 
Isbester v. Murphy Mfg. Co., 

95 lU. App. 105 ' 579, 666 

Isham V. Bennington Iron Co., 

19 Vt. 230 409 
V. Buckingham, 49 N. Y. 

216 696 

Isle of Wight Ry. Co. v. 

Tahourdin, 25 Ch. D. 320 993, 
997, 997, 1062, 1062, 
1164, 1193 
Ismon V. Loder, 135 Mich. 

345; 97 N. W. 769 392, 398, 

409, 912 



J. & P. Coats V. Crossland, 
20 Times L. R. 800 1355 

Jackson v. Bassford (1906), 2 

Ch. 467 1396 

V. Campbell, 5 Wend. 

(N. Y.) 572 407 

V. Cannon, 10 Brit. 

Columb. 73 1223 

V. Crown Point Mining 

Co., 21 Utah 1 ; 81 Am. St. 

Rep. 651 ; 59 Pae. 238 138, 140, 
1181, 1226, 1232 
— - V. Dickinson (1903), 1 

Ch. 947 813 

V. Ludeling, 21 Wall. 616 

1344, 1590, 1636 



Jackson v. Munster Bank, 13 
L. R. Ir. 118 82, 89, 954, 1004, 
1062, 1062 

V. Munster Bank, 15 

L. R. Ir. 356 1282, 1282 

V. Myers, 43 Md. 452 398, 

403, 406 
V. Newark Plank Road 

Co., 31 N. J. Law 277 1120 
V. N. Y. Central R. R. 

Co., 2 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 

653; 58 N. Y. 623 1246 

V. Rainford Coal Co. 

(1896), 2 Ch. 340 66 

. V. South Omaha Live 

Stock Exchange, 49 Nebr. 

687; 68 N. W. 1051 580 

V. Traer, 64 Iowa 469; 

20N.W. 764; 52 Am. Rep. 

449 630, 631 

V. Turquand, L. R. 4 H. 

L. 305 165, 170, 184, 501, 509, 
510, 510 

V. Vieksburg, etc. R. R. 

Co., 2 Woods 141 . 1410, 1425 

V. Y. & C. R. R. Co., 48 ■ 

Me. 147 1423, 1451 

Jackson & Co. (1899), 1 Ch. 

348 640, 640, 642 

Jackson, etc. Co. v. Burling- 
ton, etc. R. Co., 29 Fed. 474 1441, 
1592, 1624 

Jackson, etc. Ins. Co. v, 
Walle, 105 La. 89 ; 29 So. 503 613 

Jackson Brewing Co. v. Can- 
ton (La.), 43 So. 454 1372 

Jackson ex dem. Ballou v. 
Campbell, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 
572 1379, 1380 

Jackson ex dem. Donally v. 
Walsh, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 226 399 

Jackson ex dem. Lynch v. 
Hartwell, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 
422 55 

Jackson ex dem. Martin v. 

Pratt, 10 Johns (N. Y.) 381 404 

Jackson ex dem. Walton v. 
Leggett, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 
377 228 

Jacksonville Cigar Co. v. 

Dozier (Fla.), 43 So. 523 1341 

Jacksonville, etc. Ry. Co. v. 
Hooper, 160 U. S. 514; 16 
Sup. Ct. 379 68, 397, 404, 406, 
1233 

Jacobs V. Mexican Sugar Re- 
fining Co., 104 N. Y. App. 
Div, 242; 93 N. Y. Supp. 
776 975 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Jacobs V. Mexican Sugar, etc. 
Co., 112 N. Y. App. Div. 
655; 98 N. Y. Supp. 541 890 

V. Mexican Sugar Ref. 

Co., 112 N. Y. App. Div. 

657 393 

Jacobs Pharmacy Co. v. 

Southern Banking, etc. Co. , 

97 Ga. 573; 25 S. E. 171 862 

Jacobson v. Brooklyn Lumber 

Co., 181 N. Y. 152; 76 

N. E. 1075 ' 942, 1322 

Jacques v. Chambers, 4 Eng. 

Ry. & Canal Cas. 205 788 
V. Chambers, 4 Eng. Ry. 

& Canal Cas. 499 789 

Jamaica Ry. Co. v. Atty.-Gen. 

of Jamaica (1893), A. C. 

127 1679, 1679, 1679, 1681 

James v. Boythorpe Colliery 

Co., 2 Megone 55 1530 

V. Buena Ventura Ni- 
trate Syndicate (1896), 1 

Ch. 456 501, 505, 788 

V. Cowing, 82 N. Y. 449 1487, 

1667, 1668 

i). Eve, L. R. 6 H. L. 335 1106, 

1163 
V. Railroad Co., 6 Wall. 

752 1636 

— , Re, 146 N. Y. 78; 40 

N. E. 876; 48 Am. St. Rep. 

774 1136, 1144, 1154, 1155 

James Clark Co. v. Colton, 91 

Md. 195; 46 Atl. 386; 49 

L. R. A. 698 1276, 1305 

James Colmer, Ltd., Re 

(1897), 1 Ch. 524 544 

Jameson v. Caldwell, 25 Oreg. 

199; 35 Pac. 245 1347 

Jamieson & McFarland v. 

Heim (Wash.), 86 Pac. 165 68 
Jarvis v. Manhattan Beach 

Co., 53 Hun (N. Y.) 362; 

6 N. Y. Supp. 703; 148 

N. Y. 652; 43N. E. 68; 31' 

L. R. A. 776; 51 Am. St. 

Rep. 727 734, 740, 743, 

784, 784 

V. Rogers, 13 Mass. 105 723 

V. State Bank, 22 Colo. 

309; 45 Pac. 505 1542 

Jan^is's Case (1899), 1 Ch. 

193 149, 205, 642 

Jasper Land Co. v. Wallis, 

123 Ala. 652; 26 So. 659 958 

Jay Bridge Co. v. Woodman, 

31 Me. 573 600 

Jaycox, Re, 12 Blatchf. 209 864 



Jefferson County Sav. Bank, 

115 Ala. 317; 23 So. 48 972 

Jegon, Ex parte, 12 Ch. D. 

'503 1106 

Jellenik v. Huron Copper, etc. 

Co., 177 U. S. 1; 20 Sup. 

Ct. 559 423 

Jemison v. Citizens' Sav. 

Bank, 122 N. Y. 135; 25 

N. E. 264; 9 L. R. A. 708; 

19 Am. St. Rep. 482 854 

Jenkins v. Baxter, 160 Pa. St. 

199; 28 Atl. 682 1250 
V. John Good Cordage, 

etc. Co., 56 N. Y. App. Div. 

573; 68 N. Y. Supp. 239 1416 
Jenner Institute of Preven- 
tive Medicine, 15 Times L. 

R. 394 999, 1000, 1001 

Jenner's Case, 7 Ch. D. 132 1171 
Jennings v. Bank of Califor- 
nia, 79 Cal. 323; 21 Pac. 

852; 12 Am. St. Rep. 145; 

5 L. R. A. 233 573, 573, 574, 
771, 775 
V. Hammond, 9 Q. B. D. 

225 260 

, Re (1851), 1 Ir. Ch. 236 605, 

608, 609, 610, 623, 769, 915 
Jermain v. Lake Shore, etc. 

Ry. Co., 91 N. Y. 483 1132, 1136 
Jerome v. Cogswell, 204 U. 

S. 1 540, 541, 543 

V. McCarter, 94 U. S. 734 1439 

Jersey City Gas Co. v. Dwight, 

29 N. J. Eq. 242 .148, 149, 222, 

245 
Jersey City Paper Co., 69 

N. J. Law 594 ; 55 Atl. 280 1066 
Jessup V. Bridge, 11 Iowa 

672; 79 Am. Dec. 513 1503, 

1553, 1677 
Jesup V. City Bank, 14 Wise. 

331 1405, 1409, 1466, 1638 
V. Illinois Central R. R. 

Co., 43 Fed. 483 1306, 1306, 

1310 
Jewett v.- Valley Ry. Co., 34 

Oh. St. 601 607, 607 
V. West Somerville, etc. 

Bank, 173 Mass. 54; 54 N. 

E. 1085; 73 Am. St. Rep. 

259 1380 

J. G. Brill Co. V. Norton, etc. 

Street Ry. Co., 189 Mass. 

431 ; 75 N. E. 1090 84, 863 

J. F. White Co. V. Carroll 

(N. Car.), 59 S. E. 678 1503 

Jhons V. People, 25 Mich. 499 126 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



J. I. Case Plow Works v. 
Finks, 81 Fed. 529; 26 
C. C. A. 46 1617 

Joel T. Bailey & Co. v. Snyder 
Bros., 61 111. App. 472 407, 

1371, 1376, 1377 

Johannesburg Hotel Co. 

(1891), 1 Ch. 119 643 

John A. Roebling's Sons Co. 
V. Barre, etc. Power Co., 76 
Vt. 131; 56Atl. 530 1213, 1215 

John Bridge & Co. v. Magrath, 

4 New So. Wales State Rep. 

441 85 

John Hancock, etc. Ins. Co. v. 

Worcester, etc. R. R. Co., 

149 Mass. 214; 21 N. E. 364 1476 
John Moriey Bldg. Co. v. Bar- 

ras (1891), 2 Ch. 386 1201, 1212, 
1213, 1231 
John V. Farwell Co. v. Wolf, 

96 Wise. 10; 70N. W. 289; 

71 N. W. 109; 37 L. R. A. 

138; 65 Am. St. Rep. 22 844 
Johns V. Johns, 1 Oh. St. 

350 420 

V. McLester, 137 Ala. 

283; 34 So. 174; 97 Am. 

St. Rep. 27 931, 943 

Johnson v. Albany, etc. R. R. 
Co., 54 N. Y. 416; 13 Am. 
Rep. 607 428, 428, 615 

V. Amberson, 140 Ala. 

342; 37 So. 273 798 
V. Bridgewater Iron Mfg. 

Co., 14 Gray (Mass.) 274 1132, 
1137 

V. Bush, 3 Barb. Ch. 207 405 

V. Corser, 34 Minn. 355; 

25 N. W. 799 252, 252, 254 

■». Crawfordsville, etc. 

R. R. Co., 11 Ind. 280 229 
V. Hume, 138 Ala. 564; 

36 So. 421 422, 678 
V. Kessler, 76 Iowa 411; 

41 N. W. 57 149, 160 

V. Langdon, 135 Cal. 

624; 67 Pac. 1050; 87 Am. 

St. Rep. 156 901, 906 
V. Lyttle's Iron Agency, 

5 Ch. D. 687 613, 657, 659, 663 
V. Okerstrom, 70 Minn. 

303; 73N. W. 147 117, 124, 

229, 246, 247, 248, 917 

V. Sage, 4 Idaho 758; 

44 Pac. 641 1371, 1376, 1377 

V. Somerville Dyeing 

etc. Co., 15 Gray (Mass.) 

216 616 



Johnson v. Stoughton Wagon 
Co. , 1 18 Wise. 438 ; 95 N. W. 
394 1278, 1279 

V. Stratton, 109 111. 

App. 481 786 

V. Underhill, 52 N. Y. 

203 697, 782 
V. Wabash, etc. Co., 16 

Ind. 389 211 

Johnson & Co., I. C. (1902), 

2 Ch. 101 1497, 1498, 1525 

Johnston v. Allis, 71 Conn. 

207; 41 Atl. 816 176 
V. Crawley, 25 Ga. 316; 

71 Am. Dec. 173 398, 399 
V. Elizabeth, etc. Ass'n, 

104 Pa. St. 394 1378 

V. Ewing Female Uni- 
versity, 35 III. 518 119 

V. Grumble, 19 So. Rep. 

100 (Miss.) 297 

V. Jones, 23 N. J. Eq. 

216 996, 1000, 1210, 1212, 

1225, 1250 

V. Laffin, 103 U. S. 800 519, 

694, 701 

V. Renton, 9 Eq. 181 728, 

747, 754, 755, 755, 757 
Johnston Foreign Patents 

Co. (1904), 2 Ch. 234 80 

Johnston Harvester Co. v. 

Clark, 30 Minn. 308 233, 233 

Joint Stock Discount Co., 36 

L. J. Ch. 150 898 
V. Brown, 3 Eq. 139; 8 

Eq. 381 75, 77, 97, 1265, 1280, 
1282, 1282, 1283, 1368 
Joliet Electric Light, etc. 

Co. V. Ingalls, 23 111. App. 

45 1371 

Joliet Iron Co. v. Scioto Fire 

Brick Co., 82 111. 548 1439 

Jones V. Arkansas Mech., etc. 

Co., 38 Ark. 17 1276 
V. Aspen Hardware Co., 

21 Colo. 263; 40 Pac. 457; 

52 Am. St. Rep. 220; 29 

L. R. A. 143 147, 238, 238, 
246, 247, 302 
V. Atchison, etc. R. R. 

Co., 150 Mass. 304; 23 

N. E. 43; 5 L. R. A. 

538 791 
V. Bank of Leadville, 10 

Colo. 464; 17 Pac. 272 1188 
V. Bonanza Mining, etc. 

Co. (Utah), 91 Pac. 273 652, 

1166, 1226, 1227 

V. Brinley, 1 East 1 421 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Jones V. Central Trust Co., 73 

Fed. 568; 19 C. C. A. 569 1490, 

1567 

V. Cincinnati Type Foun- 
dry Co., 14 Ind. 89 232, 384 

V. Concord & Montreal 

R. R. Co., 67 N. H. 119; 38 

Atl. 120 469, 473, 488, 499, 
563, 1039 

V. Concord & Montreal 

R. R. Co., 67 N. H. 234; 
30 Atl. 614; 68 Am. St. 

Rep. 650 469, 473, 488, 500, 

1004 
V. Dana, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 

395 222 
V. Guaranty, etc. Co. 101 

U. S. 622 65, 835 

— ^ V. Habersham, 107 U. S. 

174; 2 Sup. Ct. 336 

V. Hale, 32 Oreg. 465; 

52 Pac. 311 

V. Hanna, 24 Tex. Civ. 

App. 550; 60 S. W. 279 

V. Harrison, 2 Ex. 52 

V. Hilldale Cemetery Soc. 

(Ky.), 65 S. W. 838 998, 1069 

V. Imperial Bank, 23 

Grant (Can.) 262 965, 968 

V. Jolmson, 86 Ky. 530; 

6 S. W. 582 

V. Milton, etc. Turnpike 

Co., 7 Ind. 547 

V. Missouri-Edison Elec- 
tric Co., 144 Fed. 765; 75 
C. C. A. 631 240, 245. 263, 
962, 979,' 1083 

V. Morrison, 31 Minn. 

140; 16N.W.854 81,496,499 

504, 509, 517, 1001, 1199, 

1299, 1319, 1322 

V. Nassau Suburban 

Home Co., 103 N. Y. Supp. 
1089; 53 N. Y. Misc. 63 

V. Pearl Mining Co., 20 

Colo. 417; 38 Pac. 700 

V. Schlapback, 81 Fed. 

274 1616, 1617 

V. Seligman, 81 N. Y. 190 

1582 
V. Sisson, 6 Gray (Mass.) 

288 604 
V. Smith (Tex.), 87 S. W. 

210 289, 293 
V. Terre Haute, etc. R.R. 

Co., 57 N. Y. 196 497, 501, 746, 
1116, 1132, 1133, 1477 
V. Vance Shoe Co., 92 111. 

App. 158 593, 594, 1242, 1247 



837 

1317 

1328 
341 



1274 
1045 



1064 
940 



Jones V. Williams, 139 Mo. 1 : 
39S.W.486; 40S.W.353; 
61 Am. St. Rep. 436; 37 
L. R. A. 682 880, 1078, 1213, 

1251, 1348, 1374 

, Ex parte (1900), 1 Ch. 

220 167 

, Ex parte, 27 L. J. Ch. 

666 417, 524, 525, 664, 702, 

702 
Jones, Lloyd & Co., 41 Ch. D. 

159 642 

Jones's Case, 6 Ch. 48 205 

Jordan v. Richmond Home 
for Ladies (Va.), 56 S. E. 
730 380, 380 

Jordan, etc. Co. v. Collins, etc. 
Co., 107 Ala. 572; 18 So. 
137 1069, 1211 

Joseph V. Holroyd, 22 W. R. 

614 783 

V. Raff, 82 N. Y. App. 

Div. 47; 81 N. Y. Supp. 
546; 176 N. Y. 611; 68 
N. E. 1118 519, 521 

Joseph Bancroft & Sons Co. v. 
Bloede, 106 Fed. 396; 45 
C. C. A. 354 ; 52 L. R. A. 734 76 
Josephs V. Prebber, 3 B. & C. 

639 7, 259 

Joshua Stubbs, Ltd. (1891), 1 

Ch. 475 1581, 1598 

Joslyn V. St. Paul Distilling 
Co., 44 Minn. 183 ; 46 N. W. 
337 693, 733, 733, 733 

Journal Pub. Club, 30 N. Y. 
Misc. 326; 63 N. Y. Supp. 
465 1249 

Journalists Fund of Phila- 
delphia, Be, 8 Phila. 272 94 
Joy V. Jackson, etc. Plank 

Road Co., 11 Itoch. 155 1521 

Judah V. American, etc. Ins. 

Co., 4 Ind. 333 147, 175, 219, 

606 
Juker V. Com. ex rel. Fisher, 20 

Pa. St. 484 1008, 1011, 1249 

Julian V. Central Trust Co., 
193 tJ. S. 93; 24 Sup. Ct. 
399 1632 

JuUard v. Walker, 54 111. App. 

517 1379 

Junction R. R. Co. v. Bank of 
Ashland, 12 Wall. 226 



V. Cleneay, 13 Ind. 161 

V. Reeve, 15 Ind. 236 

Jung Brewing Co. v. Comm. 
(Ky.), 96 S. W. 476 



1400, 
1401 
1423 

211 

• 

368 



cxiu 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Just V. State Bank, 132 Mich. 

600; 94 N. W. 200 572, 771 

J. W. Butler Paper Co. v. 

Cleveland, 220 111. 128; 77 

N. E. 99; 110 Am. St. Rep. 

230 161 

K 

Kadish v. Garden City, etc. 

Bldg. Ass'n, 151 111. 531; 

38 N. E. 236; 42 Am. St. 

Rep. 256 
Kaemmerer v. Kaemmerer 

(111.), 83 N. E. 133 
Kaeppler v. Redfleld Creamery 

Co., 12 S. Dak. 483; 81 

N. W. 907 287, 288 

Kahn v. Bank of St. Joseph, 

70 Mo. 262 
Kain v. Smith, 80 N. Y. 458 
Kaiser v. Lawrence Savings 

Bank, 56 Iowa 104; 8 

N. W. 772; 41 Am. Rep. 

85 31, 117, 118, 242, 246, 251 
Kalamazoo Novelty Mfg. Co., 

36 Mich. 327 
Kalamazoo Spring etc. Co. v. 

Winans, 106 Mich. 193; 64 

N. W. 23 
Kalbach v. Clark (Iowa), 110 

N. W. 599 
Kampman v. Tarver, 87 Tex. 

491; 29 S. W. 768 
Kane v. Bloodgood, 7 Johns. 

Ch. (N. Y.) 90 1120, 1122 
, Re, 64 N. Y. App. Div. 

566; 72 N. Y. Supp. 333 



852 
590 



767 
1615 



1379 



1069 
1151 



484 



1137, 
1157 



Kansas City v. Vineyard, 128 

Mo. 75; 30 S. W. 326 
Kansas City Hay Press Co. v. 

Devol, 72 Fed. 717 592, 1210 

Kansas City Hotel Co. v. 

Harris, 51 Mo. 464 

V. Hunt, 57 Mo. 126 

Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. 

V. King (Ark.), 85 S.W. 1131 
Kansas Loan, etc. Co. v. 

Electric Ry. etc. Co., 108 

Fed. 702 
Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Bayles, 

19 Colo. 348; 35 Pac. 744 

1614, 1616, 1644 

V. "Wood, 24 Kans. 619 1609 

Kansas Valley Nat. Bank v. 

Rowell, 2 Dillon 371 835, 859 

Kansas, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Dorough, 72 Tex. 108; 10 

S. W. 711 1609 



25 



483 
492 

1634 



1563 
1607, 



Kantzler v. Bensinger, 214 

111. 589; 73 N. E. 874 1030 

Karberg's Case (1892), 3 Ch. 1 182, 
184, 187, 279 
Karn v. Rorer Mining Co'., 

86 Va. 754; 11 S. E. 431 1650 
Karnes v. Rochester, etc. 

R. R. Co., 4 Abb. Pr. n. s. 
(N. Y.) 107 1110, 1351 

Karsch v. Pottier, etc. Co., 82 

N. Y App. Div. 230; 81 

N. Y Supp. 782 1377 

Karuth'a Case, 20 Eq. 506 1170, 
1171, 1175 
Kassler v. Kyle, 28 Colo. 248; 

65 Pac. 34 540 

Katama Land Co. v. Jemegan, 

126 Mass. 155 600 

Katz V. H. & H. Mfg. Co., 109 

N. Y. App. Div. 49; 95 

N.Y. Supp. 663; 183 N.Y. 

578 585 

Kaufman v. Charlottesville 

Woolen Mills, 93 Va. 673; 

25 S. E. 1003 1135, 1144 

Kavanaugh v. Commonwealth 

Trust Co., 181 N. Y. 121; 

73 N. E. 562; 103 N. Y. 

App. Div. 95; 92 N. Y. 

Supp. 543 937, 943, 956, 978, 

979 
Kaye v. Croydon Tramways 

Co. (1898), 1 Ch. 358 82, 1004 
Kean v. Johnson, 9 N. J. Eq. 

401 52, 949 
V. Union Water Co., 52 

N. J. Eq.813; 31AtL282; 

46 Am. St. Rep. 538 1250, 

1250 
Keane v. Moffly (Pa.), 66 Atl. 

319 1664 

Keans v. New York, etc. 

Ferry Co., 17 N. Y. Misc. 

272; 40 N. Y. Supp. 366 1296 
Keatinge v. Paringa Con- 
solidated Mines (1902), 

W. N. 15 354 

Keeler v. Atchison, etc. Ry. 

Co., 92 Fed. 545; 34 

C. C. A. 523 1632 

Keen v. Whittington, 40 Md. 

489 235 

Keene v. Van Reuth, 48 Md. 

184 234, 241 

Keene Five Cent Savings 

Bank v. Lyon County, 90 

Fed. 523 1432 

Keeney v. Converse, 99 Mich. 

316; 58 N. W. 325 967, 1263 



TABLE OP CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Keller v. Eureka, etc. Mfg. 

Co., 43 Mo. App. 84; 11 

L. R. A. 472 427, 430 
, Re, 116 N. Y. App. Div. 

58 1001, 1006 

Kellerman v. Maier, 116 Cal. 

416; 48 Pac. 377 631, 1313 

Kelley v. Biddle, 180 Mass. 

147; 61N. E. 821 

V. Collier, 11 Tex. Civ. 

App. 353; 32 S. W. 428 

Kelley, Maus & Co. v. O'Brien 

Varnish Co., 90 111. App. 287 
Kellock V. Enthoven, L. R. 9 

Q. B. 241 783, 783 

Kellogg V. Stookwell, 75 111. 

68 697, 782 

Kelly V. Browning, 113 Ala. 

420; 21 So. 928 
V. Calhoun, 95 U. S. 710 

V. Ning Yung Benev. 

Ass'n (Cal.), 84 Pac. 321 

V. Receiver, 10 Biss. 151 



80 

1353 

84 



1661 
409 



V. Trustees of Ala., etc. 

R. R. Co., 58 Ala., 489 



853 
1573, 
1573 



1603, 
1603 
278, 



Kelner v. Baxter, 2 C. P. 174 

280, 280, 306, 307, 309 
Kelsey v. Nat. Bank, 69 Pa. 

St. 426 1235 
V. New England Street 

Ry. Co., 62 N. J. Eq. 742; 

48 Atl. 1001 1303, 1334 
V. Sargent, 40 Hun 

(N. Y.) 150 1298, 1321 

Kemble v. Milville, 69 N. J. 

Law 637; 56 Atl. 311 108 
V. Wilmington, etc. R. R. 

Co., 13 Phila. 469 1401 

Kemmerer v. Haggerty, 139 

Fed. 693 _ 956, 970 

Kempson v. Saunders, 4 Bing. 

6 784 

Kennebec, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Kendall, 31 Me. 470 600 
V. Portland, etc. R. R. 

Co., 54 Me. 173 1627 

Kennedy v. Acadia Pulp, etc. 

Co., 38 Nova Scotia 291 185 
V. California Sav. Bank, 

101 Cal. 495; 35 Pac. 1039; 

40 Am. St. Rep. 69 846 
V. I. C. & L. R. Co., 3 

Fed. 97 1616 
V. St. Paul, etc. R. R. Co. 

2 Dill. 448 1604 

V. St. Paul, etc. R. R. Co., 

. 5 Dill. 519 1649, 1649 



Kennedy v. Thompson, 97 N. 

Y. App. Div. 296; 89 N. Y. 

Supp. 963 786 
, Be, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 

188; 77 N. Y. Supp. 714 895 
Kennett v. Woodworth-Mason 

Co., 68 N. H. 432; 39 Atl. 

585 103 

Kent V. Freehold Land Co., 3 

Ch. 493 178 
V. Lake, etc. Co., 144 U. S. 

75; 12 Sup. Ct. 650 1485, 1646 
V. Quicksilver Mining 

Co., 78 N. Y. 159 439, 439, 439, 
440, 441, 444, 445, 454, 
584, 966 
Kent County Agriculture Soc. 

V. Houseman, 81 Mich. 609; 

46 N. W. 15 1185 

Kent Tramways Co., Re, 12 

Ch. D. 312 295 

Kent's Case, 39 Ch. D. 259 643 

Kenton Furnace, etc. Co. v. 

McAlpin, 5 Fed. 737 999, 1005, 
1006, 1006, 1007, 1024, 1025, 
1123 
Kenton Ins. Co. v. Bowman, 

84Ky. 430; 1 S. W. 717 768, 

772, 772 
Kentucky Mutual, etc. Co. ■;;. 

Schaefer, 27 Ky. Law Rep. 

657; 85 S. W. 1098 180 

Kentucky Tobacco Ass'n v. 

Ashby, 9 Ky. Law Rep. 109 

1373 
Kenyon v. Fowler, 155 Fed. 

107 618, 706 

Keokuk, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Missouri, 152 U. S. 301; 14 

Sup. Ct. 592 1552 

Ker's Case, 4 A. C. 549 705, 800 
Kem V. Arbeiter, etc. Verein, 

139 Mich. 233; 102 N. W. 

746 935 
V. Chicago, etc. Ass'n, 40 

111. App. 356; affirmed 

s. c. 140 111. 371 228 
V. Day, 45 La. Ann. 71 ; 

12 So. 6 1174, 1177 

Kern's Estate, 176 Pa. St. 

373; 35 Atl. 231 701,719,723, 

808 
Kemoohan, Re, 104 N. Y. 618 ; 

11 N. E. 149 ■ 502, 1137, 1137, 
1143, 1150, 1156 
Kerr v. Urie, 86 Md. 72; 37 

Atl. 789; 63 Am. St. Rep. 

493; 38 L. R. A. 119 620, 708 
KerridgeD.Hesse,9C.&P.200 307 



TABLE OP CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Kessler v. Ensley Co., 123 

Fed. 546 936, 938, 952, 967 

Kessler & Co. ■». Ensley Co., 

129 Fed. 397 938, 939, 967 
V. Ensley Co., 141 Fed. 

130; 148 Fed. 1019 1302 

Ketchum v. Duncan, 96 U. S. 

659 1343, 1451, 1452, 1452, 
1455, 1455, 1456, 1622, 1628 
V. Mobile, etc. R. R. Co., 

2 Woods 532 1493 
V. St. Louis, 101 U. S. 

306 1500, 1677 

Kettle River Mines «. Bleasdel, 

7 Brit. Columb. 507 650 

Key & Son, W. (1902), 1 Ch. 

467 428, 771, 793 

Keystone Nat. Bank v. Palos 

Coal, etc. Co. (Ala.), 43 So. 

570 1554 

Kharaskhoma Syndicate 

(1897), 2 Ch. 451 640, 640 

Kidd V. New Hampshire 

Traction Co., 72 N. H. 273; 

56 Atl. 465 974 
■!;. New Hampshire Trac- 
tion Co. (N. H.), 66 Atl. 127 

1083, 1164, 1189, 1325 
Kidwelly Co. v. Raby, 2 Price 

93 210 

Kiely v. Kiely, 3 Ont. App. 

438 1164, 1165 

Killen v. Barnes, 106 Wise. 

546; 82 N. W. 536 1274, 1285, 
1355, 1357 
Killingsworth v. Portland 

Trust Co., 18 Oreg. 351 ; 23 

Pac.66; 7L.R.A.638; 17 

Am. St. Rep. 737 53 

Kik)atrick v. Penrose, etc. 

Co., 49 Pa. St. 118; 88 Am. 

Dec. 497 1237 

Kimball v. City of Cedar 

Rapids, 99 Fed. 130 970 

V. Goodbum, 32 Mich. 

10 1378 

V. New England, etc. 

Grate Co., 168 Mass. 32; 46 

N. E. 432 1239 

V. Union Water Co., 44 

Cal. 173; 13 Am. Rep. 157 751 

Kimbell v. Hydraulic Press 
Brick Co., 119 Fed. 102; 55 
C. C. A. 162 967 

Kimber v. Gunnell Gold, etc. 
Co., 126 Fed. 137; 61 
C. C. A. 203 1527 

Kincaid's Case, 11 Eq. 192 1173, 

1175 



King V. FoUet, 3 Vt. 385 1134, 

1156 
V. Housatonic R. R. Co., 

45 Conn. 226 1515 

V. Marshall, 33 Beav. 565 66, 

1513, 1519 
V. Ohio, etc. Ry. Co., 7 

Biss. 529 1620 
Paterson, etc. R. R. Co., 

29 N. J. Law 82; 29 N. J. 

Law 504 1120, 1121, 1123 
V. Tuscumbia R. R. Co., 

7 Pa. L. J. 166; 14 Fed. 

Cas. 554 1499, 1589 

King's Case, 6 Ch. 196 618, 621 

Kingsbury Collieries and 

Moore's Contract (1907), 2 

Ch. 259 35, 37, 60, 61, 70, 97 

Kingston Cotton Mills (1896), 

1 Ch. 6 1363 

(No. 2), (1897) 2 Ch.279 1363 

Kingstown Yacht Club (1888), 

21 L. R. Ir. 199 425, 613, 768 

Kinnan v. Forty-second St., 

etc. Ry. Co., 140 N. Y. 

183; 35 N. E. 498 429, 430, 
430, 748 
V. Sullivan County Club, 

26 N. Y. App. Div. 213; 50 

N. Y. Supp. 95 571, 1031 

Kinney v. Crocker, 18 Wise. 74 1617 
Kinsman v. Fisk, 83 Hun 

(N. Y.) 494; 31 N. Y. 

Supp. 1045 1317 

Kinston, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Stroud, 132 N. Car. 413; 43 

S. E. 913 221 

Kipling V. Todd, 3 C. P. D. 

350 196, 1174 

Kirby's Case, 46 L. T. 682 641 

Kirk V. Bell, 16 Q. B. 290 1205 

V. Nowill, 1 T. R. 118 580, 

581, 657 
Kirkcaldy St am Laundry 

Co., 6 Fraser (Sc.) 778 137 

Kirkman v. Carlstadt Chemi- 
cal Co., 36 N. Y. Misc. 822; 

74 N. Y. Supp. 865 908 

Kirkpatrick v. American 

Alkali Co., 140 Fed. 186 449 
V. Eastern Milling, etc. 

Co. (1), 135 Fed. 144 408 
V. Eastern Milling & 

Export Co., 137 Fed. 387; 

69 C. C. A. 579 366 

Kirkpatrick's Will, Re, 22 

N. J. Eq. 463 55 

Kirkstall Brewery Co., 5 Ch. 

D. 535 532 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



992 



1437 



Klrwin v. Washington Match 

Co., 37 Wash; 285; 79 Pao. 

928 
Kissel V. Chicago, etc. R. R. 

Co., 44 N. Y. Misc. 156; 89 

N. Y. Supp. 796 
Kisterbock's Appeal, 127 Pa. 

St. 601; 18 Atl. 381; 14 

Am. St. Rep. 868 683, 735 

Kitchens v. J. H. Teasdale 

Commission Co., 105 Mo. 

App. 463; 79 S. W. 1177 1260, 
1302, 1328 
Kittel V. Augusta, etc. R. R. 

Co., 84 Fed. 386; 28 

C. C. A. 437 1323 

Klaus, In re, 67 Wise. 401 ; 29 

N. W. 582 562, 571, 745 

Klein v. Funk, 82 Minn. 3; 

84 N. W. 460 
V. Independent Brewing 

Ass'n (111.), 83 N. E. 434 
V. Jewett, 26 N. J. Eq. 

474 1616, 1618 

Klopp V. Lebanon Bank, 46 

- Pa. St. 88 
Knabe v. Ternot, 16 La. Ann. 

13 
Knapp V. Publishers, etc. Co., 

127 Mo. 53; 29 S. W. 885 
V. S. Jarvis Adams Co., 

135 Fed. 1008; 70 C. C. A. 

536 1110, 1111 

Kneeland v. American Loan, 

etc. Co., 136 U. S. 89; 10 

Sup. Ct. 950 1560, 1565, 1612, 

1612 

V. Brass Foundry, etc. 

Works, 140 U. S. 592; 11 

Sup. Ct. 837 1640 

Knickerbocker Importation 

Co. V. State Board of As- 
sessors (N. J.), 65 Atl. 

913 518, 522 

Knickerbocker Investment 

Co. V. Voorhees, 100 N. Y. 

App. Div. 414; 91 N. Y. 

Supp. 816 1054 

Knickerboker Trust Co. v. 

Davis, 143 Fed. 587 348, 352, 

356 
V. Myers, 133 Fed. 764; 

139 Fed. Ill 618 
V. Oneonta, etc. Ry. Co., 

101 N. Y. Supp. 241 1595, 1626 
V. Penacock Mfg. Co., 

100 Fed. 814 1495 

Knight V. Barber, 16 M. & W. 

66 423 

cxvii 



1314 
1312 



769 

1312 

497 



Knight V. Knight, 2 Giff. 616 424 
V. Old Nat. Bank, 3 

Cliff. 429 571, 572 

Knight's Case, 2 Ch. 321 658, 667, 

911 
Knights, etc. of America v. 

Weber, 101 111. App. 488 557, 

557 
Knights of Maccabees v. 

Searle (Nebr.), 106 N. W. 

448 374, 379 

Knights Templars', etc. Co. 

V. Jarman, 104 Fed. 638; 

44 C. C. A. 93 587, 590 

Knoop V. Bohmrich, 49 N. J. 

Eq. 82; 23 Atl. 118 944, 966 

Knowles v. Sandercock, 107 

Cal. 629; 40 Pac. 1047 74, 75, 
75,77 
Knowles Loom Works v. Ryle, 

97 Fed. 730; 38 C. C. 

A. 494 1537 

Knowlton v. Conrees, etc. 

Spring Co., 57 N. Y. 518 632 

Knox V. Childersburg Land 

Co., 86 Ala. 180; 5 So. 578 211, 
213 632 
V. Eden Musee, 148 N. Y. 

441; 42N. E. 988; 51 Am. 

St. Rep. 700; 31 L. R. A. 

779 741 

Knox County v. Aspinwall, 21 

How. 539 1220, 1448 

Koch V. Nat. Union Bldg. 

Ass'n, 35 III. App. 465; 

B.C., 137 111. 497; 27 N. E. 

530 1372 
V. North Ave. Ry. Co., 

75 Md. 222; 23 Atl. 463; 

15 L. R. A. 377 232 

Kodak, Ltd. v. Clark (1903), 

1 K. B. 505 879 

Koebel v. Landlords' Pro- 
tective Bureau, 210 111. 

176; 71 N. E. 362 372 

Koehler v. Black River, 

etc. Co., 2 Black 715 407, 408, 

1317 
Kolff V. St. Paul Fuel Ex- 
change, 48 Minn. 215; 50 

N. W. 1036 562, 566 

Koppel V. Mass. Brick Co., 

192 Mass. 223; 78 N. E. 

128 283, 290 

Koster v. Pain, 41 N. Y. App. . 

Div. 443; 58 N. Y. Supp. 

865 319, 1347 

Kozminsky, Re, 16 Vict. L. R. 

137 603 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Kraft V. Grififon Co., 82 N. Y. 

App. Div. 29; 81 N. Y. 

Supp. 438 628, 630, 1404 
V. West Side Brewery- 
Co., 219 ni. 205; 76 N. E. 

372 86 

Kraniger v. People's Bldg. 

Soc, 60 Minn. 94; 61 

N. W. 904 109, 142, 859, 1377 
Kreissl v. Distilling Co., 61 

N. J. Eq. 5; 47Atl. 471 1050, 
1052, 1053, 1053 
Krisch v. Interstate Fisheries 

Co., 39 Wash. 381; 81 Pao. 

855 524 

Kroegher v. Calivada Coloni- 
zation Co., 119 Fed. 641; 

56 C. C. A. 257 1245, 1318, 

1324, 1340, 1341, 1344 
Kropholler v. St. Paul, etc. 

Ry. Co., 2 Fed. 302 1628, 1660 
Krotz V. Louisiana Const. Co. 

(La.), 45 So. 276 1596 

Kuser v. Wright, 52 N. J. Eq. ' 

825; 31 Atl. 397 1222, 1225 

Kyle V. Wagner, 45 W. Va. 

349; 32 S. E. 213 974, 1188 

Kyshe v. Alturas Gold, 4 

Times L. R. 331 1251 



Lacaff V. Dutch Miller, etc. 
Co., 31 Wash. 566; 72 Pac. 
112 428 

Lacaze & Reive v. Creditors, 

46 La. Ann. 237 ; 14 So. 601 1375 
Lackawanna, etc. Co. *. 
Fanners' L. & T. Co., 176 
U. S. 298; 20 Sup. Ct. 363 1567, 
1571 
Lackey v. Richmond, etc. R. 
Co., 17 B. Monr. (Ky.) 43 613, 

614 
La Compagnie de Mayville v. 
Whitley (1896), 1 Ch. 788 932, 
932, 934, 1002, 1164, 1200, 
1201 
Ladies' Dress Ass'n v. Pul- 
brook (1900), 2 Q. B. 377 223, 
531, 667, 668 
Lady Bryan Mining Co., 14 
Fed. Cas. 926; 1 Sawy. 
349; 2 Abb. (U. S.) 537 416 

Lady Forrest (Murchison) 
Gold Mine (1901), 1 Ch. 582 322, 
323, 329 
Ladywell Mining Co. v. 

Brooks, 35 Ch. D. 400 323 



LaFayette Club, 21 Pa. Co. 

Ct. Rep. 243 94 

Lafayette Co. v. Neely, 21 

Fed. 738 960, 960 

Lafferty's Estate, 154 Pa. St. 

430; 26 Atl. 388 1054 

Laflin, etc. Powder Co. v. 

Sinsheimer, 46 Md. 315; 24 

Am. Rep. 522 221, 222 

Lagarde v. Anniston Lime, 

etc. Co., 126 Ala. 496; 28 

So. 199 1340 

Lagrone v. Timmerman, 46 

S. Car. 372; 24 S. E. 290 79 

Lagunas Nitrate Co. v. La- 

gunas Syndicate (1899), 2 
h. 392 272, 274, 277, 316, 316, 
329, 330, 330, 334, 1259, 
1275, 1326 
V. Schroeder & Co., 85 

L. T. 22 1121 

Lail V. Mt. Sterling Coal Road 

Co., 13 Bush (Ky.) 32 609 
Laing v. Burley, 101 111. 591 696 
V. Queen City Ry. Co. 

(Tex.), 49 S. W. 136 1639 

Laird v. Birkenhead 'Ry. Co., 

Johns 500 395 

Lake Erie, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Griffin, 92 Ind. 487 1632 

Lake Ontario Shore R. R. 

Co. V. Curtiss, 80 N. Y. 219 208, 

209 
Lake Ontario, etc. R. R. Co. 

V. Mason, 16 N. Y. 451 116, 

119, 202, 604, 604 
Lake St. El. R. Co. v. Ziegler, 

99 Fed. 114; 39 C. C. A. 

431 645, 1672 

Lake Superior Bldg. Co. v. 

Thompson, 32 Mich. 293 230 

Lake Superior Iron Co. v. 

Drexel, 90 N. Y. 87 636 

Lake Superior Navigation Co. 

V. Morrison, 22 Up. Can. 

C. P. 217 158 

Lakewood Gas Co. v. Smith, 

62 N. J. Eq. 677; 51 Atl. 

152 754 

Lallande v. Ingram, 19 La. 

Ann. 364 804 

Lamar Land, etc. Co. v. Bel- 
knap Sav. Bank, 28 Colo. 

344; 64 Pac. 210 1503, 1650 

Lamb & Sons v. Dobson, 117 

Iowa 124; 90 N. W. 607 138 

Lamb Knit Goods v. Lamb 

Glove & Mitten Co., 120 

Mich. 159; 78 N. W. 1072 387 



TABLE OP CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Lambert v. Neuchatel As- 
phalts Co., 51 L. J. Ch. 882 1099 
V. Northern Ry., 18 W. 

R. 180 1238, 1240, 1243 

Lambertville Nat. Bank v. 

MoCready, etc. Co. (N. J.), 

15 Atl. 388 1586 

Lamkin v. Baldwin, etc. Co., 

72 Conn. 57; 43 Atl. 593, 

1042; 44 L. R. A. 786 297, 299 
Lamm v. Port Deposit Co., 49 

Md. 233; 33 Am. Rep. 

246 1362 

Lamonby v. Carter (1903), 1 

Ch. 352 24 

Lamphear v. Buckingham, 33 

Conn. 237 1582 

Lamson v. Hutchings, 118 

Fed. 321 619 

Lamson Store Service Co., Re, 

1 Ch. 875 542 

Lanaux, Succession of, 46 La. 

Ann. 1036; 15 So. 708; 25 

L. R. A. 577 804 

Lancashire Cottonspinning 

Co. V. Greatorex, 14 L. T. 

N. 8. 290 898 

Lancaster v. Amsterdam Imp. 

Co., 140 N. Y. 576; 35 

N. E. 964; 24 L. R. A. 322 244, 
848, 861 
Lancaster Starch Co. v. 

Moore, 62 N. H. 671 652 

Land Credit Co. v. Fermory, 

5 Ch. 763 1279, 1280 

Land, Log & Lumber Co. v. 

Mclntyre, 100 Wise. 245; 

75 N. W. 964 961, 984 

Land Mortgage Bank of 

Florida, 3 Manson 164 1672 

Land Title, etc. Co. v. As- 
phalt Co., 127 Fed. 1; 62 

C. C. A. 23 984 

Landers v. Frank Street 

M. E. Church, 114 N. Y. 

626; 21 N. E. 420 1035 

Landis v. Saxton, 105 Mo. 

486; 16S. W. 912; 24 Am. 

St. Rep. 403 1288 
V. Sea Isle, etc. Co., 53 

N. J. Eq. 654; 33 Atl. 964 982, 

982 
V. Western Pa. R. R. Co., 

133 Pa. St. 579; 19 Atl. 556 1664 
Landman v. Entwistle, 7 Ex. 

632 306, 310 

Landowners', etc. Drainage 

Co. V. Ashford, 16 Ch. D. 

411 64, 1221 



Lands Allotment Co. (1894), 

1 Ch. 616 74, 1265, 1280, 1282, 
1283, 1288 

Lane v. Brainard, 30 Conn. 
565 189, 192, 1201 

V. fiaughman, 17 Oh. 

St. 642; 93 Am. Dec. 653 1561 
V. Macon, etc. Ry. Co., 

96 Ga. 630; 24 S. E. 157 1612 
Lang V. Lang, 57 N. J. Eq. 

325; 41 Atl. 705 1137, 1149, 
1149, 1149, 1149 
V. Louisiana Tanning 

Co., 56 Fed. 675 960 
V. Mayor, etc. of Bay- 

onne (N. J.), 68 Atl. 90 244 

Langan v. Francklyn, 29 

Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 102; 

20 N. Y. Supp. 404 976, 1000, 
1042, 1058, 1227 
Langdon v. Fogg, 14 Abb. 

N.-C. (N. Y.) 435 n 969, 1290 
V. Vermont, etc. R. R. 

Co., 54 Vt. 593 1622, 1640, 1640 
Lange v. Reservation Mining, 

etc. Co. (Wash.), 93 Pac. 

208 1188 

V. Royal Highlanders 

(Nebr.), 106 N. W. 224 586 

Langham v. East Rose Wheal, 

etc. Co., 37 L. J. Ch. 253 186 

Langhome v. Richmond City 

Ry. Co., 91 Va. 364; 22 

S. E. 357 380 

Langley v. Langley, 31 Ont. 

Rep. 254 1239 

Langolf V. Seiberlitch, 2 Pars. 

Eq. Cas. (Pa.) 64 949, 957, 

974, 1068 
Langston v. Greenville, etc. 

Imp. Co., 120 N. Car. 132; 

26 S. E. 644 1079 
V. S. Car. R. R. Co., 2 

S. Car. 248 1423, 1441, 1449, 

1460, 1472 
Lanier Lumber Co. v. Rees, 

103 Ala. 622; 16 So. 637; 

49 Am. St. Rep. 57 775 

Lanigan v. North, 69 Ark. 

62; 63 S. W. 62 788 

Lankershin Ranch Land, etc. 

Co. V. Herberger, 82 Cal. 

600; 23 Pac. 134 768 

Lantry v. Wallace, 182 U. S. 

536; 21 Sup. a. 878 521 

Lapham v. Philadelphia, etc. 

R. R. Co., 4 Pennewill's 

Rep. (Del.) 421; 56 Atl. 

366 381 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Lapsley v. Merchants' Bank, 

105 Mo. App. 98; 78 S. W. 

1095 1109 

Laredo Imp. Co. v. Stevenson, 

66 Fed. 633; 13 C. C. A. 

661 484 

Larimer v. Beardsley, 130 

Iowa 706; 107 N. W. 935 712 
Larking, Ex parte, 4 Ch. H. 

566 1263, 1276, 1343 

Larkworthy's Case (1903), 1 

Ch. 711 669 

Laroque v. Beauchemin 

(1897), A. C. 358 642, 645 

Larsen v. U. S. Mortgage, etc. 

Co. 104 N. Y. App. Div. 76; 

93 N. Y. Supp. 610 1616 

Larwill v. Burke, 19 Ohio 

Circ. a. 513 1122 

Lasell V. Thistle Gold Co., 11 

Brit. Columbia 466 1347 

Lassell v. Hannah, 37 Can. 

Sup. a. 324 1347 

Lathom v. Greenwich Ferry 

Co., 72 L. T. 790 1647, 1648, 

1655 
Lathrop v. Kneeland, 46 

Barb. (N. Y.) 432 483, 493 

Latimer v. Bard, 76 Fed. 

536 489, 492 
V. Citizens' State Bank, 

102 Iowa 162; 71N.W.225 74 
V. Herzog Teleseme Co., 

75N. Y.App. Div. 522; 78 

N. Y. Supp. 314 894, 904 

La Tosca Club v. La Tosca 

Club, 23 App. B. C. 96 371 

Laughlaud v. Miller, Laugh- 
land & Co., 6 Fraser (Sc.) 

413 . 1348 

Laughlin v. U. S. Rolling 

Stock Co., 64 Fed. 25 1646 

Laugier v. Victorian, etc. 

Power Co., 16 Vict. L. R. 64 160 
Lauman's Appeal, 68 Pa. St. 

88 811 

Laurel Springs Land Co. v. 

Fougeray, 50 N. J. Eq. 

756; 26 Atl. 886 1112 

Law V. Alley, 67 N. H. 93 ; 29 

Atl. 636 502 
V. Fuller (Pa.), 66 Atl. 

754 942, 1318, 1344 

Law Guarantee Soc. v. I3ank 

of England, 24 Q. B. D. 

406 69, 796, 813, 814 

Law Guarantee, etc. Soc. v. 

Russian Bank (1905), 1 K. 

B. 815 1552 



Law Guarantee & Trust Soc. 

V. Mitcham, etc. Brewery 

Co. (1906), 2 Ch. 98 1557, 1557 
Lawford v. Billericay Rural 

Dist. Council (1903), 1 K. 

B. 772 391, 395, 826 

Lawrence v. Curtis, 191 Mass. 

240 947, 1353 

V. Fox, 20 N. Y. 268 1508 

V. Maxwell, 53 N. Y. 19 807 

w. Steams, 79 Fed. 878; 

83 Fed. 738 1288 

Lawrence's Case, 2 Ch. 412 177, 

214 
Lawrie v. Silsby, 76 Vt. 240; 

56 Atl. 1106; 104 Am. St. 

Rep. 927 117, 148 

Lawshe v. Royal Baking Pow- 
der Co., 104 N. Y. Supp. 

361 901 

Lawson v. Black Diamond, 

etc. Co. (Wash.), 86 Pac. 

1120 1078 

Lawton v. Hickman, 9 Q. B. 

563 423 

Lawyers Advertising, etc. Co. 

V. Consolidated Ry., etc. 

Co., 187N.Y.395; 80N.E. 

199 89, 89, 90, 1000 

Laxon & Co. (1892), 3 Ch. 555 

120, 223, 241 
Lazear v. Nat. Union Bank, 

52 Md. 78 ; 36 Am. Rep. 355 844 
Lea V. Iron Belt Mercantile 

Co. (Ala.), 42 So. 415 628, 880 
Leach v. Forbes, 11 Gray 

(Mass.) 506; 71 Am. Dec. 

732 786 

Leader Printing Co. v. Lowiy, 

9 Oy. 89; 59 Pac. 242 246 

Leahy v. Lobdell, 80 Fed. 665 ; 

26 C. C. A. 75 810 

Leary v. Blanchard, 48 Me. 

269 1377 
V. Columbia River, etc. 

Co., 82 Fed. 775 1111 
V. Interstate Nat. Bank 

(Tex.), 63 S. W. Rep. 149 1203 
Leas Hotel Co. (1902), 1 Ch. 

332 1520, 1606 

Leathers v. Janney, 41 La. 

Ann. 1120; 6 So. 884; 6 L. 

R. A. 661 72 

Leavengood v. McGee (Oreg.), 

91 Pac. 453 _ 241 

Le^ivenworth v. Chicago, etc. 

Ry. Co., 134 U. S. 688; 10 

Sup. a. 708 225, 225, 1324, 

1324 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Leavitt v. Fisher, 4 Duer 

(N. Y.) 1 719, 721 

V. Oxford, etc. Ry. Co., 

3 Utah 265; 1 Pac. 356 651, 
1201, 1205, 1213, 1303 

Leazure v. Hillegas, 7 S. & R. 

(Pa.) 313 404, 404, 846 

Lelsanon, etc. Co. v. Adair, 85 

Ind. 244 1225, 1228 

Le Blanc, Be, 14 Hun (N. Y.) 

8; 75N. Y. 598 1121 

Le Bosquet v. Myers (Ind. 

Ty.), 103 S. W. 770 1249 

Ledoux V. La Bee, 83 Fed. 761 

1617 

Ledwich v. McKim, 53 N. Y. 

307 1410, 1425 

Lee V. Neuchatel Asphalte 

Co., 41 Ch. D. 1 1096, 1099, 

1100 

V. Pennsylvania Trac- 
tion Co., 105 Fed. 405 1559, 

1563 

Lee Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. State, 

60 Miss. 395 25 

Leeds Banking Co, 1 Ch. 231 

501, 622, 624, 790 

Leeds Estate, etc. Co. v. 

Shepherd, 36 Ch. D. 787 1094, 

1241, 1241, 1264, 1265, 1267, 

1268, 1268, 1279, 1284 

Leeds and Hanley Theatres 

(1902), 2 Ch. 809 322, 332, 334 

Leeds, etc. Ry. Co. v. Feam- 
ley, 4 Ex. 26 623 

Lees Brook Spinning Co. 

(1906), 2 Ch. 394 542 

Leffingwell v. Elliott, 8 Pick. 
(Mass.) 455; 19 Am. Dee. 
343 304 

Lefroy v. Gore, 1 Jo. & Lat. 

571 309, 337, 337, 337 

Legal Aid Society v. Co- 
operative Legal Aid Soci- 
ety, 41 N. Y. Misc. 127; 83 
N. Y. Supp. 926 372 

Legendre & Co. v. Brewing 
Ass'n, 45 La. Ann. 669; 12 
So. 837; 40 Am. St. Rep. 
243 908, 908 

Legg V. Mathieson, 2 Giff. 

71 1546 

Legg & Co. V. Dewing, 25 R. 

1.568; 57Atl. 373 1360 

Leggett V. Bank of Sing Sing, 
24 N. Y. 283 774, 775 

V. New Jersey, etc. Bank- 
ing Co., 1 N. J. -Eq. 541; 23 
Am. Dec. 728 407 



Legrand v. Manhattan Mer- 
cantile Ass'n, 80 N. Y. 638 



227, 
278 



Lehigh Coal, etc. Co. v. Cen- 
tral R. R. Co., 34 N. J. Eq. 

88 1466, 1678 
V. Central R. R. Co., 35 

N. J. Eq. 349 
V. Central R. R. Co., 42 

N. J. Eq. 591; 8 Atl. 648 
Lehigh Valley Coal Co. v. 

Hamblen, 23 Fed. 225 
Lehman v. Clark, 174 111. 

279; 51 N. E. 222; 43 L. 

R. A. 648 
Le Hote v. Boyet, 85 Miss. 

636; 38So. 1 
Leicester v. YoUand, Husson 

& Birkett (1908), 1 Ch. 152 

1396, 1524 
Leigh V. National Hollow, etc. 

Co., 224 111. 76; 79 N. E. 

318 
Leighty v. Pres., etc. of Turn- 
pike Co., 14 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 

434 
Leinster Contract Corp. 

(1902), 1 Ir. 349 627, 629, 635, 

639 
Leitch V. Grand Trunk Ry. 

Co., 13 Ont. Pract. Rep. 

369 

V. Wells, 48 N. Y. 585 

Leland v. Hayden, 102 Mass. 

542 499, 502, 1143, 1145, 1147 
Le Marchant v. Moore, 150 

N. Y. 209; 44 N. E. 770 810 

Lemars Shoe Co. v. Lemars 

Shoe Mfg. Co., 89 111. App. 

245 297, 1069, 1210 

Lembeck v. Jarvis, etc. Stor- 
age Co. (N. J.), 64 Atl. 126 1402, 
1433 
Lenoir v. Linville Imp. Co., 

126 N. Car. 922; 36 S. E. 

185; 5 L. R. A. 146 1239, 1242 
Leominster Canal Nav. Co. v. 

Shrewsbury, etc. Ry. Co., 

3 K. & J. 654 281 

Leonard v. Draper, 187 Mass. 

536; 73 N. E. 644 517 

V. Lent, 43 Wise. 83 1210 

Leonards ville Bank v. Willard, 

25 N. Y. 574 126 

Leonhardt v. Citizens Bank, 

56 Nebr. 38; 76 N. W. 452 



995 

1618 

379 



660 
1560 



1027 



645 



1364 
693 



Le Roy v. Globe Ins. Co. (N. 
Y.), 2 Edw. Ch. 657 



1297 
1121 



CXSl 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Leroy, etc. Co. v. Sidell, 66 

Fed. 27; 13 C. C. A. 308 1374 
Leslie, Re, 58 N. J. Law 609; 

33Atl. 954 1176,1177,1178 

Lesseps v. Architects' Co., 4 

La. Ann. 316 562, 657 

Lester v. Bemis Lumber Co., 

71 Ark. 379; 74 S. W. 518 76, 
601, 636, 637 
V. Howard Bank, 33 Md. 

558; 3 Am. Rep. 211 1329 

Letheby & Christopher (1904), 

1 Ch. 815 748 

Level Land Co. No. 3 v. Hay- 
ward, 95 Wise. 109; 69 N. 

"W. 567 198 

Levering v. Mayor, etc. of 

Memphis, 7 Humphr. 

(Tenn.) 553 402, 407 

Levisee v. Shreveport City R. 

R. Co., 27 La. Ann. 641 1248 
Levita's Case, 3 Ch. 36 167 

, 5 Ch. 489 166, 167, 175 

Levitt V. Hamblet (1901), 2 

K. B. 53 779 

Levy V. Abercorris Slate Co., 

37 Ch. D. 260 1391, 1392 

Le Wame v. Meyer, 38 Fed. 

191 262 

Lewey's Island R. R. Co. v. 

Bolton, 48 Me. 451; 77 Am. 

Dec. 236 658, 659, 



Lewis V. Brainerd, 53 Vt. 519 



90 



• V. Eastern Bank, 32 Me. 



661 
894, 
908 

1187 



825 
1297 

1382 



1093, 



V. Mayor, etc. of Roch- 
ester, 9 C. B. N. 8. 401 

V. Meier, 14 Fed. 311 

V. Puhtzer Pub. Co., 77 

Mo. App. 434 

Lexington, etc. Co. v. Page, 
17 B. Monr. (Ky.) 412; 66 
Am. Dec. 165 1079, 

1105, 1127, 1128, 1128, 1129 
1193 

Lexington, etc. R. R. Co. v. 
Bridges, 7 B. Monr. (Ky.) 
556; 46 Am. Dec. 528 1127, 

1266, 1288 

Liberator Bldg. Soc, 10 
Times L. R. 537 

Licausi v. Ashworth, 78 N. Y. 
App. Div. 486; 79 N. Y. 
Supp. 631 

Licking Valley Bldg. Ass'n 
i;.Comm. (Ky.),89S.W.682 

Liebhardt v. Wilson (Colo.), 
88 Pac. 173 



1364 



382 
140 



879 



Liebke v. Knapp, 79 Mo. 22; 

49 Am. Rep. 212 634 

Lite Ass'n v. Levy, 33 La. Ann. 

1203 87 

Life & Fire Ins. Co. v. Me- 
chanics Fire Ins. Co., 7 

Wend. (N. Y.) 31 87, 827, 1370 
Lighthall Mfg. Co., 47 Hun 

(N. Y.) 258 1041, 1060 

Lillard v. Oil Paint & Drug 

Co. (N. J.), 56 Atl. 254 967, 
1113, 1320 
V. Oil, Paint, etc. Co (N. 

J.), 58 Atl. 188 982 

Lime City Bldg., etc. Ass'n 

V. Black, 136 Ind. 544; 35 

_N. E. 829 662 

Limer v. Traders Co., 44 W. 

Va. 175; 28 S. E. 730 1196 

Limited Invpstment Ass'n v. 

Glendale Investment Ass'n, 

99WUc. 54; 74N.W. 633 313, 

321 
Lincoln v. New Orleans Ex- 
press Co., 45 La. Ana. 729; 

12 So. 937 493, 784 

V. State, 36 Ind. 151 1018, 

1018 
Lincoln Bldg., etc. Ass'n v. 

Graham, 7 Nebr. 173 114, 258 
Lincoln Park Chapter v. Swa- 

tek, 204 111. 228; 68 N. E. 

429 237, 253 

Lincoln Shoe Mfg. Co. v. 

Sheldon, 44 Nebr. 279; 62 

N. W. 480 163 

Lincoln Tp. v. Kansas City, 

etc. R. Co. (Nebr.), 108 N. 

W. 140 1632 

Lindauer v. Delaware Mut. 

Safety Ins. Co., 13 Ark. 

461 394 

Lindemann v. Rusk, 125 Wise. 

210; 104 N. W. 119 1285 
Linder v. Carpenter, 62 111. 309 1349 
». Hartwell R. R. Co., 73 

Fed. 320 1515, 1554,1595 

Lindsay v. Arlington Co-op. 

Ass'n, 186 Mass. 371; 71 

N. E. 797 192 

Lindsay, etc., Co. v. Mullen, 

176 U. S. 126; 20 Sup. Ct. 

325 20, 47 

Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. 

Hurd, L. R. 5 P. C. 221 317 

Lindsay's Estate, 210 Pa. St. 

224; 59 Atl. 1074 573 

Lingke v. Wilkinson, 57 N. Y. 

445 1307 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Linkauf v. Lombard, 137 N. 

Y. 417; 33 N. E. 472; 33 

Am. St. Rep. 743; 20 L. R. 

A. 48 822, 852, 1354 

Lintott, Ex parte, 4 Eq. 184 614 
Lionberger v. Broadway Sav- 
ings Bank, 10 Mo. App. 499 66 
Lippencott v. Shaw Carriage 

Cfo., 25 Fed. 577 1316 

Lippitt V. American Wood 

Paper Co., 15 R. I. 141 : 23 

Atl. Ill; 2 Am. St. Rep. 

886 694 

Lipscomb v. Condon, 66 W. 

Va. 416; 49 S. E. 392; 

107 Am. St. Rep. 938; 67 

L. R. A. 670 422, 687, 

715, 891 
Liquidators of British Na- 
tion Life Ass. Ass'n, Ex 

parte, 8 Ch. D. 679 8, 76, 79, 
80 830 
Lishman's Claim, 23 L. T. 40 'l429 
Liskeard & Caradon Ry. Co. 

(1903), 2 Ch. 681 1545 

Lister v. Henry Lister & 

Sons, 62 L. J. Ch. 568 1473, 

1531, 1531 
Litchfield Bank v. Church, 

29 Conn. 137 222 

Litchfield Sav. Soc. v. Dibble 

(Conn.), 67 Atl. 476 349 

Little V. Dusenbury, 46 N. J. 

Law 614; 50 Am. Rep. 445 

1616 
Little Rock, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Perry, 37 Ark. 164 280, 281, 

284, 287 
Little Rock, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Page, 35 Ark. 304 1296, 1503, 

1507 
Littledale, Ex parte, 9 Ch. 257 

763, 766, 1325 
Littlewort v. Davis, 50 Miss. 

403 868 

Liverpool Household Stores, 

62 L. T. 873 1215, 1261, 1261, 
1263, 1264, 1267, 1274, 1280 
Livesey v. Omaha Hotel Co., 

5 Nebr. 50 161, 607 

Lloyd V. Chesapeake, etc. R. 

R. Co., 65 Fed. 351 1575, 1602 
V. Preston, 146 U. S. 630; 

13 Sup. Ct. 131 620, 635 
V. Supreme Lodge, 98 

Fed. 66; 38 C. C. A. 654 578, 
590, 918 
Lloyd & Co., George E. v. 

Matthews, 119 111. App. 546 ; 



223 111. 477; 79N.E. 172; 

7 L. R. A. N. s. 376 70, 1373 

Lloyd & Co., David, 6 Ch. D. 

339 1598 

Lloyd, Ex parte, 1 Sim. n. s. 
. 248 276, 308 

Loan Ass'n v. Stonemetz, 29 

Pa. St. 534 1237, 1319, 1322 

Lock V. Queensland Land Co. 

(1896), A. C. 461 433, 626, 

1108 
Locke V. Leonard Silk Co., 37 

Mich. 479 231 

Lockhart v. Van Alstyne, 31 

Mich. 76; 18 Am. Rep. 156 444 
450, 451 
Lockwood V. Mechanics Nat. 

Bank, 9 R. I. 308; 11 Am. 

Rep. 253 557,571,1166,1202, 
1205 
V. Town of Weston, 61 

Conn. 211 ; 23 Atl. 9 413, 415, 

420 
Loeffler v. Modem Wood- 
men, 100 Wise. 79; 75 N. 

W. 1012 948 

Loewenstein v. Diamond 

Soda Water, etc. Co., 94 N. 

Y. App. Div. 383; 88 N. Y. 

Supp. 313 946, 982, 1358 

Loewenthal v. Rubber Re- 
claiming Co., 52 N. J. Eq. 

440; 28 Atl. 454 34, 134, 585, 

992 
'Logan County Nat. Bank v. 

Townsend, 139 U. S. 67; 

11 Sup. Ct. 496 841 

Logan, Ex parte, 9 Eq. 149 1242 
Londesborough v. Somerville, 

19 Beav. 295 1156 

London v. Bynum, 136 N. 

Car. 411; 48 S. E. 764 299 

London & Birmingham Ry. 

Co. V. Winter, Cr. & Ph. 57 395 
London & Colonial Finance 

Corp., 77 L. T. 146 162, 187 

London & County Ass. Co., 

30 L. J. Ch. 373 1404 

London & General Bank 

(1895), 2 Ch. 166 1363 

, 72 L. T. N. s. 227 1095, 

1110, 1117 
London & Globe Finance 

Corp. (1903), 1 Ch. 728 19 

London & N. Y. Investment 

Co. (1895), 2 Ch. 860 442, 536, 

536 
London & N. W. Ry. Co. v. 

Price, 11 Q. B. D. 485 91 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



London & Provincial Coal 
Co., 5 Ch. D. 525 204 

London & Provincial Starch 

Co., 20 L. T. 390 1346 

London & Provincial Tel. Co., 

9 Eq. 653 793 

London & Staffordshire Fire 

Ins. Co., 24 Ch. D. 149 177, 184 

London & Westminster Sup- 
ply Aiss'n V. Griffiths, 1 
Cababe & Ellis 15 763 

London, Birmingham, etc. 
Banking Co., 34 Beav. 332 774 

London County Coxmcil v. 
Atty.-Gen. (1902), A. C. 
165 824 

London Financial Ass'n v. 

Kelk, 26 Ch. D. 107 38, 39, 40, 
78, 97, 1161, 1290 

London Founders' Ass'n v. 

Clarke, 20 Q. B. D. 676 779, 

781, 781 

London Grand Junction Ry. 
Co., 2 Man. & Gr. 606 925 

London India Rubber Co., 5 

Eq. 519 469 

London Joint Stock Bank v. 
Simmons (1892), A. C. 201 1433 

London, Paris & American 
Bank v. Aronstein, 117 Fed. 
601; 54 C. C. A. 663 771, 790 

London, Paris Financial, etc. 
Corp., 13 Times L. R. 569 346, 
352, 355, 355, 362 

London Pressed Hinge Co. 

(1905), 1 Ch. 576 1393, 1505, 

1574, 1604 

London Speaker Printing Co., 
Pearce's Case, 16 Ont. 
App. 508 209 

London Tobacco Pipe-Mak- 
ers' Co. V. Woodrufife, 7 
B. & C. 838 1012, 1166 

London Trust Co. v. Mac- 
kenzie, 62 L. J. Ch. 870 1129, 
1261, 1268, 1280, 1282, 
1290 

London, etc. Co. v. New Ma- 
shonaland, etc. Co., W. N. 
(1891) 165 1178 

London, etc. Ass. Co. v. Red- 
grave, 4 C. B. N. s. 524 608 

London, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Fairclough, 2 M. & Gr. 674 602, 

605 

V. M'Michael, 5 Exch. 

855 602 

London, etc. Society, 31 Ch. 

D. 223 1200, 1213, 1213 



Long V. Citizens' Bank, 8 

Utah 104; 29 Pac. 878 280, 307 
V. Georgia Pac. Ry. Co., 

91 Ala. 519; 8 So. 706; 24 

Am. St. Rep. 931 843, 848 
V. Guelph Lumber Co., 

31 Up. Can. C. P. 129 192, 444, 

450 
Long Dock Co. v. Mallery, 12 

N. J. Eq. 431 1604 

Long Island Ferry Co. v. Ter- 

bell, 48 N. Y. 427 1239 

Long Island R. R. Co., 19 

Wend. (N. Y.) 37; 32 Am. 

Dec. 429 657, 1001, 1017, 
1049, 1066 
Long Island, etc. Trust Co. v. 

Columbus, etc. Ry. Co., 65 

Fed. 455 1411, 1436 

Longdendale, etc. Co., 8 Ch. 

D. 150 1598, 1599 

Longman v. Bath Electric 

Tramways (1905), 1 Ch. 646 733, 

733 
Longmont Supply Co. v. Coff- 

man, 11 Colo. 551; 19 Pac. 

508 1210 

Loomis V. Chicago, etc. Ry. 

Co., 102 Fed. 233; 42 

C. C. A. 290 1476 
V. Davenport, etc. R. R. 

Co., 3 McCrary 489 1535, 1540, 

1632 

Lord V. Brooks, 52 N. H. 72 



V. Equitable Life Ass. 

Soc, 96 JSr. Y. Supp. 10; 
109 N. Y. App. Div. 252 

V. Equitable Life Ass. 

Soc, 108 N. Y. Supp. 67 



1150, 
1154 



133 

1050, 
1165 
V. Essex Bldg. Ass'n, 37 

Md. 320 100, 229 
V. Governor & Co. of 

Copper Miners, 2 Phillips 

Ch. 740 973, 977, 994 

Lord Inchiquin, Ex parte 

(1891), 3 Ch. 28 1170, 1172, 

1173, 1174 
Lord Lurgan's Case (1902), 1 

Ch. 707 203, 204 

Lorillard v. Clyde, 86 N. Y. 

384 339, 1107, 1163 

Loring v. Davis, 32 Ch. D. 625 780, 



— V. Salisbury Mills, 125 
Mass. 138 
Lothrop Pub. Co. v. Lathrop, 
etc. Co., 191 Mass. 353 



782 
797 
388 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Lothrop Pub. Co. v. Williams, 

191 Mass. 361 1513 

Loucheim v. Clawson Print- 
ing, etc. Co., 12 Pa. Super, 
a. 55 1242 

Loubat V. Le Roy, 40 Hun 

(N. Y.) 546 1207 

Loudenslager v. Benton, 4 

Phila. 382 1551 

V. Woodbury Heights 

Land Co., 58 N. J. Eq. 556 ; 

43 Atl. 671 322, 327, 1346 

Louis Cook Mfg. Co. v. Ran- 
dall, 62 Iowa 244; 17 
N. W. 507 297, 297 

Louisiana Nat. Bank v. Hen- 
derson, 116 La. 413; 40 
So. 779 238 

Louisiana Navigation, etc. Co. 
V. Doullut, 114 La. 906; 38 
So. 613 45 

Louisiana Paper Co. v. 

Waples, 3 Woods 34 1195 

Louisville Banking Co. v. 
Eisemnan, 94 Ky. 83; 21 
S. W. 531, 1049; 42 Am. St. 
Rep. 335; 19 L. R. A. 684 872, 
873, 874, 881 

Louisville Bridge Co. v. 
Dodd, 27 Ky. Law Rep. 
454; 85S. W. 683 982,983 

Louisville School Board v. 
Kin^ (Ky.), 107 S. W. 247 847 

Louisville Tobacco Ware- 
house Co. V. Stewart (Ky.), 
70 S. W. 285; 24 Ky. Law 
Rep. 934 844 

LouisviUe Trust Co. v. Cin- 
cinnati Inclined-Plane Ry. 
Co., 91 Fed. 699 1507, 1520 

V. Louisville, etc. Ry. 

Co., 174 U. S. 674; 19 

Sup. Ct. 827 1636, 1636, 1659 

Louisville Water Co. v. Ful- 

lenlove, 12 Ky. Law Rep. 

556 1379 

Louisville, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Carson, 151 111. 444; 38 

N. E. 140 1298, 1310 
V. Central Trust .Co., 87 

Fed. 500; 31 C. C. A. 89 1568 
V. Hart County, 25 Ky. 

Law Rep. 395; 75 S. W. 

288 495, 921 

V. Hemdon's Admr. 

(Ky.), 104 S. W. 732 _ 56 

V. Memphis Gaslight 

Co., 125 Fed. 97; 60 C. C. 

A. 141 1560 



Louisville, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Neal, 128 Ala. 149; 29 So. 

865 941, 942 
V. Ohio Valley Imp. Co., 

69 Fed. 431 1221, 1426 

— - V. Schmidt (Ky.), 107 

S. W. 745 1484, 1490 
V. Schmidt, 21 Ky. Law 

Rep. 556; 52 S. W. 835 1452, 
1533, 1584, 1586 
Louisville, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Flanagan, 113 Ind. 488; 

14 N. E. 370; 3 Am. St. 

Rep. 674 38, 852 
V. Louisville Trust Co., 

174 U. S. 552; 19 Sup. Ct., 

817 84, 876, 891, 1221, 1407, 

1437 
Love V. Holmes (Miss.), 44 So. 

835 6 

Lovelace v. Anson (1907), 2 

Ch. 424 503, 538, 542 

Lovell V. Westwood, 2 Dow. 

& CI. 21 559, 560 

Loveman v. Henderson, 1 

Tenn. Ch. App. 749 686, 715, 805 
Loverin v. McLaughlin, 161 

111. 417; 44 N. E.'99 126, 127, 
251, 252 
Lovett V. Steam Saw Mill 

Ass'n, 6 Paige (N. Y.) 54 393, 
405, 409 
Low V. Blackford, 87 Fed. 

392; 31 C. C. A. 15 1420, 1452, 
1629, 1630 
V. Connecticut, etc. R. 

R. Co., 45 N. H. 370 152, 278, 
281, 293, 295 
V. Connecticut, etc. R. R. 

Co., 46 N. H. 284 283 

Lowe V. Pioneer Threshing 

Co., 70 Fed. 646 519 
V. Ring, 115 Wise. 575; 

92 N. W. 238 1246 
V. Ring, 123 Wise. 370; 

101 N. W. 698 1247 

Lowene v. American Fire Ins. 

Co., 6 Paige (N. Y.) 482 1121 
Lowenfeld, Ex parte, 70 L. T. 

3 436, 437 

Lowndes v. Gamett Gold 

Mining Co., 33 L. J. Ch. 

418 1245, 1245, 1297, 1298 

Lowry v. Commercial, etc. 

Bank, Taney 310 756, 791, 
792, 797, 798, 799 
V. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 

172 N. Y. 137; 64 N. E. 

796 ; 56 N. Y. App. Div. 108 1151 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Lowville, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Elliot, 101 N. Y. Supp. 

328 211, 214 

Lozier v. Saratoga Gas, etc. 

Co., 59 N. Y. App. Div. 

390; 69 N. Y. Supp. 247 907, 

908 
Lozier Motor Co. v. Ball, 104 

N. Y. Supp. 771; 53 N. Y. 

Misc. 375 1331 

Lubbock V. British Bank of 

South America (1892), 2 

Ch. 198 1092 

Lubroline Oil Co. v. Athens 

Sav. Bank, 104 Ga. 376; 30 

S. E. 409 1515 

Lucas V. Bank of Georgia, 2 

Stew. (Ala.) 147 230, 233 

■». Beach, 1 Man. &Gr. 417 274 

V. Coe, 86 Fed. 972 622 

V. Fitzgerald, 20 Times 

L. R. 16 1128, 1268, 1280, 
1280, 1283 
V. Friant, 111 Mich. 426; 

69 N. W. 735 1344 

V. Milliken, 139 Fed. 816 787, 

1024, 1063, 1064 
V. White Line Transfer 

Co., 70 Iowa 541; 30N.W. 

771; 59 Am. Rep. 449 851, 

861, 869 
Lucile Dreyfus Mining Co. v. 

Willard (Wash.), 89 Pac. 

935 735, 741 

Luclqr Queen Mining Co. v. 

Abraham, 26 Oreg. 282; 38 

Pac. 65 1231, 1382 

Ludington v. Thompson, 4 

N. Y. App. Div. 117; 38 

N. Y. Supp. 768 1378 

Ludlow V. Clinton Line R. R. 

Co., 1 Flip. 25 1397, 1629 
V. Kurd, 1 Disn. (Oh.) 

552 1551, 1553 

Luetzke v. Roberts (Wise), 

109 N. W. 949 183 

Luling V. Atlantic Mut. Ins. 

Co.. 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 510; 

30 How. Pr. 69 1116 

Lum V. McBwen, 56 Minn. 

278; 57 N. W. 662 1347 

Lumbard v. Aldrich, 8 N. H. 

31; 28 Am. Dec. 381 918 

Lumsden's Case, 4 Ch. 31 708, 708 
Lund V. Blanshard, 4 Hare 9 939, 

976 
V. Wheaton Roller Mill 

Co., 50 Minn. 36; 52 N. W. 

268; 36 Am. St. Rep. 623 715 



1240 



Lundy Granite Co., 20 W. R. 

519; 26 L. T. 673 
Lungren v. Pennell, 10 W. N. 

C. (Pa.) 297 336 

Lurgan's Case, Lord (1902), 

1 Ch. 707 203, 204 

Luse V. Isthmus Transit Co., 

6 Oreg. 125; 25 Am. Rep. 

506 1381 

Lusk V. Riggs, 70 Nebr. 713 ; 

97 N. W. 1033 124, 127, 239, 

246 
Luther v. C. J. Luther Co., 

118 Wise. 112; 94 N. W. 

69; 99 Am. St. Rep. 977 510, 
1063, 1319 
Lydney, etc. Co. v. Bird, 33 

Ch. D. 85 272, 272, 293, 313, 

319, 320, 320, 321, 
353 
Lyman v. Central Vermont 

R. R. Co., 59 Vt. 167; 10 

Atl. 346 

.V. HiUiard, 154 Fed. 339 

V. Kansas City, etc. R. 

Co., 101 Fed. 636 
V. Pratt, 183 Mass. 58; 

66 N. E. 423 497, 1147 
V. State Bank of Ran- 
dolph, 81 N. Y. App. Div. 

367; 80 N. Y. Supp. 901; 

179 N. Y. 577; 72 N. E. 

1145 
Lynde v. Anglo-Italian, etc. 

Spinning Co. (1896), 1 Ch. 

178 
Lyndon Mill Co. v. Lyndon 

Institution, 63 Vt. 581, 

585; 25 Am. St. Rep. 783; 

22 Atl. 575 
Lyndon Sav. Bank v. Inter- 
national Co., 75 Vt. 224; 

54 Atl. 191 
Lynn v. Freemansburg, etc. 

Ass'n, 117 Pa. St. 1; 11 

Atl. 537; 2 Am. St. Rep. 

639 581, 582 

Lyon V. Am. Screw Co., 16 

R. I. 472; 17 Atl. 61 893, 894, 

900 

j7.Bower,30N.J.Eq.340 1259 

V. Citizens' Loan Ass'n,' 

30 N. J. Eq. 732 1259 
V. First Nat Bank, 85 

Fed. 120; 29 C. C. A. 45 86, 838 
V. James, 97 N. Y. App. 

Div. 385; 90 N. Y Supp. 

28; 181 N. Y. 512; 73 

N. E. 1126 1350, 1355 



1617 
1359 

1671 



114 



187 



1370 



591 



TABLE OP CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Lyon Potter & Co. v. First 
Nat. Bank, 85 Fed. 120; 29 
C. C. A. 45 838 

Lyon's Case, 35 Beav. 646 1203 

Lysaght v. St. Louis Opera- 
tive, etc. Ass'n, 55 Mo. 
App. 538 580 

Lysaght, Re (1898), 1 Ch. 115 24 
Lyster's Case, 4 Eq. 233 667, 1202 

M 

McAfee v. Zettler, 103 Ga. 

579; 30 S. E. 268 972 

McAleer v. McMurray, 58 Pa. 

St. 126 928 

McAIester Mfg. Co. v. Flor- 
ence Cotton, etc. Co., 128 

Ala. 240; 30 So. 632 78 

McAUen v. Woodcock, 60 Mo. 

174 1343 

McAllister v. Plant, 54 Miss. 

106 1584 

McAIpin V. Universal Tobacco 

Co. (N. S.), 57 Atl. 418 974 

McArthur v. Times Printing 

Co., 48 Minn. 319; 51 

N. W. 216; 31 Am. St. 

Rep. 653 283, 287, 290, 290 

McAvity V. LincoIBTeJB^CB?^'^^'" 

82 Me. 504; 20 Atl. 82 1247 

McBryan v. Universal Ele- 
vator Co., 130 Mich. Ill; 

89 N. W. 683; 97 Am. St. 

Rep. 453 619 

McCabe v. Father Matthew, 

etc. Soc, 24 Hun (N. Y.) 

149 1010 

McCall V. Byram Mfg. Co., 6 

Conn. 428 1167, 1185, 1208, 

1208 1229 
McCalla v. Clark, 55 Ga. 53 ' 812 
McCallimi v. Pursell Mfg. Co., 

1 N. Y. Supp. 428 279, 300 

McCampbell v. Fountain 

Head R. R. Co., Ill Tenn. 

55; 77 S. W. 1070; 102 

Am. St. Rep. 731 966, 969, 969 
McCandless v. Inland Acid 

Co., 112 Ga. 291; 37 S. E. 

419 303, 304 
V. Inland Acid Co., 115 

Ga. 968; 42 S. E. 449 303 

McCann v. First Nat. Bank, 

112 Ind. 354; 14 N. E. 251 540, 
■ 541, 543 
V. First Nat. Bank, 131 

Ind. 95; 30 N. E. 893 540, 

541, 543 



McCartee v. Orphan Asylum 

Soc, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 437; 

18 Am. Dec. 516 68 

McCarter v. Ketcham, 72 

N. J. Law 247; 62 Atl. 693 203 
V. Ketcham (N. J.), 67 

Atl. 610 204 

McChesny v. Batman (Ky.), 

89 S. W. 198 104, 125 

McCIanahan v. Ivanhoe Land, 

etc. Co., 96 Va. 124; 30 

S. E. 450 182, 183 

McClelland v. McKane, 154 

Fed. 164 975 

V. Norfolk Southern 

R. R. Co., 110 N. Y. 469; 
18 N. E. 237; 6 Am. St. 

Rep. 397; 1 L. R. A. 299 1425, 
1448, 1451, 1675 
M'Clelland v. Whiteley, 15 

Fed. 322 175 

McClintock v. Central Bank, 

120 Mo. 127; 24 S. W. 

1052 717 

McCloskey v. Snowden, 212 

Pa. 249; 61 Atl. 796; 108 

Am. St. Rep. 867 938 

McClure v. Central Trust Co., 

165 N. Y. 108; 58 N. E. 

777; 53 L. R. A. 153 784 
V. Central Trust Co., 28 

N. Y. App. Div. 433; 53 

N. Y. Supp. 188 782 

V. Law, 161 N. Y. 78; 

55 N. E. 388; 76 Am. St. 

Rep. 262 1337 
V. Trask„161 N. Y. 82; 

55 N. E. 407 1338 

McConey v. Belton Gas, etc. 

Co., 97 Minn. 190; 106 

N. W. 900 619 

McConnell v. Camors-MoCon- 

nell Co., 152 Fed. 321 262 
V. Combination Mining, 

etc. Co., 30 Mont. 239; 76 

Pac. 194; 104 Am. St. 

Rep. 703; 31 Mont. 563; 

79 Pac. 248 924, 983, 1208, 

1247, 1322 
McConnell's Claim (1901), 1 

Ch. 728 1180, 1180, 1238, 

1241, 1243 
McCord V. Ohio, etc. R. R. 
. Co., 13 Ind. 220 493 

McCord-CoUins Co. v. Pritch- 

ard (Tex.), 84 S. W. 388 380 

McCormick v. Market Bank, 

165 U. S. 538< 17 Sup. Ct. 

433 838 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



McCornaok v. Salem Ry. Co., 
34 0reg. 543; 56 Pac. 518, 
1022 1567 

McCourt V. Singers-Bigger, 
145 Fed. 103; 76 C. C. A. 
73 300, 983, 983, 1341 

McCoy V. Washington 
County, 3 Wall. Jr. C. C. 
381 1451 

V. World's Columbian 

Exposition, 186 111. 356; 
57 N. E. 1043; 78 Am. St. 

Rep. 288 601, 607, 613 

McCraoken v. Halsey Fire- 

Engine Co., 57 Mich. 361; 

24 N. W. 104 1240 
V. Robison, 57 Fed. 375; 

6 C. C. A. 400 1314 

McCrea v. McClenahan, 114 

N. Y. App. Div. 70 972, 978, 

979, 982 
McCreary v. Chandler, 58 Me. 

537 8 

McCuUough V. Annapolis, etc. 

R. R. Co., 4 Gill (Md.) 58 1207 
V. Moss, 5 Denio (N. Y.) 

567 992, 1193 
V. Sutherland, 153 Fed. 

418 1086 

V. Talledega Ins. Co., 

46 Ala. 376 236 

McCutchen v. Dittman, 23 

N. Y. App. Div. 285; 48 

N. Y. Supp. 360 808 

McCutcheon v. Merz Capsule 

Co., 71 Fed. 787; 19 C. C. 

A. 108; 31 L. R. A. 415 834, 

843 
McDaniels v. Flower Brook 

Co., 22 Vt. 274 999, 1005,1008 
McDermott Mining Co. v. Mc- 

Dennott, 27 Mont. 143; 69 

Pac. 715 1341 

McDonald v. Chisholm, 131 

111. 273; 23 N. E. 596 408 
V. Dewey, 134 Fed. 528; 

67 C. C. A. 408 618 
V. Dewey, 202 U. S. 510; 

26 Sup. Ct. 731 619, 619 
V. Houghton, 70 N. Car. 

393 1342 
V. Ross-Lewin, 29 Hun 

(N. Y.) 87 660 

V. Williams, 174 U. 

S. 397; 19 Sup. Ct. 743 



McDonnell v. Ontario, etc. R. 
R. Co., 11 Up. Can. Q. B. 
267 



1128, 
1128 



553 



McDonough v. Bank of Hous- 
ton, 34 Tex. 309 

V. Hennepin, etc. Ass'n, 

62 Minn. 122; 64 N. W. 106 

McDowall V. Sheehan, 129 N. 
Y. 200; 29 N. E. 299 



286 

590 

1175, 
1318 



McDowell V. Bank of Wil- 
mington, 1 Harr. (Del.) 27 

511, 572 
V. Chicago Steel Works, 

124 111. 491; 16N. E. 854; 

7 Am. St. Rep. 381 809 
V. Lindsay, 213 Pa. 591 ; 

63 Atl. 130 631, 646 

McElhenny's Appeal, 61 Pa. 

St. 188 317 

McElrath v. Pittsburg, etc. R. 

R. Co., 68 Pa. St. 37 1484, 

1485 
McElroy v. Minn. Percheron 

Horse Co., 96 Wise. 317; 

71 N. W. 652 852, 880 

McElwee Mfg. Co. v. Trow- 
bridge, 62 Hun 471; 17-N. 

Y. Supp, 3 300 

McEuen v. London Wharves 

Co., 6 Ch. 655 201, 688 

McEwan v. Campbell, 2 Macq. 

H. L. 499 276, 307 

McEwen v. Harriman Land 

Co., 138 Fed. 797; 71 C. C. 

A. 163 1667 

McFadden v. Mays Landing, 

etc. R. R. Co., 49 N. J. Eq. 

176; 22 Atl. 932 1465, 1584, 
1589, 1623 
McFall V. Buckeye, etc. Ass'n, 

122 Cal. 468; 55 Pac. 253; 

68 Am. St. Rep. 47 700, 717 
'V. McKeesport, etc. Co., 

123 Pa. St. 259; 16 Atl. 478 280, 

307 
McFarlan v. Triton Ins. Co., 

4 Denio (N. Y.) 392 915 

McFarlin v. First Nat. Bank, 

68 Fed. 868; 16 C. C. A. 

46 492, 493 

McFell Electric & Tel. Co. v. 

McFell Electric Co., 110 

111. App. 182 377 

McGannon v. Central Bldg. 

Ass'n, 19 W. Va. 726 582 

M'George v. Big Stone Gap 

Imp. Co., 57 Fed. 262 1595 

McGourkey v. Toledo, etc. 

Ry. Co., 146 U. S. 536; 13 

Sup. Ct. 170 1358, 1536, 1538, 
1538, 1538 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



McGraw v. Memphis, etc. R. 

R. Co., 5 Coldw. (Tenn.) 

434 1366, 1515 
, i?e. Ill N. Y. 66; 19 N. 

E. 233; 2 L. R. A. 387 848, 849 
McGregor v. Home Ins. Co., 

33 N. J. Eq. 181 469, 469 

McGrew v. City Produce Ex- 
change, 85 Tenn. 572; 4 S. 

W. 38; 4 Am. St. Rep. 771 261 
McGue V. Rommell (Cal.), 83 

Pac. 1000 781 

McHenry v. New York, etc. 

R. R. Co., 22 Fed. 130 963, 

964, 965, 970 
Mcllhenny v. Binz, 80 Tex. 1 ; 

13 S. W. 655; 26 Am. St. 

Rep. 705 918 

Mcllquham v. Taylor (1895), 

1 Ch. 53 779, 779 

Mcllrath v. Snure, 22 Minn. 

391 1608 

McIIwraith v. Dublin Trunk 

Ry. Co., 7 Ch. 134 200, 200 

Mclntyre v. Ajax Mining 

Co. (Utah), 77 Pac. 613 1342 

V. E. Bement's Sons 

(Mich.), 109 N. W. 45 192, 527 

McKain and Canadian Bir- 
beck, etc. Co., 7 Ont. L. R. 
241 555, 572, 574, 574 

McKay's Case, 2 Ch. D. 1 329 

(1896), 2 Ch. 757 649 

McKee v. Cunningham (Cal.), 

84 Pac. 260 408 

V. Grand Rapids, etc. 

Ry. Co., 41 Mich. 274; 1 

N. W. 873; 50N. W. 469 1542 

V. Home Savings & Trust 

Co., 122 Iowa 731; 98 N. 

W. 609 1040, 1040, 1045 

McKeen v. County of North- 
ampton, 49 Pa. St. 519; 88 
Am. Dec. 515 420 

McKeen's Appeal, 42 Pa. St. 

479 1149 

McKees Rocks', etc. Relief 

Ass'n, 6 Pa. Dist. Rep. 477 96 

McKenney v. Diamond State 
Loan Ass'n, 8 Houst. (Del.) 
557; 18 Atl. 905 589, 593 

McKim V. Glenn, 66 Md. 479; 

8 Atl. 130 620 

V. King, 58 Md. 502; 42 

Am. Rep. 340 1461 

V. Odom, 3 Bland Ch. 

(Md.) 407 3 

McKinley v. Mineral Hill, etc. 

Co. (Wash.), 89 Pac. 495 1374 



McLane v. Placerville, etc. R. 

R. Co., 66 Cal. 606; 6 Pac. 

748 1436, 1495, 1600, 1603, 
1606, 1623, 1640 
McLaran v. Crescent Planing 

Mill Co., 117 Mo. App. 40; 

93 S. W. 819 1116, 1121 

V. Fisken, 28 Graiit 

(Can.) 352 1198, 1204 

McLaughlin v. Bank of Victo- 
ria, 20 Vict. L. R. 433 774, 796 

V. Daily Telegraph News- 
paper, 1 Comm. L. R. 
(Australia) 243 709, 754, 758 
774, 796 

M'Laughlin v. Detroit, etc. 

Ry. Co., 8 Mich. 100 450, 456, 
463, 466, 1113 

McLean v. Lafayette Bank, 3 

McLean 587 772, 865, 868 

V. Medicine Co., 96 

Mich. 479; 56 N. W. 68 695, 

753 
V. Pittsburgh Plate Glass 

Co., 159 Pa.. 112; 28 Atl. 

211 464 

McLean-Bowman Co., 138 

Fed. 181 191 

McLean's Case, 55 L. J. Ch. 

36 1336, 1338 

McLeary v. Dawson, 87 Tex. 

524; 29 S. W. 1044 304 

V. Erie Telegraph, etc. 

Co., 38 N. Y. Misc. 3; 76 

N. Y. Supp. 712 1076 

McLellan v. Detroit File 

Works, 56 Mich. 579; 23 

N. W. 321 297, 298, 822, 1381 

McLennan v. Hopkins, 2 Kans. 

App. 260; 41 Pac. 1061 246, 

251 
McLeod V. Lincoln Medical 

College, 69 Nebr. 550; 98 N. 

W. 672 23, 1083, 1306 

McLouth V. Hunt, 154 N. Y. 

179; 48 N. E. 548; 39 L. 

A. 230 1150, 1445 

McMahon v. Macy, 51 N. Y. 

155 622, 812 
V. North Kent Ironworks 

Co. (1891), 2 Ch. 148 1604 

V. Supreme Tent, 151 

Mo. 522 ; 52 S. W. 384 576, 589 

, Re (1900), 1 Ch. 173 623, 

624, 624 
McMichael v. Brennan, 31 N. 

J. Eq. 496 911, 912, 918 

McMillan v. Le Roi Mining 

Co. (1906), 1 Ch. 331 1038, 1038 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



McMurray v. Moran, 134 U. 
S. 150; 10 Sup. Ct. 427 



1526, 
1526 



V. St. Louis Oil Mfg. Co., 

33 Mo. 377 1371 

McMurrich v. Bond Head Har- 
bor Co., 9 Up. Can. Q. B. 

333 4, 692, 753, 753 

McMurtiy v. Montgomery 

Masonic Temple Co., 86 Ky. 

206; 5 S. W. 570 1324, 1344 

McNab V. McNab & Harlin 

Co., 62 Hun (N. Y.) 18; 

16N. Y. Supp. 448; 133 N. 

Y. 687; 31 N. E. 627 966, 

1299 1300 
McNeely v. Woodruff, 13 N. ' 

J. Law 352 1027, 1065 

McNeil V. Boston Chamber of 

Commerce, 154 Mass. 277 ; 

28 N. E. 245; 13 L. R. A. 

559 1215 
V. Fultz, 38 Can. Super. 

Ct. 198 337 
V. Tenth Nat. Bank, 46 

N. Y. 325; 7 Am. Rep. 

341 694, 723, 808 

McNulta V. Com Belt Bank, 

164 111. 427; 45 N. E. 954; 

56 Am. St. Rep. 203 494, 571, 
852, 854, 858, 1190, 1239 
V. Lochiidge, 141 IT. S. 

327; 12 Sup. Ct. 11 1615, 1615, 
1617 
McRae v. Corbett, 6 Mani- 
toba 426 396 
McRee v. Mexican Gulf Oil, 

etc. Co. (Ga. ) , 56 S. E. 451 1287 
McShane v. Howard Bank, 73 

Md. 135; 20 Atl. 776 1368, 1368 
M'Tighe v. Keystone Coal Co., 

99 Fed. 134; 39 C. C. A. 

447 1453, 1453 

McVicker v. Cone, 21 Oreg. 

353; 28 Pac. 76 148, 148, 278 

McVity V. Albro Co., 90 N. Y. 

App. Div. 109; 86 N. Y. 

Supp. 144; 180N. Y. 554; 

73 N. E. 1126 450, 451, 451 

Maas V. Missouri, etc. Ry. Co., 

83 N. Y. 223 1411 

Macalester's Admr. v. Mary- 
land, 114U. S. 598; 5 Sup. 

Ct. 1065 1515, 1677 

Macauly v. Robinson, 18 La. 

Ann. 619 667 

Macbeth v. Vanfield, 78 Pac. 

693; 45 Oreg. 553; 106 

Am. St. Rep. 670 636, 636 



MacDonald, Sons 
(1894), 1 Ch. 89 



& Co. 
155, 155, 632, 
639, 702 
MacDougall v. Gardiner, 10 

Ch. 606 994, 995 

V. Gardiner, 1 Ch. D. 

13 943, 1060 

V. Jersey, etc. Hotel 

Co., 2 Hem. & Mill. 528 160, 

1108 
Macey Co., Fred, v. Macey, 

143 Mich. 138; 106 N. W. 

722 315, 316, 331 

MacGinness v. Boston, etc. 

Mining Co., 29 Mont. 428; 

75 Pac. 89 965 

Macgregor v. OflBcial Manager 

of the Deal, etc. Ry. Co. 

(1852), 22 L. J. Q. B. 69 828 

Machinists' Nat. Bank v. 

Field, 126 Mass. 345 730, 737 

Mack V. DeBardeleben, etc. 

Co., 90 Ala. 396; 8 So. 150; 

9 L. R. A. 650 941, 942, 1014 
V. Latta, 178 N. Y. 525; 

71 N. E. 97; 67 L. R. A. 

126 182, 183 

Mack's Claim, W. N. (1900) 

114 
Mackay v. Commercial Bank 

of New Brunswick, L. R. 5 

P. C. 394 
V. St. Mary's Church, 15 

R. L 121; 23 Atl. 108; 2 

Am. St. Rep. 881 
Mackenzie, Ex parte, 7 Eq. 240 
Mackey v. Bums, 16 Colo. 

App. 6; 64 Pac. 485 968, 1069, 
1310, 1340 
Mackie v. Clough, 17 Vict. L. 

R. 493 1126, 1358, 1368 

Mackintosh v. Flint, etc. R. 

R. Co., 32 Fed. 350 443 
V. Flint, etc. R. R. Co., 

34 Fed. 582 76, 464, 466, 468, 

1083, 1092, 1099, 1101, 1103, 

1105 

Mackley's Case, 1 Ch. D. 247 204 

Maclagan's Case, 51 L. J. Ch. 

841 1215 

Maclaren v. Stainton, 3 DeG. 

F. &J. 202 1141,1156 

Macon, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Georgia R. R. Co., 63 Ga. 

103 849, 1493, 1583, 1583 
V. Shailer, 141 Fed. 585; 

72 C. C. A. 631 979 
V. Vason, 57 Ga. 314 603, 

634, 661, 1226, 1227 



1180 



1362 



403 
1426 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Macoun v. Erskine, Oxenard, 

etc. Co. (1901), 2 K. B. 493 809 
MacVeagh v. Denver City 

Waterworks Co., 107 Fed. 

17; 46 C. C. A. 118 962 

MacVeigh v. Wild, 96 Fed. 84 

1359 
Madden v. Dimond, 12 Brit. 

Columb. 80 1270 

Maddick v. Marshall, 17 C. B. 

N. s. 829; 16 C. B. n. s. 

387 276, 308 

Madison Ave. Baptist Church 

V. Baptist Church, 5 Rob. 

(N. Y.) 649 1011 

Madison Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 3 

Ind. 277 1381 

Madison, etc. Co. v. Wateiv 

town, etc. Co., 5 Wise. 173 87 
V. Watertown, etc. Co., 

7 Wise. 59 84, 849 

Madison, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Norwich Sav. Soc, 24 Ind. 

457 1433 

Madrid Bank v. Pelly, 7 Eq. 

442 1334 

Maeder v. Buffalo Bill's Wild 

West Co., 132 Fed. 280 890, 

907, 969, 1112 
M. A. Furbush, etc. Co. v. 

Liberty Woolen Mills, 81 

Fed. 425 1473 

Magdalena Steam Nav. Co., 

Johnson 690 832 

Magowan v. Groneweg, 16 S. 

Dak. 29; 91 N. W. 335 1211 

Magruder v. Colston, 44 Md. 

349; 22 Am. Rep. 47 619 

Mahaney v. Walsh, 16 N. Y. 

App. Div. 601; 44 N. Y. 

Supp. 969 687, 694, 714, 791 

Maher, Re, 18 Vict. L. R. 

519 380 

Mahoney v. Butte Hardware 

Co., 27 Mont. 463; 71 Pac. 

674 91 

Mahonyw. East Holjrford Min- , 

ing Co., L. R. 7 H. L. 869 554, 

1224, 1230 

Main v. Mills, 6 Biss. 98 1128, 

1129 
Maine v. Midland Invest- 
ment Co. (Iowa), 109 N. 

W. 801 181, 181, 185 

Maine Mut., etc. Ins. Co. v. 

Neal, 50 Me. 301 1189 

Maine Products Co. ■». Alex- 
ander, lis N. Y. App. Div. 

475 962, 1064, 1065 



Majors v. Taussig, 20 Colo. 

44; 36 Pac. 816 984, 985 

Malam v. Kitchens (1894), 3 

Ch. 578 498, 502, 1140, 1147 

Malleson v. National Ins. 

Corp. (1894), 1 Ch. 200 586 

Mallett V. Simpson, 94 N. Car. 

37; 56 Am. Rep. 594 68, 848 

Mallory v. Hanaur Oil Works, 

86 Tenn. 598; 8 S. W. 396 79, 
854, 864 
V. Mallory Wheeler Co., 

61 Conn. 131; 23 Atl. 708 

1311, 1321, 1322 

V. Maryland Glass Co., 

131 Fed. Ill 1511 

V. West Shore, etc. R. R. 

Co., 36 N. Y. Super. Ct. 174 1467 

Mallory's Case, 3 Ont. L. Rep. 

562 166 

Maltby v. Northwestern Va. 
R. R. Co., 16 Md. 422; 10 
Cyc. 496 603 

Man V. Boykin (S. Car.), 60 S. 

E. 17 492, 695, 782 

Manahan v. Vamum, 11 Gray 

405 ■ 304 

Manchester Brewery Co. v. 
North Cheshire & Man- 
chester Brewery Co. (1898), 
1 Ch. 639 373 

Manchester Locomotive 
Works V. Truesdale, 44 
Minn. 116; 46 N. W. 301; 
9 L. R. A. 140 1667 

Manchester St. Ry. Co. v. 
Williams, 71 N. H. 312; 

62 Atl. 461 156 
Manchester, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Concord R. R., 66 N. H. 

100; 20 Atl. 383; 49 Am. 

St. Rep. 682; 9 L. R. A. 

689 856 

Mandel v. Fidelity Trust 

Co., 107 S. W. 776 (Ky.) 1375 
V. Swan Land, etc. Co., 

154111. 177; 40N. E. 462; 

45Am. St. Rep. 124; 27 L. 

R. A. 313 608, 667 

Mandelbaum v. North Amer- 
ican Mining Co., 4 Mich. 465 734 
Manderson v. Commercial 

Bank, 28 Pa. St. 379 951 

Mandeville v. Courtright, 142 

Fed. 97; 73 C. C. A. 321 252 

Manhattan Beach Co. v. 

Hamed, 27 Fed. 484 737 

Manhattan Brass Co. v. Web- 
ster, 37 Mo. App. 146 1192 



cxxxi 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Manhattan Hardware Co. v. 
Phalen, 128 Pa. St. 110; 
18 Atl. 428 1221 

V. Roland, 128 Pa. St. 

119; 18 Atl. 429 919, 1221 

Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. 

Forty-second St., etc. R. 

R. Co., 139 N. Y. 146; 34 

N. E. 776 740 

Manhattan Sav. Inst. v. Nat. 

Exchange Bank, 42 N. Y. 

App. Div. 147 1432 

Manhattan Trust Co. v. 

Seattle Coal Co., 16 Wash. 

499; 48 Pac. 333, 737 1396, 

1496, 1533, 1560 

V. Seattle Coal & Iron 

Co., 19 Wash. 493; 53 

Pac. 951 1560 
V. Sioux City Cable Ry. 

Co., 76 Fed. 658 1539, 1565, 
1570 
V. Sioux City, etc. R. R. 

Co., 81 Fed. 50 1633 
V. Sioux City, etc. Ry. 

Co., 102 Fed. 710 1569 

Manhattan Web Co. v. Aquid- 

neck Nat. Bank, 133 Fed. 

76 1328 

Manice v. Hudson River R. R. 
. Co., 3 Duer (N. Y.) 426 456 

Manisty's Case, 17 Sol. J. 

745 664 

Manley v. Mayer, 68 Kans. 

377; 75 Pac. 550 1323 

Mann v. Anderson, 106 Ga. 

818; 32 S. E. 870 1114, 1137 

V. Cooke, 20 Conn. 178 191 

V. Edinburgh Northern 

Tramways Co. (1893), A. C. 

69 295, 332, 1280 
V. Pentz, 2 Sandf. Ch. 

(N. Y.) 257 404, 406, 520 

Mann's Case, 3 Ch. 459 n 708 

Manners v. St. Davids Gold, 

etc. Co. (1904), 2 Ch. 593 72, 

654 
Manning v. Berdan, 135 Fed. 

159 182, 890 
V. Norfolk Southern R. 

Co., 29 Fed. 838 1449, 1528 
V. Quicksilver Mining 

Co., 24 Hun (N. Y.) 360 



Manns v. Brookville Nat. 

Bank, 73 Ind. 243 
Manton v. Ray, 18 R. I. 672; 

29 Atl. 998; 49 Am. St. 

Rep. 811 



1132, 
1136 

803 



786 



Manufacturers', etc. Bank v. 

Big Muddy Iron Co., 97 

Mo. 38; 10 S. W. 865 969, 1272 
Manufacturers' Exhibition 

Bldg. Co. V. Landay, 219 

111. 168; 76 N. E. 146 559, 560, 
585, 993, 1200 
Manufacturers' Land, etc. Co. 

V. Cleary, 89 S. W. 248 1076 

Manufacturers' Paper Co. v. 

Allen Higgins Co., 154 Fed. 

906 444, 444, 492 

Manufacturing Co. v. Bradley, 

105 U. S. 175 1299, 1301, 1317 
Manville v. Belden Mining Co., 

17 Fed. 425 841 
Mapes V. Scott, 94 ni. 379 833, 833 
Mapleton Bank v. Standrod, 

8 Idaho 740; 71 Pac. 119; 
67 L. R. A. 656 715 

Marble Co. v. Harvey, 92 
Tenn. 115; 20 S. W. 427; 

18 L. R. A. 252; 36 Am. 

St. Rep. 71 76, 844, 851 

Marbuiy v. Ehlen, 72 Md. 

206; 19 Atl. 648; 20 Am. 

St. Rep. 467 792, 797, 798, 
798, 799 
V. Kentucky Union 

Land Co., 62 Fed. 335; 10 

C. C. A. 393 92, 876, 876, 1433 
March v. Eastern R. R. Co., 

43 N. H. 515 1134, 1134, 1275 
V. Fairmount Creamery 

Co., 32 Pa. Super. Ct. 517 582, 

657 

i). Romare, 114 Fed. 200 1673, 

1675 
Marchand v. Loan & Pledge 

Ass'n, 26 La. Ann. 389 293 

Mare v. Anglo-Indian S. S. 

Co., ,3 Times L. R. 142 191 

Marine Bank v. Biays, 4 H. & 

J. (Md.) 338 812 
V. Clements, 3 Bosw. 

(N. Y.) 600 1372 

V. Ogden, 29 Dl. 248 79, 80 

Marine Construction, etc. Cb., 

130 Fed. 446; 64 C. C. A. 

648 43 
, 144 Fed. 649; 75 C. C. 

A. 451 1505, 1553 

Marine Ins. Co. v. Young, 1 

Cranch 332 402 

Marine Mansions Co., 4 Eq. 

601 1188, 1513, 1514, 1599 

Marine Products Co. v. Alex- 
ander, 115 N. Y. App. Div. 

475 1064 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



1186 



921 



Marino's Case, 2 Ch. 596 557, 707, 

707 
Marion Savings Bank v. 

Dunkin, 54 Ala. 471 237 

Marion Trust Co. v. Bennett 

(Ind.), 82 N. E. 782 484, 484 
V. Blish (Ind.), 79 N. E. 

415 180 
V. Crescent Loan, etc. 

Co., 27 Ind. App. 451; 61 

N. E. 688 862 

Market Street Ry. v. Hellman, 

109 Cal. 571; 42 Pac. 225 57, 

1011, 1017, 1020, 1020, 
1024, 1026, 1032, 1040, 1044 
Markham v. Jandon, 41 N. Y. 

235 808, 809, 811 

Markham & Darter's Case 

(1899), 2 Ch. 480 640, 640 

Mariborough Ass'n v. Peters, 

179 Mass. 61; 60 N. e. 

396 
Marlborough Branch R. R. 

Co. V. Arnold, 9 Gray 

(Mass.) 159; 69 Am. Dec. 

279 
Marlborough Mfg. Co. v. 

Smith, 2 Conn. 579 699, 700, 

1189 
Maroney v. Cole, 103 N. Y. 

Supp. 560; 52 N. Y. Misc. 

451 1379 

Marquand v. Federal Steel 

Co., 95 Fed. 725 114, 449, 1115 
Marr v. Marr (N. J.), 66 Atl. 

182 1323, 1344 

Marriage, Neave, etc. Co. 

(1896), 2 Ch. 663 1542 

Marseilles Extension Ry. Co., 

7 Ch. 161 1234 

Marsh v. Mathias, 19 Utah 

350; 56 Pac. 1074 557, 1032 

Marshall v. Columbia Street 

Ry. Co., 73 S. Car. 241; 53 

S. E. 417 _ 1374 
V. Corporation of 

Queensborough, 1 Sim. & 

Stu.520 395 
V. Industrial Federation, 

14 N. Y. Ann. Cas. 100; 
' 84 N. Y. Supp. 866 1215, 1319 
i>. Keach (111.), 81 N. E. 

29 784 
V. Rogers, etc. Co., 14 

Times L. R. 217 1519 
V. Savings Bank, 85 Va. 

676; 8 S. E. 586; 17 Am. 

St. Rep. 84; 2 L. R. A. 

534 1267, 1278 



Marshall v. South Staffordshire 

Tramways Co. (1895), 2 Ch. 

36 1590, 1606 

Marshall Nat. Bank v. O'Neal, 

11 Tex. Civ. App. 640; 34 

S. W. 344 867 

Marson v. Deither, 49 Minn. 

423; 52 N. W. 38 154, 198 

Marsters v. Umpqua Valley 

Oil Co. (Oreg.), 90 Pac. 151 1315 
Marten v. Burns Wine Co., 99 

Cal. 355; 33 Pac. 1107 181, 

181, 182 
Martin v. Deetz, 102 Cal. 55; 

36 Pac. 368; 41 Am. St. 

Rep. 151 127, 148, 247 
V. Eagle Development 

Co., 41 Oreg. 448; 69 Pac. 

216 
V. Fewell, 79 Mo. 401 



1012 
251, 
306 



393 



890 



857 



V. Martin & Brown Co., 

27 App. D. C. 59 
V. Nashville Bldg. Ass'n, 

2 Coldw. (Tenn.) 418 553, 563 
■ V. Ne^ Trinidad Lake 

Asphalt Co., 87 N. Y. App. 

Div. 472 ; 84 N. Y. Supp. 71 1 
V. Niagara Falls Paper 

Co., 122 N. Y. 165; 25 

N. E. 303 
V. Remington-Martin 

Co., 95 N. Y. App. Div. 18; 

88 N. Y. Supp. 573 282, 495 
V. Santa Cruz, etc. Co., 

4 Ariz. 171 ; 36 Pac. 36 1310, 

1310, 1322 

V. Zellerbach, 38 Cal. 

300; 99 Am. Dec. 365 
Martin & Merryweather v. 

Mobile, etc. R. R. Co., 7 

Bush (Ky.) 116 
Martin, Re, 62 Hun (N. Y.) 

557 ; 17 N. Y. Supp. 133 904, 907 
Martindale v. Wilson-Cass Co., 

134 Pa. St. 348; 19 Atl. 

680; 19 Am. St. Rep. 706 



416 



1527 



Martino v. Commerce Fire Ins. 

Co., 47 N. Y. Super. Ct. Rep. 

520 
Marvin v. Anderson, 111 

Wise. 387; 87 N. W. 226 



1237, 
1238 



588 

517, 
1221 



Marx V. Raley & Co. (Cal.), 

92 Pac. 519 232 

Maryland Agricultural Col- 
lege V. Baltimore, etc. R. R. 
Co., 43 Md. 434 670, 670 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



808 



Maryland Fire Ins. Co. v. 

Dalrymple, 25 Md. 242; 89 

Am. Dec. 779 
Maryland Hospital v. Fore- 
man, 29 Md. 524 849, 856 
Maryland Steel Co. v. Gettys- 
burg Electric Ry. Co., 99 

Fed. 150 1566 

Maryland Trust Co. v. Nat. 

Mechanics Bank, 102 Md. 

608; 63 Atl. 70 192, 516, 866, 
1214 
Maryland Tube Works v. 

West End Imp. Co., 87 Md. 

207; 39 Atl. 620; 39 L. R. 

A. 810 147, 227, 232, 241, 247 
Maryland, etc. Iron Co. v. 

Wingert, 8 Gill. (Md.) 170 
Marysville, etc. Co. v. Johnson, 

93 Cal. 538; 29 Pac. 126; 

27 Am. St. Rep. 215 
Marzett's Case, 28 W. R. 

541 
Marzetti's Case, 42 L. T. 206 
Maskelyne British Tjrpewriter 

(1898), 1 Gh. 133 . 
Mason v. Davol Mills, 132 

Mass. 76 
V. Equitable League, 77 

Md. 483; 27 Atl. 171; 39 

Am. St. Rep. 433 

V. Harris, 11 Ch. D. 97 

940, 996 
V. Henry, 152 N. Y. 529; 

46 N. E. 837 1259, 1285, 1288 
V. Moore, 73 Oh. St. 275; 

76 N. E. 932 1276, 1278, 1355 
V. Motor Traction Co. 

(1905), 1 Ch. 419 78, 1062 
V. York & Cumberland 

R. R. Co., 52 Me. 82 1413, 1583, 
1586, 1625 
Masonic Temple Ass'n v. 

Channell, 43 Minn. 353, 

354; 45 N. W. 716 161, 608 

Masonic, etc. Ass'n v. Sever- 

son, 71 Conn. 719; 43 Atl. 

192 557, 912 

Massachusetts Const. Co. v. 

Kidd, 142 Fed. 285 933, 1164 
Massachusetts Iron Co. v.. 

Hooper, 7 Gush. (Mass.) 

183 154, 157, 768 

Massey & Giffin's Case 

(1907), 1 Gh. 582 618, 621, 709 
Massey Mfg. Co., 13 Ont. 

App. 446 486 

Mast Buggy Co. v. Litchfield 

Imp. Co., 55 111. App. 98 1210 



393 



208 

1265 
1280 

1581 

508 



958 
935, 



Master & Company of Frame- 
workers V. Green, 1 Ld. 
Raym'd 113 569, 582 

Master, etc. of Feltmakers, 1 

B. & P. 98 583, 596 
Master, etc. of Gunmakers v. 

Fell, Willes 384 570 

Masury v. Arkansas Nat. 
Bank, 93 Fed. 603; 35 

C. C. A. 476 715 
Mather Humane, etc. Co. v. 

Anderson, 76 Fed. 164; 22 

C. C. A. 109 1568, 1569 

Mathias v. White Sulphur 

Springs Ass'n, 19 Mont. 

359; 48 Pac. 624 1371 

Mathiason Mfg. Co., P. B. 

(Mo.), 99 S. W. 502 1006, 1013, 
1015, 1016, 1037, 1039, 
1040, 1046, 1060 
Mathls V. Morgan, 72 Ga. 517; 

53 Am. Rep. 847 873 
V. Pridham, 1 Tex. Civ. 

App. 58; 20 S. W. 1015 631 

Matteson v. Dent, 176 U. S. 

521; 20 Sup. Ct. 419 788, 791 
Matthews v. Associated Press, 

136 N. Y. 333; 32 N. E. 

981; 32 Am. St. Rep. 741 570, 

580 
V. Columbia Nat. Bank, 

79 Fed. 558 995, 1006 
V. Great Northern Ry. 

Co., 28 L. J. Ch. 375 459, 467 
V. Hoagland, 48 N. J. 

Eq. 455; 21 Atl. 1054 695, 712 
V. Massachusetts Nat. 

Bank, 16 Fed. Cas. 1113 784 

Mattingly v. Roach, 84 Cal. 

207 420, 423 

Mattox V. State, 115 Ga. 212; 

41 S. E. 709 383 

Maude, Ex parte, 6 Ch. 51 435, 

436 
Maugham v. Sharpe, 17 C. B. 

N. s. 443 254 

Maund v. Monmouthshire 

Canal Co., 4 Man. & Gr. 

452 869 

Maunsell v. Midland, etc. Ry. 

Co., 1 Hem. & Miller 130 88 

Maury v. Chesapeake, etc. R. 

R. Co., 27 Gratt. (Va.) 698 1492, 
1493 
Mausert v. Christian Feigen- 

span (N. J.), 63 Atl. 610 1371 
Mauthey v. Wyoming, etc. 

Ins. Co., 76 N. Y. App. Div. 

579; 78 N. Y. aupp. 596 890 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Maux Perry, etc. Co. v. Brane- 
gan, 40 Ind. 361 1237, 1319 

Mawhinney v. Converse, 102 

N. Y. Supp. 279 1661, 1661 

Maxwell v. Akin, 89 Fed. 178 47, 
235, 838 

V. Dulwich College, 7 

Sim. 222 m 

V. Nat. Bank of Green- 
ville, 70 S. Car. 532; 50 S. 
E. 195 

V. Port Tennant Co., 24 

Beav. 495 

V. Wilmington Dental 

Mfg. Co., 77 Fed. 938 

1520, 1520 

Maxwell Cattle Co. v. Hender- 
son, 12 Colo. App. 425; 66 
Pac. 67 

Maxwell's Case, 20 Eq. 585 

May V. Cleland, 117 Mich. 45; 
75 N. W. 129; 44 L. R. A. 
163 

V. Genessee County Sav- 
ings Bank, 120 Mich 330; 
79 N. W. 630 623, 691, 812 

Mayer v. Denver, etc. R. Co., 
38 Fed. 197 

Maynard v. Consolidated 
Kent Collieries Corp. 
(1903), 2 K. B. 121 

V. Eaton, 9 Ch. 414 

Maynard's Case, 9 Ch. 60 

206, 206 

Maynards, Be (1898), 1 Ch. 

515 640, 640, 641, 642 

Mayo V. Knowlton, 134 N. Y. 
250; 31 N. E. 985 

Mayor of Lynn v. Denton, 1 
T. R. 89 

Mayor, etc. of Baltimore v. B. 
& O. R. R. Co., 21 Md. 50 

V. Ketchum, 57 Md. 23 

V. Norman, 4 Md. 352 

V. United Rys., etc. Co. 

(Md.), 69 Atl. 436 

Mayor, etc. of Boonton v. 
Boonton Water Co. (N. J.), 
61 Atl. 390 

Mayor, etc. of Jersey City v. 
North Jersey, etc. Ry. Co. 
(N. J.), 63 Atl. 906 

Mayor, etc. of Merchants of 

Staple V. Bank of England, 

21 Q. B. D. 160 401, 401, 407, 

728, 1010 

Mayor, etc. of Newcastle- 
upon-Tyne V. Atty.-Gen., 
12 CI. & Fin. 402 121 



395 



811 

313 

1507, 



1669 
651 



716 



962 



744 
783 
205, 



418 

889 

91 
756 
756 

1485 



1632 



107 



Mayor, etc. of Norwich v. 
Norfolk Ry. Co., 4 E. & B. 
397 403, 403, 861 

Mayor, etc. of Salford v. 

Lever (1891), 1 Q. B. 168 320 
Mayor, etc. of Southampton 

V. Graves, 8 T. R. 590 889 

Mead v. Keeler, 24 Barb. 

(N. Y.) 20 _ 63, 66, 104 

Means v. Cincinnati, etc. R. 

R. Co., 2 Disney (Oh.) 

465 1413 

Meara's Admr. v. Holbrook, 

20 Oh. St. 137; 5 Am. 

Rep. 633 1615, 1617 
Mears v. Moulton, 30 Md. 142 304 
V. Western Canada Pulp. 

Co. (1905), 2 Ch. 353 160, 644 
Mechanics Bank v, Earp, 4 

Rawle (Pa.) 384 767, 768, 776 
V. Merchants Bank, 45 

Mo. 513; 100 Am. Dec. 388 770 
V. N. Y., etc. R. R. Co., 

13 N. Y. 599 424, 731, 740 

V. Seton, 1 Pet. 299 751, 751, 

774, 787, 1235 

, Re, 2 Barb. (N. Y. ) 446 1493 

Mechanics' Banking Ass'n v. 

Mariposa Co., 3 Rob. (N. Y.) 

395 700, 705 
V. New York, etc. Lead 

Co., 35 N. Y. 505 862 

Mechanics Bldg., etc. Ass'n v. 

Conover, 14 N. J. Eq. 219 803 
V. King, 83 Cal. 440; 23 

Pac. 376 776 

Mechanics, etc. Ass'n v. 

Doisey, 15 S. Car. 462 563 

Mechanics, etc. Bank v. 

Smith, 19 Johns. (N.Y.) 115 594 
-B. Stetheimer, 101 N. Y. 

Supp. 513; 116N. Y. App. 

Div. 198 1355 

M. E. Church v. Picketts, 19 

N. Y. 482 229 

Meckles v. Rochester City 

Bank, 11 Paige (N. Y.) 118; 

42 Am. Dec. 103 1079 

Medical College of Phila- 
delphia, 3 Whart. (Pa.) 445 113 
Medill V. Collier, 15 Oh. St. 

599 252 

Medway Cotton Manufactory 

V. Adams, 10 Mass. 360 380 

Meeker v. Winthrop Iron Co., 

17 Fed. 48 983, 1083, 1312 

Meen v. Pioneer Pasteurizing 

Co., 90 Minn. 501; 97N.W. 

140 43 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



MeUy Co. v. London, etc. Fire 
Ins. Co., 148 Fed. 683; 79 
C. C. A. 454 

Melbourne Banking Corp. v. 
Brougham, 4 A. C. 156 

Melbourne Brewery & Dis- 
tillery (1901), 1 Ch. 453 

Melbourne Locomotive, etc. 
Works, 21 Vict. L. R. 442 



875 

395 

1468, 
1470 

524, 
1190 
Melendy v. Barbour, 78 Va. 

544 1615, 1616 

Melhado v. Hamilton, 28 

L. T. N. s. 578; 29 L. T. 

N. s. 364 442 
V. Porto AUegre Ry. Co., 

9 C. P. 503 293, 294 

Meloy V. Central Nat. Bank, 7 

Mack. (D. C.) 69 1372 

Melvin d. Lamar Ins. Co., 80 

111. 446; 22 Am. Rep. 199 191 
Memphis, etc. Plank Road Co. 

V. Rives, 21 Ark. 302 230 

Memphis, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Dow, 120 U.S. 287; 7 Sup. 

Ct. 482 1400, 1401, 1402, 1490, 
1491 
V. Glover, 78 Miss. 467; 

29 So. 89 1618 
V. Grayson, 88 Ala. 572 ; 

7 So. 122; 16 Am. St. Rep. 

69 851, 952, 966, 980 

V. Hoechner, 67 Fed. 

456; 14 C. C. A. 469 1609 

V. Railroad Commis- 
sioners, 112 U. S. 609; 5 

Sup. a. 299 1521, 1522, 1522, 
1522 
D.Woods, 88 Ala. 630; 7 

So. 108; 16 Am. St. Rep. 

81; 7 L. R. A. 605 941,955, 
1026, 1026, 1063 
V. Stringfellow, 44 Ark. 

322; 51 Am. Rep. 598 1609 

Menasha v. Milwaukee, etc. 

R. R. Co., 52 Wise. 414; 9 

N. W. 396 1632 

Mendel v. Boyd, 3 Nebr. (Un- 
official) 473; 91N.W.860 1328 
Mendenhall v. West Chester, 

etc. R. R. Co., 36 Pa. St. 

145 n, 150 n. 1584 

Menier v. Hooper's Tel. 

Works, 9 Ch. 350 935 

Mercantile Investment, etc. 

Co. V. International Co. 

(1893), 1 Ch. 484 1672, 1673, 

1673, 1674, 1674, 1674 



Mercantile Investment, etc. 

Co. V. River Plate Trust Co. 

(1894), 1 Ch. 578 1674 

Mercantile Library Hall Co. 

V. Pittsburg Library Ass'n, 

173Pa. St. 30; 33Atl. 744 1188, 
1200, 1201, 1305 
Mercantile Nat. Bank v. 

Parsons, 54 Minn. 56; 55 N. 

W. 825 ; 40 Am. St. Rep. 299 300 
Mercantile Statement Co. v. 

Kneal, 51 Minn. 263; 53 

N. W. 632 133, 134 

Mercantile Trust Co. v. Balti- 
more, etc. R. R. Co., 79 

Fed. 389 1566, 1608 

■ V. Baltimore, etc. R. R. 

Co., 82 Fed. 360 . 449, 450, 450 
V. Baltimore, etc. R. R. 

Co., 89 Fed. 606 1466 
V. Baltinfore, etc. R. R. 

Co., 94 Fed. 722 1529, 1585 
V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 

61 Fed. 372 1593 
V. Kanawha, etc. Ry. Co., 

58 Fed. 6; 7 C. C. A. 3 1634, 

1635, 1646, 1653, 1653 
— ' — V. Kings County, etc. Ry. 

Co., 40 N. Y. App. Div. 141 ; 

57 N. Y. Supp. 892 1561 
V. Lamoille Valley R. R. 

Co., 16 Blatchf. 324 1587 

V. Missouri, etc. Ry. 

Co., 36 Fed. 221 1593,1593,1603 
V. Missouri, etc. Ry. Co., 

41 Fed. 8 1567, 1607, 1647 
V. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. 

Co., 29 Fed. 732 1535, 1543 
V. Portland, etc. R. R. 

Co., 10 Fed. 604 1586 
' V. Southern Iron Car 

Line, 113 Ala. 543; 21 So. 

373 1643, 1644 
V. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co., 

71 Fed. 601 1611 
V. Texas, etc. Ry. Co., 51 

Fed. 529 1554 

V. United States Ship- 
building Co., 130 Fed. 725 1585 

Mercantile Trust, etc. Co. v. 
Low, 87 Fed. 241; 30- 
C. C. A. 621 1666 

Mercer v. Buchanan, 132 Fed. 

501 1138, 1151, 1151, 1154 

Mercer County v. Hackett, 1 
Wall. 83 1403, 1423, 1424 

Mercer County Court v. 
Springfield, etc. Turnpike 
Co., 10 Bush. (Ky.) 254 429 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Merchant Banking Co. of 
London v. Merchants Joint- 
Stock Bank, 9 Ch. D. 560 373 

Merchants' Ad.-Sign Co. v. 
Sterling, 124 Cal. 429; 57 
Pac. 468; 71 Am. St. Rep. 
94; 46 L. R. A. 142 421 

Merchants' Bank v. Living- 
ston, 74 N. Y. 223 723 

V. Moore, 106 Ala. 646; 

17 So. 705 1560 

V. Shouse, 102 Pa. St. 

488 768, 773 

V. State Bank, 10 Wall. 

604 870 

Merchants Bldg., etc. Co. v. 
Chicago Exchange Bldg. 
Co., 106 111. App. 17; 210 
111. 26; 71 N. E. 22; 102 
Am. St. Rep. 145 81 

Merchants' Nat. Bank v. 
Citizens Gas Light Co., 159 
Mass. 505; 34 N. E. 1083; 
38 Am. St. Rep. 453 1380 

V. Glendon Co., 120 

Mass. 97 221, 227 

V. Goddin, 76 Va. 503 1374, 

1525 

V. Hanson, 33 Minn. 40; 

53 Am. Rep. 5 833, 844 

V. Minnesota Thresher 

Mfg. Co., Receivership of, 

90 Minn. 144 ; 95 N. W. 767 35, 
39,43 
■ V. Nichols & Shepard Co., 

223 111.41; 79N. E. 38; 7 

L. R. A. N. s. 752 1362 
V. Wehrmann, 202 U. S. 

295; 26 Sup. Ct. 613 74, 80, 
834, 835, 839 
Merchants', etc. Co. v. Chicago 

Rys. Co., 158 Fed. 923 1649 

Merchants', etc. Line v. 

Waganer, 71 Ala. 581 250 

Meredith v. New Jersey Zinc 

& Iron Co., 55 N. J. Eg. 211 ; 

37 Atl. 539; 56 N. J. Eq. 

454; 41 Atl. 1116 499, 500, 
501, 507 
V. New Jersey Zinc, etc. 

Co., 59 N. J. Eq. 257; 44 

Atl. 55 134, 138 

Meredith Village Savings 

Bank v. Marshall, 68 N. H. 

417; 44 Atf. 526 806 

Merrick v. Consumers Heat, 

etc. Co., Ill 111. App. 153, 210 
V. Peru Coal Co., 61 111. 

472 1247 



Merrick v. Reynolds Engine, 

etc. Co., 101 Mass. 381 123, 219, 

247 
V. Trustees, etc. of Bank 

of the Metropolis, 8 Gill 

(Md.) 59 
Merrill v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 

24 Hun (N. Y.) 297 
V. Hurley, 6 S. Dak. 592; 

62 N. W. 958; 55 Am. St. 

Rep. 859 
V. Montgomery, 25 Mich. 

73 
V. Suffa (Colo.), 93 Pac. 

1099 
Merrimac Mining Co. v. 

Bagley, 14 Mich. 501 667, 668 
Merryweather v. Nixan, 8 

T. R. 186 
Mersey Ry. Co., 64 L. J. Ch. 

623 

(1895), 2 Ch. 287 

Messchaert v. Kennedy, 4 

McCrary 133; 13 Fed. 242 



381 
1487 



1381 
409 



906 



1349 

1645 
1531 



1588, 
1589, 1636 
Messer v. Grand Lodge 

United Workmen, 180 

Mass. 321; 62 N. E. 252 583 

Metcalf V. American School 

Furniture Co., 108 Fed. 909 979 
V. American School 

Furniture Co., 122 Fed. 115 

72, 951, 1303, 1312 
Methodist Episcopal Soc. v. 

Lake, 51 Vt. 353 230 

Meton & Sons, Thomas F., v. 

Isham Wagon Co., 4 N. Y. 

Supp. 215 1364 

Metropole Bath Co. v. Garden 

CityFanCo.,50Ill.App.681 591 
Metropolitan Aoc. Ass'n v. 

Froiland, 161 111. 30; 43 

N. E. 766; 52Am. St. Rep. 

359 589 
V. Windover, 137 111. 417; 

27 N. E. 538 662 

Metropolitan Bank v. Heiron, 

5 Ch. D. 319 . 1346 

Metropolitan Coal, etc. Ass'n 

V. Scrimgeour (1895), 2 

Q. B. 604 354 

Metropolitan Lead & Zinc Co. 

V. Webster, 193 Mo. 351 ; 92 

S. W. 79 204 

Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. 

Anderson, 79 Md. 375; 29 

Atl. 606 403, 406 
V. Dempsey, 72 Md. 288; 

19 Atl. 642 . 232 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Metropolitan Rubber Co. v. 
Place, 147 Fed. 90; 77 
C. C. A. 262 1238 

Metropolitan Sav. Bank v. 
Mayor, etc. of Baltimore, 

63 Md. 6 736 
Metropolitan Stock Exch. v. 

Lyndonville Nat. Bank, 76 

Vt. 303; 57 Atl. 101 851, 870 
Metropolitan Tel. Co. v. 

Domestic Tel. Co., 44 N. J. 

Eq. 568; 14 Atl. 907 1215,1305 
Metropolitan Trust Co. v. 

Columbus, etc. R. R. Co., 

93 Fed. 702 1401 
V. Dolgeville Electric Co., 

35 N. Y. Misc. 467; 71 N. Y. 

Supp. 1055 1502, 1505 
V. Tonawanda, etc. R. R. 

Co., 103N. Y.245; 8N. E. 

488 1559, 1640, 1643, 1649 

Metropolitan, etc. Co. v. 

Hawkins, 4 H. &. N. 146 889 

Metropolitan, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Manhattan, etc. R. R. Co., 

11 Daly (N. Y.) 373 1186, 1188, 
1298, 1305, 1305 
Metropolitan, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Kneeland, 120 N. Y. 134; 

24 N. E. 381; 17 Am. St. 

Rep. 619; 8 L. R. A. 253 1263, 
1280 
Metz V. Buffalo, etc. Co., 58 

N. Y. 61; 17 Am. Rep. 201 

1522, 1632 
Mexican, etc. Co., 4 De G. & J. 

544 7 

Meyer v. Blair, 109 N. Y. 600; 

17 -N. E. 228; 4 Am. St. 

Rep. 500 778 
V. Bristol Hotel Co., 163 

Mo. 59; 63 S. W. 96 984, 985 

V. Hornby, 101 U. S. 728 1543 

V. Johnston, 53 Ala. 237; 

64 Ala. 603 1204, 1204, 1509, 

1522, 1522, 1536, 1566, 1606, 

1629, 1646, 1647, 1649, 1649, 

1649, 1655 

V. Page, 112 N. Y. App. 

Div. 625 960 

V. Richards, 163 U. S. 

385; 16 Sup. Ct. 1148 1440 

V. Ruby Trust, etc. Co., 

192 Mo. 162; 90 S. "W. 821 



V. Utah, etc. Ry. Co., 3 

Utah 280; 3 Pao. 393 

Meyers v. New York, etc. 
R. R. Co., 43 Me. 232 



628, 
635 

1637 

1451 



902 



1069 



1251 
213 



Meysenberg v. People, 88 111. 

App. 328 
M. Groh's Sons v. Groh, 80 

N. Y. App. Div. 85; 80 

N. Y. Supp. 438 
Michel V. Betz, 108 N. Y. App. 

Div. 241; 95 N. Y. Supp. 

844 1323, 1324 

Michigan Trust Co. v. Lansing 

Lumber Co., 103 Mich. 392; 

61 N. W. 668 1581 
V. State Bank, 111 Mich. 

306; 69 N. W. 645 767, 774, 

775 
Mickey v. Stratton, 5 Sawy. 

475 • 396, 407 

Mickles v. Rochester City 

Bank, 11 Paige (N, Y.) 118; 

42 Am. Dec. 103 
Middlecoft Hotel Co. v. Yeo- 

mans, 89 111. App. 170 
Middleton v. Arastraville Min- 
ing Co., 146 Cal. 219; 79 

Pac. 889 147, 152, 918, 1080 

Middletown v. Boston, etc. 

R. R. Co., 53 Conn. 351; 5 

Atl. 706 ■ 475, 1107 

Midland Counties Dist. Bank 

V. Attwood (1905) 1 Ch. 357 1242 
Midland Electric, etc. Co., 37 

W. R. 471 627, 628 

Midland Railway Co. v. At- 
torney-General (1902), A. C. 

171 
Midland Steel Co. v. Citizens 

Nat. Bank, 34 Ind. App. 

107; 72N. E. 290 
Midland, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Gordon, 16 M. &. W. 804 

201, 214, 610 
Migotti's Case, 4 Eq. 238 206, 207 
Milbank v. New York, etc. 

R. R. Co., 64 How. Pr. 

(N. Y.) 20 76, 846, 846, 1026 

Milbome v. Royal Benefit 

Soc, 14 N. Y. App. Div. 

406; 43 N. Y. Supp. 1026 852 
Milburn v. Wilson, 31 Can. 

Sup. Ct. 481 310, 311 

Miles V. Bough, 3 G. & D. 119 603, 

604, 915 

V. Roberts, 76 Fed. 919 1411, 

1411 
V. Vivian, 79 Fed. 848 ; 25 

C. C. A. 208 ' 1487 

Miles' Case, 4 De G. J. & S. 

471 169, 169 

Mill Dam Foundry v. Howey, 

21 Pick. (Mass.) 417 397, 406 



481 



379 
200, 



TABLE OF CASKS 
[The references are to pages] 



591 



1371 
183 



975 



1222 



1659 
557 



Milledgeville Water Co. ■;;. 

Edwards, 121 Ga. 555; 49 

S. E. 621 
Milleni). Guerrard, 67 Ga. 284; 

44 Am. Rep. 720 1143, 1145 

'Miller v. Bank of British 

Columbia, 2 Oreg. 291 

V. Barber, 66 N. Y. 558 

V. Barlow, 78 N. Y. App. 

Div. 331; 79 N. Y. Supp. 

964 
V. Bradish, 69 Iowa 278; 

28 N. W. 594 425, 1098, 1109, 

1117 

V. Chance, 3 Edw. Ch. 

(N. Y.) 399 

». Dodge, 28 N. Y. 

Misc. 640; 59 N. Y. Supp. 
1070 

V. Eschbach, 43 Md. 1 

V. Ewer, 27 Me. 509; 46 

Am. Dec. 619 161, 1008, 1009 
V. Farmers' Milling, etc. 

Co. (Nebr.), 110 N. W. . 

995 571, 571, 679 

V. Flemingsburg, etc. 

Turnpike Co., 22 Ky. Law 
Rep. 1039; 59 S. W. 512 

V. Grand Lodge, 72 Mo. 

App. 499 
V. Higginbotham (Ky.), 

93 S. W. 655 
•». Houston City, etc. Ry. 

Co., 55 Fed. 366; 5 C. C. A. 

134 753, 807 
V. Houston City Ry. Co., 

69 Fed. 63; 16 C. C. A. 128 735 
V. Illinois Central R. R. 

Co., 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 312 500, 
501, 509 

V. Insurance Co., 92 

Tenn. 167; 21S. W. 39; 20 

L. R. A. 765 142, 851, 855 
V. Kitchen (Nebr.), 103 

N. W. 297 957 
V. Matthews, 87 Md. 464; 

40Atl. 176 1073,1233 
V. Oregon City, etc. Mfg. 

Co., 3 Oreg. 24 1323, 1373 
V. Murray, 17 Colo. 408; 

30 Pac. 46 943, 971 
V. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. 

Co., 40 Pa. St. 237; 80 Am. 

Dec. 570 456 
v: Ratterman, 47 Oh. St. 

141; 24 N. E. 496 449, 450, 
450, 451, 451, 451, 1028 
V. Rutland, etc. R. R. 

Co., 36 Vt. 452 1486, 1639 



847 
664 



635 



Miller v. Rutland, etc. R. R. 

Co., 40 Vt. 399; 94 Am. 

Dec. 413 1452, 1456, 1472, 1666 

V. State, 15 Wall. 478 33 

V. Tod, 95 Texas 404; 

67 S. W. 483 45, 113 
V. Wild Cat Gravel Road 

Co., 52 Ind. 51 104 
V. Wild Cat Gravel Road 

Co., 57 Ind. 241 205 

Miller's Dale Co., 31 Ch. D. 

211 492 

Millhiser, etc. Co. v. Gallego 

Mills Co., 101 Va. 579; 44 

S. E. 760 
Milliken v. Steiner, 56 Ga. 251 



1413 
1185, 
1226 



1201 



Mills V. Boyle Mining Co., 132 
Cal. 95; 64 Pac. 122 

V. Britton, 64 Conn. 4; 

29 Atl. 231; 24 L. R. A. 

536 1143, 1144, 1145 

V. City of Chicago, 143 

Fed. 430 970 

V. Hendershot (N. J.), 

62 Atl. 542 1128, 1129, 1129, 
1240, 1241, 1284, 1288 

V. Northern Ry. of Bue- 
nos Ayres Co., 5 Ch. 621 961, 
962, 1103, 1103, 1103, 1104, 1117 

V. Potter, 189 Mass. 238; 

75 N. E. 627 

V. State, 23 Tex. 295 

V. Stewart, 41 N. Y. 384 

Mills County Nat. Bank v. 
Perry, 72 Iowa 15 ; 33 N. W. 
341; 2 Am. St. Rep. 228 

Millsaps V. Chapman, 76 Miss. 
942; 26 So. 369; 71 Am. St. 
Rep. 547 1262, 1316 

MillviUe Traction Co. v. Good- 
win, 53 N. J. Eq. 448; 32 
Atl. 263 

Millward-Cliffe Cracker Co.'s 
Estate, 161 Pa. St. 157; 28 
Atl. 1072 592, 1378, 1379 

Milroy v. Lord, 4 De G. F. & 
J. 264 713 

Miltenberger v. Logansport 
Ry. Co., 106 U. S. 286; 1 
Sup. a. 140 1559, 1567, 1646 

Milward v. Avill, 4 Manson 403 1648 

Milwaukee Cold Storage Co. 
V. Dexter, 99 Wise. 2-14; 
74 N. W. 976; 40 L. R. A. 
837 322, 323, 325, 327, 353, 354 

Milwaukee Light, Heat & 
Traction Co. (Wise), 112 
N. W. 663 95, 305 



1662 

25 

667 



866 



1371 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Milwaukee, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Field, 12 Wise. 340 456 

V. Soutter, 2 Wall. 510 1602, 

1626 
Milwaukee, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Brooks Locomotive Works, 

121 U. S. 430; 7 Sup. Ct. 

1094 1515 
V. Milwaukee & Western 

R. R. Co., 20 Wise. 174; 88 

Am. Dec. 740 1631 

Miner v. Belle Isle Ice Co., 93 

Mich. 97; 53 N. W. 218; 

17 L. R. A. 412 935, 940, 1082, 
1269 
Mineral Water Bottle, etc. 

Soc. V. Booth, 36 Ch. D. 465 568, 

570 
Miners' Ditch Co. v. Zeller- 

bach, 37 Cal. 543; 99 Am. 

Dec. 300 407, 861 

Mining Co. v. Anglo-Califor- 

nian Bank, 104 U. S. 192 1220, 
1224, 1225, 1233 
Minneapolis Threshing Co. v. 

Davis, 40 Minn. 110; 41 

N.W. 1026; 3L.R.A. 796; 

12 Am. St. Rep. 701 209 
Miimeapolis Trust Co. v. 

Clark, 47 Minn. 108; 49 
N. W. 386 297 

Minneapolis, etc. Suburban 
Ry. Co. (Minn.), 112 N. W. 

13 60,383 
Minnehaha Driving Park 

Ass'n V. Legg, 50 Minn. 333 ; 

52 N. W. 898 657, 661 

Minnesota Loan & Trust Co. 

V. Beebe, 40 Minn. 7; 41 

N. W. 232; 2 L. R. A. 418 56 
Minor v. Mechanics Bank of 

[Alexandria, 1 Pet. 46 148, 1368, 

1368 
Minot V. Mastin, 95 Fed. 734; 

37 C. C. A. 234 1617 
V. Paine, 99 Mass. 101 ; 

96 Am. Dec. 705 1144 

Mirage Irrigation Co. (Nebr.), 

108 N. W. 977 651 

Miser Gold, etc. Co. v. Moody 

(Colo.), 86 Pac. 335 282 

Mississippi Valley Co. v. 

Chicago, etc. Co., 58 Miss. 

896; 38 Am. Rep. 348 1502, 1512 
Mississippi Valley, etc. Ry. Co. 

V. U. S. Express Co., 81 111. 

534 1515, 1515, 1551 

Mississippi, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Caster, 20 Ark. 455 601, 604 



1009 

1374 
1619 



Missouri Lead, etc. Co. v. 

Reinhard, 114 Mo. 218; 21 

S. W. 488; 35Am. St. Rep. 

746 
Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Sidell 

67 Fed. 464; 14 C. C. A. 

477 
V. Texas Pac. Ry. Co., 

30 Fed. 2 
V. Texas, etc. Ry. Co., 

33 Fed. 701 82, 1575, 1608, 

1642 
V. Texas, etc. Ry. Co., 41 

Fed. 319 1575, 1642 

Missouri River R. R. Co. v. 

Richards, 8 Kans. 101 1238, 

1246, 1247 
Missouri, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Faulkner, 88 Tex. 649; 32 

S. W. 883 
V. Lacy, 13 Tex. Civ. 

App. 391; 35 S. W. Rep. 

505 
V. Union Trust Co., 156 

N.'Y. 592; 51 N. E. 309 

1472, 1474 
V. Wood (Tex.)" 52 S. W. 

93 1609, 1610 
V. Wylie (Tex.), 33 S. W. 

Rep. 771 1610, 1620 

Mitcalfe's Case, 13 Ch. D. 

169 1339, 1339 

Mitchell, N., v. City of Glas- 

cow Bank, 4 A. C. 624 
Mitchell V. Colorado Fuel, etc. 

Co., 117 Fed. 723 
V. Lycoming Mut. Ins. 

Co., 51 Pa. St. 402 
V. Rome R. R. Co., 17 

Ga. 574 175, 667, 668 
V. Rubber Reclaiming 

Co. (N. J.), 24 Atl. 407 898, 904 
• V. St. Andrew's Bay 

Land Co., 4 Fla. 200 
V. United Box Board, 

etc. Co. (N. J.), 66 Atl. 938 



1374 

1633 

1471, 



746 

1018 

593 



398 



cxl 



1305, 
1313 

V. Vermont Copper Min- 
ing Co., 40 N. Y. Super. Ct. 
406; 67 N. Y. 280 558, 660, 662, 
662, 1373 
Mitchell's Case, 9 Eq. 363 620, 620 

A., 4 A. C. 548 746, 800, 800 

Mitchell, Ex parte, 12 S. Car. 

83 1646 

— Re, 6 Ch. D. 655 1439 

Mix V. Nat. Bank of Bloom- 
ington, 91 111. 20; 33 Am. 
Rep. 44 221, 227 



TABLE OF CASKS 
[The references are to pages] 



Mobile Land, etc. Co. v. Gass, 

142 Ala. 520; 39 So. 229 1296, 

1310 
Mobile Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cul- 

lom, 49 Ala. 558 767, 776 

Mobile, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Davis, 62 Miss. 271 1610, 1619 
V. Nicholas, 98 Ala. 92; 

12 So. 723 1031, 1048, 1052, 
1053, 1054 
V. Tennessee, 153 U. S. 

486; 14 Sup. Ct. 968 1091, 1104, 

1104 
V. Yandal, 5 Sneed 

(Tenn.) 294 428 

Mobile, etc. Ry. Co. v. Steiner, 

61 Ala. 559 1523, 1633 

Mock V. Supreme Council, 106 

N. Y. Supp. 155 586 

Modem Woodmen v. Deters, 

65 111. App. 368 580 
V. Jameson, 48 Kans. 

718; 30 Pac. 460 663 
V. Wieland, 109 111. App. 

340 578, 590 

Modstock Mining Co. v. Har- 
ris, 40 Nova Scotia 336 1225, 
1227, 1228 
Moench & Sons Co., 130 Fed. 

685 1187 

Moffat V. Farquahar, 7 Ch. D. 

591 765, 1014 
V. Smith, 101 Fed. 771; 

41 C. C. A. 671 875 

Mogridge, Re, 57 L. J. Ch. 

932 193 

Mohawk & Hudson Ry. Co., 

19 Wend. (N. Y.) 135 998, 1020, 
1021, 1059 
Mohawk Nat. Bank v. Sche- 
nectady Bank, 78 Hun 

(N. Y.)90; 28N. Y. Supp. 

1100 111, 574 

Moises V. Thornton, 8 T. R. 

303 404, 406 

Mokelvmine Hill Mining Co. 

V. Woodbury, 14 Cal. 424; 

73 Am. Dec. 658 126, 220 

Molineaux v. London, etc. 

Ins. Co. (1902), 2 K. B. 589 1168, 
1170, 1171, 1172 
MoUer v. Fibre Co., 187 Pa. 

St. 553; 41 Atl. 478 1217, 1218 
Moller V. Maclean, 1 Megone 

274 152, 1162 

Monarch Co., M. V., v. Farm- 
ers', etc. Bank, 20 Ky. 

Law Rep. 1351; 49 S. W. 

317 84 



Monmouth Investment Co. v. 

Means, 151 Fed. 159; 80 

C. C. A. 527 1322 

Monmouth, etc. Ins. Co. v. 

Lowell, 59 Me. 504 1214 

Monongahela Bridge Co. v. 

Pittsburgh, etc. Traction 

Co., 46 Atl. 99; 196 Pa. 25; 

79 Am. St. Rep. 685 873, 877 
Monroe Mercantile Co. v. Ar- 
nold, 108 Ga. 449; 34 S. E. 

176 1196, 1211 

Monroe Republican Club, 6 

Pa. Dist. Rep. 515 94, 116 

Montclair v. N. Y. & Green- 
wood Lake Ry. Co., 45 

N. J. Eq. 436; 18 AtL 242 6 

Montclair Military Academy 

V. State Board of Assessors, 

65 N. J. Law 516; 47 Atl. 

558 59 

Monterey, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Hildreth, 53 Cal. 123 212 

Montgomerie's Brewery Co. 

V. Blyth, 27 Vict. L. R. 175 1279, 

1288 
Montgomery v. Forbes, 148 

Mass. 249; 19 S. E. 342 103, 
240, 240, 245, 266; 881 
V. Petersburg, etc. Ins. 

Co., 70 Fed. 746; 17 C. C. 

A. 360 1621, 1621 
V. Seaboard Air Line Ry. 

Co., 73 S. Car. 503; 53 S. E. 

987 223 
V. Whitehead (Colo.), 90 

Pac. 509 1127 

Montgomery Iron Works v. 

Roman (Ala.), 41 So. 811 1404 
Montgomery Light Co. v. 

Lahey, 121 Ala. 131; 25 

So. 1006 943, 968, 968 

Montgomery Traction Co. v. 

Harmon, 140 Ala. 505; 37 

So. 371 942, 977, 1083 

Montreal, etc. Power Co. v. 

Robert (1906), A. C. 196 591, 
591, 1222 
Monument Nat. Bank v. 

Globe Works, 101 Mass. 

57; 3 Am. Rep. 322 862 

Moore v. Bank of Commerce, 

52 Mo. 377 771, 772 
V. Ensley, 112 Ala. 228; 

20 So. 744 1046 
V. Marshalltown Opera- 

House Co., 81 Iowa 45; 46 

N. W. 750 699 
V. Moore, 18 Eq. 474 713 



cxli 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Moore v. New Jersey Lighter- 
age Co., 57 N. Y. Super. Ct. 
1;5N. Y. Supp. 192 650 
V. New Jersey Lighterage 

Co., 25 Jones & S. (N. Y.) 

1 666 
V. North Western Bank 

(1891), 2 Ch. 599 695, 695, 710, 

711 
V. Order of Railway Con- 
ductors, 90 Iowa 721; 57 

N. W. 623 663 

V. Peruvian Corp. (1908), 

1 Ch. 604 1529, 1547 

. V. Rawlins, 6 C. B. n. s. 

289 98, 660 
V. Silver Valley Mining 

Co., 104 N. Car. 534; 10 

S. E. 679 967, 971 
V. Wheal Byjerkemo Tin 

Mining Co., 17 Vict. L. R. 

680 604, 661, 668 

Moore, etc. Hardware Co. v. 

Towers Hardware Co., 87 

Ala. 206; 6 So. 41; 13 Am. 

St. Rep. 23 296, 297 

Moores v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 

1 1 1 U. S. 156 ; 4 Sup. a. 345 735 
Moosbrugger v. Walsh, 89 

Hun 564; 35 N. Y. Supp. 

550 487 

Moran v. Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. 

Co., 32 Fed. 878 • 1508 
V. Strau8s,:6 Ben 249; 17 

Fed. Cas. 123 1187 

Morelock v. Westminster 

Water Co. (Md.), 4 Atl. 404 1078 
Morey v. Fish Bros. Wagon 

Co., 108 Wise. 520; 84 

N. W. 862 1112 

Morgan v. Donovan, 58 Ala. 

241 1510 
V. Hedstrom, 164 N. Y. 

224; 58 N. E. 26 1390 
V. Howland, 89 Me. 484; 

36 Atl. 990 647 
V. Independent Order, 

etc. of Jacob (Miss.), 44 So. 

791 565 
V. Kansas Pac. Ry. Co., 

15 Fed. 55 1586, 1586 
V. King, 27 Colo. 539; 

63 Pac. 416 967, 1288, 1295, 
1312 
V. Lehigh Valley Coal 

Co. (Pac), 64 Atl. 633 924 
V. Lewis, 46 Oh. St. 1 ; 

17 N. E. 558 525, 525 
V. Louisiana, 93 La. 217 1521 



cxlii 



Morgan v. Morgan, 16 Abb. Pr. 

N. s. (N. Y.)'291 889 
V. Struthers, 131 U. S. 

246; 9 Sup. a. 726 778 
V. Union Pacific Ry. Co., 

11 Fed. 692 1679 
V. United States, 113 

U. S. 476; 5 Sup. Ct. 588 1435, 
1436, 1436 
Morgan's Case, 28 Ch. D. 

620 898 

Morgan County v. Thomas, 76 

III. 120 1510, 1514, 1522, 1523 
Morgans', etc. Co. v. Farmers' 

L. & T. Co., 79 Fed. 210; 

24 C. C. A. 495 1567 
V. Moran, 91 Fed. 22; 

33 C. C. A. 313 1633 
V. Texas Central Ry. 

Co., 137 U.S. 171; 11 Sup. 

Ct. 61 1467, 1562, 1570, 1593 

Morisette v. Howard, 62 Kans. 

463; 63 Pac. 756 1217, 1222 

Morley Bldg. Co., John, v. 

Barras (1891), 2 Ch. 386 1201, 
1212, 1213, 1231 
Morrice v. Aylmer, L. R. 7 

H. L. 717 414, 414 

Morrill v. Little Falls Mfg. 

Co., 53 Minn. 371; 55 N. 

W. 547; 21 L. R. A. 174 1010, 
1011, 1017 
V. Noyes, 56 Me. 458; 

96 Am. Dec. 486 1502 

Morris v. Cheney, 51 111. 451 66, 66, 

1514 
V. Elyton Land Co., 125 

Ala. 263; 28 So. 513 952, 959 
V. Griffith & Wedge Co., 

69 Fed. 131 1375 

V. Keil, 20 Minn. 531 400 

V. Metalline Land Co., 

164 Pa. St. 326; 30 Atl. 

240; 44 Am. St. Rep. 614; 

27 L. R. A. 305 604, 604, 658, 
658, 660 
V. Stevens, 178 Pa. St. 

563; 36 Atl. 151 499, 508, 509 
V. Third Nat. Bank, 142 

Fed. 25; 73 C. C. A. 211 53 
V. Union Bank, 31 Can. 

Sup. Ct. 594 645 

Morris Canal, etc. Co. v. 

Fisher, 9 N. J. Eq. 677; 64 

Am. Dec. 423 1423 
V. Lewis, 12 N. J. Eq. 

323 1423, 1439 

Morris, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Ayres, 29 N. J. Law 393 569 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Morrison v. Dorsey, 48 Md. 461 557, 
562, 633 
V. Eaton, etc. R. R. Co., 

14 Ind. 110 1401 
V. Forman, 177 111. 427; 

53 N. E. 73 250, 1607 
V. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 

5 Ont. L. R. 38 
V. Indianapolis, etc. Ry. 

Co. (Ind.), 76 N. E. 961 

V. Savage, 56 Md. 142 

V. Snow, 26 Utah 247; 

72 Pac. 924 
V. Trustees, etc. Corp., 

79 L. T. 605 
V. Wilder Gas Co., 91 Me. 

492; 40 Atl. 542; 64 Am. 

St. Rep. 257 

V. Wisconsin Odd Fel- 
lows, etc. Ins. Co., 59 
Wise. 162; 18 N. W. 13 584, 589 

, Re, 10 N. B. R. 105 769 

Morrison- Wentworth Bank v. 

Kirdolff, 75 Mo. App. 297 
Morrow v. Nashville Iron & 

Steel Co., 87 Tenn. 262; 10 

S.W. 495; 10 Am. St. Rep. 

658; 3 L. R. A. 37 193, 627, 

1404 

V. Peterborough Water 

Co., 4 Ont. L. R. 324 433,471 

Morse v. Bay State Gas Co., 

91 Fed. 938 
V. Bay State Gas Co., 91 

Fed. 944 

V. Chicago, etc. R. R. 

Co., 84 N. Y. App. Div. 
406; 82 N. Y. Supp. 698 

V. Pacific Ry. Co., 93 111. 

App. 33 620, 623 

Morshead v. Southern Pac. 
Co., 123 Fed. 350 

Mortgage Ins. Corp. v. Cana- 
dian Agricultural, etc. Co. 
(1901), 2 Ch. 377 

Mortimer v. Potter, 213 111. 
178; 72N. E. 817 

Morton v. Cowan, 25 Ont. 529 



1364 

250 
614 

1352 

668 



1196 



574 



1679 
979 



1557 



974 



1591 



679 
423, 
715 



V. Hamilton College, 100 

Ky. 281; 38 S. W. 1; 35 

L. R. A. 275 293 

V. New Orleans, etc. Ry. 

Co., 79 Ala. 590 1436, 1436, 

1591 

Morton Boarding Stables, 108 

Fed. 791 44 

Morton Gravel Road Co. v. 

Wysong, 51 Ind. 4 558, 561 



Morton Trust Co. v. Home 
Tel. Co., 66 N. J. Eq. 106; 
57 Atl. 1020 1452, 1455, 1456, 

1456 

Morville v. Am. Tract Soc, 
123 Mass. 129; 25 Am. Rep. 
40 855 

Moseley v. Cressey's Co., 1 

Eq. 405 342, 343 

V. Koffyfontein Mines 

(1904), 2 Ch. 108 1404 

Moses V. Ocoee Bank, 1 Lea 

(Tenn.) 398 494,614, 1240, 

1265, 1273, 1342, 1345 

V. Scott, 84 Ala. 608; 4 

So. 742 1029, 1030 

V. Tompkins, 84 Ala.613 ; 

4 So. 763 948, 1035, 1164, 1226, 

1250 

Moshannon Land, etc. Co. v. 

Sloan, 109 Pa. St. 532 1376 

Mosher v. Sinnott, 79 Pac. 742 

(Colo.) 630, 979, 979, 1187, 1300, 

1318 

Moss V. Averill, 10 N. Y. 449 

V. Geddes, 28 N. Y. Misc. 

291; 59 N. Y. Supp. 867 

V. Syers, 32 L. J. Ch. 711 

Moss Tie Co., T. J., v. Com- 
monwealth (Ky.), 105 S. W. 
163 

Moss's Appeal, 83 Pa. St. 264; 
24 Am. Rep. 164 

Mostyn v. Calcott Hall Min- 
ing Co., 1 Fos. & Fin. 334 

Mott's Case, 23 W. R. 405 

Mottu V. Primrose, 23 Md. 482 

996, 1163, 1194, 1326 

Mount Carmel Tel. Co. v. 
Mt. Carmel & Flemingsburg 
TelCo. (Ky.),84S.W.515 



912 

1637 

442 



368 

502 

233 
1011 
955, 



cxliii 



274, 
302 
Mount Holly, etc. Co. v. Ferree, 

17 N. J. Eq. 117 723, 752, 754 
Mount Holly Paper Co.'s 

Appeal, 99 Pa. St. 513 731, 731, 

775 
Mount Morgan Gold Mine, 3 

Times L. R. 556 181, 182 

Mount Sterling, etc. R. R. Co. 

V. Looney, 1 Mete. (Ky.) 

550 1370 

Mount Sterling Carload Co. 

V. Little, 14 Bush (Ky.) 

429 198 

Mount Washington Hotel Co. 

V. Marsh, 63 N. H. 230 1310 

Mount Vernon Bank ti.Porter, 

148 Mo. 176; 49 S. W. 982 1345 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The refereaces are to pages] 



Mousseaux v. Urquhart, 19 

La. Ann. 482 1017, 1021, 1027 
1043, 1047, 1047 
Mowatt V. Castle Steel, etc. 

Co., 34 Ch. D. 58 402, 1410, 
1524 
V. LondesboTOUgh, 4 

E. & B. 1 342 

Mowbray v. Antrim, 123 Ind. 

24; 23 N. E. 858 1367 

Mowry v. Farmers' L. & T. 

Co., 76 Fed. 38; 22 C. C. A. 

52 1402, 1669 

Moxham v. Grant (1900), 1 

Q. B. 88 1127,1265 

Moxie Nerve Food Co. v. 

Bamnbach, 32 Fed. 205 120 

Moyer v. East Shore Terminal 

Co., 41 S. Car. 300; 19 

S. E. 651; 44 Aim. St. Rep. 

709; 25 L. R. A. 48 591, 593, 594 
Moyle V. Landers (Cal.), 21 

Pac, 1133 964, 978 

Mozley v. Alston, 1 Phillips 

Ch. 790 931, 972 

Mudeett v. Horrell, 33 Cal. 25 921 
Mueller V. Madison Bldg., etc. 

Ass'n, 11 S. Dak. 43; 75 

N. W. 277 657, 661 

Muhlenberg v. Philadelphia, 

etc. R. R. Co., 47 Pa. St. 16 1476 
Muir V. City of Glascow 

Bank, 4 A. C. 337 ^95 

Muirhead v. Forth, etc. 

Mutual Ins. Ass'n (1894), 

A. C. 72 557, 561, 662 

Mulheran v. Gebhardt, 93 

N. Y. App. Div. 98; 86 

N. Y. Supp. 941 978 

MulhoUand v. Washington 

Match Co., 35 Wash. 315; 

77 Pac. 497 177, 181 

MuUanphy Sav. Bank v. 

Schott, 135 HI. 655; 26 

N. E. 640; 25 Am. St. Rep. 

401 407, 917, 1315 

Mulvihill V. Vicksburg Ry., 

etc. Co. (Miss.), 40 So. 647 963 
Mumf ord v. Ecuador Develop- 
ment Co., Ill Fed. 639 



V. Hawkins, 5 Denio 

(N. Y.) 355 
Muncy Traction Engine Co. v. 

Green, 143 Pa. St. 269; 13 

Atl. 747 
Municipal Freehold Land Co. 

V. Pollington, 63 L. T. 238 



976, 
1082 

1382 



202 

1182, 



1189, 1265, 1288 



cxliv 



Munson v. Syracuse, etc. 

R. R. Co., 103 N. Y. 58; 8 

N. E. 355 280, 282, 290, 1297, 
1298, 1298 
Munster v. Cammell Co., 21 

Ch. D. 183 1164, 1164, 1164, 

1182, 1193, 1251 
Munt V. Shrewsbury, etc. Ry. 

Co., 13 Beav. 1 88 

Murdoch v. Strange, 99 Md. 

89; 57 Atl. 628 1032, 1206 

Murdock v. Woodson, 2 Dill. 

188 1484 

Murphy v. Arkansas, etc. Imp. 

Co., 97 Fed. 723 84 
V. Pacific Bank, 130 Cal. 

542; 62 Pac. 1059 687 

V. Patapsco Ins. Co., 6 

Md. 99 661 

V. Penniman (Md.), 66 

Atl. 282 1259, 1280, 1284, 1287 

V. Wheatley, 102 Md. 

501 ; 63 Atl. 62 219 
, Ex parte, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 

153 1065 
, Be, 51 Wise. 619; 8 

N. W. 419 716 

Murray v. Beal, 23 Utah 548; 

65 Pac. 726 912 

D. Bush, L. R. 6 H. L. 37 707, 

1095, 1178, 1230, 1230, 1230, 
1325 
V. Dayo, 10 Hun (N. Y.) 

3 1516 
V. Farmville, etc. R. R. > 

Co., 101 Va. 262; 43 S. E. 

563 1510, 1523 
V. Lardner, 2 Wall. 110 1434 

V. Nelson Lumber Co., 

143 Mass. 250; 9 N. E. 

634 1277 

V. Stevens, 110 Mass. 95 761 

Murray's Executors' Case, 6 

De G. M. & G. 746 1310 

Musgrave v. Morrison, 54 Md. 

161 609, 613, 626 

Muskingum Valley Turnpike 

Co. V. Ward, 13 Oh. 120; 42 

Am. Dec. 191 605, 619, 709 

Mustard v. Union Nat. Bank, 

86 Me. 177; 29 Atl. 977 541, 

1122 
Muth V. Dolfield, 43 Md. 466 398, 
403, 406 
Mutoscope and Biograph 

Syndicates (1899), 1 Ch. 

896 437 

Mutter V. Eastern, etc. Ry. 

Co., 38 Ch. D. 92 902, 903 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Mutual Accident, etc. Ass'n v. 

Kayser (Pa.), 14 Wkly. 

Notes Gas. 86 578 

Mutual Aid, etc. Soc. v. 

Monti, 59 N. J. Law 341; 

36 Atl. 666 585 

Mutual Bldg. Fund v. Bos- 

seiux, 3 Fed. 817 1259, 1291 
Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Far- 

quhar, 86 Md. 668; 39 Atl. 

527 557, 991, 1194 

Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Forty- 
second St., etc. R. R. Co., 

74 Hun 505; 26 N. Y. 

Supp. 545 740, 743 
V. McCurdy, 103 N. Y. 

Supp. 829 1227, 1287 
V. McCurdy, 103 N. Y. 

Supp. 840 1287 
V. McSherry, 68 Md. 41; 

II Atl. 577 593 
V. Wilcox, 8 Hiss. 203 838, 

844, 868 
Mutual Mercantile Agency, 

III Fed. 152 44 
Mutual Savings, etc. Ass'n v. 

Meriden Agency Co., 24 

Conn. 159 77 

M. V. Monarch Co. v. 

Farmers', etc. Bank, 20 Ky. 
• Law Rep. 1351; 49 S. W. 

317 84 

Myar ■». Foe (Ark.), 95 S. W. 

1005 557, 1375 

Myer v. Car Co., 102 U. S. 1 1536, 

1539, 1540, 1612 

N 

Nabring v. Bank of Mobile, 58 

Ala. 204 808, 811 

Naglee v. Pac. Wharf Co., 20 

Cal. 529 716, 716 

Nankivell v. Benjamin, 18 

Vict. L. R. 543 939, 976 

Nanney v. Morgan, 37 Ch. D, 

346 421, 677, 695, 800 

Nantasket Beach, etc. Co. v. 

Shea, 182 Mass. 147; 65 

N. E. 57 847 

Nant-y-Glo, etc. Iron Works 

Co. V. Grave, 12 Ch. D. 738 273, 

1261, 1289, 1338, 1338, 1339 

Narragansett Bank v. Atlantic 

Silk Co., 3 Mete. (Mass.) 282 



Nashua Savings Bank v. 
Anglo-American Co., 189 
U.S. 221; 23 Sup. Ct. 517 



J 



230, 
1380 



601, 
607 



cxlv 



Nashua Savings Bank v. Bur- 
lington El. Light Co., 99 
Fed. 14 1588 

Nashville Bank v. Petway, 3 

Humph. (Tenn.) 522 1185, 1185 

Nassau Bank v. Jones, 95 
N. Y. 115; 47 Am. Rep. 14 74, 
76, 858, 859 

Nassau Phosphate Co., 2 Ch. 

D. 610 120, 223 

Nassau Steam Press v. Tyler, 

70 L. T. 376 369 

Natal Investment Co., 3 Ch. 

355 1421 

Natal Land, etc. Co. v. Pauline 
Colliery, etc. Syndicate 
(1904), A. C. 120 282, 283, 284 

Nathan v. Thompkins, 82 Ala. 

437; 2 So. 747 935, 939, 940, 
1167, 1183, 1250 

V. Uhlmann, 101 N. Y. 

App. Div. 388; 92 N. Y. 
Supp. 13; 184 N. Y. 606 1355 

Nation's Case, 3 Eq. 77 746, 766 

National Bank v. Case, 99 TJ. 

S. 628 74, 74, 618, 623, 812, 834 

V. Graham, 100 U. S. 699 870 

V. Johnson, 104 U. S. 271 869 

V. Lake Shore, etc. Ry. 

Co., 21 Oh. St. 221 747 

V. Matthews, 98 U. S. 62 1 835 

V. Watsontown Bank, 

105 U. S. 217 698, 699, 701, 

771, 772 

V. Whitney, 103 U. S. 99 835, 

867 

National Bank of Augusta v. 
Carolina, etc. R. R. Co, 63 
Fed. 25 1568 

National Bank of Brunswick 
V. Sixth Nat. Bank, 212 
Pa. St. 238; 61 Atl. 889 84 

National Bank of Commerce 
V. Allen, 90 Fed. 545; 33 
C. C. A. 169 86, 1023, 1085 

V. Shumway, 49 Kans. 

224; 30 Pac. 411 1199, 1199 

V. Wade, 84 Fed. 10 1259, 

1266, 1267 
National Bank of Jefferson v. 
Texas Investment Co., 74 
Tex. 421; 12 S. W. 101 47, 148, 

1356 
National Bank of New Lon- 
don V. Lake Shore, etc. Ry. 
Co., 21 Oh. St. 221 426 

National Bank of Newport v. 
H. P. Snyder Mfg. Co., 102 
N. Y. Supp. 478 84 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



National Bank of North 

America v. Kirby, 108 

Mass. 497 1436 

National Bank of the Republic 
V. Rochester Tumbler Co., 

172 Pa. St. 614; 33 Atl. 

748 767, 773 
V. Young, 4l N. J. Eq. 

531 862 

National Bank of Wales 

(1899), 2 Ch. 629 769, 1101, 

1262 
National Bank of Xenia v. 

Stewart, 107 U. S. 676; 2 

Sup. Ct. 778 522, 835 

National Bldg. Soc, 5 Ch. 309 830, 
831, 832 
National Boiler Ins. Co. 

(1892), 1 Ch. 306 136, 137 

National Bolivan Nav. Co. v. 

Wilson, 5 A. C. 176 1555 

National Commercial Bank v. 

McDonnell, 92 Ala. 387; 9 

So. 149 176 

National Conduit Go. v. Con- 
necticut Pipe Mfg. Co., 73 

Fed. Rep. 491 300 

National Debenture, etc. Corp. 

(1891), 2 Ch. 505 223, 236, 241 
National Docks Ry. Co. v. 

Central R. R. Co., 32 N. J. 

Eq. 755 245, 245, 250 

National Dwellings Soc. v. 

Sykes (1894), 3 Ch. 159 1055, 

1056, 1056 
National Endowment Co., 142 

Pa. St. 450; 21 Atl. 879 222 

National Exchange Bank v. 

Hartford, etc. R. R. Co., 8 

R. I. 375; 91 Am. Dec. 

237; 5 Am. Rep. 582 1448, 

1449, 1449, 1449, 1451 
National Express, etc. Co. v. 

Morris, 15 App. D. C. 262 921 
National Financial Co., 3 Ch. 

791 1244 

National Fire Ins. Co. v. 

Yeomans, 8 R. I. 25; 86 

Am. Dec. 610 230 

National Funds Ass. Co., 10 

Ch. D. 118 1108, 1265, 1268, 

1268, 1284, 1290 
National Gross Loge v. Jung, 

65 111. App. 313 588 

National Hollow, etc. Co. v. 

Chicago Ry., etc. Co., 226 

111. 28; 80 N. E. 556 1073 

National Home Bldg. Ass'n v. 

Home Sav. Bank, 181 111. 



cxlvi 



35; 54 N. E. 619; 64 L. R. 
A. 399; 72 Am. St. Rep. 
245 851, 861 

National Ins. Co. v. Egleson, 

29 Grant (Can.) 406 159, 417, 

604, 605, 606, 1231 

National Ins., etc. Ass'n, 4 De 

G. F. & J. 78 187 

National Lead Co. v. Dickin- 
son, 70 N. J. Law 596; 57 
Atl. 138; affirmed 62 Atl. 
1135 107, 137 

National Literary Ass'n, 30 

Pa. St. 150 96 

National Loan, etc. Co. v. 
Rockland Co., 94 Fed. 335; 
36 C. C. A. 370 83, 1238, 1248, 

1321 

National Mechanical Direc- 
tory Co., 121 Fed. 742; 58 
C. C. A. 24 39 

National Mutual Life Ass'n, 
26 Vict. L. R. 490 136 

National Park Bank v. Ger- 
man-American, etc. Co., 
116 N. Y. 281; 22 N. E. 
567; 5 L. R. A. 673 863 

National Pemberton Bank v. 
Porter, 125 Mass. 333; 28 
Am. Rep. 235 844 

National Salt Co. v. Ingram 
ham, 143 Fed. 805; 74C.C. 
A. 479 57, 1485 

National State Bank v. Sand- 
ford Fork, etc. Co., 157 
Ind. 10; 60 N. E. 699 1211, 

1381 

V. Vigo County Nat. 

Bank, 141 Ind. 352; 50 
Am. St. Rep. 330; 40 N. E. 
799 1370 

National Trustees, etc. Co., 
21 Vict. L. R. 75 813 

National Waterworks Co. v. 

Kansas City, 78 Fed. 428 1486, 
1488 

National, etc. Trust Co. v. 
Gray, 12 D. C. App. Cas. 
276 683, 723 

Native Iron Co., 2 Ch. D. 

345 1396 

Natoma Water, etc. Co. v. 

Clarkin, 14 Cal. 544 847 

Navajo, etc. Co. v. Cuny, 147 
Cal. 581; 82 Pac. 247; 109 
Am. St. Rep. 176 1006 

Neafle's Appeal (Pa. Sup^ 

a.), 12 Atl. 271 1648, 1650 

Neale v. Turton, 4 Bing. 149 1377 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Neall V. Hill, 16 Cal. 145; 76 

'Am. Dec. 508 935, 958, 1179 

Neath Bldg. Soc. v. Luce, 43 

Ch. D. 158 831, 832, 832, 832 

Nebraska Chicory Co. v. Led- 

nicky (Nebr.), 113 N. W. 

245 174, 210, 212 

Nebraska Nat. Bank v. Fer- 
guson, 49 Nebr., 109; 68 

N.W.370; 59 Am. St. Rep. 

522 253 

Nebraska Shirt Co. v. Horton, 

3 Nebr. (Unofficial) 888; 

93 N. W. 225 77, 858 

Neff V. Wolf River Boom Co., 

50 Wise. 585; 7 N.W. 553 1632 
Negley v. Hagerstown Mfg. 

Co., 86 Md. 692; 39 Atl. 

506 182 

Neiler v. Kelley, 69 Pa. St. 

403 809 

Neilson v. James, 9 Q. B. D. 

546 780 

Nelson v. Anglo-American 

Land Co. (1897), 1 Ch. 130 903 

V. Bank of Fergus 

County, 157 Fed. 161 1359 

V. Gibson, 92 III. App. 

595 584 

V. Hubbard, 96 Ala. 238; 

11 So. 428; 17L. R. A. 375 488, 

1005, 1007, 1399, 1402, 

1403, 1486, 1581, 1581, 

1600, 1671 

V. Keith-O'Brien Co., 

(Utah), 91 Pao. 30 111, 131 

V. Owen, 113 Ala. 372; 

21 So. 75 723, 811 
V. Spence (Ga.), 58 S. E. 

697 407, 408 
V. U. S., 201 U. S. 92; 26 

Sup. Ct. 358 890 

Nelson Coke Co. v. Pellatt, 4 

Ont. L. R. 481 169, 439 

Nelson, Edward & Co. v. 

Faber & Co. (1903), 2 

K. B. 367 1545, 1548 

Nemaha Coal Co. v. Settle, 

54 Kans. 424; 38 Pac. 483 213 
Nesbit V. North Georgia Elec- 
tric Co., 156 Fed. 979 1371 
Nesmith v. Washington Bank, ' 

6 Pick. (Mass.) 324 769, 774 

Nesne v. Sundet, 93 Minn. 

299; 101 N. W. 490 373 

Nether Providence Ass'n, 12 

Pa. Co. Ct. 666 368 

Nettles V. McConnell (Ala.), 

43 So. 838 899 



cxlvii 



Nettles V. Marco, 33 S. Car. 47; 

11 S. E. 595 4^4 

Neubert v. Armstrong Water 

Co., 211 Pa. St. 582; 61 

Atl. 123 894, 905 

New Albany v. Burke, 11 

Wall. 96 525, 625 

New Albany, etc. Co. v. 

Smith, 23 Ind. 353 ' 1423 

New Albany, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Fields, 10 Ind. 187 194 
V. McCormick, 10 Ind. 

499; 71 Am. Dec. 337 166, 188 
New Albany Waterworks v. 

Louisville Banking Co., 

122 Fed. 776 957, 970, 972 

New Balkis Eerstelling v. 

Randt Gold Mining Co. 

(1904), A. C. 165 668, 668 

New Boston Fire Ins. Co. v. 

Upton, 67 N. H. 469; 36 

Atl. 366 1196 

New Brighton, etc. R. R. Co. 

V. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. 

Co., 105 Pa. St. 13 305 

New Brunswick, etc. Co. v. 

Muggeridge, 1 Dr. & Sm. 

363 184 

New Brunswick, etc. Ry. Co. 

V. Muggeridge, 4 H. & N. 

580 174, 615 

New Castle, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Simpson, 21 Fed. 533 840, 842, 
1402, 1402 
New Chile Gold Mining Co., 

38 Ch. D. 475 537 

, 45 Ch. D. 598 666, 666 

, 68 L. T. 15 647 

New Clydach Sheet & Bar 

Iron Co., 6 Eq. 514 1507, 

1619 
New Eberhardt Co. i>. Men- 

zies, 43 Ch. D. 118 632, 640 

New England Fire Ins. Co. v. 

Haynes, 71 Vt. 306; 45 

Atl. 221; 76 Am. St. Rep. 

771 614 

New England Fire, etc. Ins. 

Co. V. Robinson, 25 Ind. 

536 394 

New England Marine Ins. 

Co. V. DeWolf, 8 Pick. 

(Mass.) 56 1378 

New England, etc. Ins. Co. v. 

Phillips, 141 Mass. 535; 6 

N. E. 534 1250 

New England Iron Co. v. 

New York Loan, etc. Co., 

55 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 315 890 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



New England R. Co. v. Car- 
negie Steel Co., 75 Fed. 54; 

21 C. C. A. 219 1517, 1560, 

1564, 1570 
New England Trust Co. v. 

Abbott, 162 Mass. 148; 38 

N. E. 432; 27 L. R. A. 271 517, 

573 
V. Eaton, 140 Mass. 532; 

4 N. E. 69; 54 Am. Rep. 

493 1446, 1446, 1446 

New Hampshire Central R. 

R. V. Johnson, 30 N. H. 

390; 64 Am. Dec. 300 601,607, 

609 
New Hampshire Sav. Bank 

V. Richey, 121 Fed. 956; 

58 C. C. A. 294 1128 

New Haven Trust Co. v. 

Doherty, 74 Conn. 353; 50 

Atl. 887 1368 
V. Gaffney, 73 Conn. 480; 

47 Atl. 760 627 
V. Nelson, 73 Conn. 477; 

47. Atl. 753 528 

New Jersey Midland Ry. 

Co. V. Strait, 35 N. J. Law 

322 1415 

New Lambton Land, etc. Co. 

V. London Bank, 1 Comm. 

L. R. (Australia) 524 765, 765, 
765, 766 
New London Bank v. Brockle- 

bank, 21 Ch. D. 302 774, 796 

New Mashonaland Co. (1892), 

3 Ch. 577 1261, 1263, 1274 

New Memphis Gas Light Co. 

Cases, 105 Tenn. 268; 60 

S. W. 206; 80 Am. St. Rep. 

880 1304, 1317, 1324, 1344 

New Orleans Bldg. Co. v. 

Lawson, 11 La. 34 1210, 1371 
New Orleans Debenture, etc. 

Co. V. Louisiana, 180 U. S. 

320; 21 Sup. Ct. 378 46, 59, 

241, 258, 258 
New Orleans , Nat. Banking 

Ass'n V. Wiltz, 10 Fed. 330 114, 

571 
New Orleans Pac. Ry. Co. v. 

Parker, 143 U. S. 42; 12 

Sup. a. 364 1510, 1529, 1589, 
1590, 1592 
New Orleans, etc. Co. v. 

Brown, 36 La. Ann. 138; 

51 Am. Rep. 5 1246 

New Orleans, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Frank, 39 La. Ann. 707; 

2 So. 310 



101 
cxlviii 



New Orleans, etc. S. S. Co. v. 

Ocean Dry Dock Co., 28 

La. Ann. 173; 26 Am. Rep. 

90 42, 76, 77 

New Transvaal Co. (1896), 2 

Ch. 750 437 

New York Automobile Co. v. 

Franklin, 49 N. Y. Misc. 8; 

97 N. Y. Supp. 781 1263, 1341 
New York Cable Co. v. New 

York, 104 N. Y. 1; 10 

N. E. 332 249 

New York Cable Ry. Co., 109 

N. Y. 32; 15 N. E. 882 131 

New York Car Oil Co. v. 

Richmond, 6 Bosw. 213 229 

New York Car Wheel Works, 

141 Fed. 430 876 

New York Central Ins. Co. v. 

Nat. Protection Ins. Co., 14 

N. Y. 85 1296 

New York Commercial Co. v. 

Francis, 83 Fed. 769; 28 

C. C. A. 199 715, 717 

New York Economical Print- 
ing Co., 110 Fed. 514; 49 

C. C. A. 133 1221, 1397 

New York Electrical Workers' 

Union v. Sullivan, 107 N. Y. 

Supp. 886 998, 1011 

New York Firemen Ins. Co. 

V. Eley (1825), 5 Conn. 

560; 13 Am. Dec. 100 827 
V. Eley (1824), 2 Cow. 

678 826 

New York Grape Sugar Co. v. 

Buffalo Grape Sugar Co., 

24 Fed. 604 1263 

New York Guaranty, etc. Co. 

V. Tacoma Ry. Co., 83 Fed. 

365; 27 C. C. A. 550 1563, 1572 
New York, Lackawanna, etc. 

Ry. Co., 99 N. Y. 12; 1 

N. E. 27 122, 229 

New York, Lake Erie, etc. 

Ry. Co. V. Haling, 47 N. J. 

Law 137; 54 Am. Rep. 

123 870 

New York Life, etc. Co. v. 

Kane, 17 N. Y. App. Div. 

542; 45 N. Y. Supp. 543 1446, 
1446 
New York Security, etc. Co. 

V. Louisville, etc. R. Co., 

102 Fed. 382 1509, 1641, 1669 
V. Saratoga Gas Co., 88 

Hun 569; 34 N. Y. Supp. 

890; 157 N. Y. 689; 51 

N. E. 1092 1505, 1553 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



New York Security, etc. Co. 
V. Saratoga Gas, etc. Co., 
159 N.Y. 137; 45 L. R. A. 
132; 53N.E. 758 1518, 1519 

New York, etc. Bank v. Crow- 
ell, 177 Pa. St. 313; 35 
Atl. 613 252 

New York, etc. Canal Co. v. 
Fulton Bank, 7 Wend. 
(N. Y.) 412 79, 80 

New York, etc. Ice Lines, Be, 
147 Fed. 214; 77 C, V. A. 
440 44 

New York, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Davies, 38 Hun (N. Y.) 477 807 

V. Dixon, 114 N. Y. 80; 

21 N. E. 110 1310, 1378 

V. Ketchum, 27 Conn. 

170 294 

V. New York, etc. R. R. 

Co., 58 Fed. 268 1568, 1611, 

1611, 1612 

V. Nickals, 119 U. S. 

296; 7 Sup. Ct. 209 464, 465, 

1100, 1101 

V. O'Brien, 106 N. Y. 

Supp. 909 95 

V. Offield, 78 Conn. 1 ; 60 

Atl. 740 917 

V. Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30 681, 

711, 714, 731, 739, 1324 
V. State, 50 N. J. Law 

303; 13 Atl. 1 1633 

New York, etc. Trust Co. v. 

Capital Ry. Co., 77 Fed. 

529 
V. Helmer, 77 N. Y. 64 



1537 
845, 
865 



V. Louisville, etc. R. R. 

Co., 79 Fed. 386 1567, 1568 

New York, etc. Water Co., 98 

Fed. 711 22, 44 

New Zealand Gold, etc. Co. 

V. Peacock (1894), 1 Q. B. 

622 58, 605 

New Zealand Midland Ry. 
, Co. (1901), 2 Ch. 357 1591 

New Zealand Trust & Loan 

Co. (1903), 1 Ch. 403 414 

Newberry v. Detrcit, etc. Iron 

Co., 17 Mich. 141 715, 752, 781 
Newbiggin-by-the-Sea Gas 

Co. V. Armstrong, 13 Ch. 

D. 310 933 

Newbold v. Peoria, etc. R. R. 

Co., 5 111. App. 367 1455, 1651 
Newby v. Oregon Central 

R. R. Co., 1 Sawy. 63 373, 961, 

1554 



Newby v. Oregon Central Ry. 

Co., Deady 609 373, 961 

Newcastle, etc. Co. v. Bell, 

8 Blackf. (Ind.) 584 160, 1250 
Newcomb v. Reed, 12 Allen 

(Mass.) 362 219, 1227 
V. Re, 42 N. Y. St. Rep. 

442; 18 N. Y. Supp. 16 1225 

Newell V. Smith, 49 Vt. 255 1616, 

1618 

V. Williston, 138 Mass. 

240 690, 691, 698, 699 

Newgass v. Atlantic, etc. Ry. 

Co., 56 Fed. 676 1540, 1542 
V. Atlantic, etc. Ry. Co., 

72 Fed. 712 1574 

Newhaven Local Board v. 

Newhaven School Board, 

30 Ch. D. 350 1164 

Newland Hotel Co. v. Lowe 

Furniture Co., 73 Mo. App. 

135 76 

Newlands v. National Em- 
ployers, etc. Ass'n, 54 L. J. 

Q. B. 428 186, 1377 

Newman & Co., George 

(1895), 1 Ch. 674 83, 1069, 

1283, 1321 
Newport News Shipbuilding, 

etc. Co. V. Jones (Va.), 54 

S. E. 314 ' 62 

Newport, etc. Bridge Co. v. 

Douglas, 12 Bush. (Ky.) 

673 1455, 1469 

Newry, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Coombe, 3 Ex. 565 173, 173, 

601 
Newton v. Anglo-Australian, 

etc., Co. (1895), A. C. 244 66 
V. Belcher, 12 Q. B. 921 309 

V. Birmingham Small 

Arms Co. (1906), 2 Ch. 378 909, 

909 

V. Fay, 10 Allen (Mass.) 

505 811, 812 

V. Liddiard, 12 Q. B. 

925 309 

V. Wooley, 105 Fed. 

541 786 

Newton Mfg. Co. v. White, 42 

Ga. 148 873, 874 

Newton Nat. Bank v. New- 

begin, 74 Fed. 135; 20 

C. C. A. 339; 33 L. R. A. 

727 177, ISO, 180 

Neyens v. Worthington 

(Mich.), 114 N. W. 404 865 

Niagara Shoe Co. v. Tobey, 

71 111. App. 250 534 



cxlix 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Nichols V. Burlington, etc. 

Co., 4 G. Greene (Iowa) 42 160, 

608 

V. Mass, 94 N. Y. 160 1496, 

1503 
Nicholson v. Nicholson, 30 

L. J. Ch. 617 1141 
V. Rhodesia Trading Co. 

(1897), 1 Ch. 434 1115 

Nicholson- Watson, etc. Co. v. 

Urquhart, 32 Tex. Gv. 

App. 527; 75 S. W. 45 666 

Nicholstone City Co. v. Smal- 

ley, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 210; 

51 S. W. 527 1068 

Nickalls V. Merry, L. R. 7 

H. L. 530 779, 782 

Nickals v. New York, etc. Ry. 

Co., 15 Fed. 575 466 

Nickerson v. Atchison, etc. R. 

Co., 17 Fed. 408 1549 

V. English, 142 Mass. 

267; 8N. E. 45 632 

Nickum v. Burckhardt, 30 

Oreg. 464; 47 Pao. 788; 

48 Pac. 474; 60 Am. St. 

Rep. 822 156, 161, 215, 234 

Niool's Case, 3 De G. & J. 

387 521, 706, 764 

NicoU V. aark, 13 N. Y. Misc. 

128; 34 N. Y. Supp. 159 230 
V. New York, etc. R. R. 

Co., 12 N. Y. 121 107 

Nicollet Nat. Bank v. City 

Bank, 38 Minn. 85; 35 

N. W. 577; 8 Am. St. 

Rep. 643 572, 716, 752 

V. Frisk-Turner Co., 71 

Minn. 413; 74 N. W. 160; 

70 Am. St. Rep. 334 22, 43 

NicoUs V. Reid, 109 Cal. 630; 

42 Pac. 298 712, 781 

Niemeyer v. Little Rock Junc- 
tion Ry. Co., 43 Ark. Ill 121, 
240, 245 

Nightingal v. Devisme, 5 

Burr. 2589 421 

Niles V. Edwards, 90 Cal. 10; 

27 Pao. 159 810 

V. New York, etc. R. R. 

Co., 176 N. Y. 119; 68 N. 

_E. 142 928, 947, 1350 

Niles Tool Works v. Louis- 
ville, etc. Ry. Co., 112 Fed. 
561; 50C. C. A. 390 1567 

Nimmo v. Jackson, 21 111. App. 
607 1211 

Ninneman v. Pox (Wash.), 86 

Pac. 213 928, 929 



cl 



Nippenose Mfg. Co. v. Stadon, 

68 Pa. St. 256 
Nisbit V. Macon Bank, etc. Co., 

12 Fed. 686 804, 805 

Niven v. Spickerman, 12 

Johns. (N. Y.) 401 
Nixon V. Brownlow, 3 H. & N. 

686 
V. Clear Creek LvimberCo. 

(Ala.), 43 So. 805 

V. Goodwin (Cal.), 85 

Pac. 169 • 917, 925, 1262 

Nixon's Navigation Co., Be 

(1897), 1 Ch. 872 
N. Mitchell v. City of Glascow 

Bank, 4 A. C. 624 
Noah V. German-American 

Bldg. Ass'n, 31 Ind. App. 

504; 68 N. E. 615 
Noakes v. Noakes & Co. 

(1907), 1 Ch. 64 1557, 1558 

Noble V. Euler, 20 N. Y. App. 

Div. 548; 47 N. Y. Supp. 

302 
V. Garden, 146 Cal. 225; 

79 Pac. 883 

V. Learned (Cal.), 87 

Pac. 402 

V. Turner, 69 Md. 519; 

16 Atl. 124 694, 716 

Nockells V. Crosby, 3 B. & C. 

814 
Noel V. Drake, 28 Kans. 265; 

42 Am. Rep. 162 
NoUer v. Wnght, 138 Mich. 

416; 101 N. W. 553 
Norbury's Case, 3 De G. & 

Sm. 423 
Norfolk, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Pendleton, 86 Va. 1004; 11 

S. E. 1062 
Norman v. Loomis-Manning 

Filter Co., 108 N. Y. Supp. 

261 
V. Mitchell, 5 De G. M. & 

G. 648 
Normandy v. Ind, Coope & Co. 

(1908), 1 Ch. 84 937, 946, 953. 

954, 1003, 1004, 1161, 1243r, 

1319, 1321, 1364 

Norris V. Cottle, 2 H. L. C. 

647 
North V. Forest, 15 Conn. 400 
North & South Rolling Stock 

Co. V. People, 147 111. 234; 

35 N. E. 608; 24 L. R. A. 

462 
North American, etc. Trust 

Co. V. Colonial, etc. Mort- 



625 



8 
214 
393 



542 
746 



853 



1182 
713 
713 



341 
1347 
1018 

337 



1633 



1373 

1175 



276 

422 



1167 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



297 

1235 

1517 
87 



1246 
1002 



gage Co., 83 Fed. 796; 28 

C. C. A. 88 
North British Ins. Co. v. 

Hallet, 7 Jur. n. s. 1263 
North Carolina R. R. Co. v. 

Drew, 3 Woods 691 

V. Moore, 7 N. Car. 6 

North Charterland Explora- 
tion Co. V. Riordan, 13 

Times L. R. 80, 281 350, 351 
North Eastern Ry. Co. v. 

Jackson, 19 W. R. 198 
North of England S. S. Co. 

(1905), 2 Ch. 15 , 
North Hudson Bldg., etc. 

Ass'n V. Childs, 82 Wise. 

460; 52N.W.600; 33 Am. 

St. Rep. 57 1228, 1259, 1286, 

1369 
North Milwaukee Town Site 

Co. V. Bishop, 103 Wise. 

492; 79 N. W. 785; 45 

L. R. A. 174 556, 558, 558, 560 
603, 605 
North Missouri R. R. Co. v. 

Miller, 31 Mo. 19 193 

North Pa. R. R. Co. v. Adams, 

54 Pa. St. 94; 93 Am. Dec. 

677 1459, 1460 

North River Ins. Co. v. 

Lawrence (1830), 3 Wend. 

(N. Y.) 482 
North River Meadow v. 

Shrewsbury Church, 22 N. 

J. Law 424; 53 Am. Dec. 

258 613, 914 

North Shore, etc. Ferry Co., 

63 Barb. 556 1020, 1024 

North Stafford Steel, etc. Co. 

V. Ward, L. R. 3 Ex. 172 608, 

609 
North Sydney Investment, 

etc. Co. V. Higgins (1899), 

A. C. 263 285, 642 

North West Argentine Ry. 

Co. (1900), 2 Ch. 882 469 

North-West Electric Co. v. 

Walsh, 29 Can. Sup. a. 33 579, 
627, 629 
North Western Ry. Co. v. 

M'Michael, 5 Ex. 114 173, 173, 

174 
Northage, Be (1891), 60 L. J. 

Ch. 488 1140 

Northampton Bank v. Pepoon , 

11 Mass. 288 1186, 1213 

Northern Ala. Ry. Co. v. 

Hopkins, 87 Fed. 505; 31 

C. C. A. 94 1642 



827 



Northern Assam Tea Co., 10 

Eqr. 458 
Nortnem Central Mich. R. R. 

Co. V. Eslow, 40 Mich. 222 
Northern Central Ry. Co. v. 

Keighler, 29 Md. 572 



1421 

169 

1492, 
1600 
1364 
1544 



V. Rider, 45 Md. 24 

V. State, 17 Md. 8 

V. Walworth, 193 Pa. St, 

207; 44 Atl. 253; 74 Am. 

St. Rep. 683 786 

Northern Electric Wire, etc. 

Co., 2 Megone 288 172 

Northern Nav. Co. v. Long, 11 

Ont. L. R. 230 1126, 1126 

Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. 

Am. Trading Co., 195 U. 

S. 439; 25 Sup. a. 84 1618, 
1644 
V. Heflin, 83 Fed. 93; 27 

C. C. A. 460 1613 

Northern Pac. R. Co. v. 

Lamont, 69 Fed. 23; 16 

C. C. A. 364 1566, 1570, 1572 

Northern Securities Co. v. 

U. S., 193 U. S. 197; 24 

Sup. Ct. 436 57, 264 

Nortnem Trust Co. v. Snyder, 

113 Wise. 516; 89 N. W. 

460; 90 Am. St. Rep. 867 949, 

951 
Northrop V. Bushnell, 38 

Conn. 498 177, 525, 528 



V. Curtis, 5 Conn. 246 



699, 
700 



V. Newtown, etc. Turn- 
pike Co. , 3 Conn. 544 699 

Northside Ry. Co. v. Worth- 
ington, 88 Tex. 562; 30 
S. W. 1055; 53 Am. St. 
Rep. 778 1403 

Northumberland Ave. Hotel 

Co., Re, 33 Ch. D. 16 285, 286, 

1314 

Northumberland & Durham 
Dist. Banking Co., 2 De G. 
& J. 357 224 

Northwestern, etc. Ass'n v. 
Schauss, 148 111. 304; 35 
N. E. 747 660 

V. Wanner, 24 111. App. 

358 584 

Northwestern Land Ass'n v. 
Grady, 137 Ala. 219; 33 
So. 874 1259 

Northwestern Life Ins. Co. v. 
Erlenkoetter, 90 111. App. 99 

582, 592 



eli 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. 

Co. V. Cotton Exoh., etc. 

Co., 46 Fed. 22 628, 635 
V. Cotton Exch., etc. Co., 

70 Fed. 155 628 

Northwestern Packing Co. v. 

Whitney (Cal.), 89 Pac. 

981 592 

Northwestern Transportation 

Co. V. Beatty, 12 A. C. 589 1080, 
1297, 1311, 1312 
Northwestern Union Packet 

Co. V. Shaw, 37 Wise. 655; 

19 Am. Rep. 781 849, 855, 858 
Northwood Union Shoe Co. v. 

Pray, 67 N.H. 435; 32Atl. 

770 625 

Norton V. Alabama Nat. 

Bank, 102 Ala. 420; 14 So. 

872 1372 
V. Derby Nat. Bank, 

61N. H. 589; 60 Am. Rep. 

334 851, 855 

V. State, 74 Ind. 337 230, 383 

V. Yates (1906), 1 K. B. 

112 1546 

Norwich, etc. Navigation v. 

Theobald, 1 Moody & M. 

151 608 

Norwich Pharmacal Co. v. 

Abaly (Wise), 113 N. W. 

963 393 

Norwich Yam Co., 22 Beav. 

143 394, 395 

Nourse v. Prime, 4 Johns. Ch. 

(N. Y.) 490; 8 Am. Dec. 

606; 7 Johns. Ch. 69; 11 

Am. Dec. 403 
Noyes v. Marsh, 123 Mass. 286 



B.Rich, 52 Me. 115 

1;. Spaulding, 27 Vt. 420 

Noyes Bros., 136 Fed. 977 



418 

786 
1029 
1515 

781 
698, 

810 



Nugent V. Supervisors, 19 

Wall. 241 162, 173 

Nute V. Hamilton Mut. Fire 
Ins. Co., 6 Gray (Mass.) 
174 577, 594 

Nutter V. Lexington, 'etc. 
R. R. Co., 6 Gray (Mass.) 
85 490 

Nye V. Storer, 168 Mass. 53; 

46 N. E. 402 1309, 1312 

O 

Oak Grove, etc. Cattle Co. v. 
Foster, 7 New Mex. 650; 41 
Pac. 522 1379 



Oakbank Oil Co. v. Crum, 8 
A. C. 65 433 

Oakes v. Cattaraugus Water 
Co., 143 N. Y. 430; 38 
N. E. 461 ; 26 L. R. A. 544 290, 

1381 

V. Oakes, 9 Hare 666 414 

V. Turquand, L. R. 2 

H. L. 325 178, 184, 186, 223 

Oakford v. Fischer, 75 111. 

App. 544 912 

Oakland Bank v. Wilcox, 60 

Cal. 126 1264 

Oakland, etc. Bank v. State 

Bank, 113 Mich. 284; 71 

N. W.453; 67 Am. St. Rep. 

463 772 

Oakley v. Working Men's 

Union Benev. Soc, 2 Hilton 

(N. Y.) 487 _ 1382 

Oban & Aultmore-Glenlivet 

Distilleries, 5 Eraser (Sc.) 

1140 111, 547 

O'Beime v. Allegheny, etc. 

R. R. Co., 151 N. Y. 372; 

45 N. E. 873 1587 
O'Brien v. Blaut, 17 N. Y. 

App. Div. 288; 45 N. Y. 
Supp. 217 1285 
V. Champlain Construc- 
tion Co., 107 Fed. 338 1354 

V. Cummings, 13 Mo. 

App. 197 111, 114, 571 

V. Fulkerson, 75 Mich. 

554; 42 N. W. 979 204 

Occidental Bldg. etc., Ass'n v. 

Sullivan, 62 Cal. 394 590 

O'Connor v. International 

Silver Co. (N. J.), 59 Atl. 

321; 62 Atl. 408 878,936,962, 
1027 
V. Virginia Pass., etc. Co., 

184 N. Y. 46; 76 N. E. 

1082 942, 942, 944, 978 
V. Virginia Pass, etc. Co., 

46 N. Y. Misc. 530; 92 

N. Y. Supp. 525 971 

O'Connor, etc. Mfg. Co. v. 

Coosa Furnace Co., 95 Ala. 

614; 10 So. 290; 36 Am. 

St. Rep. 251 1306, 1315 

Odessa Tramways v. Mendel, 

8 Ch. D. 235 199, 602, 606, 632 
Odessa Waterworks Co. 

(1901), 2 Ch. 190 n 471 

Odessa Waterworks Co., 

W. N. (1897) 166 469 

O'Donnell v. Johns, 76 Tex. 

362 387 



clii 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



O'Duffy V. Jaffe (1904), 2 Ir. 

27 267 

O'Dwyeri). Verdon, 115 N. Y. 

App. Div. 37 757, 757 

Oelbermann v. New York, etc. 

Ry. Co., 77 Hun (N. Y.) 

332; 29 N. Y. Supp.,545 76, 
1026, 1063 
Off V. Jack, 204 lU. 79; 68 

N. E. 427 1323, 1323 

Ogdensburgh, etc. R. R. Co. 

V. Frost, 21 Barb. 541 121, 601 
Ogilvie V. Knox Ins. Co., 22 

How. 380 177, 180, 181 

Ogle V. Knipe, 8 Eq. 434 424, 424 
Oglesby v. Attrill, 105 U. S. 

605 981 

O'Herron v. Gray, 168 Mass. 

573; 47N. E. 429; 60 Am. 

St. Rep. 411; 40 L. R. A. 

498 683, 726 

Ohio V. Frank, 103 U. S. 697 1441 
Ohio Central R. R. Co. v. 

Central Trust Co., 133 U. S. 

83; 10 Sup. Ct. 235 1453, 1465, 
1522, 1623 
Ohio Coal Co. v. Whitcomb, 

123 Fed. 359 1620, 1629 

Ohio College v. Rosenthal, 45 

Oh. St. 183; 12 N. E. 665 450, 

451 
Ohio Ins. Co. v. Nunemacher, 

15Ind. 294; 10 Ind. 234 499, 

500 
Ohio Valley Nat. Bank v. 

Hulitt, 204 U. S. 162 617, 621 
V. Walton Architectural 

Iron Co., 30 Wkly. Law 

Bull. (Oh.) 382 1034, 1203, 

1217 
Ohio, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

McPherson, 35 Mo. 13; 86 

Am. Dec. 128 1009, 1208, 1224, 

1227 
Ohio, etc. Ry. Co. v. Russell, 

115 111. 52; 3N. E. 561 1609 

Oil City Land, etc. Co. v. 

Porter, 99 Ky. 254; 35 

S. W. 643 186 

Oil Creek, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Pa. Transportation Co., 83 

Pa. St. 160 852, 854 

Olathe Silver Mining Co., 27 

Ch. D. 278 1529 

Old Bushmills Distillery 

(1897), 1 Ir. R. 489 1547 

Old Colony Trust Co. v. City 

of Wichita, 123 Fed. 762 248, 
833, 1484 



969 



331 



Old Colony Trust Co. v. Du- 
buque, etc. Traction Co., 
89 Fed. 794 

V. Standard Beet Sugar 

Co., 150 Fed. 677 1504, 1520, 

1550 

Old Dominion Copper Co. v. 
Lewisohn, 136 Fed. 915; 
affirmed 148 Fed. 1020 

Old Dominion Copper Min- 
ing, etc. Co. V. Bigelow, 188 
Mass. 315; 74 N. E. 653; 
108 Am. St. Rep. 479 312, 314, 
315,327,331,334,335 

Oldham Corporation v. Bank 
of England (1904), 2 Ch. 
716 

Oldknow V. Wainwright, 1 
Wm. Bl. 289; 2 Burr. 1017 

Oldtown, etc. R. R. Co. v. 
Veazie, 39 Me. 571 609, 610 

Oler V. Baltimore, etc. R. R. 

Co., 41 Md. 583 154, 195, 198, 

221 

Oliphant v. Bank of Commerce 
60 Ark. 198; 29 S. W. 460 

Oliver v. Oliver, 118 Ga. 362; 
45 S. E. 232 

V. Rah way Ice Co., 64 

N. J. Eq. 596; 54Atl. 460 



794 
1206 



770 
1352 



1316, 
1316 
Oliver's Estate, 136 Pa. St. 

43; 20 Atl. 527; 20 Am. 

St. Rep. 894; 9 L. R. A. 

421 1092, 1148 

Olmstead v. Vance, etc. Co., 

196111.236; 63 N. E. 634 191, 

192, 518, 526 

Olney v. Chadsey, 7 R. I. 224 914, 

920, 1246, 1248, 1372 

Olsen V. Homestead Land Co., 

87 Tex. 368; 28 S. W. 944 542, 
1091, 1119 
Olson V. State Bank, 67 Minn. 

267; 69N. W.904 492 

Olympia, Ltd. (1898) 2 Ch. 

153 324, 324, 328 

Olympia Mining Co. v. Kerns 

(Idaho), 91 Pac. 92 214 

Olyphant v. St. Louis, etc. Co., 

23 Fed. 465 1629 
V. St. Louis, etc. Co., 28 

Fed. 729 1611 

Omaha Law Library Ass'n v. 

Connell, 55 Nebr. 396; 75 

N. W. 837 650, 651 

Omaha Water Co. v. City of 

Omaha, 147 Fed. 1; 77 

C. C. A. 267 1521 



cliii 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



O'Mara v. Newoomb (Colo.), 

88 Pac. 167 723, 808 

Omnium Investment Co., Re, 

(1895), 2 Ch. 127 537 

O'Neal V. F. A. Neider Co., 25 

Ky. Law Rep. 2279; 80 

S. W. 451 1183, 1183 

Oneida Bank v. Ontario 

Bank, 21 N. Y. 490 866 

O'Neile v. Temes, 32 Wash. 

528; 73 Pac. 692 1351 

O'Neill V. Webb, 78 Mo. App. 

1 786 
, Be, 47 N. Y. Misc. 495; 

95 N. Y. Supp. 964 894 

Onslow's Case, 3 Times L. R. 

551 1171 

Ontario Ladies College v. 

Kendiy, 10 Ont. L. R. 324 166 
Ontario Salt Co. v. Merchants 

Salt Co., 18 Grant Ch. 

(Up. Can.) 540 80 

Ooregum Gold Mining Co. v. 

Roper (1892), A. C. 125 627, 

627, 639 
Opdyke v. Marble, 44 Barb. 

(N. Y.) 64 890 

Opera, Ltd. (1891), 3 Ch. 260 1546 
Ophir Consol. Mines Co. v. 

Brynteson, 143 Fed. 829; 

74 C. C. A. 625 526 

Opinion of Atty.-Gen., 18 Pa. 

Co. Ct. 492 120 

Oppenheimer v. Boatman 

(1907), 1 Ch. 399 1157 

Order of Chosen Friends v. 

Austerlitz, 75 111. App. 75 662 
Oregon Ry. Co. v. Oregonian 

Ry.Co., 130U.S. 1; 9 Sup. 

a. 409 36, 52, 836 

Oregon Trust & Savings 

Bank, 156 Fed. 319 20 

Oregon, etc. Nav. Co. v. 

Balfour, 90 Fed. 295; 33 

C. C. A. 57 300 

Oreffon & Transcontinental 

Co. V. Hilmers, 20 Fed. 717 808 
O'Reiley v. Kankakee Valley • 

Draining Co., 32 Ind. 169 94 

Oriental, etc. Steam Co. v. 

Briggs, 4 De G. F. & J. 191 165 
Ormerod's Case, 25 W. R. 765 1337 

(1894), 2 Ch. 474 363 

, 5 Eq. 110 200 

Ormsby v. Vermont Copper 

Mining Co., 56 N. Y. 623 665, 
1008, 1208 
Ornamental Pyrographic Co. 

V. Brown, 2 H. & C. 63 608 



232 



Oroville, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Palmas County, 37 Cal. 354 
Orr V. South Amboy Terra 

Cotta Co., 113 N. Y. App. 

Div. 103 1302, 1328 

Orrick School Dist. v. Dorton, 

125 Mo. 439; 28 S. W. 

765 249 

Ortigosa v. Brown, 38 L. T. 

145 686, 707, 707, 718, 762 

Osbom V. Gilliams, 33 N. Y. 

Misc. 312; 68 N. Y. Supp. 

470 
Osborne v. Tunis, 25 N. J. 

Law 633 
Osborne Park Land & Invest- 
ment Co., 18 Vict. L. R. 515 
Oscar Bonner Oil Co. v. 

Pennsylvania Oil Co. 

(Cal.), 89 Pac. 613 
Osceola Tribe v. Schmidt, 57 

Md. 98 
Osgood V. King, 42 Iowa 478 
Ossipee, etc. Mfg. Co. v. 

Canney, 54 N. H. 295 109, 117, 

652, 868, 1408, 1409 

Otis V. Cullum, 92 U. S. 447 1440 

V. Gardner, 105 111. 436 723 

Ottawa Dairy Co. v. Sorley, 

34 Can. Sup. Ct. 508 
Ottawa Union Bldg. Soc. v. 

Scott, 24 Up. Can. Q. B. 341 



1262 
398 
215 



1377 

577 
528 



211 



Ottawa, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Black, 79 lU. 262 
Otter V. Brevoort Petroleum 

Co., 50 Barb. (N. Y.) 247 



583, 
590 

163 

163, 
649 



cliv 



Otter View Land Co.'s Re- 
ceiver V. Bowling's Extx., 
24 Ky. Law Rep. 1157; 70 
S. W. 834 614 

Otto Electrical Mfg. Co. 

(1906), 2 Ch. 390 293 

Ottoman Cahvey Co. v. Dane, 

95 111. 203 379 

Ottos Kopje Diamond Mines 

(1893), 1 Ch. 618 730, 731, 747, 
749, 752 

Ottumwa Screen Co. v. Stodg- 
hill, 103 Iowa 437; 72 
N. W. 669 716 

Oudin, etc. Mfg. Co. v. 
Conlan, 34 Wash. 216; 75 
Pac. 798 1167 

Overend & Gumey Co. v. Gibb, 

L. R. 5 H. L. 480 1273, 1274 

Overton v. Memphis, etc. R.R. 

Co., 10 Fed. 866 957 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Ovid Elevator Co. v. Secretary 
of State, 90 Mich. 466; 51 
N. W. 536 134 

Owen V. Shepard, 59 Fed. 746; 
8 C. C. A. 244 231, 231, 251 

Owen & Ashworth's Claim 

(1901), 1 Ch. 115 1205, 1222, 

1259 1343 

Owen & Co. v. Cronk (1895), ' 
1 Q. B. 265 1580 

Owens V. Atlanta Trust, etc. 

Co.,122Ga.521;50S.E.379 770 

Oxford Bldg. Society, 35 Ch. 

D. 502 1109, 1110, 1241, 1284, 

1333 

Oxford Turnpike Co. v. Bun- 
nell, 6 Conn. 552 716 



Pabst V. Goodrich (Wise), 

113 N. W. 398 522, 1145 

Pacific Bank v. Stone, 121 

Cal. 202; 53 Pac. 634 1372 

Pacific Fruit Co. v. Coon, 107 

Cal. 447; 40 Pac. 542 524 

Pacific Mill Co. v. Inman, 

Poulsen & Co. (Oreg.), 90 

Pac. 1099 491, 493 

Pacific Nat. Bank v. Eaton, 

141 U. S. 227; 11 Sup. Ct. 

984 154, 490 

Pacific Northwest Packing Co. 

V. Allen, 116 Fed. 312; 54 

C. C. A. 648 1627, 1630 

Pacific R. R. Co. v. Ketchum, 

101 U. S. 289 1636 
V. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 

Ill U. S. 505; 4 Sup. Ct. 

583 968, 987, 1636 
V. Seeby, 45 Mo. 212; 

100 Am. Dec. 369 862, 864 
V. Wade, 91 Cal. 449; 

27 Pac. 768; 13 L. R. A. 

754; 25 Am. St. Rep. 201 1616 
Pacific Trust Co. v. Dorsey, 

72 Cal. 55; 12 Pac. 49 645 

£acific Vinegar, etc; Works v. 

Smith, 93 Pac. (Cal.) 85 1276, 

1277 
V. Smith, 145 Cal. 352; 

78 Pac. 550; 104 Am. St. 

Rep. 42 1296, 1310, 1311 

Packard v. Old Colony R. R. 

Co., 168 Mass. 92; 46N. E. 

433 161, 230 

Padstow Total Loss & Colli- 
sion Ass. Ass'n, 20 Ch. D. 

137 258 



Paducah Land, etc. Co. v. 

Hayes, 15 Ky. Law Rep. 

517; 24 S. W. 237 1334, 1338, 

1339 
Paducah, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Parks, 86 Tenn. 554; 8 S. 

842 193, 633 

Page V. Austin, 10 Can. Sup. 

Ct. 132 483, 483 
V. International, etc. 

Trust, 62 L. J. Ch. 610 1514 

Page Belting Co. v. Prince 

(N. H.), 67 Atl. 401 806, 810, 
1130 
Pagin and Gill's Case, 6 Ch. 

D. 681 643 

Paige V. Smith, 99 Mass. 395 1617 
Pain V. Soci6t6 St. Jean 

Baptiste, 172 Mass. 319; 

52 N. E. 502; 70 Am. St. 

Rep. 287 586 
Paine v. Hutchison, 3 Ch. 388 782, 
785, 787, 787 
V. Lake Erie, etc. R. R. 

Co., 31 Ind. 283 1335 

Painesville, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

King, 17 Oh. St. 534 451, 1108 
Pakenham Pork Packing Co., 

6 Ont. L. R. 582 178 

, 12 Ont. L. R. 100 1214 

Palliser v. Home Telephone 

Co. (Ala.), 44 So. 575 488, 488 
Palmer v. Bank of Zumbrota, 

72 Minn. 266; 75N.W.380 480 
483, 486 

V. Forbes, 23 111. 301 1496, 

1502, 1606 
V. Hawes, 73 Wise. 46; 

40 N. W. 676 • 1350, 1353 

25 



V. Pinkham, 33 Me. 32 

V. Ring, 113 N. Y. App. 

Div. 643 
Palmer's Decoration, etc Co. 

(1904), 2 Ch. 743 
Palys V. Jewett, 32N.J.Eq.302 
Panama, etc. Mail Co., 5 Ch. 

318 1393, 1395, 1519 

Pancoastv. Travelers' Ins. Co., 

79 Ind. 172 
Panhandle Nat. Bank v. 

Emery, 78 Tex. 498; 15 

S. W. 23 
Panmure, Ex parte, 24 Ch. D. 

367 
Pannebaker v. Tuscarora 

Valley R. Co. (Pa.), 67 Atl. 

923 
Panton and the Cramp Steel 

Co., 9 Ont. L. R. 3 



1071 

1429 
1616 



852 



86 
175 



853 
746 



civ 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Panzl V. Battle Island, etc. 

Co., 132 Fed. 607; 138 Fed. 

48 1356 

Parbury's Case (1896), 1 Ch. 

100 650, 650 

Pardee v. Aldridge, 189 U. S. 

429; 23 Sup. Ct. 514 1510 

Paris V. Paris, 10 Ves. 185 1141, 
1145, 1148 
Parish V. Wheeler, 22 N. Y. 

494 844, 1510 

Park V. Grant Locomotive 

Works, 40 N. J. Eq. 114; 3 

Atl. 162 1110, 1186, 1188 
V. Modem Woodmen of 

America, 181 111. 214; 54 

N. E. 932 282 
V. New York, etc. R. Co., 

57 Fed. 799 1612, 1612 
V. New York, etc. R. R. 

Co., 64 Fed. 190 
V. Zwart, 92 Iowa 37; 60 

N. W. 220 
Park Hotel Co. v. Fourth Nat. 

Bank, 86 Fed. 742; 30 C. C. 

A. 409 
Parker v. Bethel Hotel Co., 

96Tenn.252; 34S.W.209; 

31 L. R. A. 706 694, 1072 
V. Dupree, 28 Tex. Civ. 

App. 341; 67 S. W. 185 

V. Mason, 8 R. I. 427 

V. McKenna, 10 Ch. 96 

V. New Orleans R. R. Co., 

33 Fed. 693 1502, 1511, 1520 
V. Nickerson, 112 Mass. 

195 1306, 1331, 1332, 1332 

V. Northern Central 

Mich. R. R. Co., 33 Mich. 

23 169 
V. River Dam Nav. Co., 

1 De G. & Sm. 192 976 
V. Thomas, 19 Ind. 213; 

81 Am. Dec. 385 185, 193 
V. U. S. Bldg., etc. Ass'n, 

19 W. Va. 744 595 

, Ex parte, 2 Ch. 685 744 

Parkhurst v. Mexican, etc. 

R. R. Co., 102 111. App. 507 172 

V. Northern Central 

R. R. Co., 19 Md. 472; 81 

Am. Dec. 648 1515, 1551 

Parkin v. Fry, 2 C. & P. 3 11 309 
Parkinson v. West End Street 

Ry. Co., 173 Mass. 446; 53 

N. E. 891 1475, 1476 

Parks V. Gates, 84 N. Y. App. 

Div. 534; 82 N. Y. Supp. 

1070 337 



1574 
108 



84 



1619 

543 

1335 



Parmelee «. Associated Plr^si- 

cians, etc., 9 N. Y. Misc. 

458; 30 N. Y. Supp. 250 1379 
Parmelee Library, 120 Fed. 

235; 56 C. C. A. 583 44 

Parrott v. Byers, 40 Cal. 614 962, 

964 
Parsons v. Hayes, 14 Abb. 

N. C. 419 (N. Y.) 331, 969, 1290 

V. Jackson, 99 U. S. 434 1410, 

1424, 1434, 1436 
V. Little, 28 App. D. C. 

218 1585 
V. Tacoma Smelting, etc. 

Co., 25 Wash. 492; 65 Pac. 

765 57, 71, 1026, 1203, 1305, 

1312 
Partridge v. Badger, 25 Barb. 

(N. Y.) 146 63, 917 

Patent File Co., 6 Ch. 83 65 

Patent Invert Sugar Co., 31 

Ch. D. 166 487 

Patent Ventilating Co., Be, 12 

Ch. D. 254 534 

Paton V. Northern R. R. Co., 

85 Fed. 838 1659 

Paton's Case, 5 Ont. L. R. 392 83, 

705 
Patrick V. Reynolds, 1 C. B. 

N. s. 727 308 

Pattberg v. Pattberg Bros., 

55 N. J. Eq. 604; 38 Atl. 

205 1639 

Patterson v. Arnold, 45 Pa. St. 

410 222, 240, 245, 245, 252, 

261 
V. Robinson, 116 N. Y. 

193; 22N. E. 372 1373 
V. Smelting Works, 35 

Oreg. 96; 56 Pac. 407 1214, 
1215, 1296, 1317, 1344 
V. Turner, 3 Ont. L. Rep. 

373 215 

Pattison v. Albany Bldg., etc. 

Ass'n, 63 Ga. 373 222 

Paul Boyer, Ltd.,?).Edwardes, 

17 Times L. R. 16 355, 356 

Paulino v. Portuguese Bene- 
ficial Ass'n, 18 R. I. 165; 

26 Atl. 36; 20 L. R. A. 272 374 
Pauly V. Coronada Beach Co., 

56 Fed. 428 76, 77 
V. Pauly, 107 Cal. 8; 40 

Pac. 29; 48 Am. St. Rep. 
98 855, 1210, 1303, 1307, 1316, 
1377 

V. State Loan, etc. Co., 

165 U. S. 606; 17 Sup. Ct. 

465 622, 623, 810 



clvi 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Pawle's Case, 4 Ch. 497 179 

Paxton V. Bacon Mill, etc. Co., 

2 Nev. 257 280, 282 
V. Heron (Colo.), 92 Pac. 

15 918, 1203, 1322 

Paxton Cattle Co. v. First 

Nat. Bank, 21 Nebr. 621; 

33 N. W. 271; 59 Am. St. 

Rep. 852 288, 290 

Payn v. Mutual Relief Soc, 17 

Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 53 659 

Payne I). BuUard, 23 Miss. 88; 

55 Am. Dec. 74 518, 524 
V. New South Coal Co., 

10 Ex. 283 280 

Payne & Co., David (1904), 2 

Ch. 608 861, 1235, 1235, 1407 
Payne's Case, 9 Eq. 223 763, 766 
Payson v. Stoever, 2 Dillon 

427 486, 1074, 1189 

V. Withers, 5 Biss. 269 492, 

1189 
P. B. Mathiason Mfg. Co. 

(Mo.), 99 S. W. 502 1006, 

1013, 1015, 1016, 1037, 1039, 
1040, 1046, 1060 
Peabody v. Flint, 6 Allen 52 

(Mass.) 935, 967 

Pearce v. Madison, etc. R. R. 

Co., 21 How. 441 838 

Pearly v. Smith, 3 Atk. 260 1442 
Pearson v. Concord R. R. 

Corp., 62 N. H. 537; 13 Am. 

St. Rep. 590 57, 58, 75, 76, 944, 
959, 1082, 1306, 1312, 1326 
V. London & Croydon 

Ry. Co., 14 Sim. 541 504 

V. Tower, 55 N. H. 215 1378 

Pearson's Case, 3 De G. M. & 

G. 241 309 

■ , 5 Ch. D. 336 1337, 1338, 1339 

Peat V. Clayton (1906), 1 Ch. 

659 713, 714, 714 

Peatman v. Centreville Light, 

etc. Co., 100 Iowa 245; 69 

N. W. 541 1408 

Pecku. Elliott, 79 Fed. 10; 24 

C. C. A. 425; 38 L. R. A. 

616 481, 492, 529, 631 
V. New London Mut. Ins. 

Co., 22 Conn. 575 1378 
V. New York, etc. Ry. Co. , 

85 N. Y. 246 1637 
«. Peck, 33 Colo. 421; 80 

Pac. 1063 974, 982 

Peck Bros. & Co. v. Peck 

Bros. Co., 113 Fed. 291; 

51 C. C. A. 251 377, 377, 378, 

388 



clvii 



Peckham v. Dutchess Co. R. R. 
Co., 145 N. Y. 385; 40 
N. E. 15 1613 

V. Mason, 8 R. I. 427 1144 

V. Newton, 15 R. I. 321; 

4 Atl. 758 380 

V. Van Wagenen, 83 N. Y. 

40; 38 Am. Rep. 392 1116 

Pedlar v. Road Block Gold 

Mines (1905), 2 Ch. 427 98, 99, 

99 

Peel V. London & N. W. Ry. 

Co. (1907), 1 Ch. 5 89, 89 

Peel's Case, 2 Ch. 674 130, 177, 

214, 223 

Pegge V. Neath, etc. Tram- 
ways (1898), 1 Ch. 183 1416 

Peirce v. Burroughs, 58 N. H. 

302 502 

V. Com., 104 Pa. St. 150 1016 

V. Morse-Oliver Bldg. 

Co., 47 Atl. 914 1196, 1210 

V. New Orleans Bldg. 

Co., 9 La. 397; 29 Am. Dec. 

448 1010, 1068 

V. Van Dusen, 78 Fed. 

693 1618, 1619 

Pell's Case, 5 Ch. 11 205, 206, 

634, 634 

Pellatt's Case, 2 Ch. 527 191, 634 

Pelly, Ex parte, 21 Ch. D. 490 294 

Pelton V. Spider Lake Saw- 
mill, etc. Co. (Wise), 112 
N. W. 29 1379, 1379 

Pender v. Lushington, 6 Ch. 

D. 70 933, 943, 947, 1014, 

1020, 1080, 1192 

Pendergast v. Bank of Stock- 
ton, 2 Sawy. 108 572 

Pendery v. Carleton, 87 Fed. 

41 ; 30 C. C. A. 510 199 

Pendleton v. Harris-Emery 
Co., 124 Iowa 361.; 100 
N. W. 117 447 

Penfold V. Charlevoix Sav. 
Bank, 140 Mich. 126; 103 
N. W. 572 749 

Peninsular Iron Co. v. Eells, 

68 Fed. 24 ; 15 C. C. A. 189 1497 

Peninsular Ry. Co. v. Dimcan, 

28 Mich. 130 208, 211, 212, 

213 

Penn v. Calhoun, 121 U. S. 
251; 7Sup. a. 906 1570 

Penn Match Co. v. Hapgood, 

141 Mass. 145; 7 N. E. 22 284, 
285, 301 

Pennell v. Lathrop, 191 Mass. 
357 282, 283, 284 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



1356 

713 
1502 



1598 



70 
1126 



1625 



Penney v. Biyant, 70 Nebr. 
127; 96 N. W. 1033 

Pennington v. Gittings, 2 Gill 
& J. (Md.) 208 

Pennock v. Coe, 23 How. 117 

1527, 1556 

Pennsylvania Co. v. Jackson- 
ville, etc. Ry. Co., 55 Fed. 
131; 5C. C. A. 53 

V. Jacksonville, etc. Ry. 

Co., 93 Fed. 60; 35 C. C. A. 

202 1641, 1642 

V. Philadelphia, etc. 

R. R. Co., 36 Wily. Notes 

Cas. (Pa.) 534 1461, 1596 

Pennsylvania Co. for Ins. v. 

Bauerle; 33 N. E. 166 
Pennsylvania Iron Works v. 

Mackenzie, 76 N. E. 228 
Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. 

Allegheny Valley R. R. Co., 

42 Fed. 82 
V. Allegheny, etc. R. R. 

Co., 48 Fed. 139 1457, 1623 
V. Jones, 155 U. S. 333; 

15 Sup. a. 136 1583 
V. Pennsylvania Co. for 

Ins., etc., 205 Pa. St. 219; 

54 Atl. 783 1021, 1022 
V. St. Louis, etc. R. R. 

Co., 118 U. S. 290; 6 Sup. 

a. 1094 838, 839, 841 

Pennsylvania R. R. Co.'s 

Appeal, 86 Pa. St. 80 720, 727, 

757 
Pennsylvania Transporta- 
tion Company's Appeal, 101 

Pa. St. 576 1632, 1659 

Pennsylvania, etc. Navigation 

Co. V. Dandridge, 8 G. & J. 

(Md.) 248; 29 Am. Dec. 543 

822, 826 
Penny, Ex parte, 8 Ch. 446 764, 
764, 764, 764, 764, 765 
Penobscot R. R. Co. v. 

Dummer, 40 Me. 172; 63 

Am. Dec. 654 608, 610, 921 
r. White, 41 Me. 512; 66 

Am. Dec. 257 606, 608, 921, 

1213 
Penobscot, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Dunn, 39 Me. 587 600, 611, 1038, 

1201, 1224 

Penrose v. Martyr, E. B. & E. 

499 
Pentelow's Case, 4 Ch. 178 
People V. Ah Sam, 41 Cal. 645 

V. Albany Hospital, 61 

Barb. (N. Y.) 397 



369 
165 
230 

996 



People V. Albany Medical Col- 
lege, 26 Hun 348; 89N. Y. 
635 1200 

V. Albany, etc. R. R. Co., 

55 Barb. (N. Y.) 344 998, 998, 
998, 1055, 1055, 1059 

V. Am. Bell Tel. Co., 117 

N. Y. 241; 22 N. E. 1057 878 

V. Am. Ice Co., 104 N. Y. 

Supp. 858 890 

V. American Inst., 44 

How. Pr. 468 1034 

V. Ballard, 134 N. Y. 269; 

32 N. E. 54; 17 L. R. A. 

737 51, 71 

V. Batchelor, 22 N. Y. 

128 998 
V. Bumham, 104 N. Y. 

Supp. 725; 106 N.Y. Supp. 

57 920 
V. Carter, 122 Mich. 668; 

81 N. W. 924 250 

V. Cataract Bank, 5 

N. Y. Misc. 14; 25 N. Y. 
Supp. 129 897 

V. Chicago Board of 

Trade, 45 111. 112 566 

V. Commissioners of 

Taxes, 23 N. Y. 192 416 

V. Conklin, 7 Hun (N. Y.) 

188 
V. Crossley, 69 111. 195 



1206 
1040, 
1057 



V. Cummings, 72 N. Y. 

433 

— V. Devin, 17 111. 84 

— V. Dole, 122 Cal. 486; 55 
Pac. 581; 68 Am. St. Rep. 
50 

— V. Duffy-Mclnnery Co., 
106 N. Y. Supp. 878 

V. Ehnore, 35 Cal. 653 

V. Equitable Life Ass. 

Soc, 109 N. Y. Supp. 453 

1285, 1287 

— V. Globe Mut. Life Ins. 
Co., 91 N. Y. 174 

— V. Kip, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 
382 re. 

— V. La Rue, 67 Cal. 526 



996 
1024 



230 

163 
716 

1280, 



1242 



clviii 



1031 
249, 
250 

— V. Lyon, 104 N. Y. Supp. 

319 1184, 1184 

— V. Milk Exchange, 77 
Hun (N. Y.) 436; 29 N. Y. 
Supp. 259 263 

V. Montecito Water Co., 

97 Cal. 276; 32 Pac. 236; 
33Am.St.Rep.l72 118,119,219 



TABLE OP CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



People V. North River Sugar 

Refinery, 121 N. Y. 582; 

24 N. E. 834; 16 Am. St. 

Rep. 843; 9 L. R. A. 33 
V. Oakland County 

Bank, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 282 



79 

914, 
916 



V. Peck, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 

604; 27 Am. Deo. 104 999, 1000 
— — V. Phillips, 1 Denio 

(N. Y.) 389 1066 
V. Rose, 188 111. 268; 59 

N. E. 432 23, 113 
V. Rose, 219 111. 46; 76 

N. E. 42 114, 374, 387 

V. Runkle, 9 Johns. 

(N. Y.) 147 1035, 1185, 1231 

V. Selfridge, 52 Cal. 331 104 

V. Sterling Mfg. Co., 82 

111. 457 559, 992, 993, 1232 
V. Stockton, etc. R. R. 

Co., 45 Cal. 306; 13 Am. 

Rep. 178 219, 645 

V. Throop, 12 Wend. 

(N. Y.) 183 579, 906, 1251 

V. Tibbets, 4 Cow. 

(N. Y.) 358 1022, 1024, 1031, 

1249, 1249 

V. Tuthill, 31 N. Y. 550 1065 

V. Twaddell, 18 Hun 

(N. Y.) 427 994, 998, 1010, 

1012, 1040, 1185 

i;. White, 11 Abb. Pr. 

(N. Y.) 168 1037 

People ex rel. Althause v. 

Giroux Consol. Mines Co., 

107 N. Y. Supp. 188 899, 901, 

904 
People ex rel. Barney v. 

Whalen, 104 N. Y. Supp. 

555 53, 114, 114 

V. Whalen, 106 N. Y. 

Supp. 434 53, 114 

People ex- rel. Belknap v. 
Beach, 19 Hun (N. Y.) 259 46, 
46, 47, 95, 103 

People ex rel. Bernard v. 
Cheeseman, 7 Colo. 376; 3 
Pac. 716 106, ll9, 219 

People ex rel. Bishop v. 
Walker, 9 Mich. 328 894, 907 

People ex rel. Blossom v. 

Nelson, 46 N. Y. 477 114, 125 

People ex rel. Board of Chari- 
ties V. N. Y. Soc. for Pre- 
vention, etc., 161 N. Y. 233 ; 
55 N. E. 1063 22 

People ex rel. Bosqui v. Crock- 
ett, 9 Cal. 112 578, 744 



clix 



People ex rel. Brooklyn Gas 
Co. V. Morgan, 114 N. Y. 
App. Div. 266 1103 

People ex rel. Callanan v. 
Keeseville, etc. R. R. Co., 
106 N. Y. App. Div. 349; 
94 N. Y. Supp. 555 895, 901 

People ex rel. Cantrell v. St. 
Louis, etc. R. R. Co., 176 
111. 512; 52 N. E. 292; 35 
L. R. A. 656 449 

People ex rel. Clason v. Nassau 
Perry Co., 86 Hun (N. Y.) 
128; 33 N. Y. Supp. 244 903 

People ex rel. Coliunbia 
Chemical Co. v. O'Brien, 
101 N. Y. App. Div. 296; 
91 N. Y. Supp. 649 373, 374, 

375 

People ex rel. Copland v. 
Minong Min. Co., 33 
Mich. 2 1184 

People ex rel. Davenport v. 
Rice, 68 Hun (N. Y.) 24; 
22 N. Y. Supp. 631 125, 128, 

221 

People ex rel. Deverell v. 
Musical, etc. Union, 118 
N. Y. 101; 23 N. E. 129 580 

People ex rel. Dodson v. Board 
ofTrade,79N. E. 611; 224 
111. 370 580 

People ex rel. Doyle v. N. Y. 
Benevolent Soc, 3 Hun 361 
(N. Y.) 427, 580 

People ex rel. Elliott v. N. Y. 
Cotton Exchange, 8 Hun 
216 (N. Y,) 576 

People ex rel. Erie R. R. Co. v. 
Board of R. R. Comm'rs, 
105 N. Y. App.- Div. 273; 
93 N. Y. Supp. 584 119 

People ex rel. Famimi v. San 
Francisco Sav. Co., 72 Cal. 
199; 13 Pac. 498 1105, 1109 

People ex rel. Felter v. Rose, 
225 111. 496; 80 N. E. 293 125, 

374 

People ex rel. Gales v. Mo- 
Donough, 28 N. Y. Misc. 
652; 60 N. Y. Supp. 45 105 

People ex rel. Hamman v. 
Paton,20Abb.N.C.(N.Y.) 
172 901, 902 

People ex rel. Harriman v. 
Paton, 20 Abb. N. C. 
(N. Y.) 195 901,906 

People ex rel. Hart v. Phillips, 

1 Denio (N. Y.) 389 1031 



TABLE Of" CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



People ex rel. Hatch v. Lake 
Shore, etc. R. R. Co., 11 
Hun (N. Y.) 1 893, 894, 903, 

906 

People ex rel. Home Life Ins. 
Co. V. Home Life Ass. Co., 
Ill Mich. 405; 69 N. W. 
653 379 

People ex rel. Hunter v. Nat. 
Park Bank, 107 N. Y. Supp. 
369 901 

People ex rel. Jenkins v. 
Parker, etc. Coal Co., 10 
How. Pr. (N. Y.) 543 483 

People ex rel. Leach v. Central 
Fish Co., 101 N. Y. Supp. 
1108 897, 897 

People ex rel. Long Island 
R. R. Co. V. Board of R. R. 
Comm'rs, 75 N. Y. App. 
Div. 106; 77 N. Y. Supp. 
380 118 

People ex rel. Lorge v. Con- 
solidated Nat. Bank, 105 
N. Y. App. Div. 409; 94 
N. Y. Supp. 173 899, 901, 903, 

904 

People ex rel. Loy v. Mount 
Shasta Mfg. Co., 107 Cal. 
256; 40 Pac. 391 49, 50, 99 

People ex rel. McDonald v. 
United States Mercantile 
Rep. Co. 20 Abb. N. C. 
(N. Y.) 192 901, 904, 906 

People ex rel. Mcllhany v. 
Chicago Live Stock Exch., 
170111.556; 48N. E. 1062; 
62 Am. St. Rep. 404; 39 
L. R. A. 373 570 

People ex rel. Mclnnes v. 
Columbia Bag Co., 103 
N. Y. App. Div. 208; 92 
N. Y. Supp. 1084 896, 904, 

905 

People ex rel. Meads v. Alpha 
Lodge, 13 N. Y. Misc. 677; 
35 N. Y. Supp. 214 580, 1003 

People ex rel. Moloney v. Pull- 
man Car Co., 175 111. 125; 
51 N. E. 664; 64 L. R. A. 
366 76, 91 

People ex rel. Muir v. Throop, 

12 Wend. (N. Y.) 183 896, 906 

People ex rel. New York, etc. 
R. R. Co. V. Public Service 
Commission, 106 N. Y. 
Supp. 968 645 

People ex rel. N. Y., etc. R. R. 
Co. V. R. R. Comm'rs, 81 



clx 



N. Y. App. Div. 242; 81 
N. Y. Supp. 20; 175 N. Y. 
516; 67 N. E. 1088 137, 645 

People ex rel. Onderdonk v. 
Mott, 1 How. Pr. 247 897 

People ex rel. Peabody v. 
Chicago Gas Trust Co., 130 
ni. 268; 22 N. E. 798; 17 
Am. St. Rep. 319; 8 L. R. 
A. 497 47, 49, 57, 57, 75, 76, 76, 
114, 258, 263 

People ex rel. Piatt v. Oak- 
land Co. Bank, 1 Doug. 
(Mich.) 282 905 

People ex rel. Plumas County 

V. Chambers, 42 Cal. 201 645 

People ex rel. Probert v. 
Robinson, 64 Cal. 373; 1 
Pac. 156 1010, 1017, 1023 

People ex rel. Richmond v. 
Pac. Mail S. S. Co., 50 
Barb. 280 900 

People ex rel. Schmitt v. 
St. Franciscus Benev. Soc, 
24 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 216 

566, 580 

People ex rel. Schurtz v. Cook, 
110 N. Y. 443; 18 N. E. 
113 1523 

People ex rel. S. Cohn & Co. v. 
Miller, 180 N. Y. 16; 72 
N. E. 525 448 

People ex rel. Stephens v. 
Greenwood Lake Ass'n, 18 
N. Y. Supp. 491 1200 

People ex rel. Stewart v. 
Young Men's, etc. Soc, 41 
Mich. 67 579 

People ex rel. Stobo v. Eadie, 
63 Hun 320; 18 N. Y. 
Supp. 53; 133 N. Y. 573; 
30 N. E. 1147 893, 903 

People ex rel. Thacher v. N. Y. 
Commercial Ass'n, 18 Abb. 
Pr. (N. Y.) 271 566, 580 

People ex rel. Traders' Fire 
Ins. Co. V. Van Qeave, 183 
ni. 330; 55 N. E. 698; 47 
L. R. A. 795 379 

People ex rel. Union Trust Co. 
V. Coleman, 126 N. Y. 433; 
27 N. E. 818; 12 L. R. A. 
762 416 

People ex rel. U. S. Grand 
Lodge V. Payn, 161 N. Y. 
229; 55 N. E. 849 125, 370 

People ex rel. Van Norman v. 
Central Car, etc. Co., 41 
Mich. 166; 49 N. W. 925 1120 



TABLE OP CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



People ex rel. Venner v. N. Y. 

LUe Ins. Co., Ill N. Y. 

App. Div. 183; 97 N. Y. 

Supp. 465 893 

People ex rel. Wallace v. 

Sterling Mfg. Co., 82 111. 

457 562 

People ex rel. Ward v. Green, 

116 Mich. 505; 74 N. W. 

714 134, 138 

People ex rel. Weatherly v. 

Golden Gate Lodge, 128 

Cal. 257; 60 Pac. 865 117 

People's Bank v. Gridley, 91 

ni. 457 716 
V. Kurtz, 99 Pa. St. 344; 

44 Am. Rep. 112 784 

V. National Bank, 101 

U. S. 181 70 

V. St. Anthony's Church, 

109 N.Y. 512; 17 N. E. 
408 1210, 1371, 1376, 1377, 

1379 

V. Superior Court, 104 

Cal. 649; 38 Pac. 452; 
43 Am. St. Rep. 147; 29 

L. R. A. 844 1041 

People's Bank of Talbotton v. 

Exchange Bank, 116 Ga. 

820; 43 S. E. 269; 94 Am. 

St. Rep. 144 775, 775 

People's Bldg., etc. Ass'n 

V. Purdy (Colo.), 78 Pac. 

465 593 

People's Home Sav. Bank v. 

Rauer (Cal.), 84 Pac. 329 622 
People's Home Savings Bank 

V. Rickard, 139 Cal. 285; 

73 Pac. 858 619, 763, 763 

People's Home Sav. Bank v. 

Sadler (Cal.), 81 Pac. 1029 567, 
601, 625 
V. Stadtmuller (Cal.), 88 

Pac. 280 616, 782, 791 

People's Inv. Co. v. Crawford 

(Tex.), 45 S. W. 738 957, 958 
People's Mutual Ins. Co. v. 

Westcott, 14 Gray (Mass.) 

440 1003, 1226 

People's Trust Co. v. Brook- 
lyn, etc. R. R. Co., 106 

N.Y. Supp. 782; 121 N. Y. 

App. Div. 604 1503, 1510 

People's Trust Co. v. Papst, 

113 N. Y. App. Div. 375; 

98 N. Y. Supp. 1045 1329 
V. Schenok, 106 N. Y. 

Supp. 782; 121N. Y. App. 

Div. 604 1503, 1510 



Peoria Star Co. v. Cutright, 

115 111. App. 492 853 

Peoria, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Thompson, 103 111. 187 1403, 

1437, 1496, 1627 
Peoria, etc. Ry. Co. v. Coster, 

97 Fed. 519 1666 

Pepe V. City, etc. Bldg. Soc. 

(1893), 2 Ch. 311 578, 586 

Pepper v. Addioks, 153 Fed. 

383 1331 

V. Chambers, 7 Ex. 226 889 

Percival v. Wright (1902), 2 

Ch, 421 1351, 1351, 1352 
Percy v. Millaudon, 3 La. 568 ■ 516, 
519, 1286 
V. Millaudon, 8 Martin 

N. 8. (La.) 68 1274 

Pere Marquette R. R. Co. v. . 

Graham, 136 Mich. 444; 

99 N. W. 408 1503 
Perkins v. Bradley, 24 Vt. 66 1379 
v. Hatch, 4 Hun (N. Y.) 

137 250 
1). Lyons, 111 Iowa 192; 

82 N. W. 486 695, 698, 699, 699, 

716 
V. Northern Pac. Ry. 

Co., 155 Fed. 445 937, 969 
V. Rouss, 78 Miss. 343; 

29 So. 92 306 
V. Trinity Realty Co. 

(N. J. Ch.), 61 Atl. 167 857 

Perkins Co. v. Shewmake, 119 

Ga. 617; 46 S. E. 832 383 

Perkins, Be, 24 Q. B. D. 613 775, 

795, 796, 797 

Perrett, Ex varte, 15 Eq. 250 171, 

385 
Perris Irrigation District v. 

Thompson, 116 Fed. 832 1343 
Perry v. Barnet, 15 Q. B. D. 

388 780 
V. Council Bluffs, etc. 

Co., 67 Hun (N. Y.) 456; 

22 N. Y. Supp. 151 591 
V. House of Refuge, 63 

Md. 20; 52 Am. Rep. 495 869 
V. Little Rock, etc. Ry. 

Co., 44 Ark. 383 293 
V. Oriental Hotels, 12 

Eq. 127 1599 
V. Oriental Hotels, 5 Ch. 

420 1598 
V. Tuskaloosa, etc. Co., 

93 Ala. 364; 9 So. 217 1040, 

1206, 1250, 1331 

Perry's Case, 34 L. T. 716 1279, 

1280, 1336 



clxi 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Person & Riegel Co. v. Lipps 

(Pa.), 67 Atl. 1081 416, 486, 489 
Perth Electric -Tramways 

(1906), 2 Ch. 216 1410, 1418, 
1432, 1473, 1473 
Peru Plow, etc. Co. v. Harker, 

144 Fed. 673; 75 C. C. A. 

475 833 

Peruvian Guano Co. (1894), 

3 Ch. 690 1241 

Peruvian Ry. Co., 19 L. T. 803 76, 
1215, 1370 
Peruvian Rys. Co. v. Thames, 

2 Ch. 617 97, 1187 

Peshtigo Co. v. Great West- 
em Tel. Co., 50 111. App. 

624 77 

Peter v. Union Mfg. Co., 56 

Oh. St. 181; 46 N. E. 894 627 
Peterborough R. R. Co. v. 

Nashua, etc. R. R. Co., 59 

N. H. 385 629 

Peters v. Union Biscuit Co., 

120 Fed. 679 1356 

Petersburg, etc. Ins. Co. v. 

Dellatorre, 70 Fed. 643; 17 

C. C. A. 310 1655 
V. Lumsden, 75 Va. 

327 769, 770, 771 

Peterson v. Chicago, etc. Ry. 

Co., 205 U. S. 364 878 

Petty V. Hayden, 115 Iowa 

212; 88 N. W. 339 228 

Peveril Gold Mines (1898), 

1 Ch. 122 563 

Pew V. First Nat. Bank, 130 

Mass. 391 1248 

Pfeiffer v. Landsberg Brake 

Co., 44 Mo. App. 59 1247, 1248 
Pfister V. Gerwig, 122 Ind. 

567; 23 N. E. 1041 560, 561, 
571, 593 
V. Milwaukee, etc. Ry. 

Co., 83 Wise. 86; 53 N. W. 

27 
Phelan v. Hazard, 5 Dillon 45 
Phelps V. Farmers', etc. Bank, 

26 Conn. 269 1133, 1156 

V. Lyle, 10 A. & E. 113 1180 

V. Town of Lewiston, 15 

Blatchf. 131 
Philadelphia Construction Co. 

V. Cramp, 138 Fed. 999; 71 

C. C. A. 253 
Philadelphia Loan Co. v. 

Towner, 13 Conn. 249 
Philadelphia Lying-in Charity 

V. Maternity Hospital, 29 

Pa. Super. Ct. 420 129 



1402 
634 



1460 



352 
865 



Philadelphia Nat. Bank v. 

Smith, 195 Pa. St. 38; 45 

Atl. 655 730 

Philadelphia Trust, etc. Co. 

V. Philadelphia Trust Co., 

123 Fed. 534 369, 372, 379, 387 
Philadelphia Trust, etc. Co.'s 

Appeal (Pa.), 16 Atl. 734 1147 
Philadelphia, etc. Ferry Co. 

V. Intercity Link Ri R. Co. 

(N. J.), 62 Atl. 184 140 

Philadelphia, etc. R. R. Co. 

V. Cowell, 28 Pa. St. 329; 

70 Am. Bee. 128 1122, 1351 
V. Fidelity Ins. Co., 105 

Pa. St. 216 1447 
V. Hickman, 28 Pa. St. 

318 188, 525, 634, 921 
V. Johnson, 54 Pa. St. 

127 1459. 1528 
V. Knight, 124 Pa. St. 

58; 16 Atl. 492 1449,1450,1460 
V. Lewis, 33 Pa. St. 33; 

75 Am. Dec. 574 1409 

V. Smith, 105 Pa. St. 195 1449, 

1450, 1451, 1460 
V. Woelpper, 64 Pa. St. 

366 ; 3 Am. Rep. 596 1503, 1527, 
1551 
Philadelphia, etc. R. R. Co.'s 

Appeal, 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. 

Cases 118 (Pa.) 68, 1398 

Philadelphia, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Quigley, 21 How. 202 869 

Phillips V. Coffee, 17 111. 154; 

63 Am. Dec. 357 406 
V. Eastern R. R. Co., 138 

Mass. 122 451, 1107 
V. Melbourne, etc. Candle 

Co., 16 Vict. L. R. Ill 1095, 
1098, 1101 
V. Providence Steam En- 
gine Co., 21 R. I. 302; 43 

Atl. 598 ; 45 L. R. A. 560 72, 1076 
V. Southern Division, etc. 

R. R. Co., 22 Ky. Law Rep. 

1630; 60 S. W. 941 1594 
V. Wickham, 1 Paige 

(N. Y.) 590 ■ 1040, 1066 
V. Winslow, 18 B. Monr. 

(Ky.) 431; 68 Am. Dec. 

729 1503, 1520, 1551 

Phillips Academy v. King, 12 

Mass. 546 54 

Phinizy v. Augusta, etc. R. R. 

Co., 62 Fed. 678 1187 
V. Augusta, etc. R. R. 

Co., 62 Fed. 771 1575, 1641, 

1642 



cbdi 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Phinizy v. Augusta, etc. R. R. 

Co., 63 Fed. 922 1543 
II. Augusta, etc. R. Co., 

98 Fed. 776 1490, 1492 

Phoenix Bessemer Co., 44 L. J. 

Ch. 683 66 

Phoenix Electric Light Co., 31 

W. R. 398 1039 

Phoenix Iron Co. v. Com., 113 

Pa. St. 563; 6 Atl. 75 894, 895, 

904 
Phoenix Iron Works v. New 

York Security, etc. Co., 

83 Fed. 757: 28 C. C. A. 

76 1637 

Phoenix Life Ass. Co., 2 Johns. 

& H. 441 830, 862 

Phoenix Warehousing Co 

Badger, 67 N. Y. 294 



V. 

600, 609, 
633 

V. 

526 

V. 

315,315 



Phosphate of Lime Co. 

Green, L. R. 7 C. P. 43 
Phospliate Sewage Co. 

Hartmont, 5Ch.D.394 
Picard v. East Tennessee, etc 

R. R. Co., 130 U. S. 637; 9 
. Sup. Ct. 640 1521 

Picard v. Hughey, 59 Oh. St. 

577; 51 N. E. 133 133, 141, 141 
Pickens Tp. v. Post, 99 Fed. 

659 1434, 1435 

Pickering v. Stephenson, 14 

Eq. 322 1267 

Pickering v. Townsend, 118 

Ala. 351; 23 So. 703 1566 

Pierce v. Emery, 32 N. H. 484 1520, 
1537, 1549, 1550, 1550 
Pierce v. Old Dominion, etc. 

Smelting Co., 67 N. J. Eq. 

399; 58 Atl. 319 1305 

Pierson v. Morgan, 17 N. Y. 

Civ. Proc. Rep. 124; 4 

N. Y. Supp. 898 1284, 1285 
V. Morgan, 20 Abb. n. c. 

(N. Y.) 428 1288 

Pietsch V. Krause, 116 Wise. 

344; 93 N. W. 9 154, 979 
V. Milbrath, 101 N. W. 

388; 102 N. W. 342; 123 

Wise. 647 ; 107 Am. St. Rep. 

1017 274, 322, 327, 330, 331, 

981 
Pike V. Bangor, etc. R. R. Co., 

68 Me. 445 602, 602, 1214 

Pike Co. V. Rowland, 94 Pa. 

St. 238 1210 

Pilbrow V. Pilbrows Atmos- 
pheric, etc. Co., 5 C. B. 

440 235, 240 



1493 



918 
700 



591 
378 



clxiii 



Pillsbury v. Consolidated, etc. 

Ry. Co., 69 Me. 394 
Pinchback v. Bessemer Min- 
ing, etc. Co., 137 N. Car. 

171; 49S. E. 106 
Pine V. Western Nat. Bank, 

63 Kans. 462; 65 Pac. 690 
Pine Beach, etc. Corp. v. Co- 
lumbia Amusement Co. 

(Va.), 56 S. E. 822 
Pinet et Cie v. Maison Louis 

Pinet (1898), 1 Ch. 179 
Pinkerton v. Manchester, etc. 

R. R. Co., 42 N. H. 424 423, 699, 

717 
V. Pa. Traction Co., 

193 Pa. St. 229; 44 Atl. 

284 123 123 

Pinkett v. Wright, 2 Hare 120 ' 765 
Pinkney & Sons S. S. Co., Re 

(1892), 3 Ch. 125 
Pinkus V. Minneapolis Linen 

Mills, 65 Minn. 40; 67 N. W. 

643 
Pinney v. Nelson, 183 U. S. 

144; 22 Sup. Ct. 52 
Pioneer Paper Co., 36 How. 

Pr. (N. Y.) Ill 1025, 1027 
V. 36 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 

105 1055, 1055, 1056 

Piper V. Chappell, 14 M. & W. 

624 
— — V. Rhodes, 30 Ind. 309 
Pitcher v. Lone Pine-Surprise, 

etc. Co., 39 Wash. 608; 81 

Pac. 1047 
Pitchford v. Davis, 5 M. & 

W. 2 
Pitot V. Johnson, 33 La. Ann. 

1286 684, 715, 770 

Pitts V. Steele Mercantile Co., 

75 Mo. App. 221 271, 287, 289 
Pittsburgh Const. Co. v. West 

Side Belt R. R. Co., 154 

Fed. 929 
Pittsburg Mining Co. i;. 

Spooner, 74 Wise. 307; 42 

N.W.259; 17Am. St. Rep. 

149 326, 326 

Pittsburg Sheet Mfg. Co. v. 

Beale, 204 Pa. St. 85; 53 

Atl. 540 
Pittsburgh, etc; Mining Co. 
V. Quintrell, 91 Tenn. 693; 
20 S. W. 248 280, 284, 287, 

287 
Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Applegate, 21 W. Va. 172 921 
V. Biggar, 34 Pa. St. 455 191 



544 



966 
103 



582 
107 



968 
608 



865 



253 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



- Pittsburgh v. Clarke, 29 Pa. St. 

146 600, 620, 767, 774, 912, 
912, 917 
V. County of Allegheny, 

63 Pa. St. 126 456, 456, 457, 
1108 
Pittsburg, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Dodd, 72 S. W. 822; 74 

S. W. 1096; 115 Ky. 176; 

24 Ky. Law Rep. 2057; 25 

Ky. Law Rep. 255 938, 1082, 
1306 
Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Fierst, 96 Pa. St. 144 1523, 1634 
Pittsburgh Ry. Co. v. Keokuk, 

etc. Bridge Co., 131 U. S. 

371; 9Sup. Ct. 770 1233 

Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Lightheiser (Ind.), 78 N. E. 

1033 226 
V. Long Island, etc. 

Trust Co., 172U. S. 493; 19 

Sup. Ct. 238 1497 
V. Lynde, 55 Oh. St. 23; 

44 N. E. 596 1410, 1424, 1436, 
1437, 1530 
V. Plummer, 37 Pa. St. 

413 614 

Pittston Engine, etc. Co., 11 

Pa. Co. Ct. 182 124 

Pixley V. Western Pac. R. R. 

Co., 33 Cal. 183; 91 Am. 

Dec. 623 867 

Place V. People, 87 111. App. 

527 1208 

Plank Road Co. v. Young, 12 

Md. 476 228 

Plankinton v. Hildebrand, 89 

Wise. 209 ; 61 N. W. 839 683, 809 
Plant Seed Co. v. Michel 

Plant & Seed Co., 37 Mo. 

App. 313 371 

Planters', etc. Bank v. Pad- 
gett, 69 Ga. 159 237, 252 
Planters', etc. Ins. Co. v. 

Selma Sav. Bank, 63 Ala. 

585 775 

Plaquemines, etc. Co. v. Buck, 

52 N. J. Eq. 219; 27 Atl. 

1094 319, 322 

Plaskynaston Tube Co., 23 

Ch. D. 542 628 

Piatt V. Birmingham Axle Co., 

41 Conn. 255 651, 775 
V. New York, etc. Ry. 

Co.,63N.Y.App.Div.401; 

71 N. Y. Supp. 913 1515, 1599 
V. Philadelphia, etc. R. 

R. Co., 65 Fed. 660 1621 



Piatt V. Philadelphia, etc. 
R. R. Co., 65 Fed. 872 1660 

V. Philadelphia, «tc. R. 

R. Co., 84 Fed. 535; 28 

C. C. A. 488 1612, 1612 

Platte Valley Bank v. Hard- 
ing, 1 Nebr. 461 237 

PlimsoU's Case, 24 L. T. 653 155 

Plumb V. Bank of Enterprise, 

48 Kans. 484; 29 Pac. 699 616, 
618, 693, 698, 699 

Plumbe V. Neild, 29 L. J. Ch. 
618 1141, 1141 

Plymouth Bank v. Bank of 
Norfolk, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 
454 696, 700 

Pneumatic Gas Co. v. Berry, 
113 U. S. 322; 5 Sup. Ct. 
525 1267, 1301, 1346 

Pochelu V. Kemper, 14 La. 
Ann. 308 ; 74 Am. Dec. 433 234 

Pocono Spring, etc. Co. v. 
Am. Ice Co., 214 Pa. 640; 
64 Atl. 398 • 43 

Pokrefky v. Firemen's Fund 
Ass'n, 121 Mich. 456; 80 
N. W. 240 584 

Poland V. Lamoiville Valley 
R. R. Co., 52 Vt. 144 1517, 1542, 
1559, 1669 

Polhemus v. Fitchburg R. R. 
Co., 123 N. Y. 502; 26 
N. E. 31 1509 

V. Holland Trust Co., 

61 N. J. Eq. 654, 47 Atl. 

417 1412, 1412 
V. Polhemus, 114 N. Y. 

App. Div. 781; 100 N. Y. 

Supp. 263 936, 941, 1271, 1287 
Polish Nat. Catholic Church, 

31 Pa. Super, a. 87 129, 129 
PoUitz V. Farmers' L. & T. 

Co., 53 Fed. 210 1486 

Pollock V. National Bank, 7 

N.Y.274; 57 Am. Dec. 520 754, 
755 755 

V. Pollock, 18 Eq. 329 1157 

Pond V. Nat. Mtge & Deben- 
ture Co., 6 Kans. App. 718; 

50 Pac. 973 1375 

V. Vermont, etc. R. R. 

Co., Fed. Cas. No. 11, 264 

(p. 975) 998, 1250 

V. Vermont, etc. R. R. 

Co., 19 Fed. Cas. 968 1326 

Pontet V. Basingstoke Canal 

Co., 3 Bing. N. c. 433 1528 

Poock V. Lafayette Bldg. 

Ass'n, 71 Ind. 357 852 



ebmv 



TABLE OP CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Pool's Case, 35 Ch. D. 579 641 

Poole V. Middleton, 29 Beav. 

646 767, 785, 787, 787 

V. National Bank of 

China (1907), A. C. 229 530, 530, 

532, 533, 535, 536, 537, 
539 
V. West Point, etc. Ass'n, 

30 Fed. 513 108, 109, 492, 838 
Pooley Hall Colliery Co., 18 

W. R. 201 1244 

Poor V. Iowa Central Ry. Co., 

155 Fed. 226 938, 969 

Pope V. Merchants' Trust Co. 

(Tenn.), 103 S. W. 792 140, 490, 

492 
Pope's Case, 30 Fed. 169 1618, 

1619 
Porch V. Agnew Co. (N. J. 

Ch.), 61 Atl. 721 293, 1497 

Porstewart Tramway Co. 

(1896), 1 I. R. 265 1601 

Port V. Russell, 36 Ind. 60; 

10 Am. Rep. 5 1295 

Port Edwards, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Arpin, 80 Wise. 214; 49 

N. W. 828 138 

Port Huron, etc. Ry. Co. v. 
. Judge, 31 Mich. 456 958 

Port Townsend Nat. Bank v. 

Port Townsend Gas, etc. 

Co., 6 Wash. 597; 34 Pac. 

155 715 

Portage, etc. Ins. Co. v. Wet- 
more, 17 Oh. Rep. 330 1378 
Portal V. Emmons, 1 C. P. D. 

664 1173, 1175 

Porter v. Androscoggin, etc. 

R. R. Co., 37 Me. 349 397, 402 
V. Lassen, etc. Co., 127 

Cal. 261; 59 Pac. 563 1203, 

1205, 1205, 1217, 1298 

V. Pittsburg Bessemer 

Steel Co., 120 U. S. 649; 7 

Sup. Ct. 741 1084, 1566 
V. Plymouth Gold Min- 
ing Co., 29 Mont. 347; 74 
Pac. 938; 101 Am. St. Rep. 
569 191, 517 

V. Robinson, 30 Hun 

(N. Y.) 209 1199 

V. Sabin, 36 Fed. 475 960 

V. Sabin, 149 U. S. 473; 

13 Sup. Ct. 1008 960, 960 

Portland, etc. Turnpike Co. v. 

Bobb,88Ky.226; lOS.W. 

794 126 

Portsmouth Tramways Co. 

(1892), 2 Ch. 362 1598 



Portuguese Consolidated 

Mines, 42 Ch. D. 160 1175,1198, 
1206, 1230 
Portuguese Consolidated 

Copper Mines, 45 Ch. D. 16 1218 
Posner v. Southern Exhaust, 

etc. Co., 109 La. 658; 33 

So. 641 425, 1110 

Possell V. Smith (Colo.), 88 

Pac. 1064 288, 1235 

Post V. Beacon, etc. Co., 84 
• Fed. 371; 28 C. C. A. 431 72, 

966 
Postage Stamp, etc. Co. 

(1892), 3 Ch. 566 1336, 1339 

Potomac Mfg. Co. v. Evans, 

84 Va. 717; 6 S. E. 2 
Pott V. Schmucker, 84 Md. 

535; 36 Atl. 592; 57 Am. 

St. Rep. 415; 35 L. R. A. 

392 882, 884 

Potter V. N. Y. Infant Asylum, 

44 Hun (N. Y.) 367 
Potts V. Rose Valley Mills, 167 

Pa. St. 310; 31 Atl. 655 



1461 



1373 



1185, 
1239 



V. Wallace, 146 U. S. 689; 

13 Sup. Ct. 196 
- — • V. Wallace, 32 Fed. 272 
Pottsville Bank v. Minersville 

Water Co., 211 Pa. 566; 61 

Atl. 119 
Poughkeepsie, etc. Co. v. 

Griffin, 24 N. Y. 150 209, 2l2 
Poultney v. Bachman, 31 

Hun (N. Y.) 49 586, 586, 948 
Pound, Son & Hutchins, 

Henry, 42 Ch. D. 402 
Powell V. Blair, 133 Pa. St. 

550; 19 Atl. 559 
V. Georgia, etc. Ry. Co., 

121 Ga. 803; 49 S. E.759 
V. London & Provincial 

Bank (1893), 2 Ch. 555 

761, 762 
V. Murray, 3 N. Y. App. 

Div. 273; 38 N. Y. Supp. 

233 
V. Murray, 157 N. Y. 717; 

53 N. E. 1130 
Powers V. Blue Grass Bldg., 

etc. Ass'n, 86 Fed. 705 958, 959, 
1183, 1188 
V. Schlicht Heat, etc. Co., 

23N. Y. App. Div. 380; 48 

N.Y. Supp. 237; 165 N.Y. 

662; 59 N. E. 1129 591 

Powis V. Harding, 1 C. B. N. s. 

533 925 



526 
430 



732 



1581 
629 
277 

685, 



43 
43 



clxv 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Powles V. Page, 3 C. B. 16 1235 
Prairie Lodge v. Smith, 58 

Miss. 301 113, 852 

Prall V. Tilt, 28 N. J. Eq. 479 723, 
725, 798 
Pratt V. American Bell Tel. 

Co., 141 Mass. 225; 5N. E. 

307; 55 Am. St. Rep. 465 



V. Douglas, 38 N. J. Eq. 

516 
— V. Eaton, 79 N. Y. 449 
V. Merriden Cutlery Co., 

35 Conn. 36 
V. Oshkosh Match Co., 89 

Wise. 406; 62N.W.84 



501, 
1477 

1149 
87 

905 

285, 
290 
V. Pratt, Read & Co., 33 

Conn. 446 1110, 1111 
V. Taunton Copper Co., 

123 Mass. 110; 25 Am. Rep. 

37 754, 757 
V. Short, 79 N. Y. 437; 

35 Am. Rep. 531 87, 865 
Pray v. Mitchell, 60 Me. 430 422 
V. Todd, 71 N. Y. App. 

Div. 391; 75 N. Y. Supp. 

947 692, 695 

Prefontaine v. Grenier (1907), 

A. C. 101 1273, 1278 

Prendergast v. Turton, 1 Y. & 

C. Ch. 98 665 

Prentiss Tool & Supply Co. v. 

Godchaux, 66Fed. 234; 13 

C. C. A. 420 917, 918 

Presbyterian Congregation v. 

Carlisle Bank, 5 Pa. St. 345 813 
Prescott Nat. Bank v. Butler, 

157 Mass. 548; 32 N. E. 

909 845, 851 

Preservation Syndicate (1895), 

2 Ch. 768 644 

President,, etc. of Georgetown 

College V. Browne, 34 Md. 

450 55 

President, etc. of Hanover 

Savings Fund v. Suter, 1 

Md. 502 381 

Preston v. Grand Collier Dock 

Co., 11 Sim. 327 176, 620 
V. Liverpool, etc. Ry. Co., 

5 H. L. C. 605 281, 281 

V. Loughran, 58 Hun 

(N.Y.)210; 12N.Y. Supp. 

313 1318, 1324, 1344 
V. Melville, 16 Sim. 163 1141 

V. Northwestern Cereal 

Co., 67Nebr. 45; 93 N. W. 

136 84 



Preston Nat. Bank v. Smith, 

etc. Purifier Co., 84 Mich. 

364; 47 N. W. 502 1381 

Price V. Anderson, 15 Sim. 

473 1141 

V. Gover, 40 Md. 102 418, 807 

V. Grand Rapids, etc. 

R. R. Co., 13 Ind. 58 1202, 
1217 
V. Holcomb, 89 Iowa 123; 

56 N. W. 407 1018 
V. Morning Star Mining 

Co., 83 Mo. App. 470 514, 1130, 

1131, 1134, 1507 

V. Price, 6 Dana (Ky.) 

107 
Price's Appeal, 106 Pa. St. 421 



420 
653, 
653 



Priest V. Citizens Mut. Fire 
Ins. Co., 3 Allen (Mass.) 
602 589 

V. Glenn, 51 Fed. 400; 2 

C. C.A. 305 386 

Prince Investment Co. v. St. 
Paul, etc. Land Co., 68 
Minn. 121; 70 N. W. 1079 697, 
774, 775 

Prince of Wales Co. v. Hard- 
ing, E. B. & E. 183 395, 1221 

Printing Telegraph News Co. 
V . Brantingham, 77 N. Y. 
App. Div. 280; 79 N. Y. 
Supp. 190 714, 733 

Pritchard's Case, 8 Ch. 956 640, 
641, 641 

Pritchett v. Nashville Trust 
Co.,96Tenn.472; 36S. W. 
1064; 33L. R.A. 856 1150 

Proctor Coal Co. v Finley, 98 
Ky. 405 ; 33 S. W. 188 998, 998, 
1013, 1015, 1015, 1039 

Produce Exchange Trust Co. 
V. Bieberbach, 176 Mass. 
577; 58N. E. 162 592 

Pronick v. Metropolitan Trust 
Co., 67 N. Y. App. Div. 616; 
74 N. Y. Supp. 577 1487 

V. Spirits Distributing 

Co., 58 N. J. Eq. 97; 42 

Atl. 586 134, 138, 446 

Proprietors of Cabot, etc. 
Bridge V. Chapin, 6 Cush. 
(Mass.) 50 607 

Proprietors of City Hotel v. 
Dickinson, 6 Gray (Mass.) 
586 610 

Proprietors of Stourbridge 
Canal v. Wheeley, 2 B. & 
Ad. 792 35 



clxvi 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Prospect Worsted Mills, 126 

Fed. 1011 84 

Protection Life Ins. Co. v. 
Osgood, 93 111. 69 753 

Prouty V. Michigan, etc. R.R. 

Co., 1 Hun (N. Y.) 655 443, 460, 
467, 475 

Provident BIdg. & Loan Ass'n, 
Be, 62 N. J. Law 590; 41 
Atl. 952 1025 

Provident Institution v. Bum- 
ham, 128 Mass. 458 230, 233 

Provident, etc. Trust Co. v. 
Saxon, 116 La. 408; 40 So. 
778 238 

Provincial Grocers, Ltd., 10 

Ont. L. R. 705 169 

Provision Merchants Co., 26 

L. T. 862 435 

Provost V. Morgan's, etc. R. R. 
Co., 42 La. Ann. 809; 8 So. 
584 254 

Pudsey Coal Gas Co. v. Corpo- 
ration of Bradford, 15Eq. 167 961 

Pueblo Sav. Bank v. Richard- 
son (Colo.), 89 Pac. 799 693, 
697, 752 

Pugh and Sharman's Case, 13 

Eq. 566 176, 621 

Pulbrook V. Richmond Con- 
solidated Min. Co., 9 Ch. D. 
610 1167, 1177, 1251 

Pulford V. Fire Dept., 31 

Mich. 458 565, 578, 657, 658 

PuUan V. Cincinnati, etc. R. R. 
Co., 4 Biss. 35 1495, 1512, 1523, 
1555, 1603 

Pullis V. Pullis, 157 Mo. 565; 

57 S. W. 1095 392 

Pullman v. Upton, 96 U. S. 

328 483, 492, 620, 622 

Pullman's, etc. Co. v. Ameri- 
can, etc. Co., 84 Fed. 18 ; 28 . 
C. C. A. 263 1568 

V. Central Transporta- 
tion Co., 171 U. S. 138; 18 
Sup. Ct. 808 837, 840, 841 

Pulsford V. Richards, 17 Beav. 

87 184, 184 

Punt V. Symons & Co. (1903), 

2 Ch. 506 584, 584, 585, 587, 

1019, 1062 

Purcell's Case, 29 W. R. 170 1171 

Purdy V. Bankers' Life Ass'n, 
lOlMo. App. 91; 74S. W. 
486 580, 657 

Pusey V. New Jersey, etc. 
R. R. Co., 14 Abb. Pr. N. s. 
(N. Y.) 434 1474 



Putnam v. Jacksonville, etc. 

R,y. Co., 61 Fed. 440 1573 
V. Sweet, 1 Chand. (Wise.) 

286; 2 Finn. (Wise.) 302 972, 
974, 1250 
Pyle Works Co., 44Ch;iD. 534 1514 
Pyle Works (No. 2) (1891), 1 

Ch. 173 1371, 1397 

Q 

Quackenboss v. Globe, etc. 

Ins. Co., 177 N. Y. 71; 69 

N. E. 223 408 

Quebrada Ry. Co., 40 Ch. D. 

363 536 

Quee Drug Co. v. Plaut, 55 

N. Y. App. Div. 87; 67 

N. Y. Supp. 10 297 

Queen Anne's Ferry, etc. Co. 

V. Queen Anne's R. R. Co., 

148 Fed. 41 1568, 1573, 1582 

Queen City Furniture, etc. Co. 

V. Crawford, 127 Mo. 356; 

30 S. W. 163 274, 283, 306 

Queen's Hotel Co. (1900), 1 

Ch. 792 
Queensland Land & Coal Co. 

(1894), 3 Ch. 181 
Quentell v. N. Y. Cotton Ex- 
change, 106 N. Y. Supp. 

228 
Quimby Freight Forwarding 

Co., 121 Fed. 139 22, 44 

Quin V. Havenor, 118 Wise. 

53; 94N. W. 642 
Quin's Case, 2 Megone 360 
Quinby v. Consumers' Gas 

Trust Co., 140 Fed. 362 
Quincy v. Steel, 120 U. S. 241 ; 

7 Sup. Ct. 520 
Quincy Granite Quarries Co., 

147 Fed. 279 
Quincy, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Humphreys, 145 U. S. 82; 

12 Sup. Ct. 787 1564 

1611, 1612, 1612 
Quinn v. Madigan, 65 N. H. 8; 

17 Atl. 976 1150 
V. Safe Deposit, etc. Co., 

93 Md. 285; 48 Atl. 835; 

53 L. R. A. 169 1150, 1152 

Quintance v. Farmers' Mut. 

Aid Ass'n, 25 Ky. Law 

Rep. 1379; 77 S. W. 1121 1319 



1591 
1417 



948 



950 
1419 

838 

969 

44 



1611, 



clxvii 



R 

Rabe v. Dunlap, 51 N. J. Eq. 
40; 25 Atl. 959 



967 



TABLK OF CASES 
CThe references are to pages] 



Racine County Nat. Bank v. 

Ayers, 12 Wise. 512 66, 189, 

1109 
Eacine, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Farmers' L. & T. Co., 49 111. 

331; 95 Am. Dec. 595 1487, 

1624, 1626 
Radebaugh v. Tacoma, etc. R. 

R. Co., 8 Wash. 570; 36 

Pac. 460 1396 

Rafferty v. Donelly, 197 Pa. 

St. 423 ; 47 Atl. 202 982, 1351 
Raht V. Attrill, 106 N. Y. 423 ; 

13N. E. 282; 60 Am. Rep. 

456 1646, 1649 
V. Sevier Mining, etc. Co., 

18 Utah 290; 54 Pac. 889 



Railroad v. Knoxville, 98 
Tenn. 1; 37 S. W. 883 

V. Sneed, 99 Tenn. 1 ; 41 

S. W. 364; 47S. W. 89 



658, 
665 

440 

483, 
493 



Railroad Co. v. Brown, 17 

Wall. 445 1610 

V. EUerman, 105 U. S. 166 

961 

V. Howard, 7 Wall. 392 1659 

V. Orr, 18 Wall. 471 1590 

V. Smith, 48 Oh. St. 219; 

31 N.E. 743 449 
V. Soutter, 13 Wall. 

517 1637 

Railroad Cos. v. Schutte, 103 

U. S. 118 1434 

Railroad Gazette v. Wherry, 

58 Mo. App. 423 308 

Railway Co. v. AUerton, 18 

Wall. 233 487, 1189, 1189 

V. Ailing, 99 U. S. 463 932 

V. Iron Co., 46 Oh. St. 

44; 18 N. E. 486; 1 L. R. 

A. 412; 843,857 

V. Sprague, 103 U. S. 756 

1343, 1420, 1436, 1436, 
1436, 1467 
V. State, 49 Oh. St. 668; 

32 N. E. 933 1052, 1163 
Railway Equipment, etc. Co. 

V. Lincoln Nat. Bank, 82 

Hun (N. Y.) 8; 31 N. Y. 

Supp. 44 592 

Railway Time Tables Co., 62 

L. J. Ch. 935 1404 

Railway Timetables Co., 42 

Ch. D. 98 171, 628 

Railways Company General 

V. Nevvtown El. St. Ry., 32 

Pa. Co. Ct. 38 1528, 152S 



733 



1343 
1239 
1604 
526, 



1602 



1396 
485 



clxvili 



Rainford v. James Keith & 

Blackman Co. (1905), 1 Ch. 

296 
V. James Keith & Black- 
man Co. (1905), 2 Ch. 147 

81, 87 
Raleigh v. Fitzpatrick, 43 N. 

J. Eq. 501; 11 Atl. 1 
Raley v. Victor Co., 86 Minn. 

438; 90 N. W. 973 
Ralph V. Wisner, 100 Mich. 

164; 58 N. W. 837 
Ralston v. Bank of California, 

112 Cal. 208; 44 Pac. 476 

753, 1122 
V. Washington, etc. Ry. 

Co., 65 Fed. 557 
Ramsdell v. Citizens EL, etc. 

Co., 103 Mich. 89; 61N.W. 

275 
Ramsey v. Erie Ry. Co., 38 

How. Pr. (N. Y.) 193 
V. Gould, 57 Barb. (N. 

Y.) 398 422,968 
V. Peoria, etc. Ins. Co., 

55 111. 311 232, 233, 248' 

V. Thompson Mfg. Co., 

116 Mo. 313; 22 S. W. 719 

180, 180,182 
V. Tod, 95 Tex. 614; 69 

S.W. 133; 93 Am. St. Rep. 

875 45, 47 

Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co. . 

V. Montefiore, L. R. 1 Ex. 

109 168 

Ramskill v. Edwards, 31 Ch. 

D. 100 1282, 1283, 1285, 

1289, 1349, 1349, 1350, 1350 
Ramwell's Case, 50 L. J. Ch. 

827 630, 642, 642, 668 

Ranee's Case, L. R. 6 Ch. 104 1093, 

1265 
Rand v. Columbia Nat. Bank, 

94 Fed. 349; 36 C. C. A. 

292 165 
V. Hubbell, 115 Mass. 

461; 15 Am. Rep. 121 497, 1146 
Randall v. Van Vechten, 19 

Johns. (N. Y.) 60; 10 Am. 

Dee. 193 
Randall Co. v. Glendenning 

(Okl.), 92 Pac. 158 
Randall, H. E., Ltd., ^^. Brit- 
ish & American Shoe Co. 

(1902), 2 Ch. 354 387, 387 

Randolph v. Middleton, 26 N. 

J. Eq. 543 1623 

V. New Jersey, etc. R. 

:i. Co., 23 N. J. Eq. 49 1639 



398 
406 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Randolph v. Wilmington, etc. 

R. R. Co., U Phila. 502 (U. S. 

C. C.) 1509 

Randt Gold Mining Co. 

(1904), 2 Ch. 468 669 
V. New Balkis Eerstell- 

ing, 85 L. T. 780; (1903) 1 

K. B. 461; (1904) A. C. 165 668 
V. Wainwright (1901), 1 

Ch. 184 669, 1018 

Ranger v. Champion Cotton- 
Press Co., 51 Fed. 61 890, 
894, 896, 907 
Rankin v. Bush, 108 N. Y. 

App. Div. 295; 95 N. Y. 

Supp. 718 1368 

V. Cooper, 149 Fed. 1010 1262, 

1262, 1276, 1278, 1281, 1288 
V. Fidelity Trust Co., 189 

U. S. 242; 23 Sup. a. 553 



V. Hop, etc. Exchange 

Co., 20 L. T. 207 
V. McCuUough, 12 Barb. 

(N. Y.) 103 

V. Southwestern Brew- 
ery, etc. Co. (N. Mex.), 73 
Pac. 612 

V. Southwestern Brew- 
ery, etc. Co. (N. Mex.), 73 
Pac. 614 

Rannels v. Rowe, 145 Fed. 

296; 74C. C. A. 376 
Ransom v. Stonington Sav. 

Bank, 2 Beasl. (N. J.) 212 
Raphael v. Rio Grande West- 
em Ry. Co., 132 Fed. 12; 

65 C. C. A. 632 
Rapid Transit Ferry Co., 43 

N. Y. Supp. 538; 19 N. Y. 

Misc. 409 
, Re, 15 N. Y. App. Div. 

530; 44 N. Y. Supp. 539 



699, 
807 

193 

808 



952 



971 
237 



393 



1637 



1011 

1011, 
1032 



Rascover v. American Lin- 
seed Co., 136 Fed. 341; 68 
C. C. A. 11 88, 89 

Rassbeck v. Desterreicher, 55 

How. Pr. (N. Y.) 516 126 

Rathbone v. Ayer, 105 N. Y. 

Supp. 1041 203, 205, 636 

V. Tioga Nav. Co., 2 

Watts & Serg. (Pa.) 74 278, 302 

Rathbun v. Snow, 123 N. Y. 
343; 25 N. E. 379; 10 L. 
R. A. 355 591 

Rau V. Seidenberg, 53 N. Y. 
Misc. 386; 104 N. Y. Supp. 
798 786 



Rau V. Union Paper Mill Co., 

95 Ga. 208; 22 S. E. 146 304 

Raub V. Blairstown Creamery 

Ass'n, 56 N. J. Law 262; 

28 Atl. 384 408, 1371 

Ravenswood, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Woodyard, 46 W. Va. 558; 

33 S. E. 285 1259, 1298 

Raymond v. Clark, 46 Conn. 

129 1510, 1512 
V. Farmers', etc. Ins. Co., 

114 Mich. 386; 72 N. W. 

254 577 

Rayner v. Rayner (1904), 1 Ch. 

176 424 

Raynolds v. Diamond Mills 

Paper Co. (N. J.), 60 Atl. 

941 979, 1112, 1113, 1321, 
1322 
R. Bolton & Co. (1894), 3 

Ch. 356 1172, 1173 

Read v. Buffum, 79 Cal. 77; 

21 Pac. 555; 12 Am. St. 

Rep. 131 1376 
V. Head, 6 Allen (Mass.) 

174 1091, 1155 
V. Joannon, 25 Q. B. D. 

300 1395 
V. Memphis Gayoso Gas 

Co., 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 545 490, 
491, 1197 
Reading Trust Co. v. Reading 

Iron Works, 137 Pa. St. 

282; 21 Atl. 169, 170 507, 508 
Ready v. Smith, 170 Mo. 163; 

70 S. W. 484 1315 

Reagan v. First Nat. Bank, 

157 Ind. 623; 61 N. E. 575 452 
Real Estate Trust Co. v. 

Bird, 90 Md. 229; 44 Atl. 

1048 499, 501, 504, 505, 505, 
507, 695, 751 
V. Perry County R. R. 

Co., 213 Pa. 57; 62 Atl. 

25 1628 
V. Union Trust Co., 102 

Md. 41; 61 Atl. 228 1452 

Receivership of (Merchants 

Nat. Bank v.) Minnesota 

Thresher Mfg. Co., 90 Mum. 

144; 95 N. W. 767 



Rectorw. Hartford Deposit Co. 

190 111.380; 60N. E. 528 
Redfield v. Baltimore, etc. R. 

R. Co., 124 Fed. 929 
Redhead v. Iowa Nat. Bank, 

123 Iowa 336; 98 N. W. 

806 



35, 
39,43 

845 

975 



1116 



clxix 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Redhead v. Iowa Nat. Bank, 

127 Iowa 572; 103 N. W. 

796 1110,1116,1116,1122,1123, 
1135 
Redkey Citizens, etc. Co. v. 

Orr, 27 Ind. App. 1; 60 N. 

E. 716 , 650, 651 

Red Men's Mutual Relief 

Ass'n, 10 Phila. 546 
Red River Line, 115 La. 867; 

40 So. 250 
Reed v. Bank of Newburgh, 

6 Paige (N. Y.) 337 
V. Boston Machine Co., 

141 Mass. 454; 5 N. E. 852 
V. Copeland, 50 Conn. 

472; 47 Am. Rep. 663 
V. Fleming, 102 111. App. 

668 
V. Helois Carbide, etc. 

Co., 64 N. J. Eq. 231; 53 

Atl. 1057 

V. Jones, 6 Wise. 680 

V. Richmond Street R. 

R. Co., 50 Ind. 342 ' 104, 105 
V. Schmidt, 24 Ky. Law 

Rep. 1889; 72 S. W. 367 

V. State, 15 Oh. Rep. 217 

Reed & McCormick v. Gold, 

102 Va. 37; 45 S. E. 868 
Reed Bros. Co. v. First Nat. 

Bank, 46Nebr. 168; 64 N. 

W. 701 
Reed's Appeal, 122 Pa. St. 

565; 16 Atl. 100 1408, 1497 

Reeder v. Lewis & Mason, etc! 

Co., 7 Ky. Law Rep. 363 1370 
Reese v. Bank of Commerce, 

14 Md. 271; 74 Am. Dec. 

536 770, 773, 775, 776 
V. Bank of Montgomery 

County, 31 Pa. St. 78; 72 

Am. Dec. 726 503, 507, 510 

Reese River Mining Co. v. 

Smith, L. R. 4 H. L. 64 178, 184 
Reeve v. Harris (Teim.), 50 

S. W. Rep. 658 1238, 1247 

Regent's Canal Ironworks 

Co., 3 Ch. D. 43 1400, 1405, 

1524, 1526 

3 Ch. D. 411 1599, 1646 

Regents of Univ. of Md. v. 

Calvary M. E. Church, 104 

Md. 635 849 
V. Williams, 9 G. & J. 

fMd.') 365; 31 Am. Dec. 

72 1179, 1182 

Regester v. Medoalf, 71 Md. 

528; 18 Atl. 966 



31 

1371 

1047 

444 

712 

408 



452 
1063 



1665 
230 

154 



297 



307 



clxx 



Regina v. Aldham, 15 Jur. 

1035 996 

V. Amaud, 9 Q. B. 806 419 

V. Government Stock In- 
vestment Co., 3 Q. B-. D. 
442 1039, 1045, 1249 

V. Grand Canal Co., 1 Ir. 

L. R. 337 902 

V. Langton, 2 Q. B. D. 

296 230 

V. Liverpool, etc. Ry. 

Co., 21 L. J. Q. B. 284 751 

V. London, etc. Docks 

Co., 44 L. J. Q. B. 4 901, 906 

V. Maiiquita, etc. Min- 
ing Co., 1 E. & E. 289 895, 899 

V. Saddlers' Co., 10 H. L. 

Cas. 404 1167 
V. Staples, 19 Vict. L. R. 

47 915 
V. Tankard (1894), 1 Q. 

B. 548 260 

— — V. Wilts, etc. Navigation, 

29 L. T. 922 902 

Regina ex rel. Blackbom v. 

Midland Counties, etc. Ry., 

15 Ir. Com. L. 514 708, 708, 708 
Regina ex rel. Crea v. Midland 

Counties, etc. Ry., 15 Ir. 

Com. L. 525 745 

Regina ex rel. May v. Darling- 
ton Free Grammar School, 

14 L. J. Q. B. 67 565 

Rehbein v. Rahr, 109 Wise. 

136; 85 N. W. 315 39, 120, 

121, 203 
Rehbei;g v. Tontine Surety 

Co., 131 Mich. 135; 91 N. 

W. 132 853 

Reichwald v. Commercial 

Hotel Co., 106 m. 439 286, 

286, 1187, 1208 
Reid V. Bank of Mobile, 70 

Ala. 199 1423, 1433 

V. DeJarnette, 123 Ga. 

787; 51S. E. 770 617 

V. Detroit Ideal Paint 

Co., 132 Mich. 528; 94 N. 

W. 3 494 

V. Eatonton Mfg. Co., 40 

Ga. 98; 2 Am. Rep. 563 650, 

1129 

V. Explosives Co., 19 Q. 

B. D. 264 1242, 1609, 1613, 

1614 

V. Silke, 31 Vict. L. R. 

641 1142 

Reilly v. Oglebay, 25 W. Va. 

36 1000, 1006, 1083 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Reilly v. Union Protestant In- 
firmary, 87 Md. 664; 40 

Atl. 894 380 

Reinach v. Meyer, 55 How. 

Pr. (N. Y.) 283 1672, 1673 

Reinhard v. Virginia Lead 

Mining Co., 107 Mo. 616; 

18 S. W. 17 254 

Reinhardt v. Interstate Tel. 

Co. (N. J.), 63 Atl. 1097 1529, 
1593, 1594, 1596 
Reinehart v. Augusta, etc. Co., 

94 Fed. 901; 36 C. C. A. 

541 1573 

Relender v. Riggs (Colo.), 79 

Pac. 328 1323, 1344 

Remington Automobile & 

Motor Co., 139 Fed. 766; 

153 Fed. 345 631, 636, 647, 

649 
Remington Paper Co. v. Lon- 
don Ass. Co., 12 N. Y. App. 

Div. 218; 43 N. Y. Supp. 

431 1196, 1381 

Rendall v. Crystal Palace Co., 

4 K. & J. 326 825 

Renn v. United States Ce- 
ment Co. (Ind.), 73 N. E. 

269 105, 111 

Rennie v. Clarke, 5 Ex. 292 308 

Reno Oil Co. v. Culver, 60 N. 

Y. App. Div. 129; 69N.Y. 

Supp. 969 735, 1263 

Reno Water Co. v. Leete, 17 

Nevada, 203; 30 Pac. 702 

1373, 1382 
Rennsalaer, etc. Co. v. Barton, 

16 N. Y. 457 601 

Renssellaer, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Miller, 47 Vt. 146 1490 

Republic Life Ins. Co. v. 

Swigert, 135 111. 150; 25 

N. E. 680; 12 L. R. A. 328 517 
Reuss V. Bos, L. R. 5 H. L. 

176 120, 262, 688 

Reversionary Interest Soc. 

(1892), 1 Ch. 615 136 

Rex V. Amery, 1 T. R. 575 1011 

V. Ashwell, 12 East 22 569, 

569, 583 

V. Babb, 3 T. R. 579 889 

V. Bank of England, 2 B. 

& Aid. 620 894,1113 
V. Bank of England, 2 

Doug. 525 749 
V. Bumstead, 2 B. & Ad. 

699 565 

V. Capper, 5 Price 217 423 

V. Clear, 4 B. & C. 899 901 



Rex V. College of Physicians, 

5 Burr. 2740 562 

V. Company of Fisher- 
men, 8 T. R. 352 561, 561, 

570, 580, 580 

V. Cutbush, 4 Burr. 2204 103 1 

V. Dodd, 9 East 616 7 

V. Merchant Tailors' Co., 

2 B. & Ad. 115 892, 894 
V. Registrar Joint Stock 

Cos. (1904), 2 Ir. 634 59, 114, 
267, 370, 370 

V. Theodorick, 8 East 

543 1212 
V. Wardens of Coopers' 

Co., 7 T. R. 543 570 

V. Webb, 14 East 406 7 

V. Windham, Cowp. 377 1376 

V. Wilts, etc. Navigation, 

3 Ad. & El. 477 907, 907, 908 
Reyburn v. Consumers' Gas 

Co., 29 Fed. 561 1560, 1566 

Reynal v. Thebaud, 3 N. Y. 

Misc. 187; 23 N. Y. Supp. 

615 1446 

Reynell v. Lewis, 15 M. & W. 

517 274, 275, 276, 308, 308 

Reynolds v. Bank of Mt. Ver- 
non, 6 N. Y. App. Div. 62; 

39N. Y. Supp. 623; 158 N. 

Y. 740 ; 53 N. E. 1 131 574, 745, 
1111, 1331 
V. Bridenthal, 57 Nebr. 

280; 77N.W.658 1017,1022, 

1250 
V. Georgia State Bldg., 

etc. Ass'n, 102 Ga. 126; 29 

S. E. 187 562 
V. Supreme Council, 192 

Mass. 150; 78N. E. 129; 7 

L. R. A. N. s. 1154 586 
V. Touzalin Imp. Co., 62 

Nebr. 236; 87 N. W. 24 754 

Reynolds, etc. Co. v. Eacock, 

27 Ind. App. 459; 61 N. E. 

732 1560 

Rhawn v. Edge Hill Furnace 

Co., 201 Pa. 637; 51 Atl. 

360 875, 1453 

Rhey v. Ebensburg, etc. Co., 

27 Pa. St. 261 198 

Rhinelander v. Farmers' L. & 

T. Co., 172 N. Y. 519; 65 

N. E. 499 1488, 1489 

Rhoads v. Hoernerstown 

Bldg., etc. Ass'n, 82 Pa. St. 

180 117 

Rhode Island Locomotive 

Works V. Continental Trust 



clxxi 



TABLE OP CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Co., 108 Fed. 5; 47 C. C. A. 

147 1564, 1567 

Rhodes v. Piper, 40 Ind. 369 107 
Ribon V. Railroad Cos., 16 

WaU. 446 977, 1660 

Rice V. Gilbert, 173 111. 348; 

50 N. E. 1087 803 

V. National Bank, 126 

Mass. 300 222 

V. Rockefeller, 134 N. Y. 

174; 31N. E. 907; 30 Am. 
St. Rep. 658; 17 L. R. A. 
237 745, 745, 751, 801 

V. Shealey, 71 S. Car. 

161; 50 S. E. 868 1449 

V. St. Paul, etc. R. R. 

Co., 24 Minn. 464 1584, 1602 

Rice's Appeal, 79 Pa. St. 168 315, 

1416 
Rich V. Boyce, 39 Md. 314 807 

Richard Smith & Co. (1901), 

1 Ir. 73 1430 

Richards v. Attleborough 

Nat. Bank, 148 Mass. 187; 

19 N. E. 353; 1 L. R. A. 

781 1176, 1298 
V. Chesapeake, etc. R. R. 

Co., 1 Hughes 28 1587 
V. Dover, 61 N. J. Law 

400; 39 Atl. 705 59 

V. Home Assurance 

As?'n, L. R. 6 C. P. 591 167, 168 

V. Merrimack, etc. R. R. 

Co., 44 N. H. 127 1496 

V. Minnesota Sav. Bank, 

75 Minn. 196; 77 N. W. 

822 132, 387 

V. Overseers of Kidder- 
minster (1896), 2 Ch. 212 1395 

Richardson v: Buhl, 77 Mich. 
632; 43 N. W. 1102; 6 
L. R. A. 457 263 

V. Delaware Loan Co., 9 

Houst. (Del.) 354; 32 Atl. 

980 427, 742 

V. Devine (Mass.), 79 N. 

E. 771 571, 593 

V. Emmett, 61 N. Y. 

App. Div. 205; 70 N. Y. 
Supp. 546 690, 713 

V. Green, 133 U. S. 30; 

10 Sup. a. 280 1317, 1405, 

1413 

V. Longmont Supply 

Ditch Co., 19 Colo. App. 

483; 76 Pac. 546 687, 750, 803 
V. Pitts, 71 Mo. 128 254 

V. Richardson, 75 Me. 

570; 46 Am. Rep. 428 1143 



Richards v. St. Joseph Iron 

Co., 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 146; 

33 Am. Dec. 460 912 
V. Treasure Hill, etc. Co., 

23 Utah 366; 65 Pac. 74 635 
V. Union Congregational 

Soc, 58 N. H. 187 585 
V. Vermont, etc. R. R. 

Co., 44 Vt. 613 433, 457, 465, 
466, 1003, 1008 
Riche V. Ashbury Ry., etc. 

Co., L. R. 9 Ex. 224 824 

Richelieu Hotel Co. v. Inter- 
national, etc. Encamp- 
ment Co., 140 111. 248; 29 

N. E. 1044; 33 Am. St. 

Rep. 234 81, 166, 167, 209 

Richie v. Cralle, 108 Ky. 483; 

56 S. W. 963 1424 

Richmond v. Irons, 121 U. S. 

27; 7 Sup. Ct. 788 696, 746 
V. Richmond, 108 N. Y. 

Supp. 298 503, 1150 

Richmond Factory Ass'n v. 

Clarke, 61 Me. 351 128, 215 

Richmond Guano Co. v. 

Farmers' Cotton, etc. Co., 

126 Fed. 712 ; 16 C. C. A. 630 840 
Richmond Street R. R. Co. v. 

Reed, 83 Ind. 9 215 

Richmond, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Snead, 19 Gratt. (Va.) 354 1373 
Richmond's Case, 4 K. & J. 

305 492, 663 

Richmondville Mfg. Co. v. 

Prall, 9 Conn. 487 588, 700 

Richter v. Jerome, 123 U. S. 

233; 8 Sup. Ot. 106 1485 

Ricker v. American L. & T. 

Co., 140 Mass. 346; 5N. E. 

284 1541 
1). Hall, 69N. H. 592; 45 

Atl. 556 1279 
V. Larkin, 27 111. App. 

625 123 

Rickerson Roller Mill Co. v. 

Farrell, etc. Co., 75 Fed. 

554; 23 C. C. A. 302 627, 628, 

630 
Rickert v. White, 105 N. Y. 

Supp. 653 1333 

Rickett V. Sharps, 45 Ch. D. 

286 24 

Riddle v. County of Bedford, 

7 S. & R. (Pa.) 386 1228 

Rider v. Alton, etc. R. R. Co., 

13 111. 516 
V. Morrison, 54 Md. 429 



1116 
528, 
619 



oljpcii 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Rider v. Union Rubber Co., 

5 Bosw. (N. Y.) 85 1244 

Ridgefield, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Reynolds, 46 Conn. 375 189 

Ridgely v. Richard, 130 Fed. 

387 890 

Ridgway v. Farmers' Bank, 

12Serg. &R. (Pa.) 256; 14 

Am. Dec. 681 913, 917 

Ridley v. Plymouth Baking 

Co., 2 Ex. 711 395, 860, 1213, 

1222 
Rielle v. Reid, 26 Ont. App. 

54 882, 887 

Rieger, Kapner & Altmark, 

157 Fed. 609 1085, 1086 

Riemami v. Tyroler, etc. 

Verein, 104 111. App. 413 380, 

381 
Riesterer v. Horton Land, etc. 

Co., 160 Mo. 141; 61 S. W. 

238 1006, 1069 

Rigg V. Reading, etc. Ry. Co., 

191 Pa. St. 298; 43 Atl. 

212 786 

Riggs V. Cragg, 26 Hun (N. 

Y.) 89 1150, 1151 

V. Pennsylvania R. R. 

Co., 16 Fed. 804 1400, 1499 

Riker v. Leo, 133 N. Y. 519; 

30 N. E. 598 35 

Riley v. Hampshire, etc. 

Bank, 164 Mass. 482; 41 

N. E. 679 810 

V. Loma Vista Ranch 

Co. (CaL), 82 Pac. 686 1310 
V. Packington, 2 C. P. 

536 308 

Rio Grande Cattle Co. v. 

Burns, 82 Tex. 50; 17S.W. 

1043 753, 753 

Ripley v. Paper Bottle Co., 57 

L. J. Ch. 327 662 

Risley v. Indianapolis, etc. 

R. R. Co., 62 N. Y. 240 1342, 

1307 
Ritchie v. McMullen, 79 Fed. 

522; 25 C. C. A. 50 1350, 1353 
V. Vermillion Mining Co., 

4 Ont. L. R. 588 71, 1080 

Ritso's Case, 4 Ch. D. 774 169 

Rivanna Nav. Co. v. Daw- 
sons, 3 Gratt. (Va.) 19 524 
Riverhead, etc. R. R. Co., 36 

N. Y. App. Div. 514; 55 

N. Y. Supp. 938 134 

Rives V. Montgomery South 

Plank-Road Co., 30 Ala. 92 994, 

1195 



1634 
783 



394 



Roanoke Street Ry. Co. v. 

Hicks, 96 Va. 510; 32 

S. E. 295 393, 1557 

Robbins v. Bangor Ry., etc. 

Co., 100 Me. 496; 62 Atl. 

136; 1 L. R. A. n. s. 963 284 

Robert Watson & Co. (1899), 

2 Ch. 509 640, 640 

Roberts v. Central Trust Co., 

128 Fed. 882; 63 C. C. A. 

220 

V. Crowe, L. R. 7 C. P. 629 

V. Deming Woodworking 

Co., Ill N. Car. 432; 16 

S. E. 415 
V. Denver, etc. R. R. Co., 

8 Colo. App. 504; 46 Pac. 

880 1515, 1528, 1528, 1551, 

1551 

V. Roberts-Wicks Co., 

102 N. Y. App. Div. 118; 

92 N. Y. Supp. 387 541, 546 

V. Roberts- Wicks Co., 

184N.Y.257; 77N. E. 13; 

112 Am. St. Rep. 607 439, 469, 
537, 543, 546, 1092 
V. Stanton Co., 94 Pac. 

647 
V. Sykes, 30 Barb. (N. 

Y.) 173 

V. Washington Nat. 

Bank, 11 Wash. 550; 40 
Pac. 225 

Ex parte, 1 Drewry 204 

Roberts Mfg. Co. v. Schlick, 

62 Minn. 332; 64 N. W. 

826 307-, 309 

— — V. Wright, 62 Minn. 337; 

64 N. W. 827 307, 309 

Robertson v. Bucklen & Co., 

107 111. App. 369 1083, 1310 

■!). Bullions, 11 N. Y. 243 1184 

V. De Brulatour, 188 

N. Y. 301; SON. E. 938 503, 
1132, 1151, 1445, 1446 
V. Parks, 76 Md. 118; 24 

Atl. 411 234 

Robinson v. Alabama, etc. 

Mfg. Co., 48 Fed. 12 1585, 1587, 

1593, 1593 

V. Blood (CaL), 91 Pac. 

258 
V. Bumell's Vienna Bak- 
ery Co. (1904), 2 K. B. 624 
V. Chartered Bank, 1 Eq, 

32 764, 765, 765 
V. Dolores, etc. Canal 

Co., 2 Colo. App. 17; 29 

Pac. 750 1407 



1239 
811 



1311 
165 



1201 
1546 



clxxiii 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Robinson v. First Nat. Bank 

(Tex.), 79 S. W. 103 386, 387 
V. FirstNat. Bank (Tex.), 

82 S. W. 505 379, 380 
V. Holbrook, 148 Fed. 

107 78, 79 
V. Iron Ry. Co., 135 U. S. 

522; 10 Sup. Ct. 907 1485 
V. Jenkins, 24 Q. B. D. 

275 423 
■». Kirkwood, 91 111. App. 

54 1617, 1618 
V. Montgomeryshire 

Brewing Co. (1896), 2 Ch. 

841 1405, 1524, 1524 
V. Muir (Cal.), 90 Pac. 

521 511 
V. National Bank of New 

Berne, 95 N. Y. 637 695, 753, 
1122, 1130, 1131 
V. Philadelpliia, etc. R. 

R. Co., 28 Fed. 340 1660, 1660 
V. Smith, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 

222; 24 Am. Dec. 212 974 
V. Southern Nat. Bank, 

180 U. S. 295; 21 Sup. Ct. 

383 74 
V. West Virginia Loan 

Co., 90 Fed. 770 970 

Robinson Mineral Spring Co. 

V. DeBautte, 50 La. Ann. 

1281; 23 So. 865 1074 

Robinson Printing Co. v. 

Chic (1905), 2 Ch. 123 1580 

Robinson Reduction Co. v. 

Johnson, 10 Colo. App. 135; 

50 Pac. 215 912, 912, 1196 

Robinson's Case, 4 Ch. 322 166,167 
Robinson's Trust, Be (Pa.), 

67 Atl. 775 1137 

Robotham v. Prudential Ins. 

Co., 64 N. J. Eq. 673; 53 

Atl. 842 57, 58, 75, 77, 1306, 

1326 
Robson V. Smith (1895), 2 

Ch. 118 1546, 1547, 1547 

Rochester Distilling Co. v. 

Rasey, 142 N. Y. 570; 37 

N. E. 632; 40 Am. St. Rep. 

635 1503 

Rochester District Tel. Co., 

40 Hun (N. Y.) 172 1015, 1039, 
1064 
Rochester Trust, etc. Co. v. 

Oneonta, etc. R. R. Co., 107 

N. Y. Supp. 237 1646, 1649, 
1653 
Rochester, etc., Land Co. v. 

Raymond, 158 N. Y. 576; 



clxxiv 



53 N. E. 507; 47 L. R. A. 

246 617, 619 

Rochester, etc. R. R. Co., 110 

N. Y. 119; 17 N. E. 678 76 

Rock River Bankv. Sherwood, 

10 Wise. 230; 78 Am. Dec. 

669 865, 868 

Rockford, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Sage, 65 111. 328; 16 Am. 

Rep. 587 293, 1237, 1246 

Rockhold V. Canton Masonic 

Benev. Soc, 129 111. 440; 

21 N. E. 794; 2 L. R. A. 

420 35, 42, 851 

Rockwell V. Elkhom Bank, 13 

Wise. 653 63, 66 

Rockwith ex rel. Kerns v. 

State Road Bridge Co., 108 

N. W. 785 (Mich.) 107 

Rodger Ballast Co. v. Omaha, 

etc. R. Co., 154 Fed. 629 1561, 
1563, 1563, 1564, 1567 
Rodney v. Southern R. R. 

Ass'n, 3 N. Y. St. Rep. 564; 

14 Daly 70 1239 

Roebling's Sons Co., John A. 

V. Barre, etc. Power Co., 76 

Vt. 131 ; 56 Atl. 530 1213, 1215 
Roedde v. News-Advertiser 

Pub. Co., 4 Brit. Columbia 

7 80 

Roehler v. Mechanics' Aid So- 
ciety, 22 Mich. 86 580 
Rogers v. Burr, 105 Ga. 432; 

31 S. E. 438; 70 Am. St. 

Rep. 50 174 
V. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 

93 Md. 613; 49 Atl. 843 455 
V. Gladiator, etc. Co. 

(S. Dak.), 113 N. W. 86 197, 645 
V. Hastings, etc. Ry. Co., 

22 Minn. 25 1247 
V. Huntingdon Bank, 12 

Serg. & R. (Pa.) 77 776, 776 
V. Jewell Belting Co., 

184 111. 574 84 
V. Mobile, etc. R. R. Co., 

12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cases 

442 (Tenn.) 1609 
V. Nashville, etc. Ry. 

Co., 91 Fed. 299; 33 C. C. 

A. 517 836, 935, 942, 951, 1026 
1077, 1522 
V. N. Y., etc. Land Co., 

134N. Y. 197; 32N. E. 27 288 
V. Oxford, etc. Ry. Co., 

2 De G. & J. 662 965, 966 
V. Pell, 154 N. Y. 518; 

49 N. E. 75 1187, 1315, 1374 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Sogers V. Penobscot, 154 Fed. 

606 338, 338 
V. Southern Fiber Co. 

(La.), 44 So. 442 737, 739 
V. Stevens, 8 N. J. Eq. 

167 716 
V. Wheeler, 43 N. Y. 

598 1582, 1582, 1582 

Rogers & Co. v. British & 

Colonial Ass'n, 68 L. J. Q. 

B. 14 1529, 1594 

Rogers Co., R. W. v. Wm. 

Rogers Mfg. Co., 70 Fed. 

Rep. 1017; 17 C. C. A. 576 376 
Rogers' Case, 3 Ch. 633 166, 189 
Rogers, Re, 161 N. Y. 108; 

55 N. E. 393 471, 1154 

Rogers' Trusts, Re, 1 Dr. & 

Sm. 338 
Rogers, etc. Works v. South- 
em R. R. Ass'n, 34 Fed, 

278 
Rogersville, etc. R. R. Co. v, 

Kyle, 9 Lea (Tenn.) 691 



1443 



1433 



1522, 
1597 



Roland v. Lancaster, etc. 

BaAk, 135 Pa. St. 598; 19 

Atl. 951 
Rolling Stock Co. v. Atlantic, 

etc. R. R. Co., 34 Oh. St. 

450; 32 Am. Rep. 380 
Rollins V. Clay, 33 Me. 132 
V. Co-operative Bldg. 

Bank, 98 N. Y. App. Div. 

606; 90 N. Y. Supp. 631 
V. Shaver Wagon, etc. 

Co., 80 Iowa 380; 45N. W. 

1037; 20 Am. St. Rep. 427 

1206, 1323 
Romare v. Broken Arrow, etc. 

Mining Co., 114 Fed. 194 



811 



1306 
1188 



584 



517, 



1486, 
1603 



Rome, etc. R. R. Co. v. Sibert, 

97 Ala. 393; 12 So. 69 
Romford Canal Co., 24 Ch. D. 

85 1068, 1407 

Rommel v. Summit Branch 

Coal Co., 18 Pa. Super. Ct. 

482 
Rondot V. Rogers Tp., 99 Fed. 

202; 39 C. C. A. 462 



1567 



1416 



1433, 
1440 
Roney, Ex parte, 33 L. J. Ch. 

731 173 

Rood V. Railway Pass., etc. 

Ass'n, 31 Fed. 62 577, 660 

V. Wharton, 67 Fed. 434 647 

Roofing Contractors' Ass'n, 

200 Pa. St. 1 1 1 ; 49 Atl. 894 46 



1359 
1248 



919 



clxxv 



Roosevelt v. Nashville, etc. 

Ry. Co., 128 Fed. 465 70, 85 

Roots V. Williamson, 38 Ch. 

D. 485 696, 707, 710, 710 

Roper V. Castell & Brown 

(1898), 1 Ch. 315 1534, 1547 

Rorke v. Thomas, 56 N. Y. 

559 
Rose V. Carbonating Co., 60 

Mo. App. 28 

V. Independent Chevra 

Kadisho (Pa.), 64 Atl. 401 

V. Merchants' Trust Co., 

96 N. Y. Supp. 946 361, 361 

Rose Hill, etc. Co. v. People 

exrel. Lawless, 115 111. 133; 

3 N. E. 725 147, 219, 230, 231, 
231, 553 
Rose Hill Cemetery Co. v. 

Dempster, 223 111. 567; 79 

N. E. 276 1073, 1310, 1323 

Roseborough v. Shasta River 

Canal Co., 22 Cal. 556 
Rosemond v. Northwestern, 

etc. Register Co., 62 Minn. 

374; 64 N. W. 925 
Rosenback v. Salt Springs 

Nat. Bank, 53 Barb. (N. Y.) 

495 
Rosenfeld v. Einstein, 46 N. J. 

Law 479 894, 897, 907 

Rosenkranz v. Lafayette, etc. 

Ry. Co., 18 Fed. 513 
Ross V. Crockett, 14 La. Ann. 

811' 
V. Estate Investment Co., 

3 Eq. 122 
V. Sayler, 104 111. App. 19 

V. Southwestern R. R. 

Co., 53 Ga. 514 

Ross Oil, etc. Co. v. Eastham 

(Kans.), 85 Pac. 531 
Ross, Ex parte, 59 L. T. 291 
Rotch's Wharf Co. v. Judd, 

108 Mass. 224 
Roth Tool Co. V. Champ 

Spring Co., 93 Mo. App. 

530; 67 S. W. 967 
Rothchild v. Memphis, etc. 

R. R. Co., 113 Fed. 476; 51 

C. C. A. 310 
Rotherham Alum Co., Re, 25 

Ch. D. 103 282, 293 

Rouede ti. Jersey City, 18 Fed. 

719 1436 

Rough V. Breitung, 117 Mich. 

48; 75 N. W. 147 1071, 1072 

Roundwood Colliery Co. 

(1897), 1 Ch. 373 1547, 1548 



1383 



1382 



571 



1475 

1167 

186 
354 

711 

1377 
1205 

302 



304 



1081 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



"^ 



Rouse V. Harry, 55 Kans. 589; 
40 Pac. 1007 

V. Redinger, 1 Kans. 

App. 355; 41 Pao. 433 1618 

Routledge, George & Sons 

(1904), 2 Ch. 474 1418, 1473 

Rowe V. White, 112 N. Y. App. 

Div. 688; 98 N. Y. Supp. 

729 
-^, Re (1904), 2 K. B. 489 
Rowe's Trustee's Claim 

(1906), 1 Ch. 1 
Rowland v. Header Furniture 

Co., 38 Oh. St. 269 250, 250, 251 
V. P. P. Carroll Loan, etc. 

Co.(Wash.), 87 Pac. 482 
Rowley v. Unwin, 2 K. & J. 138 
Roxburg Press (1899), 1 Ch. 

210 
Roxbury Lodge v. Hocking, 

60 N. J. Law 439; 38 Atl. 

693 590, 949 

Roy & Co. V. Scott, Hartley, 

etc. Co., 11 Wash. 399; 39 

Pac. 679 
Royal Bank v. Grand Junction 

R. R. Co., 100 Mass. 444; 

97 Am. Dec. 115 
V. Grand Junction R. R. 

Co., 125 Mass. 490 
Royal Bank of India'a Case, 4 

Ch. 252 74, 74, 77, 91, 117, 591, 
705, 706, 707 
Royal British Bank, 26 L. J. 

Ch. 545 763 
V. Turquand, 6 E. & B. 

327 739, 1219, 1220, 1220 

Royal Trust Co. v. Washburn, 

etc. Ry. Co., 113 Fed. 531 1617, 
1629, 1629 

V. Washburn, etc. Ry. 

Co., 120 Fed. 11; 57 

C. C. A. 31 1646 

Rozecrans Gold Mining Co. v. 
Morey, HI Cal. 114; 43 
Pac. 585 1169, 1225, 1343 

Ruben v. Great Fingall Con- 
solidated (1906), A. C. 439 739, 

740 

Rubino v. Pressed Steel Car 

Co. (N. J.), 53 Atl. 1050 78, 78, 

78 

Ruby Chief, etc. Co. v. Gurley, 
17 Colo. 199; 29 Pac. 668 

V. Prentice, 25 Colo. 4; 

52 Pac. 210 

Ruck V. Caledonia Silver 
Mining Co. (Cal.), 92 Pac. 
194 



1619 



1135 
768 

624 



1374 
815 

642 



1314 



403 
1311 



298 
1246 



603 



338 



998 



304 



1569 
665 



1371 



Rudd V. Robinson, 126 N. Y. 

113; 26N.E. 1046; 22 Am. 

St. Rep. 816; 12 L. R. A. 

473 914, 920, 1276 

Rudigeri). Coleman, 112 N. Y. 

App. Div. 279 
Rudolph V. So. Beneficial 

League, 23 Abb. N. C. 

(N. Y.)199; 7N. Y. Supp. 

135 

, Ex parte, 11 W. R. 806 

600, 766, 767 
Ruettell V. Greenwich Ins. 

Co. (N. Dak.), 113 N. W. 

1029 
Ruhlender v. Chesapeake, etc. 

R. Co., 91 Fed. 5; 33 C. C. 

A 299 
Rule V. Jewell, 18 Ch. D. 660 
Rumball v. Metropolitan 

Bank, 2 Q. B. D. 194 201, 688 
Rumbough v. Southern Imp. 

Co., 112 N. Car. 751; 17 S. 

E. 536; 34 Am. St. Rep. 

528 
Rumsey v. People's Ry. Co., 

91 Mo. App. 202 1515, 1608 

Ruse V. Bromberg, 88 Ala. 

619; 7 So. 384 625 

Rush V. Halcyon Steamboat 

Co., 84 N. Car. 702 234 

Russell V. Bristol, 49 Conn. 

251 176, 1093 
V. Cassidy, 108 Mo. App. 

577; 84 S. W. 171 844 
V. East Anglian Ry. Co., 

3 Mac. & G. 124 1393, 1500 
V. Easterbrook, 71 Conn. 

50; 40 Atl. 905 616, 748 

V. McLellan, 14 Pick. 

(Mass.) 63 

V. North American 

Benefit Ass'n, 116 Mich. 
699; 75N. W. 137 

V. Rock Run Fuel Gas 

Co., 184 Pa. St. 102; 39 

Atl. i21 174, 1079, 1083 

V. Temple, 3 Dane's 

Abridgment (Mass.) 108 

V. Wakefield Water- 
works Co., 20 Eq. 474 

V. Washington Sav. 

Bank, 23 App. D. C. 308 



873 



577 



420 
976 



clxxvi 



Russian Petroleum, etc. Co. v. 

London Investment Trust 

(1907), 2 Ch. 540 
Russian Spratt's Patent 

(1898), 2 Ch. 149 



591, 
1372 



1473 
1514 



TABLE OF CASES 
[Tbe references are to pages] 



Rutherford v. Hill, 22 Oreg. 

218; 29 Pac. 546; 29 Am. 

St. Rep. 596; 17 L. R. A. 

549 
Rutherford's Case, 4 A. C. 548 
Rutland Electric Light Co. v. 

Bates, 68 Vt. 579; 35 Atl. 

480; 54Am. St. Rep. 904 



252 
800 



1345, 
1345 



Rutland, etc. Co. v. Proctor, 

29 Vt. 93 847 

Rutland, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Thrall, 35 Vt. 536 438, 602, 

603, 610, 611, 626, 658, 661, 
667, 1108 
Rutledge, Ex parte, 1 Harp. 

Eq. (S, Car.) 65; 14 Am. 

Dec. 696 1114, 1137, 1147 

Rutten V. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 

17 Fed: 480 1677 

R. W. Rogers Co. v. Wm. 

Rogers Mfg. Co., 70 Fed. 

Rep. 1017; 17 C. C. A. 576 376 
Ryan v. Farmers' Bank, 5 

Kans. 658 
V. Hays, 62 Tex. 42 



226 
1610, 
1620 



V. Leavenworth, etc. Ry, 

Co., 21 Kans. 365 963, 1134 

1304, 1333 1346, 

V. Martin, 91 N. Car. 464 233 

V. McLane, 91 Md. 175; 

46 Atl. 340; 80 Am. St. 

Rep. 438; 50 L. R. A. 501 786 

V. Williams, 100 Fed. 172 947 

1298, 1299 
Ryland v. HoUinger, 117 Fed. 

216 151, 220, 274 

Rylander v. Sheffield, 108 Ga. 

Ill; 34 S. E. 348 1324, 1344 



S. Abrahams & Sons (1902), 1 

Ch. 695 1498 

Sabin v. Bank of Woodstock, 

21 Vt. 353 775 

Sabine Tram Co. v. Bancroft 

& Sons, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 

170; 40S.W.837 79 

Sabre v. United Traction, etc. 

Co., 156 Fed. 79 876, 963, 967, 

976 
Sacramento Bank v. Copsey, 

133 Cal. 663; 66 Pac. 8, 

205 , 1296 

Sacramento, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Superior Court, 55 Cal. 453 1600 



Sadgrove v. Bryden (1902), 1 
Ch. 318 



1041 



Sadler v. Worley (1894), 2 Ch. 

170 1622 

Sage V. Central R. R. Co., 99 

U. S. 334 1558, 1622, 1623, 
1625, 1628, 1675 
V. Culver, 147 N. Y. 241; 

41 N. E. 513 935 
V. Memphis, etc. R. R. 

Co., 125 U. S. 361; 8 Sup. 

Ct. 887 1517 1517, 1528 
V. Shore Line Ry. Co., 2 

New Brunsw. Eq. 321 1649 

— — , Be, 70 N. Y. 220 903, 906 
Sagory V. Dubois, 3 Sandf . Ch. 

(N. Y.) 466 162, 1128 

Sajilgaard v. Kennedy, 2 Fed. 

295 1636 

-^ — ti. Kennedy, 13 Fed. 242 1588, 

1589 
Sahlgreen & Carrall's Case, 3 

Ch. 323 166, 196 

St. Charles Mfg. Co. v. Britton, 

2 Mo. App. 290 
St. Clair v. Rutledge, 115 

Wise. 583; 92 N. W. 234 
St. Helen Mill Co., 3 Sawy. 88 

992, 1210 
St. James Parish v. Newbury- 

port, etc. R. R. Co., 141 

Mass. 500; 6 N. E. 749 
St. Joe, etc. Mining- Co. v. 

First Nat. Bank, 10 Colo. 

App. 339; 50 Pac. 1055 

1317, 1328 
St. John V. Erie Ry. Co., 22 

Wall. 136 449, 450 

St. John's Electric Light Co. 

(1897-1903), Newfound- 
land 440 
St. Johns Nat. Bank v. Steel, 

135 Mich. 165; 97 N. W. 

704 
St. Joseph, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Humphreys, 145 U. S. 105; 

12 Sup. Ct. 795 1611, 1611, 

1612 
St. Joseph, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Shajtabaugh, 106 Mo. 567; 

17 S. W. S81 
V. Smith, 170 Mo. 327; 

70 S. W. 700 
St. Joseph Union Depot Co. 

V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 

131 Mo. 291; 31 S. W. 908 
V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 

89 Fed. 648; 32 C. C. A. 

284 1632 



609 

392 
917, 



400 



1317, 



135 



1302 



250 
1503 



1632 



I 



clxxvii 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



St. Joseph's, etc. Soc. v. St. 

Hedwig's Church, 3 Pen. 

(Del.) 229; 50 Atl. 535 392 

St. Joseph's, etc. Soc. v. St. 

Hedwig's Church, 4 Pen. 

(Del.) 141; 53 Atl. 353 860 

St. Ladislaus Beneficial Ass'n, 

19 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 25 104, 108, 

120 
St. Lawrence Steamboat Co., 

44 N. J. Law 529 955, 1014, 

1041, 1041, 1041, 1043, 1059, 
1066, 1066, 1169, 1176, 1178 
St. Louis Breweries v. 

Apthorpe, 79 L. T. 651 878, 

879 
St. Louis Car Co. v. Stillwater 

St. Ry. Co., 53 Minn. 129; 

54 N. W. 1064 1598, 1598, 1599 
St. Louis Colonization Ass'n 

V. Hennessy, 11 Mo. App. 

555 47, 244, 258, 1202 

St. Louis Mfg. Co. V. Hilbert, 

24 Mo. App. 338 517, 520 

St. Louis Rawhide- Co. v. HiH, 

72 Mo. App. 142 517, 526, 919 
St. Louis 'Trust Co. v. Des 

Moines, etc. Ry. Co., 101 

Fed. 632 1659 

«. Riley, 70 Fed. 32 • 1568 

St. Louis, etc. Ins. Co. v. 

Goodfellow, 9 Mo. 149 774 

St. Louis, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Chenault, 36 Kans. 51; 12 

Pac. 303 1342 

V. Cleveland, etc. Ry. 

Co., 125 U.S. 658; 8 Sup. 

Ct. 1011 1559, 1562, 1564 

V. O'Hara, 177 111. 525; 

52N. E. 734; 53N. E. 118 

1247, 1564, 1569 

V. Southwestern Tel. 

etc. Co., 121 Fed. 276; 58 

C. C. A. 198 121 

V. Terre Haute, etc. 

R. R. Co., 145 U. S. 393; 

12 Sup. a. 953 836, 841, 843 

V. Tieman, 37 Kans. 606; 

15 Pac. 544 82, 312, 330, 918, 

1320 

St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Continental Trust Co., Ill 

Fed. 669; 49 C. C. A. 529 1566, 

1568 

V. Holbrook, 73 Fed. 

112; 19 CCA. 385 1617,1618, 
1634, 1643 

V. Jackson, 95 Fed. 560; 

37 C C A. 165 1633 



clxxviii 



St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co. v. Stark, 

55 Fed. 758 ; 5 C C A. 264 1634 
V. Whitaker, 68 Tex. 630; 

5 S. W. 448 1551 

St. Luke's Church v. Mat- 
thews, 4 Desaus. (S. Car.) 

578; 6 Am. Dec. 619 1031, 1227 
St. Mary's Benevolent Ass. v. 

Lynch, 64 N. H. 213; 9 

Atl. 98 1003 

St. Nicholas Greek Catholic 

Society, 29 Pa. Co. Ct. 193 996 
St. Paul Nat. Bank v. Life Ins. 

Clearing Co., 71 Minn. 123; 

73 N. W. 713 772 

St. Paul "ntle, etc. Co. v. 

Diagonal Coal Co., 95 Iowa 

551; 64 N. W. 606 1542,1655 
St. Paul Trust Co. v. Wam- 

pach Mfg. Co., 50 Minn. 93; 

52 N. W. 274 75 

St. Pavd, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Robbins, 23 Minn. 439 198, 198 
St. PeteiB R. C Congregation 

V. Germain, 104 lU. 440 848 

St. Romes v. Levee Steam 

Cotton Press, 20 La. Ann. 

381 1122 

Salem Mill Dam Corp. v. 

Ropes, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 23 607, 

608 
Salina Nat. Bank v. Prescott, 

60 Kans. 490; 57 Pac. 121 1306, 
1323, 1324 
Salisbury v. Metropolitan Ry. 

Co., 22 L. T. 839 1265 

Salisbury Gold Mining Co. v. 

Hathom (1897), A. C 268 1056, 
1057 
Salisbury Mills v. Townsend, 

109 Mass. 115 711, 738, 756, 

799, 1130 
Salomon v. Salomon & Co. 

(1897), A. C. 22 148, 226, 262, 
266, 317, 330, 872, 881, 882, 
882, 883, 1085 
Salomons v. Laing, 12 Beav. 

339 92, 951 

Salt Lake City v. HoUister, 

118U.S. 256; eSup.Ct. 1055 870 
Salt River Canal Co. v. Hickey, 

36 Pac. 171; 4 Ariz. 240 426, 

427 
Saltmarsh v. Spaulding, 147 

Mass. 224; 17 N. E. 316 1208, 
1315, 1344 
Salton V. New Beeston & Co. 

(1899), 1 Ch. 775 1170, 1172, 

1228, 1241 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Sampson v. Bowdoinham, etc. 

Corp., 36 Me. 78 912, 1004, 

1211, 1224 

V. Fox, 109 Ala. 662; 

19 So. 896; 55 Am. St. Rep. 

950 1370 

Samuel v. Holladay, 1 Woolw. 

400 559, 588, 938, 946, 950, 

975, 1000, 1200, 1222 

V. Jarrah Timber, etc. 

Corp. (1904), A. C. 323 1405 

San Antonio, etc. Ry. Co. vi 

Adams, 87 Tex. 125; 26 S. 

W. 1040 1203 
V. Barnett (Tex.), 44 S. 

W. 20 1644 

San Buenventura, etc. Co. v. 

Vaasault, 50 Cal. 534 998 

San Diego v. San Diego, etc, 

R. R. Co., 44 Cal. 106 



San Diego Gas Co. v. Frame, 
137 Cal. 441; 70Pac.295 



1305, 
1306 

124, 
125 



San Diego, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Pacific Beach Co., 112 Cal. 

53; 44 Pac. 333; 33 L. R. 

A. 788 1306, 1306, 1310, 1310 

San Francisco Water Co. v. 

Pattee, 86 Cal. 623 ; 25 Pac. 

135 1343, 1344 

San Joaquin, etc. Co. v. 

Beecher, 101 Cal. 70; 35 

Pac. 349 154, 209, 212, 1227 
V. West, 94 Cal. 399; 29 

Pac. 785 213, 303 

San Jose Savings Bank v. 

Sierra Lumber Co., 63 Cal. 

179 1225 

San Pedro Lumber Co. v. Rey- 
nolds, 121 Cal. 74; 53 

Pac. 410 1288 

Sanborn v. Clough, 64 N. H. 

315; 10 Atl. 678 1451 

Sanders v. Bromley, 55 L. T. 

N. s. 145 502 

Sanderson v. Aetna Iron, etc. 

Co., 34 Oh. St. 442 520 

Sands v. Sanders, 26 N. Y. 239 

604 
Sandusky Coal Co. v. Walker, 

27 Ont. 677 307, 337 

Sandy River R. R. Co. v. 

Stubbs, 77 Me. 594; 2 Atl. 

9 1341 

Sanford Fork & Tool Co. v. 

Howe, Brown & Co., 157 

U.S. 312; 15 Sup. Ct. 621 



1309 
1310, 1315 



Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S. 56 154 
Sangster v. Netter, 9 Times 

L. R. 441 354 

Sanitary Can Co. v. MuUins, 

86 N. Y. App. Div. 450; 

83 N. Y. Supp. 918 694 

Sankey, Brook Coal Co. (No. 

1), 9 Eq. 721 66, 1513 

(No. 2), 10 Eq. 381 65, 1513, 

1513 
Santa Clara Mining Ass'n v. 

Meredith, 49 Md. 389; 33 

Am. Rep. 264 1237 

Santa Cruz R. R. Co. v. 

Spreckles, 65 Cal. 193; 3 

Pac. 661, 802 651, 653 

Santa Fe Pac. R. R. Co. v. 

Davidson, 149 Fed. 603 890 

Santa Rosa R. R. v. Central 

Street Ry. Co., 38 Pac. 

986 (Cal.) 304 

Sanxey v. Iowa City Glass 

Co., 63 Iowa 707; 17 N. 

W. 429 1622, 1628 

Saragossa, etc. Ry. Co. v. Col- 

lingham (1904), A. C. 159 1672 
Sargent v. Essex Marine Ry. 

Corp., 9 Pick. (Mass.) 202 1131 
V. Franklin Ins. Co., 8 

Pick. (Mass.) 90; 19 Am. 

Dec. 306 571, 695, 716, 744, 
' 753, 813, 1124 
V. Kansas, etc. R. R. Co., 

48 Kans. 672; 29 Pac. 

1063 1347 
V. Sargent Granite Co., 3 

N. Y. Misc. 325; 23 N. Y. 

Supp. 886 1246 
V. Webster, 13 Mete. 

(Mass.) 497; 46 Am. Dec. 
743 1178, 1201, 1202, 1204, 

1205 

, Ex parte, 17 Eq. 273 686, 

686, 747, 807 
Sarmiento v. Boat & Oar Co., 

105 Mich. 300; 63 N. W. 

205; 55 Am. St. Rep. 446 397, 
398, 1382, 1382 
Sasser v. State, 13 Oh. Rep. 

453 230 

Saunders v. Farmer, 62 N. H. 

572 113 
V. Sun Life Ass. Co. of 

Canada (1894), 1 Ch. 537 



Saup V. Morgan & Co., 108 111. 

326 
Savages. Bartlett, 78 Md. 561 ; 

28 Atl. 414 



375, 
378 

420 

180 



clxxix 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Savage v. Madelia, etc. Ware- 
house Co. (Minn.), 108 N. 
W. 296 1244 

V. People's Bldg., etc. 

Ass'n, 45 W. Va. 275; 31 

S. E. 991 584 

Savannah Mills v. Cvmning- 

ham, 100 Ga. 468; 28 S. E. 

435 1182 

Savannah, etc. Bldg. Co. v. 

Silverberg, 108 Ga. 281; 33 

S. E. 9b8 456 

Savannah, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Jacksonville, etc. Ry. Co., 

79 Fed. 35; 24 C. C. A. 

437 • 1612 

V. Lancaster, 62 Ala. 555 

392, 1429, 1462, 1466 
Savin v. Hoylake Ry. Co., L. 

R. 1 Ex. 9 294, 295 

Savings Bank v. Bums, 104 

Cal. 473; 38 Pac. 102 1329 

V. Bavis, 8 Conn. 191 397, 

398, 912, 1200 
Savings Bank of Cincinnati v. 

Benton, 2 Met. (Ky.) 240 1373, 
1382 
Savings Bank of Louisville's 

Assignee v. Caperton, 87 

Ky. 306; 8 S. W. 885; 12 

Am. St. Rep. 488 1275, 1278, 

1278 
Savings & Trust Co. v. Bear 

Valley Irr. Co. , 93 Fed. 339 1585 
V. Bear Valley Irr. Co., 

112 Fed. 693 833 

Sawyer v. Hoag, 17 Wall. 610 628, 

612, 612 

V. Pawners' Bank, 6 

Allen (Mass.) 207 1237 

Saxlehner v. Eisner, 147 

Fed. 189; 77 C. C. A. 417 1356 
Sayles v. Bates, 15 R. I. 342; 

5 Atl. 497 692 

V. Blane, 14 Q. B. 205 782 

V. Brown, 40 Fed. 

Rep. 8 492, 1010 

V. White, 18 N. Y. App. 

DiV. 590; 46 N. Y. Supp. 
194 1285 

Saylor v. Commonwealth In- 
vestment, etc. Co., 38 
Oree. 204; 62 Pac. 652 1299, 
1328 
Sayre v. Glenn, 87 Ala. 631 ; 

6 So. 45 623, 624 
Sayward v. Gardner, 5 Wash. 

247; 31 Pac. 761; 33 Pac. 

389 302 



clxxx 



Scadden Flat, etc. Co. v. 

Scadden, 121 Cal. 33; 53 

Pac. 440 280, 290 

Scanlan v. Snow, 2 App. D. 

C. 137 583, 585, 962, 963, 

966, 973, 998, 1040, 1041 
Scarlett v. Academy of Music, 

43 Md. 203 603 
V. Academy of Music, 46 

Md. 132 166, 605 

Schaefer v. Scott, 40 N. Y. 

Apik Div. 438; 57 N. Y. 

Supp. 1035 1372 

Schaeffer Piano Mfg. Co. v. 

Nat. Fire Extinguisher Co., 

148 Fed. 159; 78 C. C. A. 

293 85 

Schaffhauser v. Amholt, etc. 

Brewing Co. (Pa.), 67 Atl. 

417 1322 

Schallard v. Eel River Nav. 

Co., 70 Cal. 144; 11 Pac. 

590 1490, 1490 

Schantz v. Oakman, 10 N. Y. 

App. Div. 151; 41 N. Y. 

Supp. 746 274, 336 

Schell V. Alston Mfg. Co., 149 

Fed. 439 429, 1111 

Schenectady, etc. Co. v. 

Thatcher, 11 N. Y. 102 605, 

607, 617, 1007, 1227, 1232, 
1232 
Scherck v. Montgomery, 81 

Miss. 426; 33 So. 507 697, 

751, 787 
Schickel v. Berryville Land 

Co., 99 Va. 88; 37 S. E. 

813 1238, 1320 

Schierenbei;g v. Stephens, 32 

Mo. App. 314 493 

Schmidt v. Hennepin County 

Barrel Co., 35 Minn. 611; 

29 N. W. 200 776 
V. Louisville, etc. Ry. Co., 

84 S. W. 314; 27 Ky. Law 

Rep. 21 1449, 1678, 1679, 
1679, 1679 
V. Mitchell, 101 Ky. 570; 

41 S. W. 929; 72 Am. St. 

Rep. 427 1024, 1025, 1044, 
1046, 1046, 1047, 1047, 1176, 1250 
V. Nelke Art Lithograph 

Co., 16 N. Y. Misc. 300; 37 

N. Y. Supp. 1138 293 
V. Pritchard (Iowa), 112 

N. W. 801 506, 607, 609,1039 

1260 
Schneider v. Sellers, 98 Tex. 

380; 84 S. W. 417 860, 1235 



, TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Schnittger v. Old Home, etc. 

Co., 144 Cal. 603; 78 

Pac. 9 1298, 1299, 1311, 1317 

Schoenfeld v. American Can 

Co. (N. J.), 55 Atl. 1044 950 

Schoening v. Schwenk, 112 

Iowa 733; 84 N. W. 916 944, 
1320, 1365 
Schofield V. Goodrich Bros. 

Banldng Co., 98 Fed. 271; 

39 C. C. A. 76 75, 76, 834 
V. Nat. State Bank, 97 

•ii-Fed. 282; 38 C. C. A. 179 1305 
Scholefield v. Redfern, 32 L. 
' J. Ch. 627; 2 Dr. & Sm. 

173 1156, 1444 

Scholey v. Central Ry. Co., 9 

Eq. 266 181 

Sohraedem. HeinzelmanBros., 

51 111. App. 31 1342 

Schreyer v. Turner Flouring 

Mills Co., 29 Oreg. 1; 43 

Pac. 719 283, 284, 288 

Schuetz V. German-American 

Real Estate Co., 21 N. Y. 

App. Div. 163; 47 N. Y. 

Supp. 500 666 

Schufeldt V. Smith, 131 Mo. 

280; 31 S.W. 1039; 52 Am. 

St. Rep. 628; 29 L. R. A. 

830 . 1318 
V. Smith, 139 Mo. 367; 

40 S. W. 887 297, 298, 299 
Schultze V. Van Doren, 64 N. 

J.Eq.465; 53 Atl. 815; 65 

N. J. Eg. 764; 55 Atl. 1133 1586 

Schurr v. Omaha, etc. Ry. Co., 

98 Iowa 418; 67N.W.280 1609 

Schuyler County v. Coquard, 

9 Mo. App. 592 230 

Schuyler Nat. Bank v. Gads- 
den, 191 U. S. 451; 24 
Sup. Ct. 129 835, 835 

Schwab V. Frisco Mining, etc. 
Co., 21 Utah 258; 60 Pac. 
940 1226 

Schwartz V. State, 61 Oh. St. 

497; 56 N. E. 201 1015 

Schwind v. Boyce, 94 Md. 510; 
51 Atl. 45 . 804 

Scinde, etc. Bank Corpora- 
tion, 6 Ch. 53 n 434 

ScoUans v. Rollins, 173 Mass. 

275 1430 

Scots Charitable Soc. v. 

Shaw, 8 Mass. 532 304 

Scott V. B. & O. R. R. Co., 93 

Md. 475; 49 Atl. 327 457, 460, 

461 



clxxxi 



Scott, V. Bankers' Union 

(Kans.), 85 Pac. 604 851, 1407 
V. Central R. R. etc. Co., 

52 Barb. 45 1119, 1123 

V. Clinton, etc. R. R. 

Co., 6 Biss. 529 1503 

■!). Colburn, 26 Beav. 276 ' 65 

V. Depeyster, 1 Edw. Ch. 

(N. Y.) 513 1268, 1275, 

1728 

V. Deweese, 181 U. S. 

202; 21 Sup. Ct. 585 489, 492 

V. Eagle Fire Ins. Co., 

7 Paige (N. Y.) 198 1112, 1112 

V. Farmers' L. &. T. Co., 

69 Fed. 17; 16 C. C. A. 

358 1608 

V. Farmers', etc. Nat. 

Bank, 97 Tex. 31; 75 S. 

W. 7 1317, 1334, 1497 
«. Houpt, 73Ark. 78; 83 

S. W. 1057 702, 716 
V. Latimer, 89 Fed. 843; 

33 C. C. A. 1 180, 491 
V. Lord Ebury, 2 C. P. 

255 283, 310 

V. Pequonnock Nat. 

Bank, 21 Blatchf. 203 715 

V. Rainier, etc. Ry. Co., 

13 Wash. 108 ; 42 Pac. 531 161 1, 
1611 

V. Scott, 68 N. H. 7; 38 

Atl. 567 1014,1053,1177 

V. Superior Sunset Oil 

Co., 144 Cal. 140; 77 Pac. 

817 1222 

Scott & Horton v. Godfrey 

(1901), 2 K. B. 726 779 

Scottish N. E. Ry. Co. v. Stew- 
art, 3 Macq. H. L. 382 283 

Scottish Petroleum Co., 23 
Ch. D. 413 178, 179, 184, 1205 

Scottish Security Co.'s Re- 
ceiver V. Starks, 25 Ky. 
Law Rep. 1722; 78 S. W. 
455 204 

Scovill V. Thayer, 105 U. S. 

143 483, 486, 492, 612, 614 

Screven Hose Co. v. Philpot, 

53 Ga. 625 858 
Scripture v. Prancestown 

Soapstone' Co., 50 N. H. 

571 715, 717 

Scruggs V. Cotterill, 67 N. Y. 

App. Div. 583; 73 N. Y. 

Supp. 882 _ 786 

Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. 

Knickerbocker Trust Co., 

125 Ga. 4G3; 54 S. E. 138 1568 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Seacoast R. R. Co. v. Wood, 

65 N. J. Eq. 530; 56 Atl. 

337 303, 332 

Seaoord v. Pendleton, 55 Hun 

(N.Y.)579; 9N.Y. Supp. 

46 252 

Searles v. Gebbie, 115 N. Y. 

App. Biv. 778; 101 N. Y. 

Supp. 199 979, 1120, 1121, 1354 
Sears v. Illinois Wesleyan 

University, 28 HI. 183 1377 
Seaton v. Grant, 2 Ch. 459 965, 
965, 968 
V. Grimm, 110 Iowa 145; 

81 N. W. 225 127, 237 

Seattle, etc. Ry. Co., 61 Fed. 

541 1614 
V. Union Trust Co., 79 

Fed. 179; 24 C. C. A. 512 1623, 
1638, 1638 
Seattle Trust Co. v. Pitner, 

18 Wash. 401; 51 Pac. 

1048 464, 613, 1114 

Sebastian v. Covington Bridge 

Co., 21 Oh. St. 451 1371 

Second Ave. R. R. Co. v. Cole- 
man, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 300 1378 
Second Nat. Bank v. First Nat. 

Bank, 8 N. Dak. 50; 76 N. 

W. 504 753 

Second Universalist Church v. 

Colegrove, 74 Conn. 79; 

49 Atl. 902 1099, 1144, 1154 

Secor V. Toledo, etc. Ry. Co., 

7 Biss. 513 1620 

Securities, etc. Corp. v. 

Brighton Alhambra, 62 L. 

J. Ch. 566; 68 L. T. 249 1590, 
1650 
Security Nat. Bank v. St. 

Croix Power Co., 117 Wise. 

211; 94N. W. 74 833 

Security Trust Co. v. Ford 

(Oh.), 79 N. E. 474 115, 143 
V. Goble R. R. Co., 44 

Oreg. 370; 74 Pac. 919; 75 

Pac. 697 1543, 1560 

Sedalia, etc. Ry. Co. v. Wil- 

kerson, 83 Mo. 235 209, 209, 212 
Sedgwick, Ex parte, 2 Jur. 

N. 8. 949 1244 

See V. Heppenheimer (N. J.), 

61 Atl. 843 634, 635 

Seebeck v. King, 34 N. Y. 

Misc. 483; 70 N. Y. Supp. 

322 1185 

Seeley v. New York Nat. Ex- 
change Bank, 8 Daly (N. 

Y.) 400; 78 N. Y. 600 541 



715 



1517 



1641 
1173 



1231 



clxxxii 



Seeligson v. Brown, 61 Tex. 

114 
Seibert v. Minneapolis, etc. 

Ry. Co., 52 Minn. 246; 53 

N. W. 1151 
Seignouret v. Home Ins. Co., 

24 Fed. 332 529, 529 

Seller v. Union Mfg. Co., 50 

W. Va.208; 40 S. E. 547 
Self-Acting Sewing Machine 

Co., 54 L. T. 676 
Seligman v. Prince (1895), 2 

Ch. 617 1308, 1399 

Sellar v. Charles Bright & Co. 

(1904), 2 K. B. 446 415, 1397 
Sellers v. Greer, 172 111. 549; 

50 N. E. 246; 40 L. R. A. 

589 1069, 1071, 1072, 1073,1078 
V. Phoenix Iron Co., 13 

Fed. 20 935, 1313 

Selley v. American Lubricator 

Co., 119 Iowa 591; 93 

N. W. 590 918, 1276 

Selma, etc. R. R. Co. v. Tip- 
ton, 5 Ala. 787; 39 Am. 

Dec. 344 
Selover v. Isle Harbor Land 

Co., 91 Minn. 451; 98 

N. W. 344 199, 287 
V. Isle Harbor Co. 

(Minn.), Ill N. W. -155 199 

Semple v. Glenn, 91 Ala. 245; 

6 So. 46; 9 So. 265; 24 Am. 

St. Rep. 894 614, 615 

Seneca County Bank v. Lamb, 

26 Barb. (N. Y.) 595 
Senn v. Levy, 23 Ky. Law 

Rep. 662, 1331; 63 S. W. 

776 
V. Union, etc. Mercantile 

Co., 115 Mo. App. 685; 92 

S. W. 507 745, 752, 752, 752 
Senour Mfg. Co. v. Church 

Paint, etc. Co., 81 Minn. 

294; 84 N. W. 109 35, 39 

Seventeenth Ward Bank v. 

Smith, 51 N. Y. App. Div. 

259; 64 N. Y. Supp. 888 
Seventh Nat. Bank v. Shen- 
andoah Iron Co., 35 Fed. 

436 
Severn & Wye Ry. Co. (1896), 

1 Ch. 559 1122, 1123 

Severson v. Bimetallic, etc. 

Co., 18 Mont. 13 ; 44 Pac. 79 1247 
Sewall V. Boston Water Power 

Co., 4 Allen (Mass.) 277; 

81 Am. Dec. 701 729, 755, 755, 
755, 755 



594 



141 



1368 



1560 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Sewall V. Eastern R. R. Co., 9 

Gush. (Mass.), 5 505, 507 
V. Lancaster Bank, 17 

S. & R. (Pa.) 285 424, 424, 774, 

774 
Sewell V. Brainerd, 38 Vt. 

364 1453 

Sewell's Case, 3 Ch. 131 142, 486, 

491 
Sexton V. Snyder, 119 Mo. 

App. 668; 94S. W. 562 129,252 
Seyberger v. Calumet Drain- 
ing Co., 33 Ind. 330 94 
Seymour v. Bridge, 14 Q. B. 

D. 460 780 
V. Canandaigua, etc. R. 

R. Co., 25 Barb. 284 1503,1520 
V. Spring Forest, etc. 

Ass'n, 144 N. Y. 333; 39 

N. E. 365; 26 L. R. A. 859 286, 
331, 1341, 1342, 1342, 1342 
S. Frost & Co. (1899), 2 Ch. 

207 640, 640 

Shackleford v. New Orieans, 

etc. R. R. Co., 37 Miss. 202 1246, 
J 1248 

Shackleford, Ford & Co. v. 

Dangerfield, L. R. 3 C. P. 

407 385, 386, 606 

Shackleford's Case, 1 Ch. 567 166 
Shakopee Mfg. Co., 37 Minn. 

91; 33 N. W. 219 219 

Shamokin Valley R. R. Co. v. 

Livermore, 47 Pa. St. 465; 

86 Am. Dec. 552 1520 

Shannon v. Howard Mut. 

Bldg., Ass'n, 36 Md. 383 
Sharp V. Dawes, 2 Q. B. D. 26 



580 
1010, 
1202 
1285, 



Sharpe, Be (1892), 1 Ch. 154 

1287, 1289 
Sharpley v. South Ry. Co., 2 

Ch. D. 663 
Shattuck V. American Cem- 
ent Co., 205 Pa. St. 197; 

54 Atl. 785; 97 Am. St. 

Rep. 735 
V. Oakland, etc. Co., 58 

Cal. 551 
Shaw V. Benson, 11 Q. B. D. 

563 
V. Bentley & Co., 68 L. 

T. 812 
-, — V. Bill, 95 U. S. 10 

V. Cordis, 143 Mass. 443; 

• 9 N. E. 794 

V. Davis, 78 Md. 308; 

28 Atl. 619; 23 L. R. A. 

294 1076, 1079, 1080, 1081 



177 



727 

1295 

260 

363 
1472 

1446 



Shaw V. Gilbert, 111 Wise. 165: 

68 N. W. 188 425 
V. Holland (1900), 2 Ch. 

305 1339 
V. Nat. German-Ameri- 
can Bank, 132 Fed. 658; 

65 C. C. A. 620; 199 U. S. 

603; 26 Sup. Ct. 750 75, 834 
V. Norfolk, etc. R. R. 

Co., 5 Gray 162 (Mass.) 1486, 
1495, 1584, 1586, 1600 
V. Port Philip Mining 

Co., 13 Q. B. D. 103 730, 731, 
740, 1362 
V. Railroad Co., 100 

U. S. 605 1485, 1649, 1671 
V. Spencer, 100 Mass. 

382; 97 Am. Dec. 107; 1 

Am. Rep. 115 720, 798 

Shaw'g Case, 34 L. T. 715 189, 192 
Shea V. Mabry, 1 Lea (Tenn.) 

319 918, 1275 

Shearman, Be, 66 L. J. Ch. 25 177, 

181 
Shears v. Jacobs, L. R. 1 C. P. 

513 383, 405 

Sheffield v. Johnson County 

Sav. Bank (Ga.), 58 S. E. 

386 393 

Sheffield Corporation v. Bar- 
clay (1905), A. C. 392 758, 759 
Sheffield Gas, etc. Co. v. Har- 
rison, 17 Beav. 294 199 
Sheffield Nickel Co. v. Unwin, 

2 Q. B. D. 214 526 

Sheffield, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Woodcock, 7 M. & W. 574 602, 
605, 1180 
Sheldon Canal Co. v. Miller 

(Tex.), 90 S. W. 206 912, 1006 
Shellenberger v. Altoona, etc. 

R. R. Co., 212 Pa. St. 413; 

61 Atl. 1000; 108 Am. St. 

Rep. 876 1433 
V. Patterson, 168 Pa. St. 

30; 31 Atl. 943 509, 509, 1228 
Shellington v. Howard, 53 

N. Y. 371 697 

Shelmerdine v. Welsh, 20 

Phila. 199 1053 

Shenandoah Valley R. R. Co. 

V. Griffith, 76 Va. 913 717 

Shepard v. Richardson, 145 

Mass. 32; 11 N. E. 738 1622 

Shepaug Voting Trust Cases, 

60 Conn. 553; 24 Atl. 32 801, 
966, 1048, 1050, 1053, 1053 
Shepheard v. Bray (1906), 2 

Ch. 235 1349 



clxxxiii 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Shepherd v. Gillespie, 3 Ch. 

764 706, 782, 1349, 1350 

V. Harris (1905), 2 Ch. 

310 700, 701 

Sheppard v. Scinde, etc. Ry. 
Co., 56 L. J. Ch. 866; 36 
W. R. 1 433 

Sheridan Brick Works v. Ma- 
rion Trust Co., 157 Ind. 292 
61 N. E. 666; 87 Am. St. 
Rep. 207 958 

Sheridan, etc. Co. v. Chatham 
Nat. Bank, 127 N. Y. 517; 

28 N. E. 467 1214, 1215 
Sherman v. Am. Stove Co., 

85 Mich. 169; 48 N. W. 537 182 
Sherman, etc. Town Co. v. 

Morris, 43 Kans. 282; 23 

Pac. 569; 19 Am. St. Rep. 

134 109, 111, 852 
V. Swigart, 43 ICans. 292; 

23 Pac. 569; 19 Am. St. 

Rep. 137 1376, 1377 

Sherrard v. Sherrard, 3 Atk. 

502 1442 

Sherwood v. Alvis, 83 Ala. 

115; 3 So. 307 866 
V. Atlantic, etc. R. R. 

Co., 94 Va. 291; 26 S. E. 

943 1632 
V. Illinois Trust, etc. Co., 

195 111. 112; .62 N. E. 835; 

88 Am. St. Rep. 183 616, 623 
V. Meadow Valley Min- 
ing Co., 50 Cal. 412 682, 726 
Shick V. Citizens' Enterprise 

Co., 15 Ind. App. 329; 57 

Am. St. Rep. 230 113, 195, 213, 
214, 216 
Shickle v. Watts, 94 Mo. 410; 

7 S. W. 274 635 

Shields v. Clifton Hill Land 

Co., 94 Tenn. 123; 28 S. W. 

668; 45 Am. St. Rep. 700; 

26 L. R. A. 509 118, 237, 251, 
306, 309 
Ship's Case, 2 De G. J. & S. 

544 215, 215 

Shipley v. Mechanics Bank, 

10 Johns. (N. Y.) 484 751 

Shipman v. Aetna Ins. Co., 

29 Conn. 245 717 
Shively v. Eureka, etc. Min- 
ing Co. (Cal.), 89 Pac. 1073 1318 

Shoemaker v. Nat. Mechanics 

Bank, 2 Abb. (U. S.) 416 74, 866 

V. Nat. Mechanics' 

Bank, 21 Fed. Cas. 1331; 1 
Hughes 101 866 



clxxxiv 



Shoemaker v. Washbvim Lum- 
ber Co., 97 Wise. 585; 73 

N. W. 333 517, 531, 534 

Shoknecht v. Milwaukee 

Brick, etc. Co., 108 Wise. 

457; 84 N. W. 838 1196, 1196 
Short V. Stevenson, 63 Pa. 

St. 95 340 

Shoun V. Armstrong (Tenn.), 

59 S. W. 790 113 

Shrewsbury, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

North-Western Ry. Co., 

6 H. L. Cas. 113, 137 41, 828 

Shropshire Union Rys., etc. 

Co. V. Queen, L. R. 7 H. L. 

496 747 

Shufeldt V. Carver, 8 111. App. 

545 416 

Shulman v. Star Suburban 

Realty Co., 113 N. Y. App. 

Div. 759; 99 N. Y. Supp. 

419 1251 

Shumaker v. Davidson, 116 

Iowa 569; 87 N. W. 441 298 

Sias V. Consolidated Lighting 

Co., 73 Vt. 55; 50Atl. 554 1196 
Sibley v. Quinsigamoud Nat. 

Bank, 133 Mass. 515 716, 717 
Sickles V. Richardson, 23 Hun 

(N. Y.) 559 1405, 1413 

Sidney's Case, 13 Etj. 228 203, 204 
Siegman v. Electric Vehicle 

Co. (N. J.), 65 Atl. 910 939, 952, 
1091, 1290 
V. Electric Vehicle Co., 

140 Fed. 117 939 
V. Maloney, 63 N. J. Eq. 

422; 51 Atl. 1003; 54 Atl. 

405, 1125; 65 N. J. Eq. 

372 947, 1125, 1265 

Siemens-Halske Electric Co. 

V. Duncan, 142 Fed. 157; 

73 C. C. A. 375 296 

Sierra Land, etc. Co. v. 

Bricker (Cal.), 85 Pac. 665 228, 
228, 233, 384 
Sigua Iron Co. v. Brown, 171 

N. Y. 488; 64 N. E. 194 601, 
617, 913 

V. Greene, 88 Fed. 207 705, 

921 
V. Greene, 104 Fed. 854; 

44 C. C. A. 221 705 

Silber Light Co. v. Silber, 

12 Ch. D. 717 933, 933 

Silk Mfg. Co. ■». Campbell, 27 

N. J. Law 539 932 

Silsby V. Strong, 38 Oreg. 36; 

62 Pac. 633 1168, 1202, 1206 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Silver Hook Road v. Greene, 

12 R. I. 164 1216 

Simis V. Davidson, 54 N. Y. 

Super. Ct. 235 1381, 1382 

Simm V. Anglo-American Tel- 
egraph Co., 5 Q. B. D. 188 736, 

738 

Simmons v. Burlington, etc. 
Ry. Co., 159 U. S. 278; 16 
Sup. a. 1 1405, 1433, 1436, 

1627 



V. Hill, 96 Mo. 679; 10 

S. W. 61; 2L. R. A. 476 

V. London Joint Stock 

Bank (1891), 1 Ch. 270; 
(1892) A. C. 201 

V. Taylor, 23 Fed. 849 



705, 
716 



689 
1405, 
1627 

V. Taylor, 38 Fed. 682 1401, 

1433, 1436, 1627 
Simmons v. Troy Iron Works, 

92 Ala. 427; 9 So. 160 40 

Simon v. Calfee (Ark.), 95 

S. W. 1011 226 

Simons v. Vulcan Oil Co., 61 

Pa. St. 202; 100 Am. Dec. 

628 325, 329 

Simonson v. N. Y., etc. Ins. 

Co., 141 N. Y. 12; 35N. E. 

969 1239 

Simpson v. Building, etc. 

Ass'n, 38 Oh. St. 349 851 
V. Heaton's, etc. Co., 19 

W. R. 614 193 
V. Molson's Bank (1895), 

A. C. 270 4, 796, 798 
V. Moore, 30 Barb. 

(N. Y.) 637 1150, 1154 
V. Palace Theatre, 69 

L. T. N. s. 70 470 
V. Westminster, etc. 

HotelCo.,8H.L.Cas.712 91,97 
Simpson's Case, 4 Ch. 184 171, 189 
Sims V. Comm., 114 Ky. 827; 

71 S. W. 929 127 
V. Petaluma Gas, etc. 

Co., 131 Cal. 656; 63 Pac. 

1011 1295, 1304, 1316 

Simultaneous Colour Printing 

Syndicate v. Fowerbaker 

(1901), 1 K. B. 771 1416, 1546 
Sinclair v. Dwight, 9 N. Y. 

App. Div. 297; 41 N. Y. 

Supp. 193 1262 

Singer v. Salt Lake, etc. Mfg. 

Co., 17 Utah 143; 53 Pac. 

1024; 70 Am. St. Rep. 773 1199, 
1201, 1210, 1299 



tlxxxv 



Singer Mfg. Co. v. Peck, 9 S. 

Dak. 29; 67 N. W. 947 123, 150, 

151 

V. Wright, 33 Fed. 121 25, 25 

1). Wright, 97 Ga. 114; 

25 S. E. 249; 35 L. R. A. 

497 , 25 

Sioux City, etc. Co. v. Trust 

Co. of North America, 52 

Fed. 191 838 
V. Trust Co. of North 

America, 82 Fed. 124; 27 

C. C. A. 73 109, 1408 
V. Trust Co. of North 

America, 173 U. S. 99; 19 

Sup. a. 341 832 

Sioux City, etc. Ry. Co. v. 
Manhattan Trust Co., 92 
Fed. 428; 34 C. C. A. 431 1402, 
1625 

Sivin V. Mutual Match Co. 

(N. J.), 66 Atl. 921 628 

Skelly V. Private Coachmen's 
etc. Soc, 13 Daly (N. Y.) 

2 - 561 
Skiddy v. Atlantic, etc. R. R. 

Co., Re Stewart's Petition, 

3 Hughes 320 443, 451, 451, 

1562, 1592, 1652 
Skiff V. Stoddard, 63 Conn. 

198; 26 Atl. 874; 28 Atl. 

104; 21 L. R. A. 102 418, 807, 

807 
Skillman, Re, 24 Abb. N. C. 

(N. Y.) 41; 9 N. Y. Supp. 

469 1155 

Skinner v. City of London 

Marine Ins. Corp., 14 Q. B. 

D. 882 750, 781 
Skinner Dry Dock Co. v. 

Mayor, etc. of Baltimore, 

96 Md. 32; 53 Atl. 416 102 

Skinner Mfg. Co. v. Dowville, 

44 So. 1014 (Fla.) 1374 

Skowhegan Bank v. Cutler, 

49 Me. 315 716, 923 

Slater Woollen Co. v. Lamb, 

143 Mass. 420; 9N.X823 850, 

856 

Slattery v. North End Sav. 
Bank, 175 Mass. 380; 56 
N. E. 606 1373, 1379, 1379 

V. St. Louis, etc.. Trans- 
portation Co., 91 Mo. 217; 

4 S. W. 79 978 
Slayden v. Seip Coal Co., 25 

Mo. App. 439 1122 

Slaymaker v. Bank of Gettys- 
burg, 10 Pa. St. 373 422, 678 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



1355 
1407 



1646 



V. Broom, 19 Johns. 

(N. Y.) 456; 10 Am. Dec. 

273 18, 664 

Slipher v. Earhart, 83 Ind. 

173 154, 189, 198 

Sloan V. Central Iowa Ry. Co., 

62 Iowa 728; 16N. W. 331 1655 
V. Clarkson (Md.), 66 

Atl. 18 936 

Slobodinsky, Be (1903), 2 K. 

B. 517 300 

Slocum V. Head, 105 Wise. 

431; 81 N. W. 673; 50 L. 

R. A. 324 124 
V. Providence Steam, etc. 

Co., 10 R. I. 112 235, 242 

V. Warren, 10 R. I. 116 235 

Small V. Herkimer, 2 N. Y. 

330 667, 769 

V. Smith, 10 A. C. 119 92 

Smalley v. McGraw (Mich.), 

Ill N. W. 1093 
Smead v. Indianapolis, etc. 

R. R. Co., 11 Ind. 104 
Smiley v. Sioux Beet Syrup 

Co. (Nebr.), 99 N. W. 263 
Smith V. Alabama Fruit Grow- 
ing, etc. Ass'n, 123 Ala. 538 ; 

26 So. 232 451, 452, 1106 
V. American Coal Co., 7 

Lans. (N. Y.) 317 715, 748, 756 
V. Automatic Photo- 
graphic Co., 118 m. App. 

649 
V. Bank of New England, 

72 N. H. 4; 54 Atl. 385 

1234, 1277 
V. Bank of Nova Scotia, 

8 Can. Sup. Ct. 558 616, 696, 
744, 746 
V. Becker (Wise), 109 

N. W. 131 418, 807 
V. Brown (1896), A. C. 

614 641, 642 
V. Bulkley, 18 Colo. App. 

227; 70Pac. 958 951, 955, 955 
V. Burns Boiler & Mfg. 

Co. (Wise), 11 N. W. 1123 

157, 213, 214, 215, 215 
V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 

18 Wise. 17 
V. City of Janesville, 52 

Wise. 680; 9N. W. 789 
V. Cleveland, etc. Ry. Co. 

(Ind.), 81 N. E. 501 
V. Cork, etc. Ry. Co. , 3 Ir. 

Rep. Eq. 356; 5 Ir. Rep. 

Eq. 65 457, 458, 466, 467, 467, 
467, 467, 1057, 1123 



750 
1234, 



1632 

25 

250 



Smith V. County of Clark, 54 

Mo. 58 
V. Dana, 77 Conn. 543; 

60 Atl. 117; 69 L. R. A. 

76; 107 Am. St. Rep. 51 



1451 



1144, 
1155 



1182 



371 



493 

578 

529 
154, 



clxxxvi 



V. Danzig, 64 How. Pr. 

(N. Y.) 320 

V. David H. Brand & 

Co., 67 N. J. Eq. 529; 58 
Atl. 1029 

V. Dom, 96 Cal. 73; 30 

Pac. 1024 944, 1197, 1211 

V. Eastern R. R. Co., 124 

Mass. 154 1515 

V. Eastwood Wire Mfg. 

Co., 58 N. J. Eq. 331; 43 

Atl. 567 138 

V. Erb, 4 Gill (Md.) 437 1231, 

1249 

V. Franklin Park, etc. 

Co., 168 Mass. 345; 47 N. 
E. 409 

V. Galloway (1898), 1 

Q. B. 71 

V. Goldworthy, 4 Q. B. 

430 

V. Gower, 63 Ky. 17 

154, 156, 198 

V. Hooper, 95 Md. 16; 

51 Atl. 844; 64 Atl. 95 1156 

V. Hurd, 12 Mete. (Mass.) 

371; 46 Am. Dec. 690 928 

- V. Law, 21 N. Y. 296 66, 

1198, 1203 

- V. Law Guarantee, etc. 

Soc. (1904), 2 Ch. 569 1454, 

1454 

- V. London United Brew- 
eries (1907), 2 Ch. 511 1643, 

1647, 1647, 1655 

- V. Los Angeles, etc. 
Ass'n, 78 Cal. 289; 20 

Pac. 677 1206, 1299, 1328 

V. Martin Anti-Fire, etc. 

Co., 47 N. Y. St. Rep. 26; 
19 N. Y. Supp. 285 

V. Mayfield, 163 111. 

447; 45N. E. 157 

V. McCuUough, 104 U. S. 

25 

V. Natchez Steamboat 

Co., 1 How. (Miss.) 479 

916, 924, 1375 
V. New Hartford Water 

Co., 73 Conn. 626; 48 Atl. 

754 294, 1296 
V. Paringa Mines (1906), 

3 Ch. 193 997, 1212 



591 

230 

1511 

914, 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Smith V. Parker, 148 Ind. 127; 

45 N. E. 770 309, 311 

V. People's Mut., etc. 

Soc, 64 Hun 534; 19 N. 

Y. Supp. 432 589 
V. Plank Road Co., 30 

Ala. 650 604 
V. Poor, 40 Me. 415; 63 

Am. Dec. 672 1350 

V. Prattville Mfg. Co., 

29 Ala. 503 1110, 1274 
V. Prosser (1907), 2 K. 

B. 735 727 
V. Putnam, 61 N. H. 

632 1237 
V. Reese River Co., 2 Eq. 

264 184 
V. RogeiB, 30 Ont. Rep. 

256 722, 723 
V. San Francisco, etc. Ry. 

Co., 115 Cal. 584; 47 Pac. 

582; 56 Am. St. Rep. 119; 

35 L. R. A. 309 1017, 1021, 

1029, 1042, 1050 
V. Savin, 141 N. Y. 315; 

36 N. E. 338 244, 687, 723 

V. Sheeley, 12 Wall 358 248 

V. Silver Valley Mining 

Co., 64 Md. 85; 20 Atl. 
1032; 54 Am. Rep. 760 161, 

1009 

V. Smith, 3 Besaus. (S. 

Car.) 557 1188 

V. Smith, 62 111. 493 406, 

591, 1373, 1375 
V. Smith, 117 Mass. 72 407 

V. Supreme Lodge, 83 

Mo. App. 512 584 

V. Tallahassee, etc. 

Plank Road Co., 30 Ala. 

650 194, 368, 380, 381 

V. Walkerville Malleable 

Iron Co., 23 Ont. App. 95 733 

V. Wells Mfg. Co., 148 

Ind. 333; 46 N. E. 1000 1192 

Smith & Co., Richard (1901), 

1 Ir. 73 1430 

Smith's Estate, 140 Pa. St. 

344; 21 Atl. 438; 23 Am. 

St. Rep. 237 1147, 1148 

Smith's Extx. V. Washington 

City, etc. R. R. Co., 33 

Gratt. 617 1492 

Smith, Be (1896), 2 Ch. 590 20 

Smith, S. P., Lumber Co., 132 

Fed. 618 518 

, 132 Fed. 620 85, 838 

Smithson's Case, 68 L. J. Ch. 

46 642 



Smyth V. Darley, 2 H. L. Cas. 

789 997, 999, 1069 

Smythe v. Chicago, etc. R. 
Co., 22 Fed. Cas. 711, No. 
13, 135 1534 

Sneath v. Valley Gold Co. 

(1893), 1 Ch. 477 1673, 1674, 

1675 

Snediker v. Ayers, 146 Cal. 

407; 80 Pac. 511 1323, 1344 

Snider's Sons v. Troy, 91 Ala. 
224; 8 So. 658; 11 L. R. 
A. 515; 24 Am. St. Rep. 
887 248 

Snively v. Loomis Coal Co., 

69 Fed. 204 1560 

Snow V. Boston Blank Book 
Mfg. Co., 158 Mass. 325; 33 
N. E. 588 967 

V. Church, 13 N. Y. App. 

Div. 108; 42 N. Y. Supp. 

1072 1029, 1347 

V. Thompson Oil Co., 59 

Pa. St. 209 297 

Snow, Church & Co. v. Hall, 19 
N. Y. Misc. 655; 44 N. Y. 
Supp. 427 53 

Snyder v. DeForest Wireless 
Tel. Co., 113 N. Y. App. 
Div. 840; 99 N. Y. Supp. 
644 890 

V. Philadelphia Co., 54 

W. Va. 149; 46 S. E. 366; 
102 Am. St. Rep. 941; 63 
L. R. A. 896 383 

V. Studebaker, 19 Ind. 

462; 81 Am. Dec. 415 236, 

243, 244 

Snyder & Johnson Co., 133 

Fed. 806 44 

Snyder, Re, 29 N. Y. Misc. 1; 

59 N. Y. Supp. 993 1402 

Soci6t6 Anonyme v. Panhard- 
Levassor Motor Co. (1901), 
2 Ch. 513 310, 373, 378 

Soci6t6 G^n^rale de Paris v. 
Tramways Union Co., 14 
Q. B. D. 424 796, 1356 

V. Walker, 11 A. C. 20 685, 

685, 697, 697, 713, 747, 747, 748 

Society of Accountants & Au- 
ditors V. Goodway (1907), 
1 Ch. 489 372 

Society of Practical Knowl- 
edge V. Abbot, 2 Beav. 
559 627, 627, 1290 

Society for the Propagation of 
the Gospel v. Town of Paw- 
let, 4 Pet. 480 226 



clxxxvii 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Society for Savings v. New- 
London, 29 Conn. 174 1423 

Society Perun v. Cleveland, 
43 Oh. St. 481; 3 N. E. 
357 249, 251 

Sodus Bay, etc. R. R. Co. v. 
Hamlin, 24 Hun (N. Y.) 
390 119 

Solomon v. Bates, 118 N. Car. 
311; 24S. E. 478; 54 Am. 
St. Rep. 725 1355 

V. First Nat. Bank, 72 

Miss. 854; 17 So. 383 1124 

Somerset, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Gushing, 45 Me. 524 481, 547, 609 

Somerset Nat. Banking Co. ■». 
Adams, 24 Ky. Law Rep. 
2083; 72 S. W. 1125 174, 

204, 612 

Somerset Ry. v. Pierce, 88 Me. 
86; 33Atl. 772 

Somerville's Case, 6 Ch. 266 



1658 
171, 
171 



1033 



870 
1239 



848 



Soper V. Littlejohn, 31 Can. 

Super. Ct. 572 
Sorrentino v. Ciletti, 75 N. Y. 

App. Div. 507; 78 N. Y. 

Supp. 322 556, 588 

South & North Ala. R. R. 

Co. ■». Chappell, 61 Ala. 527 

■». Falkner, 49 Ala. 115 

V. Highland Ave., etc. R. 

R. Co., 119 Ala. 105; 24 So. 

114 
South African Supply, etc. 

Co. (1904), 2 Ch. 268 58, 468, 

1473 
South African Tys. v. Wal- 

Ungton (1898), A. C. 309 1414, 

1414, 1415 

South Baptist" Soc. i>. Oapp, 

35 Barb. (N. Y.) 35 
South Bay Meadow Dam 

Co. V. Gray, 30 Me. 547 
South Bend Chilled Plow Co. 

V. George C. Cribb Co., 97 

Wise. 230 ; 72 N. W. 749 
South Carolina v. Port Royal, 

etc. Ry. Co., 89 Fed. 565 



397 
233 



961 



South Carolina Mutual Ins. 

Co. V. Price, 67 S. Car. 207; 

45 S. E. 173 
South Carolina R. R. Co. v. 

Wilmington, etc. R. R. Co., 

7 S. Car. 410 
South Covington, etc. Ry. 

Co. V. Gest, 34 Fed. 628 



1644, 
1654 



386 



1632 

1456, 
1457 



clxxxviii 



South Dakota v. North Caro- 
lina, 192 U. S. 286; 24 Sup. 
Ct. 269 154 

South Durham Brewery Co., 
31 Ch. D. 261 431, 439, 441 

South Georgia, etc. R. R. 
Co. V. Ayres, 56 Ga. 230 609, 

610 

South Joplin Land Co. v. Case, 

104 Mo. 572; 16 S. W. 390 322 

South London Fish Market, 
39 Ch. D. 324 1181 

South Milwaukee Co. v. Mur- 
phy, 112 Wise. 614; 88 N. 
W. 583; 58L. R. A. 82 600, 

605 

South Missouri, etc. Co. v. 
Crommer (Mo.), 101 S. W. 
22 271, 273 

South School Dist. v. Blakes- 
lee, 13 Conn. 227 998 

South Staflfordshire Ry. Co. v. 

Burnside, 5 Ex. 129 624, 624 

South St. Louis Ry. Co. v. 
Plate, 92 Mo. 614; 5 S. W. 

199 1636 
South Texas Nat. Bank v. 

Texas, etc. Lumber Co., 30 

Tex. Civ. App. 412; 70 S. 

W. 768 • 705, 705 

South Western R. R. Co. v. 

Thomason, 40 Ga. 408 420, 

792 
South Western, etc. Ry. Co. 

V. Hays, 63 Ark. 355; 38 

S. W. 665 1627 

South Western of Venezuela 

Ry. Co. (1902), 1 Ch. 701 1240 
South Yorkshire Ry., etc. 

Co. V. Great Northern Ry. 

Co., 9 Ex. 55 824, 1107 

South Yorkshire Wine Co., 8 

Times L. R. 413 791 

Southampton Dock Co. v. 

Richards, 1 Man. & Gr. 448 614, 
915, 923, 925, 925 
Southampton, etc. Steam 

Boat Co., 4 De G. J. & S. 

200 175 
Southern Bank v. Williams, 

25 Ga. 534 245 

Southern Bldg., etc. Ass'n v. 

Casa Grande Stable Co., 

128 Ala. 624 ; 29 So. 654 844 

Southern Brazilian, etc. Ry. 

Co. (1905), 2 Ch. 78 40, 63, 67, 
1470 
Southern Counties Bank v. 
■ Rider, 73 L. T. 374 996 



TABLE OP CASES 
[Tlie references are to pages] 



Southern Counties Bank v. 

Kirkwood, 11 Times L. R. 

563 996 

Southern Development Co. v. 

Farmers' L. & T. Co., 79 

Fed. 212; 24 CCA. 497 1570 
Southern Electric Securities 

Co. V. State (Miss.), 44 So. 

785 57, 263, 265, 1063 

Southern Life, etc. Co. v. 

Lanier, 5 Fla. 110; 58 Am. 

Dec. 448 868 

Southern Loan Co. v. Morris, 

2 Pa. St. 175; 44 Am. Dec. 

188 865 

Southern Pac. Co. v. Block, 84 

Tex. 21; 19 S. W. 300 381 

Southern Pac. R. R. Co. v. 

Doyle, 11 Fed. 253 1495, 1543 

Southern Plank Road Co. v. 

Hixon, 5 Ind. 165 994, 1062 

Southern Ry. Co. v. Adams, 

76 Fed. 504 ; 22 C. C. A. 300 1570 
V. American Brake Co., 

76 Fed. 502; 22 C C A. 

298 1570 

V. Bouknight, 70 Fed. 

442; 17 C C. A. 181 1543 

V. Carnegie Steel Co., 76 

Fed. 492; 22 C C A. 289; 
176 U. S. 257; 20 Sup. a. 
347 1517, 1560, 1562, 1564, 
1565, 1567, 1570, 1571, 1572 

V. Carnegie Steel Co., 176 

U. S. 257 ; ^0 Sup. Ct. 347 1562, 
1565, 1567, 1570, 1571, 1572 

V. Chapman Jack Co., 

117 Fed. 424; 54 C C. A. 

598 1570, 1572 
V. Dunlop Mills, 76 Fed. 

505; 22 C. C A. 302 1570 
V. Ensign Mfg. Co., 117 

Fed. 417; 54 C C A- 591 1570 
V. North Carolina Corp. 

Comm., 104 Fed. 700 891 
V. Tillett, 76 Fed. 507; 

22 C C A. 303 1562, 1567 

Southern Trust, etc. Co. v. 

Yeatman, 134 Fed. 810; 67 

C C A. 456 646 

Southport, etc. Banking Co., 

55 L. J. Ch. 497 191, 193 

Sovereen, etc. Co. v. Whitside, 

12 Ont. L. R. 638 994, 997, 

1165, 1165, 1204 
Spackman v. Evans, L. R. 3 

H. L. 171 665 

V. Lattimore, 3 Giff. 16 629, 

962 



Spader v. Mural Decoration 

Mfg. Co., 47 N. J. Eq. 18; 

20 Atl. 378 1242 

Spangler v. Indiana, etc. Ry. 

Co., 21 111. 276 607 

Spargo's Case, 8 Ch. 407 642, 642 
Sparks ■1). Company-, etc. of the 

Liverpool Waterworks, 13 

Ves. 428 581, 662 
V. Dispatch Transfer Co., 

104 Mo. 531; 15 S. W. 417; 

24Am. St. Rep. 351; 12 L. 

R. A. 714 1381 
V. Dunbar, 102 Ga. 129; 

29 S. E. 295 874, 875, 878 
V. Farmers' Bank, 3 Del. 

Ch. 274 1185 

V. Lower Payette Ditch 

Co., 2 Idaho 1030; 29 

Pac. 134 652 
V. Woodstock Iron, etc. 

Co., 87 Ala. 294 ; 6 So. 195 130, 

220 
Sparrow v. E. Bement & 

Sons, 142 Mich. 441; 105 

N. W. 881 1660 

Spaulding v. North Milwaukee 

Town Site Co., 106 Wise. 

481; 81 N. W. 1064 322, 

982, 1331 
Spear v. Crawford, 14 Wend. 

(N. Y.) 20; 28 Am. Dec. 

513 156 

V. Grant, 16 Mass. 9 1127 

Speer v. Bordeleau (Colo.), 79 

Pac. 332 630, 645 
V. Colbert, 200 U. S. 130; 

26 Sup. Ct. 201 1186 

Speight Mfg. Co., Boultbee's 

Case, 16 Ont. App. 508, 

519 212 

Speir, Re, 69 N. Y. App. Div. 

149; 74 N. Y. Supp. 555 430 

Spellissy v. Cook & Bem- 

heimer Co., 58 N. Y. App. 

Div. 283; 68 N. Y. Supp. 

995 748, 798 

Spence v. Mobile, etc. Ry. Co., 

79 Ala. 576 1416, 1433, 1437 

Spencers. Brooks, 97 Ga. 681 ; 

25 S. E. 480 1611, 1614 

V. James, 10 Tex. Civ. 

App. 327; 31 S. W. 540; 

43 S. W. 556 751 

Spering's Appeal, 71 Pa. St. 

11; 10 Am. Rep. 684 1268, 

1274, 1278 
Sperry v. Dransfield, 2 New 

Zeal. (Sup. Ct.) 319 588 



clxxxix 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Spier V. Hyde, 92 N. Y. App. 

Div. 467; 87 N. Y. Supp. 

285 335 

Spies V. Chicago, etc. R. Co., 

30 Fed. 397 1529, 1586, 1679 
V. Chicago, etc. R. Co., 

40 Fed. 34; 6L.R.A. 565 



1679, 
1680 



Spiller V. Paris Skating Rink 

Co., 7 Ch. D. 368 
Spinney v. Meloon (N. H.), 68 

Atl. 410 1502, 1534, 1534 

Spinning v. Home Building, 

etc. Ass'n, 26 Oh. St. 483 
Spiral Globe (1902), 2 Ch. 209 
Spitzel V. Chinese Corp., 15 

Times L. R. 281 
Spokes V. Grosvenor Hotel, 

etc. Co. (1897), 2 Q. B. 124 



286 



138 
1396 

193 



974, 
975 



1144 

16 

337 

733 



Spooner v. Phillips, 62 Conn. 

62; 24 Atl. 524; 16L.R.A. 

461 
Spotswood V. Morris (Idaho), 

85 Pao. 1094 
Spottiswoode's Case, 6 De G. 

M. & G. 345 
Sprague v. Cocheco Mfg. Co., 

10 Blatchf. 173 
V. National Bank of 

America, 172 111. 149; 50 

N. E. 19; 64 Am. St. Rep. 

17; 42 L. R. A. 606 620, 647 
V. Smith, 29 Vt. 421 ; 70 

Am. Dec. 424 1582, 1582 

Spreckels v. Gorrill (Cal.), 92 

Pac. 1011 181, 184 
V. Nevada Bank, 113 Cal. 

272; 45 Pac. 329; 33 L. R. 

A. 459; 54 Am. St. Rep. 

348 807, 810 

Sprigg V. Commonwealth 

Title Ins., etc. Co., 206 Pa. 

St. 548; 56 Atl. 33 1412 

Spring Co. v. Knowlton, 103 

U. S. 49 493, 493, 632 

Spring Valley Water Works, 

17 Cal. 132 103 
V. San Francisco, 22 Cal. 

434 228, 304 

Springer v. Bigford, 55 111. 

App. 198 
V. Chicago Real Estate, 

etc. Co., 202 ni. 17; 66 

N. E. 850 
Springfield Wagon Co. v. 

Bank of Batesville, 68 Ark. 

234; 57S. W. 257 
Sproat V. Porter, 9 Mass. 300 



408 



848 



770 
308 



Sproul V. Standard Glass Co., 

201 Pa. 103; 50 Atl. 1003 767, 
768, 1284 
S. P. Smith Lumber Co., 132 

Fed. 618 518 

, 132 Fed. 620 85, 838 

Squair v. Lookout Mountain 

Co., 42 Fed. 729 941 

Squires v. Brown, 22 How. Pr. 

(N. Y.) 35 202, 205, 1181, 1182, 
1262, 1359 
Stace and Worth's Case, 4 Ch. 

682 193, 1163, 1164 

Stackpole v. Seymour, 127 

Mass. 104 751 

Stacy V. Bank of Illinois, 5 111. 

91 1298 
V. Cherokee, etc. Works, 

70 S. Car. 178; 49 S. E. 223 1321 
V. Glen EUyn Hotel, etc. 

Co., 223 ni. 546; 79 N. E. 

133 81 

Stafford v. Produce Exchange 

Banking Co., 61 Oh. St. 160 ; 

55 N. B. 162; 76 Am. St. 

Rep. 371 574, 775 
V. Produce Exchange 

Banking Co., 16 Oh. Cire. 

Ct. 50 557 
V. St. John, 164 Ind. 277; 

73 N. E. 596 1359 

Stafford Bank v. Palmer, 47 

Conn. 443 252 

Stafford Springs St. Ry. Co. 

V. Middle River Mfg. Co. 

(Conn.), 66 Atl. 775 1199, 1200 
Staffordshire Gas & Coke Co., 

66 L. T. 413 1227, 1230 

Stainback v. Junk Bros., etc. 

Co.,98Tenn.306; 39S. W. 

530 1489 

Stainsby v. Frazer's Metallic, 

etc. Co., 3 Daly (N. Y.) 98 



Standard Bank of Australia, 

24 Vict. L. R. 304 
Standard Gold Mining Co. v. 

Byers, 31 Wash. 100; 71 

Pac. 766 
Standard Mfg. Co. (1891), 1 

Ch. 627 
Standard Oil Co. v. Comm. 

(Ky.), 91 S. W. 1128 
Standard Telephone & 

Electric Co., 157 Fed. 106 
Standing v. Bowring, 31 Ch. D. 

282 
Stanford Land Co. v. Steidle, 

28 Wash. 72; 68 Pac. 178 



283, 
287 

1191 



1250 

1395 

232 

1553 

704 

230 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Stanley v. Chester, etc. Ry. 

Co., 3 Myl. & C. 773 281 
V. Luse, 36 Oreg. 25; 58 

Pao. 75 1296, 1312 
V. Moore, 17 Vict. L. R. 

285 , 928 
r V. Sheffield Land, etc. 

Co., 83 Ala. 260; 4 So. 34 1372 
Stanley's Case, 33 L. J. Ch. 

535 65, 1513 

Stanton v. Alabama, etc. R.R. 

Co., 31 Fed. 585 1651, 1652 
V. Alabama, etc. R. R. 

Co., 2 Woods 506 1651, 1652, 

1653 
V. Alabama, etc. R. R. 

Co., 2 Woods 523 1489, 1494, 
1525, 1530 
V. Gilpin, 38 Wash. 191; 

80 Pac. 290 1262 
■». New York, etc. Ry. Co. 

59 Conn. 272; 22 Atl. 300; 

21 Am. St. Rep. 110 283 

Stanwood v. Sterling Metal 

Co., 107 m. App. 569 239, 247 
Staples V. Eastman's Photo- 
graphic, etc. Co. (1896), 2 

Ch. 303 459 

Star Loan Ass'n v. Moore, 4 

Penn. (Del.) 308; 55 Atl. 

946 557 

Stark Bank v. U. S. Pottery 

Co., 34 Vt. 144 92, 1187, 1296 
Stark, Ex parte (1897), 1 Ch. 

575 350, 350, 351, 351, 353, 

354, 362, 363, 364, 364 
Starkey v. Bank of England 

(1903), A. C. 114 701, 758 

Starkweather v. American 

Bible Soc, 72 HI. 50; 22 

Am. Rep. 133 69 

Starr v. Shepard (Mich.), 108 

N. W. 709 . 946 

Starrett v. Rockland, etc. Ins. 

Co., 65 Me. 374 210 

State V. Baltimore, etc. R. R. 

Co., 6 Gill (Md.) 363 498, 1103, 
1111, 1116, 1119, 1119, 1119, 
1122 
V. Bank of Charleston, 

Dud. (S. Car.) 187; 35 

Am. Dec. 135 500 
V. Bank of Louisiana, 6 

La. 745 . 1111 
V. Bank of Louisiana, 5 

Mart. N. 8. (La.) 327 1111, 1112 
V. Bank of Ogalalla, 65 

Nebr. 20; 90 N. W. 961; 

91 N. W. 497 518, 520, 520, 529 



998 



6 



429 



1633 



94 



263 

480 

1583 



State V. Bonnell, 35 Oh. St. 10 

V. Brown, 64 Md. 199; 1 

Atl. 54; 6 Atl. 172 1436, 1583, 

1624 

V. Brown, 73 Md. 484; 

21 Atl. 374 1673, 1682, 1682 
V. Brown (Utah), 93 Pac. 

52 230, 231 
V. Cape Girardeau, etc. 

Road Co. (Mo.), 105 S. W. 

761 
V. Carpenter, 51 Oh. St. 

83; 37 N. E. 261; 46 Am. 

St. Rep. 556 
V. Central Iowa Ry. Co., 

71 Iowa 410; 32N.W.409; 

60 Am. Rep. 806 

V. Central Ohio, etc. 

Ass'n, 29 Oh. St. 399 

V. Chute, 34 Minn. 135; 

24 N. W. 353 1032, 1057, 1060 
V. Collins (R. I.), 67 Atl. 

796 
V. Consolidated Gas, etc. 

Co. (Md.), 65 Atl. 40 
V. Consolidated Ry. Co., 

67 Me. 479 
V. Consolidation Coal Co., 

46 Md. 1 42, 867 
V. Cowen, 94 Md. 487; 

51 Atl. 171 1682 

V. Curtis, 9 Nevada 325 557, 

561, 1206, 1225, 1225, 1227 
V. Debenture Guarantee, 

etc. Co. (La.), 26 So. 600 46, 

258 

V. Ferguson, 33 N. H. 

424 567 

V. Ferris, 42 Conn. 560 1017, 

1024,'ll76, 1176, 1178 
V. Florida Central R. R. 

Co., 15 Fla. 690 393, 986, 1500 
V. Franklin Bank, 10 Oh. 

St. 91 499, 516, 525 
V. Glenn, 18 Nevada 34; 

1 Pac. 186 
K.Harris, 3 Ark. 570; 36 

Am. Dec. 460 

V. Home Co-operative 

Union, 63 Oh. St. 547; 59 
N. E. 220 

V. How, 1 Mich. 512 

V. Hunton, 28 Vt. 594 

V. Kupferle, 44 Mo. 154; 

100 Am. Dec. 265 1226, 1231 

V. Leete, 16 Nevada 242 1019, 

1176, 1177 

V. Lehre, 7 Rich. Law 

(S. Car.) 234 1065 



1512 
1231 



23 

252 
1025 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



State V. MoDaniel, 22 Oh. St. 

354 1031, 1066, 1169, 1249 

V. McGrath, 86 Mo. 241- 1006 

V. Marchant, 37 Oh. St. 

2.51 1059, 1059, 1062 

V. Mead, 27 Vt. 722 25 

V. Morristown Fire Ass'n, 

23 N. J. Law 195 416 
• V. Nebraska Distilling 

Co., 29 Nebr. 700; 46 

N. W. 155 263 

V. New Orleans, etc. 

R. R. Co., 20 La. Ann. 489 1027, 
1066, 1067 

V. New Orleans Water 

Supply Co., Ill La. 1049; 

36 So. 117 39, 261 

V. Northern Central Ry. 

Co., 18 Md. 193 1510, 1604, 

1676 

V. Oberlin Bldg., etc. 

Ass'n, 35 Oh. St. 258 517, 525 

V. Overton, 24 N. J. Law 

435; 61 Am. Dec. 671 569 

V. Pan American Co. 

(Del.), 61 Atl. 398 895, 906 

V. Patterson, 159 Mo. 98; 

59 S. W. 1104 384 
V. Perkins, 90 Mo. App. 

603 1203, 1210 
V. Pettineli, 10 Nevada 

141 994, 1006, 1023, 1056 
V. Pittam, 32 Wash. 137 ; 

72 Pac. 1042 231 
V. Port Royal, etc. Ry. 

Co., 45 S. Car. 470; 23 

S. E. 383 958, 968, 1646, 1647 
V. Port Royal, etc. Ry. 

Co., 84 Fed. 67 1615, 1617 

V. Railroad Commis- 
sioners, 41 N. J. Law 235 1618 

V. Rohlffs, 19 Atl. Rep. 

1099 (N. J.) 1042 

V. Scott County, etc. 

Road Co. (Mo.), 105 S. W. 

752 106 

V. Smith, 15 Oreg. 98; 

14 Pac. 814; 15 Pac. 137, 

386 1018, 1022, 1058, 1066, 

1176, 1217 

V. Spartansburg, etc. 

R. R. Co., 8 S. Car. 129 1452, 
1453, 1465 
V. Stockley, 45 Oh. St. 

304; 13 N. E. 279 1016 
V. Stone, 118 Mo 388; 

24 S. W. 164; 25 L. R. A. 

243; 40 Am. St. Rep. 388 25, 25 
V. Stormont, 24 Kan. 686 106 



State V. Taylor, 55 Oh. St. 61; 

44 N. E. 513 47, 125, 133, 134 
V. Topeka Water Co., 61 

Kans. 547; 60 Pac. 337 1521 
V. Tudor, 5 Day (Conn.) 

329; 5 Am. Dec. 162 1040, 1040, 

1249 

V. Wright, 10 Nevada 

167 996 

State ex inf. Atty.-Gen. v. 

Hogan, 163 Mo. 43; 63 

S. W. 378 240 

State ex inf. Hadley v. Delmar 

Jockey Club (Mo.), 92 S. W. 

185 262 

V. Meramec Rod, etc. 

Club (Mo.), 98 S. W. 815 262 

State ex rel. Atty.-Gen. v. 

Conklin, 34 Wise. 21 590, 591 

V. Lee, 21 Oh. St. 662 119 

V. Wood, 13 Mo. App. 

139 219, 645 

State ex rel. Bellamore v. 
Rombotis (La.), 45 So. 43 1007 

State ex rel. Benedict v. 
Southern Mineral, etc. Co., 
108 La. 24; 32 So. 174 431 

State ex rel. Bergenthal v. 
Bergenthal, 72 Wise. 314; 
39 N. W. 566 900, 906 

State ex rel. Biddle v. Superior 
Court (Wash.), 87 Pac. 40 175, 

921 

State ex rel. Bomefield v. 

Rombauer, 46 Mo. 155 751 

State ex rel. Bourdette v. Gas- 
light Co., 49 La. Ann. 1556; 
22 So. 815 892, 898, 900, 902 

State ex rel. Bradford v. West- 
ern Irrigating Co., 40 Kans. 
96; 19 Pac. 349; 10 Am. 
St. Rep. 166 18, 388 

State ex rel. Brun v. Oftedal, 

72Miun. 498 ; 75 N. W. 692 1 162 

State ex rel. Bruning v. Hobo- 
ken Printing, etc. Co., 67 
N. J. Law 119; 50 Atl. 906 895, 

905 

State ex rel. Bugbeeu. Holmes, 

60 Nebr. 40 984 

State ex rel. Burke v. Citizens' 
Bank, 51 La. Ann. 426; 25 
So. 318 896, 903, 904, 904 

State ex rel. Canal Bank v. 
North American, etc. Co., 
112 La. 441; 36 So. 488 807 

State ex rel. Carolina Iron Co. 
V. Abernethy, 94 N. Car. 
545 228 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



State ex rel. Carroll v. Coriiing 
State Savings Bank (Iowa), 
113 N. W. 500 864 

State ex reL Clapp v. Critoh- 
ett, 37 Minn. 13; 32 N. W. 
787 117, 137, 137 

State ex rel. CoUings v. Beck, 

81 Ind. 500 , 117 

State ex rel. Columbia R. R. 
Co. V. Superior Court, 
(Wash.), 88 Pac. 332 175, 921 

State ex rel. Corey v. Curtis, 

9 Nevada 325 557, 561, 1206, 
1225, 1225, 1227 

State ex rel. Cuppel v. Mil- 
waukee Chamber of Com- 
merce, 47 Wise. 670; 3 
N. W. 760 580 

State ex rel. Dent v. HoUoway, 

1 Oh. arc. Dec. 90 1016 

State ex rel. Donnell Mfg. v. 
McGrath, 86 Mo. 239 488 

State ex rd. Doyle v. Laugh- 
lin, 53 Mo. App. 542 895, 903 

State ex rel. Elliot v. Guer- 
rero, 12 Nevada 105 429 

State ex rel. Ely, etc. Co. v. 
Swanger, 195 Mo. 539; 93 
S. W. 932 487 

State ex rel. English v. Laz- 
arus (Mo.), 105 S. W. 780 894, 
895, 906 

State ex rd. Fears v. New 
Orleans, etc. Exchange, 
112 La. 868; 36 So. 760 906 

State ex rd. Frank v. Swanger, 

190 Mo. 561; 89 S. W. 872 473, 
473, 1028 

State ex rel. Gorman v. Nich- 

. ols (Wash.), 82 Pac. 741 114 

State ex rel. Grimm v. Man- 
hattan Rubber Co., 149 Mo. 
181; 50 S. W. 321 1198, 1212, 

1328 

State ex rel. Higby v. Higby 

Co. (Iowa), 106 N. W. 382 55, 
56, 527 

State ex rel. Home Bldg., 
etc. Ass'n ■e. Rotwitt, 17 
Mont. 537; 43 Pac. 922 125, 

488 

State ex rel. Howe v. Shelby- 
ville, etc. Turnpike Co., 41 
Ind. 151 100 

State ex rel. Howerton v. 

Tate, 70 N. Car. 161 1228 

State ex rel, Hutchinson v. 
McGrath, 92 Mo. 355; 5 
S. W. 29 . 125, 374, 376 



State ex rel. Jackson v. New- 
man, 51 La. Ann. 833; 25 
So. 408; 72 Am. St. Rep. 
476 1026 

State ex rel. Johnson v. St. 
Louis Transit Co. (Mo.), 
100 S. W. 1126 894, 895, 904 

State ex rd. Jurgens v. Con- 
sumers' Brewing Co., 115 
La. 782; 40 So. 45 750 

State ex rel. Kennedy v. Union 
Merchants' Exchange, 2 Mo. 
App. 96 576, 581 

State ex rel. Koons v. First 
Nat. Bank, 89 Ind. 302 716 

State ex rel. Lawrence v. Mc- 

Gann, 64 Mo. App. 225 1061, 

1065 

State ex rel. Le Blanc & 
Railey v. Michel, 113 La. 4; 
36 So. 869 53, 54 

State ex rel. Lederer v. Inter- 
National Investment Co., 
88 Wise. 512; 60 N. W. 
796; 43 Am. St. Rep. 920 47, 

113 

State ex rel. Mallinckrodt v. 
McGrath, 75 Mo. 424 368 

State ex rel. Martin v. Bien- 
ville Oil Works Co., 28 La. 
Ann. 204 894, 896, 904 

V. New Orleans, etc. R. 

R. Co., 30 La. Ann. 308 576, 747 

State ex rel. McCay v. New 
Orleans Stock Exchange, 
114La. 324; 38SO.204 430,431 

State ex rel. Mitchell v. 
Horan, 22 Wash, 197; 60 
Pac. 135 1015, 1249 

State ex rel. Newark, etc. R. 
R. Co. V. GoU, 32 N. J. 
Law 285 1376 

State ex rel. Norvell-Shapleigh 
Hardware Co. v. Cook, 178 
Mo. 189; 77 S. W. 559 488, 1006 

State ex rel. O'Brien v. Beth- 
lehem, etc. Gravel Road Co., 
32 Ind. 357 124 

State ex rel. O'Hara v. Na- 
tional Biscuit Co. (N. J.), 
54 Atl. 241 901 

State ex rel. Osborne, etc. v. 
Nichols, 38 Wash. 309; 80 
Pac. 462 114, 136, 386 

State ex rel. Padgett v. 

Foulkes, 94 Ind. 493 125 

State ex rel. Page v. Smith, 

48 Vt. 266 499, 509, 523, 745, 
1027, 1210, 1210 



cxcui 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



State ex rel. Phillips v. New 
Orleans, etc. Co., 25 La. 
Ann. 413 429, 431 

State ex rel. Plock & Co. v. 

Cobb, 64 Ala. 127 1530 

State ex rel. Rosenfeld v. 

Einstein, 46 N. J. Law 479 1252 

State ex rel. Ross v. Ander- 
son, 31 Ind. App. 34; 67 
N. E. 207 116 

State ex rel. Ryan v. Cronan, 

23 Nevada 437; 49Pac.41 1017, 

1020, 1056, 1056, 1249, 1249 

State ex rel. Sanche v. Webb, 

110 Ala. 214; 20 So. 462 232 

State ex rel. Schroeder v. Per- 
kins, 90 Mo. App. 603 1234 

State ex rel. Spinney v. 
Sportsmen's Park Ass'n, 
29 Mo. App. 326 902, 905, 905 

State ex rel. Thompson v. 
Cheraw, etc. R. R. Co., 16 
S. Car. 524 415, 429, 450, 450, 

455 

V. Colias (Ala.), 43 So. 

190 137 

State ex rel. Tozer v. Probate 
Court (Minn.), 113 N. W. 
888 679, 816, 882 

State ex rel. Voyles v. French 
Lick Springs Hotel Co. 
(Ind.), 82 N. E. 801 263 

State ex rel. Walker v. Cork- 
ins, 123 Mo. 56; 27 S. W. 
363 47 

State ex rel. Walkins v. Don- 
nell Mfg. Co. (Mo.), 107 
S. W. 1112 903, 905 

State ex rel. Watkins v. North 
Am. Land, etc. Co., 105 La. 
379; 29 So. 910 906 

State ex rel. Wilson v. St. 
Louis, etc. Ry. Co., 29 Mo. 
App. 301 902, 902, 903, 905 

State use M. E. Church v. 
Warren, 28 Md. 338 255, 303 

State use Murray v. Murray, 

24 Md. 310; 87 Am. Dec. 

608 799 

State Bank v. Cox, 11 Rich. 

Eq. (S. Car.), 344 723 

State Bank of Ohio v. Fox, 3 
Blatchf. 431 522, 526 

State Board of Agriculture v. 
atizens' Ry. Co., 47 Ind. 
407; 17 Am. Rep. 702 852 

State Council, etc. v. Na- 
tional Council, etc. (N. J.), 
64 Atl. 561 378 



844 



1007 
1381 



1208 



996, 1007 



91 



1517 



State Ins. Co. v. Fanners' 

Mut. Ins. Co., 65 Nebr. 34; 

90 N. W. 997 
V. Gennett, 2 Tenn. Ch. 

100 699, 715 

V. Sax, 2 Tenn. Ch. 507 715 

State Nat. Bank v. Duncan, 

35 So. 569 
V. John Moran Packing 

Co., 68 111. App. 25 
V. Union Bank, 168 111. 

519; 48 N. E. 82 
State of Wyoming Syndicate 

(1901), 2 Ch. 431 
State Savings Ass'n v. 

Nixon-Jones Printing Co., 

25 Mo. App. 642 558, 574 

State Security Bank v. Hos- 

kins, 130 Iowa 339; 106 

N. W. 764 
State Trust Co. v. Kansas 

City, etc. R. Co., 120 Fed. 

398 

V. National Land, etc. 

Co., 72 Fed. 575 1602, 1602 

Steacy v. Little Rock, etc. 

R. R. Co., 5 Dillon 348 647 

Steam Dredge No. 1, 87 Fed. 

760 1238, 1247 

SteamNavigationCo. v. Weed, 

17 Barb. (N. Y.) 378 853 

Steamship Dock Co. v. Her- 
on's Adm'x, 52 Pa. St. 280 578, 
579, 768 
Stebbins v. Merritt, 10 Cush. 

(Mass.) 27 397, 406, 995, 999, 

1055 

Steel V. Island City, etc. Co. 

(Oreg.), 83 Pac. 783 
Steele v. Gold, etc. Co. (Colo.), 

95 Pac. 349 
V. Lawyer, 91 Pac. 

958 
Steele's Case, 1 Megone 246 
Steger v. Davis, 8 Tex. Civ. 

App. 23; 27 S. W. 1068 
Stein V. Howard, 65 Cal. 616 

4 Pac. 662 

V. Indianapolis, etc. 

Ass'n, 18 Ind. 237; 81 Am, 
Dec. 353 

V. Marks, 44 N. Y. Misc. 

140^ 89 N. Y. Supp. 921 
Steinmetz v. Versailles, etc. 

Turnpike Co., 57 Ind. 457 



117, 
1227 

Steinway, Re, 159 N. Y. 250; 
53 N. E. 1103; 45 L. R. A. 
461 894, 895, 903 



1131 

1322 

1079 
1203 

556 

630 



383 
552 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Stendell v. Longshoremen's, 
etc. Ass'n, 116 La. 974; 41 
So. 228 90 

Stenton v. Jerome, 54 N. Y. 

480 808 

Stephens v. FoUett, 43 Fed. 

842 165, 172 

V. Mysore Reefs (Kan- 
gundy) Mining Co. (1902), 
1 Ch. 745 38, 98, 99 

Stephenson v. Yokes, 27 Ont. 

691 (Can.) 560, 560, 584, 1043 

1183 

Stephenson's Case (19"00), 2 

Ch. 442 642 

Stem V. Kirkby Lumber Co., 

134 Fed. 509 184 

V. McKee, 70 N. Y. App. 

Div. 142; 75 N. Y. Supp. 

157 98, 213 

V. Wisconsin Central 

R. R. Co., 1 Fed. 555 1587 

Sternberg v. Wolff, 56 N. J. 
Eq. 389; 39 Atl. 397; '67 
Am. St. Rep. 494; 39 
L. R. A. 762 958 

Stetson V. Northern Invest- 
ment Co., 104 Iowa 393; 
73 N. W. 869 1228, 1309, 1311 

Stettauer v. N. Y., etc. Con- 
struction Co., 42 N. J. Eq. 
46; 6 Atl. 303 907 

Stevedore's Beneficial Ass'n, 

14 Phila. (Pa.) 130 111, 111, 

116 

Stevens v. Atchison, etc. Ry. 

Co., 87 Mo. App. 26 1609 

V. Buffalo, etc. R. R. Co., 

31 Barb. 590 1396 

V. Carp River Iron Co., 

57 Mich. 427; 24 N. W. 160 1379 

V. Davison, 18 Gratt. 

(Va.) 819; 98 Am. Deo. 
692 559, 560, 957, 958, 959, 

959 

V. Eden Meeting House 

Soc, 12 Vt. 688 . 1000 

V. Eldridge, 4 CliSe 348 

1586 

V. Hurlbut Bank, 31 

Conn. 146 808 

7 V. New York, etc. R. R. 

Co., 13 Blatchf. 104 1617 

V. New York, etc. R. R. 

Co., 13 Blatchf. 412 l453, 1453 

V. South Devon Ry. Co., 

9 Hare 313 450 

V. South Devon Ry. Co., 

20 L. J. Ch. 491 87 



Stevens i>. Union Trust Co., 57 

Hun 498; 11 N. Y. Supp. 

268 1586, 1688, 1590, 1645 
V. U. S. Steel Corp. 

(N. J.), 59 Atl. 905 nil, 1112, 
1112, 1113 
V. Watson, 4 Abb. Ct. 

App. Dec. (N. Y.) 302 1503, 

1520 
Stevens Hospital v. Dyas, 15 

Ir. Ch. 405 395 

Stevens, Re, 187 N. Y. 471; ' 

80 N. E. 358 1154, 1446 

Stevenson v. Dubuque, etc. 

Mining Co., 34 Iowa 577 1320 
Stevenson's Case, 2 Megone 

360 1416, 1419 
Stewart v. Austin, 3 Eq. 299 182, 
187, 342, 343 
V. Chesapeake, etc. 

Canal.Co., 1 Fed. 361 1586 
V. Chesapeake, etc. 

Canal Co., 5 Fed. 149 1679, 
1683, 1683, 1683 
V. Erie, etc. Transporta- 
tion Co., 17 Minn. 372 966 
V. Firemen's Ins. Co., 

53 Md. 565 792, 797, 798, 814 
V. Harris, 69 Kans. 498; 

77 Pac. 277; 66 L. R. A. 

261 1351, 1352 
ti. Lehigh Valley R. R. 

Co., 38 N. J. Law 505 1300, 
1300, 1315 
V. Mahoney Mining Co., 

54 Cal. 149 1010, 1021 
V. Rutherford, 74 Ga. 

435 177, 182, 187, 213 
V. St. Louis, etc. Rail 

Co., 41 Fed. 736 1309, 1320 
V. Walla Walla, etc. 

Pub. Co., 1 Wash. St. 521; 

20 Pac. 605 617, 696, 698, 699 
V. Washington, etc. S. S. 

Co., 187 U. S. 466; 23 Sup. 

Ct. 161 • 949 
V. Wisconsin Central R. 

Co., 95 Fed. 577 1569 

Stewart Paper Mfg. Co. v. 

Rau, 92 Ga. 511; 17 S. E. 

748 236 

Stewart's Appeal, 72 Pa. St. 

291 1632 

Stewart's Case, 1 Ch. 574 143, 214 
Stickel V. Atwood, 25 R. I. 

456; 56 Atl. 687 1355 

Stickney's Will, Re, 85 Md. 

79; 36 Atl. 654; 35L.R.A. 

693; 60 Am. St. Rep. 308 847 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Stiewell v. Webb Press Co. 

(Ark.), 94 S. W. 915 1199 

Stiilman v. Dougherty, 44 

Md. 380 608 

Stobart V. Forbes, 13 Mani- 
toba 184 54 
Stobo V. Davis Provision Co., 

54 lU. App. 440 1212 

Stock, Ex parte, 33 L. J. Ch. 

731 915, 1174 

Stoeken's Case, 3 Ch. 412 614, 667 
Stooker v. Wedderbum, 3 K. 

& J. 393 338 

Stockholders i>. Louisville, 

etc. R. R. Co., 12 Bush 

(Ky.) 62 1000 

Stockton V. Harmon, 32 Fla. 

312; 13 So. 833 1207 

Stockton, etc. Works v. 

Houser, 109 Cal. 1 ; 41 Pac. 

809 1200, 1201 

Stockton Iron Co., 2 Ch. D. 

101 774 

Stoddard v. Bell & Co., 100 N. 

Y.App. Div.389; 91 N. Y. 

Supp. 477 980 
V. Shetucket Foundry 

Co., 34 Conn. 542 1122 

Stoehlke v. Hahn, 158 111. 79; 

42 N. E. 150 1193 

Stoever v. Whitman's Lessee, 

6 Binney (Pa.) 416 925 

Stohr V. Musical Fund Soc, 

82 Cal. 657; 22 Pac. 1125 578, 

586 
Stokes V. Continental Trust 

Co., 186 N. Y. 285; 78 

N. E. 1090 500, 500, 500, 501, 
501, 506, 506, 507, 507 
■». Findlay, 4 McCrary 

205 147, 220 
V. Lebanon, etc. Turn- 
pike Co., 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 

241 664 
V. N. J. Pottery Co., 46 

N. J. Law 237 880, 1373 

Stone V. Great Western Oil 

Co., 41 111. 85 1232 
V. Kellogg, 165 111. 192; 

46 N. E. 222; 56 Am. St. 

Rep. 240; 62 111. App. 444 894, 
896, 900, 902 
V. Meredith, 78 L. T. 

492 1157 
V. Pontiac, etc. R. R. Co., 

139 Mich. 265; 102 N. W. 

752 978 
V. Rottman, 183 Mo. 552; 

82 S. W. 76 1279, 1288 



Stoney v. American Life Ins. 
Co., 11 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 
635 1407 

Storey, Ex parte, 6 Times L. 
R. 357; 62L.T. 791 178 

Storrow v. Texas, etc. Mfg. 
Ass'n, 87 Fed. 612; 31 C. 
C. A. 139 464, 466 

Stouffer V. Smith-Davis Hard- 
ware Co. (Ala.), 45 So. 621 863 

Stout V. Security Trust, etc. 
Co., 82 N. Y. App. Div. 
129 ; 81 N. Y. Supp. 708 1245, 
1247, 1248 

V. Zulick, 48 N. J. Law 

599; 7 Atl. 362 118, 241, 243 

Stoutimore v. Clark, 70 Mo. 

471 237 

Stovell V. Alert Gold Mining 

Co. (Colo.), 87 Pac. 1071 917 
Stowe V. Flagg, 72 111. 397 129, 253 
Stoystown, etc. Co. v. Gra- 
ver, 45 Pa. St. 386 1196, 1196 
Straker v. Wilson, 6 Ch. 503 1141 
Strand Music Hall Co., 3DeG. 

J. & S. 147 1416 

Strang v. Camden Lodge (N. 

J.), 64 Atl. 93 586 
V. Montgomery, etc. R. 

R. Co., 3 Woods 613 1631, 

1631 
— ^, Ex parte, 5 Ch. 492 613 

Strange v. Houston, etc. R. 

R. Co., 53 Texas 162 723, 732, 
732 733 
Strapp V. Bull (1895), 2 Ch. 1 1655 
Stratford v. Mallory, 70 N. J. 

Law 294; 58 Atl. 347 1066 

Stratford, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Stratton, 2 B. & Ad. 518 611 

Stratton v. Allen, 13 N. J. Eq. 

229 1323 
V. European, etc. Ry., 74 

Me. 422 1582, 1582, 1582 
V. European, etc. Ry. Co. 

76 Me. 269 1582, 1582 

Straus V. Eagle Ins. Co., 5 

Oh. St. 59 845 

V. United Telegram 

Co., 164 Mass. 130; 41 N. 

E. 57 1430, 1675 

Stray v. Russell, 1 E. & E. 

888 779, 781 

Streatham & General Estates 

Co. (1897), 1 Ch. 15 1513 

Streator Independent Tel., 

etc. Co. V. Continental Tel. 

Const. Co., 217 111. 577; 

75 N. E. 546 288 



TABLE OP CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Street v. Maryland, etc. Ry. 

Co., 59 Fed. 25 1560 

Street & Co., 17 Vict. L. R. 

717 115, 629 

Streeten v. Robinson, 102 Cal. 

542; 36 Pac. 946 1375, 1382 

Streight v. Junk, 59 Fed. 321; 

8 C. C. A. 137 960, 967 

Strickland v. Nat. Salt Co. 

(N. J.), 64 Atl. 982 440, 452, 635 
Stringer, Ex parte, 9 Q. B. D. / 

436 767, 776 



Stringer's Case, 4 Ch. 475 



1094, 
1117 



Strobel v. Brownell, 16 N. 

Y. Misc. 657; 40 N. Y. 

Supp. 702 1296 

Strong V. Brooklyn Cross- 
Town R. R. Co., 93 N. Y. 

426 532, 540, 540, 541, 542 
V. Cariyle Press (1893), 1 

Ch. 268 1699 

Strop V. Hughes (Mo.), 101 

S. W. 146 392 

Stroud V. Royal Aquarium, 

etc. Soc, 89 L. T. 243 82 

Strouse v. Sylvester, 134 

Cal. xx; 66 Pac. 660 611 

Stuart V. Hayden, 169 U. S. 

1; 18Sup. Ct. 274 619 
V. Valley R. R. Co., 32 

Gratt. (Va.) 146 168, 209, 922 
Stuart's Trusts, Re, 4 Ch. D. 

213 1107 

Stubbs, Ltd., Joshua (1891), 

1 Ch. 475 1581, 1598 

Studdert v. Grosvenor, 33 Ch. 

D. 528 89 

Studebaker Bros. Mfg. Co. v. 

Montgomery, 74 Mo. 101 237 

Stufflebeam v. De Lashmutt, 

83 Fed. 449 620 

— — ■ ■». De Lashmutt, 101 

Fed. 367 777 

Stunt V. Newark Weldless, 

etc. Co., 22 Oh. Circ. Ct. 

120 191, 191 

Sturdevant v. Farmers', etc. 

Bank, 62Nebr. 472; 87 N. 

W. 156 84, 853, 861 

— — - V. Farmers', etc. Bank, 

69 Nebr. 220; 95 N. W. 

819; 62 Nebr. 472; 87 N. 

W. 156 84 

Sturges V. Knapp, 31 Vt. 1 1487, 

1622, 1671 

V. Stetson, 1 Biss. 246 1404 

V. Vanderbilt, 73 N. Y. 

384 1180, 1185, 1185 



Sturtevants v. City of Alton, 

3 McLean 393 403 

Succession of Lanaux, 46 La. 

Ann. 1036; 15 So. 708 804 

Succession of Thomson, 46 

La. Ann. 1074; 15 So. 379 667 
Suffell V. Bank of England, 9 

Q. B. D. 555 1435 

Sugden v. Alsbury, 45 Ch. D. 

237 1142 

Sullivan v. Detroit, etc. Ry. 

Co., 135 Mich. 661; 98 N. 

W. 756; 64 L. R. A. 673; 

106 Am. St. Rep. 403 293 

— — V. Parkes, 69 N. Y. App. 

Div. 221; 74 N. Y. Supp. 

787 1043, 1050 
V. Portland, etc. R. R. 

Co., 94 U. S. 806 454 

Sullivan County Club v. 

Butler, 26 N. Y. Misc. 306; 

56 N. Y. Supp. 1 650, 651, 653 
Summet v. City Realty, etc. 

Co. (Mo.), 106 S. W. 614 848 

Sumner v. Marcy, 3 Woodb. & 

M. 105 77 

Sumter Tobacco Warehouse 

Co. V. Phoenix Ins. Co. (S. 

Car.), 56 S. E. 654 228, 302 

Sun Printing, etc. Ass'n v. 

Moore, 183 U. S. 642; 22 

Sup. Ct. 240 1277, 1380 

Sunken Vessels Recovery Co., 

3 De G. & J. 85 189, 193 

Supply Ditch Co. v. Elliott, 

10 Colo. 327; 15 Pac. 691; 

3 Am. St. Rep. 586 732, 747 

Supreme Commandery v. 

Ainsworth, 71 Ala. 436 586 

Supreme Lodge v. Knight, 117 

Ind. 489; 20 N. E. 479; 

3 L. R. A. 409 552, 583, 586 
V. Kutscher, 179 111. 340; 

53 N. E. 620; 70 Am. St. 

Rep. 115 552, 560, 585 
V. Robbins, 70 Ark. 364; 

67 S. W. 758 91S 
V. Simering, 88 Md. 276; 

40 Atl. 723; 71 Am. St. 

Rep. 409; 41 L. R. A. 720 947, 
1250, 1251 
V. Trebbe, 179 111. 348; 

53 N. E. 730; 70 Am. St. 

Rep. 120 585 

Supreme Lodge Knights of 

Pythias v. Improved Order 

Knights of Pythias, 113 

Mich. 133; 71 N. W. 470; 

38 L. R. A. 658 371 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Supreme Tent v. Volkert, 25 

Ind.App.627; 57N.E.203 
Supreme Tiibe v. Hall, 24 Ind. 

App.316; 56N. E. 780; 79 

Am. St. Rep. 262 
Surety Guarantee & Trust 

Co., 121 Fed. 73; 56 C. C. 

A. 654 
Susquehanna Bridge, etc. 

Co. V. General Ins. Co., 3 

Md. 305; 56Am. Dec. 740 



589 



662 



44 



65, 
406 



589 



1625 
481, 



Susquehanna Mut. Fire Ins. 

Co. V. Elkins, 124 Pa. St. 

484; 17 Atl. 24 
Sutherland v. Lake Superior, 

etc. Co., 23 Fed. Cas. 459, 

No. 13, 643 

V. Olcott, 95 N. Y. 93 

486, 487, 494, 529 
Sutliff V. Cleveland, etc. R. 

R. Co., 24 Oh. St. 147 1477 

Sutton V. English & Colonial 

Produce Co. (1902), 2 Ch. 

502 745, 793, 793, 1177, 

1177, 1177 
Sutton's Hospital Case, 10 

Co. 1 102, 824, 825, 825, 1273 
Swan V. North British Aus- 
tralasian Co. , 2 H. & C. 1 75 ; " 

7 H. & N. 603 685, 685, 724 
, Ex parte, 7 C. B. n. s. 

400 
Swann v. Oark, 110 U; S. 

602; 4 Sup. Ct. 241 
Swansea Dock Co. v. Levien, 

20 L. J. Ex. 447 
Swartley v. Oak Leaf Cream- 
ery Co. (Iowa), 113 N. W. 

496 
Swartwout v. Michigan Air 

Line R. R. Co., 24 Mich. 

389 191, 193 

Swazey v. Choate Mfg. Co., 

48 N. H. 200 
Sweatt V. Boston, etc. R. R. 

Co., 23 Fed. Cas. 530 
Swedish, etc. Mission Soc. v. 

Lawrence, 79 Minn. 124; 

81 N. W. 756 
Sweeney v. Tenn., etc. R. R. 

Co. (Tenn.), 100 S. W. 

732 193, 194, 609 

Sweeny v. Sugar Co., 30 W. 

Va. 443; 4 S. E. 431; 8 

Am. St. Rep. 88 
Sweet V. Montpelier Savings, 

etc. Co., 69 Kans. 641; 77 

Pac. 538 1355, 1357 



685 
1651 
1000 



1359 



196 
23 



589 



1315 



Sweet V. Montpelier Savings, 

etc. Co. (Kans.), 84 Pac. 

542 
Sweetland v. Quidnick Co., 11 

R. I. 328 
Sweney Bros. v. Talcott, 85 

Iowa 103; 52 N. W. 106 



1355 

777 

127, 
160 



Swentzel v. Penn. Bank, 147 
Pa. St. 140; 23 Atl. 405, 
415; 30 Am. St. Rep. 718; 

15 L. R. A. 305 1274 
Sweny v. Smith, 7 Eq. 324 666, 

948, 952 
Swift V. Smith, 65 Md. 428; 5 

Atl. 534; 57Am. Rep. 336 873, 
873, 1072, 1072, 1072 
V. State ex rel. Richard-, 

son, 7 Houst. (Del.) 338; 

6 Atl. 856; 32 Atl. 143; 40 

Am. St. Rep. 127 894, 903, 

906 

, Re, 105 Fed. 493 785 

Swim V. Wilson, 90 Cal. 126; 

27 Pac. 33; 25 Am. St. Rep. 

110; 13 L. R. A. 605 683 

Swindell & Co., E. v. Bain- 
bridge State Bank (Ga.), 60 

S. E. 13 866 

Swing V. Consolidated Fruit 

Jar Co. (N. J.), 63 Atl. 

899 226 

Swisshelm v. Swissvale Laun- 
dry Co., 95 Pa. St. 367 290 
Sword V. Wickersham, 29 

Kans. 746 120 

Sydney Harbour Collieries Co. 

V. Grey, 14 Times L. R. 

373; 13 Times L. R. 564 356 
V. Brighton Brewery 

Co., 13 W. R. 220 73 

Sykes V. Beadon, 11 Ch. D. 

170 260 
V. People, 132 111. 32; 23 

N. E. 391 387 

Sylvania, etc. R. Co. v. Hoge 

(Ga.), 59 S. E. 806 692, 795, 

797, 996, 1011, 1012, 1049, 

1068, 1164, 1185, 1205 

Symon's Case, 5 Ch. 298 708 

Synnott v. Cumberland Bldg. 

Loan Ass'n, 117 Fed. 379; 

54 C. C. A. 553 1005, 1044, 

1046 

V. Gumming, 1 16 Fed. 40 1085 

Syracuse City Bank v. Davis, 

16 Barb. (N. Y.) 188 232 
Syracuse, etc. R. R. Co., 91 

N. Y. 1 1251 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Syracuse, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Gere, 4 Hun (N. Y.) 392 301, 

645 

T 

Taber v. Cincinnati, etc. Ry. 

Co., 15 Ind. 459 1465, 1623 

Tabor v. Bank of Leadville 

(Colo.), 83 Pac. 1060 
Tafift V. Presidio, etc. R. R. 

Co., 84 Cal. 131; 24 Pac. 

436; 11 L. R. A. 125; 18 

Am. St. Rep. 166 
Taft V. Brewster, 9 Johns (N. 

Y.)334; 6 Am. Dec. 280 

V. Harrison, 10 Hare 489 

V. Hartford, etc. R. R. 

Co., 8 R. I. 310; 5 Am. 

Rep. 575 
Tagart v. Northern Central 

Ry. Co., 29 afd. 557 
Taggart v. Western Md. R. 

R. Co., 24 Md. 563; 89 

Am. Dec. 760 175, 188, 188, 

614 
Tahourdin v. Weston-Super- 

Mare Grand Pier Co., 4 

Times L. R. 124 
Tailby v. Official Receiver, 13 

A. C. 523 
Tait V. Pigott, 32 Wash. 344; 

73 Pac. 364 518, 520 
V. Pigott, 38 Wash. 59; 

80 Pac. 172 517, 520, 520 

Tait's Case, 3 Eq. 795 177 

Talahasse Mfg. Co., Be, 64 

Ala. 667 1423 

Taliaferro v. First Nat. Bank, 

71 Md. 200; 17 Atl. 1036 694, 

701, 723, 724 

Talladega Ins. Co. v. Peacock, 

67 Ala. 253 
Tallmadge v. Fishkill Iron 

Co., 4 Barb. (N. Y.) 382 
Talmage v. Pell, 7 N. Y. 328 

845, 851 
Tanner v. Nichols, 25 Ky. 

Law Rep. 2191; 80 8. W. 

225 235 

Tanner's Case, 5 De G. & S. 

182 275, 308, 309 

Tapley v. Martin, 116 Mass. 

275 
Tar River Nav. Co. v. Neal, 

3 Hawks (N. Car. )~ 520 



1078 



687 

398 
766 



450 
1476 



1174 
1504 



1377 

1359 

77, 



228 



222, 
601 

Tarbell v. Page, 24 111. 46 126 

Tasker & Sons, W. (1905), 2 
• Ch. 587 1418, 1473, 1473, 1524 



Tate V. Bates, 118 N. Car. 

287; 24S. E. 482; 54 Am. 

St. Rep. 719 1355, 1357 

Taunton v. Royal Ins. Co., 

2 Hem. & Mill. 135 81, 931 
V. Sheriff of Warwick- 
shire (1895), 2 Ch. 319 1546 
Taurine Co., Re, 25 Ch. D. 

118 707, 763, 1215, 1215 

Taussig V. St. Louis, etc. R. R. 

Co., 186 Mo. 269; 85 S. 

W. 378 293, 1246 

Tavaglini v. Societa Italiane, 

5 Pa. Dist. R. 441 222 
Tayler v. Great Indian 

Peninsula Ry. Co., 4 De G. 

6 J. 559 685 
Taylor v. Atlantic, etc. Ry. 

Co., 55 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 

275 1672 

V. Atlantic, etc. R. R. 

Co., 57 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 

26 1485, 1494 

V. Burlington Cotton 

Mills, 8 Hun (N. Y.) 1 22 

V. Cummings, 127 Fed. 

108; 62C. C. A. 108 635 
V. Decatur Mineral, etc. 

Co., 112 Fed. 449 957, 969 
V. Griswold, 2 Green 222 

(14 N. J. Law); 27 Am. 

Dec. 33 1000, 1013, 1013, 
1014, 1015, 1040, 1040 

V. Heggie, 83 N. Car. 

244 398 
V. Miami Exporting Co., 

6 Ohio 176 517, 526 
V. Modem Woodmen, 72 

Kans. 443; 83 Pac. 1099 590 
V. Philadelphia, etc. R. 

R. Co., 7 Fed. 377 1659, 1649 
V. Philadelphia, etc. R. 

R. Co., 7 Fed. 381 1062 
V. Philadelphia, etc. R. 

R. Co., 7 Fed. 386 68 
V. Philadelphia, etc. R. 

R. Co., 9 Fed. 1 1541, 1649 

V. Pilsen Joel El. Light 

Co., 27 Ch. D. 268 516 
V. Portsmouth, etc. Ry. 

Co., 91 Me. 193; 39 Atl. 

560; 64 Am. St. Rep. 216 226 

V. R. D. Scott & Co. 

(Mich.), 113 N. W. 32 1068, 

1199, 1210, 1212 

V. South, etc. R. R. Co., 

13 Fed. 152 444 
V. Southerlin-Meade To- 
bacco Co. (Va.), 60 S. E. 132 1379 



g^ 'uo^saAjBQ JO jCjunog 

91^1 'gI6 ' ■ 86 "AV 

"S 8 !Se9 "^^ax 69 '^^aao 
■a, 'og -Xa TU9}S9j^ sTOcax 

"Ai. 'S eOT '("xax) 8H^H 
•a -og •iC'a tuaq^jnog sBxax 

OOe 66£ M S 

Sg -sot ddy -Aio xax 81 
'ia^unjj •ft^ouaSviiBO'j sBxax 

99^ e8T -V "0 '0 

t'S !S pa^ Z6 'Mojjo^g 
•ft u.ssy -a^a '•lOsuoQ SBxax 

9E^I 

'98^1 OOZ "II^Ai. L 'a^FlJSA. '«■ s^xax 

f'/.si i£s 'a .N t-s : ti9 a .n is 

'(•puj) ti^iuisjauiuiBjj -a 

9{'6 '^f'6 " Ei9 

•a'A[i9 -'i^iTaiigT -216 

'U "a "N 99 •' 182 "ddv T"! 

X8 't{(>iiasjainmBij '« sta8x 
8ISI 96s"rag 2? •£) aa 8 '"OQ 

•oja 'snoiamBQ ;» uiBqaiaAax 
9Zi '89Z 'Sii- 808 ("^d) -^sM-ajg 

f. '>[u'Ba "0^3 ',saauu'Bj ■« ai^ax 

0901 '996 

'2S6 '886 '86^ '^6^ T^l "unoo 
i^ ''00 ^3°T: aiScg -a 

026 

'Z08 L% -dan "^S 'oiV 08 -662 

■og 6 '66S •■BIV 86 '3t°'Ba 
•^B^ ui'BqSuinuia •» Auax 

6U ' 292 

•a 'S Ti^ -'^01 ■«» 911 '-00 
•0^8 '■■jj ■■jj 'BiSjoaf) -a ipjjax 

^891 ' ei9 'V 

LZ !Z06-Taa 96 'nosiuBH 
•a 'og •jC'jj 'o^a 'ajn'Bu ajjax 

6951 ^S9"V0'0 2?' ■'S28"paj 

201 ''OQ "H '3*8 'a^nBjj ajjax 

fit'2 82f -ba T "N 88 

'•00 -a n pn^IPIM '«■ annqaax 

ZO^ 

'668 'i68 8?'8 H "N Sf '•OQ -isq 

-umq uaxiBji^ ^js^a -(i jCanuax 

£11 S8 

■jW. 'S 95 '('nuax) jCassBj^ -a 
•00 Sni^mSiq; -o^a 'aassauuax 

958 '158 ' ' 62 

■Ai. "N ^9 !TST •inaxZOI 
'anrey; -a -og aoj aassauuax 

6ZT ' ST9 '0 T f' '^n^a 

jttoSsBio JO jC^iq -a inatmax 

92 ' I8T 'TO 

t '(9061) jCajuB-jg -a ^urauax 

IS8T '862T 26 "AV 'S Z9 !^82 

■xax 56 'no:>:jBj; -a uosniax 



9951 Z98 
"AV 'N ZL '^6^ 'qoiM til 
'•00 -JJ -a "oija 'oBjiuoj -a 

6621 '9t2I '6901 '816 

'216 'ei6 8i8 "V H '1 S '£89 

•daa*g-niv9l ;e06A\. .N 

It ^922 •qaiK ti '00 H 

•■g -o^a 'oBrjuoj -a JioAa "^X 
165 61 -ddy 0^ 02 'oo punod 

-moo Jaijog "a Jjaojg nax 
SiSI ' t£9 

•Ai .NSS !8tS ^Aioi 8i '00 

•iCa 'oia 'oSBOiqo ■" ujidraax 
£68 ' 8il 

•III 59 'pJ'BAijCBH -a uo:^aidniax 
tl2I 222 Ai 'S ££ 'tI5 "Ai •g 2E 

!89 'xax 68 'aSpoQ a jadmax 
8I£I '2I£I 28t "paa 551 

'a 'H ■o*^ 'qcdouox a jaipx 
95i '5ei 06 (-BJ) 'daa 'RY 

81 'q^qjao a oo -o^a 'pjojpx 

69 i£9 

•oaa-nrves ! 5£2 "ba 'q^ia 

8 (■•1^0 'S) »^oh; -a JiBJiax 
9t8I 't88I 
'Z2E'6I8 Sii'Ai'NIOI '888 

f-iioi iz\ 'jaqos^aoT^ ■» 

2t8I '186 

'956 t98 "Ai "K 86 -LI "^0^°! 

521 'aaq •a aqx 'qd^jSapx 
t85 t88 -fca 01 'a 'T '»ff 

'■00 uo^oansuoo qd^iSapx 
95i '55Z, '55i 'ki 
'82i '8Si 'LZL 698 'S "Jl Z,6 

'i^joduaABg "a -oo qd'BjSapx 

tt 225 •y '0 '0 8i 

•288 "paj 8tl '"00 IKH "3 'X 

62t 908'Ai'N:tII 

'(■BMOj) •ooaiCaJiAi'Bjj -aaidaax 

2i8I 999 

•ddng -x -N 201 "oo *«ani 
-asnuiv pa^^pqosuoo 'a ajaax 

tt 021 -paaOIl ''00 

Suiqamg ^ Sumipj Bdooax 



695 
'915 
0t8 



8Z9T 

695 

568 

t90I 

8ZSI 



tS •qO 6 'as«0 s.aiBps^ax 
t99 
■y •a '7 I -902 "daa "^S •"!¥ 

ti ige^Ai'Not ;8ii'BMoi 

9i 'uasaojj ub^^ ■» (jnoqacax 

t8Z 
■qO I '(5061) s'jsiux SiJoi^Bx 

85 a^ioo 
XX 'qoiMsdj 'asBO SiJOjiCBx 

6801 
•ddng x 'i>l lOI '»ff '■loiiC'BX 

m •paa 221 '•OO •aM 
uaaq^nog -a -oo ^ jo^jCbx 
285 •aw U '-lOliCBX -a aoi^Bi 



[833cd 0} 8JB S30n3J3;aj am] 

sasvo ,io aaavx 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Texas, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Barber, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 

84; 71 S. W. 393 381 

Texas, etc. Ry. Co. v. Bledsoe, 

2 Tex. Civ. App. 88; 20 S. 

W. 1135 1609 
i>. Bloom, 60 Fed. 979; 

9 C. C. A. 300 1610 
1). Cox, 145 U.S. 593; 12 

Sup. Ct. 905 1615, 1617 
V. Gaal, 14 Tex. Civ. 

App. 459; 37 S. W. 462 1610 
V. Geiger, 79 Tex. 13; 15 

S. W. 214 1610, 1619 
V. Huffman, 83 Tex. 286; 

18 S. W. 741 1609, 1610 
V. Johnson, 151 U. S. 81; 

14 Sup. Ct. 250 1609, 1610, 
1617, 1619 
V. Marlor, 123 U. S. 687; 

8Sup.a.311; 19 Fed. 867 1458, 
1528, 1675 
V. Watts (Tex.), 18 S. W. 

Rep, 312 1610 

Thames Haven, etc. Co. v. ' 

Rose, 4 Man. & G. 552 1205 

Thames Tunnel Co. v. Sheldon, 

6 B. & C. 341 162 

Thatcher v. Consumers' Gas, 

etc. Co. (N. J.), 66 Atl. 934 64 
Thayer v. Butler, 141 U. S. 

234; 11 Sup. Ct. 987 490 
V. Herrick, 23 Fed. Cas. 

899 560 
V. Wathen, 17 Tex. Glv. 

App. 382; 44 S. W. 906 424 

Theis V. Durr, 125 Wise. 651 ; 

104 N. W. 985; 110 Am. 

St. Rep. 880; 1 L. R. A. 

N. 8. 571 529, 534, 534, 534, 

538, 951 
Thellusson v. Valentia (1907), 

2 Ch. 1; (1906) 1 Ch. 480 73, 133 
Thew V. Porcelain Mfg. Co., 5 

S. Car. 415 394, 1371 

Thigpen v. Mississippi Central 

R. R. Co., 32 Miss. 347 194, 625 
Third Avenue R. R. Co. v. 

Ebling, 12 Daly (N. Y.) 99 1215, 

1372 
Third Nat. Bank v. Buffalo 

German Ins. Co., 193 U. S. 

581; 24 Sup. Ct. 524 114, 572, 
573, 714 
V. Eastern R. R. Co., 122 

Mass. 240 1405 

Third Street, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Lewis, 79 Fed. 196; 24 

C. C. A. 482 1641 

cci 



Thistle V. Jones, 45 N. Y. Misc. 

215; 92 N. Y. Supp. 113 282, 
302, 304 

Thomas v. Brownville, etc. 
R. R. Co., 109U. S. 522; 3 
Sup. Ct. 315 1303, 1316, 1433 

V. Cincinnati, etc. Ry. 

Co., 62 Fed. 17 1620 

V. Cincinnati, etc. Ry. 

Co., 62 Fed. 669 1621 

V. Cincinnati, etc. Ry. 

Co., 77 Fed. 667 1612 

V. City of Richmond, 12 

Wall. 349 840 

V. East Tennessee, etc. 

Ry. Co., 60 Fed. 7 1575, 1642 

V. Gregg, 78 Md. 545; 28 

Atl.565;44Am.St.Rep.310 1150 

V. Musical, etc. Union, 

121N. Y. 45; 24 N. E. 24; 

8 L. R. A. 175 583, 948 

V. New York, etc. Ry. 

Co., 139N. Y. 163; 34N.E. 

877 1500, 1679, 1679 

V. Penniman (Md.), 66 

Atl. 291 1280 

V. Railrd^d Co., 101 U. S. 

71 52, 836 

V. Societa Italiena, 10 

N. Y. Misc. 746; 31 N. Y. 
Supp. 816 591 

V. Western Car Co., 149 

U. S. 95; 13 Sup. a. 824 1568, 
1612, 1643, 1654 

Thomas F. Meton & Sons v. 
Isham Wagon Co., 4 N. Y, 
Supp. 215 

Thomas, Re, 14 Q. B. D. 379 



Thomasson v. Grace M. E. 

Church, 113 Cal. 558; 45 

Pac. 838 
Thompson v. Alexander 

(1905), 1 Ch. 229 
V. Commercial, etc. Ass. 

Co. (Colo.), 78 Pac. 1073 
V. Erie Ry. Co., 11 Abb. 

Pr. N. 8. 188 
V. Erie Ry. Co., 9 Abb. 

Pr. N. 8. 212 
V. Erie Ry. Co., 45 N. Y. 

468 
V. Fairbanks, 196 U. S. 

516; 25 Sup. a. 306 
V. Huron Lumber Co., 4 

Wash. 600; 30 Pac. 741; 

31 Pac. 25 
V. Lambert, 44 Iowa 239 



1364 
260, 
301 



1377 
70 
237 
448 
890 
475 

1506 



1553 
63, 



65, 854, 861, 1407 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Thompson v. Lee County, 3 
Wafl. 327 1448 

V. Natchez Water Co., 68 

Miss. 423 ; 9 So. 821 1187, 1208, 

1208 

V. N. Y., etc. R. R. Co., 

3 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 625, 

651 251 

V. Perrine, 106 U. S. 

589; 1 Sup. Ct. 564 1451 

V. St. Nicholas Nat. 

Bank, 146 U. S. 240; 13 

Sup. Ct. 66 866 

V. Scott, 4 Dill. 508 1616, 

1616 

V. Swoope, 24 Pa. St. 474 69 

V. Toland, 48 Cal. 99 799, 812 

V. Trustees, etc. Corpora- 
tion (1895), 2 Ch. 454 511 

V. White Water Valley 

R. R. Co., 132 U. S. 68; 10 

Sup. Ct. 29 1537 
V. Williams, 76 Cal. 153; 

18 Pac. 153 ; 9 Am. St. Rep. 

187 1198 

Thompson Co. v. Brook, 37 

N. Y. St. Rep. 50ff; 14 

N. Y. Supp. 370 - 1238 

Thompson's Estate, 33 Barb. 

(N. Y.) 334 55 

Thompson-Houston, etc. Co. 

V. Dallas, etc. Ry. Co., 54 

Fed. 1001; 5 C. C. A. 11 628 

Thomson, Succession of, 46 

La. Ann. 1074; 15 So. 379 667 
Thomson's Case, 4 De G. J. & 

S. 749 159, 633 

, 34 L. J. Ch. 525 169 

Thomson's Estate, 153 Pa. St. 

332; 26 Atl. 652, 653 503 

Thorington v. Gould, 59 Ala. 

461 ' 1185 

Thorn v. City Rice Mills, 40 

Ch. D. 357 1462, 1472 

V. Nme Reefs, 67 L. T. 93 

1416, 1603, 1604 
Thornsburgh v. Newcastle, etc. 

R. R. Co., 14 Ind. 499 194 

Thornton v. Balcom, 85 Iowa 

198; 52N. W. 190 108, 131, 149 
V. Marginal Freight Ry. 

Co., 123 Mass. 32 232 
V. Martin, 116 Ga. 115; 

42 S. E. 348 751, 787 

V. Wabash Ry. Co., 81 

N. Y. 462 1664 

Thorpe v. Pennock Mercantile 

Co. (Minn. ), 108 N. W. 940 155, 
298, 299 



Thrasher v. Pike R. R. Co., 25 

111. 393 198 

Thruston v. Big Stone Gap 

Imp. Co., 86 Fed. 484 1585 

Thunder Hill Mining Co., 4 

Brit. Columb. 61 492 

Thurber v. Crump, 86 Ky. 408 ; 

6 S. W. 145 715 

Ticonic Water, etc. Co. ■». 

Lang, 63 Me. 480 171 

Tiessen v. Henderson (1899), 

1 Ch. 861 953, 1002, 1003 

Tift V. Quaker City Nat. 

Bank, 141 Pa. St. 550; 21 

Atl. 660 280, 288 

Tilbury Portland Cement Co., 

62 L. J. Ch. 814 11, 66 

Tilford V. Atlantic Match Co., 

134 Fed. 924 1510, 1536 

Tilley v. Coykendall, 69 N. Y. 

App. Div. 92; 74 N. Y. 

Supp. 631 874 

Tillinghast v. Bailey, 86 Fed. 

46 489, 492 
V. Troy, etc. R. R. Co., 

48 Hun (N. Y.) 420; 1 

N. Y. Supp. 243 1585, 1596, 1624 
Tillyer v. Hero Jar Co., 17 

Phila. (Pa.) 153 
Tilson V. Warwick Gas Light 

Co., 4 B. & C. 962 
Timberlake v. Shippers' Com- 
press Co., 72 Miss. 323; 16 

So. 530 718, 1134 

Timmins & Sons, Ebenezer 

(1902), 1 Ch. 238 149, 155, 205, 

642 
Timolat v. Held Co., 17 N. Y. 

Misc. 556; 40 N. Y. Supp. 

692 
Tinker v. Ifler, 195 Mo. 183; 

94 S. W. 501 
Tinsdale v. Harris, 20 Pick. 9 

(Mass) 
Tippecanoe County v. 

Reynolds, 44 Ind. 509; 15 

Am. Rep. 245 
Tippets V. Walker, 4 Mass. 

595 
Titus V. Cairo, etc. R. R. Co., 

37 N. J. Law 98 
V. Great Western Turn- 
pike Road, 61 N. Y. 237 

■». Mabee, 25 111. 257 

T. J. Moss Tie Co. v. Common- 
wealth (Ky.), 105 S. W. 163 
Tobey v. Hakes, 54 Conn. 274; 
7 Atl. 551; 1 Am. St. Rep. 

114 751 



881 
295 



1181 
185 



422 



1352 

398 

1370 

741 
1503 

368 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Tobin V. Roaring Creek, etc. 
R. R. Co., 86 Fed. 1020 



917, 
1371 



Tobin Canning Co. v. Fraser, 

81 Tex. 407; 17 S. W. 25 1343 
Tod V. Kentucky Union Ry. 
Co., 57 Fed. 47; 6 C. C. A. 
685 77, 875, 876, 877, 1106, 

1408, 1433 
Todd V. Moorehouse, 19 Eq. 

69 815 

V. Taft, 7 Allen (Mass.) 

371 ."■ 786 

Toledo Portland Cement Co., 

156 Fed. 83 44 

Toledo, etc. R. R. Co. v. Con- 
tinental Trust Co., 95 Fed. 
497; 36 C. C. A. 155 244, 444, 
468, 469, 645, 1260, 1329, 
1404, 1628 

V. Hamilton, 134 U. S. 

296; 10 Sup. Ct. 546 1508, 

1538, 1539, 1542, 1550, 
1566 
Toler V. East Tennessee, etc. 

Ry. Co., 67 Fed. 168 1051, 

1585, 1589, 1689, 1592, 
1592, 1593, 1593 
Tombler v. Palestine Ice Co., 
17 Tex. dv. App. 596; 43 
8. W. 896 715 

Tome V. King, 64 Md. 166; 21 

Atl. 279 1641 

V. Parkersbuig Branch 

R. R. Co., 39 Md. 36; 17 
Am. Rep. 540 593, 740 

Tomlin v. Farmers', etc. Bank, 

52 Mo. App. 430 1016, 1029, 

1030, 1067 
Tomlin's Case, 14 Times L. R. 

53 189 

(1898), 1 Ch. 104 181 

Tompkins v. Sperry, 96 Md. 

560; 64 Atl. 254 330, 331, 331, 

1006 
Tompkins Co., D. A. v. 

Catawba Mills, 82 Fed. 780 958, 
1485, 1586 
V. Chester Mills, 90 Fed. 

37 1492 

Tomkinson v. South Eastern 

Ry. Co., 35 Ch. D. 675 81, 949 
Tontine Surety Co., 116 Fed. 

401 22, 44 

Toppan V. Cleveland, etc. 

R. R. Co., 1 Flippin 74 1437 

Toppin V. Lomas, 16 C. B. 145 1439 
Topping V. Bickford, 4 Allen 

(Mass.) 120 233 



1606 
1447 



1380 



944 
173 

456 

1598 

286 

791 

698 



Torbett v. Eaton, 49 Hun 

(N. Y.)209; 1 N. Y. Supp. 

614 1365 

Torbeck v. Westbuiy (1902), 

2 Ch. 871 1004 

Toronto Brewing Co. v. Blake, 

2 Ont. 175 994, 996, 1015, 1205 
Toronto Gen. Trusts Corp. v. 

Central Ontario Ry. Co., 6 

Ont. L. R. 1 
V. Central Ont. Ry. Co., 

6 Ont. L. R. 534 
Torrey v. Dustin Monument 

Ass'n, 5 Allen (Mass.) 327 

V. Toledo Portland 

Cement Co. (Mich.), 113 
N. W. 680 

Tothill's Case, 1 Ch. 85 

Totten & Co. v. Tison, 64 Ga. 
139 

Tottenham v. Swansea Zinc 
Ore Co., 63 L. J. Ch. 776 

Touche V. Metropolitan Ware- 
housing Co., 6 Ch. 671 

Tourtelot V. Finke, 87 Fed. 
840 

V. Stoleben, 101 Fed. 

362 

Towers v. African Tug Co. 

(1904), 1 Ch. 558 951, 966, 966, 
1101 
Town of Eagle v. Kohn, 84 

ni. 292 1451 

Town of East Rome v. City of 

Rome (Ga.), 58 S. E. 854 107, 
381, 382 
Town of Pawlet'v. Clark, 9 

Cranch 292 302 

Townes v. NichoUs, 73 Me. 

515 429 

Townsend v. Mclver, 2 S. Car. 

25 744, 745, 749, 750 
V. Oneonta, etc. Ry. Co., 

88 N. Y. App. Div. 208; 84 

N. Y. Supp. 427 
Townsend's Case, 13 Eq. 148 
Tracy v. Tahnage, 14 N. Y. 

162; 67 Am. Dec. 132 856,861, 
865, 867 
Traders' Mut. Life Ins.' Co. v. 

Humphrey, 109 111. App. 

246; affii-ming, 69 N. E. 

875 

Traders' Nat. Bank v. Law- 
rence Mfg. Co., 96 N. Car. 

298 ; 3 S. E. 363 1401, 1542, 

1642 
Tradesman Pub. Co. v. Car 

Wheel Co., 96 Tenn. 634; 



1649 
167 



591 



TABLE OP CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



32 S. W. 1097; 31 L. R. 

A. 593; 49 Am. St. Rep. 

943 1094 

Traer v. Lucas Prospecting 

Co., 124 Iowa 107; 99 

N. W. 290 52, 57, 72 

Trainor v. German-American 

Bldg. Ass'n, 204 lU. 616; 68 

N. E. 650 914, 920 

Trammell v. Pennington, 45 

Ala. 673 150 

Transport, Ltd., v. Schon- 

berg, 21 Times L. R. 305 996, 
1182, 1231 
Transvaal Exploring Co. v. 

Albion Gold Mines (1899), 

2 Ch. 370 640 

Travers v. Leopold, 124 111. 

431; 16 N. E. 902 812 
V. North Carolina R. R. 

Co., 133 N. Car. 322; 45 

S. E. 651 430 

Trawick v. Peoria, etc. Ry. 

Co., 68 III. App. 156 591 

Treadway v. Johnson, 33 Mo. 

App. 122 782 

Treadwell v. Clark (N. Y.), 82 

N. E. 505 810 
V. Clark, 114 N. Y. App. 

Div. 493; 100 N. Y. 

Supp. 1 722, 724 
V. Salisbury Mfg. Co., 7 

Gray (Mass.) 393; 66 Am. 

Dec. 490 72 

Treasurer v. Commercial 

Mining Co., 23 Cal. 390 786, 786 
Tres Palacios, etc. Co. v. Eid- 

man (Tex.), 93 S. W. 698 592 
Trevor v. Whitworth, 12 App. 

Cas. 409 51, 516, 516, 516, 523, 
524, 564, 657, 830 
Triesler v. Wilson, 89 Md. 

169; 42 Atl. 926 577, 578, 1060 
Trimble v. Am. Sugar Ref. 

Co., 61 N. J. Eq. 340; 48 

Atl. 912 907, 969, 1113 
V. Union Nat. Bank, 71 

Mo. App. 467 735, 737, 738 

Trinder v. Trinder, 1 Eq. 695 414 
Triplett v. Fauver, 103 Va. 

123; 48 S. E. 875 1203, 1246 

Tripp V. Northwestern Nat. 

Bank, 41 Minn. 400;' 43 

N. W. 60 
Troup's Case, 29 Beav. 353 



Trowbridge v. Scudder, 11 

Cxish. (Mass.) 83 
Troy Mining Co. v. White, 10 



1188 
831, 
832 



252 



S. Dak. 475; 74N.W.236; 
42 L. R. A. 549 1197, 1199, 
1199, 1207, 1212, 1212, 1299 

Troy Steam Laundering Co., 

132 Fed. 266 43 

Troy, etc. R. R. Co. v. Tib- 
bits, 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 297 155, 209 

Truman's Case (1894), 3 Ch. 

272 169, 169, 169 

Trust & Deposit Co. v. Spar- 
tanburg, etc. Co., 91 Fed. 
324 1603, 1605 

V. Spartanburg, etc. Co., 

97 Fed. 409 1240, 1640, 1671 

Trust & Savings Co. v. Home 
Lumber Co., 118 Mo. 447; 
24 S. W. 129 571, 571, 574, 589, 
712, 752, 773 

Trust Co. of Georgia v. State, 
109 Ga. 736; 35 S. E. 323; 
48 L. R. A. 520 57 

Trustees, etc. v. Gibbs, 2 
Cush. (Mass.) 39 1065 

Trustees of Free Schools v. 

Flmt, 13 Mete. (Mass.) 539 650 

Trustees of N. C. Endow- 
ment Fund V. Satchwell, 71 
N. Car. Ill 258 

Trustees of Smith Charities 
V. Connolly, 157 Mass. 272; 
31 N. E. 1058 1382 

Trusts & Guarantee Co. v. Ab- 
bott Mitchell & Co., 11 Ont. 
L. R. 403 1549 

Tryber v. Girard Creamery, 
etc. Co., 67 Kans. 489; 73 
Pac. 83 289, 296 

Tschetinian v. City Trust Co., 
97 N. Y. App. Div. 380; 
89 N. Y. Supp. 1053; 186 
N. Y. 432; 79 N. E. 401 1412, 
1488 

Tschumi v. Hills, 6 Kans. 

App. 649; 51 Pac. 619 481,493, 
547, 549 

Tucker v. Curtin, 148 Fed. 

929; 78 C. C. A. 557 708, 712 

V. Mulligan, 28 Vict. 

L. R. 1 747, 782 

V. Russell, 82 Fed. 263 1183 

V. Wilson, 1 P. Wms. 261 808 

Tufts i;. Plymouth Gold Min- 
ing Co., 14 Allen (Mass.) 
407 913 

Tulare Irrigation Dist. v. 
Kaweah Canal, etc. Co., 
44 Pac. Rep. 662 (Cal.) 523 

V. Shepard, 185 U. S. 1; 

22 Sup. Ct. 531 241, 243 



TABLE OF CASE8 
[The references are to pages] 



Tulare Sav. Bank v. Talbot, 

131 Cal. 45; 63 Pac. 172 627 

Tiilley V. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 

18Ind. App. 240; 47N. E. 

860 1371 

Tunis V. Hestonville, etc. 

R. R. Co., 149 Pa. St. 70; 

24Atl. 88; 15 L. R. A. 665 1025, 
1054, 1055, 1063 
Turnbull v. Payson, 95 U. S. 

418 921 
V. West Riding, etc. 

Club, 70 L. T. 92 1179, 1184 

Turner v. Conant, 18 Abb. 

N. C. (N. Y.) 160 1666 
V. Cowan, 34 Can. Sup. 

Ct. 160 645 
V. Cross, 83 Tex. 218; 

18 S. W. 578; 16 L. R. A. 

262 1619 
V. Fidelity Loan Con- 
cern (Cal.), 83 Pac. 62 1201 
V. Grangers', etc. Ins. 

Co., 65 Ga. 649; 38 Am. 

Rep. 801 177, 180 
V. Indianapolis, etc. Ry. 

Co., 8 Diss. 380 1627, 1629 

-; V. Indianapolis, etc. Ry. 

Co., 8 Biss. 527 1615, 1618 
V. Peoria, etc. R. R. Co., 

95 111. 134; 35 Am. Rep. 

144 1651, 1651 

Turpin's Estate, 21 Wkly. 

Notes Cas. (Pa.) 542 1147 

Turquand v. Marshall, 4 Ch. 

376 1094 

Tussaud V. Tussaud, 44 Ch. 

D. 678 373, 374, 376 

Tuthill Spring Co. v. Smith, 

90 Iowa 331 ; 57 N. W. 853 622 
Tuttle V. George H. Tuttle 

Co. (Me.), 64 Atl. 496 293, 294 

V. Michigan, etc. R. R. 

Co., 35 Mich. 247 999, 1000, 

1000, 1003 

V. Walton, 1 Ga. 43 572, 770 

Twelfth Street Market Co. v. 

Jackson, 102 Pa. St. 269 592, 
1215, 1381 
Twigg V. Thunder Hill Min- 
ing Co., 3 Brit. Columbia 
101 115, 492, 587 

Twin-Lick Oil Co. v. Marbury, 

91 U. S. 587 1301, 1311, 1324, 

1344 
Twycross v. Grant, 2 C. P. D. 

469 271, 271, 273, 274 

Tyler v. Savage, 143 U. S. 79; 

12 Sup. Ct. 340 182, 183 



Tyler, Re, 149 U. S. 164; 13 

Sup. Ct. 785 1617 

Tyne, etc. Ass'n v. Brown, 

74 L. T. 283 1230 

Tyrrell v. Bank of London, 10 

H.L.Cas.26 318,320,322,1338 
V. Cairo, etc. R. R. Co., 

7 Mo. App. 294 1451 

Tyson v. Wabash Ry. Co., 8 

Biss. 247 1602, 1603 

U 

Ulmer i>. Lime Rock R. R. 

Co., 98 Me. 579; 57 Atl. 

1001; 66 L. R. A. 387 877 

Ulster Ry. Co. v. Bainbridge, 

Ir. Rep. 2 Eq. 190 620, 1245 

Underhill v. Santa Barbara, 

etc. Co., 93 Cal. 300; 28 Pac. 

1049 407, 407, 593, 1376, 1391 
Underwood v. London Music 

Hall (1901), 2 Ch. 309 111, 446 
V. Newport Lyceum, 5 

B. Monr. (Ky.) 129; 41 

Am. Dec. 260 861 

Union Agricultural, etc. 

Ass'n v. Neill, 31 Iowa 95 



130, 
214 



Union Bank v. Jacobs, 6 

Humph. (Tenn.) 515 

V. Laird, 2 Wheat. 390 

772, 773, 776 
V. Ridgely, 1 H. & G. 

(Md.) 324 107, 392, 392, 657 

Union Cattle Co. v. Inters 

national Trust Co., 149 

Mass. 492; 21 N. E. 962 
Union Compress Co. v. Doug- 
lass, 60 Ark. 591; 31S. W. 

455 
Union Fraternal League v. 

Johnston, 124 Ga. 902; 53 

S. E. 241 
Union Insurance Co., 22 

Wend. (N. Y.) 591 
Union Loan, etc. Co. v. South- 
em Cal., etc. Road Co., 49 

Fed. 267 
V. Southern Cal., etc. 

Road Co., 51 Fed. 106 
Union Mills v. Harder, 116 

N. Y. App. Div. 22 
Union Mutual Fire Ins. Co. 

D. Keyser,32N. H.313; 64 
, Am. Dec. 375 
Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. 

V. Union Mills, etc. Co., 37 

Fed. 286; 3 L. R. A. 90 



66 
770, 



1405 



1239 



677 
1163 



1642 
1642 



388 



692 



1462, 
1604, 1604 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. 

White, 106 111. 67 591, 1373 

Union Nat. Bank v. Hill, 148 

Mo. 380; 49 S. W. 1012; 

71 Am. St. Rep. 615 960, 1214, 
1276, 1279, 1357 
V. Scott, 53 N. Y. App. 

Div. 65 ; 66 N. Y. Supp. 145 156, 
921, 1182, 1227 
Union Pac. Lodge v. Bank- 
ers' Surety Co. (Nebr.), 
^ 113 N. W. 263 237 

Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chi- 
cago, etc. Ry. Co., 163 

U. S. 564; 16 Sup. Ct. 1173 107, 
992, 1192 
V. Credit Mobilier, 135 

Mass. 367 1306, 1307 

Union Plate Glass Co., Be, 42 

Ch. D. 513 534, 536 

Union Savings Bank v. Leiter, 

145 Cal. 696; 79 Pac. 441 564, 
614, 614, 633 
V. Willard (Cal.), 88 Pac. 

1098 620, 621 

Union Trust Co. v. Carter, 

139 Fed. 717 116, 993, 1188, 
1194, 1299, 1299 
V. Chicago, etc. R. R. 

Co., 7 Fed. 513 1651, 1652, 1652 

V. Cuppy, 26 Kans. 754 1583, 

1609 
V. Illinois Midland Ry. 

Co., 117 U. S. 434; 6 Sup. 

a. 809 1629, 1640, 1640, 1646, 
1647, 1647, 1649, 1649, 1651, 
1653, 1655, 1655 
V. Mercantile Library' 

Hall Co., 189 Pa. 263; 42 

Atl. 129 109, 1501 
V. Missouri, etc. Ry. Co., 

26 Fed. 485 1465 
V. Monticello, etc. Ry. 

Co., 63 N. Y. 311; 20 Am. 

Rep. 541 1456, 1456 
V. Morrison, 125 U. S. 

591; 8Sup. Ct. 1004 1549, 
1551, 1567 
V. Nevada, etc. R. R. 

Co., 10 Sawy. 122 - 1526 
V. Souther, 107 U. S. 

591 ; 2 Sup. Ct. 295 1562, 1565, 

1566 
V. St. Louis, etc. R. R. 

Co., 4 Dill. 114 1603 
V. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co., 

5 Dillon 1 1463, 1465, 1468 
V. Thomas (Md.), 66 

Atl. 450 1470, 1583, 1584 



1626 

1570 

1496 

86 



1211 



957 



Union Trust Co. v. Union, 

etc. Ry. Co., 26 Fed. 485 
V. Walker, 107 U. S. 

596; 2 Sup. Ct. 299 
V. Ward, 100 Md. 98; 

59 Atl. 192 
Union Water Co. v. Murphy's 

Flat, etc. Co., 22 Cal. 620 
Union, etc. Bank v. Farring- 

ton, 13 Lea (Tenn. ) 333 807, 1023 
Union, etc. Trust Co. v. 

Southern Cal., etc. Co., 51 

Fed. 840 1343, 1403, 1403, 

1409, 1496 
United Brethren Church v. 

Vandusen, 37 Wise. 54 
United Electric Securities Co. 

V. Louisiana Electric Light 

Co., 68 Fed. 6?3 
United Fire Ass'n v. Bense- 

man, 4 Wkly. Notes Cas. 

(Pa.) 1 558, 559 

United Fruit Growers Co. v. 

Eisner, 22 N. Y. App. Div. 

1; 47 N.Y. Supp. 906 604,607, 
924, 1165, 1197, 1197, 1199 
United German Bank v. 

Katz, 57 Md. 128 844, 853 

United Gold Mining Co. v. 

Rocky Mountain Nat. 

Bank, 2 Colo. 565 917, 923, 

923, 1193 
United Gold, etc. Co. v. 

Smith, 44 N. Y. Misc. 567; 

90 N. Y. Supp.' 199 1003, 1021, 
1046, 1084 
United Lines Tel. Co. v. 

Boston Safe Deposit, etc. 

Co., 147 U. S. 431; 13 Sup. 

Ct. 396 1540, 1549 

United Ports, etc. Ins. Co., 

20 W. R. 88 172 

United Society v. Eagle Bank, 

7 Conn. 456 517, 518 

United Society of Shakers v. 

Underwood, 9 Bush. (Ky.) 

609; 15Am. Rep. 731 
United States v. Columbian 

Ins. Co., 2 Cranch. C. C. 

266 

V. Debs, 64 Fed. 724 

V. Flint, etc. Ry. Co., 

95 Fed. 551; 37 C. C. A. 

156 
V. Harris, 177 U. S. 305; 

20 Sup. Ct. 609 

V. Kane, 23 Fed. 748 

V. McKelden, MacA. & 

Mack. (D. C.) 162 998, 998, 1250 



1356 



1027 
1620 



1634 

1618 
1620 



TABLE OP CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



United States v. Means, 42 

Fed. 599 1365 
V. New Orleans, etc. 

R. R. Co., 12 Wall. 362 1535, 
1537, 1539, 1540 
V. Union Pac. R. R. Co., 

91 U. S. 72 1463 
V. Vaughan, 3 Binn. 

(Pa.) 394; 5 Am. Dec. 375 715 
United States Cast Iron Pipe, 

etc. Co., 65 Atl. 849 (N! J.) 698, 

1017 
United States Express Co. 

V. Bedbury, 34 111. 459 383 

United States Hotel Co. v. 

Niles, 134 Fed. 225; 67 

C. C. A. 153 44 

United States Mercantile, 

etc. Agency, 115 N. Y. 

176; 21 N. E. 1034 386 

United States Mineral Co. v. 

Camden (Va.), 56 S. E. 561 192, 
517, 527 
United States Mortgage Co. 

V. Sperry, 138 U. S. 313; 

11 Sup. Ct. 321 1449 

United States Mortgage, etc. 

Co. V. Eastern Iron Co., 

105 N. Y. Supp. 291 1504 

United States Nat. Bank v. 

First Nat. Bank, 79 Fed. 

296; 24 C. C. A. 597 1374 
V. Forstedt, 64 Nebr. 

855; 90N. W. 919 1236 

United States Rolling Stock 

Co., 57 How. Pr. 16 1652 
V. Atlantic, etc. R. R. 

Co., 34 Oh. St. 450; 32 

Am. Rep. 380 1296, 1299 

United States Savings & 

Loan Co. v. Convent of St. 

Rose, 133 Fed. 354; 66 

C. C. A. 416 834, 835, 838 

United States Savings, etc. 

Co. V. Shain, 8 N. Dak. 136; 

77 N. W. 1006 562 

United States Steel Corp. v. 

Hodge, 64 N. J. Eq. 807; 

54 Atl. 1 1080, 1081, 1115, 1115 
United States Trust Co. v. 

Mercantile Trust Co., 88 

Fed. 140; 31 C. C. A. 427 1611 
V. New York, etc. R. R. 

Co., 25 Fed. 800 1564 
V. New York, etc. R. R. 

Co., lOlN. Y. 478; 5 N. E. 

316 1602, 1621 
V. Omaha, etc. Ry. Co., 

63 Fed. 737 1620 



261, 261 
Y. 
222, 261 

V. 



1661 



1663 
1663 

590 



1486 



United States Trust Co. v. 

Wabash, etc. Ry. Co.', 38 

Fed. 891 1532 
V. Wabash, etc. Ry. Co., 

150 U. S. 287; 14 Sup. Ct. 

86 1515, 1517, 1611, 1611 
1612,1612 
V. Western Contract Co., 

81 Fed. 455; 26 CCA. 472 1570 
United States, etc. Trust Co. 

v. Young (Tex.), 101 S. W. 

1045 1623, 1623 

United States Vinegar Co. v. 

Foehrenbach, 148 N. Y. 

58; 42N. E. 403 

V. Schlegel, 143 N. 

537; 38 N. E. 729 

United Waterworks Co. 

Omaha Water Co., 21 N. Y. 

Misc. 594; 48 N. Y. Supp. 

817 
V. Omaha Water Co., 164 

N.Y. 41; S8N. E.58 

V. Stone, 127 Fed. 587 

United Workmen v. Haddock, 

72 Kans. 35 
Unity Co. v. Equitable Trust 

Co., 204 111. 595; 68 N. E. 

654 
Unity Ins. Co. v. Cram, 43 

N. H. 636 117, 128 

University of Louisville v. 

Hammock (Ky.), 106 S. W. 

219 381, 869 

Uptegrove v. Schwartzwael- 

der, 46 N. Y. App. Div. 20; 

61N.Y. Supp. 623; 167 N. 

Y. 587; 60 N. E. 1121 103 

Upton V. Bumiiam, 3 Hiss. 431 

696, 699 

V. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 

45 177, 177, 185, 483, 492 

Umer v. SoUenberger, 89 Md. 

316; 43 Atl. 810 317,984, 

1313, 1314 
Uruguay Central, etc. Ry. Co., 

11 Ch. D. 372 1527, 1529 

Usher v. New York Central, 

etc. R. R. Co., 76 N. Y. 

App. Div. 422; 78 N. Y. 

Supp. 508 853, 1189 

Utah Optical Co. v. Keith, 18 

Utah 464; 56 Pac. 155 302 

Utica Fire Alarm Co., 115 N. 

Y. App. Div. 821 1017, 1017, 

1019, 1022 
Utica Ins. Co. v. Bloodgood, 4 

Wend. (N. Y.) 652 1248 
V. Scott, 19 Johns. (N.Y.) 1 827 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Utica Ins. Co. v. Tilman, 1 

Wend. (N. Y.) 555 229 

Utley V. Union Tool Co., 11 

Gray (Mass.) 139 230, 247 

Uvalde Paving Co. v. City of 

New York, 99 N. Y. App. 

Div. 327; 91 N. Y. Supp. 

131 400 



Vail V. Hamilton, 85 N. Y. 453 



1021, 
1022 



520 
616 



Vale of Neath & South Wales 

Brewery Co., 3 De G. & 

Sm. 96 
Vale Mills v. Spaulding, 62 

N. H. 605 
Valk V. Crandall, 1 Sandf. Ch. 

(N. Y.) 179 121, 122, 137, 301 
Valletort v. Sanitary Steam 

Laundry Co. (1903), 2 Ch. 

654 1394, 1547 

Valpy, Ex parte, 7 Ch. 289 1364 

Van Allen v. Illinois Central 

R. E. Co., 7 Bosw. (N. Y.) 

515 188, 190, 200, 200, 1474, 

1475, 1477, 1477 
Van Amburgh v. Baker, 81 N. 

Y. 46 1185 

Van Atten v. Modem Brother- 
hood (Iowa), 108 N. W. 

313 583, 585 

Van Brocklin v. Queen City 

Printing Co., 19 Wash. 552; 

53 Pac. 822 
Van Cleve v. Berkey, 143 

Mo. 109; 44S. W. 743; 42 

L. R. A. 593 
Van Cott V. Van Brunt, 82 N. 

Y. 535 
Van Diemen's Land Co. v. 

Cockerell, 1 C. B. n. s. 732 

661, 661, 662 
Van Doren v. Olden, 19 N. J. 

Eq. 176 
Van Dyck v. McQuade, 86 

N. Y. 38 
Van Frank v. Brooks, 93 Mo. 

App. 412; 67S. W. 688 
V. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 

89 Mo. App. 460 1562, 1567, 
1572 
V. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co., 

89 Mo. App. 489 1564, 1565 

Van Hook v. Somerville Mfg. 

Co., 5 N. J. Eq. 137 1203, 1204 
Van Home v. State, 6 Ark. 349 24 
Van Pelt v. Gardner, 54 Nebr. 

701; 75N. W. 874 112 



518 



645 
1335 
659, 



1149 
1104 
1542 



Van Pelt v. Home Bldg., etc. 

Ass'n, 79 Ga. 439; 4 S. E. 
501 96, 382 

Van Poucke v. Netherland, 

etc. Society, 63 Mich. 378; 

29 N. W. 863 577 

Van Schaick v. Third Ave. 

R. R. Co., 49 Barb. 409 291, 

303 
Van Siclen v. Bartol, 95 Fed. 

793 1661 

Van Weel v. Winston, 115 U. 

S. 228; 6 Sup. a. 22 1556 

Van Winkle Gin, etc. Co. v. 

Mathews (Ga.), 58 S. E. 

396 384 

Vance v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 4 

Lea (Tenn.) 385 1275 

Vandeburg v. Broadway Ry. 

Co., 29 Hun (N. Y.) 348 1163, 
1186 
Vanderbilt v. Central R. R. 

Co., 43 N. J. Eq. 669; 12 

Atl. 188 1615, 1615, 1616, 1643 
Vanderpoel v. Gorman, 140 

N. Y. 563; 35 N. E. 932; 

24 L. R. A. 548; 37 Am. 

St. Rep. 601 1187 

Vanderveer v. Asbuiy Park, 

etc. Ry. Co., 82 Fed. 355 109, 
838, 1408 
Vanderwerken v. Glenn, 85 

Va. 9; 6 S. E. 806 614 

Vane v. Cobbold, 1 Ex. 798 341 
Vanneman v. Young, 52 N. 

J. Law 403; 20 Atl. 53 123, 

126 
Vansands v. Middlesex 

County Bank, 26 Conn. 144 

572,574 
Vardeman v. Penn. Mut. Life 

Ins. Co., 125 Ga. 117; 54 

S. E. 66 1364 

Varner v. St. Louis, etc. R. R. 

Co., 55 Iowa 677; 8 N. W. 

634 , 1632 

Varney v. Baker (Mass.), 80 

N. E. 524 894, 904, 904 

Vatable v. New York, etc. R. 

R. Co., 96 N. Y. 49 1664, 1664, 
1664 
Vaughn v. Ala. Nat. Bank, 

143 Ala. 572; 42 So. 64 631, 

645 
Vaught V. Ohio, etc. Fair Co., 

20 Ky. Law Rep. 1471; 49 

S. W. 426 1210, 1218 

Vaupell V. Woodward, 2 

Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 143 809 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Vawter v. Franklin College, 53 

Ind. 88 124, 396, 604, 915, 924 

V. Griffin, 40 Ind. 593 422 

Veatchij. American, etc. Trust 

Co., 79 Fed. 471; 25 C. C. 

A. 39; 84 Fed. 274; 28 C. 

C. A. 384 1517, 1518, 1559, 

1568 
Veeder v. Horstmann, 85 N. 

Y.App. Div. 154; 83N. Y. 

Supp. 99 1328 

V. Mudgett, 95 N. Y. 295 492, 

645 
Venable v. Ebenezer Baptist 

Church, 25 Kans. 177 241 

Venner v. Atchison, etc. R. 

Co., 28 Fed. 581 968, 969, 
1189, 1191 
V. Denver Union Water 

Co. (Colo.), 90 Pac. 623 1179, 
1182, 1375, 1614, 1659,1660 
V. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 

90 Fed. 348; 33 C. C. A. 

95 884, 1455, 1503, 1535, 

1632 

V. Fitzgerald, 91 Fed. 

335 1661 

V. Great Northern Ry. 

Co., 153 Fed. 408; 209 

U. S. 24 970, 971, 975 

Vent V. Duluth Coffee, etc. 

Co., 64 Minn. 307; 67 N. 

W. 70 191, 192, 527 

Verooutere v. Golden State 

Land Co., 116 Cal. 410; 48 

Pac. 375 558, 561, 564 

Vermont & Canada R. R. Co. 

V. Vermont Central R. R. 

Co., 60 Vt. 500 1668 

Vermont, etc. Co. v. Declez, 

etc. Co., 135 Cal. 579; 67 

Pac. 1057; 87 Am. St. Rep. 

143; 56L. R. A. 728 704 

Vermont Central R. R. Co. v. 

Clayes, 21 Vt. 30 278 

Vemer v. General & Commer- 
cial, etc. Co. (1894),. 2 Ch. 

239 1091, 1098, 1098 

Vernon, Re, 1 Pennewill (Del.) 

202; 40Atl. 60 1028 

Vernon Society v. Hills, 6 

Cow. (N. Y.) 23; 16 Am. 

Dec. 429 1226 

Vertue v. East Anglian Rys. 

Co., 19 L. J. Ex. 235 1426, 1426 
Vicksburg, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

McCutchen, 52 Miss. 645 1551 
Vicksburg, etc. R. R. v. Mc- 

Kean, 12 La. Ann. 638 175,194 



Vicksburg «. Vicksburg Water- 
works Co., 202 U. S. 453; 

26 Sup. Ct. 660 1606 

Victor G. Bloede Co. v. 

Bloede, 84 Md. 129; 34 Atl. 

1127; 57 Am. St. Rep. 373; 

33 L. R. A. 107 571, 679 
V. Joseph Bancroft & 

Sons Co., 98 Fed. 175 890 

Victoria Steamboats (1897), 

1 Ch. 158 1598, 1604, 1606 

Victorian Mtge, etc. Bank 

V. Australian, etc. Co., 19 

Vict. L. R. 680 74, 621 

Vidal V. Girard's Ex'rs., 2 

How. 127 64,55 

Vierling v. Mechanics', etc. 

Ass'n, 179 111. 524; 63 N. 

E. 979 582 

Vigers v. Pike, 8 CI. & Fin. 562 316 
Vigilancia, The, 73 Fed. 452; 

19 C. C. A. 528 1224 

Vilas V. Milwaukee, etc. Ry. 

Co., 17 Wise. 497 1523, 1632 
V. Page, 106 N. Y. 439; 

13 N. E. 743 1643, 1654, 1655 
Villamil v. Hirsch, 138 Fed. 

690; 143 Fed. 654 954, 955, 

1025, 1063, 1064 
Vimbos, Ltd. (1900), 1 Ch. 

470 1580 

Vincenheller v. Reagan, 69 

Ark. 460; 64 S. W. 278 1363 

Vint & Sons (1905), 1 Ir. 

112 1405 

Violet Consolidated Gold 

Mining Co., 80 L. T. n. s. 

684 746 

Virginia v. Chesapeake, etc. 

Canal Co., 35 Md. 1 1670 

Virginia-Carolina , Chemical 

Co. V. Provident Sav., etc. 

Soo. (Ga.), 64 S. E. 929 485 

Virginia Pass., etc. Co. v. 

Fisher, 104 Va. 121; 51 S. 

E. 198 942, 942, 1586 

Virginia, etc. Coal Co. v. 

Central R. R. Co., 170 U. S. 
■ 356; 18 Sup. Ct. 657 1659, 

1562, 1563, 1565, 1669, 1572 
Visalia Gas, etc. Co. v. Sims, 

104 Cal. 326; 37 Pac. 1042; 

43 Am. St. Rep. 105 863 

Visalia, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Hyde, 110 Cal. 632; 43 

Pac. 10; 52 Am. St. Rep. 

136 606, 616, 617, 618 
Vivian & Co. (1900), 2 Ch. 

664 1545, 1548 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Vogeler v. Punch (Mo.), 103 

S. W. 1001 633, 634, 955 

Yokes V. Eaton, 27 Ky. Law 

Rep. 358; 85 S. W. 174 47 

Voluntary Relief Dept. v. 

Spencer, 17 Ind. App. 123; 

46 N. E. 477 576, 949 

Von Arnim v. American Tube 

"Works, 188 Mass. 515; 74 

N. E. 680 941, 982, 1284, 

1285, 1286 
Von Schmidt v. Huntington, 

1 Cal. 55 , 16 

Von Thodorovich v. Franz 

Joseph Beneficial Ass'n, 

154 Fed. 911 370 

Vonnoh v. Sixty-seventh St. 

Atelier Bldg., 105 N. Y. 

Supp. 155 1327 

Voorhees v. Nixon (N. J.), 66 

Atl. 192 1307, 1332 

Vose V. Bronson, 6 Wall. 452 1417, 

1484 

V. Grant, 15 Mass. 505 1127 

Vowell V. Thompson, 3 Cranch 

C. C. 428 1021, 1022 

Vredenburg v. Behan, 33 La. 

Ann. 627 244, 252 

Vreeland v. New Jersey Stone 

Co., 29 N. J. Eq. 188 174, 176, 

183 
Vrooman v. Vansa;nt Lumber 

Co.,215Pa. St. 75; 64 Atl. 

394 517, 528, 1006 

Vulcan Detinning Co. v. Am. 

Can Co. (N. J.), 67 Atl. 339 1263 



W 



1620 



Wabash R. Co., 24 Fed. 217 
Wabash R. R. Co. v. Adelbert 

College, 208 U. S. 38; 28 

Sup. Ct. 182 1591, 1619, 1630 
Wabash, etc. Ry. Co. v. Cen- 
tral Trust Co., 22 Fed. 138 
V. Central Trust Co., 22 

Fed. 269 
V. Central Trust Co., 22 

Fed. 272 
V. Ham, 114 U. S. 587; 

5 Sup. a. 1081 1416, 1500 
V. Stewart, 41 111. App. 

640 
Wachtel v. Noah Widows, etc. 

Society, 84 N. Y. 28; 38 

Am. Rep. 478 
Wade V. Chicago, etc. R. R. 

Co., 149 U.S. 327; 13 Sup. 

Ct. 892 1434, 1508 



1629 
1611 
1598 



1633 



580 



1497 



1196 



1379 



184 



Wade V. Donau Brewing Co., 

10 Wash. 284; 38 Pac, 

1009 
V. Kendrick, 37 Can. Sup, 

Ct. 32 1304, 1333 

Wadham v. Litchfield, etc. 

Turnpike Co., 10 Conn. 416 1210 
Wadlinger v. First Nat. Bank, 

209 Pa. 197; 58 Atl. 359 751, 807 
Wagg-Anderaon Woolen Co. 

V. Lester & Co., 78 111. App. 

678 406, 1373, 1375, 1381 

Wagner v. Marple, 10 Tex. 

CSv. App. 505; 31 S. W. 

691 805, 873, 874 
■». St. Peter's Hospital, 

32 Mont. 206; 79 Pac. 

1054 
Wahlig V. Standard Piunp 

Mfg. Co., 9 N. Y. Supp. 

739 
Wainwright, Ex parte, 59 L. J. 

Ch. 281 182, 184 

Wainwright's Case, 63 L. T. 

429 
Wait V. Nashua Armory Ass'n 

66 N. H. 581; 49 Am. St. 

Rep. 630; 23 Atl. 77; 14 

L. R. A. 356 1370, 1372 

V. Smith, 92 HI. 385 594 

Waite V. Littlewood, 41 L. J. 

Ch. N. s. 636 1446 
V. Windham, etc. Mining 

Co., 36 Vt. 18 1005, 1012, 
1203, 1210 
V. Windham, etc. Co., 37 

Vt. 608 1201, 1228, 1321 

Wakefield Rolling Stock Co. 

(1892), 3 Ch. 165 432, 434, 435 
Wakefield Water Co. v. New 

England Trust Co., 175 

Mass. 478; 56 N. E. 703 
Walden Nat. Bank v. Birch, 

130 N. Y. 221; 29 N. E. 

127; 14 L. R. A. 211 
Waldoborough v. Knox, etc. 

R. R. Co., 84 Me. 469; 24 

Atl. 942 
Walker v. Ai^o-American, 

etc. Co., 72 Hun 334; 25 

N. Y. Supp. 432 

V. Bartlett, 18 C. B. 845 

V. Detroit Transit Ry. 

Co., 47 Mich. 338; IIN.W. 

187 723, 1379 
V. Elmore's, etc. Metal 

Co., 85 L. T. 767 1674, 1674 
V. Granite Bank, 44 

Barb. (N. Y.) 39 890 



1416 



522 



1671 



277 
782 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Walker v. Hacking, 57 L. T. 763 524 
V. Johnson, 17 App. 

Cas. (D. C.) 144 656, 557, 579, 
954, 1039, 1040, 1063, 1066 
V. London Tramways 

Co., 12 Ch. D. 705 585 
V. Montclair, etc. Ry. 

Co., 30 N. J. Eq. 525 1637 
V. Pike County Land 

Co., 139 Fed. 609; 71 

C. C. A. 593 322 
V. Shelbyville, etc. 

Turnpike Co. 80 Ind. 452 228 
V. Walker, 68 N. H. 407; 

39Atl. 432 502,1110,1154,1155 
Walker & Smith, Re, 88 L. T. 

792 531 

Walker, Ex parte, 1 Tenn. 

Ch. 97 374 

Wall V. London & Northern 

Assets Corp. (1898), 2 Ch. 

469 951, 1005, 1060, 1060 
V. London, etc. Assets 

Corp. (1899), 1 Ch. 550 1058 
V. Mines, 130 Cal. 27; 62 

Pac. 386 118, 228 
V. Utah Copper Co. 

(N. J.), 62 Atl. 533 499, 500, 

1474 
Wall's Case, 15 Eq. 18 167 

Wallace v. Burdell, 24 Hun 

(N. Y.) 379 809 
V. Carpenter, etc. Mfg. 

Co., 70 Minn. 321; 73 

N. W. 189; 68 Am. St. 

Rep. 530 636, 648 
V. Evershed (1899), 1 Ch. 

891 1393 

1). Hood, 89 Fed. 11 180,182, 

183, 521 
V. Lincoln Sav. Bank, 

89 Tenn. 630; 15S.W.448; 

24 Am. St. Rep. 625 938, 982, 

1125, 1263, 1273, 1274, 1276, 
1278, 1288, 1350 

V. Long Island R. R. Co., 

12 Hun (N. Y.) 460 1312 

V. Loomis, 97 U. S. 146 20, 

227, 1646, 1649 
V. Oceanic Packing Co., 

25 Wash. 143; 64 Pac. 938 1296 
V. Universal Automatic, 

etc. Co. (1894), 2 Ch. 547 1470, 
1598, 1604 
V. Walsh, 125 N. Y. 26; 

25 N. E. 1076; 11 L. R. A. 

166 1229 

Wallace's Case (1900), 2 Ch. 

671 164, 169, 170 



Wallamet Falls Co. v. Kitt- 

redge, 5 Sawy. 44 1193 

Wallasey Brick & Land Co., 

Re, 63 L. J. Ch. 415 538 

Wallbridge v. Farwell, 18 

Can. Sup. a. 1 1574, 1582 

Wallerstein v. Ervin, 112 

Fed. 124; 50 C. C. A. 

129 835 

Wallscourt's Case, 7 Manson 

235 523, 703 

Wain's Assignees v. Bank of 

N. America, 8 S. & R. 

(Pa.) 73; 11 Am. Dec. 575 557, 
571 752 
Walnut V. Wade, 103 U. S. 

683 1460 

Walsenburg Water Co. v. 

Moore, 5 Colo. App. 144; 38 

Pac. 60 992 

Walsh V. Barton, 24 Oh. St. 

28 847 
V. Goulden, 130 Mich. 

631; 90 N. W. 406 1352 
V. Sexton, 65 Barb. 

(N. Y.) 251 696, 712 

Walsham v. Stainton, 1 De G. 

J. & S. 678 1352 

Walstab v. Spottiswoode, 15 

M. & W. 601 274, 276, 341 

Walter v. F. E. McAlister Co., 

21 N. Y. Misc. 747; 48 

N. Y. Supp. 26 960 
V. King, 13 Times L. R. 

270 809 

Walters v. Anglo-American 

Mtge., etc. Co., 60 Fed. 

316 1371 
V. Porter (Ga.), 59 S. E. 

452 517, 521 

Walton V. Oliver, 49 Kans. 

107; 30 Pac. 172; 33 Am. 

St. Rep. 355 148 
V. Riley, 85 Ky. 413; 

3 S. W. 606 125, 126, 127 

Walworth v. Brackett, 98 

Mass. 98 161 

Walworth County Bank v. 

Farmers' L. & T. Co., 14 

Wise. 326 1371 

Wandsworth, etc. Co. v. 

Wright, 18 W. R. 728 932, 1057 
Ward V. Brigham, 127 Mass. 

24 253, 274, 274, 276 

V. Combe, 7 Sim. 634 114r 

V. Davidson, 89 Mo. 445 ; 

1 S. W. 846 1184, 1295, 1322 

V. Johnson, 95 111. 215 63, 667 

66, 691, 862 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Ward V. Joslin, 186 U. S. 142; 

22 Sup. a. 807 
V. Minnesota, etc. R. R. 

Co., 119 111. 287; 10 N. E. 

365 
V. Royal Exchange 

Shipping Co., 58 L. T. 174 



840 



249 

1546, 
1547 



1234 



109 

118 



230 



1355 
1002, 



V. Sea Ins. Co., 7 Paige 

(N. Y.) 294 1194 

Ward's Case, 10 Bq. 659 166, 172 
Warden v. Railroad Co., 103 

U. S. 651 1295, 1305 

Warden, etc. of Mercers v. 

Hart, IC. &P. 113 230 

Wardens of Christ Church v. 

Pope, 8 Gray (Mass.) 140 1036, 

1065, 1065 

Wardlaw v. Troy Oil Mill, 74 

S. Car. 368; 54 S. E. 658 
Warfield v. Marshall County 

Canning Co., 72 Iowa 666; 

34 N. W. 467; 2 Am. St. 

Rep. 263 
Warner v. Callander, 20 Oh. 

St. 190 
V. Daniels, 1 Wood. & 

Min. 90 
V. James, 88 N. Y. App. 

Div. 567; 85 N. Y. Supp. 

153 

V. Mower, 11 Vt. 385 

1002, 1004, 1005 
V. Penoyer, 91 Fed. 587; 

33 CCA. 222; 44L.R.A. 

761 1278, 1282 
V. Rising Fawn Iron Co., 

3 Woods 514 1406, 1406, 1461, 
1462, 1603, 1603 
Warren v. Davenport Fire Ins. 

Co., 31 Iowa 464; 7 Am. 

Rep. 160 421 
V. King, 108 IT. S. 389; 

2 Sup. Ct. 789 449, 449, 449, 
450, 450 
V. Louisville Leaf, etc. 

Co. (Ky.), 55 S. W. Rep. 912 566 
V. Para Rubber Shoe 

Co., 166 Mass. 97; 44N. E. 

112 956, 1259, 1259, 1284, 1309 
1310 
1;. Pim, 66 N. J. Eq. 

353; 59 Atl. 773 1030, 1052, 
1052, 1053 
V. Robinson, 19 Utah 

289; 57 Pac. 287; 75 Am. 

St. Rep. 734 1275, 1279 
V. Robinson, 21 Utah 

429; 61 Pac. 28 1285, 1289 



Warren's Estate, 11 N. Y. 

Supp. 787 1143, 1153 

Washburn v. National Wall- 
Paper Co., 81 Fed. 17; 26 
C. C. A. 312 634, 1096, 1098, 

1392, 1398 

Washer v. Allensville, etc. 
Turnpike Co., 81 Ind. 78 

Washington County Nat. 
Bank v. Lee, 112 Mass. 
521 

Washington Diamond Min- 
ing Co. (1893), 3 Ch. 95 



228 



381 



Washington Irrigation Co. v. 
California, etc. Co., 115 
Fed. 20; 52 C. C. A. 614 

Washington Mill Co. v. 
Sprague Lumber Co., 19 
Wash. 165; 52 Pac. 1067 



612, 
1241 



1631 



84, 
142 



Washington Nat., etc. Ass'n 

V. Buser (W. Va.), 57 S. E. 

40 394 

Washington Trust Co. v. 

Morse Iron Works, 106 

N. Y. App. Div. 195; 94 

N. Y. Supp. 495 1503, 1504, 1536 
Washington, etc. R. R. Co. 

V. Alexandria, etc. R. R. 

Co., 19 Gratt. (Va.) 592; 

100 Am. Dec. 710 1493 
V. Cazenove, 83 Va. 

744; 3 S. E. 433 1625 

Wasser v. Western Land, etc. 

Co., 97 Minn. 460; 107 N. 

W. 160 284 

Waterford, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Dalbiac, 6 Eng. Ry. Cas. 

753; 6 Ex. 443 608 

Waterhouse v. Comer, 55 Fed. 

149; 19 L. R. A. 403 1620 
V. Jamieson, L. R. 2 H. 

L. (Scotch) 29 647, 648 

Waterloo Organ Co., 134 

Fed. 341; 67 C. C A. 255 837, 
838, 1402 
, 134 Fed. 345; 67 C. C 

A. 327 1402 

, 147 Fed. 814 1492, 1492 

Waterman v. Alden, 42 111. 

App. 294; 144 111. 90; 32 

nTe. 972 1143,1145,1146 
V. Brown, 31 Pa. St. 

161 811 
V. Chicago, etc. R. R. 

Co., 139 111. 658; 29 N. E. 

689; 32 Am. St. Rep. 228; 

15 L. R. A. 418 1225, 1228 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Waterman v. Troy, etc. R. R. 

Co., 8 Gray (Mass.) 433 438, 450, 
450, 457, 1108 
Waterman's Appeal, 26 Conn. 

96 297, 297 

Waterous Engine Works Co. 

V. McLean, 2 Manitoba 279 369 
Waters v. American Finance 

Co., 102 Md. 212; 62 Atl. 

357 1246 

Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. U. S. 

etc. Trust Co. (Tex.), 99 S. 

W. 212 1564 

Watkinsij. Glas (Cal.),89Pac. 

840 407, 408 
V. Robertson (Va.), 54 

S. E. 33 786 

Watson t). Bendigo Bldg. Soc, 

10 Vict. Rep. (Cases at 

Law) 26 588 
V. Black, 16 Q. B. D. 

270 420 
V. Bonfils, 116 Fed. 157; 

53 C. C. A. 535 886, 1071 

V. Cave, 17 Ch. D. 19 1592 

V. Eales, 23 Beav. 294 659, 

763 

V. Spratley, 10 Ex. 222 420, 

423 
V. Woody Printing Co., 

56 Mo. App. 145 558, 560 

Watson & Co., Robert (1899), 

2 Ch. 509 640, 640 

Watson, Ex parte, 54 L. T. 

233 204, 204, 204 

Watt V. Hestonville, etc. 

Pass. R. R. Co., 1 Brewst. 

(Pa.) 418 
Watts V. Bucknall (1902), 2 

Ch. 628 
V. Equitable Mut. Life 

Ins. Co., Ill Iowa 90; 82 

N. W. Rep. 441 
V. Port Deposit, 46 Md. 

500 

B. Salter, 10 C. :?• 477 

Watts's Appeal, 78 Pa. St. 

370 63, 64, 966, 1268 

Waukon, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Dwyer, 49 Iowa 121 157, 600 
Wausau Boom Co. v. Plumer, 

35 Wise- 274 1296 

Way V. American Grease Co., 

60 N. J. Eq. 263; 47 Atl. 

44 409, 948, 1063 

Waycross, etc. R. R. Co. v.. 

Offerman, etc. R. R. Co., 

109 Ga. 827; 35 S. E. 275 874, 

1086 



1555 
315 



589 

386 
341 



486 
940 



Waymire v. San Francisco, 

etc. Ry. Co., 112 Cal. 646; 

44 Pac. 1086 
Wayne Pike Co. v. Hammons, 

129 Ind. 368; 27 N. E. 487 
W. C. Home & Sons (1906), 1 

Ch. 271 1591, 1621, 1621 

Weatherford, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Granger, 86 Tex. 350; 24 

S.W. 795; 40 Am. St. Rep. 

837 280, 289, 293, 294 

Weatherly v. Medical, etc. 

Soc, 76 Ala. 567 1010, 1035 

Weaver v. Barden, 49 N. Y. 

286 680, 681, 682 

Webb V. Baltimore, etc. 

R. R. Co., 77 Md. 92; 26 

Atl. 113; 39 Am. St. Rep. 

396 154, 174, 188, 198, 421, 

422 

V. Earle, 20 Eq. 556 458 

V. Ridgely, 38 Md. 364 1014 

V. Rockefeller, 195 Mo. 

57; 93 S. W. 772 142, 240, 252 
V. Shropshire Rys. Co. 

(1893), 3 Ch. 307 830, 1400 

V. Vermont Central 

R. R. Co., 20 Blatchf. 218; 
9 Fed. 793 

Webb, Hale & Co. v. Alex- 
andria Water Co., 93 L. T. 
339 

Webber v. Williams College, 
23 Pick. (Mass.) 302 

Weber v. Delia, etc. Co. 
(Idaho), 94 Pac. 441 

V. Fickey, 52 Md. 500 

912, 921 

V. Spokane Nat. Bank, 

64 Fed. 208; 12 C. C. A. 93 109, 

109, 867, 868, 1408 
V. Wallenstein, 111 N. Y. 

App. Div. 693; 97 N. Y. 

Supp. 846 
Websteri). Howe Machine Co., 

54 Conn. 394; 8 Atl. 482 

V. Upton, 91 U. S. 

65 601, 617, 706, 781 
V. Whit worth (Tenn.), 

63 S. W. 290 
— — V. Ypsilanti Canning 

Co. (Mich.), 113 N. W. 7 
Webster's Case, 2 Eq. 741 



1586 



689 

1380 

1030 
646, 



962 
862 



1410 



1317 
143, 
214 

, 32 L. J. Ch. 135 661, 667 

Wechselberg v. Flour City 
Nat. Bank, 64 Fed. 90; 12 
C. C. A. 56 ; 26 L. R. A. 470 148, 
150, 151, 151, 152, 251 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



WecHer v. First Nat. Bank, 
42 Md. 581; 20 Am. Rep. 
95 870 

Weed V. Gainesville R. R. Co., 

119 Ga. 576; 46 S. E. 885 1400, 
1404, 1626 

Weedon's Case, 22 Vict. L. R. 

235 521 

Weeks v. Esler, 68 Hun (N. 

Y.) 518; 22 N. Y. Supp. 54 403 

V. International Trust 

Co., 125 Fed. 370; 60' 

C. C. A. 236 107 

V. Silver Islet Consol. 

Mining Co., 55 N. Y. Super. 

Ct. 1 651 

V. Silver Islet, etc. Min- 
ing Co., 23 Jones & S. 

. (N. Y.) 1 191, 660, 661, 662 

Weetjen v. St. Paul, etc. 
R. R. Co., 4 Hun (N. Y.) 
529 1550, 1554 

V. Vibbard, 5 Hun 

(N. Y.) 265 1489, 1586 

Wehr V. German Ev. Luth., 
etc. Congregation, 47 Md; 
177 1215 

Weidenfeld v. Northern Pac. 
Ry. Co., 129 Fed, 305; 63 
C. C. A. 537 501, 508, 521, 976, 

977 

V. Sugar Rim R. R. Co., 

48 Fed. 615 939, 1214 

Weigand v. Fraternities Ac- 
cident Order, 97 Md. 443; 
55 Atl. 530 948 

Weihenmayer v. Bitner, 88 
Md. 325; 42 Atl. 245; 45 
L. R. A. 446 899, 902, 905, 906 

Weikersheim's Case, 8 Ch. 831 925 

Weinburgh v. Union Street 
Ry. Ad. Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 
640; 37 Atl. 1026 1006, 1015 

Weir V. Bay State Gas Co., 91 

Fed. 940 890, 969, 978 

V. Metropolitan Street 

Ry. Co. (Mo.), 103 S. W. 

583 8, 16 

Welch V. Gillelen, 147 Cal. 

571; 82 Pac. 248 155, 156, 692, 

705 

V. Sage, 47 N. Y. 143; 

7 Am. Rep. 423 1433, 1435 

Welker v. Anheuser-Busch 
Brewing Ass'n, 114 N. W. 
745 1227 

Welland Canal Co. v. Hatha- 
way, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 480; 
24 Am. Dec. 51 230, 233, 238 



610 
151 



250 



563 



Welland Ry. Co. v. Berrie, 6 

H. & N. 416 
Wellersburg, etc. Plank Road 

Co. V. Hoffman, 9 Md. 559 
Wellin^on, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Cashie, etc. Lumber Co., 

114 N. Car. 690; 19 S. E. 

646 
Wells V. Black, 117 Cal. 157; 

48 Pac. 1090; 59 Am. St. 

Rep. 162; 37 L. R. A. 619 
V. Dane, 101 Me. 67; 63 

Atl. 324 928, 929, 947 
V. Gates, 18 Barb. (N. 

Y.) 554 252 
V. Green Bay, etc. Co., 

90 Wise. 442; 64 N.W. 69 429, 
429, 650 
V. Northern Trust Co., 

195 lU. 288; 63 N. E. 136 1624 
V. Rahway White Rub- 
ber Co., 19 N. J. Eq. 402 911, 
912, 923, 925, 1205 
V. Rodgers, 50 Mich. 

294; 15N. W. 462 
V. Rodgers, 60 Mich. 525; 

27 N. W. 671 

V. Tyler, 25 N. H. 340 

Wells & Co. V. Thompson 

Mfg; Co., 54 Mo. App. 41 
Wells & McComas Council v. 

Littleton, 100 Md. 416; 60 

Atl. 22 948, 949 

Wells Co. V. Gastonia Cotton 

Mfg. Co., 198 U. S. 177; 25 

Sup. Ct. 640 
Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Enright, 

127 Cal. 669; 60 Pac. 439 
V. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 

23 Fed. 469 
Wellsborough, etc. Plank- 
Road Co. V. Griffin, 57 Pa. 

St. 417 
Welsbach Incandescent Gas 

Light Co. (1904), 1 Ch. 87 

111, 131, 446, 546 
Welsh V. First Div. St. Paul, 

etc. R.R. Co., 25 Minn. 314 1448, 
1449, 1460, 1469, 1528, 
1638 
Welsh Flannel Co., 20 Eq. 

360 614, 614 

Welsh Whiskey, etc. Co., 16 

Times L. R. 246 432, 436 

Welton V. Saffory (1897), A. 

C. 299 564, 627, 639 

Wemple v. St. Louis, etc. R. R. 

Co., 120 111. 196; 11 N. E. 

906 156, 163 



66 

1201 
792 

702 



249 
1382 



45 



1523 
.94, 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



465 
95 



1659 



Wemyss Collieries Trust v. 

Melville, 8 Fraser (Sc.) 143 
Wendel v. State, 62 Wise. 300 ; 

22 N. W. 435 
Wengerv. Chicago, etc. R. Co., 

114 Fed. 34; 51 CCA. 660 
Wenlock v. River Dee Co., 19 

Q. B. D. 155 831, 831, 832 
V. River Dee Co., 36 Ch. 

D. 675 n 824 
V. River Dee Co., 38 Ch. 

D. 534 223 
V. River Dee Co., 10 App. 

Cas. 354 41, 64, 109 

Wenstrom Consol., etc. Co. v. 

Purnell, 75 Md. 113; 23 

Atl. 134 
Wentworth v. Chevell, 3 Jur. 

N. s. 805 
Wentworth Co. v. French, 176 

Mass. 442; 57 N. E. 789 

1023, 1067 
Werle v. Northwestern Flint, 

etc. Co., 125 Wise. 534; 104 

N. W. 743 1181, 1225 

Wert V. Crawfordsville, etc. 

Turnpike Co., 19 Ind. 242 
West V. BuUskin Prairie 

Ditching Co., 32 Ind. 138 
V. Camden, 135 U. S. 

507; 10 Sup. Ct. 838 
V. Crawford, 80 Cal. 19; 

21 Pao. 1123 
V. Topeka Sav. Bank, 66 

Kans. 524; 72Pac. 252; 97 

Am. St. Rep. 385; 63 L. R. 

A. 137 
West Branch Bank v. Arm- 
strong, 40 Pa. St. 278 
V. Chester, 1 1 Pa. St. 282 ; 

51 Am. Dec. 547 
West Chester, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Jackson, 77 Pa. St. 321 445, 458 
464, 466 
West Coast, etc. Co. v. Wulff, 

133 Cal. 315; 65 Pac. 622; 

85 Am. St. Rep. 171 
West Cornwall Ry. Co. v. 

Mowatt, 17 L. J. Ch. n. s. 

366 
West Devon Great Consols 

Mine, 27 Ch. D. 106 889, 904 

West End, etc. Co. v. Nash, 

51W. Va.341; 41 S. E. 182 
West of England Bank, 14 

Ch. D. 317 
West of England Paper Mills 

V. Gilbert, 61 L. J. Ch. 92 



185 

789 

1017, 



204 

94 

1347 



211 



614 
769 



1528 



716 



1409 



213 
92 



1360, 
1360 



West London Ry. Co. v. 
Bernhard, 1 Dav. & Mer. 
397 915 

West Manayunk, etc. Co. v. 
New Gas Light Co., 21 Pa. 
Co. Ct. Rep. 393 46 

West Nashville PJaning-Mill 
V. Nashville Sav. Bank, 86 
Tenn. 252; 6 S. W. 340; 6 
Am. St. Rep. 835 648 

West Norfolk Lumber Co., 

112 Fed. 759 43 

West Point Foundry Ass. v. 
Brown, 3 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 
284 274 

West Point Tel., etc. Co. v. 
Rose, 76 Miss. 61; 23 So. 
629 294, 1247 

West Winsted Sav. Bank v. 
Ford, 27 Conn. 282; 71 Am. 
Dec. 66 237 

Westchester Trust Co., 186 

N. Y. 215 105, 139, 141, 

1181 

Westcott V. Minnesota Min- 
ing Co., 23 Mich. 145 658, 1000 

Westerfield v. Radde, 7 Daly 

(N. Y.) 326 1372 

Western Bank v. Addie, L. R. 

1 H. L. (Sc.) 185 181 

Western Boatmen's, etc. 

Ass'n V. Kribben, 48 Mo. 37 86 

Western Counties Steam Bak- 
eries, etc. Co. (1897), 1 Ch. 
617 1363, 1363 

Western Improvement Co. v. 
Des Moines Nat. Bank, 103 
Iowa 455; 72 N. W. 657 517, 

522, 602, 603, 603, 648, 
1197 

Western Investment Co. v. 
Davis (Ind. Ty.), 104 S. W. 
573 237 

Western Md. R. R. Co. v. 
Blue Ridge Hotel Co., 102 
Md. 307; 62 Atl. 351; 111 
Am. St. Rep. 362 81, 84, 851 

V. Frankhn Bank, 60 Md. 

36 740, 741, 1458 

Western Mining, etc. Co. v. 
Peytona Coal Co., 8 W. Va. 

• 406 1078 

Western Nat. Bank v. Arm- 
strong, 152 U. S. 346; 14 
Sup. Ct. 572 483, 492, 1382 

Western Pa. Hospital v. 
Mercantile Library Hall Co., 
189 Pa. St. 269; 42 Atl. 183 

1527, 1528 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Western Pa. R. R. Co. v. 

Johnson, 59 Pa. St. 290 1535 
Western R. R. Co. v. Avery, 

64 N. Car. 491 601, 614 

Western Screw, etc. Co. v. 

Consley, 72 111. 531 280 

Western Supply, etc. Co. v. 

V. S., etc. Trust iDo. (Tex.), 

92 S. W. 986 1402, 1405, 1626, 
1626 
Western Union Tel. Co. v. 

Burlington, etc. R. R. Co., 

3 McCrary' 130 1537 

Western, etc. R. Co. v. Penn 

Refining Co., 137 Fed. 343; 

70 C. C. A. 23 1620 

Western, etc. Trust Co. v. 

Ogden (Tex.), 93 S. W. 

1102 381 

Westinghouse v. Grerman Nat. 

Bank, 188 Pa. St. 630; 41 

Atl. 734 . 807, 808 
V. German Nat. Bank, 

196 Pa. St. 249; 46 Atl. 

380 723 

Westinghouse Air Brake Co. 

V. Kansas City, etc. Co., 137 

Fed. 26; 71 C. C. A. 1 1542, 

1563, 1571, 1572 
Westinghouse El., etc. Co. v. 

New Paltz, etc. Co., 32 

N. Y. Misc. 132; 65 N. Y. 

Supp. 644 1535, 1633 
V. Reed (Mass.), 80 N. E. 

621 1359 

Westminster Nat. Bank v. 

New England El. Works, 

73 N. H. 465; 62 Atl. 971; 

111 Am. St. Rep. 637 74, 91, 

730, 730, 751 
Weston V. Bear River, etc. 

Co., 5 Cal. 186; 63 Am. Dec. 

117 716 
V. Bear River, etc. Co., 

6 Cal. 425 716, 716 

Weston's Case, 4 Ch. 20 744, 745 

, 10 Ch. D. 579 1334, 1339 

Wetherell v. Thirty-first St., 

etc. Ass'n, 153 111. 361 ; 39 

N. E. 143 571, 768, 775 

Wetmore v. St. Paul, etc. 

R. R. Co., 3 Fed. 177 1636, 1637 
Weymouth, etc. Steam 

Packet Co. (1891), 1 Ch. 66 627 
Whaley Bridge, etc. Co. v. 

Green, 5 Q. B. D. 109 271, 272, 
273, 319 
Wheal Buller Consols., Re, 38 

Ch. D. 42 1172 



Wheat V. Bank of Louisville, 

9 Ky. Law Rep. 738; 5 

S. W. 305 1372 

Wheatcroft's Case, 42 L. J. 

Ch. 853 171, 189 

Wheatley v. Silkstone Coal 

Co., 29 Ch. D. 715 1546 

Wheeler v. Abilene Nat. Bank, 

159 Fed. 391 ^ 1083 
V. Aiken, etc.* Bank, 

75 Fed. 781 1266, 1274 
V. Everett Land Co., 14 

Wash. 630; 45 Pac. 316 85 
V. Mineral Farm, etc. Co., 

31 Colo. 110; 71 Pac. 1101 524 
V. Northwestern Sleigh 

Co., 39 Fed. 347 1132, 1134, 

1135 
V. Perry, 18 N. H. 307; 

29 Am. Dec. 664 1154, 1155 

V. Smith, 81 Fed. 319 1617 

Wheeler, etc. Mfg. Co. v. 

Lawson, 57 Wise. 400; 15 

N. W. 398 1304 

Wheeler, Re, 2 Abb. Pr. N. s. 

(N. Y.) 361 499, 508, 1059 

Wheeling Ice, etc. Co. v. 

Connor (W. Va.), 55 S. E. 

982 1328 

Wheeling, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Reymann Brewing Co., 90 

Fed. 189 ; 32 C. C. A. 571 1628 
Wheelock v. Kost, 77 111. 

296 
V. Moulton, 15 Vt. 519 



235 
1070, 
1071 
Wheelwright v. St. Louis, etc. 

Co., 56 Fed. 164 1405, 1586, 

1590 
Whetstone v. Crane Bros. Mfg. 
Co., 1 Kans. App. 320; 41 
Pac. 211 278 

Whetstone v. Ottawa Uni- 
versity, 13 Kans. 320 81 
Whightsel v. Felton, 95 Fed. 

923 1613 

Whipple V. Parker, 29 Mich. 

369 251, 254 

Whitaker v. Gnunmond, 68 
Mich. 249; 36 N. W. 62 525, 

528 

V. Hartford, etc. R. R. 

Co.,8R. L47; 5 Am. Rep. 
547 1449, 1460 

—^v. Kilby, 106 N. Y. Supp. 

511 509, 510 

White V. Carmathen Ry. Co., 

1 Hem. & Miller 786 87, 972, 

972 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



White V. Commercial, etc. 

Bank, 66 S. Car. 49 1 ; 45 S. E. 

94; 97 Am. St. Rep. 803 616 

— — V. Elgin Creamery Co., 

108 Iowa 522; 79 N. W. 

283 1373 
V. Franklin Bank, 22 

Pick. (Mass.) 181 856, 865, 867 
V. Marquardt, 105 Iowa 

145; 74 N. W. 930 617 
V. Mount Pleasant Mills 

Corp., 172 Mass. 462; 52 

N. E. 632 173 
V. New York, etc. Soc, 

45 Hun (N. Y.) 580 1041, 1041, 

1041 

V. Salisbury, 33 Mo. 150 689, 

781 



786 

933 

1030, 



1662 



918 
1503 



647 



634 
1670 



44 
191 



44 



80 



775 
643 



V. Schuyler, 1 Abb. Pr. 

N. s. (N. Y.) 300 
V. Shaw, 21 Vict. L. R. 

559 
V. Thomas Tire Co., 52 

N. J. Eq. 178; 28 Atl. 75 

1030, 1052 
V. Vermont & Massachu- 
setts R. R. Co., 21 How. 

575 1423, 1432 
V. Westport Cotton Mfg. 

Co., 1 Pick. (Mass.) 215; 11 

Am. Dec. 168 297, 297 
V. Wood, 129 N. Y. 527; 

29 N. E. 835 
White Chimney, etc. Co. v. 

McMahan, 21 Ky. Law Rep. 

41; 50 S. W. Rep. 836 
White Co., J. F. v. Carroll 

(N. Car.), 59 S. E. 678 
White, Corbin & Co. v. Jones, 

167 N. Y. 158; 60 N. E. 

422 
V. Jones, 79 N. Y. App. 

Div. 373; 79 N. Y. Supp. 

583 
White, Ex parte, 2 S. Car. 469 
White Mountain Paper Co. v. 

Morse, 127 Fed. 643; 62 

C. C. A. 369 
White Mts. R. R. Co. v. East- 
man, 34 N. H. 124 
V. White Mts. (N. H.) 

R. R., 50 N. H. 50 1636, 1637 
White Oak Grove Benev. Soc. 

V. Murray, 145 Mo. 622; 47 

S. W. 501 235, 254, 304 

White River, etc. Bank v. 

Capital, etc. Trust Co., 77 

Vt. 123; 59 Atl. 197; 107 

Am. St. Rep. 754 775 

ccxvii 



White Star Laundry Co., 117 

Fed. 570 
White Star Line v. Star Line 

of Steamers, 141 Mich. 604; 

105 N. W. 135; 113 Am. 

St. Rep. 551 
White Water, etc. Canal Co. v. 

Vallette, 21 How. 414 1395, 

1400, 1401, 1401, 1416, 1499 

White's Bank v. Toledo Ins. 

Co., 12 Oh. St. 601 
White's Case, 12 Ch. D. 511 
Whitechurch, Ltd., George v. 

Cavanaugh (1902), A. C. 

117 649, 703, 743, 744 

Whitehaven Joint Stock 

Banking Co. v. Reed, 54 L. 

T. 360 1405, 1411 

Whitehead v. American 

Lamp & Brass Co. (N. J. 

Ch.), 62 Atl. 554 
V. Hamilton Rubber Co., 

52 N. J. Eq. 78; 27 Atl. 
897 1198, 1200 

Whitehead & Co. (1900), 1 

Ch. 804 
Whitehouse & Co., 9 Ch. D. 

595 
Whitehouse's Case, 3 Eq. 790 
Whiteley v. Central Trust Co., 

76 Fed. 74; 22 C. C. A. 67; 

34 L. R. A. 303 
Whiteley's Case, 1 Megone 

154 196, 200 

(1900), 1 Ch. 365 178 

Whiting V. Commonwealth 

(Mass.), 82 N. E. 670 

V. Hovey, 13 Ont. App. 7 

Whiting Safety Catch Co. v. 

Western, etc.XJo., 148 Fed. 

396 879, 1356 

Whitley Partners, 32 Ch. D. 

337 118, 121, 122 

Whitman v. Granite Church, 

24 Me. 237 

V. National Bank of 

Oxford, 83 Fed. 288; 28 C. 
C. A. 404 

Whitney v. Hazzard, 18 S. 
Dak. 490; 101 S. W. 346 

V. Robinson, 53 Wise. 

309; 10 N. W. 512 235, 237 

V. Wyman, 101 U. S. 392 

283, 309 
Whitney Arms Co. v. Barlow, 

63 N. Y. 62; 20 Am. St. 

Rep. 504 853, 854 

Whitt V. Blount, 124 Ga. 671; 

53 S. E. 205 383 



853 



642 

612 

181 



1567 



1366 
1187 



923 



385 
937 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Whittaker v. Amwell Nat. 

Bank, 52 N.J. Eq. 400; 29 

Atl. 203 1100, 1165, 1199 

Whittenton Mills v. Upton, 10 

Gray (Mass.) 582; 71 Am. 

Dec. 681 79 

Whittington v. Farmers' Bank, 

5 H. & J. (Md.) 489 912, 1123, 
1201, 1204 
Whittle V. Vanderbilt Mining 

Co., 83 Fed. 48 158, 1329 

Whittmore v. Beekman, 2 

Dem. (N. Y.) 276 1444, 1446 

Whitwam v. Watkin, 78 L. T. 

188 966, 1288 

Whitwell V. Warner, 20 Vt. 

425 297 

Whitwham v. Piercy (1907), 

1 Ch. 289 511, 533, 533, 1143, 
1153, 1155 
Whitworth v. Erie R. R. Co., 

5 Jones & S. (N. Y.) 437 889 

Wiarton Beet Sugar Co., 12 

Ont. L. R. 149 620 

Wiberg v. Minnesota, etc. Re- 
lief Ass'n, 73 Minn. 297; 

76 N. W. 37 589 

Wickersham v. Brittan, 93 

Cal. 34; 28 Pac. 792; 29 

Pac. 51; 15 L. R. A. 106 1251 

V. Crittenden, 93 Cal. 

17; 28 Pac. 788 972, 1322' 

V. Crittenden, 110 Cal. 

332; 42 Pac. 893 1217, 1238, 

1312 
Wickham and Bullock Island 

Coal Co., 5 New So. Wales 

State Rep. 365 100 

Widener v. Railroad Co., 1 

Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 472 1528 
Wiedynska v. Pulaski Polish 

Benev. Soc, 110 N. Y. 

App. Biv. 732; 97 N. Y. 

Supp. 413 584 

Wiegand v. Lewis Lumber 

Co., 158 Fed. 608 1400, 1402, 
1403 
Wier V. Bush, 4 Litt. (Ky.) 

429 1185 

Wiggin V. Freewill Baptist 

Church, 8 Met. (Mass.) 301 1000 
Wight V. Shelby R. R. Co., 16 

B. Monr. (Ky.) 4; 63 Am. 

Dec. 522 175, 194 

Wilbur V. Linde, 49 Cal. 290; 

19 Am. Rep. 645 1296 
V. Stoepel, 82 Mich. 344; 

46 N. W. 724; 21 Am. St. 

Rep. 568 1347 



Wilcox V. Foley, 64 Conn. 101 ; 

29 Atl. 303; 42 Am. St. 

Rep. 159; 25 L. R. A. 90 320 
Wilde V. Jenkins, 4 Paige 

481 (N. Y.) 873 

Wildy V. Mid-Hants Ry. Co., 

18 L. T. 73 1546, 1604 

Wiley V. Board of Education, 

11 Minn. 371 398 
V. Borough of Towanda, 

26 Fed. 594 290, 301, 309 

Wilhite V. Convent of Good 

Shepherd, 25 Ky. Law 

Rep. 1375; 78 S. W. 138 381, 
386, 386 
Wilkins v. Davies, 16 Vict. 

L. R. 70 274 

:?>. Thome, 60 Md. 253 974,975 

Wilkinson v. Fleming, 30 111. 

353 ' 1582 
V. Providence Bank, 3 

R. L 22 
Wilkinson's Case, 2 Ch. 536 



751 
177, 
214 



Wilks V. Georgia Pac. R. Co., 

79 Ala. 180 858 

Willamette Freighting Co. v. 

Stannus, 4 Oreg. 261 148, 562, 

608 
Willamette Mfg. Co. v. Bank 

of British Columbia, 119 

V. S. 191; 7 Sup. Ct. 187 1521, 
1521 
Willcocks, Ex parte, 7 Cow. 

(N. Y.) 402; 17 Am. Dec. 

525 1011, 1022, 1059, 1202, 

1203 
Willcox V. Trenton Potteries 

Co., 64 N. J. Eq. 173; 53' 

Atl. 474 
Willett V. Farmers' Sav. Bank, 

107 Iowa 69; 77 N. W. 

519 
Willey V. Crocker Woolworth 

Nat. Bank. (Cal.), 72 Pac. 

832 
— — V. Parratt, 3 Ex. 211 
William Firth Co. v. South 

Carolina, etc. Co., 122 Fed. 

569; 59 C. C. A. 73 1402, 1402 
William Radam Microbe Kil- 
ler Co., 110 N. Y. App. 

Div. 329; 97 N. Y. Supp. 

76 
Williams v. Bank of Michigan, 

7 Wend. (N. Y.) 539 233, 233, 

234 

V. Boice, 38 N. J. Eq. 364 

1127, 1128, 1129 



448 



851 



844 
341 



1493 



TABLE OF CASES 
tThe references are to pages] 



■Williams v. Brewster, 117 

Wise. 370; 93 N. W. 479 645 

V. Cheney, 3 Gray (Mass.) 

215 232, 1370 

i;. Chester, etc. Ry. Co., 

15 Jur. 828 1376 

V. Citizens' Enterprise 

Co., 153 Ind. 496; 55 N. 

E. 425 216 

^ V. Citizens' Enterprise 

Co., 25 Ind. App. 351; 57 

N. E. 581 45, 47, 113 
V. Citizens' Ry. Co., 130 

Ind. 71; 29 N. E. 408; 30 

Am. St. Rep. 201; 15 L. 

R. A. 64 244,250 
V. Colby, 53 Hun (N. Y.) 

637; 6N. Y. Supp. 459 297 
V. Colonial Bank, 38 Ch. 

D. 388 423 
V. Erie Mountain, etc. Co. 

(Wash.), 91 Pac. 1091 940 

V. Fullerton, 20 Vt. 346 

1120, 1354 
V. Gaylord, 186 U. S. 157 ; 

22 Sup. Ct. 798 1221 

V. Hewitt, 47 La. Ann. 

1076; 17 So. 496; 49 Am. 

St. Rep. 394 110, 238, 242, 

246, 251 

V. Little Falls, etc. Co. 

(Minn.), 108 N. W. 289 1321 

V. Matthews, 103 Va. 

180; 48 S. E. 861 600, 615 

V. McDonald, 42 N. J. 

Eq. 392; 7Atl. 866 1264 

V. McKay, 40 N. J. Eq. 

189; 53 Am. Rep. 775 1259, 

1273, 1276, 1281, 1281, 

1286, 1288 

V. Mechanics' Bank, 5 

Blatchf. 59 693, 700, 716 

V. Montgomery, 148 

N. Y. 519; 43 N. E. 57 



— V. Morgan, 111 U. S. 684; 
4 Sup. Ct. 638 
V. Page, 24 Beav. 654 



673, 
1030 

1592 
342, 
343 

— V. Parker, 136 Mass. 204 443 

450, 451, 455 

— V. Pigott, 2 Ex. 201 308 

— 1). Prince of Wales, etc 

Co., 23 Beav. 338 889 

— V. Riley, 34 N. J. Eq^98 1288 

— V. St. George's Har- 
bor Co., 2 De G. & J. 546 288 

V. Salmond, 2 Kay & J. 

463 342 



Williams v. Savage Mfg. Co., 3 

Md. Ch. 418 522, 522, 526, 526 

V. Taylor, 99 Md. 306; 

57 Atl. 641 614 

V. Union Bank, 2 Humph. 

(Tenn.) 339 232 

V. Western Union Tel. 

Co., 93 N. Y. 162 416, 496, 

511, 1092, 1096, 1117, 1119 
Williams Co. v. U. S. Baking 

Co., 86 Md. 475; 38 AtL 

990 393, 394 

Williams' Case, 1 Ch. D. 576 620 

, 9 Eq. 225 n 763, 766 

Williams, Ex parte, 17 S. Car. 

396 1607 

Williamsburg, etc. Ins. Co. v. 

Frothingham, 122 Mass. 

391 232, 384 

Williamsburgh Sav. Bank v. 

Town of Solon 136 N. Y. 

465 1 32 N. E. 1058 1450 

Williamson v. Eastern Bldg., 

etc. Ass'n, 54 S. Car. 582; 

32 S. E. 765; 71 Am. St. 

Rep. 822 593 

V. Kokomo Bldg., etc. 

Ass'n, 89 Ind. 389 127, 249 

V. Krohn, 66 Fed. 655; 

13 C. C. A. 668; 62 Fed. 

869 340, 1351, 1353 

V. New Albany, etc. R. 

R. Co., 1 Biss. 198 1584, 

1603, 1603 

V. New Jersey Southern 

R.R.Co.,25N.J.Eq. 13 1503, 

1585 

V. New Jersey Southern 

R. R. Co. , 26 N. J. Eq. 398 423, 
1397, 1511 

V. New Jersey Southern 

R.R.Co.,29N.J.Eq.311 1496 
1535, 1539 
Williamson County Bank v. 
Roberts-Buford, etc. Co. 
(Tenn.), 101 S. W. 421 1239, 

1242 
Williamson's Adm'r v. Wash- 
ington City, etc. R. R. Co., 

33 Gratt. (Va.) 624 1559, 

1562, 1572 
Willink V. Morris Canal, etc. 

Co., 4 N. J. Eq. 377 1503, 1585, 

1606 
Willis V. Jermin, Cro. Eliz. 

167; 2 Leon 97 400,401,402 

V. Philadelphia, etc. R. 

R. Co., 6 Wkly. N. Cas. 
(Pa.) 461 731 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



466 



981 



1364 
1197 



507 
1511 
1354 

844 

1020 



Williston V. Michigan, etc. R. 

R. Co., 13 Allen (Mass.) 400 
Willpughby v. Chicago Junc- 
tion Rys., etc. Co., 50 N. 

J. Eq. 656; 25 Atl. 277 
V. Comstock, 3 Hill (N. 

Y.) 389 
Wills V. James Rowland & Co., 

102 N. Y. Supp. 386 

V. Murray, 4 Ex. 843 

Wilmer v. Atlanta, etc. Ry. 

Co., 2 Woods 409 1600, 1603 
V. McNamara, etc. Co. 

(1895), 2 Ch. 245 1096, 1099, 

1099 
Wilmott V. London Celluloid 

Co., 34 Ch. D. 147 1315, 1323, 
1545 
Wilson V. Atlantic, etc. R. R. 

Co., 2 Fed. 459 431, 793 
V. Bank of Montgomery 

County, 29 Pa. St. 537 

V. Boyce, 92 U. S. 320 

V. Bury, 5 Q. B. D. 518 

V. Carter Oil Co., 46 W. 

Va. 469; 33 S. E. 249 
V. Central Bridge, 9 R. I. 

590 
V. Curzon, 15 M. & W. 

532 275, 309 
V. Duplin Telephone Co., 

139 N. Car. 395; 52 S. E. 

62 662, 666 
V. Hotchkiss, 2 Ont. L. 

Rep. 261 274, 307, 310, 311 
V. Hundley, 96 Va. 96; 

30 S. E. 492; 70 Am. St. 

Rep. 837 180, 183 
D. Little, 2 N.Y. 443; 51 

Am. Dec. 307 803, 808 
V. Metropolitan Elevated 

Ry. Co., 120 N.Y. 145; 24 

N. E. 384; 17Am. St. Rep. 

625 1343 
V. Miers, 10 C. B. n. s. 

348 71, 1188 
V. Parvin, 119 Fed. 652; 

56 C. C. A. 268 439, 440, 472 
V. Stevens, 129 Ala. 630; 

29 So. 678; 87 Am. St. Rep. 

86 
V. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co., 

108 Mo. 588; 18 S. W. 286; 

32 Am. St. Rep. 624 
V. West Hartlepool Ry. 

Co., 2 De G. & Sm. 475 
Wilson Sewing Machine Co. v. 

Spears, 50 Mich. 534; 15 

N. W. 894 



1357 



716 
395 



230 



Wilson, Ex parte, 8 Ch. 45 1265 

Wilson's Case, 20 L. T. 962 169, 

169, 171, 171 
Wiltbank's Appeal, 64 Pa. 

St. 256; 3 Am. Rep. 585 499, 
503, 1147 
Winboum's Case, 30 Fed. 167 1618 
Winch V. Birkenhead, etc. 

Ry. Co., 5 De G. & Sm. 

562 978 

Winchester v. Howard, 136 

Cal. 432; 64 Pae. 692 1280 

Winchester, etc. Turnpike 

Co. V. Wicliffe, 100 Ky. 531 ; 

38 S. W. 866; 66 Am. St. 

Rep. 356 1122, 1122, 1123 

Windmuller v. Standard Dis- 
tilling, etc. Co., 114 Fed. 

491 1080, 1080, 1081 

V. Standard Distilling 

Co., 115 Fed. 748 1080 

V. Standard Distilling 

Co., 106 N. Y. App. Div. 

246; 94 N.Y. Supp. 52 86 

Windram v. French, 151 Mass. 

547; 24 N. E. 914; 8 L. 

R. A. 750 730 

Wineburgh v. U. S. Steam, 

etc. Ad. Co., 173 Mass. 60; 

53 N. E. 145; 73 Am. St. 

Rep. 261 1285 

Wing V. Charleroi Plate Glass 

Co., 112 Fed. 817 1335 

Winnipeg, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

Mann, 7 Manitoba 81 1399 

Winona, etc. R. R. Co. v. St. 

Piaul, etc. R. R. Co., 23 

Minn. 359 873, 874,877 

Winslow V. Minnesota, etc. R. 

R. Co., 4 Minn. 313; 77 

Am. Dec. 519 1484, 1585 

Winsor, Ex parte, 3 Story 411 993 

1123, 1125, 1195 

V. Bailey, 55 N. H. 218 968, 

972, 980 
Winsted Hosiery Co. v. New 

Britain Knitting Co., 69 

Conn. 565; 38 Atl. 310 

1376, 1379 
Winston v. Dorsett, etc. Co., 

129 111. 64; 21 N. E. 

514; 4 L. R. A. 507 620 

Winstone's Case, 12 Ch. D. 

239 102, 111 

Winter v. Baldwin, 89 Ala. 

483; 7 So. 734 899, 906, 906, 

906 
V. Belmont Mfg. Co., 53 

Cal. 428 682 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



1543 
23 



47 



Winter v. Iowa Central Ry. 

Co., Ill Iowa 342; 82 N. W. 

760 
V. Iowa, etc. Ry. Co., 2 

Dill. 487 

V. Montgomery Gas- 

Light Co., 89 Ala. 544; 7 

So. 773 710, 711 

Winters v. Armstrong, 37 Fed. 

508 490, 493 

V. Hub Mining Co., 57 

Fed. 287 280 

Wisconsin Lumber Co. v. 

Greene, etc. Co., 127 Iowa 

350; 101 N. W. 742; 109 

Am. St. Rep. 387; 69 L. R. 

A. 968 192, 527, 952 

Wisconsin Tel. Co. v. City of 

Oshkosh, 62 Wise. 32; 21 

N. W. 828 
Wishard v. Hansen, 99 Iowa 

307; 68N.W. 691; 61 Am. 

St. Rep. 238 648, 648 

Wist V. Grand Lodge, 22 

Oreg. 271; 29 Pac. 610; 

29 Am. St. Rep. 603 584, 590 
Witham v. Cohen, 100 Ga. 

670; 28 S. E. 505 
Withers v. Edwards, 26 Tex. 

Civ. App. 189; 62 S. W. 

795 

V. Lafayette County 

Bank, 67 Mo. App. 115 430, 749 

Witmer v. Schlatter, 2 Rawle 

(Pa.) 359 
Witters v. Foster, 26 Fed. 

737 
Wittmer Lumber Co. v. Rice, 

23 Ind. App. 586 
Witts V. Steere, 13 Ves. 363 
W. Key & Son (1902), 1 Ch. 

467 428, 771, 793 

W. L. Wells Co.' I). Gastonia 

Cotton Mfg. Co., 198 U. S. 

177; 25 Sup. Ct. 640 
Wolf V. Davenport, etc. R. R. 

Co., 93 Iowa 218; 61 N. W. 

847 

V. Pennsylvania R. R. 

Co., 195 Pa. St. 91; 45 

Atl. 936 941, 946, 1081 

Wolfe V. Simmons, 75 Miss. 

539; 23 So. 586 1356 
V. Underwood, 96 Ala. 

329 889, 1111, 1112 

Wolverhampton, etc. Co. v. 

Hawksford, 7 C. B. n. s. 

795; Ex. Ch. 11 C. B. n. a. 

456 923, 926, 925 



1024 



1029 



310 

1285 

852 
1141 



249 



1376 



Woman's Foreign Missionaiy 

Soc. V. Mitchell, 93 Mdf. 

199; 48 Atl. 737; 63 L. R. 

A. 711 380 

Wood V. Chamber of Com- 
merce, 119 Wise. 367; 96 

N. W. 835 566, 580 
V. Coosa, etc. R. R. Co., 

32 Ga. 273 175, 914 
V. Corry Water Works 

Co., 44 Fed. 146; 12 L. R. 

A. 168 110, 1006, 1408 
V. Drummer, 3 Mason 

308 1127 
V. Dubuque, etc. R. R. 

Co., 28 Fed. 910 1633 
V. Goodwin, 49 Me. 260; 

77 Am, Dec. 259 1627 
V. Guarantee Trust Co., 

128 U. S. 416; 9 Sup. Ct. 

131 1453, 1466, 1467, 1457, 
1461, 1659, 1562, 1566 
V. Hammond, 16 R. I. 

98; 17 Atl. 324; 18 Atl. 

198 848 
V. Holly Mfg. Co., 100 

Ala. 326; 13 So. 948; 46 

Am. St. Rep. 66 1637, 1640 
V. Jefferson County 

Bank, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 194 230 
V. Lost Lake Mfg. Co., 

23 Oreg. 20; 23 Pac. 848; 

37 Am. St. Rep. 661 1237, 1238, 
1320, 1321 
V. Mott Iron Works, 114 

N. Y. App. Div. 108 890 
V. New York, etc. R. R. 

Co., 70 Fed. 741 1561, 1563 
V. Odessa Woodworks, 

42 Ch. D. 636 1117 
V. Sheldon, 42 N. J. 

Law 421; 36 Am. Rep. 

623 784, 785 
V. Union Gospel Church 

Bldg. Ass'n, 63 Wise. 9; 

22 N. W. 756 124, 493, 1063, 

1364 
V. What Cheer Lodge, 

20 R. I. 795; 38 Atl. 895 948 

V. Whelen, 93 111. 153 283, 

290, 1186, 1187, 1190, 1409 
V. Wiley Construction 

Co., 56 Conn. 87; 13 Atl. 

137 127, 221, 228, 912, 1006 

Wood's Appeal, 92 Pa. St. 

379; 37 Am. Rep. 694 723, 725 
Wood's Case, 15 Eq. 236 189 

Wood's Ship, etc. Co., 62 

L. T. 760 1238. 1242 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Wood's Sons Co. v. Sohaefer, 

173 Mass. 443; 53 N. E. 

881 ; 73 Am. St. Rep. 305 1379 
Woodberry v. McCluig, 78 

Miss. 831; 29 So. 514 57,113,258 
Woodbury v. Allegheny, etc. 

Ry. Co., 72 Fed. 371 1587 

Woodbury Heights Land Co. 

V. Loudenslager, 55 N. J. 

Eq. 78; 35 Atl. 436 322 

Woodhaven Bank v. Brooklyn 

Hills Imp. Co., 69 N. Y. 

App. Div. 489; 74 N. Y. 

Supp. 1023 924 

Woodhill v.- Sullivan, 14 C. P. 

(Up. Can.) 265 396, 408 

Woodman v. York, etc. R. R. 

Co., 50 Me. 549 406 

Woodroof V. Howes, 88 Cal. 

.184; 26Pac. Ill 978,979 

Woodruff V. Dubuque, etc. 

R. Co., 30 Fed. 91 1047 
V. Erie Ry. Co., 93 N. Y. 

609 852, 863, 1611 
V. New York, etc. R. R. 

Co., 129 N. Y. 27; 29 N. E. 

251 1490, 1490 
V. Wentworth, 133 Mass. 

309 1029, 1030 

Woodruff's Estate, 1 Tuck. 

(N. Y.) 58 1150 

Woods V. Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. 

Co., 99 Pa. St. 101 1533 

Woods Motor Vehicle Co. v. 

Brady, 181 N. Y. 145; 73 

N. E. 674 212, 214, 215 

V. Brady, 39 N. Y. Misc. 

79; 78 N. Y. Supp. 203 209 

Woodside Coal Co., 105 Fed. 

56 44 

Woodson V. Murdock, 22 

Wall. 351 1484 

Woolf V. East Nigel Gold Min- 
ing Co., 21 Times L. R. 660 



152, 
1228 



967 
616 



592 
418, 



Woolaston's Case, 4 De G. & 

J. 437 660 

Wooten 1). Wilmington, etc. 
R. Co., 128 N. Car. 119; 38 
S. E. 298; 56L. R. A. 615 792, 
798, 798, 814, 814 

Worcester Med. Inst. v. Hard- 
ing, 11 Cush. 285 237 

WorkinCTnen's Accommoda- 
tion Bank v. Converse, 29 
La. Ann. 369 241, 247 

World's Fair Excursion Co. 
V. Gasch, 162 111. 402; 44 
N. E. 724 528 



Wormser v. Metropolitan St. 

Ry.Co., 184N. Y. 83; 112 

Am. St. Rep. 596 966, 967, 967 
V. Metropolitan St. Ry. 

Co., 98 N. Y. App. Div. 

29; 90 N. Y. Supp. 714 
Worrall v. Judson, 5 Barb. 

210 
Worthington v. Schuylkill El. 

Ry. Co., 195 Pa. St. 211; 

45 Atl. 927 

V. Tormey, 34 Md. 182 

785 809 

Wragg, Re (1897), 1 Ch. 796 '634, 
635, 639 
Wray v. Wray (1905), 2 Ch. 

349 254 

Wrexham, etc. Ry. Co. 

(1899), 1 Ch. 440 831, 832, 1455 
Wright V. Bundy, 11 Ind. 398 1495, 

1584 
V, Central, etc. Co., 67 

Cal. 532; 8 Pac. 70 1016, 1250 
V. Com., 109 Pa. St. 

560; 1 Atl. 794 1015, 1015, 
1016, 1163 

— V. First Nat. Bank, 52 
N. J. Eq. 392; 28 Atl. 719 1164, 

1205, 1222 

— V. Horton, 12 A. C. 371 1396, 

1396 

— V. Hughes, 119 Ind. 324; 
21 N. E. 907; 12 Am. St. 
Rep. 412 63, 65, 852, 862 

— V. Incorporated Synod, 
11 Can. Sup. Ct. 95 586 

— V. Knoxville Livery, etc. 
Co. (Tenn.), 59 S. W. 677 1244 

— V. Lee, 2 S. Dak. 596; 
51 N. W. 706 1009, 1009, 1187, 

1208, 1224 

— V. Ohio, etc. '^. R. Co., 
1 Disney (Oh.) 465 

— V. Pipe Line Co., 101 Pa. 
St. 204; 47 Am. Rep. 701 



1451 



— V. St. Louis Sugar Co. 
(Mich.), 109 N. W. 1062 

— V. Springfield, etc. R. R. 
Co., 117 Mass. 226; 19 Am. 
Rep. 412 

V. Tuckett, IJ. & H. 266 

V. Vermont, etc. R. R. 

Corp., 12 Cush. (Mass.) 68 



846, 
862 

293 



1169 
1137, 
1156 

457, 
1108 



Wright-Caesar Tobacco Co. 
V. A. Hoen & Co. (Va.), 54 
S. E. 309 141, 386 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



"Wright Lumber Co. v. Hixon, 

105 Wise. 153; 80 N. W. 

1110, 1135 770, 773 

Wright's Appeal, 99 Pa. St. 

425 735 

Wright's Case, 7 Ch. 55; 20 

W. R. 45 179, 179, 625 

Wright's Estate, 24 Pa. Co. 

Ct. Rep. 376 503 

W. Tasker & Sons (1905), 2 

Ch. 587 1418, 1473, 1473, 1524 
Wyeth V. Renz-Bowles, 23 

Ky. Law Rep. 2337; 66 

S. W. 825 158 

Wylie V. Missouri Pac. Ry. 

Co., 41 Fed. 623 1435, 1435 

Wylly-Gabbett Co. v. Wil- 

Uams (Fla.), 42 So. 910 1553 

Wyman v. American Powder 

Co., 8 Cush. (Mass.) 168 430 
V. Bowman, 127 Fed.- 

257; 62 C. C. A. 189 189, 702, 
1296, 1316, 1317, 1318 
V. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 

29 Fed. 734 866 
V. Wallace, 201 U. S. 

230; 26 Sup. Ct. 495 63 

Wynne v. Price, 3 De G. & S. 

310 783, 785 

Wynne's Case, 8 Ch. 1002 165, 171 
Wyoming Coal Mining Co. 

V. State ex rel. Kennedy 

(Wyo.), 87 Pac. 337 896, 905 

Wyoming Valley Ice Co., 153 

Fed. 787 1400, 1402, 1403, 

1403 
Wyss-Thalman v. Beaver Val- 
ley Brewing Co. (Pa.), 68 

Atl. 187 919, 924, 1223 

X 

X. Company (1907), 2 Ch. 92 1364 
Xantha Beneficial, etc. Ass'n, 

8 Pa. Dist. Rep. 142 40 



Yager's Adm'r v. Bank of 
Kentucky (Ky.), 100 S. W. 
848 815 

Yale Gas Stove Co. v. Wilcox, 
64 Conn. 101; 29 Atl. 303; 
42 Am. St. Rep. 159; 25 
L. R. A. 90 318, 319, 320 

Yanish v. Pioneer Fuel Co., 
64 Minn. 175; 66 N. W. 
198 407 

Yarborough v. Bank of Eng- 
land, 16 East 6 869 



Yates V. Jones Nat. Bank 
(1907), 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 
638; 206 U. S. 158 1355, 1359 

V. Jones Nat. Bank 

(Nebr.), 105 N. W. 287 1355 

V. Utica Bank, 206 U. S. 

181 1355, 1359 

Yeager v. Bank of Kentucky 

(Ky.), 106 S. W. 806 814 

Yeaton v. Eagle Oil, etc. Co., 

4 Wash. 183; 29 Pac. 1051 517 
Yeiser v. U. S. Board, etc. Co., 

107 Fed. 340; 46 C. C. A. 

567; 52L. R. A. 724 322,324, 

326 
Yelland's Case, 4 Eq. 350 1242 

Yellow Jacket, etc. Co. v. 

Stevenson, 5 Nevada 224 1235, 

1372 
Yeoland Consols, 58 L. T. 922 173 
Yetts V. Norfolk Ry. Co., 3 

De G. & Sm. 293 931, 946 

Yoakum v. Selph, 83 Tex. 

607; 19 S. W. 145 1619 

Yonkers Gazette Co. v. Taylor, 

30 N. Y. App. Div. 334; 51 

N. Y. Supp. 969 209, 209, 214 
York V. Mathis, 68 Atl. 746 1374 
York Glass Co., Re, 60 L. T. 

744 534 

York Tramways Co. v. Wil- 
lows, 8 Q. B. D. 685 1164, 1165, 
1175, 1182, 1212, 1230, 1232 
York & North Midland Ry. v. 

Hudson, 16 Beav. 485 1320 

York, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Ritchie, 40 Me. 425 658, 1214 
Yorkshire Ry. Wagon Co. v. 

Maclure, 21 Ch. D. 309 64, 1545 
Young V. Commissioners of 

Mahonning Co., 53 Fed. 

895 971 
V. Equitable Life Ass. 

Soc, 112 N. Y. App. Div. 

760 944, 979, 1285 

V. MacNider, 25 Can. 

Sup. a. Rep. 272 1436 

V. Montgomery, etc. R. 

R. Co., 2 Woods 606 1485, 1588 

V. Naval, Military, etc. 

Soc. (1905), 1 K. B. 687 1245, 
1281, 1283, 1300 

V. Plattner Lmplement 

Co. (Colo.), 91 Pac. 1109 237 

V. New Standard Con- 
centrator Co. (Cal.), 83 
Pac. 28 797 

V. South African Syndi- 
cate (1896), 2 Ch. 268 1004 



TABLE OF CASES 
[The references are to pages] 



Young V. South Tredegar Iron 

Co., 85 Tenn. 189; 2 S. W. 

202; 4 Am. St. Rep. 752 381, 
386, 386, 715 
V. Vough, 23 N. J. Eq. 

325 571, 572, 769, 774 

Young Reversible Lock-Nut 

Co. V. Young Lock-Nut Co., 

72 Fed. 62 127, 300 

Young Women's Christian 

Ass'n V. St. Louis Women's 

Christian Ass'n, 115 Mo. 

App. 228; 91 S. W. 171 129, 

369 
Yoimgblood v. Comer, 97 Ga. 

152; 23S. E. 509; 25 S. E. 

838 1619 

Younglove v. Steinman,' 80 

Cal. 375; 22 Pao. 189 652 

Youree v. Home Town Mut. 

Ins. Co., 180 Mo. 153; 79 

S. W. 175 1185 

Yuruari Co., 6 Times L. R. 

119 764, 765 



Zabriskie v. Cleveland, etc. 

R. R. Co., 23 How. 381 86, 972, 
1221, 1221 
Zaiesky v. Iowa, etc. Ins. Co., 

102 Iowa 512; 70 N. W. 

187; 71 N. W. 433 912 

Zang V. Adams, 23 Colo. 408; 

48 Pac. 509; 58 Am. St. 

Rep. 249 213 



Zartman v. First Nat. Bank, 

189N.Y.267; 82N.E. 127 

1503, 1505, 1605, 1506, 1553 
Zearfoss v. Farmers', etc. 

Inst., 154 Pa. St. 449; 26 

Atl. 211; 35 Am. St. Rep. 

848 1224 

Zebley v. Farmers' L. & T. 

Co., 139 N. Y. 461; 34 

N. E. 1067 1488 

Zeigler v. Valley Coal Co. 

(Mich.), 113 N. W. 775 300 

Zelaya, etc. Co. v. Meyer, 8 

N. Y. Supp. 487; 28 N. Y. 

St. Rep. 759 627 

Zellerbach v. Allenberg, 99 

Cal. 57; 33 Pac. 786 809, 1111 
Zeltner v. Zeltner Brewing 

Co., 174 N. Y. 247; 66 

N. E. 810; 95Am. St. Rep. 

574 1183 

Zihlman v. Cumberland Glass - 

Co., 74 Md. 303; 22 Atl. 271 400 
Zimmerman v. ICansas City, 

etc. R. Co., 144 Fed. 622; 

75 C. C. A. 424 1543, 1635 
V. Masonic Aid Ass'n, 

75 Fed. 236 917, 918 

Zinc Carbonate Co. v. First 

Nat. Bank, 103 Wise. 125; 

79 N. W. 229; 74 Am. St. 

Rep. 845 327, 870, 1346 

Zinn V. Baxter, 65 Oh. St. 341 ; 

62 N. E. 327 962, 972, 974, 982 
V. Germantown, etc. 

Mut. Ins. Co. (Wise), 111 

N. W. 1107 1131 



ADDENDA 



CASES OF ESPECIAL INTEREST REPORTED WHILE 
THIS BOOK WAS GOING THROUGH THE 
PRESS. 



National Life Ins. Co. of the United States v. National Life 
Ins. Co., 209 U. S. 317, modifying or supplementing the law as 
stated in § 456, holds that where a corporation has engaged in 
business under a certain name at a certain city before the incor- 
poration of another company under substantially the same name, 
the courts will not supervise the discretion of the post ofHce 
authorities, so as to enjoin them from delivering to the former 
company mail matter addressed to the common name at the 
city in question, without any distinguishing street or number, 
merely because a vastly larger proportion of such matter may 
have been found by experience to be intended for the second 
company. 

Richardson v. Shaw, 209 U. S. 365, and Thomas v. Taggart, 
209 U. S. 385, are important cases, although laying down no 
novel propositions of law, upon the subject of purchases of 
shares on margin and of the mutual rights of pledgors and 
pledgees of shares. 



MODERN CORPORATION LAW 



CHAPTER I 

HISTORICAL AND INTRODUCTORY 

Section 

Formation of corporations at common law 1 

Common law rule in America 2 

Dissimilarity of American statutory corporations and corporations 

formed by royal charter . . 3 

Development of modem corporation or company law in England 4-13 

Incorporation by royal charter 4 

Incorporation by special Act of Parliament — "Companies 

Clauses Consolidation Act" 5 

Development of unincorporated joint-stock companies — The 

Bubble Act 6 

General incorporation laws — 7-13 

The Statute 39 EUz., c. 5 7 

Companies Act of 1844 8 

Companies Act of 1856 9 

Companies Act of 1862 10-12 

The "Memorandum of Association" 10 

The "Articles of Association" 11 

"Table A" 12 

Amendments and Supplements to Companies Act of 1862 — 

Companies Act of 1900 13 

Development of modern corporation law in the United States . . . 14-18 

In general 14 

Growth of system of general incorporation laws 15 

Constitutional prohibition of incorporation by special act ... 16 

Unincorporated joint-stock companies 17 

Modem general- incorporation laws 18 

Effects of modern liberal incorporation laws 19-22 

Right to incorporate no longer a franchise or special privilege . 19 

Early judicial recognition of this principle 20 

Liberal construction of modem incorporation laws 21 

Frauds perpetrated under cover of liberal laws 22 

Classification of corporations 23-29 

Distinction between corporations formed under general laws and 

corporations created by special act 23 

Under what statute corporation is deemed to be formed . 24 
Classification with respect to liability of members . ... 25 

Classification with respect to objects . 26-29 

Ancient classification . 26 

VOL. I. — 1 1 



§ 1 HISTORICAL AND INTRODUCTORY [ChAP. I 

Classification of corporations {continued) Section 

How objects determined for purposes of classification ... 27 
Municipal corporations, religious corporations, business 
corporations, public-service corporations, financial 

corporations, etc 28 

"Public" and "private" corporations 29 

Nomenclature — " Corporations" and "Companies" 30 

§ 1. Formation of Corporations at Common Law. — By the 
common law of England, corporations could be formed in only 
one way — by a special charter granted by the crown. To 
be sure, the legislature by special act might create a corpora- 
tion ; but an act of the legislature involves a change in the law, 
so that a corporation formed by special act of the legislature 
could not properly be said to be organized under the common 
law. No sufficient sound economic reason applicable to modern 
conditions can be adduced to support this common law doc- 
trine. For, in a free commercial country, individuals should 
have the power by mere private contract or agreement to asso- 
ciate themselves together as a corporation for any merely private 
lawful object. They should enjoy the same freedom in the 
formation of corporations that Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence has 
always accorded in the formation of partnerships or voluntary 
associations. To be sure, safeguards should be provided against 
fraud, and particularly against abuse of that immunity from 
individual Uability of the members for the debts of the company 
which in popular estimation constitutes the most valuable, if 
not the most essential, characteristic of a commercial corpora- 
tion. But subject to all needful restrictions of this sort, the 
organization of corporations in any country that prides itself 
on freedom of contract and on the right of its citizens to co- 
operate in the most effective manner in any lawful enterprise, 
should be as free as the formation of unincorporated associa- 
tions; and most certainly the benefits of doing business under 
the corporate form should not be dependent on the caprice of 
a monarch or of a minister, or upon the special favor of the 
legislature. 

§ 2. Common Law Rule in America. — Nevertheless, the com- 
mon law prohibition of corporations except by royal charter 
was carried by our ancestors across the Atlantic, and became 
part of the jurisprudence of the United States. In colonial 
times, the king did occasionally erect corporations in America 



§ l-§ 30] THE COMMON LAW § 3 

by his charter, as witness the well-known instance of Dartmouth 
College.^ In some of the colonies, notably in Maryland ^ and 
Pennsylvania,^ this prerogative of the crown was delegated in 
part or in whole to the lord proprietary or viceroy, and by him 
sparingly exercised ; but if in any colony the prerogative extended 
to the incorporation of business corporations, no instance is 
known in which it was exercised for that purpose. 

After the Declaration of Independence, the prerogative 
perished altogether; and was not renewed or vested by the 
various state constitutions in the executive. Accordingly, the 
royal charter, the only common law method of forming cor- 
porations, having become impracticable, persons desiring to 
become incorporated were obliged in each case to apply to the 
legislature for a special act of incorporation. Thus, the separa- 
tion from the mother country, the abolition of the royal prerog- 
ative, and the endeavor to preserve and even to increase the 
individual liberties previously enjoyed by the colonists as British 
subjects, resulted, curiously enough, in depriving the American 
people of the only mode of incorporating known to the common 
law, and thus in still further restricting the already too limited 
power of organizing corporations. 

§ 3. Dissimilarity of American Statutory Corporations and 
Corporations formed by Royal Charter. — In the United States, 
although royal charters of incorporation have been obsolete for 

' See Dartmouth College v. Wood- city of Annapolis was incorporated 

ward, 4 Wheat. 518. by a deputy of Queen Anne during 

^ See Charter of Maryland, § 14 the suspension of the proprietary 

(Kilty's Laws of Md. ; Md. Code Pub. government, and the charter was 

Gen. Laws of 1904, p. 100), where confirmed with modifications by Act 

the Lord Proprietary was invested of Assembly, Laws of Md. of 1708, 

with the power "Villas item in Chap. 7. 

Burgos et Burgos in Civitates ad ' Charter of Pennsylvania, § 10 

Inhabitantium Merita et Locorum (Charters and Provincial Laws of Pa., 

Opportunitates cum Privilegiis et ed. of 1762, p. 3), where Charles 11 

Immunitatibus congruis erigendi et granted to Penn and his heirs power 

incorporandi." Perhaps the only "to erect and incorporate towns into 

exercise of this power was the grant boroughs and boroughs into cities." 

of a charter by Lord Baltimore in In pursuance of this power, the pro- 

1667, incorporating the "Mayor, Re- prietary granted a charter of in- 

corder. Aldermen, and Common corporation in 1701 to the city of 

Council of the City of St. Mary's Philadelphia, and subsequently 

City." See McKim v. Odom, 3 erected a number of boroughs. 

Bland Ch. (Md.), 407, 416, note. Charters and Provincial Laws of 

where a recital of some of the terms Pa., ed. of 1762, pp. 10 et seq. See 

of the charter will be found. The also 3 Wilson's Lectures, 409. 

3 



§ 4 HISTORICAL AND INTRODUCTORY [ChAP. I 

more than a century, the old terminology has to a great extent 
survived, and is applied to the wholly different statutory corpora- 
tions of to-day. Thus, special acts of incorporation are, in 
America, commonly called "charters," although this use of the 
term is perhaps inappropriate and is certainly not in vogue in 
England. There, "charter" still means a royal charter, and is 
very rarely applied to a special act of parliament creating a cor- 
poration.' Indeed, the American law of corporations is not 
merely in terminology but to some extent in substance an out- 
growth of the old law of corporations formed under royal charter. 
This is certainly unfortunate ; for what law there is relating to 
the old corporations chartered by the crown — and the cases 
on the subject are comparatively few and meagre — is of an 
antiquated nature, totally inapplicable to modern joint-stock 
business corporations. The greatest harm that has come from 
assimilating modern incorporated companies to old-fashioned 
chartered corporations is the notion that the right to be a cor- 
poration is a special franchise. To be sure, this was true at 
common law; but as stated above this feature of the common 
law was an anomaly in the jurisprudence of a free country, and, 
as will be more fully explained below,^ it is now completely 
abrogated both in England and in most of the United States, 
where the right to incorporate for any lawful object is free to 
everybody, on observing certain statutory formalities. 

§ 4-§ 13. DEVELOPMENT OF CORPORATION OR COM- 
PANY LAW IN ENGLAND 

§ 4. Incorporation by Royal Charter. — Even in England the 
formation of corporations by royal charter, although always pos- 
sible, was never frequent, and is perhaps at the present day 
even rarer than ever. The corporations organized in this way 
have been chiefly for municipal, charitable, educational, or re- 
ligious purposes, and have but little in common with the ordi- 

' In Simpson v. Molson's Bank uses the word in that sense. For an 

(1895), A. C. 270, the reporter in his instance of similar use of the word 

statement of the facts of the case in Canada, see McMurrich v. Bond 

refers to a special act of incorpora- Head Harbour Co., 9 Up. Can. Q. B. 

tion as a "charter," and in Attorney- 333, 336. 
General v. Mersey Ry. Co. (1907), ' See infra, § 19-§ 20. 
A. G. 415, 417, Lord Macnaghten 



§ l-§ 30] COMPANIES CLAUSES ACTS § 5 

nary business corporation of to-day. Some famous historic 
organizations, formed partly for private gain and partly for 
public governmental' objects, such as the East India Company, 
were incorporated in this way. The Bank of England was in- 
corporated by royal charter but in pursuance of a special act 
of parliament.' 

§ 5. Incorporation by Special Act ot Parliament — The "Com- 
panies Clauses Consolidation Act." — In England, partly be- 
cause the crown was for some reason so very chary in granting 
charters of incorporation, applications to parliament for special 
acts of incorporation became more and more frequent as 
business conditions developed and the desirability of incor- 
porating becarae constantly greater.^ Special acts of incorpora- 
tion particularly for canal and railway companies accordingly 
multiplied apace. A general resemblance pervaded all of these 
special acts; but each was characterized by its own peculiar 
features. As the general scheme or constitution of all such 
corporations was the same or nearly so, the same language to 
a great extent was employed in all such special acts; and, in 
order to avoid this repetition, parliament in 1845 adopted a 
code or system of provisions which should be taken as em- 
bodied in all subsequent special acts of incorporation,' except 
in so far as expressly excluded. This code is known as the 
"Companies Clauses Consolidation Act," sometimes abbre- 
viated to "Companies Clauses Act." At the same session of 
parliament, a statute was passed, known as the "Railway 
Clauses Consolidation Act," containing certain provisions as 
to the construction of railways which in hke manner were to 
be taken as embodied in all subsequent special acts for the in- 
corporation of railway companies.^ These statutes, it will be 

' Stat. 5 & 6 W. & M., c. 20. are the "Companies Clauses Act, 

See 1 Black. Comm. 473. 1863," the "Companies Clauses 

' As Blackstone points out, spe- Act, 1869," the "Companies Clauses 

cial acts of parliament creating cor- Consolidation Act, 1888," and the 

porations had become common only "Companies Clauses Consolidation 

in his own time. 1 Black. Comm. Act, 1889." 
473. * 8 & 9 Vict:, o. 20. See the 

'8 & 9 Vict., c. 16. See also "Lands Clauses Consolidation Act," 
"Companies Clauses Consolidation 8 & 9 Vict., c. 18, containing pro- 
Act (Scotland)," 8 & 9 Vict., c. 17, visions to apply to companies upon 
a similar act applicable to Scotland, which the power of condemning 

Later "Companies Clauses Acts" land should be conferred. 



§ 5 HISTORICAL AND INTRODUCTOEY [ChAP. I 

observed, are not general incorporation laws, and do not apply 
to companies organized under general laws or "Companies 
Acts," the first of which had been passed in the preceding 
year. 

This separation between matters so distinct as a general 
enabling act and the establishment of regulations for companies 
thereafter incorporated by special act certainly avoids confu- 
sion; and the example might perhaps profitably be followed 
in those American states where special acts of incorporation are 
still resorted to. Much trouble has been occasioned by en- 
deavoring to combine in one act or code general provisions 
for the formation of corporations and for the regulation of the 
companies formed thereunder, with provisions for the regula- 
tion of such companies as the legislature had previously incor- 
porated or might subsequently see fit to incorporate by special 
act, the only object of which latter provisions is avoidance of 
the necessity of inserting in each special act a complete system 
of corporation law.' This trouble and confusion might be ob- 
viated, it would seem, by the passage of a " Companies Clauses 
Act " ; although this opinion must be expressed with diffidence, 
inasmuch as some English lawyers advocate, as tending to 
greater simplicity, a consolidation of the Companies Clauses 
Acts with the Companies Acts.^ 

' Cf . Qregg v. Granby Mining, etc. granted by the act of incorporation, " 

Co. (Mo.), 65 S. W. 312 (a constitu- held not to apply to ccporations 

tional provision making all charters created by special act of the legisla- 

of incorjSoration subject to amend- ture but only to those formed under 

ment or repeal by the legislature the general law) ; Love v. Holmes 

held to apply both to companies in- (Miss.), 44 So. 835 (municipal cor- 

corporated under general laws and poration created by special act, held 

companies created by special act) ; not subject to a limitation of munici- 

Montdair v. N. Y. & Greenwood pal indebtedness prescribed by the 

Lake By. Co., 45 N. J. Eq. 436, 441- general statutes applicable to mu- 

442 ; 18 Atl. 242 ; Hayes v. Mor- nicipalities) ; State v. Cape Girar- 

gan's La., etc. Co., 42 So. 150; 117 deau, etc. Road Co. (Mo.), 105 S. W. 

La. 593 ; Frader v. Railway Co., 88 761 (where the question was decided 

Terni. 138 (headnote 8) ; 12 S. W. whether a turnpike company incor- 

537; City of Atlanta v. Gate City porated by special act was subject 

Gas Light Co., 71 Ga. 106 (pro- to a provision in a statute applica- 

vision in general incorporation law ble to corporations generally, or to 

that "no charter shall have any force a different provision in a general 

or effect for a longer period than law for incorporation of turnpike 

two years unless the incorporators companies). 

within that time shall in good faith ' Rawlins & Macnaghten on 

commence to exercise the powers Companion, preface, pp. v-vi. 

.6 



§ l-§ 30] UNINCORPORATED COMPANIES § 6 

§ 6. Development of Unincorporated Joint-stock Companies. 
— The Bubble Act. — Side by side with the constantly in- 
creasing frequency of incorporation by special statutes, which 
occasioned the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, there 
developed in England out of the ordinary partnership a form 
of association known as joint-stock companies, which, although 
unincorporated, much more closely resemble the ordinary stock 
corporations of to-day than do the common law corpora- 
tions chartered by the crown. These joint-stock companies 
originated in an attempt to secure so far as practicable by mere 
mutual agreement among the members the same advantages 
that would be obtained by incorporation. Parliament unwisely 
frowned upon this endeavor, and the Bubble Act ' sought alto- 
gether to repress it. That statute, however, never proved very 
effective in accomplishing its purpose,^ and in 1825 was re- 
pealed.' Notwithstanding this repeal, some judges continued 
to look askance at these associations ; * but other judges evinced 
a more liberal disposition,^ and the number of such companies 
constantly increased. 

Although these unincorporated joint-stock companies were, 
in legal contemplatipn, nothing but huge partnerships distin- 
guished from ordinary firms only by the number of their mem- 
bers, yet the ingenuity of the cleverest solicitors was taxed 
in order to give them, practically, all the most important 
attributes of corporations. Every member or shareholder 
was required to sign and seal the company's deed of settle- 
ment, which contained elaborate provisions for the govern- 
ment of the concern. Particularly, it provided that the 
partnership should not be dissolved by the death of a member 
but that his personal representative should on executing the 
deed of settlement become a member in his room. Transfers of 
shares inter vivos were also provided for. Moreover, the manage- 
ment of the company was vested in a board of directors, and the 
deed always stipulated that a mere private member or partner 
should have no power to act as agent for the concern. The 

' 6 Geo. I, c. 18, § 18. ° Harrison v. Heathom, 6 Man. & 

■' Cf. Rex V. Webb, 14 East 406 ; Gr. 81 ; Be Aston, 27 Beav. 474, 

Rex V. Dodd, 9 East 516 ; Josephs affirmed, 4 De G. & J. 320 ; Mexican, 

V. Prebber, 3 B. & C. 639. etc. Co., 4 De G. & J. 544. Cf. cases 

' 6 Geo. IV, c. 91. cited, infra, § 17. 

* Blundell v. Winsor, 8 Sim. 601. 

7 



§ 7 HISTORICAL AND INTRODUCTORY [ChAP. I 

capital of the company was to consist of a certain amount divided 
into shares, very much as in the modern stock corporation. 
Sometimes it was sought to approximate limited liability by pro- 
viding that all the company's contracts should contain a clause 
by which the contractor should agree to look only to the capital 
of the company for his damages in case of breach.' How to 
avoid the necessity of making all of the shareholders parties to 
any action or suit by the company was a serious problem. Some- 
times special acts of parliament were obtained authorizing the 
association to sue and be sued in the name of some officer, and 
in 1835 a general statute authorized the crown to grant to unin- 
corporated companies the right to sue and defend in the name 
of an officer.^ Sometimes the legal title to the company's prop- 
erty and choses in action was vested in trustees, who would thus 
be entitled to sue in their own names for any breach of contract 
or injury to the company's property.^ Of course, the members 
of such companies were not greatly concerned in facilitating 
actions against the companies; and, moreover, failure to join 
all the members as defendants in actions of tort was no 
irregularity at all, and even in actions of contract could not 
be availed of except by plea in abatement.* 

§ 7-§ 13. General Incorporation Laws. 

§ 7. The Statute of 39 Elizabeth Chapter 6. — As loiig ago 
as the reign of Elizabeth a general statute for the incorporation of 
hospitals and similar charities had been enacted by parliament.' 
This act provided that any person seised of land in fee simple 
might by deed enrolled in the High Court of Chancery create 
a corporation to hold the land for the purpose of a "hospital, 
maison de dieu, abiding place or house of correction." ° By its 

' E. g. Ex parte Liquidators of held that an unincorporated com- 

British Nation Life Ass. Ass'n, 8 pany could not sue in the names of 

Ch. D. 679. its "trustees," who, however, do not 

^ 4 & 5 Wm. IV, c. 94. appear to have been invested with 

^ Cf. Weir v. Metropolitan Street legal title, but seem to have been 

Ry. Co. (Mo.), 103 S. W. 583 (where mere directors, 
a similar device was held not to * Cf. McCreary v. Chandler, 58 

obviate the necessity for making all Me. 537. 
the shareholders parties). It would ' 39 Eliz., c. 5. 
seem that the case last cited mis- " See 2 Coke Inst., 720-725, where 

applies Niven v. Spickerman, 12 the statute is commented upon and 

Johns. (N. Y.) 401, where it was a form of a deed is given. 

8 



§ l-§ 30] THE COMPANIES ACTS § 8 

terms the act was to continue in force for only twenty years ; 
but a few years after its expiration it was revived and made per- 
petual.' Notwithstanding the interest attaching to this statute 
as the first general incorporation act in a common-law jurisdic- 
tion, its effect upon the history of English law has been neg- 
ligible. Modern English general incorporation laws were not 
suggested by this statute of Elizabeth but were evolved from 
the statutes mentioned in the last paragraph, which removed 
impediments in the way of the formation and operation of joint- 
stock companies. 

§ 8. Companies Act of 1844. — In 1844, Parliament, which 
by the above mentioned Acts of 1825 and 1835 had already aban- 
doned the policy of discouraging combinations of men and 
money for legitimate business purposes, definitively embarked 
upon the enlightened course of facilitating rather than thwart- 
ing all such enterprises. In that year, the first English general 
incorporation law, or companies act, was passed -i- the "Joint 
Stock Companies Registration Act," or Companies Act of 1844.^ 
This statute, after providing as to companies to be organized 
under it for a preliminary embryonic period of "provisional 
registration," ' went on to enact that the subscribers to the 
capital of the projected company should sign and seal a "deed 
of settlement" stating among other things the business or pur- 
pose of the company, the amount of its capital and the number 
of shares into which it should be divided, the amount authorized 
to be raised by loan, etc. The deed was also to contain a cove- 
nant by each shareholder to pay all instalments of his subscrip- 
tion to the capital and perform all engagements resting upon 
him as shareholder. Upon the due execution of this deed, it 
was to be recorded, after which a "certificate of complete regis- 
tration" might be obtained. Thenceforth, the company was 
incorporated for the purpose of carrying on the trade or business 
for which it was formed, but without restriction of liability of 
the shareholders' under any judgment or decree. With this im- 
portant exception, the act conferred all advantages of doing 
business under a corporate form. Finally, by an amendatory 
statute passed some ten years later,* the privilege of limited 
liability was conferred upon members of all companies organ- 

■ Stat. 21 Jac. 1, c. 1. » See infra, § 312. 

' 7 & 8 Vict., c. 110. ♦ 18 & 19 Vict., c. 133. 



§ 9 HISTORICAL AND INTRODUCTORY [ChAP. I 

ized under the Act of 1844 whose deed of settlement should 
provide therefor and whc»Be name should contain the word 
"Limited." 

§ 9. Companies Act of 1856. — In the year following, that 
is to say, in 1856, the Act of 1844 with its amendments was re- 
pealed, and a new and more progressive system was adopted 
known as the Companies Act of 1856.' This statute provided 
for the formation of corporations with either limited or un- 
limited liability. It was in its main features similar to the Com- 
panies Act of 1862 ^ by which six years later it was superseded 
and which, being still the basis of the company law of England 
and having given rise to many leading cases, demands some- 
what detailed examination. 

§ 10. Compames Act of 1862. — The Memorandum of Asso- 
ciation. — Under the Companies Act of 1862,^ the method of 
forming corporations and the general nature of their constitu- 
tion is as foUews : First, at least seven persons sign a document 
known as the "memorandum of association," which must state 
where the company is formed on the principle of having the lia- 
bility of its members limited to the amount, if any, unpaid on 
their shares, the company's name, the location of its office, its 
objects, the fact that the liability of its members is limited, 
and the amount of its capital divided into shares of a certain 
fixed amount. Each subscriber to the document shall write 
opposite his name the number of shares he takes, and must take 
at least one. This memorandum of association is then lodged 
for record with the registrar of joint-stock companies, who after 
its registration issues a certificate stating that the company is 
incorporated; and thenceforth the company is a corporation. 

The memorandum of association, it will be observed, 
embodies the fundamental constitution of an English com- 
pany. It must state the company's objects, and any object 
not therein contained is idtra vires of the corporation.* It 
corresponds to the instrument that in some American states is 

' 19 & 20 Vict., e. 47. shareholders may make such regu- 

' 25 & 26 Vict., c. 89. lations for their own govermnent as 

» 25 & 26 Vict., c. 89. they thinl? fit." Per Lord Cairns in 

* "The memorandum of associa^ Ashbury Ry. Carriage Co. v. Biche, 

tion, is, as it were, the area beyond L. R. 7 H. L. 653. 671 See also 

which the action of the company infra, p. 11 note 2. 

cannot go; inside that area the 

10 



§ l-§ 30] 



THE COMPANIES ACTS 



§11 



called a "certificate of incorporation," and in others "articles 
of association." ' 

§ 11. The Articles of Association. — Contemporaneously 
with the filing of the memorandum of association, the incor- 
porators under the Companies Act of 1862 may file for record 
what are known as "articles of association," containing regula- 
tions for the management of the company and the conduct of its 
business. These partake of the nature of by-laws according 
to American terminology; but, inasmuch as they are recorded, 
all who deal with the company are chargeable with notice of 
their contents. They must be carefully distinguished from the 
memorandum of association, to which they are distinctly sub- 
ordinate.^ As a learned judge has said, "the memorandum of 
association is the constitution of the company," while the articles 
are "merely the machinery for carrying that into effect." ^ And, 
of course, the English articles must not be confused with what 
in some American states are known by the same name, — arti- 
cles of association, — which as stated in the last paragraph 



' See infra, § 31. the rights and the powers of the gov- 
' In Ashbury By. Carriage Co. v. eming body as between themselves 
Riche, L. R. 7 H. L. 653, 667-668, and the company at large, and the 
Lord Calms said : " I will ask your mode and form In which the busi- 
Lordshlps to observe * * * the marked ness of the company is to be carried 
and entire difference there is be- on, and the mode and form in which 
tween the two documents which changes in the internal regulations 
form the title deeds of companies of the company may from time to 
of this description — I mean the time be made. With regard, there- 
Memorandum of Association on the fore, to the memorandum of associa- 
one hand and the Articles of Associa- tion, if you find anything which 
tion on the other hand. With re- goes beyond that memorandum, or 
gard to the memorandum of is not warranted by it, the question 
association, your Lordships will will arise whether that which is so 
find, as has often been pointed out, .done is idtra vires, not only of the 
although it appears to have been directors of the company, but of 
somewhat overlooked in the present the company itself. With regard to 
case, that that is, as it were, the the articles of association, if you 
charter, and defines the limitation find anything which, still keeping 
of the powers of a company to be within the memorandum of asso- 
established under the act. With elation, is a violation of the articles 
regard to the articles of association, of association, or in excess of them, 
those articles play a part subsidiary the question will arise whether that 
to the memorandum of association, is anything more than an act extra 
They accept the memorandum of vires the directors, but intra vires 
association as the charter of the the company." 
company, and so accepting it, the ' Tilbury Portland Cement Co., 
articles proceed to define the duties, 62 L. J.*Ch. 814, 815. 

11 



§ 12 HISTORICAL AND INTRODUCTORY [ChAP. I 

correspond to the memorandum of association of an English 
company. The articles cannot add to or subtract from the 
memorandum. For instance, a power that is not conferred 
upon the company by the memorandum is ultra vires even 
though expressly authorized by the articles.^ 

But so great latitude is allowed by the statute, and so few 
particulars as to the company's constitution are required to be 
stated in the memorandum, that many matters of deep concern 
to the company are left to be regulated by the articles. For ex- 
ample, the articles may regulate the number and powers of 
directors, their term of office, the manner of their appointment 
or election, the method of conducting general meetings of the 
company, the number of votes to which each shareholder shall 
be entitled, the manner of transferring shares, calls for unpaid 
subscriptions to capital, the forfeiture of shares, and many 
other matters of equal or greater importance. Parliament has 
undertaken to prescribe no hard and fast rules on sirch subjects 
of internal management, but has wisely left each corporation 
to regulate them for itself according to its own conceptions of 
its needs. The result is a freedom of regulation which is prob- 
ably obtainable nowhere in the United States. In the not dis- 
tant future, however, some state legislature may perceive that 
these matters, at least in the case of industrial corporations, are 
of purely private concern and should accordingly be committed 
entirely to the parties interested. The prediction may be ven- 
tured that when one state shall have taken the lead in this direc- 
tion, others will fast follow the example. 

§ 12. " Table A." — As already stated, the promoters of 
an English company may prepare for their corporation such 
articles of association as they please, so long as no rule of law 
or of public policy is contravened. But the act provides, in a 
schedule annexed thereto known as "Table A," a very complete 
set of articles, which are to apply to any company "limited by 
shares " unless other articles be adopted. Accordingly, any such 
company may be registered without articles, and in that event 
Table A will constitute its articles. Moreover, even where 
Table A is not thus adopted in toto, it serves as a convenient 
model for such articles as may be desired ; and often the articles 
adopt or embody some of the provisions of Table A, but modify 

' Ashbury Ry. Carriage Co. v. Riche, L. R. 7 H. L. 653, 671. 
12 



§ l-§ 30] THE COMPANIES ACTS § 13 

or exclude the remainder. An English writer questions the de- 
sirability of providing by statute any such form or model of 
articles of association.' But all who have experienced the diffi- 
culties that are occasioned in America by the frequent failure 
of corporations to adopt any by-laws will readily perceive the 
advantages to be derived from a complete statutory code of in- 
ternal regulations which is to govern every company except in 
so far as other regulations may be adopted by the company itself. 
§ 13. Amendments and Supplements to Companies Act of 
1862 — Companies Act of 1900. — The Companies Act of 1862 
is still in force in Great Britain, and its main features remain 
unaltered. A number of amendatory or supplemental acts, 
however, have been passed.^ Of these, the only one that makes 
any very substantial inroads on the general scheme for the 
formation 'and constitution of British corporations is the Com- 
panies Act of 1900. This statute, which has been criticised by 
some English lawyers as a bungling piece of legislation, pro- 
vides, inter alia, that although a conipany becomes incorporated 
upon the issuance by the registrar of a certificate of due regis- 
tration, yet no allotment of shares shall be made until a certain 
amount of capital shall have been subscribed, payable in cash, 
and that the company shall not commence business until a cer- 
tain amount of capital has been allotted and other conditions 
complied with. Any contract made by a company before 
it is entitled to commence business shall be provisional only, 
and shall not be binding on the company until that date, when 
it shall become binding. It will be seen that these provisions, 
although making serious changes in the law governing the 
organization of corporations, leave untouched the fundamental 
scheme for incorporation by registration of a memorandum 
and articles. 

' Palmer's Company Precedents, panies Act, 1880," 43 Vict., c. 10 ; 

9th ed., Appendix on "Revised "Companies (Colonial Registers) 

Table A," p. 5. Act, 1883," 46 & 47 Vict., c. 30; 

' See "Companies Seals Act, "Companies Act, 1886," 49 Vict., 

1864," 27 Vict., c. 19; "Companies c. 23; "Companies (Winding-up) 

Act, 1867," 30 & 31 Vict., c. 131; Act, 1890," 53 & 64 Vict., c. 63; 

"Joint Stock Companies Arrange-" "Companies Act, 1898," 61 & 62 

ment Act, 1870," 33 & 34 Vict., c. Vict., c. 26; "Bodies Corporate 

104 ; "Companies Act, 1877," 40 & (Joint Tenancy) Act," 62 & 63 Vict., 

41 Vict., c. 26; "Companies Act, c. 20; "Companies Act, 1900," 63 

1879," 42 «Sc 43 Vict., c. 76; "Com- & 64 Vict., c. 48. 

13 



§ 14 HISTORICAL AND INTRODUCTORY [ChAP. I 

Witliin the last year, another statute, the Companies Act of 
1907,^ has made important changes in British company law, 
some of which will be noted from time to time below; but this 
act like its predecessors is a mere amendment or supplement 
to the Act of 1862 and not a substitute for it. Some of its 
provisions, as well as some of those of the Companies Act of 
1900, display a tendency to multiply arbitrary statutory re- 
strictions and thus to break in upon the freedom of internal 
company management allowed by the Act of 1862. Other 
provisions, however, are intended to remove, subject to cer- 
tain conditions, hampering restrictions which had been im- 
posed by judicial decision. 

§ 14^§ 18. Development of Modern Corporation 
Law in the United States. 

§ 14. In general. — In America, corporation or company 
law has developed along somewhat the same lines as in 
England. In both countries, the same economic forces have 
been at work, and very similar results have been reached. In- 
deed, the development has been along converging rather than 
parallel lines; for the resemblance between American corpora- 
tion law and English company law is closer at the present time 
than fifty years ago. The methods of incorporating in colonial 
times have been indicated briefly above. Before the Declara- 
tion of Independence, incorporation for business purposes had 
not even made a beginning. After the Revolution, the develop- 
ment has in each state pursued a course pecuhar in many re- 
spects to the local jurisprudence, so that the history of this 
branch of the law throughout the nation cannot be traced ex- 
cept by the tedious and for present purposes profitless labor 
of investigating the course of legislation in each state. And to- 
day the law has attained very different stages of development 
in different states. 

§ 15. Growth of System of General Incorporation Laws. — 
Everywhere, however, during the first half of the nineteenth 
century, incorporation .by special act became increasingly fre- 
quent; and everywhere the necessity was felt of relieving the 
legislatures from the pressure of this business as well as of free- 

' 7 Edw. VII, c. 50. 
14 



§ l-§ 30] GROWTH OF AMERICAN LAW § 15 

ing them from the temptation to corruption which such business 
was too apt to bring. As in England, general incorporation 
laws were the means adopted for attaining this result. TChe 
earUest general incorporation laws or enabling acts provided for 
the formation of religious corporations/ the need for which was 
experienced as soon as the Revolution had brought about dis- 
establishment. The earliest general law for the formation of ^ 
business corporations was passed in New York in 1811, pro- 
viding for the incorporation of manufacturing companies.^ As| 
this law antedates the Companies Act of 1844 by more thanl 
thirty years, general incorporation laws may fairly be claimed [ 
as an American invention. To be sure, the statute of Elizabeth 
for the incorporation of hospitals preceded the New York statute 
by more than two centuries ; but there is every reason to suppose 
that the New York statute was an original invention and was 
not even suggested by the long-forgotten statute of Elizabeth. 

By the middle of the century, general enabling acts for the 
formation of manufacturing and mining corporations had be- 
com.e common throughout the United States. Gradually, the 
purposes for which companies could be incorporated under 
these general laws were extended, until at the present time, 
in all except a fe w ultras-conservat ive states, corporations may 

' See Laws of N. Y. of 1784 (7th poration laws, see Laws of Pa., Sess. 

session), Chap. 18; Laws of Del. of of 1835-36, Chap. 194; Laws of 

1787, Chap, cxliv 6 (Laws of Del., N. Car. 1836 (2 Rev. Stats, of 1837, 

ed. of 1797, Vol. II, p. 878) ; Laws of p. 214) ; 2 Kent Comm. 272, note (6), 

Pa. of 1791, Chap, mdxxvi (provid- referring to a law of Massachusetts, 

ing for incorporation for literary or and to laws of Connecticut and 

charitable as well as for religious Michigan of 1837, as well as to the 

purposes) ; Laws of Md. of 1802, New York law above cited. 
Chap. 111. Cf. Laws of Md. of 1798, A statute of North Carolina, 

Chap. 24, providing for the incorpo- Laws of 1795, Chap, iii (Revised 

ration of vestries of the Protestant Laws, ed. of 1821, Vol. I, p. 769), 

Episcopal Church which had been sometimes referred to as a general 

disestablished in 1776. Although incorporation law, provided that 

the last mentioned statute has been whenever a number of subscribers 

held not to be a "public general should have formed themselves into 

law," Bardett v. Hipkins, 76 Md. 5, a company for the purpose of cutting 

25-26, 34-37 (headnote inadequate) ; a canal they should have the power 

23 Atl. 1089; 24 Atl. 532, yet to condemn private property and 

it did certainly provide for the to sue and be sued in the company 

formation of an indefinite number name, but does not expressly, nor it 

of corporations. would seem by implication, make 

' Laws of N. Y., Sess. 34, Chap, the companies corporations. 
67. For other early general incor- 

15 



§ 16 HISTORICAL AND INTRODUCTORY [ChAP. I 

be organized under general laws for the conduct of any lawful 
business, with usually some few named exceptions. Even where 
the objects for which incorporation can be had are not expressed 
in these sweeping terms, they are so numerous and varied as 
to include all the usual forms of business enterprise. 

§ 16. Constitutional Prohibition of Incorporation by Special 
Act. — Not merely have the legislatures voluntarily evolved 
this system of incorporation under general laws, but also the 
framers of state constitutions have undertaken to accelerate the 
process. In almost every recent state constitution some pro- 
hibition, more or less stringent, is directed against incorporation 
by special act. Consequently, incorporation under general laws 
has everywhere become the rule, and incorporation under special 
act the exception. Although much of the law governing cor- 
porations formed by special act is also applicable to those or- 
ganized under general laws, yet the two kinds of associations 
are in many respects very different from one another; and these 
differences are or should be attended with important legal 
consequences. 

§ 17. Unincorporated Joint-stock Companies in America. — 
Unincorporated joint-stock companies have played a much 
less important part in the development of incorporated com- 
panies in America than in England. Nevertheless, in some 
states such unincorporated associations have been at times very 
common,' and are probably everywhere in the United States 
legally possible.^ These unincorporated bodies are, however, 
in America a by-product. The general trend of American law 
has not been influenced by such unincorporated joint-stock 
companies as have existed in this country. The only influence 
of unincorporated joint-stock companies upon American law 
has been indirect through the connection between English 
unincorporated companies and the modern English company 
law. 

§ 18. Modem General Incorporation Laws. — Obviously, 
even cursory summaries of the general laws now in force in all 
the various states of the Union would be both tedious and, for 

■' For illustrations, see Von Street By. (Mo.), 103 S. W. 583 (as 
Schmidt V. Huntington, 1 Cal. 55; to Adams Express Company). 
Hoadley v. County Comm'rs, 105 ' See Spotswood v. Morris (Idaho), 
Mass. 519 ; Weir v. Metropolitan 85 Pac. 1094. 

16 



§ l-§ 30] EFFECTS OF LIBERAL LAWS § 19 

present purposes, useless.' The statutes in some states Consist 
of a jumble of old acts thrown together almost indiscriminately 
with more recent amendments. In other states, the legislatures 
have intended to display the utmost liberality; but unfortu- 
nately this disposition has often been evinced by removing 
salutary restrictions and at the same time, in order to make a . 
show of legislative regulation, by imposing vexatious and un- 
reasoning restraints. The New Jersey Law has proved one 
of the most popular of the general incorporation laws, and has 
served as a model in many other states. It is not, however, 
altogether free from the faults above referred to. 

In general, it may be said that the liberal incorporation laws 
that are in force in most states authorize incorporation for any 
lawful purpose by the mere execution and registration of a docu- 
ment setting forth the objects of the company and certain other 
particulars as to its proposed business and constitution. 



§ 19-§ 22. Effects of Modem Liberal Incorporation Laws. 

§ 19. Right to Incorporate no longer a Franchise or Special 
Privilege. — • When individuals may incorporate themselves by 
these simple means, the notion that the right to be a corpora- 
tion is a franchise is manifestly baseless. The right was formerly 
a franchise, when it could be secured only by the special favor 
of the crown or of the legislature. But a franchise is a special 
privilege, and any right that can be obtained by anybody merely 
by going through a few statutory forms cannot properly be 
designated by that term. As well might it be said that the right 
to make a conveyance of real estate is a franchise because the 
deed must be signed and sealed by the grantor with certain 
formalities and recorded in the registry of deeds. The require- 
ments for the formation of a corporation are scarcely less simple. 
More than twenty years ago, Mr. Morawetz with his accus- 
tomed accuracy and insight said, "The right of forming a cor- 
poration and of acting in a corporate capacity, under the general 
incorporation laws, can be called a 'franchise' only in the sense 
in which the right of forming a limited partnership or of execut- 

' The various statutes will be poration and Organization of 
found analyzed in Frost on Incor- Corporations. 
VOL. I.— 2 17 



§ 20 HISTORICAL AND INTRODUCTORY [ChAP. I 

ing a conveyance of land by deed can be called a franchise." * 
The progress of events and the development of jurisprudence 
in recent years make this statement more profoundly true and 
more imjKjrtant to be borne in mind than when it was uttered. 
To be sure, many corporations do hold franchises. For instance, 
the right to condemn private property or the right to operate 
a railway along the public streets or highways is a franchise, 
and these rights are frequently enjoyed by corporations. But 
the mere right to be a corporation for some purely private pur- 
pose is no longer of this character. We may call it a franchise if 
we choose, and we sometimes speak of taxes on the business of cor- 
porations as franchise-taxes; but in all such cases we are using 
the term with a new meaning. Always should the fact be recog- 
nized that nowadays when the right to organize a corporation is 
almost as free as the right to execute a deed of real estate, cor- 
porations are very different things from what they were when 
that right was confined to a few favorites of king or parliament. 
§ 20. Early Judicial Recognition of this Principle. — These 
principles respecting the nature of the right to be a corporation 
under modern incorporation acts were recognized and stated 
in an early New York case where the court was deaUng with, 
perhaps, the very first general incorporation law ever enacted 
for the formation of business corporations. The court, speak- 
ing by, Chief Justice Spencer, said: "The object and intention 
of the legislature in authorizing the association of individuals 
for manufacturing purposes, was, in effect, to facilitate the 
formation of partnerships, without the risk ordinarily attending 
them, and to encourage internal manufactures. There is noth- 
ing of an exclusive nature in the statute; but the benefits from 
associating and becoming incorporated, for the purposes held 
out in the act, are offered to all who will conform to its requisi- 
tions. There are no franchises or privileges which are not com- 
mon to the whole community. In this respect, incorporations 
under the statute differ from corporations to whom some ex- 
clusive or peculiar privileges are granted." ^ 

' 2 Morawetz on Priv. Corps., " Slee v. Broom, 19 Johns. (N. Y.) 
2d ed., § 923. Approved : State 456, 473-474 ; 10 Am. Dec. 273, re- 
el rel. Bradford v. Western Irri- ferring to the N. Y. Act of 1811, 
gating Co., 40 Kans. 96, 99 (head- cited above, § 15. 
note inadequate) ; 19 Pac. 349 ; 10 
Am. St. Rep. 166.' 

IS 



§ l-§ 30] EFFECTS OF LIBERAL LAWS § 22 

§ 21. Liberal Construction of Modern Incorporation Laws. 
— In construing modern general incorporation laws, these 
principles should always be borne in mind. We should never 
forget that the object of such laws is to further the prosperity 
of the country by promoting commercial enterprise, and that 
this object should not be thwarted by a narrow construction 
diilerent in spirit from that in which the laws themselves are 
conceived. Fraud should be effectively punished; but in order 
to prevent frauds, the courts should not discourage enterprise. 
It is easy to prevent fraud by stopping commercial intercourse ; 
but the remedy, if not worse, is more disastrous than the disease. 
An attempt to prevent the growth of fraudulent schemes and 
unlawful "trusts" by a strict construction of the general incor- 
poration laws may perhaps hinder, somewhat, monopolistic 
schemes, but it will certainly absolutely prohibit many legiti- 
mate business enterprises. 

§ 22. Frauds perpetrated under cover of Liberal Incorpora- 
tion Laws. — Moreover, the fact that frauds are committed 
by abuse of the incorporation laws should not be allowed to 
obscure the fact that such frauds are snjall in comparison with 
the amount of good that is accomplished by liberal laws Uberally 
construed. As was said by a learned English judge in a recent 
case, "The statutes relating to limited liability have probably 
done more than any legislation of the last fifty years to further 
the commercial prosperity of the country. They have, to the 
advantage as well of the investor as of the public, allowed and 
encouraged the aggregation of small or comparatively small 
sums into large capitals which have been employed in under- 
takings of great public utility, largely increasing the wealth of 
the country. But at the same time in this branch of the law the 
apathy of the public in setting the law in motion has, I will not 
say encouraged, but has at least failed to repress, grievous frauds 
which have been committed and too often have gone unpunished. 
Relatively, I think, compared with the advantages which have 
accrued from the law of limited liability, the mischief of such 
frauds has been small, but when regarded not relatively, but 
absolutely, the frauds which have been committed under cover 
of these acts have no doubt been great." ' 

' London & Globe Finance Corp. (1903), 1 Ch. 728, 731-732, per 
Buckley, J. 

19 



§ 23 HISTORICAL AND INTRODUCTOBT [ChAP. I 



§ 23-§ 29. CLASSIFICATION OF CORPORATIONS. 

§ 23. Distinction between Corporations formed under Oen- 
eral Laws and Corporations created by Special Act. — The 
most obvious classification of ordinary business corporations 
merely distinguishes corporations incorporated by special act 
from corporations organized under general laws. The gulf 
between these two classes of corporations is s6 great that little 
difficulty can be experienced in distinguishing between them; 
but occasionally some peculiar company is encountered which 
is hard to classify. Moreover, ambiguous expressions may 
sometimes be used in statutes, wills, contracts, and so forth, 
which leave a doubt whether they were intended to apply to 
both or to one only of these two great divisions of corporations. 
For instance, in England, it is held that a company incorporated 
under a general law is not within a power given to trustees to 
invest in the securities of a "company incorporated by Act of 
Parliament." ^ But in America, a corporation organized under 
a general enabling act has been held to be a company "chartered 
by law." ^ The provision in the National Bankruptcy Act ex- 
empting from its provisions "banks incorporated under state 
or territorial laws" clearly applies to a company incorporated 
for banking purptoses under a state statute providing for the 
formation of corporations for any lawful purpose but contain- 
ing no particular provisions for the regulation of banks.' Where 
an act of the legislature consolidating two corporations does not 
create a new corporation, but merely enables one of the old com- 
panies to absorb the other, the amalgamated company is not 
"incorporated by Act of Parliament." * 

§ 24. Under what Statute Corporation is deemed to be formed. 
— Where corporations are classified with respect to the statutes 
under which they are respectively incorporated, a company 

' Re Smith (1896), 2 Ch. 590. 501, 508. Compare the American 

But see EVoe v. Boynton (1891), cases on the question whether a 

1 Ch. 501. special act amendatory of a com- 

' Lindsay, etc. Co. v. Mullen, pany's charter is within a constitu- 

176 U. S. 126, 136-137 ; 20 Sup. Ct. tional provision prohibiting incor- 

325. poration by special act: WdUqce v. 

' Oregon Trust & Savings Bank, Loomis, 97 U. S. 146, and 1 Clark & 

156 Fed. 319. Marshall on Priv. Corps., pp. 108, 

* Elve v. Boynton (1891), 1 Ch. 109. 

20 



§ l-§ 30] CLASSIFICATION OF CORPORATIONS § 25 

whose incorporation paper states that the organization is under 
one statute whereas the objects as set forth in the instrument 
bring the company within another statute, is to be classed as 
a company incorporated under the last mentioned statute/ 

§ 25. Classification with respect to Liability of Members. — 
Another classification — more useful in England than in the 
United States — is based on the extent of the members' lia- 
bility for the company's debts. The British law permits, in the 
first place, the incorporation of companies with unlimited lia- 
bility; but, as may readily be understood, companies of this 
sort are rarely formed. The same statute authorizes the forma- 
tion of "companies limited by guarantee" — that is, compa^ 
nies in which the liability of their members is limited to such 
amount as the members respectively undertake to contribute 
to the assets of the company in the event of the same being 
wound-up. Companies of this class are also comparatively 
uncommon. In by far the most usual class of companies, even 
in England, the liability of the members is limited to the amount, 
if any, unpaid on the shares respectively held by them. Com- 
panies of this class are called in England "companies limited 
by shares." The first of these three classes of corporations — 
that is, companies with unlimited liability — may exist in some 
few of the United States ; but in this country generally they are 
not met with, and their number is not likely to increase. The 
second class, or companies limited by guarantee, are nearly if 
not quite unknown in America. The great majority of business 
corporations, in the United States as well as in England, belong 
to the third class, or companies limited by shares. Corpora- 
tions of this sort are in this country called joint-stock corpora- 
tions. This term is, to be sure, somewhat indefinite, since 
it would include joint-stock companies incorporated without 
limited liability; but it is convenient and sufiiciently accurate 
for all practical purposes. In America, some liability in addi- 
tion to the liability to contribute to the capital the amount, if 
any, unpaid on the shares, is frequently imposed by statute; 
but these statutory liabilities are always limited in amount so 
that they do not destroy the character of the corporations as 
limited liability companies. 

' International Boom Co. v. Rainy Lake River Boom Co., 97 Minn. 513 ; 
107 N. W. 735. Cf. infra, § 63. 

21 



§ 26 HISTOHICAL AND INTRODUCTORY [ChAP. I 

§ 26-§ 29. Classification with respect to Objects. 

§ 26. Ancient Classification. — The old classification of 
corporations with reference to their objects as civil and elee- 
mosynary, ecclesiastical and lay/ may now be regarded as 
obsolete, at least in America; but the purposes or objects of 
corporations still constitute convenient criteria for classifying 
corporations and for distinguishing between them. 

§ 27. How Objects determined for Purposes of Classifica- 
tion. — When a classification of corporations with respect to 
their objects or purposes is employed, reference may be had 
either to the objects which the company is actually pursuing 
or to those which it is authorized to pursue. Thus, in order 
to determine whether a corporation is within the classes of com- 
panies which are subject to the United States Bankrupt Act of 
1898, regard must be had to the business which the company 
is in fact carrying on and not to that which it is authorized to 
carry on by its charter or incorporation paper.^ On the other 
hand, in order to determine whether a, company is a manufactur- 
ing company within the Minnesota laws which exempt the 
shareholders in such companies from liability to creditors, the 
terms of the incorporation paper and not the business which 
the company in fact conducts must control.' So the question • 
whether a certain corporation is a charitable corporation within 
the meaning of the rule which exempts charitable corporations 
from liability for the torts of their servants must be determined 
exclusively from the incorporation paper.* 

§ 28. Municipal Corporations, Religious and Charitable Cor- 
porations, Public-service Corporations, Financial Corporations, etc. 
— In classifying corporations with respect to their objects, 

■ 1 Black. Comm. 470. Frisk-Turner Co., 71 Minn. 413; 

' Tontine Surety Co., 116 Fed. 74N. W. 160; 70 Am. St. Rep. 334. 
401 ; New York, etc. Water Co., 98 * Gitzhoffen v. Sisters of Holy 

Fed. 711 ; Chicago-Joplin Lead & Cross Hospital Ass'n (Utah), 88 Pac. 

Zinc Co., 104 Fed. 67. 691, 694-695; Craig v. Benedictine 

But see Quimby Freight Forward- Sisters Hospital Ass'n, 88 Minn. 535 ; 

ing Co., 121 Fed. 139 (where the 93 N. W. 669. 

court refused to regard an ultra Cf. People ex rel. Board of Chari- 

vires business as the main business), ties v. N. Y. Society for Prevention, 

' First Nat. Bank v. Converse, etc., 161 N. Y. 233, 239-240; 55 

200 U. S. 425 ; 26 Sup. Ct. 306 ; N. E. 1063 (as to what corporations 

Oould V. Fuller, 79 Minn. 414 ; 82 are subject to visitation as charitable 

N. W. 673 ; Nicollet Nat. Bank v. corporations). 

22 



§ l-§ 30] CLASSIFICATION OF CORPOHATIONS § 29 

municipal corporations, or corporations formed to act as 
governmental agents of the state, may for our present purpose 
be put on one side. So, too, religious and charitable cor- 
porations belong in a class to themselves, and are rarely or 
never formed on the joint-stock principle. The only class of 
corporations with which we are now directly concerned con- 
sists in companies incorporated for the acquisition of gain for 
their members, or, to use a popular term, "business corpora- 
tions." ' Even of these, those that are organized for carrying 
on some public calling, such as railway and canal companies, 
gas, electric light, and telegraph companies — in a word public 
service corporations — are governed, in some respects, by rea- 
son of their semi-public character, by principles of law in many 
respects peculiar to themselves. From these pecuHar features 
of the law of public-service corporations, the general law of 
corporations is quite distinct. Furthermore, some corporations 
that cannot fairly be classified as public-service companies are 
organized for the transaction of a financial business,^ such as 
banks and trust companies, and in a less degree insurance and 
guaranty companies, so that some peculiar regulations to secure 
their depositors, cestuis que trust, and policy-holders are and 
should be imposed upon them ; and with these peculiar regula- 
tions we shall have nothing to do. Our consideration shall be 
confined to the principles of law applicable to all joint-stock 
corporations, limited by shares, and organized for the acquisi- 
tion of gain. 

§ 29. " Public " and " Private " Corporations. — A classifica- 

_ tion of corporations which is much used in America divides 

them into public and private corporations. Public corporations 

include municipal corporations, and others formed as govern- 

' The term " business corpora- Sweatt v. Boston, etc. R. R. Co., 23 

tions " includes railway companies, Fed. Cas. 530, 535. 

Adams v. Boston, etc. R R. Co., 1 As to what is a corporation formed 

Fed. Cas. 90 ; Winter v. Iowa, etc. for profit, see Staie v. Home Co- 

iJ)/. Co., 2 Dill. 487 (headnote inade- operative Union, 63 Ohio St. 547; 

quate) ; and also insurance com- 59 N. E. 220 ; People v. Rose, 188 

panies, Hercules Mut. Life Ass. Soc, 111. 268 ; 59 N. E. 432 ; Am,erican 

12 Fed. Cas. 12 ; but not educa- Matinee Ass'ti v. Secretary of State, 

tional corporations even though 104 N. W. 141 ; 140 Mich. 579. 

they charge for tuition, McLeod v. ^ For cases construing the phrase 

lAncoln Med. College (Nebr.), 96 "moneyed corporations," see that 

N. W. 265, 266. A railroad com- title in Words and Phrases Judicially 

pany is a "commercial corporation." Defined, Vol. V, p. 4569. 

23 



§ 30 HISTOKICAL AND INTRODUCTORY [ChAP. I 

mental agents of the state. Private companies, on the other 
hand, are all corporations organized in whole or in part for pri- 
vate objects or under the control of private individuals. In 
this sense, all railroad and other public service companies are 
private corporations. In England, the terms "public" and 
"private" are not applied to corporations in this sense. For 
example, any company incorporated under the Companies 
Acts, its constitution being matter of record and open to 
public inspection, may in one sense be deemed a public com- 
pany.' But the term public, as distinguished from private, 
company has acquired in popular English usage a quite differ- 
ent signification. A private company, iuvthis popular sense, is 
a company whose shares are not intended for public subscrip- 
tion ; any other company is a public company.^ This meaning 
is not attached to these terms anywhere, in the United States. 



§ 30. Nomenclature — "Corporations" and "Companies." — 
In America, we speak of any association of individuals, in- 
cprporated or unincorporated, as a company. In England, the 
latter term is generally applied to associations organized for 
the transaction of some ordinary business. It is the usual namie 
for what in America would be more commonly termed a private 
corporation. 

Of course, in America we recognize that our ordinary cor- 
porations are companies;^ and indeed the word "company" 

' Cf. RickettY. Sharpe, 45 Ch. D. the words "public company" in the 

286; Be Lysaght (1898), 1 Ch. 115. Apportionment Act of 1870 were 

' Palmer's Company Law, 3d ed., held to include an unincorporated 

260-261 ; British Seamless Paper Box joint-stock company established in 

Co., 17 Ch. D. 467, 479. 1843, before the passage of the first 

Cf. Lamonby v. Carter (1903), 1 Companies Act, under a deed of 

Ch. 352 (where the phrase "public settlement). See also Companies 

companies" in a will of an English Act, 1907, § 37, where a legislative 

testator was held to refer exclu- definition or interpretation of the 

sively to British companies) ; Innes words " private company " will be 

<fe Co. (1903), 2 Ch. 254, 266 (where found. 

Cozens-Hardy, L. J., said: "On ' Ci. Van Home v. State, 5 Aik. 

principle, it is not easy to appreciate 349, 352 (headnote inadequate) ; 

the distinction between a private Gillig, Mott & Co. v. Independent 

company and a public company") ; Gold, etc. Co., 1 Nev. 247. 
Carr v. Griffith, 12 Ch. D. 655 (where 

24 



§ l-§ 30] 



NOMENCLATURE 



§30 



has been thought to import a corporation * although a large 
number of American cases, supported by legal reasoning as well 
as by literary and popular usage, hold that the word is equally 
applicable to some unincorporated associations.^ A municipal 
corporation is not properly included within the term "incor- 
porated company." ^ 

So, Englishmen recognize that their companies are corpora- 
tions. But as a matter of popular nomenclature the term cor- 
poration is in more general use here, while the term company 
is in more general use in England. For instance, we speak 
in America of corporation law while an Englishman calls the 
same branch of jurisprudence company law. It has been held 

' Broome v. Galena, etc. Packet used in this sense or as indicating 



Co., 9 Minn. 239 ; Commonwealth v. 
Reinoehl, 163 Pa. St. 287; 29 Atl. 
896; 25 L. R. A. 247. 

Cf. Staie V. Stone, 118 Mo. 388, 
397-399 ; 24 S. W. 164 ; 25 L. R. A. 
243 ; 40 Am. St. Rep. 388 ; Goddard 
V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 202 111. 362, 
369; 66 N. E. 1066. 

» Singer Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 33 
Fed. 121, 127 (headnote inade- 
quate) ; State v. Stone, 118 Mo. 388 ; 
24 S. W. 164; 25 L. R. A. 243; 
Bradley Fertilizer Co. v. South Pub- 
lishing Co., 4 N. Y. Misc. 172, 176 
(headnote inadequate) ; 23 N. Y. 
Supp. 675; Lee Mvt. Fire Ins. Co. 
V. State, 60 Miss. 395 (where the 
words "company'' and "associa- 
tion" were declared to be syn- 
onymous) ; State v. Mead, 27 Vt. 
722; Gillig, Mott & Co. v. Inde- 
pendent Gold, etc. Co., 1 Nevada, 247, 
249. 

Cf. Mills V. State, 23 Tex. 295 
(construing the word "company" 
in a statute as applying only to 
associations composed of a large 
number of persons and acting 
through officers and not to an ordi- 
nary co-partnership) ; Palmer v. 
Pinkham, 33 Me. 32, 36. ("The 
proper signification of the word 
'company,' when applied to persons 
engaged in trade, denotes those 
united for the same purpose or in a 
joint concern. It is so commonly 



a partnership that," etc.) 

The word "company" has even 
been held to apply to an individual. 
Efland v. Southern By. Co., 59 S. E. 
355, 357 ; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 
97 Ga. 114, 119-122 (headnote in- 
adequate); 25S. E. 249; 35L. R.A. 
497 ; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 33 
Fed. 121, 127 (semble) ; Chicago 
Dock Co. V. GarrUy, 115 111. 155, 164 
(headnote inadequate) ; 3 N. E. 448. 
But this meaning is quite foreign to 
the word itself and can only be 
adopted in order to carry out the 
intent as collected from the context. 
Cf. Goddard v. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 
202 111. 362, 369; 66 N. E. 1066. 

' Kansas City v. Vineyard, 128 
Mo. 75 ; 30 S. W. 326. 

Cf. Smith V. City of Janesville, 
52 Wise. 680, 682 (headnote inade- 
quate); 9 N. W. 789 (where the 
phrase "corporations and com- 
panies " was held not to include mu- 
nicipal corporations on the ground 
that "companies" could only de- 
note private associations of persons 
for the prosecution of some enter- 
prise, while the generality of the 
word "corporations" should be re- 
strained by the principle of noscitur 
a sociis) ; Charlottesville v. Southern 
Ry. Co., 97 Va. 428, 431 (headnote 
inadequate); 34 S. E. 98. 



25 



§ 30 HISTORICAL AND INTKODUCTORT [ChaP. I 

in England that an "industrial and provident society," although 
a corporation, is not a company.^ On the other hand, Buckley, J., 
in a recent case gave a definition of a company which is equally 
applicable in the United States. "The word 'company,'" said 
he, "has no strictly technical meaning. It involves, I think, 
two ideas — namely, first that the association is of persons so 
numerous as not to be aptly described as a firm ; and secondly, 
that the consent of all the other members is not required to 
the transfer of a member's interest. It may * * * include 
corporation." ^ 

' Great Northern By. Co. v. Coal ' Tennant v. Stanley (1906), 1 
Co-operative Soc. (1896), 1 Ch. 187, Ch. 131, 134. 
194. 



26 



CHAPTER II 

THE INCORPORATION PAPER 

Sectioa 

Name of instrument 31 

Function of instrument 32-36 

In general ; . . . . 32 

Bual nature of instrument — a statutory condition and a private 

contract 33 

Instrument as a contract 34 

As a contract with the State 35 

As a contract by the subscribers and shareholders .... 36 

Rules for construction of instrument 37-44 

In general 37 

Applicability of rules for construction of special acts of 

incorporation 38-40 

In general 38 

Whether instrument should be construed most strongly in 

favor of state 39 

Oregon Ry. Co. v. Oregonian Ry. Co., 130 U. S. 1 . . 40 

Construction neither strict nor liberal 41 

Liberal construction to carry out ascertained objects 42 

Entire instrument to be construed together 43 

Parol evidence — contemporaneous internal regulations as aid in 

construction 44 

Division of instrument into paragraphs or clauses 45 

Object clause 46-108 

Function of object clause 46 

Comparative advantages of broad and narrow statements of 

objects 47 

What objects are authorized by incorporation law to be expressed 

in the object clause as the purpose of incorporation . . 48-63 
Under statutes specifying objects for which alone companies 

may be incorporated . . . . 48 

Under statutes permitting incorporation for any lawful 

purpose 49-63 

In general 49 

Whether more than one object may be specified ... 50 

Insertion of subsidiary objects or powers 51 

People V. Chicago Gas Trust Co., 130 111. 268 . . 52 

Objects must be consistent with nature of a corporation 53 

Sale of company's entire business as one of objects . . 54 

American cases 55 

Acting as agent or attorney 56 

Acting as trustee 57 

Acting as executor, guardian, etc 58 

Owning shares injanpther corporation 59 

27 



THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

Object clause (continued). Section 

Ownership of shares with ulterior illegal intent . 60 

Amalgamation with other corporations 61 

Unlawful objects, how illegality determined ... 62 
Incorporation for a purpose provided for by a different 

statute 63 

What powers implied without express mention in object 

clause 64-102 

In general 64 

Caution as to reliance on implications of law 65 

Caution as to express mention of powers that might be 

implied — maxim of expressio unius, etc. . .... 66 

Necessity for draftsmen of incorporation paper to consider 

what objects may be implied — scope of treatment ... 67 

General rules as to implied powers 68 

Power to borrow 69-74 

In general 69 

Evasion of prohibition of borrowing 70 

Power to secure indebtedness by mortgage 71 

Power to mortgage uncalled capital 72 

Power to issue notes, bonds, etc., as evidence of in- 
debtedness ... 73 

Power to issue perpetual or irredeemable bonds or 

debentures 74 

Power to acquire and hold prdperty 75-76 

In general . 75 

Power to hold as joint-tenant or in common .... 76 

Power of alienation 77-79 

In general 77 

Sale of entire property, business, etc 78 

Sale of business in exchange for shares in another cor- 
poration 79 

Power to abandon some of company's objects 80 

Power to become member of another corporation, to pur- 
chase shares in another company 81-84 

In general 81 

When power may be implied 82 

When not implied . . 83 

Effect of clause specifying acquisition of shares in other 

corporations as one of company's objects 84 

Power to promote other corporations 85 

Power to become member of partnership 86 

Power to contribute to public objects, recognize moral 

obligations, etc 87-90 

In general . 87 

Gratuities to directors .... 88 

Payment of gratuities out of capital 89 

Whether desirable to supplement implied powers of this 

kind by express provisions 90 

Power to guarantee 91 

Power to lend 92 

Power to advertise 93 

Power to promote or oppose bills in the legislature .... 94 

28 



*-' 



§ 31-§ 162] sTNOPSis 

Object clause (continued). Section 

Power to inform shareholders of facts likely to influence 

their votes 95 

Power to take measures to bring out full vote at share- 
holders' meeting 96 

Power to pay counsel fees in internal contest 97 

Power to make best of a situation 98-102 

In general 98 

Power to utilize surplus property 99 

Power to compromise 100 

Limits of powers of this kind 101 

Whether desirable to supplement these powers .... 102 
Provisions prohibiting exercise of powers that' might otherwise 

be implied 103 

General statements of objects 104-108 

What particularity requisite in stating objects 104 

Construction of general words accompanied by particu- 
lars 105-108 

Particular objects followed by general words which 

standing alone would be too indefinite ... . 105 

General words followed by particulars 106 

General words which, although accompanied by par- 
ticulars, are not too indefinite to stand alone . . . 107 

Limits of maxim noscyitur a sociis 108 

Capital clause 109-113 

Statement of amount of capital and number of shares .... 109 

Division of shares into preferred and common, etc 110 

Statement as to liability of shareholders Ill 

Statement of time and manner of payment for shares .... 112 

Combination of joint-stock plan with non-stock plan 113 

Chief office, or place of business, clause . . . ' 114 

Directors' clause 115 

Duration of corporate existence clause 116 

Name clause 117 

Indebtedness clause 118 

Effect of failure to state all particulars required by law 119 

Insertion of provisions in addition to those required by law . . 120-122 

Right to insert such additional provisions 120 

Unauthorized as distinguished from unnecessary provisions — 

effect of inserting : 121 

What provisions are unauthorized 122 

Incorporation of other documents into the instrument by reference 123 

Execution of instrument 124-131 

In general — signature, number of subscribers, etc 124 

Sealing of instrument 125 

Acknowledgment of instrument 126 

Place of execution ' . . 127 

Execution of duplicate instruments 128 

Execution and delivery in escrow 129 

Who may act as subscriber of instrument 130 

Signature by agent or attorney 131 

Function of subscribers as shareholders or otherwise 132 

Registration of instrument 133-137 

29 



§ 31 THE INCURPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

Registration of instrument (continued). Section 

Necessity for registration 133 

What must be registered — copy or original 134 

Wliat amounts to registration 135 

Powers and duties of registrar 136 

Registration in more than one office 137 

Publication in newspaper 138 

Submission of instrument to public officer for approval . . . 139-142 
Examination of instrument by registrar when paper filed for 

record . . . . . 139 

Submission to some other officer before filing for record ... 140 

Submission by way of petition to officer for issue of "charter" 141 
Issue of certificate of approval by registrar or other officer after 

registration of instrument . . 142 

Alteration of instrument after execution and before registration . . 143 

Alteration after registration . 144-160 

Alteration of instrument generally impossible without enabling 

statute . 144 

Reformation for mistake . 145 

Historical outline of statutes authorizing alteration 146 

What alterations are authorized by enabling statutes . . . 147-149 

In general 147 

Under British Act of 1890 and similar statutes . ... 148 
Amended provision must be such as might have been in- 
serted in original instrument at the time of amendment 149 
Necessity for accompanying amendment by change of name 

where old name would be misleading 150 

Fees payable on amendment ... 151 

Effect of alteration upon instrument originally void or upon pre- 
vious invalid amendment . . 152 

Alteration against opposition of minority shareholders .... 153 
Statute allowing amendment unless prohibited by original in- 
strument 154 

Formalities required in making alteration . 155 

Whether alteration should be made by directors or shareholders 156 

Irregular alteration 157 

Amendment not retroactive . 158 

Creation of new corporation by means of amendment 159 

Legislative alteration 160 

Constructive notice of contents of instrument 161-162 

In general 161 

Limits of doctrine of constructive notice 162 



§ 31. Name of Instrument. — All, or almost all, general 
laws for the formation of incorporated joint-stock companies 
resemble each other in this, that the formal organization of a 
corporation thereunder is commenced by the promoters by sign- 
ing and depositing for record a document which states the name 
and purposes of the company, the amount of its capital, and in 
some other particular outlines the fundamental constitution of 

30 



§ 31-§ 162] NAME OF INSTRUMENT § 31 

the corporation. This document is variously termed in different 
localities. Under the first English general incorporation law 
it was called a " deed of settlement " ; but this term is no longer 
in use on either side of the Atlantic. In some of the American 
states it is called "articles of association"; but that term is 
ambiguous and objectionable, because in England it bears a 
totally different signification, designating, as already stated, reg- 
ulations for the company's management which partake of the 
nature of mere by-laws.^ The terni "articles of incorporation" 
is sometimes used, but this likewise is objectionable, because 
the word "articles" may lead to confusion with the English 
"articles of association," — a phrase popularly abbreviated in 
England to " articles," — which, as just mentioned, have a very 
different nature and office. In some of the United States the 
document is called a "certificate of incorporation"; but that 
name too is unfortunate, for it is applied also — and with much 
appropriateness — to a certificate issued by some public officer 
stating or certifying that the requirements of the law have been 
complied with in the formation of a certain company, and that 
the company is therefore a corporation. The term "charter" 
is sometimes used in America ; ^ but this use is popular rather 
than legal,^ and is not to be commended. A-t3harter, in Eng- 
lish law, properly denotes an instrument which confers special 
privileges ; and while in America it is perverted from its original 
meaning so as to include a legislative grant of corporate privileges 
by a special act of incorporation^ as well as a royal charter, — 
its primary signification, — yet it cannot, except by a figure of 
speech, be applied to a paper drawn up in pursuance of a general 
law that offers the same privileges to all persons upon the same 
terms. The name which is now used in England is "memo- 
randum of association." It does not seem to have gained cur- 
rency in America ; but it is unambiguous and appropriate. The 
only objection that might be urged against the propriety of this 
designation is that the word "memorandum" may seem to 

' Supra, § 11, and infra § 683. ter" is the name used by the legis- 

' See New Orleans Nat. Banking lature in the incorporation law. See 

Ass'n V. Wiltz, 10 Fed. 330 ; Cuyler Kaiser v. Lawrence Sav. Bank, 56 

V. City Power Co., 74 Minn. 22; 76 Iowa, 104, 105; 8 N. W. 772; 41 

N.' W. 948 ; Red Men's Mutual Be- Am. Rep. 85. 

lief Ass'n, 10 Phila. 546. * Cf. supra, § 4, as to English 

' In some states, however, "char- usage. 

31 



§ 32 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

imply a less formal document than one which constitutes the 
-very foundation and charter of a corporation's existence, and 
which is or should be drawn up with the greatest possible care 
and formality. A colorless and unobjectionable name is "in- 
corporation paper." As this term does not seem to have been 
used in any state or country as a special designation of the in- 
strument under the local laws, it commends itself by virtue of 
its very generality, and is accordingly used throughout this 

work. 

I 
§ 32-§ 36. Function of Instrument. 

§ 32. In general. — The importance of this paper can hardly 
be exaggerated. It takes the place of, and in America, as we 
have seen, is sometimes called, a charter of incorporation. It 
delineates the limits of the company's powers, and the exercise 
of any power for which authority, express or implied, cannot be 
found in this instrument is ultra vires of the corporation. It 
marks out not merely the powers and objects of the company, 
but also in some measure the means by which those objects may 
be pursued. Thus, it prescribes the amount of the capital stock 
and the number of shares into which it is divided. It is the con- 
stitution of the corporation, and, subject only to the laws of the 
land, the supreme law of its government and being. "The 
memorandum of association is as it were the area beyond which 
the action of the company cannot go." ' 

§ 33. Dual Nature — A statutoiy Condition and a private Con- 
tract. — An incorporation paper, or memorandum of associa- 
tion, has a double function. In the first place, it operates 
as a compliance with the statutory conditions necessary to secure 
the benefits of corporate existence; it is a talisman, an open- 
sesame. r equired by sheer force of p ositive-lajy. In the second 
place, it is a private contract between the members of the Com- 
pany, and performs the same function as the articles of partner- 
ship of an ordinary firm, or, to use a still closer analogy, of an 
unincorporated joint-stock company. In this aspect, the in- 
strument derives its efficacy, not from the incorporation law 
or companies act, but from the common law of contracts, of 
copartnerships and joint enterprises; and accordingly its pro- 
visions are effective to the same extent as similar provisions in 

* Ashbury Ry. Carriage Co. v. Riche, 7 H. L. 653, 671, per Lord Cairns. 

32 



§ 31- § 162] FUNCTION OF INSTRUMENT § 36 

the articles of agreement of a copartnership or unincorporated 
joint-stock company, except in so far as the statute under which 
the company is incorporated may otherwise provide. This 
second aspect and function of a memorandum of association 
or incorporation paper is sometimes lost from sight; and in 
consequence of such a one-sided view there arises a narrowness 
of construction which deprives the people of that elasticity in 
corporate organization which modern incorporation laws, fairly 
construed, ought to secure. Happily this one-sided, partial 
view of the subject, which is a survival of the old conception of 
all corporations as chartered monsters, is much less common 
now than formerly. The English courts have never confused 
the modern incorporated partnerships formed under general 
incorporation laws with the old chartered corporations; and 
but few of the American courts still fail to recognize the true 
breadth and significance of this distinction. The dual nature 
of a memorandum of association or incorporation paper is 
fundamental. 

§ 34. Instrument as a Contract. — An incorporation paper 
is, therefore, properly referred to as a contract. Indeed, it is 
a bundle of contracts. 

§ 35. As a Contract with the State. — In the first place, it 
is said to be a contract by the State with the corporators. This 
notion originated with royal charters of incorporation, which 
might not inaptly be deemed grants or contracts by the sovereign,^ 
and was then applied to special acts of incorporation, and has 
finally been extended to incorporation papers under general 
laws.^ With almost equal propriety, ordinary articles of partner- 
ship might be said to be a contract between the state and the 
partners. However, the aspect of an incorporation paper as a 
contract between the corporators and the state pertains to the 
domain of constitutional law, and therefore need not be further 
considered in this work. 

§ 36. As Contract between Subscribers or Shareholders. — 
In the second place, every incorporation paper is indubitably 
a contract in the strictest sense between the several signatories, 

' Dartmouth College v. Woodward, v. State, 15 Wall. 478, 492 (semble) ; 
4 Wheat. 618. Garey v. St. Joe Mining Co. (Utah), 

" Chicago, etc. R. B. Co. v. Iowa, 91 Pac. 369. 
94 U. S. 155, 161 (semble) ; Miller 
VOL. I. — 3 33 



§ 37 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

and between the persons who may subsequently become share- 
holders.' A section of the English Companies Act, which has 
been referred to above, provides that the several members of 
the company shall be bound by the memorandum of associa- 
tion to the same extent as if they had signed and sealed it, and 
as if it had contained a covenant on their part to abide by its 
terms. But this express provision is declaratory merely, except 
in so far as by virtue of its provisions the several shareholders 
are bound as by a specialty whereas otherwise they would be 
bound by simple contract merely. But even according to this 
emphatic and express provision of the British statute, the share- 
holders are bound, probably, only in their capacity as share- 
holders. At all events, the document is only a contract between 
the shareholders inter sese, and gives no right of action to a 
stranger against the company.^ 

§ 37-§ 44. RULES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF INSTRUMENT. 

§ 37. In general. — The general principles of construction 
applicable to these incorporation papers are not very fully 
worked out in the decisions, probably because those principles 
do not greatly differ from the rules for the interpretation of other 
written instruments or contracts. Thus, as in the case of other 
written instruments, the construction of an incorporation paper 
is for the court rather than the jury.^ 

§ 38-§ 40. Applicability of Rides for Constrvction of Special 
Acts of Incorporation. 

§ 38. In general. — As an incorporation paper stands in the 
place of a special act of incorporation, either one being a com- 
pany's fundamental constitution and marking out the objects 
and purposes of its existence, the rules of construction which 

' Loewenthal v. Rubber Redaivv- Rubber Works, 31 Vict. L. R. 754. 

ing Co. 52 N. J. Eq. 440; 28 Atl. These cases related to "articles of 

454 ; Garey v. St. Joe Mining Co. association " ; but precisely the 

(Utah), 91 Pac, 369, where it was same principles in this respect would 

said that the instrument is a con- apply to a memorandum of associa- 

tract between the corporation and tion or incorporation paper. For the 

the stockholders. similar rule with regard to by-laws 

" Cf. Eley V. Positive, etc. Ass. Co., see infra, § 737. 
1 Ex. D. 88 ; Browne v. La Trinidad, ' Grodtz v. Armstrong Real Estate 

37 Ch. D. 1, 13; Glass v. Pioneer Co., 89 N. W. 21; 115 Iowa 602. 

34 



§ 31-§ 162] RULES FOR CONSTRUCTION § 39 

have become established with reference to special acts of incor- 
poration, will naturally be looked to as authority for the con- 
struction of incorporation papers under general laws.' This is 
not merely natural but also justifiable and indeed necessary. 
Yet the differences between the two classes of instruments 
should not be disregarded.^ A special act of incorporation is a 
statute; an incorporation paper under general law is a private 
contract. Th£!-Qnp is tjip langu age of the state, speaking by its 
l^?}§iVLre; the other is the language of the individual cor- 
porators or p romoters. Consequently, In the construction of 
the former the intention of the legislature so far as ascertainable 
from the language employed should govern; in the construc- 
tion of the latter, theintentio n of the corpQjators is in Jike 
manner - controh ing.^ 

§ 39. Whether Instrument should be construed most strongly 
in Favor of State. — Now, the well-settled and cardinal rule for 
the construction of special acts of incorporation is that they 
are to be taken most strongly in favor of the public* Nothing 
passes from the sovereign by implication. And the reason for 
this rule is that the state in conferring a special act of incor- 
poration is granting special privileges, and that the language of 
the legislature must always be taken most strongly in favor of 
their cestuis que trust, the people. On principle, it is difficult to 
see how this rule can be applicable to an incorporation paper. 
For the promoters by whom it is framed are not public servants, 
are under no duty to safeguard the interests of the public ; and 
yet as we have seen it is their intention which the courts in con- 

' See 1 Morawetz on Priv. Corps., quoted below p. 37 note 4) ; Kings- 

2d Ed., § 318, where the learned bury Collieries and Moore's Contract 

author asserts broadly that "the (1907), 2 Ch. 259, 266-267. 
same rules of construction apply to ' Cf. Biker v. Leo, 133 N. Y. 519 ; 

articles of incorporation adopted 30 N. K 598 ; Receivership of {Mer- 

pursuant to general laws, as to char- chants Nat. Bank v.) Minnesota 

ters of incorporation granted by Thresher Mfg. Co., 95 N. W. 767; 

special acts of the legislature." Cf. 90 Minn. 144 ; Senour Mfg. Co. v. 

Rockhold V. Canton Masonic Benev. Church Paint, etc. Co., 81 Minn. 294, 

Sbc, 129 111. 440, 455-456 (where 298; 84 N. W. 109 ("The intention 

the language of the court is more of the corporation must control "). 
cautious and less sweeping than the * Charles River Bridge v. Warren 

headnote would indicate); 21 N. E. Bridge, 11 Pet. 420; Proprietors of 

794 ; 2 L. R. A. 420. ' Stourbridge Canal v. Wheeley, 2 B> 

' Cf. Atty.-Oen. v. Mersey Ry. Co. & Ad. 792 ; Edgewood Borough v. 

(1907), 1 Ch. 81, 101 (a passage Scott, 29 Pa. Super. Ct. 156. 

35 



§ 40 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

struing the instrument must endeavor to ascertain. How can 
the construction of such a document, dependent upon the 
intention of mere private individuals, be either favorable or 
unfavorable to the public? It is a private matter with which 
the public have no concern. As well might one say that articles 
of partnership should be taken most strongly against the part- 
ners and in favor of the state. 

§ 40. Oregon Railway Company v. Oregonian Railway 
Company. — A case of high authority which may be thought to 
miHtate against the views advocated in the last paragraph is 
Oregon Railway Company v. Oregonian Railway Company} 
There Mr. Justice Miller in delivering the judgment of the 
court, after stating the rule that special acts of incorporation 
shall be construed most strongly in favor of the state and against 
the corporation, added, "How much more, then, should this 
rule be applied, and with how much more reason should a court, 
called upon to determine the powers granted by these articles o| 
association, construe them rigidly, with the stronger leaning in 
doubtful cases in favor of the public and against the private 
corporation." And the reporter in the headnote states as one of 
the leading propositions for which the case stands that "this 
rule of construction applies with still greater force to articles of 
association organizing a corporation under general laws." 
Nevertheless, a careful examination of the case will reveal that 
the decision really stands for nothing of the sort. The case was 
this: a corporation had been formed in England under the 
Companies Act of 1862 by the name of the Oregonian Railway 
Company, having power according to its memorandum of asso- 
ciation to construct, own, operate, and to lease, sell, or purchase 
lines of railway in the State of Oregon. Another company, 
known as the Oregon Railway Company, was formed under the 
general laws of Oregon, which provided for the organization of 
corporations for any "lawful enterprise, business, pursuit or 
occupation," that might be specified in the "articles of incor- 
poration." The articles of incorporation of this latter company 
purported to clothe it with power to construct, purchase, or 
lease railways in the State of Oregon. Accordingly, the English . 
company, having built a line of railroad in Oregon leased the 
same for a term of years to the Oregon company; and the 

> Oregon By. Co. v. Oregonian By. Co., 130 U. S. 1 ; 9 S. Ct. 409. 

36 



§ 31-§ 162] RULES FOR CONSTRUCTION § 40 

question was whether this lease was lawful and valid. As the 
incorporation papers of both the English company and the 
Oregon company purported expressly to confer the power to 
make or take leases of railways, no question arose or could have 
arisen in the case as to the proper rules for the construction of 
incorporation papers; and the only question was whether the 
clauses in the incorporation papers which attempted to confer 
these powers upon the corporations were vaUd and operative 
under the laws of Oregon. As the court itself said: "The 
memorandum made under the Companies' Act of 1862 by the 
plaintiff and the articles of association made under the laws of 
Oregon by the [defendant both contain declarations of the 
powers of these companies and of each of them to buy or sell or 
lease railroads. The only question, therefore, to be considered 
is whether this declaration of power is authorized by the laws 
of Oregon." ' Hence, anything that may have fallen from the 
court to the effect that an incorporation paper should be con- 
strued most strongly against the company and in favor of the 
public was altogether and confessedly obiter.^ The proposition 
for which the case really stands is' that a general incorporation i^ 
law, like other statutes, is to be taken most strongly in favor of 
the state.' For reasons already mentioned, it is submitted that 
this rule, which is quite proper in the interpretation of statutes, 
is wholly inapplicable in the construction of an incorporation 
paper.* 



' 130 U. S. 24-25. Ry. Co. (1907), 1 Ch. 81, 106, where 

' The dictum was, however, re- Vaughan Williams, J., said, "You 

ferred to with approval in Central ought to give a wider construction 

Transportation Co. v. Pullman's, etc. to the words of a memorandum of 

Co., 139 U. S. 24, 49; '11 S. -Ct. association creating and defining the 

478. powers of a purely commercial com- 

See also Hamilton Nat. Bank v. pany having no compulsory powers 

American Loan, etc. Co., 92 N. W. and no monopoly than you would 

189, 192 ; 66 Nebr. 77 ; City of give to the words of a statute creat- 

Ooodland v. Bank of Darlington, 74 ing a company, like a railway com- 

Mo. App. 365, 370. pany, having compulsory powers of 

' In support of this proposition, land purchase and a practical monop- 

which is clearly sound, see also. City oly." This language was quoted 

of Goodland v. Bank of Darlington, with approval in Kingsbury Col~ 

74 Mo. App. 365. leries arid Moore's Contract (1907), 

* Cf. Attorney-General v. Mersey 2 Ch. 269, 266-7. 

37 



§ 41 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

§41. Construction neither Strict nor Liberal. — At any rate, 
the general principle is settled, on the one hand, that no 
extension of the terms of the instrument is permissible by con- 
struction, and on the other hand that its meaning is not to be 
restricted by a narrow interpretation. Said Vice-Chancellor 
Bacon in an important case upon this subject: "I wholly re- 
pudiate the notion that I am at liberty to adopt what has some- 
times been called a ' liberal' construction. I have no more right 
to do that on the one hand than I am at liberty on the other to 
adopt a more rigorous or strict construction than the express 
stipulations of the instruments require. What the law requires 
and what I am called upon to do is to put a just construction, 
and no other, upon these instruments." '- 

§ 42. Liberal Construction to carr^ out ascertained Objects. 
— Although when a court is endeavoring to ascertain from the 
incorporation paper the objects for which a corporation is 
formed, the construction, as we have just seen, should be neither 
strict nor liberal, but just ; yet when the objects of the company 
Jiave been determined, the tendency of the courts is, and should ^ 
be, to allow the greatest possible latitude to the company in the \\ 
choice of the means by which those objects are to be attained. ' 
The general rule being that all means that are reasonably con- 
ducive to the objects of the incorporation and not prohibited 
are permitted, the courts will not incline to extend any restric- 
tions that the incorporation paper may contain in respect to the 
means that may be employed in prosecuting the company's ends. 
To that extent, the construction of an incorporation paper will 
be "liberal to carry out the purposes of the company's forina- 
tion," ^ but this " liberal " construction cannot be resorted to 
where the object of the interpretation is to discover what these 
purposes are. 

§ 43. Entire Instrument to be" cons'trued together. - — The 
entire instrument must be construed together. Hence, the cor- 
porate name may be considered in the construction of the clause 



' London Financial Ass'n v. Swinfen Eady, J., in Stephens v. 
Kdk, 26 Ch. D. 107, 134. Mysore Reefs (Kangundy) Mining 

" " It is right to give a liberal con- Co. (1902), 1 Ch. 745, 749. Cf. 
struction to these subsidiary para- Louisville, etc. Ry. Co. y. Flanagan, 
graphs to enable the main object of 113 Ind. 488, 495, 14 N. E. 370; 3 
the company to be carried out," per Am. St. Rep. 674. 

38 



§ 31-§ 162] 



PAROL EVIDENCE 



§44 



prescribing the company's objects.' A fortiori, "the general 
object of the corporation is to be gathered not from any one of 
the specifications but from the whole of the paragraph " which 
states the objects or purposes of the company.^ 

§ 44. Parol Evidence — Contemporaneous Internal Regula- 
tions as Aid in Construction. — To aid in the construction of an 
incorporation paper, parol evidence it seems is admissible to 
the same extent and with the same restrictions as in the case of 
other documents formally drawn up and recorded.* Thus, 
parol evidence is not admissible to show that the objects of the 
company were in fact incorrectly or inadequately set out in the 
incorporation paper.* To be sure, English judges have gone so 
far as to declare that in construing a memorandum of associa- 
tion contemporaneous articles of association "may be properly 
considered for the purpose of explaining the terms and expres- 



' See infra § 62, § 117 and § 462. 
But cf. International Boom Co. v. 
Rainy Lake River Boom Co., 97 
Minn. 513 ; 107 N. W. 735. 

' EUerman v. Chicago Junction 
Rys., etc. Co., 49 N. J. Eq. 217, 239; 
23 Atl. 287. 

' "If any doubt arises as to the 
true intent and meaning of the words 
employed, it is essentially requisite 
that the subject to which the words 
relate should be distinctly under- 
stood ; and to this end it may at all 
times be convenient, and in some 
cases necessary, to have regard to 
the circumstances attending and 
relating to the subject, to the inter- 
ests comprised in it, to the parties 
to it, and most especially to its 
avowed, expressed and of necessity 
implied, objects. Upon these prin- 
ciples and rules I am called upon to 
construe this memorandum." Per 
Bacon, V. C, in London Financial 
Ass'n V. Kelk, 26 Ch. D. 107, 134. 

Cf. Receivership of {Merchants' 
Nat. Bank v.) Minnesota Thresher 
Mfg. Co., 95 N. W. 767; 90 Minn. 
144 ; Senour Mfg. Co. v. Church 
Paint, etc. Co., 81 Minn. 294; 84 
N. W. 109; National Mechanical 
Directory Co., 121 Fed. 742; 58 



C. C. A. 24 ; Rehhein v. Rahr, 109 
Wise. 136, 145-146; 85 N. W. 315. 

* Craig v. Benedictine Sisters Hos- 
pital Ass'n, 88 Minn. 535 ; 93 N. W. 
669; Gitghoffen v. Sisters of Holy 
Cross Hospital Ass'n (Utah), 88 Pac. 
691, 694-695; City of Kalamazoo 
V. Kalamazoo, etc. Power Co., 124 
Mich. 74, 81-82 (attempt to limit 
by parol evidence general objects 
expressed in incorporation paper). 
Doubtless this rule would not apply 
in a proceeding by the state to oust 
the company from its franchises on 
the ground that the real objects 
were unlawful. See infra, § 300. 

Cf. Attorney-General ex rd. Miner 
V. Lorman, 59 Mich. 157 ; 26 N. W. 
311; 60 Am. Rep. 287; State v. 
New Orleans Water Supply Co., 36 
So. 117, 122; 111 La. 1049 ("The 
question whether a corporation has 
been organized for an illegal purpose 
must be determined by the provisions 
of its charter. and jiot by the declara- 
tions of its officers or agents ") ; 
Detroit Driving Club v. Fitzgerald, 
109 Mich. 670, 675 ; 67 N. W. 899 
("The purposes of the corporation 
or association are to be determined 
by the statement in its articles of 
association. "). 



39 



§ 45 THE INCORPORATION PAPKR [ChAP. II 

sions of the memorandum whenever it is just and reasonable so 
to refer." ' But, as it is well settled that the articles of an Eng- 
lish corporation cannot in any way add to or control the memo- 
randum, any resort to the articles to aid in its construction is 
dangerous in the extreme, and has been disapproved by one of 
the ablest of modern English judges.^ A recent case intimates 
that reference to the contemporaneous articles is permissible 
only for the purpose of construing those parts of the memoran- 
dum of association which relate to matters not required by the 
statute to be stated in that instrument.^ Tlje question is per- 
haps of but little practical importance in the United States ; for 
the by-laws of an American company which perform in some 
ways the same functions as English articles of association are 
not, like the latter, matter of public record; and therefore, 
whatever may be the case with respect to English articles, it will 
hardly be contended that by-laws, even if drawn up contem- 
poraneously with the incorjKjration of the company, can be used 
in any way as a key to the meaning of the incorporation paper.* 



§ 45. Division of Instrument into Paragraphs or Clauses. — 
An incorporation paper is usually divided into paragraphs or 
clauses, each of which contains some statutory requirement. 
Thus, we may distinguish the object clause, the capital clause, 
the chief-offiee clause, and so forth. 

' London Financial Ass'n v. Kelk, introduced for the benefit of the 
26 Ch. D. 107, 135, 138; Fisher v. creditors, and the outside pubUc 
Black & White Publishing Co. {l^Vj, as well as the shareholders. The 
1 Ch. 174, 180-182 (per Vaughan articles of association are the inter- 
Williams, J.). nal regulations of the company. 

^ "I shall only say a few words How can it be said that in all cases 

as to how far, in my opinion, the the fundamental conditions of the 

articles of association may be looked charter of incorporation, and the in- 

at and read together with the mem- ternal regulations of the company 

orandum of association. . . . There are to be construed together." Per 

is an essential difference between Bowen, L. J., in Guinness v. Land 

the memorandum and the articles. Corporation, 22 Ch. D. 349, 381. 
The memorandum contains the fun- ' Southern Brazilian, etc. By, Co. 

damental conditions upon which (1-905), 2 Ch. 78, 84. 
alone the company is allowed to be ' See Xantha Beneficial, etc. Ass'n, 

incorporated. They are conditions 8 Pa. Dist. Rep. 142, 

40 



§ 31-§ 162] THE OBJECT CLAUSE § 46 

§46-§108. THE OBJECT CLAUSE. 

§ 46. Function o£ Object Clause. — No part of an incorpo- 
ration paper is more important or deserves greater attention 
than the object clause, in which the purposes or objects of the 
company are set forth. In England, it is held that common law 
corporations — that is, corporations created by royal charter — 
have power to do, anything that an ordinary individual may do 
except in so far as they may be restrained or restricted by direct 
prohibition;^ but on the other hand, it is held that corpora- 
tions incorporated by special act of the legislature possess such 
powers only as are authorized expressly or impliedly by the 
special act in question,^ and that corporations incorporated 
under general laws possess only such powers as are conferred 
by the general law or are necessary to the attainment of the 
objects specified in the incorporation paper.* There has been 
some difference of opinion in England whether this doctrine as 
to companies incorporated under general laws is due to the fact 
that a company of that class is a corporation only for the pur- 
poses stated in its incorporation paper or to the fact that the 
exercise of any power which is not incidental to the objects as 
expressed in the incorporation paper is either expressly or im- 
pliedly prohibited by the legislature ; * but this question, which 
is known as the question of general or special capacijj y, is largely 
if not altogether a matter of words.^ At any rate, the doctrine 
as to common law or royal-charter corporations (which with 
the exception of one or two survivals, such as Dartmouth Col- 
lege, are non-existent in America), is a matter of only antiqua- 
rian and academic ifaterest in the United States; and as to 

' Attorney-Genercd v. Manchester the railway company has no author- 

Corporation (1906), 1 Ch. 643 (head- ity given to it by its incorporation 

note inadequate). See also infra, to enter into contracts not connected 

§ 1022-§ 1026. with its corporate duties, or that it 

' Werdock v. River Dee Co., 10 is impliedly .prohibited from so do- 

A. C. 354. ing because by necessary inference 

' Ashbury Ry., etc. Co. v. Riche, the legislature must be considered 

L. R. 7 H. L. 653. to have intended that no such con- 

* 1 Palmer's Company Precedents, tracts should be entered into." Per 

9th ed., 370-371 ; Pollock on Con- Lord Cranworth in Shrewsbury, etc. 

tracts, 6th ed., 674-683. Ry. Co. v. NoHh-Western Ry. Co., 

= "Practically, it makes very 6 H. L. Cas. 113, 137. 
little difference whether we say that 

41 



§ 47 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

corporations created by special act of the legislature or formed 
under general laws the American cases are in entire accord 
with the English authorities and hold that the corporations 
possess such powers only as are conferred upon them, expressly 
or impliedly, by the statute or the incorporation paper.' 

§ 47. Comparative Advantages of Broad and Narrow Statements 
of Objects. — In the preparation of the object clause of an 
incorporation paper the fact should be borne in mind that any 
objects hot mentioned therein will be ultra vires of the corpora- 
tion and cannot be pursued against the opposition of a single 
shareholder and, in theory at least, not even by unanimous 
consent. Hence, if the object clause is too narrow the company 
may find its operations seriously hampered. On the other hand, 
if thd objects are stated too broadly, the power of the majority 
is almost unHmited and may serve to deter conservative in- 
vestors from putting their capital in the concern. Yet, at least 
from the point of view of the promoters, who usually expect to 
constitute the majority of the corporation, the balance of incon- 
venience lies decidedly in having the objects too closely circum- 
scribed.^ Accordingly, in recent years the approved practice 
has been to use a very broad and elaborate and often rather 
verbose statement of objects.' On the other hand, as will be 
more fully explained below, a very general statement of objects 
may be too indefinite to satisfy the law.* 

§ 48-§ 63. WHAT OBJECTS ARE AUTHORIZED BY INCORPORA- 
TION LAW TO BE EXPRESSED IN OBJECT CLAUSE AS 
PURPOSE OF INCORPORATION. 

§ 48. Under Statutes Specifying Objects for which alone Com- 
panies may be incorporated. — The objects of the company as 

' Downing v. Mount Washington Dry Dock Co., 28 La. Ann. 173; 

Road Co., 40 N. H. 230 ; State v. Best Brewing Co. v. Klassen, 185 111. 

Consolidation Coed Co., 46 Md. 1, 9 37; 57 N. E. 20; 76 Am. St. Rep. 

(where the rule was expressly laid 26; 50 L. R. A. 765. 
down by a statute which was pro- ' "The balance of disadvantage 

nounced declaratory merely) ; Rock- decidedly attaches to too narrowly 

hold V. Canton Masonic Benev. Soc, defined objects." Dill on New Jersey 

129 111. 440; 21 N. E. 794; 2 L. R. Corporations (3d ed.), § 8, p. 19. 
A. i20; Simmons V.Troy Ironworks, ' Cf. Consett Iron Co. (1901), 1 

92 Ala. 427 ; 9 So. 160 (corporation Ch. 236 (headnote inadequate), 
formed imder general law) ; New See also infra, § 65. 
Orleans, etc. Steamship Co. v.- Ocean * Infra, § 104-§ 106. 

42 



§ 31-§ 162] 



THE OBJECT CLAUSE 



§48 



expressed in the incorporation paper must, of course, be autho- 
rized by the general law or enabling act under which the 
company is organizing. The earlier American statutes autho- 
rizedjthejqrmation of corporations of certain particular kinds 
or classes only. Under such statutes, j.t„was, — or rather is, 
for the^ stiU remain_j.n Joj£a,ia .someJes^^ — JIDfc-. 

per atively necessary that the qbj ects ,.Qf .thg„ pr opposed,, corpora- 
tion should be broua^Ltjvithiii_some of these^asses. Thus, if 
a statute-aulBorized the formation of manufacturing corpora- 
tions, the organization of a company to engage in the business 
of buying and selling merchandise would be impossible.' A 



' Cf. Meen v. Pioneer Pasteuriz- 
ing Co., 90 Minn. 501 ; 97 N. W. 140 
(where a company formed for "buy- 
ing, manufacturing and dealing in 
milk, cream, butter, cheese, and 
other dairy products and pasteuriz- 
ing and treating said milk," etc., was 
held not to be an exclusively manu- 
facturing or mechanical corpora- 
tion). As to what is a "manufac- 
turing corporation," see further, 
Bolton V. Nebraska Chicory Co., 96 
N. W. 148 ; 69 Nebr. 681 ; Rec&iver- 
ship of {Merchants' Nat. Bank v.) 
Minnesota Thresher Mfg. Co., 95 
N. W. 767; 90 Minn. 144; Bern- 
heimer v. Converse, 27 Sup. Ct. 755 ; 
Cuyler v. City Power Co., 74 Miim. 
22; 76 N. W. 948; Nicollet Nat. 
Bank v. Frisk-Turner Co., 71 Minn. 
413 ; 74 N. W. 160 ; 70 Am. St. Rep. 
334 ; Carlsbad Water Co. v. New, 33 
Colo. 389 ; 81 Pac. 34 ; West Nor- 
folk Lumber Co., 112 Fed. 759; 
Attorney-General ex rd. Miner v. 
Lorman, 59 Mich. 157; 26 N. W. 
311; 60 Am. St. Rep. 287; Com- 
monwealth V. Keystone Electric, etc. 
Co., 193 Pa. St. 245; 44 Atl. 326; 
Powell V. Murray, 3 N. Y. App. Div. 
273; 157 N. Y. 717; 53 N. E. 1130 
(manufacturing company no power 
to deal in products manufactured by 
other companies) ; Frederick Elec- 
tric Light, etc. Co. v. Mayor, etc. of 
Frederick City, 84 Md. 599; 36 
Atl. 362; 36 L. R. A. 130 (electric 
light company distinguished from 



manufacturing company) ; First Nat. 
Bank v. William B. Trigg Co. (Va.), 
56 S. E. 158. 

As to what is a "trading corpora- 
tion," see Pocono Spring, etc. Co. v. 
Am. Ice Co., 64 Atl. 398; 214 Pa. 
640. , 

As to what is a manufacturing, 
mercantile, or trading (or, after 
1901, mining) corporation, consult 
the cases as to what corporations 
may be adjudged bankrupts under 
the Bankrupt Act of 1898 and the 
amendatory statute of 1901. In the 
following cases corporations have 
been held to be within the Act : First 
Nat. Bank v. Wyoming Valley Ice 
Co., 136 Fed. 466 (company dealing 
in ice partly of its own harvesting 
and partly bought from other per- 
sons, held to be engaged chiefly in 
trading and mercantile pursuits) ; 
Troy Steam Laundering Co., 132 Fed. 
266 (laundry company the largest 
part of whose business consists in 
laundering coUa^rs and cufFs for man- 
ufacturers held to be engaged prin- 
cipally in manufacturing) ; Marine 
Construction & Dry Dock Co., 130 
Fed. 446 ; 64 C- C. A.. 648 (company 
engaged in constructing boats and 
also boilers, masts, desks, etc., for 
vessels held engaged principally in 
manufacturing) ; Columbia Iron- 
works v. National Lead Co., 127 Fed. 
99 ; 62 C. C. A. 99 (corporation en- 
gaged in building iron vessels held 
engaged in manufacturing and mer- 



§ 48 



THE INCORPORATION PAPER 



[Chap. II 



statute providing for incorporation for purposes "of trade or of 
carrying on any lawful mechanical, manufacturing, or agri- 
cultural business," will authorize the formation of a corporation 
to buy, sell, improve, and lease real estate.' Under a law au- 
thorizing the formation of corporations for "hunting, fishing, 
bathing or lawful sporting purposes," a company cannot be 



cantile pursuits) ; White Mountain 
Paper Co., 127 Fed. 643 ; 62 C. C. A. 
369 (corporation formed for manu- 
facturing paper held engaged in 
manufacturing although it had never 
completed the manufacture of any- 
paper) ; Muiual Mercantile Agency, 
111 Fed. 152 (mercantile agency 
publishing a book for ratings); 
Tecopa Mining & Smdting Co., 110 
Fed. 120 (Mining and smelting held 
to be manufacturing. But compare 
Act of 1901 which expressly added 
"mining" to the classes of corpora- 
tions within the act) ; Morton 
Boarding Stables, 108 Fed. 791 
(company keeping a "boarding 
stable" held engaged in trading or 
mercantile pursuits) ; Quincy Granite 
Quarries Co., 147 Fed. 279 (quarry 
company held engaged in mining 
and manufacturing) ; Burdick v. 
DiUon, 144 Fed. 737; 75 C. C. A. 
603 (quarrying held to be included 
within the term mining) ; First Nat. 
Bank, 152 Fed. 64 (building concrete 
arches and bridges, and dressing 
stone held to be manufacturing). 

In the following cases companies 
have been held not to be within the 
Act : V. S. Hotel Co. v. NUes, 134 
Fed. 225; 67 C. C. A. 153 (hotel 
company) ; Bay City Irrigation Co., 
135 Fed. 850 (company for irriga- 
tion of rice fields) ; Butt v. Mac- 
Nichol Construction Co., 140 Fed. 
840 ; 72 C. C. A. 252 (company for 
construction of bridges, wharves, 
etc.) ; Snyder & Johnson Co., 133 
Fed. 806 (company soliciting adver- 
tisements for newspapers) ; Surety 
Guarantee & Trust Co., 121 Fed. 73; 
56 C. C. A. 654 (buying and selling 
stocks, bonds, and other securities, 
not trading or mercantile pursuit) ; 



Quimby Freight Forwarding Co., 121 
Fed. 139 (forwarding company also 
engaged in buying alid selling); 
Parmdee Library, 120 Fed. 235 ; 56 
C. C. A. 583 (circulating library 
company) ; White Star Laundry Co., 
117 Fed. 570 (laundry company) ; 
Tontine Surety Co., 116 Fed. 401 
(corporation authorized to deal in 
diamonds which had contracted 
to deliver a diamond on payment of 
a certain sum, but which had never 
purchased, owned, or delivered a 
diamond, not engaged in trading or 
mercantile pursuits) ; New York, etc. 
Water Co., 98 Fed. 711 (water-supply 
company) ; Cameron Town, etc. Ins. 
Co., 96 Fed. 756 (insurance com- 
pany) ; Chesapeake Oyster, etc. Co., 
112 Fed. 960 (saloon and restaurant 
company) ; Woodside Coal Co., 105 
Fed, 66 (Coal mining company. 
Note that mining corporatioivs are 
now expressly included by Act of 
1901) ; New York, etc. Ice Lines, 147 
Fed. 214 ; 77 C. C. A. 440 (ice com- 
pany selling ice of its own harvest- 
ing) ; T. E. Hill Co., 148 Fed. 832 
(building of concrete piers and abut- 
ments for bridges held not manu- 
facturing) ; Toledo Portland Cement 
Co., 156 Fed. 83 (corporation which 
was formed to manufacture cement 
but which had not completed its 
buildings nor its railroads from 
them to the marl beds from which 
it was to obtain its materials, held 
not "engaged" in manufacturing 
cement). 

As to classification of corpora- 
tions with reference to their objects, 
see also supra, § 26-§ 29. 

' Finnegan v. Noerenherg, 512 
Minn. 239, 245; 53 N. W. 1150; 38 
Am. St. Rep. 552. 



44 



§ 31-§ 162] THE OBJECT CLAUSE § 4S 

organized to enforce the game laws and, as informer, collect 
fines for their violation.' A corporation for the purpose of buy- 
ing and selling bonds cannot be formed under a statute au- 
thorizing incorporations "for the purpose of buying and selling 
merchandise and conducting mercantile operations." ^ A cor- 
poration cannot be formed to deal in rice as an article of com- 
merce under a statute authorizing the formation of corporations 
for growing, purchasing, and selling seeds for agricultural 
purposes.' Laws providing for the incorporation of companies 
to aid in the industrial or productive interests of the country 
have been held, by a rather liberal construction, to authorize 
the formation of street railway or tramway companies.* When 
the objects for which corporations could be formed were few, 
it was a comparatively easy matter to determine whether the 
objects of the proposed company were, or were not, within the 
statute, even where the act allowed incorporation for certain 
specified purposes only. But the statutes based on this scheme 
which remain in force have been repeatedly amended by en- 
larging the permissible objects, so that although these permis- 
sible objects now embrace all the more usual forms of business 
activity, yet when some novel enterprise is being launched great 
difficulty may be experienced in deciding whether or not it falls 
within the statute. 

Where a statute enumerated a number of different objects 
for which corporations might be formed, it was held in Texas 
that one corporation could not be formed for two of such ob- 
jects or purposes ; ^ and a fortiori this result is reached where the 
enumerated objects are separated in the statute by the dis- 
junctive "or." ° On the other hand, the objects of a corporation 
may be more circumscribed than any one of the classes named 

' Ancient City Sportsman's Club 474-475 (case of an express com- 

V. MiUer, 7 Lans. (N. Y.), 412. pany). 

2 Indiana Bond Co. v. Ogle, 22 » Ramsey v. Tod, 95 Tex. 614; 

Ind. App. 593 ; 54 N. E. 407. 69 S. W. 133 ; 93 Am. St. Rep. 875. 

' MiUer v. Todd (Tex.), 67 S. W. Cf. Dam:y v. Clark, 24 App. D. C. 487. 
483 ; 95 Tex. 404. But see Finnegan v. Noerenberg, 

* Central Trust Co. v. Warren, 52 Minn. 239, 245; 53N. W. 1150; 

121 Fed. 323; 58 C. C. A. 289. As 38 Am. St. Rep. 552; Louisiana 

to the meaning of the word "Indus- Navigation, etc. Co. v. Doullut, 114 

trial" as applied to corporations, La. 906; 38 So. 613. 
see further, Wdls, Fargo & Co. v. ° Williams v. Citizens' Enterprise 

Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 23 Fed. 469, Co., 25 Ind. App. 351 ; 57 N. E. 581 ; 

45 



§ 49 THE INCORPOEATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

in the statute. For instance, if one of the objects for which 
companies may be incorporated is manufacturing, a corporation 
may be formed for engaging in one particular kind of manu- 
facturing.' Moreover, it is permissible to combine two or more 
objects all of which are within one of the classes designated in 
the statute, such as the mining of both gold, silver, and lead, 
where mining in general is one of the objects mentioned in the 
statute for which corporations may be formed.^ 



§ 49-§ 63. Under Statutes permitting Incorporation for any 
Lawful Purpose. 

§ 49. In general. — The statutes now in force in most parts 
of America as well as in Great Britain provide for the forma- 
tion of corporations for any lawful purpose or objects.' From 
these sweeping terms, express exception is usually made of bank- 
ing, insurance, railroad purposes, etc.; but these exceptions 
are generally few and of a kind that does not call for extended 
consideration here.* Some statutes, after mentioning a number 
of specific purposes for which corporations may be formed, add 
"or other lawful business," or, "other lawful purpose" or the 
like. It has been held that such general expressions cannot be 
confined in their operations to objects ejusdem generis with those 

West Manayunk, etc. Co. v. New contracts for maintaining and ope- 

Gas Light Co., 21 Pa. Co. Ot. Rep. rating railways," provided that the 

393; Consumers' Gas Trust Co. v. company should "not operate any 

Quiriby, 137 Fed. 882 ; 70 C. C. A. railroad, engage in the business of a 

220 ; People ex rel. Belknap v. railroad, or do anything in the prem- 

Beach, 19 Hun (N. Y.), 259, 260 ises prohibited to corporations of 

(semble). this character," was held not proper 

Cf. Bayou Cook, etc. Co. v. Dotdlut, to be recorded under a statute pro- 

35 So. 729; 111 La. 517. hibiting the formation of corpora- 

' Cf. Roofing Contractors' Ass'n, tions for the operation of railroads) ; 

200 Pa. St. Ill ; 49 Atl. 894. State v. Debenture Guarantee, etc. Co., 

' People ex rel. Belknap v. Beach, 26 So. 600 (formation of corpora- 

19 Hun (N. Y.), 259. tion to deal in debentures not per- 

' As to incorporation for an un- missible under statute providing for 

lawful purpose, or purpose contrary incorporation for any lawful purpose 

to public policy, see infra, § 62 and provided that no corporation should 

Chap. v. engage in "stock-jobbing"), affirmed 

* Cf. Dancy v. Clark, 24 App. D. as to federal questions in A'^ewOrieans 

C. 487, 505-506 (where an incorpo- Debenture, etc. Co. v. Louisiana, 180 

ration paper which, after mention- U. S. 320; 21 Sup. Ct. 378. 
ing as one of the objects "to perform 

46 



§ 31-§ 162] THE OBJECT CLAUSE § 50 

specifically mentioned.' Moreover, where the statute authorizes 
incorporation " for the purpose of engaging in any lawful enter- 
prize, business, pursuit or occupation," the words cannot be 
restricted to schemes for making money, but authorize incor- 
poration for the purpose of aiding a certain educational insti- 
tution by guaranteeing its bonds.^ 

§ 50. Whether more than one Object may be specified. — 
Where the statute authorizes the organization of companies for 
any lawful purpose, business, or the like, in the singular, doubt 
has been entertained whether a corporation may be formed for 
two or more distinct objects, or whether there must not be some 
one main purpose to which everything else is ancillary.^ To 
guard against all question of this sort, some statutes use a plural 
as well as the singular noun — " for any lawful purpose or pur- 
poses." * But the doubt is probably Unfounded.^ Thus, the 
British law provides that " any seven or more persons associated 
for any lawful purpose" may, by subscribing, etc., form an in- 
corporated company." Yet neither the English lawyers nor their 
courts have ever denied that a corporation might lawfully be 
organized under this statute for two or more disconnected pur- 

' Brown v. Corbin, 40 Minn. 508 ; limited by the ejusdem generis rule 

42 N. W. 481 ; Cflen v. Breard, 35 and that a corporation could accord- 
La. Ann. 875; State ex rd. Walker ingly be formed to insure against 
V. Corkins, 123 Mo. 56 ; 27 S. W. burglary) ; St. Louis Colonization 
363; National Bank v. Texas Irv- Ass'n v. Hennessy, 11 Mo. App. 555, 
vestment Co., 74 Tex. 421 ; 12 S. W. 559 (headnote inadequate). 

101 (distinguishing Texas, etc. Navi- ' Maxwell v. Akin, 89 Fed. 178. 
gation Co. v. County of Galveston, 45 ' See People ex rd. Peabody v. 

Tex. 272) ; Yokes v. Eaton, 85 S. W. Chicago Gas Trust Co., 130 111. 268, 

174 ; 27 Ky. Law Rep. 358 ; Lindsay, 290 ; 8 L. R. A. 497 ; 22 N. E. 798 ; 

etc. Co. V. MvUen, 176 U. S. 126, 138- 17 Am. St. Rep. 319 (stated and 

139 (headnote inadequate) ; 20 Sup. criticised infra, § 52) ; Ramsey v. 

Ct. 325. Tod, 95 Tex. 614 ; 69 S. W. 133 ; 

But see contra: State ex rel. 93 Am. St. Rep. 875; Williams v. 

Lederer v. International Investment Citizens' Enterprise Co., 25 Ind. 

Co., 88 Wise. 512; 60 N. W. 796; App. 351,355; 57N. E. 581; Dancy 

43 Am. St. Rep. 920 (with which v. Clark, 24 App. D. C. 487, 500- 
compare Wisconsin Telephone Co. 504 (a strong but, it is submitted, a 
V. City of Oshkosh, 62 Wise. 32, 38 ; questionable decision) ; State v. 
21N.W.828.) Taylor, 55 Ohio St. 61, 67-68; 44 

Of. Banker's MiU. Casualty Co. v. N. E. 513. 
First Nat. Bank (Iowa), 108 N. W. * New Jersey Laws, 1899, chap. 

1046 (holding that a statute provid- 176. 

ing for incorporation of companies ° Cf. People ex rd. Bdknap v. 

for insurance against damage by fire Beach, 19 Hun (N. Y.), 259. 
"or other casualty" should not be ° Cbmpanies Act, 1862, § 6. 

47 



§ 51 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

poses. Thus, an English text-writer of authority declares: 
"There is no rule, for instance, that the principal or leading 
object must be stated, and that all the other objects must be 
conducive or auxiliary thereto. On the contrary, it is permissi- 
ble to have any number of objects alternative, concurrent, or 
substitutional, provided they are legal and are specified. Thus, 
the objects clause may commence by declaring that the company 
is formed to carry on the business of a brewery company ; but 
there is not the slightest objection in point of law to stating that 
another object is to carry on the business of a mining company." ' 
To be sure, the British act directs that the memorandum of asso- 
ciation or incorporation paper shall state the "objects" of the 
company ; ^ but this use of a plural noun has never been thought 
to enlarge the singular term, " purpose," which is found in a pre- 
ceding section of the same statute.' In some of the United States 
the general rule of statutory construction has been laid down 
that the singular number shall include the plural unless a con- 
trary intention clearly appear; and this rule of construction 
would remove all difficulty arising from the use of a singular 
instead of a plural noun. 

§ 51. Insertion of Subsidiary Objects or Powers. — Under 
statutes allowing incorporation for any lawful purposes, it seems 
abundantly clear on principle that the incorporation paper may 
in addition to the company's main object mention as subsidiary 
objects the exercise of any powers that the promoters may deem 
conducive thereto although not perhaps such as the law would 
have implied as incidental to the prime objects. This proposi- 
tion is so thoroughly supported by the liberal policy of the law 
that one should be surprised to find it questioned. In England, 
no doubt ever appears to have been entertained. Thus, although 

' Palmer's Company Law, 17. hotel company, 'The object of this 

Cf. Governments Stock Investment company is to carry on the business 

Co. (1891), 1 Ch. 649, 655, where of an hotel'; and you may go down 

Chitty, J., said: "The legislature, from that in a manner which will 

no doubt, was aware that according surprise the uninitiated, and find 

to the way in which the Limited Lia- out what the hotel company may, 

bility Act has been worked, the fram- according to the ingenious framer 

ers of memoranda of association in- of the memorandum of association, 

sert sometimes, under letters which do — things which I think would as- 

exhaust the alphabet, what they are tonish any ordinary hotel keeper." 
pleased to call the ' objects' of the ' Companies Act, 1862, § 8 (3). 
company. You may get as to an ' § 6. 

48 



§ 31-§ 162] THE OBJECT CLAUSE § 52 

the English courts will not readily imply the power to issue nego- 
tiable paper, express provisions making the issue thereof a sub- 
sidiary object of the company in question are frequent and 
undoubtedly efficacious. The English books are full of similar 
instances in which promoters have inserted in incorporation 
papers clauses mentioning this, that, or the other, as one of the 
company's objects, merely in order to remove any possible 
doubt as to whether the power would be implied as incidental 
to the main objects; and the American reports contain similar 
instances.' The validity of such provisions is fundamental in 
modern corporation law, and ought not to admit of question. 

§ 52. People v. Chicago Gas Trust Company. — An Illinois 
case, decided in 1890,^ which is somewhat confused and re- 
actionary, yet deserves detailed examination, lest it should prove 
misleading upon this truly fundamental subject. A company 
was incorporated under an Illinois statute which provided for 
the formation of corporations "for any lawful purpose." Its 
incorporation paper, or, to use the name in vogue in Illinois, its 
articles of incorporation, provided that the object of the com- 
pany should be to engage in the manufacture, sale, and distribu- 
tion of illuminating gas, and, to "purchase and hold or sell the 
capital stock, or purchase or lease or operate the property, plant, 
good-will, rights and franchises, of any gas works, or gas com- 
pany or companies." In fact, the corporation was organized 
to acquire the majority of the shares of the four competing gas 
companies which were then in operation in the city of Chicago ; 
and did accordingly carry out that purpose. It never established 
any gas works of its own. Upon a proceeding in the nature of 
quo warranto t o test the company's right to hold the controlling 
interest in the subsidiary corporations, the court held that the 
right did not exist. One ground relied upon by the court and 
broad enough to support the decision was that, the unlawful 
design having been entertained of creating a virtual monopoly, 
the company was not organized for a lawful purpose. If the 
opinion had rested here, no fault need have been found with 
the case ; but various other propositions were advanced. In the 

' See People ex rd. Loy v. Mount ' People ex rd. Peabody v. Chi- 
Shasta Mfg. Co., 107 Cal. 256; 40 cago Gas Trust Co., 130 111. 268; 
Pac. 391. 22 N. E. 798; 17 Am. St. Rep. 319; 

8 L. R. A. 497. 

VOL. I. — 4 49 



§ 53 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

first place, it was said that the power to hold the shares could 
not be implied as incidental to the power to manufacture and 
sell illuminating gas; and upon this point the case is certainly 
in accord with the weight of authority.' As to the clause in the 
incorporation paper purporting expressly to confer the power, 
the court reasoned that if the clause were viewed as ancillary 
to the power to operate gas works, it would not be effective since 
the promoters could not by express stipulation augment the im- 
plied or incidental powers. If this obiter dictum were correct, 
it would indeed be laying the axe at the root of the tree ; but as 
we have shown in the last paragraph it is believed to be opposed 
both to authority and to reason.^ The legislature, by enabling 
the promoters to organize a corporation for any lawful purpose 
that they might mention in their incorporation paper indicated 
a liberal policy ; and why should not the intention of the pro- 
moters that a certain power should be exercisable be carried 
out if possible? Why should they not have the right under a 
statute of this liberal sort to say what shall be deemed in their 
case incidental powers? It is submitted that if the power to 
hold shares in other companies might be made the principal 
object, or one of the principal objects, of the company, then only 
one who delights m unjust technicalities could think that the 
same power should not be exercisable if given as merely ancil- 
lary to some other object. The court, however, proceeded to 
decide that the holding of a controlling interest in the other gas 
companies could not be made the company's principal or only 
object because of the unlawful intention of creating a monopoly. 
With this latter position, as applied to the particular facts of the 
case, we have, as already stated, no disposition to quarrel. The 
court adverted to the fact, as specially indicative of monopoly, 
that the power sought to be conferred was to acquire and hold 
not certain shares of stock, but "the capital stock " — that is, all 
the shares.^ 

§ 53. Objects must be eonsistent with Nature of a Corpora- 
tion. — Under any statute, however liberal, the objects of the 
company must be legal * and must not be obnoxious to the gen- 

' Infra, § 83. ' 130 111. 290-291. 

' Cf. People ex rel. Lay v. Mount * See infra, § 62 and Chap. v. 
Shasta Mfg. Co., 107 Cal. 256; 40 
Pac. 391. 

SO 



§ 31-§ 162] THE OBJECT CLAUSE § 55 

eral spirit pervading the act or to accepted principles of cor- 
poration or company law. Thus, in any jurisdiction where the 
purchase by a corporation of its own shares is deemed foreign 
to the nature of a limited company, a clause in the incorporation 
paper purporting to confer a power to make such purchase is 
illegal and void.' The same thing would be true of an attempt 
to authorize the payment of dividends out of capital, the giving 
of a preference to shareholders over creditors in the distribution 
of assets in a winding-up, or any other transaction which is 
regarded as contrary to the spirit of the statute and to the 
statutory conception of a corporation.^ 

§ 54. Sale of Entire Business as one of the Objects. — The 
sale of a business or undertaking is a perfectly lawful object ; 
and hence, according to English authorities, a clause in an in- 
corporation paper mentioning the sale of the company's whole 
business or undertaking as one of its objects is entirely valid 
under a statute allowing incorporation for any lawful purpose.^ 
So, also, the incorporation paper may properly provide for a 
transfer of the company's business and undertaking in exchange 
for shares in another corporation,* or other property. A sale 
or transfer of all the corporation's assets, in pursuance of such 
a provision, is to be deemed a transfer in the ordinary course of 
business, so that upon the consummation of the transaction, the 
company does not necessarily cease to be a going concern.^ 
» § 55. American Cases. — The American cases on the sub- 
jects treated in the last paragraph are neither numerous nor 
conclusive. In respect to corporations formed by special act, 
the law was well settled that no power of selling or leasing their 
whole property and business, or franchises, existed unless par- 

' Trevor v. Whitworth, 12 App. out without a winding-up, but where 

Cas. 409, 436-437 (semble, per Lord [pp. 840-841] the judge doubted 

Macnaghten). whether on principle, an incorpora- 

' Cf. infra, § 122 and § 624. tion paper should be permitted to 

' Cotton V. Imperial, etc. Corpora- state any but the "living objects" 

tion (1892) 3 Ch. 454, 458 (head- which the company is to carry out 

note inadequate). as a " living concern"). A power of 

* Cotton v. Imperial, etc. Corporon sale or exchange such as is referred 

tion (1892), 3 Ch. 454, 458 (head- to in the text is not readily implied, 

note inadequate) ; Doughty v. Loma- People v. Ballard, 134 N. Y. 269 ; 

gunda Reefs (1902), 2 Ch. 837 (where 32 N. E. 54 ; 17 L. R. A. 737. See 

the incorporation paper was held to also infra, § 78-§ 79. 
authorize a contract of sale, the ° Foster v. Borax Co. (1901), 1 

terms of which could not be carried Ch. 326. 

-. 51 



§ 55 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

ticularly conferred by statute. Especially, was this true with 
respect to public-service corporations such as railroads.' But 
manifestly, these cases have no appKcation to companies which 
are incorporated under general laws authorizing incorporation 
for any lawful purpose. Surely, the English cases are right in 
holding that to build up a business for the purpose of selling it 
at a profit is a lawful object. In a case stated above at consider- 
able length, the United States Supreme Court held in substance 
that the leasing, or taking a lease, of a railway was not a lawful 
object for incorporation under the Oregon general laws, which 
provided that companies might be incorporated for " any lawful 
business, pursuit or occupation." ^ But railroad corporations 
even when organized under general laws are very different from 
companies having no public duties to perform. A railway com- 
pany enjoys the power of condemning private property; and 
sometimes provision is made for a judicial investigation into the 
fitness of the corporation to be entrusted with this delicate fran- 
chise, so that perhaps public policy might be thought to pro- 
hibit a complete transfer of its line into other hands by sale or 
lease. Moreover, even where general laws provide for the incor- 
poration, construction, and operation of railways, the sale or 
lease of a completed road, involving, as it generally does, a 
transfer of control from small local capitalists to some great 
foreign corporation or syndicate, may be deemed contrary to 
the policy of the law. At all events, the case with respect to a 
railroad differs materially from that of mere industrial corpo- 
rations with no public duties to perform. Consequently, while 
one should expect Oregon Railway Company v. Oregonian Rail- 
way Company to be followed in America, yet its doctrine ought 
not to be and probably would not be, extended or applied so as 
to prohibit the organization of an industrial corporation for the 
purpose of selUng or otherwise disposing of its whole business 
and property or, in other words, its " undertaking." ' To, build 

'See, for example, Kean v. iJj/s., eic. Co., 49 N. J. Eq. 217, 241; 

Johnson, 9 N. J. Eq. 401; Thomas 23 Atl. 287 (where the court said, 

V. Railroad Co., 101 U. S. 71. obiter: " The Corporation Act per- 

' Oregon Ry. Co. v. Oregonian mits incorporations not only for ob- 

Ry. Co., 130 U. S. 1 ; 9 Sup. Ct. 409. jects specified therein, but for 'any 

' TraefT v. Lucas Prospecting Co., lawful business or purpose whatso- 

99 N. W. 290 ; 124 Iowa, 107. ever,' which general clause is not, 

Cf. EUerman v. Chicago Junction however, to be construed as embrac- 

52 



§ 31-§ 162] THE OBJECT CLAUSE § 56 

up a private business for the purpose of selling it advantageously 
is, for individuals, a very usual and perfectly lawful aim. Why 
should not the formation of a corporation for the same object be 
equally legitimate under any incorporation law providing for the 
organization of companies for any lawful purpose or business? 
Where the statutes restrict the right to incorporate to certain 
named classes of companies, it is, however, probably true that no 
corporation can be organized for the purpose of seUing its busi- 
ness and undertaking : for, however numerous the specified ob- 
jects for which such statutes permit incorporation, this is not 
one of them.' 

§ 56. Acting as Agent or Attorney as one of Objects. — To 
act as agent or attorney in fact for other persons is a lawful 
business, and therefore a corporation may be organized for that 
object.^ The objection that a torporation can act only by agents, 
and therefore cannot be itself an agent, since delegata potestas 
non potest delegari, is wholly unsubstantial ; for any person who 
employs a corporation as agent necessarily consents that it shall 
in the course of its agency act through sub-agents.' And like- 
wise the objection that a corporation cannot as agent execute 
deeds of real estate on the principal's behalf, since, being an 
impersonal entity, it cannot make an acknowledgment, is unten- 
able ; for the corporation can make the acknowledgment in the 
same way as if it were a principal, namely, by its officers. Con- 
sequently, a corporation may even be formed to act as agent or 

ing powers to do those things which R. A. 638 ; 17 Am. St. Rep. 737 ; 

would deprive the corporation of its State ex rel. Le Blanc & Bailey v. 

ability to carry out the objects for Michel, 36 So. 869 ; 113 La. 4. 
which it was formed, or discharge Cf. Morris v. Third Nat. Bank, 

any duties which it might, under its 142 Fed. 26 ; 73 C. C. A. 211 (where 

charter, owe to the public, or which under peculiar circumstances a na- 

are contrary to the policy of the tional bank was held to have implied 

law"); People ex rel. Ba/rney v. power to act as representative of 

Whalen, 104 N. Y. Supp. 555 (pro- other persons) ; Anderson v. First 

vision for sale of entire property Nat. Bank, 5 N. Dak. 451 ; 67 N. W. 

held to be in conflict with a statute 821 (also relating to the powers of 

expressly conferring a more limited national banks as agents), 
power of the same general kind) ; ' Snow, Church & Co. v. Hall, 19 

People ex rel. Barney v. Whalen, 106 N. Y. Misc. 655; 44 N. Y. Supp. 

N. Y. Supp. 434 (similar decision to 427 (a corporation formed to carry 

last case). on a collection agency may employ 

' See infra, § 78. attorneys at law to collect claims and 

" Killingsworth v. Portland Trust charge their fees against its client). 
Co., 18 Oreg. 351; 23 Pac. 66; 7 L. 

53 



§ 57 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

broker in the purchase or sale of its own shares.' A corporation 
may be formed to carry on the business of acting as agents of 
other persons even though a statute' provides that no corporation 
shall act as administrator or guardian, or fill "any other office 
of personal trust " ; ^ for the words last quoted refer to offices of 
personal trust ejiisdem generis as those specially mentioned and 
not to mere private agencies. 

§ 57. Acting as Trustee. — To act as trustee is a lawful 
object ; and therefore under statutes providing for the formation 
of corporations for any lawful purpose, there is no reason why 
acting as trustee should not be mentioned in the object clause of 
an incorporation paper as an object of the proposed company, 
unless indeed the acting as trustee be contrary to the very nature 
of a corporation. Now, under the Statute of Uses the doctrine 
was established in early times that* a corporation could not be a 
trustee or feoffee to uses; for how, it was said, can trust be re- 
posed in a being which has no soul or conscience ? The force of 
this reasoning has, of course, long since ceased to be felt ; ^ and 
ever since the growth of modern trusts, the courts have held that 
a corporation may act as trustee whenever so to do is a reason- 
able method of attaining the objects for which it was formed.* 
Indeed, it would seem that to-day in America a corporation may 
be seised to a use under the Statute of Uses, and may accord- 
ingly convey land by a deed of bargain and sale.* Even if the 
corporation which is appointed trustee by deed or will have no 
corporate power so to act, nevertheless equity will not permit the 
trust to fail but will compel the corporation or whoever holds 

1 Borland's Trustee v. Sted Bros. * Attorney-General v. Whorwood, 
& Co. (1901), 1 Ch. 279, 293 (head- 1 Ves. Sr. 534, 536 (per Lord Hard- 
note inadequate). wicke) ; Re Howe, 1 Paige (N. Y.) 

' State ex rel. Le Blanc & Railey 214 ; Vidal v. Girard's Ex'rs, 2 How. 

V. Michd, 36 So. 869 ; 113 La. 4. 127, 187 ; Stobart v. Fcyrhes, 13 Mani- 

' Cf . Bacon on Uses, p. 57, where toba, 184 ; De Cam/p v. Dobbins, 29 

a less scholastic reason is assigned N. J. Eq. 36, 39-40; PhiUips Acad- 

for the doctrine. "A corporation," emyv. King, 12 Mass. 546; Lewinon 

says the author, "cannot be seised Trusts, 11th ed., 30; Perry on 

to an use . . . chiefly because of the Trusts, 5th ed., § 42. 
letter of the Statute which in any Cf. Greene v. Dennis, 6 Conn. 292, 

clause when it speaketh of the feoffee 304. 

resteth only upon the word person, ' Angell & Ames on Corps., 2d 

but when it speaketh of cestui que ed., 153-154. 

■use, it addeth person or body But see Greene v. Dennis, 6 Conn, 

politic." 292, 304 (semble). 

64 



§ 31-§ 162] THE OBJECT CLAUSE § 58 

the legal title to convey the trust property tO the person whom 
the chancellor may appoint to execute the trust.' The conclu- 
sion necessarily follows that under the modern liberal laws, 
acting as trustee may be mentioned in an incorporation paper 
as an object for which the company is formed.^ Sometimes 
general incorporation laws provide that trust companies cannot 
be incorporated under them; and where such statutes are in 
force there may be a question whether a company can be incor- 
porated for the purpose of acting as trustee. In other cases it 
may be inadvisable to mention the acting as trustee as one of the 
objects of the corporation lest the company be subjected to 
burdensome statutory regulations applicable to trust companies. 
§ 58. Acting as ]Bxecutor, Guardian, etc. — Whether a cor- 
poration may be formed to act as executor or administrator or 
as guardian of an infant or committee of a lunatic, is a different 
question. It is settled that a corporation has no implied power 
to act in any of those capacities. For instance, where a statute 
provides that in case a will appoints no executor, administration 
shall be granted to the residuary legatee, a charitable or educa- 
tional corporation which is named as residuary legatee cannot 
be appointed administrator.' It would follow that such a cor- 
poration, although named as executor, would have no right to 
letters testamentary.* It has even been held in Nebraska that an 
order of a probate court appointing a corporation administrator 
is void, and subject to collateral attack.^ The reason for this 
doctrine is that statutory provisions requiring executors and 
administrators to make oath to this, that, and the other, in the 

■ Vidd V. Girard's Ex'rs, 2 How. patrick's WiU, 22 N. J. Eq. 463 (hold- 

127, 188. ing that in such a case administra- 

Cf . Jackson ex dem. Lynch v. tion should be granted to one of the 
Hartwell, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 422 (deed members of the corporation), 
to corporation in trust held not to * Cf . 1 Williams on Executors, 9th 
pass legal title when corporation ed., 183, 184 (where early English 
has no power to execute the trust, authorities, pro and con, are referred 
with a query whether a court of to) ; 1 Woemer's Am. Law of Ad- 
equity would prevent the trust from ministration, § 233, p. 509 (where the 
failing for want of a trustee). author expresses the opinion that 

' State ex rd. Higby v. Higby Co. the modern trend of authorities in 

(Iowa), 106 N. W. 382. the United States ia in favor of the 

^ President, etc. of Georgetown capacity of corporations to act as 

College v. Browne, 34 Md. 450, 455 executors). 

(sembie) ; Thompson's Estate, 33 ° Continental Trust Co. v. Peter- 

Barb. (N. Y.) 334. Cf. Re Kirk- son (Nebr.), 107 N. W. 786. 

55 



§ 59 tHE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

course of the administration show that natural persons alone 
are contemplated.' As res Integra it might be doubted whether 
this reasoning is altogether conclusive. Nevertheless, wherever 
such reasoning has been accepted, it would necessarily seem to 
follow that a corporation cannot be formed, even though the 
statute authorize incorporation for any lawful object, for the 
purpose of acting as executor or administrator, and that any 
provision in an incorporation paper purporting to empower the 
company tp act in either of those capacities would be ineffective.^ 
According to this view, affirmative legislative sanction is neces- 
sary in order that a corporation may act as executor or adminis- 
trator. This legislative sanction is, nowadays, not infrequently 
granted.^ 

§ 59. Owning Shares in another Corporation. — The forma- 
tion of a corporation for the purpose of controlling another 
corporation by means of ownership of shares in the latter com- 
pany is often highly desirable. Such a purpose is not in itself 
unlawful unless it be foreign to the nature of a corporation to 
become a member of another corporation. It would seem clear 
that this is not so, and that in the absence of some direct statu- 
tory prohibition, the ownership by one business company of 
shares in another business corporation, even though possibly 
ultra vires, is not illegal or against public policy. "There is no 
reason at common law, so far as I know," said Lord Cairns, 
"why one corporate body should not become a member of an- 
other corporate body."* This is rendered abundantly clear by 
several groups of cases, in which corporations are allowed to 

' A corporation, says Blackstone, poration not qualified under domes- 
" cannot be executor or administra- tic law); Crowley v. Sandhurst, etc. 
tor, or perform any personal duties ; Co., 23 Vict. L. R. 661 (holding that 
for it cannot take an, oath for the a corporation which by act of Par- 
due execution of the office." 1 Black, liament is authorized to act as trus- 
Comm. 477. tee may act as co-trustee with 

^ Cf. State ex rel. Higby v. Higby individuals, as to which point see 

Co. (Iowa), 106 N. W. 382. also infra, § 76) ; LouisviUe, etc. R. B. 

' E. g. Minnesota Loan & Trust Co. v. Herndon's Adm'r (Ky.), 104 

Co. V. Beebe (Minn.), 41 N. W. 232; S. W. 732 (holding that a corpora- 

40 Minn. 7 ; 2 L. R. A. 418 (corpora- tion which is authorized by statute 

tions as guardians) ; Deringer's to act as administrator may be ap- 

Adm'r v. Deringer's Adm'r, 5 Houst. pointed public administrator). 
(Del.) 416; 1 Am. St. Rep. 150 * Earned' s Banking Co., 3 Ch. 

(validity of foreign appointment of 105, 113. 
corporation recognized, although cor- 

56 



§ 31- §162] THE OBJECT CLAUSE § 60 

become members of other corporations without any express 
authority.' Since, therefore, the ownership by one corporation 
of shares in another corporation is not necessarily contrary to 
the policy of the law, it follows that under statutes which au- 
thorize the incorporation of companies for any lawful purposes, 
a corporation may legally be organized with the acquisition and 
ownership of shares in other corporations as one of its objects as 
expressed in its incorporation paper.^ Indeed, the so-called 
"holding-companies," which have become not infrequent in 
these latter days, are based on this principle. 

§ 60. Ownership of Shares with ulterior Illegal Intent. — Of 
course, in any particular case the ownership of shares of stock 
by a corporation may be unlawful because of some ulterior 
illegal intent,' such as the creation of a monopoly, restraint of 
trade, or the practical consolidation of competing lines of rail- 
way in fraud of some prohibitory statute ' or in violation of what 
is deemed the public policy of the state.* Indeed, some cases 
apparently hold that the acquisition by one company of shares 
of stock in another corporation for the purpose of controlling 
the latter's business is prima facie at least contrary to public 

' See infra, § 82. ing any such intent, see National 

' Barned's Banking Co., 3 Ch. Salt Co. v. Ingraham, 143 Fed. 805; 

105 ; Dittman v. DistiUing Co., 54 74 C. C. A. 479. 
Atl. Rep. 570 (N. J. Ch.); Market * Northern Securities Co. v. U.S., 

Street Ry. v. HeUman, 109 Cal. 571, 193 U. S. 197; 24 Sup. Ct. 436; 

589-590; 42 Pac. 225; Traer v. People v. Chicago Gas Trust Co., 

Lucas Prospecting Co., 99 N. W. 290 ; 130 111. 268 ; 22 N. E. 798 ; 17 Am. 

124 Iowa, 107; Robotham v. Prii^ St. Rep. 319; 8 L. R. A. 497 (stated 

dential Ins. Co., 64 N. J. Eq. 673, and criticised, supra, § 52) ; Dunbar 

696; 53 Atl. 842. v. American Tel., etc. Co. (111.), 79 

But see People v. Chicago Gas N. E. 423 ; 224 111. 9 ; Bigelow v. 

Trust Co., 130 111. 268 ; 22 N. E. 798 ; Calumet, etc. Mining Co., 155 Fed. 

17 Am. St. Rep. 319 ; 8 L. R. A. 497 869 ; Southern Electric Securities Co. 

(stated and criticised supra, § 52); v. State (Miss.), 44 So. 785; Burrows 

Woodberry v. McClurg, 29 So. 514; v. Interborough Metropolitan Co., 156 

78 Miss. 831 (decided under a Mis- Fed. 389 (where the general statute 

sissippi statute, known as the anti- expressly authorized formation of 

trust law, expressly prohibiting cor- corporations to acquire stock in 

porations from owning stock of other other companies but also prohibited 

companies) ; Parsons v. Tacoma monopolies). 

Smelting, etc. Co., 65 Pac. 765; 25 Ci.Dittmanv. DistiUing Co. Qi.i.), 

Wash. 492. , 54 Atl. Rep. 570 ; Trust Co. of Georgia 

" Of. Pearson v. Concord R. R. v. Stote,,35 S. E. 323; 109 Ga. 736; 

Ctyrp., 62 N. H. 537 ; 13 Am. St. 48 L. R. A. 520. 
Rep. 590. , ° Elkins v. Camden, etc. R. R. 

As to the impossibility of presum- Co., 36 N. J. Eq. 5. 

57 



§ 61 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

policy.' At all events, a scheme by which one corporation ac- 
quires a majority of the shares of another which at the same 
time acquires a majority of the shares of the former company is 
illegal ; inasmuch as its effect would be to lodge permanent con- 
trol of both companies in the men who happen at the time to be 
the directors, and to deprive the persons beneficially interested in 
the companies, namely, the other shareholders, of all power 
or control over their own property.^ Where the ownership of 
shares in another company is not vitiated because of some illegal 
intent, the question whether the power exists is purely a question 
of construction of the incorporation paper. 

§61. Amalgamation with other Corporations. — The stat- 
utes of Great Britain and of most of the United States contain 
express provisions authorizing a consolidation or amalgamation 
of corporations formed under them with other corporations of a 
similar nature. These provisions, at least in the United States, 
commonly provide for a consolidation in the technical sense in 
which that word is used in this country — that is to say, a 
coalescing or merger of the two with the result that a new cor- 
poration is formed which is distinct from either of the old ones 
and yet which in a certain sense is composed of both. In order 
to bring about a union of this sort, recourse must be had to ex- 
press statutory authority; for without such authority not even 
the most express authorization in an incorporation paper would 
enable such a consolidation to be effected. On the other hand, 
where such statutory authority exists there is ordinarily no need 
of inserting in the incorporation paper any special clause sanc- 
tioning its exercise. But sometimes it is desirable to accomplish 
substantially the same end in a somewhat different way from 
that provided by the statute ; and in such cases a clause may be 
inserted in the incorporation paper authorizing a consolidation 
or amalgamation, and such a clause is valid.* The term amal- 
gamation is difficult to define * although it is of very frequent use 
especially in England. Sometimes, the provision simply au- 
thorizes a sale of the company's assets, business, and under- 

' Pearson v. Concord R. R. Co., ' Robotfiam v. Prudential Ins. Co., 

62 N. H. S37; 13 Am. St. Rep. 590; 64 N. J. Eq. 673; 53 Atl. 842. 

Anglo-American Land, etc. Co. v. ' New Zealand Gold, etc. Co. v. 

Lombard, 132 Fed. 721, 736-737; Peococfc (1894), 1 Q. B. 622. 

Dunbar v. American Tel., etc. Co., * Cf. South African Supply, etc. 

79 N. E. 423 ; 224 111. 9. Co. (1904), 2 Ch. 268. 

58 



§ 31-§ 162] THE OBJECT CLAUSE § 63 

taking in exchange for shares in the purchasing company, which 
provision is quite valid/ No provision for such a sale or ex- 
change or for an amalgamation will be construed to authorize 
an arrangement whereby the shares in the purchasing company 
which constitute the consideration for the transfer are to be 
distributed among those who are shareholders in the vendor 
company, and who upon the consummation of the scheme are 
to become members of the purchasing company whether they 
will or not ; ^ although it seems to be conceded that if express 
authority for such an arrangement be embodied in the incor- 
poration paper, it will be efficacious.^ 

§ 62. Unlawful Objects — How Illegality determined. — The 
determination of the question what is a lawful object does not, 
in general, depend at all on matters of corporation law. To lie, 
to steal, to kill are unlawful objects but their illegality does not 
depend on questions pertinent in a treatise on corporation law. 
The matter of incorporation for illegal purposes is, moreover, 
the subject of detailed consideration below.* Suffice it here to 
say that the illegality may appear from other parts of the incor- 
poration paper than the object clause. For instance, if the pro- 
posed name of the company involves a false representation, the 
company is not formed for a lawful purpose, however innocent 
the objects as specified in the object clause may be.® The ques- 
tion whether the purpose of incorporation is lawful is ordinarily 
a question of state rather than of federal law.' 

§ 63. Incorporation for a Purpose provided for by a differ- 
ent Statute. — Where one statute authorizes incorporation for 
any lawful purpose and another statute provides for the incor- 
poration of certain kinds of corporations — such as railway, 
telegraph, telephone, or gas companies — it would seem that no 
company can be incorporated under the more general statute 
for purposes which are covered by the other statute.' The legis- 

' Supra, § 54-§ 55. note inadequate) ; 21 Sup. Ct. 

" Ex parte Bagshaw, 4 Eq. 341. 378. 

' Ex parte Bagshaw, 4 Eq. 341, ' Richards v. Dover, 61 N. J. Law 

348. 400 (headnote inadequate), 89 Atl. 

* Infra, Chapter V. 705. Cf. Montdair Military Acad- 

' Eex V. Registrar Joint Stock emy v. State Board of Assessors, 65 

Companies (1904), 2 Jr. 634, 640. N. J. Law 516; 47 Atl. 558; Do- 

' New Orleans Debenture, etc. Co. mestic Telegraph Co. v. Newark, 49 

V. Louisiana, 180 D. S. 320 (head- N. J. Law 344, 348 ; 8 Atl. 128. 

59 



§ 64 THE INCOEPOEATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

lature is taken to have intended that, notwithstanding the gen- 
eral language of the former statute, no corporation should be 
formed for the purposes mentioned in the other statute without 
subjecting itself to the provisions of the last mentioned act. In 
any such case, the courts will if possible refer the attempted 
incorporation to the statute under which the company might 
have been organized rather than to that under which the cor- 
poration purported to be acting.* 



§ 64-§ 102. WHAT POWERS IMPLIED WITHOUT EXPRESS 
MENTION IN OBJECT CLAUSE. 

§ 64. In general. — In drawing up the object clause of an 
incorporation paper, much may safely be left to implication. 
The old list of implied powers given by Blackstone and other 
early writers — the power to sue and be sued, to have perpetual 
succession, to make and use a common seal, etc., — is far too 
limited. Moreover, such so-called implied powers are usually 
expressly conferred by the general enabling act upon all cor- 
porations organized under it. There are many other powers, 
not enumerated in the text-books on the subject, and indeed so 
many and various as almost to defy enumeration, which are 
incidental to almost every modern corporation — certainly to 
every corporation framed on the joint-stock plan. Such powers 
need not be expressly mentioned in the incorporation paper in 
specifying the objects of the company.^ 

§ 65. Caution as to Reliance upon Implications of Law. — - 
But although much may safely be left to implication, a few 
pregnant phrases carrying a world of meaning, yet the part of 
wisdom is to rely comparatively little on important powers being 
read into the incorporation paper by construction or imphcation. 
A learned and experienced English lawyer and text-writer has 

' Minneapolis, etc. Surburban Ry. under a law for incorporation of 

Co. (Minn.), 112 N. W. 13; Inter- commercial steam railroads, the 

national Boom Co. v. Rainy Lake word " street " should be disregarded 

River Boom Co., 97 Minn. 513 ; 107 in the incorporation paper, which 

N. W. 735. set forth as the object of the com- 

But of. David Bradly Mfg. Co. v. pany the construction of a street 

Chicago, etc. Traction Co. (111.), 82 railway). 

N. E. 210 (where the court said that ' Kingsbury Collieries and Moore's 

where a corporation is organized Contract (1907), 2 Ch. 259. 

60 



§ 31-§ 162] POWERS IMPLIED § 66 

said on this subject : " A very concise statement of objects may, 
by implication, as the lawyer is aware, cover a great deal, but a 
memorandum of association is a popular document intended 
not merely for lawyers, but for the guidance of shareholders, 
directors, and of the general public, and, accordingly, it is not 
expedient to rely too much on implication. Experience shows 
that it is better to be explicit, and thus to preclude as far as 
practicable the doubts and dijBBculties which inevitably arise 
on the construction of a very concise statement of objects. 
Hence the somewhat elaborate statements of objects now so 
commonly found. These clauses may err by excess of detail; 
but over-elaboration is better than over-conciseness. Nothing 
is more irritating to those who have to manage a company than 
to find that the powers of the company are fettered or ques- 
tioned, and its business impeded or prejudiced simply because 
the framer of the memorandum of association has framed it 
without sufficient foresight or judgment, and has, contrary to 
the fact, assumed that the ordinary business man is familiar 
with the legal and somewhat conflicting decisions as to the 
powers which may be implied by a concise statement of 
objects." ^ 

§ 66. Oaution as to express Mention of Powers that might 
be implied — Maxim of Expressio Vnius. — One danger lurks 
in over-elaboration and the statement of unnecessary details: 
that is, that the express mention of certain powers which would 
ordinarily be implied should be held an inferential exclusion of 
all other similar powers that would likewise ordinarily be im- 
plied. Expressio unius exclusio alterius? Thus, an express 
power to borrow up to a certain amount would probably operate 
as an implied prohibition of borrowing to a greater amount,^ 
although, had nothing been said on the subject, the corpora- 
tion would have possessed an unlimited power of borrowing. 
This danger may be averted by an express provision that the 
mention among the company's objects of certain powers shall 
not be deemed to exclude by inference the exercise of any powers 

' Palmer's Company Law, 3d unius is "not applicable to the con- 
ed., 16. struction of charters"); Kingsbury 

' But see Edgewood Borough v. Collieries and Moore's Contract 

Scott, 29 Pa. Super. Ct. 156 (where (1907), 2 Ch. 259, 267-268. 
a somewhat misleading headnote ' Infra, § 69. 
states that the maxim expressio 

61 



§ 67 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

that might have been implied if no such express mention had 
been made. 

§ 67. Necessity for Draftsman to consider what Objects may 
be implied — • Scope of Treatment. — In order to determine what 
objects or powers must be expressly mentioned in preparing an 
incorporation paper, and what need not,' it is necessary to con- 
sider somewhat in detail what powers and objects may be im- 
plied. This consideration will not be permitted, however, to 
extend to a thoroughly exhaustive examination of the subject 
of the implied or incidental powers of corporations, but will be 
confined to such points as may be useful to draftsmen of incor- 
poration papers. 

§ 68. General Rules as to Implied Powers. — The general 
rules with reference to implied powers are well established. 
First, all powers not affirmatively granted, either expressly or 
impliedly, are denied. A corporation has such powers, and such 
only, as are conferred upon it by the act of incorporation or its 
incorporation jpaper ; all powers not either expressly or impliedly 
given are impliedly prohibited.^ Secondly, a corporation may 
exercise all powers that are fairly incidental, or reasonably 
adapted, to the attainment of its expressed objects;^ and even 
a statute which provides that no corporation shall exercise any 
powers except such as are "necessary" to the exercise of the 
powers, or attainment of the objects, set forth in the incorpo- 
ration paper does not alter this rule.* It is in the application of 
the rule that doubts and difficulties are encountered ; for the ap- 
plication of the rule involves "either a question of fact or at 
least a mixed question of law and fact," so that former adju- 
dicated cases often furnish an unsatisfactory guide.* The rule 
itself is settled beyond peradventure both in England and 
America. But the uncertainties of its application give rise, as 
already stated, to the desirability of mentioning expressly in 
the incorporation paper all powers that the company may 
desire to exercise, even though they might be thought imphed 
or incidental to the attainment of its other objects. 

' For an excellent and concise * EUerman v. Chicago Junction 

summary, see Palmer's Company Rys., etc. Co., 49 N. J. Eq. 217, 241- 

Law, 3d ed., pp. 46, 47. 243 ; 23 Atl. 287. 

' See supra, § 46. » Attorney-General v. Mersey Ry. 

' Newport News Shipbuilding, etc. Co. (1907), A. C. 415, 416, per 

Co. V. Jones (Va,), 54 S. E. 314. Lord Loreburn. 

62 



§ 31-§ 162] POWERS IMPLIED § 69 



§ 69-§ 74. Power to Borrow. 

§ 69. In general. — Take for instance the power to borrow 
money.' It is well settled both in England and America that 
a corporation, having power, as of course it has as incidental to 
its very existence, to purchase any property or rights that may 
reasonably be deemed proper for its business, may purchase the 
same on credit; and in like manner may order work and labor 
to be done for it on credit.^ In America, it may accomplish the 
same result by borrowing money to expend for its purposes;^ 
but in England this is indisputably true only in the case of trad- 
ing companies, other corporations having perhaps no such 
power.* The validity of a loan, wherever borrowing is intra 
vires, cannot be impeached because of an intention on the 
company's part, unknown to the creditor, to misapply the 
moneys and divert them to some vltra vires object.* Conse^ 
quently, there is in the United States no necessity to express in 
an incorporation paper the power of borrowing money as one 
of the company's objects. Moreover, any provision that may 
be inserted on the subject must either be regarded as surplusage, 
put in out of abundant caution, or else as restrictive in character. 
The latter alternative has received judicial approval.' Thus, 

' In Southern Brazilian, etc. Ry. Barb. (N. Y.) 20 ; Fifth Ward Sav. 
Co. (1905), 2 Ch. 78, 84, it was said Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 48 
that the power to borrow is not N. J. Law 513; 7 Atl. 318 (a sav- 
properly an "object," and there- ingsbank); Partridge y. Badger, 25 
fore need not be mentioned in the Barb. (N. Y.) 146; Burr v. Mc- 
incorporation paper. Donald, 3 Gratt. (Va.) 215; Thonvp- 

' Bagnalstown & Wexford Ry. Co., son v. Lambert, 44 Iowa 239 ; Wright 
It. Rep. iEq. 505; Cork and Youghal v. Hughes, 119 Ind. 324; 21 N. E. 
%. Co., 4 Ch. 748, 757 (semble). 907; 12 Am. St. Rep. 412; Ward v. 

" WaUs's Appeal, 78 Fa,. St. 370; Johnson, 95 III. 215; Curtiss v. 
Booth V. Robinson, 55 Md. 419, 436 ; Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 1 ; Eastman v. Park- 
Fidelity Trust Co. V. Louisville Gas inson (Wise), 113 N. W. 649. 
Co., 81 S. W. 927 ; 26 Ky.L. Rep., 401; But see Bacon v. Mississppi 
RockweU V. Elkhorn Bank, 13 Wise. Ins. Co. (1856), 31 Miss. 116 (in- 
653; Wyman v. Wallace, 201 U. S. surance company no power to bor- 
230; 26 Sup. Ct. 495 (as to powers row to pay liabilities). 
of national banks) ; Bohn v, Boone * 1 Lindley on Companies, 6th 
& Loan Ass'n (Iowa), 112 ed., 284, et seq. 

' See infra, § 1061. 
" In addition to cases cited below, 
see Commonwealth v. Smith, 10 
33 L. R. A. 99 ; Mead v. Keeler, 24 Allen (Mass.), 448 ; 87 Am. Dec. 672. 

63 



N. W. 199 (a building society) 
Heironimus v. Sweeny, 83 Md. 146 
34 Atl. 823 ; 55 Am. St. Rep. 333 



§ 70 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

where a special act of incorporation provided that the company 
should have power to borrow on mortgage to an amount not 
exceeding one third of the company's paid-up capital, any other 
borrowing was held to be ultra vires} Indeed, express authority 
to a railway company to borrow on mortgage has been declared 
to be an impUed prohibition of borrowing without security.^ 
On the other hand, a clause in an incorporation paper pur- 
porting to empower the company "to issue bonds secured by 
mortgage or mortgages upon the property and franchises of said 
corporation, and to sell the same for the purpose of raising 
money with which to erect machinery " has been held not to be 
an implied prohibition of borrowing money on mortgage other- 
wise than by the issue of bonds and for a purpose other than 
the erection of machinery.' This last cited case evinces what 
is submitted to be the proper attitude towards such questions. 

§ 70. Evasion of a Prohibition of Borrowing. — Even where 
a corporation is expressly prohibited from borrowing, it may 
often accomplish virtually the same result by an outright sale 
of its property coupled with an agreement for a lease back to 
the company for a period of years at a rental equal in the aggre- 
gate to the purchase price and interest thereon, the title at the 
end of the term to revert to the company.' Moreover, even where 
a loan is effected in violation of a prohibition, valuable rights 
may be acquired by the lender either upon the express contract 
or quasi ex contractu? 

§ 71. Power to Mortgage. — The power to bort-ow, wher- 
ever it exists, or to create an indebtedness, carries with it the 
power to secure the indebtedness by mortgage of some or all 
of the company's property." The only qualification upon this 

' Landowners' , etc. Drainage Co. Cf. Thatcher v. Consumers' Gas & 

V. Ashford, 16 Ch. D. 411, 43&- Fuel Co. (N. J.), 66 Atl. 934 (where 

437 (headnote inadequate) ; Wen- a statute purporting to empower 

lock v. River Dee Co., 10 App. Cas. corporations to increase their bonded 

354. indebtedness was held not to restrict 

' Chambers v. Manchester, etc. Ry. by implication such corporations as 

Co., 5 B. & S. 588. Cf. Cape Sable already enjoyed a more extended 

Company's Case, 3 Bland Ch. (Md.), power of issuing bonds than was al- 

606. A power to mortgage includes lowed in the statute). 
power to borrow on mortgage * Yorkshire Ry. Wagon Co. v. 

bonds. Oloninger v. Pittsburgh, etc. Maclure, 21 Ch. D. 309. 
R. R. Co., 139 Pa. St. 13. » Cf. infra, § 118. 

' Brown v. Citizens' Ice, etc. Co. ' Watts's Appeal, 78 Pa. St. 370 ; 

(N. J.), 66 Atl. 181. Hopson v. Mna Axle, etc. Co., 50 

64 



§ 31-§ 162] POWERS IMPLIED § 72 

statement is in the case of railways and other public service cor- 
porations which, having no right to disable themselves from 
performing their public duties by aliening their road-bed or 
other necessary property, cannot lawfully create incumbrances 
upon the same which in case of foreclosure may result in aliena- 
tion.* Even a railway company, however, has implied power 
to mortgage its surplus lands.^ A corporation that has power 
to mortgage its property may execute a mortgage to secure future 
advances.^ The extent to which express provisions conferring 
a power to borrow on mortgage can be construed as prohibit- 
ing any other or further mortgaging has been considered in a 
former paragraph in connection with the power to borrow. An 
express power to execute mortgages to secure the repayment 
of borrowed money does not by implication exclude the power 
to create mortgages to secure debts contracted otherwise than 
for money lent.* Where the directors of a company have power 
to mortgage but are prohibited from issuing bills of exchange, 
a mortgage securing a bill of exchange representing an antece- 
dent debt will be enforceable.' 

§ 72. Power to mortgage uncalled Capital. — While the power 
of a company to mortgage all its property and rights is in general 
incident to the power to borrow, an exception has been thought 
to exist in the case of one very peculiar right — the right to call 
up unpaid capital. In a comparatively early English case, the 
power of a corporation to create a charge upon future calls was 
denied ; ° and while subsequent cases clearly hold that such a 
charge is legal if authorized by the company's memorandum 

Conn. 597 ; Booth v. Robinson, 55 acquired property, see infra, § 1853- 

Md. 419, 436; Patent File Co., 6 § 1858. 

Ch. 83 ; Bickford v. Grand Junction ' See Short on Railway Bonds 

Ry. Co., 1 Can. Sup. Ct. Rep. 696, and Mortgages, §142. 

729-732; Stisquehanna Bridge, etc. ' Imperial Mercantile Credit Ass'n 

Co. V. General Ins. Co., 3 Md. 305; v. London, etc. Ry. Co., 15 W. R. 

56 Am. Dec. 7 iO; BeU & Coggeshall 1187. 

Co. V. Ky. Glass Works Co. (Ky.), " Jones v. Guaranty, etc. Co., 

50 S. W. 2 ; 20 Ky. Law Rep. 1684 ; 101 U. S. 622. 

Thompson v. Lambert, 44 Jowa 239; * Allen v. Montgomery R. R. Co., 

Wright V. Hughes, 119 Ind. 324; 21 11 Ala. 437, 454. 

N. E. 907 ; 12 Am. St. Rep. 412 ; « Scott v. Colburn, 26 Beav. 276. 

Ward V. Johnson, 95 111. 215 ; East- ' Stanley's Case, 33 L. J. Ch. 535. 

man v. Parkinson (Wise), 113 Cf. Sankey Coal Co. (No. 2), 10 

N. W. 649. Eq. 381 ; Bank of South Australia 

As to power to mortgage after- v. Abrahams, L. R. 6 P. C. 265. 
VOL. I. — 5 65 



§73 



THE IXCOnrORATION' PAPER 



[Chap. II 



of association,' yet no case has decided that the power exists 
in the absence of any express authority therefor in the com- 
pany's constitution.^ In the United States, the question has 
not often arisen.^ This is natural enough; for the practice of 
carrying on business with a portion of the issued capital unpaid 
is much rarer than in Great Britain. It has been held that no 
power exists to mortgage an unpaid subscription to the com- 
pany's capital where a statute empowers the company to mort- 
gage its franchises and certain named kinds of property, not, 
however, mentioning unpaid subscriptions.* At ail events, a 
call which has been already determined upon but which is still 
unpaid may be mortgaged to the same extent as any other debt 
due to the company.^ 

§ 73. Power to issue Notes, Bonds, etc. — Another con- 
comitant of the power to borrow is the power to give the lender 
some written evidence of the debt, such, for instance, as a bond ; " 
and, on principle, this evidence may be put in the most conven- 
ient and available shape, that is, in the shape of a promissory 
note or other negotiable instrument.' In England, however. 



' Newton v. Anglo-Australian, 
etc. Co. (1895), A. C. 244. 

Cf. Phcenix Bessemer Co., 44 L. J. 
Ch. 683; Tilbury Portland Cement 
Co., 62 L. J. Ch. 814. 

= But teee Jackson v. Rainford 
Co. (1896), 2 Ch. 340, where a trad- 
ing company whose memorandum 
of association was silent on the sub- 
ject of borrowing and whose articles 
of association recognized a power to 
borrow on bonds, debentures, "or in 
such other manner as the company 
may determine," was held to have 
power to charge uncalled capital. 

Cf. Coler V. Grainger County, 74 
Fed. 16; 20 C. C. A. 267; Beal v. 
Dillon, 5 Kans. App. 27; 47 Pac. 
317; Lionberger v. Broadway Sav- 
ings Bank, 10 Mo. App. 499; Epp- 
right v. Nickerson, 78 Mo. 482; 
Racine County Bank v. Ayers, 12 
Wise. 512. 

' See, however, American cases 
cited in last note. 

* Morris v. Cheney, 51 111. 451. 

» Sankey Coal Co., 9 Eq. 721 ; 



Gibbs <fc West's Case, 10 Eq. 312; 
Wells V. Rodgers, 50 Mich. 294 ; 15 
N. W. 462. 

But see King v. Marshall, 33 
Beav. 565; Morris v. Cheney, 51 
111. 451. 

' Smith V. Law, 21 N. Y. 296, 
298-299 ; Commissioners of Craven 
V. AUantic, etc. R. R. Co., 77 N. Can 
289; Rockwell v. Elkhorn Bank, 13 
Wise. 653 ; Barnes v. Ontario Bank, 
19 N. Y. 152, 156 (headnote inade- 
quate) ; Commonivealth v. Smith, 10 
Allen (Mass.), 448; 87 Am. Dec. 
672 ; Curtiss v. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 1 
(where the giving of certain forms 
of evidences of indebtedness was 
prohibited by statute). 

' Fidelity Trust Co. v. Louisville 
Gas Co., 81 S. W. 927, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 
401 ; Dams v. West Saratoga Bldg. 
Union, 32 Md. 285 ; Union Bank ■^. 
Jacobs, 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 515; 
Mead v. Keeler, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 
20 ; Fifth Ward Sav. Bank v. First 
Nat. Bank, 48 N. J. Law 513 ; 7 Atl. 
318; Ward v. Johnson, 95 111. 215. 



GO 



§ 31-§ 162] POWERS IMPLIED § 74 

it is held that in general no corporation has the power to issue 
negotiable paper unless expressly so authorized by statute or 
by its memorandum of association ; although to this rule an 
exception exists ex necessitate rei, in the case of companies en- 
gaged in trade/ But in America the reasoning of these decisions 
has been criticised, and the rule adopted that every corporation 
that has power to borrow, whether it be organized for trading 
purposes or not, has power to evidence the debt by its promis- 
sory note, bill of exchange, or other negotiable instrument. Ac- 
cordingly, we are relieved from considering the numerous de- 
cisions in England and the British colonies upon the question 
whether certain corporations are entitled to emit negotiable 
paper or not. Where an express statute gives power to a rail- 
way company to borrow money for construction of its road and 
to secure the debt by mortgage of its property and franchises, 
it may issue mortgage bonds as security for an indebtedness 
antecedently incurred for that purpose.^ Where a corporation 
has power to borrow by a sale of its bonds, it may borrow by 
pledge of the bonds.' 

§ 74. Power to issue Irredeemable Bonds or Debentures. — 
The power to "borrow" on perpetual or irredeemable bonds 
or other securities cannot readily be implied. In England, it 
is held that perpetual debenture-stock * cannot be issued with- 
out express authority in the company's memorandum of asso- 
ciation. Indeed, a clause in the memorandum of association 
expressly authorizing the company to borrow money by the issue 
of debentures or debenture-stock will not justify the issue of 
irredeemable debenture-stock; and hence the issue of such 
security is ultra vires even though expressly sanctioned by 
articles of association adopted and recorded contemporaneously 
with such a. memorandum.^ The word "borrow" implies that 
the money borrowed is sooner or later to be repaid. In Penn- 

Note, however, that authority to ' 1 Lindley on Companies, 6thi 

an agent to borrow money does not ed., 242, 243. 

empower him to execute a negoti- ' Duncomb v. New York, etc. R. R. 

able instrument in the principal's Co., 84 N. Y. 190, 200. 
I ame for the amount borrowed; ' Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Toledo, 

Bangs v. Nai. Macaroni Co., 15 N. etc. R. R. Co., 54 Fed. 759. 
Y. App. Div. 622; 44 N. Y. Supp. < See infra, § 1687. 
546. Cf. Hatch v. Coddington, 95 ' Southern Brazilian, etc. Ry. Co, 

U. S. 48. (1905), 2 Ch. 78. 

67 



§ 75 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

sylvania, on the other hand, it has been held that irredeemable 
bonds may be issued without express authority.' 

§ 75- § 76. Power to acquire and hold Property. 

§ 75. In general. — The power to acquire and hold such 
real and personal property as may be advantageous for the 
company's business is suflBciently implied by the law without 
express mention either in the incorporation act or in the incor- 
poration paper.^ The amount of property which the company 
may acquire and hold is not at all limited by the- nominal 
amount of its capital.^ The power extends to the acquisition 
and holding of property in the customary and most beneficial 
manner. Thus, a corporation, the period of whose existence is 
limited to a term of years, may acquire the fee-simple title to 
land.* And a railway corporation having occasion to take a 
lease of real estate for its use may make the usual covenant to 
insure the premises, and if it fail to do so may be held respon- 
sible in case of fire for the amount of the loss.* To be sure, 
the Statute of Wills," which first permitted testamentary dispo- 
sition of legal title to real estate, by its express terms excepted 
devises to corporations so that such devises remained void as 
at common law.' Although this exception was maintained in 
some of the early statutes of wilk in the United States,' it 

^ Philaddphia, etc. R. R. Co.'a Ap- shares in other companies, Bee infia, 

peal, 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cases, 118 § 81-§ 84. 
(Pa.). ' Infra, § 577. 

Contra: Taylor v. Philadelphia, * Infra, § 116. 
etc. R. R. Co., 7 Fed. 386. » Jacksonville, etc. Ry. Co. v. 

' Central Ohio Natural Gas & Hooper, 160 U. S. 514 ; 16 S. Ct. 379. 

FiiM Co. V. Capital, etc. Dairy Co., As to the power of corporations to 

60 Ohio St. 96; 53 N. E. 711; 64 make the usual covenants in leases, 

L. R. A. 395 (manufacturing com- see Abby v. BUlups, 35 Miss. 618; 

pany held to have power to purchase 72 Am. Dec. 143 (covenant to repair 

entire business of an existing concern and to rebuild in case of fire), 
including a claim for damages for a ° 34 Hen. YIII, c. 5. 
tort) ; Jamieson & McFarland v. ' Grant on Corporations, 112. 
Heim (Wash.), 86 Pac. 165 (power • McCartee v. Orphan Asylum 

to purchase commercial paper); Soc., 9 Cow. (N. Y.), 437 (holding 

Brown v. Winnisimmet Co., 11 Allen that statutory power to "purchase" 

(Mass.), 326 (ferry company au- land does not confer power to take 

thorized to acquire boats not needed by devise) ; Downing v. Marshall, 23 

for present use) ; MaUett v. Simpson, N. Y. 366 (holding also that express 

94 N. Car. 37 (real estate). statutory power to acquire land by 

As to the power to purchase "purchase or qtherwise" puts the 

68 



§ 31- § 162] POWERS IMPLIED § 76 

has been omitted in the English Wills Act of 1837 ' and gener- 
ally in the statutes of wills now in force in America,^ so that 
corporations are now as competent to acquire land by devise as 
in any other way. The restriction upon devises to corpora- 
tions wherever it exists is absolute and could hardly be de- 
feated even by an express clause in the incorporation paper 
mentioning the acquisition of real estate by devise as one 
of the objects of the company. Indeed, the incapacity under 
the Statute of Wills was not so much that of the corporation 
as of the testator. Equitable interests in real estate have 
always been devisable ^ without the aid of any statute, and 
therefore might always be devised to corporations;* and so 
also personal property including chattels real might always be 
bequeathed to corporations. 

§ 76. Power to hold as Joint-tenant or in Common. — It 
is generally suMj^ed that at common law a corporation could 
not hold propH^in joint tenancy either with another corpora- 
tion or with an individual.' The essential characteristic of joint 
tenancy — namely the right of survivorship — cannot exist in 
the case of corporations. This rule has been abolished in Eng- 
land by express statute." Where no such statute exists, it would 
seem useless to express in an incorporation paper the holding 
of property as joint tenant as one of the objects of the company. 
The objection is inherent in the nature of a corporation, and 
not even under the most liberal incorporation laws can a com- 
pany be incorporated for the purpose of doing what the law re- 
gards as an impossibility. There is no objection to a corporation 



corporation on the same footing as tions, § 178; 1 Morawetz on Priv. 

natural persons in respect to capac- Corps., § 331. 

ity to take by devise). ' Law Guarantee Soc. v. Bank of 

As to the effect of such provisions England, 24 Q. B. D. 406 ; Bacon 
upon devises of land in a state whose Abr. Tit. "Joint-tenants and Ten- 
laws permit devises to corporations ants in Common," B ; DeWitt v. 
which are authorized to take, see San Francisco, 2 Cal. 289, 297 
Starkweather v. Am. Bible Soc, 72 (semble) ; Telfair v. Howe (S. Car.), 
III. 50 ; Thompson v. Swoope, 24 Pa. 3 Rich. Eq. 235 ; 55 Am. Dec. 637 ; 
St. 474. Freeman on Cotenancy and Parti- 

' 1 Vict., c. 26. tion, 2d ed., § 15 (questioning reason 

' Stimson's Am. Stat. Law, § of rule). 
2610. » "Bodies Corporate Joint Ten- 

' 1 Sanders on Uses, 64. ancy Act, 1899," 62 and 63 Vict., 

' Cf. Angell & Ames on Corpora- c. 20. 



§77 



THE INCOHPORATION PAPER 



[Chap. II 



owning property as tenant in common.' Indeed, in America, 
it is not uncommon for a trust company to become a co-trustee 
with an individual,^ and upon the death of the individual trustee 
the trust is generally supposed to devolve exclusively upon the 
corporation by survivorship. 



§ 77- § 79. Power of Alienation. 

§ 77. In general. — Except in the case of public-service cor- 
porations^ the implied powers of alienation are ample without 
any supplement from express provisions.' The only qualifica- 
tion to this statement, with respect to ordinary industrial cor- 
porations, is the case ^^^^aleof the entire property, business, 
a,nd undertaking of th^^i^H^^M^^^^case has been con- 
sidered above at some length^^MmH^^^Mter treated pres- 
ently." The implied power to alien ateesSJI^^^^e most usual 
method of transfer. Thus, a corporation w^^^Hkis negotiable 
paper may transfer the same by indorsement, T^^^ fortiori may 
couple the sale with an express guarantee of payment.' So, a 
corporation on assigning a mortgage may guarantee payment 
of the mortgage debt.* Moreover, a corporation may lease its 



' De Witt V. San Francisco, 2 
Cal. 289 ; Estell v. University of the 
South, 12 Lea (Tenn.), 476; Hackett 
V. Mvltrwmdh Ry. Co., 12 Oreg. 124 ; 
6 Pac. 659 ; 53 Am. Rep. 327 (co- 
ownership of a ferry-franchise). 

Cf. Calvert v. Idaho Stage Co., 25 
Oreg. 412 ; 36 Pac. 24. 

' Cf. Thompson v. Alexander 
(1905), 1 Ch. 229 (holding that, in 
consequence of the "Bodies Corpo- 
rate Joint Tenancy Act," a corpora- 
tion may be appointed co-trustee 
with an individual) ; Crowley v. 
Sandhurst, etc. Co., 23 Vict. L. R. 661 
(holding that corporation may act 
as co-trustee with individuals in con- 
sequence merely of parliamentary 
authority to act as trustee and with- 
out any authority to act as joint- 
tenant). Cf. Pennsylvania Co. for 
Ins. V. Bauerle, 143 111. 459. 

' As to this, see Baldwin's Am. 
Railroad Law, 448 et seq. 



* KingsburyCollieries and Moore's 
Coniraci (1907), 2 Ch. 259; Binney's 
Case, 2 Bland Ch. (Md.) 99. 

' Supra, § 54-§55. 

' Infra, § 78. 

' People's Bank v. National Bank, 
101 U. S. 181 ; Fidelity Trust Co. v. 
LouisoiUe Gas Co., 81 S. W. 927; 26 
Ky. L. Rep. 401 ; Roosevelt v. Nash- 
ville, etc. Ry. Co., 128 Fed. 465 (head- 
note misleading) ; Lloyd & Co. v. 
Matthews, 119 111. App. 546 (in- 
dorsement of note of debtor for the 
purpose of enabling the latter to 
obtain money for payment of debt 
by negotiating or discounting the 
note), affirmed in 223 111. 477; 79 
N. E. 172; 7 L. R. A., n. s., 376; 
Broadway Nat. Bank v. Baker, 176 
Mass. 294 ; 57 N. E. 603. 

Cf. infra, § 91. 

' Blair v. Metropolitan Savings 
Bank (Wash.), 67 Pac. 609; 27 
Wash. 192. 



70 



§ 31-§ 162] POWERS IMPLIED § 78 

surplus real estate and agree to pay the lessee at the end of the 
term the reasonable value of any buildings erected by him on 
the demised premises.' 

§ 78. Sale of entire Property and Business. — We have seen 
above that a sale of the entire business or undertaking and of 
all the property of a corporation which has no public duties to 
perform is a lawful purpose and may therefore properly be 
specified as one of the objects of a company incorporated under 
the liberal modern laws.^ It would seem clear, however, that 
even under the modern liberal general incorporation laws a sale 
of the company's entire business (unless it be necessary to secure 
creditors) will be vltra vires unless the incorporation paper speci- 
fies such a sale as one of the object s of^ the company.^ This 
conclusion would seei^^^o^^M^flPiy from the well estab- 
lished rule tha^^^^^^Hpi^porated by special acts have 
no implied po^^^BpB^^r all their business and property ex- 
cept for the J^^Hrof creditors. It has been held that a pro- 
vision in anii|PP^oration paper authorizing a sale of all the 
company's property will not justify a sale of all the company's 
property and "franchises" except the franchise to be a corpora- 
tion.* This limitation or qualification upon the general implied 
power of alienation is, however, very narrowly restricted, for 
a company has the implied power to sell out its works or plant 
for the purpose of acquiring others.^ Thus, a hotel company 
has the implied power to sell its hotel and purchase another." 

■ Hollywood V. First Parish in sumers' Gas Trust Co., 144 Fed. 640; 

Brockton, 192 Mass. 269, 277. 75 C. C. A. 442 ; Anderscm v. Shaw- 

' Supra, § 54-§55. nee Compress Co. (Okl.), 87 Pac. 315 

' People V. Ballard, 134 N. Y. (lease of all company's property held 

269; 32N. E.54; 17L. R. A. 737; to be authorized by implication 

Parsons v. Tacoma Smdting, etc. Co. where continuation of the business 

65 Pac. 765 ; 25 Wash. 492 (lease is not profitable), 

instead of sale) ; Hunt v. American * Coler v. Tacoma By., etc. Co. 

Grocery Co., 81 Fed. 532; Byrne v. (N. J.), 54 Atl. 413; 65 N. J. Eq. 

Schuyler, etc. Mfg. Co., 65 Conn. 336; 347; 103 Am. St. Rep. 786 (note 

31 Atl. 833 ; 28 L. R. A. 304. Cf. that this company was a public- 

Easun v. Buckeye Brewing Co., 51 service corporation). 

Fed. 156. " In addition to cases cited below, 

But see Wilson v. Miers, 10 C. B., see Ritchie v. Vermillion Mining Co., 

N. s., 348; Bartholomew v. Derby 4 Ont. L. R. 588 (sale by mining 

Rubber Co., 69 Conn. 521; 38 Atl. company of its mine). 

45 ; 61 Am. St. Rep. 57 (lease with ° Freeman v. Sea View Hotel Co., 

privilege of purchase sustained). 57 N. J. Eq. 68 ; 40 Atl. 218. 

Cf. City of. Indianapolis v. Con- 

71 



§ 79 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

So, a sale by a steamboat company of its only boat is intra vires 
although there be no express power of alienation/ Moreover, 
as already intimated, a corporation in failing circumstances 
has implied power to make a general assignment for the benefit 
of creditors,^ or may sell all its property and business for the 
purpose of obtaining money to pay creditors.^ 

§ 79. Sale of Business in exchange for Shares in purchasing- 
Corporation. — - A clause authorizing a sale of the company's 
business and undertaking does not justify a transfer of the busi- 
ness in exchange for shares in the purchasing company, certainly 
not if the shares are to be issued not to the vendor corporation 
but to its several members.* Such an arrangement is not a sale 
but is more in the nature of a consolidation or amalgamation.* 
Even an express provision in an incorporation paper authoriz- 
ing a sale of the company's business and undertaking in ex- 
change for shares in another company will^ot sustain an 
agreement whereby the sale is to be made in e^^Bge for partly 
paid shares in the vendee company with a s^Hation that, in 
the event of a winding-up of the vendor company involving a 
distribution of the partly paid shares among the shareholders of 
the old company, any of the partly paid shares which should be 
distributable to a shareholder in the vendor company and which 
he should refuse to accept should be sold and applied in pay- 
ment of debts of the vendor company, which by the terms of 
the contract the purchasing company was to assume." 



' Leathers v. Janney, 41 La. Ann. the transferee company) ; Taylor v. 

1120; 6 So. 884; 6 L. R. A. 661. Burlington Cotton Mills, 8 Hun 

' Cf. Du-puy V. Terminal Co., 82 (N. Y.) 1 ; Elyton Land Co. v. Dow- 

Md.408. See also infra, § 1435, as to deU, 113 Ala. 177; 20 So. 981; 59 

the powers of directors to authorize Am. St. Rep. 105. 
such an assignment. But see Traer v. Lucas Prospect- 

' Phillips V. Providence Steam En- ing Co., 99 N. W. 290 ; 124 Iowa 107 ; 

jineCo.,21R. I. 302. Cf. infra, §1435. Treadwell v. Salisbury Mfg. Co., 7 

* Dougan's Case, 8 Ch. 540. Gray (Mass.) 393, 404-406; 66 Am. 

Cf . Forrester v. Boston, etc. Mining Dec. 490 ; Metcalf v. A merican 

Co., 21 Mont. 544, 560-564; 55 Pac. School FurnitMre Co., 122 Fed. 115. 
229, 353 ; Easun v. Buckeye Brewing .See also supra, § 61. 
Co., 56 Fed. 156; Post v. Beacon, = See supra, § 61. 
etc. Co., 84 Fed. 371 ; 28 C. C. A. 431 " Manners v. St. Davids Gold, etc. 

(where complainant shareholders Co. (1904), 2 Ch. 593. 
had waived their right to object, by Cf. Fuller v. White Feather Re- 

subscribing, though under protest, ward (1906), 1 Ch. 823 ; Bisgood v. 

to their proportion of the shares of Nile Valley Co. (1906), 1 Ch. 747. 

72 



§ 31-§ 162] POWERS IMPLIED § 81 

§ 80. Power to abandon some of Company's Objects. — 
Somewhat akin to the sale of a company's business is the aban- 
donment of part of its objects for the purpose of devoting its 
funds exclusively to the remainder. This is generally permis- 
sible even without any explicit authorization in the incorpora- 
tion paper.* Thus, where the objects of a company were stated 
to be the erection and maintenance of a brewery or breweries 
in Brighton and also the purchase of a brewery known as the 
North Street Brewery, the company may purchase a brewery 
known as the Brighton Brewery, although the consummation 
of such purchase will so deplete its funds as to preclude forever 
the purchase of the North Street Brewery.^ On the other hand, 
a corporation which was formed under a special act for the pur- 
pose of constructing a railway from E. to P. and which was con- 
templating constructing only a small portion of that line — 
namely, from E. to L. — was enjoined, on a shareholder's bill, 
from applying its funds to the construction of that portion only, 
— that is, without any intention of completing the whole line.' 
Moreover, a corporation cannot by contract bind itself not to 
exercise powers conferred upon it by its incorporation paper : * 
to do so would limit and therefore alter the incorporation paper. 
If any such contract were clearly authorized by the incorpora- 
tion paper itself, this objection would vanish; unless indeed 
such a provision should be held invalid under the principle that 
a clause in the incorporation paper authorizing the company 
to alter the instrument otherwise than as by statute allowed is 
void.^ 

§ 81- §84. Power to become Member of another Corporation — 
to purchase Shares in another Company. 

§ 81. In general. — Another power which it is often de- 
sirable to exercise and about the existence of which question 

' Illinois Trust, etc. Co. v. Doud, Cf. Hodgson v. Poms, 12 Beav. 

105 Fed. 123, 128-129 ; 44 C. C. A. 392 ; Graham v. Birkenhead, etc. Ry. 

389; 52 L. R. A. 481; Thellussonv. Co., 2 Mac. & G. 146; Bagshawe v. 

Viscount Valentia (1906), 1 Ch. 480, Eastern Union By. Co., 2 Mac. & 

affirmed in (1907), 2 Ch. 1. G. 389. 

' Syers v. Brighton Brewery Co., * Foster v. Borax Co. (1901), 1 

13 W. R. 220. Ch. 326, 342 (semble) ; per Vaughan 

' Cohen v. Wilkinson, 1 Mac. & Williams, L. J. 
G. 481. « See infra, § 144. 

73 



§ 82 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

is often raised is the power to acquire and hold shares in another 
corporation. Although the cases on this subject are far from 
harmonious, yet certain principles in regard to it are established 
by the substantial consensus of authority. We have seen above 
that this power may lawfully be enjoyed by a corporation, and 
hence may be made one of the expressed objects of incorpora- 
tion under laws which allow companies to be incorporated for 
any lawful purposes. Whether the power exists, and to what 
extent, is entirely a question of construction of the incorpo- 
ration paper. 

§ 82. When the Power may be implied. — It is clear that 
in some cases the power may be implied without express lan- 
guage. In the first place, any corporation having power to lend 
money may accept shares in another corporation as collateral 
security,' and may in order to render the security as effective as 
possible become the registered holder of the shares either before '' 
or after ' default on the borrower's part. Secondly, any cor- 
poration may accept shares in another company in discharge 
of a debt for which satisfaction can be obtained in no other way,* 
and that too even though a statute expressly prohibits the pur- 

' Royal Bank of India, iCh. 252; Cf. Franklin Co. v. Lewiston 

National Bank v. Case, 99 U. S. 628, Institution, 68 Me. 43 ; 28 Am. 

633 (headnote inadequate) ; Knowles Rep. 9. 

\. Sandercock, 107 Cal. 629, 643; ' National Bank v. Case, 9Q U.S. 

40 Pac. 1047 (semble) ; Calumet 628 (headnote inadequate). 

Paper Co. y. Investment Co., 96 lowB. * First Nat. Bank v. Nat. Ex- 

147 ; 64 N. W. 782 ; 59 Am. St. Rep. clmnge Bank, 92 U. S. 122, 128 

362 ; Shoemaker v. Nat. Mechanics (semble) ; Fidelity Insurance Co. v. 

Bank, 2 Abb. (U. S.) 416. German Savings Bank, 127 Iowa 591 ; 

But there is a presumption 103 N. W. 958; Westminster Nat. 
against any intent on the part of the Bank v. New England Electric Works, 
creditor corporation to make itself 62 Atl. 971 ; 73N. H. 465; 111 Am. 
owner of the hypothecated shares: St. Rep. 637; Howe v. Boston Car- 
Robinson V. Southern Nat. Bank, 180 pet Co., 16 Gray (Mass.) 493; Lati- 
V. S. 295 ; 21 S. Ct. 383. mer v. Citizens' State Bank, 102 Iowa 

A bank on making a loan cannot 162 ; 71- N. W. 225 ; First Nat. 

accept shares as a bonus: Nassau Bank of Charlotte v. Nat. Exchange 

Bank v. Jones, 95 N. Y. 115 ; 47 Am. Bank, 39 Md. 600. 

Rep. 14. See also Lands Allotment Co. 

' Royal Bank of India, 4 Ch. 252; (1894), 1 Ch. 616; Merchants' Nat. 

Calumet Paper Co. v. Slotts Invest- Bank v. Wehrmann, 202 U. S. 295 ; 

ment Co., 96 Iowa 147; 64 N. W. 26 S. Ct. 613. 

782 ; 59 Am. St. Rep. 362 ; Victorian But see First Nat. Bank v. Con- 

Mtge., etc. Bank y. Australian Finan- verse, 200 U. S. 425; 26 S. Ct. 

cial, etc. Co., 19 Vict. L. R. 680. 306. 

74 



§ 31-§ 162] POWERS IMPLIED § 83 

chasing of stock in other corporations.' Moreover, in com- 
promise of a disputed claim any corporation may pay a larger 
sum than would otherwise be exacted in consideration of the 
transfer to it of shares in another company, that arrangement 
being reasonably deemed the most advantageous settlement 
practicable.^ Moreover, a corporation has incidental or implied 
power to insure its property with a mutual insurance company 
and thus become a member of the latter corporation.^ So, too, 
a corporation may perhaps have power to invest any surplus 
funds in some safe stocks, not for speculation, but merely for 
safe-keeping at a fair interest.* For if a company has on hand 
surplus funds which for the time being are not needed in its 
business, is it bound to keep them on deposit at its bankers? 
May it not invest them temporarily in any safe securities? 
And if so, why not in shares of stock in other corpora- 
tions? The only reason that can be assigned is that the 
transition to mere speculation is so easy. 

§ 83. When not implied. — Except in the instances above 
enumerated, and in similar cases, the power to purchase shares 
in other companies is not readily implied. According to some 
courts, if their language is to be construed literally, the power 
does not exist unless conferred by express language ; ^ but this 

' Holmes, etc. Mfg. Co. v. Holmes, American Bank, 132 Fed. 658 ; 65 

etc. Metal Co., 127 N. Y. 252; 27 C. C. A. 620; affirmed short in 199 

N. E. 831; 24 Am. St. Rep. 448. U. S. 603; 26 S. Ct. 750; Scho- 

' First Nat. Bank v. Nat. Ex- field v. Goodrich Bros. Banking Co., 

change Bank, 92 U. S. 122. 98 Fed. 271 ; 39 C. C. A. 76 ; Bank 

--y ' St. Paul Trust Co. v. Wampach of Commerce v. Hart, 37 Nebr. 197 ; 

/aT/j. Co., 50 Minn. 93; 52N.W.274. 55 N. W. 631; 40 Am. St. Rep. 

* Cf. Joint Stock Discount Co. v. 479 ; 20 L. R. A. 780 ; City of Good- 
Brown, 3 Eq. 139, 147-148; Pear- land v. Bank of Darlington, 74 Mo. 
son V. Concord R. R. Co., 62 N. H. App. 365 (semble). People v. Chi- 
637, 549; 13 Am. St. Rep. 590; cofiro Gas Tresi Co., 130 111. 268, 283- 
Burland v. Earle (1902), A. C. 83, 284; 22N. E. 798; 17 Am. St. Rep. 
95-97 (headnote inadequate) ; Booth 319 ; 8 L. R. A. 497 ; Concord First 
V. Robinson, 65 Md. 419, 433; Nat. Bank v. Hawkins, 174 U. S. 
Knowles v. Sandercock, 107 Cal. 364; 19 Sup. Ct. 739. 
629, 643 ; 40 Pac. 1047 ; Robotham ' Knowles v. Sandercock, 107 Cal. 
V. Prudential Ins. Co., 64 N. J. Eq. 629, 642; 40 Pac. 1047; Holmes, 
673, 687-689, 696; 53 Atl. 842; etc. Mfg. Co. v. Holmes, etc. Metal 
Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Perry, 3 Co., 127 N. Y. 252,257; 27 N. E. 
Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 339, 347-348; 831; 24 Am. St. Rep. 448 ; Commer- 
Hodges v. New England Screw Co., dial Fire Ins. Co. v. Board of Revenue 
1 R. I. 312, 347. Montgomery County, 99 Ala. 1 ; 14 

But see Shaw v. Nat. German- So. 490 ; 42 Am. St. Rep. 17 ; Byrne 

75 



83 



THE INCOEPORATION PAPER 



[Chap. II 



view seems to lay undue stress on mere phraseology, and is op- 
posed to the weight of authority. Thus, where one of a com- 
pany's objects is to assist in forming other corporations, it may 
furnish assistance by purchasing shares of their capital.' Some 
cases seem to go to the extent of holding that any corporation 
(unless positively prohibited) may purchase shares in other 
companies having the same or connected objects ; ''■ but the 
weight of authority does not support this extreme position.* 
Indeed, it has been held that power to purchase the business of 
other companies does not include power to accept a transfer of 



V. Schuyler, etc. Mfg. Co., 65 Conn. 
336; 31 Atl. 833; 28 L. R. A. 304; 
Oelbermann v. New York, etc. Ry. 
Co., 77 Hun (N. Y.), 332; 29 N. Y. 
Supp. 545. 

Authority to purchase "the capi- 
tal stock" of certain corporations 
includes authority to purchase shares 
of stock in those companies. People 
v. Chicago Gas Trust Co., 130 111. 268, 
281 (semble) ; 22 N. E. 798 ; 17 Am. 
St. Rep. 319 ; 8 L. R. A. 497. 

1 Peruvian Ry. Co., 19 L. T. 803. 

' Booth V. Robinson, 55 Md. 419; 
Davis V. U. S. Electric, etc. Co., 77 
Md. 35 ; 25 Atl. 982 ; Joseph Barw 
croft & Sons Co. v. Bloede, 106 Fed. 
396; 45 C. C. A. 354; 52 L. R. A. 
734; Canada Life Ass. Co. v. Peel 
Gen. Mfg. Co., 26 Grant (Can.) 477. 

Cf. HUl V. Nisbet, 100 Ind. 341 ; 
Rochester, etc. R. R. Co., 110 N. Y. 
119, 125; 17 N. E. 678. 

As to purchasing the stock of a 
rival company to prevent competi- 
tion, see Ellerman v. Chicago Junc- 
tion Rys., etc. Co., 49 N. J. Eq. 217, 
245, 246 ; 23 Atl. 287 and supra, § 60, 
and infra, § 302. 

° California Bank v. Kennedy, 
167 U. S. 362 ; 17 Sup. a. 831 ; De 
La Vergne, etc. Co. v. German Sav- 
ings Institution, 175 U. S. 40 ; 20 
Sup. Ct. 20; People v. Chicago Gas 
Trust Co., 130 111. 268; 22 N. E. 
798; 17 Am. St. Rep. 319; 8 L. R. 
A. 497 (stated supra, § 52) ; Pearson 
V. Concord R. R. Co., 62 N. H. 537; 
13 Am. St. Rep. 590 ; Central R. R. 



Co. V. Collins, 40 Ga. 582 ; Easun v. 
Buckeye Brewing Co., 51 Fed. 156; 
Lester v. Bemis Lumber Co., 74 S. W. 
518; 71 Ark. 379; Schofield v. Good- 
rich Bros. Banking Co., 98 Fed. 271 ; 
39 C. C. A. 76; Berry v. Yates, 24 
Barb. (N. Y.) 199, 210-213; Mil- 
bank V. New York, etc. R. R. Co., 64 
How. Pr. (N. Y.) 20; Marble Co. v. 
Harvey, 92 Tenn. 115 ; 20 S. W. 427 ; 
18 L. R. A. 252 ; New Orleans, etc. 
S. S. Co. V. Ocean Dry Dock Co., 28 
La. Ann. 173 ; 26 Am. Rep. 90 ; Peo- 
ple ex rel. Moloney v. Pullman Car 
Co., 175 111. 125; 51 N. E. 664; 64 
L. R. A. 366; Newland Hotel Co. v. 
Lowe Furniture Co., 73 Mo. App. 
135 ; Ex parte Liquidators of British 
Nation Life Ass. Ass'n, 8 Ch. D. 679, 
704 ("The more or less similarity of 
the objects, or even the absolute 
identity of the objects, does not 
affect the principle"). 

Cf . Mackintosh v. Flint, etc. R. R. 
Co., 34 Fed. 582, 614-615. 

See also Hadehurst v. Savannah, 
etc. R. R. Co., 43 Ga. 13, 57-58 (hold- 
ing that a company organized to 
construct and operate a railway from 
M. to B. has no implied power to 
purchase shares in a railway having 
different termini) ; Pauly v. Coro- 
nado Beach Co., 56 Fed. 428 (com- 
pany formed to develop real estate 
no power to subscribe to shares in a 
manufacturing company) ; Nassau 
Bank v. Jones, 95 N. Y. 115 ; 47 Am. 
Rep. 14 (bank without power to sub- 
scribe to shares of railway company). 



76 



§ 31-§ 162] POWERS IMPLIED § 84 

their shares.' On the other hand, a power to effect a "tem- 
porary or permanent " consoUdation with ■ any railway com- 
pany justifies a purchase of all the shares of capital stock of a 
railway company.^ Moreover, an express power to assist and 
participate in financial, commercial, and industrial operations 
and undertakings both singly and in connection with other 
persons, firms, companies, and corporations will authorize the 
purchase of shares in other companies.^ A bank has no power 
to aid in the incorporation of a correspondent by subscribing to 
its shares, although thereby it is hoped to benefit, indirectly, the 
subscribing bank by increasing the prosperity of the correspond- 
ent.' A corporation which has power to borrow money has no 
implied power to subscribe to stock in a building and loan asso- 
ciation for the purpose of obtaining a loan.^ Probably, all au- 
thorities agree that a corporation cannot engage in speculation 
in stocks, unless such speculation is one of the expressed objects 
for which the company is incorporated." From these various 
cases, it is apparent that a wise draftsman of an incorporation 
paper will often insert a clause mentioning the purchase of 
shares in other companies as one of the express objects of the 
company. 

§ 84. Efiect of Clause specifying Acquisition of Shares in other 
Corporations as one of Objects. — Even an express power to 
purchase shares in other companies must be confined to the 
purchase of shares from their former owners and will not au- 
thorize a subscription to new shares.' If the corporation has 

' British Nation Life Ass. Ass'n, Royal Bank of India's Case, 4 Ch. 

8 Ch. D. 679. 252, 262 (semble) ; Peshtigo Co. v. 

' Tod V. Kentucky Union Ry. Co., Great Western Tel. Co., 50 111. App. 

57 Fed. 47 ; 62 Fed. 335 ; 6 C. C. A. 624 ; New Orleans, etc. S. S. Co. v. 

47. Ocean Dry Dock Co., 28 La. Ann. 

' Financial Corp., 28 W. R. 760. 173; 26 Am. Rep. 90; Nebraska 

' Joint Stock Discount Co. v. Shirt Co. v. Horton, 93 N. W. 225 ; 

Brown, 3 Eq. 139 (headnote inade- 3 Nebr. (Unof.) 888; Sumner v. 

quate), afiBrmed 8 Eq. 381. Marcy, 3 Woodb. & M. 105 ; Knowhs 

Cf. Pavly V. Coronado Beach Co., v. Sandercock, 107 Cal. 629 ; 40 Pac. 

56 Fed. 428. 1047. 

« Mutual Savings, etc. Ass'n v. Cf. Talmage v. Pell, 7 N. Y. 328 

Meridan Agency Co., 24 Conn. 159. (dealing by a bank in public stocks). 

' First Nat. Bank v. Nai. Ex- ' Robotham v. Prudential Ins. 

change Bank, 92 U. S. 122, 128 (sem- Co., 64 N. J. Eq. 673, 685-687, 696; 

ble) ; California Bank v. Kennedy, 53 Atl. 842 ; Commercial Fire Ins. 

167 U. S. 362; 17 Sup. Ct. 831; Co. v. Board of Revenue Montgomery 

77 



§ 85 THE INCOEPOKATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

power to subscribe for or in any way acquire shares in another 
company, it may subscribe for or purchase shares to which a 
liability is attached,' and consequently a shareholder cannot 
enjoin the company from subscribing for shares to be issued 
as fully paid upon payment of less than the par value.^ A power 
to purchase shares or to "take stock" in other companies does 
not authorize a sale of the entire business to another corporation 
in exchange for shares in the latter company to be distributed 
fro rata among the shareholders of the former company.^ The 
power to acquire shares carries with it the power to exercise 
such rights of ownership as the right to vote.* But it does not 
authorize such manipulation of the subsidiary company as will 
make it the dominant or holding company,^ nor does it author- 
ize the acquisition of shares in pursuance of a scheme to create 
a monopoly." 



§ 85. Power to Promote other Corporations. — Somewhat akin 
to the power to purchase or subscribe for shares in other 
companies is the power to promote other corporations.^ The 
latter power may be implied from authority to engage in general 
monetary or financial enterprises,' or perhaps from the expres- 
sion of dealing in securities of other companies as one of the 
objects of the corporations ; " but the part of caution is to men- 
tion it expressly among the objects of the company, if its exercise 

County, 99 Ala. 1 ; 14 So. 490 ; 42 ' Bigelow v. Calumet, etc. Mining 

Am. St. Rep. 17 (where the power Co., 155 Fed. 869. And see supra, 

Was to invest in stocks). § 60, and infra, § 302. 

But see Rubino v. Pressed Steel ' McAlester Mfg. Co. v. Florence 

Car Co. (N. J.), 53 Atl. 1050. CoUon, etc. Co., 128 Ala. 240 ; 30 So. 

'■ Mason v. Motor Traction Co. 632 (as to becoming an original sub- 

(1905), 1 Ch. 419; Bisgood y. Nile scriber for shares in a new corpor- 

Valley Co. (1906), 1 Ch. 747, 758 ation). 

(semble), per Kekewich, J. ' London Financial Ass'n v. 

= Rvbino v. Pressed Sted Car Co. Kdk, 26 Ch. D. 107. 

(N. J.), 53 Atl. 1050. But see Cause v. Commonwealth 

' Elyton Land Co. v. Dowddl, 113 Trust Co., 106 N. Y. Supp. 288 

Ala. 177 ; 20 So. 981 ; 59 Am. St. (where a contract in the nature of a 

Rep. 105. Cf. supra, § 79 and § 61. contract of underwriting was held 

* Infra, § 1231. ultra vires of a trust company). 

' Robinson v. Holbrook, 148 Fed. " Rubino v. Pressed Steel Car Co. 

107, stated infra, § 85. (N. J.), 53 Atl. 1050. Cf. supra, § 84. 

78 



§ 31-§ 162] POWERS IMPLIED § 86 

is thought desirable. A corporation formed for the purpose of 
manufacturing and of selHng its products, and authorized to 
hold shares in other corporations, may, it has been held, organize 
subsidiary corporations to act as distributing agencies.' The 
opinion has been judicially expressed that a power to acquire 
shares in another corporation does not justify the use of the 
controlling interest in a subsidiary corporation for the purpose 
of largely increasing the capital of the subsidiary company by 
the issue of new shares to be offered to the shareholders of the 
controlling company in exchange for their shares in the latter 
company :^ the effect of consummating the scheme would be to 
convert the subsidiary company into a holding company and to 
vest in it the control of the originally dominant company. 

§ 86. Power to become Member of Partnership. — The 
power to become a member of a partnership is one which in 
general is foreign to the nature of a corporation; for the other 
partner would have the power to bind the corporation in the 
course of its business and thus virtually to supersede the ma- 
chinery provided by law, consisting of directors, officers, and 
shareholders, for the management of the corporate business. 
Consequently, one may well dpubt whether even under the; 
most liberal incorporation laws, a clause specifying the forma- 
tion of partnerships as one of the objects of the company would 
be legal. At any rate, without clear affirmative authority, no 
corporation has power to become a member of a partnership,^ 

' Ditmann v. Distilling Co., 54 Canal Co. v. Fvlton Bank, 7 Wend. 

Atl. Rep. 570 (N. J. Ch.). (N. Y.) 412 (semble) ; Sabine Tram 

But cf. Lagrone v. Timmerman, Co. v. Bancroft & Sons, 16 Tex. CSv. 

46 S. Car. 372, 410-411; 24 S. E. App. 170; 40 S. W. 837; Ex parte 

290. Liquidators of British Nation Life 

2 Robinson v. Holbrook, 148 Fed. Ass. Ass'n, 8 Ch. D. 679, 704 ; Peo- 

107. pie V. North River Sugar Refinery, 

' WhUtenton Mills v. Upton, 10 121 N. Y. 582 ; 24 N. E. 834 ; 18 

Gray (Mass.) 582 ; 71 Am. Dec. Am. St. Rep. 843 ; 9 L. R. A. 33. 

681 ; MaUory v. Hanaur Oil Works, Cf. Charlton v. Newcastle, etc. Ry. 

86 Term. 598; 8S. W. 396; Gunny. Co., 5 Jur. N. S. 1096; Butler v. 

Central R. R., etc. Co., 74 Ga. 509; American Toy Co., 46 Conn. 136 

Marine Bank v. Ogden, 29 111. 248; (where the corporation was author- 

Bishop V. American Preservers Co., ized to form the partnership by the 

157 111. 284 ; 41 N. E. 765 ; 48 Am. special act of incorporation) ; Cleve- 

St. Rep. 317; Boyd v. American land Paper Co. v. Courier Co., 67 

Carbon Black Co., 182 Pa. St. 206; Mich. 152; 34 N. W. 556 (where it 

37 Atl. 937; Burke v. Concord Rail- was said that "a corporation may, 

road, 61 N. H. 160 ; New York, etc. in furtherance of the object of its 

79 



§87 



THE INCORPORATION PAPER 



[Chap. II 



or to accept, even in satisfaction of a debt, shares in an unin- 
corporated company, which in the eye of the law is a mere part- 
nership.^ These objections do not apply to a temporary 
partnership formed by the creditors of an insolvent debtor for 
the purpose of minimizing their loss by carrying on the debtor's 
business so as to realize as much as possible from his assets,^ or 
to an agreement for pooling of earnings and expenses,^ or to a 
mere joint contract in a single transaction,^ or to a contract to 
give an employee a share in the company's profits in lieu of 
salary.^ 

§ 87- § 90. Power to contribvte to Public Objects, recognize 
Moral Obligations, etc. 

§ 87. In general. — As all business corporations are formed 
for the acquisition of gain, they have no power, out of mere gen- 



creation, contract with an individ- 
ual, though the effect of the contract 
may be to impose upon the com- 
pany the liability of a partner " ) ; 
Ontario Salt Co. v. Merchants Salt 
Co., 18 Grant Ch. (Up. Can.) 540 
(agreement between manufacturing 
companies to sell exclusively to 
trustees of a syndicate held not 
vltra vires) ; Allen v. Woonsocket 
Co., 11 R. I. 288; Calvert v. Idaho 
Stage Co., 25 Oreg. 412 ; 36 Pac. 24 
(holding that a corporation has im- 
plied power "to become a co-owner 
with an individual in a business or 
enterprise within the scope of its 
corporate powers ") ; Hackett v. 
Multnomah Ry. Co., 12 Oreg. 124; 
6 Pac. 659 ; 53 Am. Rep. 327 (joint 
ownership and operation of a ferry) ; 
Breinig v. Sparrow (Ind.), 80 N. E. 
37 (as to liability to third persons) ; 
Roedde v. News- Advertiser Pub. Co., 
4 Brit. Columb. 7 (where only one 
of the judges held that a partner- 
ship was vltra vires). 

A fortiori, a corporation has no 
power to enter into a partnership 
for carrying on a business that would 
be ultra vires if conducted by the 
corporation itself. Central R. R., 
etc. Co. v. Smith, 76 Ala. 572; 52 
Am. Rep. 353. 



' Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Wehr- 
mann, 202 U. S. 295; 26 Sup. Ct. 
613. 

Cf. Ex parte Liquidators of Brit- 
ish Nation Ldfe Ass. Ass'n, 8 Ch. 
D. 679. 

= Kdley v. Biddle, 180 Mass. 147 ; 
61 N. E. 821. 

But cf. First Nat. Bank v. Con- 
verse, 200 U. S. 425 ; 26 Sup. a. 306. 

' White Star Line v. Star Line 
(Mich.), 105 N. W. 135 ; 141 Mich. 
604 ; 113 Am. St. Rep. 551 (semble). 

Cf. Catskill Bank v. Gray, 14 
Barb. (N. Y.) 471 ; Bates v. Coro- 
nado Beach Co., 109 Cal. 160, 162- 
163 ; 41 Pac. 855. 

* Marine Bank v. Ogden, 29 111. 
248 (semble). 

Cf. Bates v. Coronado Beach Co., 
109 Cal. 160, 162-163; 41 Pac. 856; 
Chicago, etc. Ry. Co. v. Ayres, 140 
111. 644; 30 N. E. 687 (indebted- 
ness contracted jointly by connect- 
ing railways) ; New York, etc. Canal 
Co. V. Fulton Bank, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 
412 (deposit in bank in joint names 
of two corporations) ; Johnston For- 
eign Patents Co. (1904), 2 Ch. 234 
(where three companies undertook 
to issue joint debentures). 

» Bdch V. Big Store Co. (Wash.), 
89 Pac. 174. 



80 



§ 31-§ 162] POWERS IMPLIED § 87 

erosity or public spirit, to expend their funds for charitable or 
philanthropic objects; and this is true although, as from a 
casting of their bread upon the waters, a hope of indirect benefit 
to the company is indulged.^ Thus, it is ultra vires of a railway 
company to make a donation to a fair or public exhibition to be 
set up along its line, although the establishment will increase 
the traffic over the line.^ But although business corporations 
cannot contribute to charity or benevolence, yet they are not 
required always to insist on the full extent of their legal rights. 
They are not forbidden from recognizing moral obligations of 
which strict law takes no cognizance. They are not prohibited 
from establishing a reputation for broad, liberal, equitable 
dealing which may stand them in good stead in competition 
with less fair rivals. Thus, an incorporated fire insurance com- 
pany whose policies except losses from explosions may never- 
theless pay a loss from that cause when other companies are 
accustomed to do so, such liberal dealing being deemed con- 
ducive to the prosperity of the corporation.' 

The extent of this power of corporations has been questioned 
most frequently with respect to gifts and gratuities to servants 
and agents. It is settled that a corporation may bestow reason- 
able gratuities on its employees in addition to the compensation 
to which they may be legally entitled.* Thus, a manufacturing 
company may give a gratuity of one week's extra pay to each of 
its laborers who have worked for the company faithfully for more 

^ But cf. Whetstone v. Ottawa 140 111. 248 ; 29 N. E. 1044 (where 

University, 13 Kan. 320 (donation an hotel company was held to have 

to procure erection of a school near power to contribute to the expense of 

company's land) . a public gathering) ; Merchants' Bldg. , 

As to power to dedicate property etc. Co. v. Chicago Exchange Bldg. Co., 

of the corporation as a highway, see 106 111. App. 17 ; 210 111. 26 ; 71 N. E. 

Stacyv. Glen Ellyn Hotel, etc. Co., 79 22; 102 Am. St. Rep. 145 (holding that 

N. E. 133 ; 223 111. 546. a corporation owning a large office 

^ Tomkinson v. South Eastern building may contribute to a fund to 

By. Co., 35 Ch. D. 675 ; Davis v. Old secure the location of the public stock 

■Colony R. B. Co., 131 Mass. 258 ; 41 exchange in that vicinity). 
Am. Rep. 221 ; Western Md. B. B. ' Taunton v. Boyal Ins. Co., 2 

Co. V. Blvs Bidge Hotel Co., 102 Md. Hem. & Mill. 135. 
307; 62Atl. 351; 111 Am. St. Rep. * Cf. Bainford v. James Keith & 

362 (railway company without power Blackman Co. (1905), 2 Ch. 147 

to contribute to erection of a sum- (where the gratuity took the shape 

mer hotel on its line). of a loan to the employee). 

But see Biehelieu Hotel Co. v. But see Jones v. Morrison, 31 

International, etc. Encampment Co., Minn. 140 ; 16 N. W. 854. 
VOL. I. — 6 81 



§ 88 THE INCOKPOBATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

than a year.' So, a bank may grant a five years' pension to the 
family of one of its officers.^ In all cases of these sorts, the 
amount of the gratuity rests entirely within the discretion of the 
company,^ unless indeed it be altogether out of reason and fitness. 
But where the company has ceased to be a going concern, this 
power to make gifts or presents is at an end. Thus, where a 
company has sold out its business and undertaking, and is 
about to be wound-up, a general meeting has no power to vote 
a portion of its funds to its directors, officers, and servants, in 
consideration of their past services and loss of positions.* The 
reason for this is that where the company is about to discontinue 
its business those interested in it cannot be benefited by such 
gratuities, for no reputation for fair-dealing and generosity can 
further advantage them. As many American courts would say, 
the assets have become a "trust-fund" for the benefit of 
creditors and shareholders. Lord Bowen, with a homely Shake- 
spearean phrase, has tersely indicated the reason of the law 
thus: "The law does not say that there are to be no cakes and 
ale, but there are to be no cakes and ale except such as are 
required for the benefit of the company." ^ 

§ 88. Gratuities to Directors. — The same principles apply 
where the directors are the recipients of the company's bounty 
as in the case of inferior agents and servants," except that the 
gift must be made or approved by the shareholders; for of 
course the directors have no right to make themselves a present 
with the company's money.' The question whether or not the 
gift should be authorized should be fairly and distinctly sub- 
mitted to the shareholders.^ Indeed, some American cases 
seem to hold that the giving of a pure gratuity to directors is 
ultra vires of the corporation, so that it could not be legalized 

' Hampson v. Price's Patent Can- to gratuities paid by a receiver of a 

(Be Co., 45 L. J. Ch. 437. company). 

' Henderson v. Bank of Austral- ' Hutton v. West Cork Ry. Co., 23 

asia, 40 Ch. D. 170. Ch. D. 654, 673. 

' Henderson v. Bank of Austral- ' Cf. St. Louis, etc. B. R. Co. v. 

asia, 40 Ch. D. 170, 181 (headnote Tiernan, 37 Kan. 606; 15 Pac. 

inadequate). 544. 

* Hutton v. West Cork Ry. Co., 23 ' See Doe v. Northwestern Coal, 

Ch. D. 654; Stroud v. Royal Aqua- etc. Co., 78 Fed. 62. 

rium, etc. Soc, 89 L. T. 243. ' Kaye v. Croydon Tramways 

Cf. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Co. (1898), 1 Ch. 358; Jackson v. 

Texas, etc. Ry. Co., 33 Fed. 701 (as Munster Bank, 13 L. R. Ir. 118. 

82 



§ 31-§ 162] POWERS IMPLIED § 90 

even by the approval of the shareholders; but this position has 
no sound reason to support it, and is opposed to the weight of 
authority.' 

§ 89. Payment of Gratuities out of Capital. — There seems 
on principle no reason to doubt that gifts or gratuities wherever 
they are lawful may be paid out of capital as well as out of 
profits. For the theory on which they are allowed is that they 
are proper payments in the prosecution of the company's busi- 
ness. Nevertheless, in an English case, it was said that although 
a corporation by a majority of its members in general meeting 
could make a present to its managing director for the mainte- 
nance of his private residence on the theory that the support of 
his social position would benefit the company, yet such a pres- 
ent could be made only out of profits which might be divided 
among the shareholders, and not out of capital.^ It is doubtless 
true that if all the shareholders consent, money that might be 
divided among them as dividends may, instead, be applied to 
that or any other innocent purpose under the sun ; but no reason 
is perceived why any payment to which the majority may bind 
the minority may not be made out of capital as well as out of 
accumulated profits. 

§ 90. Whether desirable to supplement implied Powers of 
this kind by express Provisions. — Enough has been said to 
show that the implied powers of a corporation to give gratuities 
to its servants and officers, as well as to strangers, are ample, 
so that there is therefore no need to supplement them by express 
provisions. Indeed, any express power to make gifts or gratui- 
ties that should go beyond the power implied by the law would 
be very dangerous. Possibly, it might be well in some cases to 
confer expressly the power to make donations to fairs, exhibi- 
tions and similar enterprises that may be thought likely in- 
directly to benefit the company. 



' Huffaker v. Krieger's Assignee, ' George Newman & Co. (1895), 
53 S. W. Rep. 288; 107 Ky. 200; 1 Ch. 674, 686, per Lindley, L. J., 
46 L. R. A. 384. approved in Patau's Case, 6 Ont. L. 

Cf. National Loan, etc. Co. v. R. 392. 
Rockland Co., 94 Fed. 335; 36 C. C. 
A. 670. 

' 83 



§91 



THE INCORPORATION PAPER 



[Chap. II 



§ 91. Power to Guarantee. — The power to guarantee 
performance of contracts, etc., by customers of the company 
may often be found convenient in practice to exercise. It is 
not a power easily implied,' add yet to insert as one of the 



' Sturdevant v. Farmers', etc. 
Bank, 87 N. W. 156; 62 Nebr. 
472; 95 N. W. 819; 69 Nebr. 220 
(bank acting as surety for cus- 
tomer on a replevin bond) ; Bailey 
V. Farmers' Nat. Bank, 97 111. App. 
66; National Bank of Brunswick 
V. Sixth Nat. Bank, 212 Ea. St. 
238; 61 Atl. 889 (bank guarantee- 
ing drafts on customer for latter's 
accommodation) ; Bank of Barnwell 
V. Sixth Nat. Bank, 28 Pa. Super. 
Ct. 413 (same point) ; J. G. Brill Co. 
V. Norton, etc. Street By. Co., 189 
Mass. 431; 75 N. E. 1090 (accom- 
modation endorsement by railway 
company of note of contractor); 
Greene v. Middlesborough Town and 
Lands Co. (Ky.) 89 S. W. 228 (at- 
tempt by a company formed for de- 
veloping and dealing in real estate 
to guarantee dividends on stock of 
investment company) ; First Nat. 
Bank v. American Nat. Bank, 173 
Mo. 153 ; 72 S. W. 1059 (guarantee 
by bank of draft on customer) ; 
Bowen v. Needles Nat. Bank, 94 
Fed. 925; 36 C. C. A. 553 (agree- 
ment by bank to honor overdrafts 
by third person) ; Park Hotel Co. v. 
Fourth Nat. Bank, 86 Fed. 742 ; 30 
C. C. A. 409 ; Commercial Nat. Bank 
V. Pirie, 82 Fed. 799; 27 C. C. A. 
171 (bank guaranteeing account of 
customer with a merchant) ; Rogers 
V. Jewell Belting Co., 184 111. 574 
(where the surety corporation was 
composed of the same shareholders 
as the principal corporation) ; Best 
Brewing Co. v. Klassen, 185 111. 37 ; 
57 N. E. 20; 76 Am. St. Rep. 26 
(appeal bond) ; M. V. Monarch Co. 
v. Farmers' etc. Bank (Ky.), 49 S. W. 
317 ; 20 Ky. L. Rep. 1351 (accommo- 
dation paper) ; Madison, etc. Co. v. 
Watertown, etc. Co., 7 Wise. 59; 
Preston v. Northwestern Cereal Co. 



(Nebr.), 93 N. W. 136; 67 Nebr. 
45 ; Louisville, etc. Ry. Co. v. Louia- 
mUe Trust Co., 174 U. S. 552, 567- 
568 ; 19 Sup. Ct. 817 (semble) ; Pros^ 
pect Worsted Mills, 126 Fed. 1011; 
Kelley, Maus and Co. v. O'Brien 
Varnish Co., 90 111. App. 287 (ex- 
ecuting appeal bond as surety) ; 
Gilbert v. Seatco Mfg. Co., 98 Fed. 
208 (attempt by corporation to be- 
come surety for a transferee of its 
shares for repayment of money ad- 
vanced to enable him to purchase 
them); Western- Md. R. R. Co. v. 
Blue Ridge Hotel Co., 102 Md. 307 ; 
62 Atl. 351; 111 Am. St. Rep. 362 
(railway company guaranteeing in- 
terest on bonds and dividends on 
shares of a company erecting a sum- 
mer hotel on the line of railway) ; 
Washington Mill Co. v. Sprague 
Lumber Co., 52 Pac. 1067 ; 19 "Wash. 
165 (guaranty of debt of a share- 
holder concurred in by the other 
shareholders) ; Appleton v. Citizens' 
Central Nat. Bank, 116 N. Y. App. 
Div. 404; 101 N. Y. Supp. 1027 
(guaranty of promissory note by a 
national bank) ; National Bank of 
Newport v. H. P. Snyder Mfg. Co., 
102 N. Y. Supp. 478 (accommodation 
paper issued by manufacturing com- 
pany) ; Cook V. Am. Tubing, etc. Co. 
(R. I.), 65 Atl. 641 (accommodation 
paper issued by manufacturing com- 
pany for benefit of an agent) ; Hunir- 
boldt Mining Co. v. Am. Mfg., etc. 
Co., 62 Fed. 356; 10 C. C. A. 415 
(company formed to manufacture 
iron work for mines guaranteeing 
contract for erection of mining plant 
for prospective customer) ; Evans v. 
Johnson, 149 Fed. 978 ; 79 C. C. A. 
488. 

But see Murphy v. Arkansas, etc. 
Imp. Co., 97 Fed. 723 (where all the 
shareholders assented). 



84 



§ 31-§ 162] 



POWERS IMPLIED 



91 



company's objects acting as surety for other persons would be 
very hazardous,' and might moreover subject the corporation 
to burdensome regulations applicable to surety companies. 
Moreover, in some cases, the power is implied as incidental.^ 
We have seen above that any corporation owning a bill of ex- 
change or promissory note or coupon-bond and desiring to 
assign the same may, by endorsement or otherwise, guarantee 
payment.' So, it has been held that a company engaged in 
manufacturing and selling lumber may become surety on the 
bond of a contractor to whom it furnishes building material 
and who is required to give bond to secure performance of a 
contract.* Similarly, a brewery company may go surety for a 
publican upon a bond necessary to secure him a license to sell 
the surety's liquors.* It has even been held that a manufacturing 
company may lend its credit to a debtor who is in embarrassed 
circumstances,' a decision which certainly goes to the extreme 
limit of the law. It has also been held that a company when 



' But Sir F. B. Palmer recom- 
mends mentioning as one of the 
company's objects the exercise of "a 
power to lend money and guarantee 
the performance of contracts by cus- 
tomers and others." "These loan 
and guarantee transactions," he truly 
says, "are constantly called for in 
business and yet the power is one 
not easily implied." Palmer's Com- 
pany Law, 3d ed., 47. 

^ Central R. R., etc. Co. v. Farmers' 
L. & T. Co., 114 Fed. 263; 52 C. C. 
A. 149 (guarantee by railway com- 
pany with banking powers of bonds 
of a railway in which the first com- 
pany owned a majority of the 
shares) ; Central Trust Co. v. Co- 
lumbus, etc. Ry. Co., 87 Fed. 815 
(mortgage of land to guarantee 
bonds of subsidiary company) ; John 
Bridge & Co. v. Magrath, 4 New So. 
Wales State Rep. 441 (guarantee by 
company of wool brokers of bank 
account of constituent). 

Cf. Schaeffer Piano Mfg. Co. v. 
Nat. Fire Extinguisher Co., 148 Fed. 
159 ; 78 C. C. A. 293 (holding that 
manufacturing company may agree 
with contractor to insure his prop- 



erty against loss by fire while it is on 
the premises of the first company). 

' See supra, § 77. 

Cf . Roosevelt v. NashvUle, etc. Ry. 
Co., 128 Fed. 465 (where the trans- 
action was held a sale so far as the 
purchaser of the bonds was con- 
cerned so as to entitle him to hold 
the guarantor company, although 
the guarantor immediately trans- 
mitted the proceeds of sale to the 
principal debtor). 

* Wheeler v. Everett Land Co., 
14 Wash. 630; 45Pac. 316; Central 
Lumber Co. v. Kelter, 201 111. 503. 

Cf. Interior Woodwork Co. v. 
Prassar, 108 Wise. 557 ; 84 N. W. 
833. 

But see contra, <S. P. Smith 
Lumber Co., 132 Fed. 620. 

= Horst V. Lends (Nebr.), 98 N. 
W. 1046 ; 103 N. W. 460. 

Cf. Aaronson v. David Meyer 
Bremng Co., 26 N. Y. Misc. 655; 
56 N. Y. Supp. 387 (guaranteeing 
payment of rent by customer). 

" Hess V. Sloane, 66 N. Y. App. 
Div. 522; 73 N. Y. Supp. 313; 
affirmed 173 N. Y. 616; 66 N. E. 
1110. 



85 



§ 92 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

purchasing property has implied power as part of the considera- 
tion to indorse or guarantee notes of the vendor,' but this decision 
overlooks the fact that the objection to guarantees by corpora- 
tions does not lie merely in the fact that the company receives no 
benefit,^ but also in the fact that a corporation has no implied 
power to speculate upon the ability or inability of a third person 
to meet his obligations.' It has been held that a company 
which has power to purchase shares in another corporation 
may, as part of the consideration for the purchase, agree to 
guarantee dividends on other stock of the second company,^ 
a decision which is likewise rather questionable. Of course 
when the corporation is in fact the principal debtor, there 
is no legal objection to the execution of commercial paper 
whereby the company appears in form as an accommodation 
indorser.^ An express power to aid other corporations, by sub- 
scription to their stock or otherwise, confers power to guarantee 
their bbnds.^ 

§ 92. Power to Lend. — - The power to lend money is closely 
akin to the power to lend credit by executing a guarantee,' and 
like the latter power is not readily implied.' Nevertheless, a 
company formed for the purpose of "brewing and selling beer" 
was held to have implied power to lend money to a saloon- 
keeper for the erection of a saloon at which the company's beers 
should be sold.' A loan may be a proper form of investment for 

' National Bank of Commerce v. ' Beacon Trust Co. v. Souther, 

Allen, 90 Fed. 545; 33 C. C. A. 169. 183 Mass. 413; 67 N. E. 345. 

Cf . Ellerman v. Chicago Junction " Zabriskie v. Cleveland, etc. B. B. 

Bys., etc. Co., 49 N. J. Eq. 217,. 246- Co., 23 How. 381. 

248; 23 Atl. 287. ' Cf. Holmes v. WUlard, 125 N. 

2 Cf. Deaton Orocery Co. v. Inter- Y. 75; 25 N. E. 1083; 11 L. R. A. 

national Harvester Co. (Tex.) 105 S. 170. 

W. 556. But see Lyon v. First Nat. ' Grand Lodge v. Waddiil, 36 Ala. 

Bank, 85 Fed. 120; 29 C. C. A. 45. 313; Chambers v. Falkner, 65 Ala. 

' Of course, a corporation on 448, 454; Beach v. Fulton Bank, 

purchasing property has power to 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 573, 582-583 

assume the payment of a mortgage (semble). 

thereon, as was done in Beaver Knit- ' Kraft v. West Side Brewery 

ting MUls, IH Fed. 320; Panhandle Co., 219 111. 205; 76 N. E. 372. 

Nat. Bank v. Emery, 78 Tex. 498; For other cases where the power 

15 S. W. 23 ; but this is very differ- to lend has been implied, see Holmes 

ent from guaranteeing payment. v. WUlard, 125 N. Y. 75 ; 25 N. E. 

* Windmuller v. Standard Dis- 1083; 11 L. R. A. 170; Western 

tilling Co., 106 N. Y. App. Div. 246; Boatmen's, etc. Ass'n v. Kribben, 48 

94 N. Y. Supp. 52. Mo. 37, 43 ; Union Water Co. v. 

86 



§ 31-§ 162] POWERS IMPLIED § 94 

such corporations as insurance corfipanies/ and indeed it has 
been held that a manufacturing company has impUed power to 
lend its surplus funds temporarily.^ Of course, any corporation 
may deposit money with its bankers, and yet an ordinary bank 
deposit is a loan to the bank. Moreover, a company may lend 
money to a faithful employee as an indirect method of givjng him 
a gratuity.' The power to lend necessarily implies the power to 
take any reasonable security that is not prohibited.* But an 
express power to lend on bond and mortgage so far from imply- 
ing rather negatives any power to lend without security or on 
some different security.^ 

§ 93. Power to advertise. — The power to advertise is 
incidental to all business companies,' and need never be expressly 
mentioned in the incorporation paper. 

§ 94. Power to promote or oppose Bills in the Legislature. — 
Sometimes, the majority of the shareholders resort to the legisla- 
ture for assistance in dealing with an (as they think) obstreperous 
minority, and undertake to defray the expense of applying for 
the legislative aid out of the company's funds. This is ultra 
vires of the corporation ; and, therefore, although citizens cannot 
be enjoined from applying to the legislature for an amendment 
to their act of incorporation or for redress of any grievances, 
real or fancied, yet the expenditure of moneys of the corporation 
for that purpose will be restrained by a court of equity at the in- 
stance of any shareholder.' Indeed, it is held that a corporation 
should content itself with the existing law, and has therefore 
no power to expend its funds in promoting a bill in parlia- 

Murphy's Flat, etc. Co., 22 Cal. 620 ; 35 Am. Rep. 531 ; Pratt v. Eaton, 

Madison, etc. Co. v. Watertovm, etc. 79 N. Y. 449. 

Co., 5 Wise. 173. = Life & Fire Ins. Co. v. Mechanic 

1 Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Perry, Ins. Co., 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 31. 
3 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 339; NoHh ' See Colorado Springs Co. v. 

Carolina R. B. Co. v. Moore, 7 N. American Publishing Co., 97 Fed. 

Car. 6 (railway company) ; Life 843 ; 38 C. C. A. 433. 
Ass'n V. Levy, 33 La. Ann. 1203; ' Caledonian Ry. Co. v.SolwayRy. 

Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Clowes, 3 Co., 49 L. T. 526 ; Stevens v. South 

N. Y. 470. Devon Ry. Co., 20 L. J. Ch. 491 ; Great 

' Garrison Canning Co. v. Stanley Western Ry. Co. v. Rushout, 5 De G. 

(Iowa), 110 N. W. 171. &Sm.290. It is otherwise, however, 

' Rainford v. James Keith & if the amendatoryact has been passed. 

Blackman Co. (1905), 2 Ch. 147. Hattersley v. Shelburne, 31 L. J. Ch. 

* Deloach v. Jones, 18 La. 447. 873, 883-884 ; White v. Carmathan 

Cf. Pratt y. Short, 79 N. Y. 437; Ry. Co., 1 Hem. & Miller 786. 

87 



§ 95 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

ment for any purpose, however beneficial to the company's 
business its passage might be.' However, it would seem clear 
that a corporation may devote a part of its funds to defeating 
any bill which it deems on reasonable grounds to be inimical to 
its interests.^ And where a corporation may be organized 
for any lawful purpose, no reason is perceived why its incorpora- 
tion paper may not by express provision empower it to promote 
bills in the legislature; but it may well be doubted whether 
even an express provision in the incorporation paper could 
authorize the majority of the company to use the corporate 
funds to secure legislative aid in their controversies with the 
minority. The question is of less importance in the United 
States than in England, not only because constitutional limita- 
tions on the power of the legislature afford some protection to 
the minority, but also because the legitimate expenses of pro- 
curing an act of the legislature are much smaller in America 
than in Great Britain. 

§ 95. Power to inform Shareholders of Facts likely to in- 
fluence their Votes. — Although a company has no power to 
participate in factional disputes between its members, yet it 
may always, even without express authorization employ its 
funds in giving any information to its shareholders that may 
affect their interests or influence their conduct as members. 
For example, a corporation has power to expend its funds in 
order to inform its shareholders of a proposition to give stock 
in a rival company in exchange for their shares, thus effecting a 
virtual amalgamation.' The court said : " When it comes to the 
knowledge of a board of directors that some scheme is on foot 
to induce a majority of the stockholders to part with their 
stock to a rival corporation, the directors are not only authorized 
to advise the stockholders thereof, but it is their duty to do so. 
. . . Undoubtedly individual stockholders receive a benefit 
in being notified of what is going on, but, in our opinion, the 
corporation itself also receives a benefit in having its stockholders 
at all times fully advised as to everything which concerns its 
condition, or which may be expected to alter that condition. 

' Munt V. Shrewsbury, etc. Ry. ' Attorney-General v. Mayor of 
Co., 13 Beav. 1 ; Maunsell v. Mid- Brecon, 10 Ch. D. 204. 
land, etc. Ry. Co., 1 H^m. & Mill. ' Rascover v. American Linseed 
130. Co., 135 Fed. 341 ; 68 C- C. A. 11. 

88 



§ 31-§ 162] POWERS IMPLIED § 96 

We would not hesitate to hold it a legitimate charge against a 
corporation if directors should send to every stockholder a 
printed copy of a report as to its condition, or even as to general 
conditions of the industry in which it operated, so that all might 
be advised as to what environment, favorable or adverse, 
surrounded it, in the hope that some of them might thereby be 
stimulated to thought and suggestion by which the corporation 
might itself be profited."' This being the law, "whether the 
notice shall be long or short, in what form of words it shall be 
couched, whether it shall be sent by mail or advertisement in 
newspapers, are matters of detail, which should be left to the 
directors"; and therefore a claim against a company for over 
$20,000 for the expense of advertising such a notice in newspapers 
has been sustained.^ So, too, the directors may properly expend 
the company's funds in sending out to each shareholder a 
circular setting out the facts with reference to certain questions 
of policy in the management of the company and also advocating 
their own views and asking the support of the several share- 
holders.' On the other hand, it has been held that the funds of 
the corporation cannot be used in publishing a reply to a circular 
issued by an officer in an effort to prevent the re-election of the 
directors.* , 

§ 96. Power to take Measures to bring out full Vote at 
Shareholders' Meeting. — The directors may also adopt any 
appropriate measures for the purpose of bringing out a full and 
fair vote at a shareholders' meeting, and may consequently 
send out to the shareholders stamped proxy papers containing 
the names of some of their own number as proxies, with a 
stamped cover for return.^ The difference of judicial opinion 
which has existed with respect to this latter point illustrates 
the difficulty in drawing the line between acts which are a 
legitimate effort to support policies deemed to be beneficial 
to the company and acts which are an improper endeavor to 

' 135 Fed. 341, 343-344. » Peel v. London & N. W. Ry. 

' Rascover v. American Linseed Co. (1907), 1 Ch. 5 (overruling Stud- 
Co., 135 Fed. 341 ; 68 C. C. A. 11. dert v. Grosvenor, 33 Ch. D. 528). 

^ Peel V. London & N. W. Ry. Cf. Jackson v. Munster Bank, 13 

Co. (1907), 1 Ch. 5. L. R. Ir. 118; Lawyers' Advertising, 

* Lawyers' Advertising Co. v. etc. Co. v. Consolidated Ry., etc. Co.j 

Consolidated Ry., etc. Co., 80 N. E. 80 N. E. 199; 187 N. Y. 395. 
199 ; 187 N. Y. 395. 

89 



§ 97 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChA.P. II 

perpetuate the power of the faction which happens to be in 
control of the company for the time being. It has been held 
in New York that while directors may properly send out proxies 
to the shareholders yet they must not use the company's funds 
in urging the shareholders to return the proxies in order to keep 
themselves in office.' 

§ 97. Power to pay Counsel-fees in internal Contest. — A 
corporation may expend its funds in paying the fees of defendant's 
counsel in a suit to oust some of the officers of the company.^ 
So to do is not deemed unlawful participation in a factional 
dispute between members of the corporation. 

§ 98-§ 102. Power to make the Best of a SitiMtim. 

§ 98. In general. — As the limitations upon the powers of 
corporations are not intended as mere vexatious impediments, 
but are designed as helps rather than hindrances to the business, 
the powers should not be so construed as to prevent corporations 
from extricating themselves in the most practicable way from 
any difficulties by which without their fault they may be beset. 
This principle may lead a company into transactions that 
seem far removed from the objects of its creation, but neverthe- 
less they are not ultra vires. Although prima facie beyond its 
powers, yet they are seen on a thorough examination of the 
attendant circumstances to be in fact reasonably incidental to 
the successful prosecution of the company's undertaking, and 
therefore intra vires. "Take, for instance," said Lord Justice 
Selwyn, "the common case of a banker advancing money upon 
the security of a ship and the freight. Nothing, probably, would 
be further from the notion of the banker than entering into any 
transaction respecting the sailing of the ship, or receiving the 
freight in respect of that ship. But if he is obliged to foreclose 
his security, if he is obliged to take possession of the ship, then, 
as a prudent man, he would necessarily become involved in the 
management of the sailing of the ship and receiving the freight as 
constituting the only means by which he could recover the 
money he had advanced. I may mention one very familiar 

' Lawyers' Advertising, etc. Co. v. ' Stendell v. longshoremen's, etc. 
Consolidated Ry., etc. Co., 80 N. E. Ass'n, 116 La. 974: 41 So. 228. 
199; 187N. Y. 395. 

90 



§ 31-§ 162] POWERS IMPLIED § 99 

instance, known to us all, that of a well-known insurance com- 
pany. Having lent money upon the security of a mortgage of 
land in Galway, and having been obliged to foreclose that 
mortgage, they became dealers of land in Galway on a very 
large scale." '■ This inherent power of every corporation to make 
the best of a situation and to protect itself from loss is far- 
reaching and might be illustrated by many examples,^ and indeed 
instances of it have been already given more than once. Further 
examples are mentioned below. 

§ 99. Power to utilize surplus Property. — For instance, a 
corporation is not bound to let its surplus property lie idle, but 
may put it to the most profitable use practicable.' Thus, a rail- 
way company having power to maintain a ferry in connection 
with its line may employ the ferry-boats, when not in use for 
their proper purpose, in carrying passengers for hire on excur- 
sions.* So, a railway company may rent out its machines for 
weighing coal whenever it is not using them.^ An hotel com- 
pany may let to a government department ^ large part of its 
hotel while it is in course of construction ; " or a brewery com- 
pany, having need of an office, may lease an entire house and 
sublet all except the ground-floor.' According to the same 
principle, if a company has surplus funds in its hands, for the 
time being not needed in its business, it is not bound to keep 
them in its safe or even at its bankers, but may invest them in 



' Royal Bank of India's Case, ing a mortgage may buy in prior 

4 Ch. 252, 260-261. mortgage to prevent foreclosure). 

^ Ii) addition to cases cited below, ' People ex rd. Moloney v. Pvll- 

see Mahoney v. Butte Hardware Co., man Car Co., 175 111. 125; 51 N. E. 

27 Mont. 463 ; 71 Pac. 674 ; Fidelity 664 ; 64 L. R. A. 366. 

7ns. Co. V. German Savings Bank, * Forrest v. Manchester, etc. By. 

127 Iowa 591; 103 N. W. 958; Co., 30 Beav. 40 (affirmed on other 

Westminster Nat. Bank v. New Eng- grounds in 4 De G. F. & J. 125). Cf. 

land Electric Works, 62 Atl. 971; Brown v. Winnisimmet Co., 11 Al- 

73 N. H. 465; 111 Am. St. Rep. len (Mass.) 326 (ferry company may 

637 ; Cockrill v. Abeles, 86 Fed. 505 ; let out boat which is not needed for 

30 C. C. A. 223; Attorney-General present use). 

V. Mersey By. Co. (1907), 1 Ch. 81 ; ' London & N. W. Ry. Co. v. 

State Security Bank v. Hoskins, 106 Price, 11 Q. B. D. 485. 

N. W. 764; 130 Iowa 339 (bank " Simpson v. Westminster Palace 

accepting conveyance of farm in Hotel Co., 8 H. L. C. 712. 

satisfaction of debt) ; Mayor, etc. of ' Horsey's Claim, 5 Eq. 561, 582 n 

Baltimore v. Baltimore & 0. R. R. (headnote inadequate). 
Co., 21 Md. 50 (corporation hold- 

91 



§ 100 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

any sound securities, not of course for speculation but purely 
as an investment, to prevent the money from lying idle.' 

§ 100. Power to CompTomise. — Moreover, a corporation 
has power to compromise any claim against it on the best terms 
it can obtain,^ and this is true although thereby a reduction of 
capital or some other result ordinarily vltra vires is brought 
about. Thus, where a claim is made against a company on 
account of an alleged illegal issue of shares, a compromise may 
be entered into whereby the shares in question are to be can- 
celled, although in point of fact the shares were valid.^ 

§ 101. Limits of Powers to make the best of a Situation. — A 
limit of course exists to the powers of the sort considered in the 
last few paragraphs ; and in some cases the limit has been drawn 
perhaps too closely. Thus, where a building society which had 
made a loan upon security of a second mortgage of real estate, 
in order to prevent a sale of the premises at a sacrifice under 
the first mortgage, agreed to guarantee the payment of the same, 
the House of Lord^ held that the guarantee was riUra vires of the 
association, and therefore unenforceable.* Moreover, where a 
bank has obtained title to real estate in payment of a debt, 
although it may lay out money for ordinary and reasonable 
repairs, yet it has no power to spend its funds in prospecting 
for ore on the land.' Similarly, a corporation which owns shares 
in another company cannot extend pecuniary assistance to the 
latter even in order to prevent its ruinous failure." 

§ 102. Whether desirable to supplement these Powers. — These 
cases, and others of a similar sort, show that too great reliance 
can easily be placed upon a company's inherent powers of mak- 
ing the best of a bad situation. Sometimes, it may be well in 
drawing up an incorporation paper to supplement the powers 
that would be implied, by express provisions covering such diffi- 
culties as can be anticipated. ' Thus, an English text-WTiter, 

' Cf. supra, § 82. securities of other corporations, see 

^ Cf. supra, § 82. Marbury v. Kentucky Union Land 

' Bath's Case, 8 Ch. D. 334. Co., 62 Fed. 335. As to power to 

See infra, § 637. guarantee in general, see supra, 

* Small V. Smith, 10 A. C. 119. §91. 
Cf. West of England Bank, 14 Ch. « Cooper v. Hill, 94 Fed. 582 ; 

D. 317; Stark Bank v. U. S. Pottery 36 C. C. A. 402. 

Co., 34 Vt. 144. ' " Salomons v. Laing, 12 Beav. 

As to the power to guarantee 339. 

92 



§ 31-§ 162] GENERAL STATEMENTS OF OBJECTS § 104 

having in mind, possibly, the decision of the House of Lords 
stated in the last paragraph, recommends that the incorpora- 
tion paper contain a clause empowering the company to "guar- 
antee the performance of contracts by customers and others " ; ' 
but, as already pointed out,^ this seems a rather dangerous 
power to confer without restriction. Perhaps, in general, it is 
better to rely on the implications of the law. At all events, in 
deciding this question, the draftsman of an incorporation paper 
should be influenced largely by the peculiar circumstances, so 
far as they can be foreseen, of the particular company, and 
needs business foresight as well as legal knowledge and skill. 



§ 103. Provisions prohibiting Exercise of Powers that might 
otherwise be impUed. — Finally, it is always possible by positive 
prohibition to exclude the existence of powers that would other- 
wise be implied. To be sure, the powers which are incidental 
to corporate existence and which the statutes usually affirma- 
tively declare that all companies organized under them shall 
have — such as the power to sue and be sued, to have con- 
tinuous succession, to have and use a common seal, and the 
like — cannot be excluded. But any powers that are implied 
merely as appropriate means towards attaining the expressed 
objects may by positive prohibition be denied to the company. 
For only such powers are implied as are reasonably necessary 
to the accomplishment of the ends of the company's existence 
and as are not expressly prohibited. 

§ 104-§ 108. GENERAL STATEMENTS OF OBJECTS. 

§ 104. Particularity requisite in stating Objects. — The_in- 
tent^of -©very^energj incorporation lay. being that the objects 
of Jhe propQsed_company shall be specified in its incorporation 
paper, a statement that its objects shall be the prosecution of 
any business that the company may see fit, or other words to 
that effect, would certainly fail to satisfy the statute.^ The ob- 
jects must be specified or mentioned, and a declaration that the 
objects shall be whatsoever the corporation may choose could 

' Palmer's Company Law, 3d ed., 47. ' Supra, § 91. 

93 



§ 104 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

not possibly be deemed a compliance with the law.' Thus 
Lord O'Hagan in a leading case in the House of Lords said: 
"That Act (the Companies Act of 1862) gave certain privileges 
and Imposed certain cond itions, and one of them was, that the 
memorandum of association should specify the objects of men 
seeking to trade with limited liability, for the manifest purpose 
that those objects should be clear and definite, g iid known pre- 
cisely_ta- all who mi p |ht have dealings with the company. But 
if in a case like this, it were competent for persons making and 
registering a memorandum to segregate particular words, as 
'contractor' and 'merchant,' and insist that their generality 
should be confined not by the declared purposes of the forma- 
tion of the company, nor even by the manifest reason of the 
thing, the purpose of the Act would be defeated, and the favor 
given by it would be enjoyed without fulfilment of the condi- 
tion properly imposed for the public benefit.'? ^ > So, a provision 
that the object of the company should be to do any and all acts 
tending to increase the value of its shares would certainly be too 
indefinite.^ 

To be sure, it is very diflScult to say precisely what degree of 
particularity is requisite.* Thus, a statement that the company 
is organized "for the purpose of manufacturing" has been held 

K^ Crown Bank, 44 Ch. D. 634; ment of objects was held too vague ; 

Re Journalists Fund of PhUaddphia, West v. BvUskin Prairie Ditching 

8 Phila. 272 ; Welsbach Incandescent Co., 32 Ind. 138 (description of 

Gas Light Co. (1904), 1 Ch. 87, 99 drain to be constructed by a drain- 

(semble). age company held too indefinite) ; 

Cf. State V. Central Ohio, etc. Ass'n, O'Reiley v. Kankakee Valley Drains 

29 Ohio St. 399 (statement that the ing Co., 32 Ind. 169, 192-195 (similar 

manner of carrying on tl)e business point to that in preceding case) ; 

shall be such as the company may Crawford v. Prairie Creek Ditching 

from time to time prescribe by rules Ass'n, 44 Ind. 361 (same point — ^, i 

and regulations, held not a com- commencement, course and ter-]l 

pliance with a requirement that the minus of ditch required to be stated) ; 

incorporation paper must show the Monroe Republican Club, 6 Pa. 

"manner of carrying on the busi- Dist. R. 515 ("social enjoyment"); 

ness of said association"). LaFayette Clvh, 21 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 

^ Ashbury Ry., etc. Co. v. Riche, 243 ("mutual improvement intel- 

L. R. 7.H. L. 653, 690-691. lectually, and social enjoyment"). 

' Ellerman v. Chicago Junction In the following cases, in addi- 

Rys., etc. Co., 49 N. J. Eq. 217, 239 tion to those cited below, the state- 

(semble) ; 23 Atl. 287 ; Peel's Case, ment of objects was held to be sufiB- 

2 Ch. 674 (semble). ciently particular: Seyberger v. 

* In the following cases in addi- Calumet Draining Co., 33 Ind. 330 

tion to those cited below, the state- (description of drain to be con- 

94 



§ 31-§ 162] GENERAL STATEMENTS OF OBJECTS § 104 

to be a compliance with law;' and the same is true of a state- 
ment that the objects of the company shall be the manufacture 
and sale of daguerreotype matting and preservers, and all other 
articles made of brass, silver, gold, iron, or other metals or any 
compounds thereof,^ and of a statement that the objects of the 
company are "the mining of gold, silver and lead in the terri- 
tory of Utah." ^ According to a recent Wisconsin case, a state- 
ment that the "business or purposes" of the corporation will 
be "to construct and operate street railways in the city of Mil- 
waukee and elsewhere in the State, and to extend its lines into 
or through any village or town of the State" is good, without 
mentioning the termini of the railways.* Where an incorpora- 
tion paper provided that the company's objects should be to 
buy and sell shares in a certain other corporation, "to exercise 
in respect to said shares any and all the rights, powers and privi- 
leges of owners of shares of said capital stock, to do any and all 
things tending to increase the value of the shares of the capital 
stock of said company," the words in quotation marks were 
held to be sufficiently definite as a specification of the objects 
of the corporation.^ On the other hand, a statement that the 

fitructed by drainage company suffi- powers which it may exercise when 
cientlydefinite) ; Callender v. Paines- duly incorporated. It is sufficient 
mile & Hudson R. R. Co., 11 Ohio if they designate in general terms 
St. 516 (description of route of rail- the purposes for which the corpora- 
way) ; BaUe v. Calvert College Edv^ tion is organized ") ; Cayuga Lake 
cational Soe., 47 Md. 117, 122 ("to R. R. Co. v. Kyle, G^N.Y. 185 
erect and maintain an educational (where a railway company was held 
society ") ; Bowman Dairy Co. v. a corporation de fac ta notwithstand- 
Mooney, 41 Mo. App. 665, 672 (where ing a lack of aeniiiteness in stating 
the court said, obiter, "would it be the termini). 

a sufficient compliance ... to state ' Hughes v. Antietam Mfg. Co., 

that the plaintiff intended to em- 34 Md. 316 (headnote inadequate), 
bark in some business not other- But see Glenwood Coal Co., 6 Pa. 

wise specially provided for by the Co. Ct. Rep. 575. 
corporation law of the State? We ^ Bird v. Dagett, 97 Mass. 494. 
think not ") ; New York, etc. R. R. ' People ex rel. Belknap v. Beach, 

Co. V. O'Brien, 106 N. Y. Supp. 909 19 Hun (N. Y.) 259. 
(under statute requiring termini of ' Milwaukee Light, Heat & Trac- 

proposed railway to be specified, <ion Co. (Wise), 112 N. W. 663, 669. 

held sufficient to mention the towns Note that the rule would be different 

or villages which are the termini). under some statutes. See cases col- 

Cf. Wendel v. State, 62 Wise. 300, lected supra, p. 94, note 4. 
304-305; 22 N. W. 435 (where ' Ellerman v. Chicago Junction 

the court said, "It is not necessary Rys., etc. Co., 49 N. J. Eq. 217, 238- 

that the articles of association shall 241 ; 23 Atl. 287. 
designate with particularity all the 

95 



§ 105 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

corporation is formed for charitable purposes, has been held 
too vague as a specification of the objects of incorporation.' 
Similarly, where the law requires the objects of the company 
to be specified, a company cannot be incorporated for the "pro- 
motion of literature and the cultivation of friendly feelings." ^ 
Lord Lindley has expressed the opinion that consistently with 
honesty no company could be formed with objects so general 
as " working mines of any kind in any part of the world." ' In 
some cases, the name of the company may render sufiiciently 
particular a statement of objects that would otherwise be too 
indefinite.* If the company is expected to enjoy the franchise 
of condemning private property, the need of particularity in 
the specification of the objects is the greater. 

§ 105-§ 108. Construction of General Words accompanied by 

Particidars. 

§ 105. Particular Words followed by General Words which 
standing alone would be too indefinite. — Very often the ob- 
ject clause of the incorporation paper, after mentioning certain 
particular objects, concludes with general authority to do any- 
thing else that the company may choose, or may deem inci- 
dental to the particularized purposes, or the like. In all such 
cases, the concluding general words are not to be construed 
literally ; for if so, according to the principles stated in the last 
paragraph, the instrument would not be in legal form. The 
maxim, noscitur a sociis, should be applied. For instance, where 
the objects of a company are stated to be to make and sell rail- 
way carriages and machinery and to carry on the business of 
"general contractors," the latter words do not confer a general 
power of making contracts without regard to their subject- 
matter, but will be confined in their application to such con- 
tracts as are incidental to the more explicit objects of the 

' Re Devaux, 54 Ga. 673 (head- ' National Literary Ass'n, 30 Pa. 

note inadequate). St. 150. Cf. Nether Providence 

Cf. McKees Rocks, etc. Relief Ass'n, 12 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 666 

Ass'n, 6 Pa. Dist. Rep. 477 (attempt ("social enjoyment"), 
to form a corporation for "bene- ^ Coolgardie Gold Mines, 76 L.T., 

ficial or protective purposes to its n. s., 269, 271. 
members from funds collected * Cf. Van Pelt v. Home Bldg., etc. 

therein"). Ass'n, 79 Ga. 439; 4 S. E. 501. 

96 



§ 31-§ 162] GENEEAL STATEMENTS OF OBJECTS § 107 

c(impany.' So, a provision that the corporation may do any- 
thing that the directors or a majority of the shareholders deem 
conducive to its objects does not make their judgment conclusive 
as to whether or not a certain transaction is conducive thereto, 
but authorizes the doing of such things only as are bona fide and 
reasonably connected with the objects to be attained : ^ such 
sweeping general words add little or nothing to the powers which 
the law would imply without them. A fortiori, a provision that 
the corporation may do whatever is incidental or conducive to 
its expressed objects merely declares and emphasizes a well- 
settled rule of legal interpretation.^ 

§ 106. General Words followed by Particulars. — The same 
rule will be applied where the general expressions precede in- 
stead of following the particular objects. Thus, a provision in 
an incorporation paper that the company shall possess the same 
powers as an individual in respect to making contracts, etc., is 
limited by a subsequent provision defining the business of the 
company as developing and dealing in real estate, to such con- 
tracts as are fairly incidental to the business of the company 
as thus defined.* • 

§ 107. General Words which, although accompanied by Par- 
ticulars, are not too indefinite to stand alone. — The prin- 
ciple by which general words will be confined in scope to things 
ejusdem generis with the more particular terms by which they 
are accompanied will be applied not only where the general 
words are so very general that no other interpretation would be 
permissible, but also in any case where the court can see that the 
company was designed to have certain definite objects to which 

' Ashbury Ey., etc. Co. v. Riche, authorize a two thirds majority of 

L. R. 7 H. L. 653. the shareholders to add to or amend 

' Joint Stock Discount Co. v. the deed, and generally to do any- 

Brown, 3 Eq. 139, 150-151 (head- thing that the company or all the 

note inadequate) ; Guinness v. Land shareholders by unanimous consent 

Corporation, 22 Ch. D. 349, 373. might do. 

Cf. London Financial Ass'n v. ' Kingsbury CoUieries and Moore's 

Kelk, 26 Ch. D. 107, 137-138; Perun Contract (1907), 2 Ch. 259 (headnote 

vian Rys. Co. v. Thames, 2 Ch. inadequate). 

617. But see, as to such provisions. 

See also Featherstonehaugh v. Simpson v. Westminster Palace Hotel 

Lee Moor, etc. Co., 1 Eq. 318, where Co., 8 H. L. Cas. 712 ; Baglan Hall 

the court considered a provision in Colliery Co., 5 Ch. 346, 356. 

a deed of settlement under the Com- * Greene v. Middleborough Town 

panies Act of 1844, purporting to & Lands Co. (Ky.), 89 S. W. 228. 
VOL. I. — 7 97 



§107 



THE INCORPORATION PAPER 



[Chap. II 



everything else should be ancillary.' Thus, where a company 
was formed to engage in mining and "more particularly" to 
carry out an agreement for the purchase of a certain mine in 
New Zealand, it was held that the intended grantors of the mine 
having been proved to be without title thereto, the company had 
no power to engage in mining elsewhere.^ So, where a company 
was organized to acquire and work a German patent for manu- 
facturing a substitute for coffee, and any modifications and im- 
provements thereof, and to acquire any other inventions for 
similar purposes, and to import and export all descriptions of 
produce for the purpose of food, it was held that the latter clause 
should be construed as merely ancillary to what preceded, and 
that, the German government having refused to grant the patent, 
there remained no business in which under the true construc- 
tion of the incorporation paper the company could lawfully 
engage.^ So, where an incorporation paper stated that the ob- 
jects of the company were to acquire the assets and Uabilities of 



' In addition to cases cited be- 
low, see Moore v. Rawlins, 6 C. B., 
N. s., 289 ; Stephens v. Mysore Reefs 
Mining Co. (1902), 1 Ch. 745 (an 
extreme case, which has lately been 
criticised and distinguished i n Pedlar 
V. Road Block Gold Mines (1905), 
2 Ch. 427) ; Haskell v. Worthington, 
94 Mo. 560, 569 ; 7 S. W. 481 (head- 
note inadequate) ; Coolgardie Gold 
Mines, 76 L. T., N. s., 269 ("Where a 
company puts in the forefront of 
its memorandum of association a 
special object, as ti" '^hr ^ definit e 

jofoimatinn r.!\j\ |if, nhtainpH hy 




of the company and _that the othe r 
objects are ancJlTary ancTsu'Biervient 

tothSt-SBjecP^. " 

' But see Stern v. McKee, 70 N. Y. 
App. Div. 142 ; 75 N. Y. Supp. 157. 
' Haven Gold Mining Co., 20 Ch. 
D. 151. 



» German Date Coffee Co., 20 Ch. 
D. 169. Said Jessel, M. R. . "It 
appears to me that this memoran- 
dum when fairly read, and notwith- 
standing the rather loose use of 
general words, is simply to buy this 
patent and to work it either with or 
without improvements." 20 Ch. D. 
186. Lindley, L. J., said : " In con- 
struing this memorandum of asso- 
ciation or any other memorandum 
of association in which there are 
general words, care must be taken 
to construe those general words £q. 
as not, to makfi_tbem,a t rap for un- 
waiy pe ople . General words con- 
strued literally may mean anything ; 
but they must be taken in connec- 
tion with what are shown by the 
context to be the dominant or main 
objects. It will not do under general 
words to turn a company for manu- 
facturing one thing into a company 
for importing something else, how- 
ever general the words are." 20 
Ch. D. 188. 

See also to substantially the same 
effect : Consolidated Copper Co. v. 
Peddie, 5 Rettie 393, 400. 



93 



§ 31- § 162] GENERAL STATEMENTS OF OBJECTS § 108 

certain other corporations formed for dealing in seats and ac- 
commodations for the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria, and 
also "to carry on all lands of promotion business," "to act as 
house-agents, surveyors, and builders," and to deal in places of 
observation for any procession or spectacle, the court held that 
from the whole instrument the primary object of the company 
appeared to be speculation in seats for the Diamond Jubilee 
and that everything else, in spite of the generality of the language 
used, was merely subordinate thereto, so that, the Diamond 
Jubilee having taken place, there remained nothing for the 
company to do.' Upon the same principle, a clause in the in- 
corporation paper of a sawmill company purporting to authorize 
the corporation to own or lease railways and tramways has been 
declared to apply only to such railways or tramways as are inci- 
dental to the operation of a sawmill.^ In determining what is 
the main object of the company within the meaning of these 
decisions, the corporate name may furnish a guide.^ 

The same principle will apply to the construction of general 
words following more particular and limited statements of 
objects even where the incorporation paper provides that the 
objects specified in each paragraph, or subdivision, of the objects 
clause "shall be in nowise limited or restricted by reference to 
or inference from the terms of any other paragraph or the name 
of the company." * 

§ 108. Limits of Maxim Noscitur a sociis. — On the 
other hand, the principle of noscitur a sociis must receive a rea- 
sonable application. For instance, it cannot be applied so as to 
effect a virtual deletion of the words "and elsewhere" in an 
incorporation paper specifying as the objects of the company,, 
in addition to taking over as a going concern a certain named 
mine, the acquisition and development of gold mines and other 
mining rights "in Mysore and elsewhere." ^ So, where an incor- 
poration paper states as the purposes of the company the pur- 

• Amalgamated Syndicate (1897), ing Co. (1902), 1 Ch. 745 (distin- 

2 Ch. 600 (headnote inadequate). guished and in some particulars 

' People ex rel. Loy v. Mount criticised in Pedlar v. Road Block 

Shasta Mfg. Co., 107 Cal. 256, 258; Gold Mines (1905), 2 Ch. 427). 
40 Pac. 391. » Pedlar v. Road Block Gold 

' Re Crown Bank, 44 Ch. D. 634. Mines (1905), 2 Ch. 427. 

See also infra, § 462. But see Coolgardie Consol. Gold 

' Stephens v. Mysore Reefs Mirv- Mines, 76 L. T. 269. 



§ 109 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

chase and operation of a certain mine in New South Wales and 
also the purchase of other mines in New South Wales or else- 
where, it was held that upon the exhaustion of the mine first 
named the company had power to acquire other lands in New 
South Wales believed to be coal bearing.' 

§ 109-§ 113. The Capital Clause. 

§ 109. Statement of Amount of Capital and Number of 
Shares. — ['•jprrnH ffniy ipiTTipr|7-tcirir|o jv^ the objects clause is 
the capital clause of the incorporation paper. This it is which 
defines the amount of the capital and the number and amount 
of the shares into which it is divided. Jlhs^Btou nt of the^ a^tal 
must be stated in the body of the instrument,^ as the court cannot 
infer the amount of the capital from the number of shares sub- 
scribed for by the incorporators at the foot of the paper.* An 
incorporation act providing that the memorandum of association 
shall state the amount of the company's capital "divided into 
shares of a certain fixed amount" requires the amount or par 
value of the shares to be stated in the incorporation papetu^ 
Care should be taken to avoid any inconsistency between the 
statement of the aggregate amount of the capital and the state- 
ment of the number and par value of the shares. In a Maryland 
case, an incorporation paper stated that the capital stock of the 
company should consist of $150,000 divided into "five hundred 
shares at $100 per share." The court held that five hundred 
was a clerical error for fifteen hundred, and that therefore the 
instrument was legal ; * but this conclusion could hardly have 
been reached but for the fact that appended to the paper was 
a subscription for "fifty shares five thousand dollars." 

' Wiekham & Bvllock Island ing one thousand, and the par value 

Coal Co., 5 New So. Wales State Rep. thereof, the court held that an in- 

365. corporation paper which pjpyided . 

^ But Jii, Lord V. Essex Bldg. that, the - nuniber. Qf_j5hares..should^l 

Ass'n, 37 Md. 320, 326-327 (head- ^Jndefinile was effective. to create T" 

note inadequate), where under a a porporation. 

statute providing for the formation '\J 'State ex rel. Howe v. Shelby- 

of building societies and declaring vUle, etc. Turnpike Co., 41 Ind. 

that any corporation formed there- 151. 

under ghr»ii]H h^vc.piji^pr to state * Financial Corporation, 2 Ch. 

in the incorporation paper the 714, 732 (headnote inadequate), 
number of shares of which its capi- ' Hughes v. Antietam Mfg. Co., 

tal stock should consist, not exceed- 34 Md. 316. 

100 



§ 31-§ 162] THE CAPITAL CLAUSE § 112 

§ 110. Division of Shares into Preferred and Common, etc. 

— 4^ther matter oftpn regulated by the capital clause^ of 
Jhe jncorporation jpaper is the classte^ajtion , of Jth^ into 

''prefcK&d'^aiLd^ "commoj^ The many and 

difficult questions that arise in connection with this subject are, 
however, by reason of their importance reserved for separate 
and detailed treatment hereafter© 

§ 111. Statement as to Liability of Shareholders. — In 
England and in some of the United States, the incorporation 
paper must.contain^a^statement whether the liability of the mem- 
bers is to be limited or unlimited, or if limited to what extent it is 
to be confined.^ In Colorado, where the statute provided that 
the incorporation paper should state whether the stock is to be 
" assessable " or " non-assessable," it w as held that a tota l omis - 
aon from an incorp fflajion japgr ol any statement~u pOT^^ 
point did not prevent the corporation from attaining at least a 
de /acto ex istence.^ 

§ 112. Statement of Time and Manner of Payment for Shares. 

— Some statutes Require t he time and manner of payment for 
the shares to be specified in the incorporation paper.* A state- 
ment that the stock shall be paid for in cash and that no share- 
certificate shall issue until payment be made satisfies such a 
requirement ; * and the same is true of a statement that payment 
shall be made at such times and in such amounts as the directors 
may deem best." A statute requiring an affidavit to be endorsed 
upon the incorporation paper attesting the payment of five per 
cent of the minimum capital of the company is repealed by a 
subsequent statute which expressly repeals the provision re- 
quiring the payment of five per cent of the minimum sub- 
scription, but does not in express terms dispense with the 
affidavit.' 

Ordinarily, and in the absence of an expUcit statutory require- 

' Infra, Chapter X, § 525 et the stock, see Buffalo, etc. R. R. Co. 

seq. V. Hatch, 20 N. Y. 157. 

^ Cf. Oarey v. St. Joe Mining Co. * New Orleans, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

(Utah), 91 Pac. 369. Frank, 39 La. Ann. 707 ; 2 So. 310. 

. ' Humphreys v. Mooney, 5 Colo. ° Baltimore, etc. Tel. Co. v. Mor- 

282, 286-288. gan's, etc. Co., 37 La. Ann. 883. 

" As to a requirement that the ' Belfast, etc. Plank Road Co. v. 

paper must -show that a. certain Chamberlain, 32 N. Y. 651, 654r-655, 

amount has already been paid on per Brown, J. 

101 



§113 



THE INCORPORATION PAPER 



[Chap. II 



ment, the incorporation paper need not state the terms and 
conditions of payment for the stock.' 

§ 113. Combination of joint-stock Plan with non-stock Plan. — 
One and the same incorporation law often provides for the 
formation not merely of companies organized on the ordinary 
joint-stock plan but also of corporations having no capital 
stock, such as mutual insurance companies.' This is the 
case, for instance, under the English Companies Act of 1862. 
Under such laws, no legal obstacle prevents the formation of a 
corporation on a combination of the two plans — for example, 
an insurance company having two classes of members, share- 
holders and holders of mutual policies.' 



I 114. Chief Office or Place of Business Clause. — Gen- 
eral incorporation laws usually require that the incor poration 
paper shall contain certain particulars regarding the company's 
oflBce or place of business.' The English law provides that the 
memorandum of association shall specify in what part of the 
United Kingdom — that is, whether in England, Scotland, or 
Ireland — the company's "registered office" is to be situate.* 
The precise location of this office must be recorded from time to 
time by the public registrar."^ In front of the office, a sign must 
be conspicuously displayed bearing the name of the company in 
letters easily legible.' The list of members and the register of 
incumbrances on the company's property must be kept at this 
office ; " and there any summons or notice requiring service on 
the company may be served." T4ie-m^n.je atures of^thi^jaw 
hav e been cop ie d in New Jersey and other st ^es. The statutes 
of almost everv state in the American Union require that the 



' Brinkley Car, etc. Co. v. Curf- 
man (Iowa), 114 N. W. 12. 

^ As to the presumption that a 
corporation organized for indus- 
trial purposes is formed on the joint- 
stock plan, see Skinner Dry Dock 
Co. V. Mayor, etc. of Baltimore, 96 
Md. 32, 42 (headnote inadequate) ; 
63 Atl. 416. 

' Winstone's Case, 12 Ch. D. 
239. 



* Compare the ancient doctrine 
that a royal charter of incorporar- 
tion must give the corporation some 
definite locality. Button v. Wight- 
man, Cro. Eliz. 338; Sutton's Hos- 
pital Case, 10 Co. 1, 23, 29 et seq. 

" Companies Act, 1862, § 8. 

« Id. § 40. 

' Id. § 41, § 42. 

« Id. § 32, § 43. . 

» Id. 5 02. 



102 



§ 31-§ 162] CHIEF OFFICE OR PLACE OF BUSINESS § 114 

^ location of the company's ohi^f nffire or place of bus iness in the 
state shall be speci fied in the incorporati9^ , , y §,pgr!,' A pi'Ul'lHllwi'" 

^ mat me" incofporalion paper shall specify the company's " prin- 
cipal place of business " is not satisfied by a statement that " the 
operations of the company are to be carried on" in such and 
such a place: the operations of the company might be carried 
on in one locality and its principal office or place of business be 
in a different region.^ And conversely a requirement that the 
place of business be specified is not satisfied by mentioning the 
location of the chief office.^ On the other hand, to specify a cer- 
tain locality as the company's place of business would seem to 
comply with a requirement that the principal place of business be 
specified.* Where the statute requires that the "names of the 
city or town and county" in which the principal place of busi- 
ness is to be located shall be specified, the giving of the name of 
a county without mentioning any city or town is not a compliance 
with law.^ Where the law requires that the incorporation paper 
shall specify both the city or town in which the chief office or 
place of business shall be located and the place at which the 
officers shall be elected, nevertheless an instrument which gives 

' As to an effect of a provision the incorporation paper as the prin- 

for the transaction of business by cipal place of business, see Dressel 

the company in a foreign state,. see v. North State Lumber Co., 107 Fed. 

Pinney v. Nelson, 183 U. S. 144; 255; Montgomery v. Forbes, 148 

22 Sup. a. 52. Mass. 249. 

As to the effect of moving the QjHarris v. McGregor, 29 Cal. 124 

company's chief office or place of (headnote inadequate), 
business from the place named in ' Enterprise Mut. Beneficial Ass'n, , 

the incorporation paper without 10 Phila. 380; Kennett v. Wood- 

duly altering that instrument, see worth-Mason Co., 68 N. H. 432 

Uptegrove v. Schwarzwadder, 46 (headnote inadequate) ; 39 Atl. 535. 
N. Y. App. Div. 20 ; 61 N. Y. Supp. Cf. Bernstein v. Kaplan (Ala), 

623, affirmed short, 167 N. Y. 587 ; 43 So. 581 (where the incorporation 

60 N. E. 1121. Cf. Firestone Tire, act was held to use "principal 

etc. Co. V. Vehicle Equipment Co., office" and "principal place of busi- 

155 Fed. 676 (holding that for the ness" as synonyms), 
purpose of determining the federal ', Spring Valley Water Works, 17 

judicial district in which a corpora- CaJ_132. 

tion is suable, it is to be deemed an Qliarris v. McGregor, 29 Cal. 

inhabitant or resident of the dis- 124 (headnote misleading), 
trict in which its chief office as desig- As to the degree of precision to 

nated in the incorporation paper is satisfy requirements as to the com- 

situated). pany's office or place of business, 

As to carrying on business at a see also People ex rel. Belknap v. 

different place from that named in Beach, 19 Hun (N. Y.) 259. 

103 



§115 



THE INCORPORATION PAPER 



[Chap. II 



the location of the company's chief office but makes no mention 
of the place for the election of officers complies with the law ; ^ 
for it will be presumed that the officers are to be elected at the 
chief office. The location of the chief office, even when not 
fixed by the company's incorporation paper or special act, is 
often a matter of considerable importance in determining the 
courts in which the corporation is liable to suit, and so forth ; 
and consequently, even in such cases the location of the office 
when once fixed by custom cannot be changed by the com- 
pany's administrative officers without the assent of the directors 
or shareholders.^ The incorporation law may be deemed so 
far colorably complied with that the company may be incor- 
porated ^^^tcfo, although the incorporation paper fails to state 
distinctly, as required by law, the company's place of businesa^ 

§ 115. Directors Clause. — Not_i nf req ue ntly, incorporation 
laws require that the incorporation paper shall fix the 
number of the directors, and shall state the names of the first 
directors^./ This requirement, although of less importance than 
the objects clause and the capital clause is nevertheless manda- 
±OTv and a total failure to comply therewith renders the incor- 
porSttion open to attack.^ 'So, a blank left for the names of the 
first directors is deemed a material blanldl/So, where the statute 
provides that the number of the directors shall be not less than 
three, an instrument which^xes two as the number of the di- 
rectors is fatally defectiv4L/*In one case, a requirement that 



\j) Mc Chesney v. Batman (Ky.), 
89 S. W. 198. 

= Frick Co. v. Norfolk, etc. R. R. 
86 Fed. 725; 32 C. C. A. 31. 



' Reed v. Richmond Street R. R. 
Co., 50 Ind. 342. 

Cf. Dutchess, etc. R. R. Co. v. Mab- 
hett, 58 N. Y. 397; People y. Sei- 



V. Noerenberg, '52 fridge, 52 Cal. 331 (a failure to 

M&n. 239, 245; 53 N. W. 1150; state, as required by statute, that 

38 Am. St. Rep. 552. a majority of the members of the 

But see Harris v. McGregor, 29 association were present and voted 

Cal. 124. at the choice of directors held fatal) ; 

* As to a provision attempting St. Ladislaus Beneficial Ass'n, 19 

to vest the exclusive management Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 25. 

of the company for a period of years But see Mead v. Keeler, 24 Barb, 

in the first directors, see infra, § 122. (N. Y.) 20 (where the court said 

Of course, it is not necessary to that the statute was directory 

state 'in the incorporation paper the merely). 

names of the first directors unless " Dutchess, etc. R. R. Co. v. Mah- 

the statute requires it to be done ; bett, 58 N. Y. 397. 

Miller v. Wild Cat Gravel Road Co., ' Germania Sangerbund, 12 Pa. 

52 Ind. 51, 57. Co. Ct. Rep. 89. 

104 



§ 31-§ 162] DURATION OF EXISTENCE § 116 

the names of the first directors should be stated in the paper 
was held to be satisfied if the directors were chosen at th 
meeting of the incorporators at which the paper was adoptei 
but this case certainly goes to the verge of -the law, and is justly 
discredited by later decisions in the same stat^l^ A statement 
that the affairs of the company shall be under the control of the 
president, the vice-president, and the secretary, does not satisfy 
a requirement that the number of directors and the,^names of 
■those who are to act for the first year must be state^^ The di- 
rectors named in an incorporation paper in pursuance of a statu- 
tory direction have the same powers as directors elected by the 
shareholders.* Whether provisions requiring directors to be 
shareholders apply to directors named in an incorporation paper 
has been the subject of some debatei) It has been held that 
every person named as directoFin the incorporation paper must 
be a corporator, that is, must sign the incorporation paper ; ° 
but this conclusion was deduced from the premisses that as 
directors they were required to be shareholders and that they 
could not be shareholders without executing the incorporation 
paper, and yet the former premiss is by the weight of authority 
false.' A statutory provision that an incorporation paper shall 
state "the number of directors and their names who shall manage 
the company for the first year" does not require the number 
of directors to be fixed permanently at the number stated in the 
incorporation paper but applies only to the first directors.* 

§ 116. Duration of Corporate Existence Clause. — The period 
of time during which the corporate existence is to con- 
tinue must also, under the statutes in force in many states, be 
mentioned in the incorporation paper. At common law, a cor- 
poration was "immortal," that is, was never dissolved by mere 
lapse of time. But .after the Dartmouth College Case had es- 

' Eakright v. Logansport, etc. R. R. 487, 506-509. People ex rel. Gales v. 

Co., 13 Ind- 404. McDonough, 28 N. Y. Misc. 652 

' See Reed v. Richmond Street (headnote inadequate) ; 60 N. Y. 

R. R. Co., 50 Ind. 342; Busenback Supp. 45. 

V. Attica, etc. Gravel Road Co., 43 ' See infra, § 1420. 

Ind. 265. ' Renn v. United States Cement 

' Bates V. WUson, 14 Colo. 140; Co. (Ind.), 73 N. E. 269. As to 

24 Pac. 99. changing tiie number of directors, 

* Infra, § 168. see Westchester Trust Co., 186 N. Y. 

« See infra, § 1420. 215. 

' Dancy v. Clark, 24 App. D. C. 

105 



§ 116 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

tablished the irrepealability of legislative charters of incorporar 
tion, this attribute of immortality was seen to be especially 
dangerous, and accordingly the custom sprang up of prescrib- 
ing^in acts..Qf-. incorp6ration some limit to t he company's exisTT 
ence. This custom tosome_extent^ survived aftfii,.jjie_flccasion 
for it had,_been _rgm oYe d by the usual reservation to Jhe state 
of the riqfht to repeal cna rtSo?incOT Some of the 

less liberal general incorporation laws still in forc e in the U nited 
St ates provide that thg^ period of ^astenceoT companies or- 
ganized under them^^j,ll,jiot exceed a certain fimTt "Where 
"fhe statute'provides that the incorporatioiT^ipCT'sESll state the 
time during which the corporate existence is to continue, doubt 
has been expressed whether a statement that the company's 
existence is to be perpetual satisfies the law; but all doubt 
could be obviated and at the same time practically perpetual 
existence attained by stating that the corporation shall continue 
for, say, two thousand years. A statement that the corporate 
existence shall^^^ot exceed the term of forty years" is suffi- 
ciently definitri- ^jjl^ p ^eed. even the fact that an incorporation 
paper provides for a longer period of corporate existence than 
that allowed by the statute will no t pre yent the company f rom 
becoming incorporated c^e jure:' for the courts will construe 
the mstrument as providing for as long a period of corporate 
existence as allowed by law, rejecting as surplusage the pro- 
vision for a continuance of corporate life for a further period. 

A provision that the corporation shall have "perpetual suc- 
cession" does not necessarily mean that its existence shall 
continue without limit, but rather that it shall have continuous 
succession during such period of time as may be limited by, 
other provisions of the incorporation paper or of the statut^y 
On the other hand, a provision that the company shall have 
"perpetual succession forever" does amount to a provision for 
perpetual corporate existence© 

A company whose existence is limited to a term of years is not 
on that account debarred from taking a conveyance of land in 

* Hughes v. Antietam Mfg. Co., ' State v. Scott County, etc. Road 
34 Md. 316. Co. (Mo.), 105 S. W. 752, 757 ; State 

' People ex rel. Bernard v. Cheese- ex rel. Walker v. Payne, 129 Mo. 
men, 7 Colo. 376, 379-380; 3 Pao. 468; 31 S. W. 597; 33 L. R. A. 576. 
716. * State v. Starmont, 24 Kan. 686. 

106 



§ 31-§ 162] THE NAME CLAUSE § 117 

fee simple/ or from contracting for the use of property at an 
annual rental for a longer term ^ even though the lease contain 
a clause prohibiting an assignment without the consent of the 
lessor.^ 

Usually, statutory provision is made for extending the period 
of corporate existence.* 

§ 117. Name Clause. — The nam e of the pro posed cor- 
poration, must . nert flinlv be stat ed : aiid" the name thus stated 
will be the lawful name of the compan^ unless it be altered in 
some legal mode. If the statute requires the incorporation 
paper to set forth the name of the company, an instrument 
which mentions no corporate name is fatally defective even 
though the words " Fairview Turnpike " are placed at the head 
of the pape^ix Indeed, the name is a matter of considerable 
importance. Hence, where the incorporation law requires the 
name of the proposed company to be published by advertise- 
ment in some newspaper, a variation between the name as pub- 

' Nicoll V. New York, etc. B. R. * National Lead Co. v. Dickinson, 

Co., 12 N. Y. 121 ; Detroit v. Detroit 57 Atl. 138 ; 70 N. J. Law 596, 

Citizens' By. Co., 184 U. S. 368, 394- affirmed short, 62 Atl. 1135 (stated 

395 ; 22 Sup. Gt. 410. infra, § 151) ; Commonwealth v. Ldck- 

Cf. Blair v. Chicago, 201 U. S. ing Valley Bldg. Ass'n, 82 S. W. 435 ; 

400 ; 26 Sup. Ct. 427. 26 Ky. Law Rep. 730 ; Mayor, etc. 

' Union Pac. By. Co. v. Chicago, of Jersey City v. North Jersey, etc. 

etc. By. Co., 163 U. S. 564, 692 ; 16 By. Co. (N. J.), 63 Atl. 906. 

Sup. Ct. 1173 ; Brown v. Schleier, 118 Cf. Frostburg Mining Co. v. Cum- 

Fed. 981, affirmed in 194 U. S. 18; berland, etc. B. B. Co., 81 Md. 28; 

2iSmp.Ct. 55S; Consolidated GasCo., 31 Atl. 698 (special act extending 

106 N. Y. Supp. 407 (franchise to lay or reviving corporate existence held 

gasmainsinstreetsof city not limited not to create a new corporation); 

to period of corporate existence). Clement y. U. S., 149 Fed. 305 (as 

Cf. HiU V. Atlantic, etc. B. B. Co. to conclusiveness of comptroller's 

(N. Car.), 55 S. E. 854; Bockwith certificate of renewal of existence 

ex rel. Kerns v. State Boad Bridge of national bank). 

Co. (Mich.), 108 N. W. 785 (grant » Cf. Town of East Borne v. City 

of a bridge franchise held to expire of Borne (Ga.), 58 S. E. 854 (holding 

on the termination of the period that where charter provides that 

fixed for the termination of the the corporation " shall be known 

grantee's corporate existence) ; and called the town of E. R." and 

Union Bank v. Bidgely, 1 H. & G. that the corporate name shall be 

(Md.), 324, 433-434 (bond to secure the " Mayor and City Council of the 

fidelity of employee limited to time town of E. R.," the latter is the 

of corporate existence as fixed in only legal corporate name), 

special act of incorporation). ° Piper v. Bhodes, 30 Ind. 309 ; 

' Weeks v. International Trust Bhodes v. Piper, 40 Ind. 369. 
Co., 125 Fed. 370, 373-374; 60 C. 
C. A. 236. 

107 



§1 118 THE INCOEPOKATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

lished and the name as given in the incorporation mper will 
justify a refusal to approve or register the instrument^^On the 
other hand, where a statute requires the consent of municipal 
.authorities to the incorporation of a water-works company, the 
consent need not mention the precise corporate name stated 
in the incorporation paper : ^ the consent required is a consent 
to the formation of the corporation by the persons who sign the 
instrument and not a consent to the adoption of the proposed 
corporate name. The matter of corporate names is the subject 
of a separate chapter.^ 

§ 118. Indebtedness Clause. — Some incorporation laws re- 
quire that every incorporation paper shall fix the highest amount 
of indebtedness to which the company is at any time to be sub- 
jecAi/ Such a provision is -manda tory, and a failure to comply 
therewith is a substantial defectlPlt has been held that such 
a provision is complied with by stating that the amount of the 
company's indebtedness shall not exceed a certain named sum 
"except by a majority vote of the stockholders present at a 
called or annual meeting. '^3^ The court said that the paper did 
fix the maximum amount of indebtedness, and that the pro- 
vision of a method by which that maximum might be increased 
did not alter this fact ; but this reasoning is far from satisfactory, 
since the provision in question amounts to no more than a pro- 
vision that the company shall not incur indebtedness in excess 
of the amount named unless it chooses to do so. A statute for- 
bidding the borrowing of money in excess of "one half of the 
par value of the capital stock" has been held to refer to the 
paid-up capital rather than to the authorized capital ; ' and 

' St. Ladislaiis, etc, Ass'n, 19 Pa. debts of the company in case of 

Co. Ct. Rep. 25. failure to "comply substantially" 

' Kemhle v. MilviUe, 69 N. J. with the statute). 
Law 637; 56 Atl. 311. " Thornton v. Balcom, 85 Iowa 

' Infra, Chapter VIII. 198 ; 52 N. W. 190. 

* As to the power of corporations Cf. Park v. Zwart, 92 Iowa 37 ; 

to borrow where the incorporation 60 N. W. 220. 

paper is not required to and does ' Commonwealth v. Lehigh Ave. 

not contain any provision on the Ry. Co., 129 Pa. St. 405; 18 Atl. 

subject, see supra, § 69. 414, 498; 5 L. R. A. 367. 

' Heuer v. Carmichad, 82 Iowa As to what is to be talcen as the 

288; 47 N. W. 1034 (holding that amount of the capital within the 

non-compliance renders shareholders meaning of such provisions limiting 

liable under a statute subjecting the amount of authorized indebted- 

their individual property to the ness, see further, Poole v. West Point 

108 ' 



§ 31-§ 162] THE INDEBTEDNESS CLAUSE 



^ns 



the court which pronounced that decision would doubtless con- 
strue a similar provision in an incorporation paper in the same 
way. A provision that the company shall not become indebted 
to an amount exceeding its capital stock except upon debts of 
a certain character will not prevent the company from borrow- 
ing to the amount of its capital irrespective of the amount for 
which it may have become indebted for debts of the excepted 
class.' 

A clause in an incorporation paper limiting the amount of 
indebtedness which the company mawncur would seem to be 
mandatyyi^nd not directory merel \('> Consequently, to incur 
any indebtedness in excess of the limit is vltra vires. In Eng- 
land, the indebtedness in excess of the limit would perhaps be 
void^whereas in the United States after the ultra vires con- 
tract is fully executed on one side by the advance of the money, 
the company would be liable for the amount of the loan either 
on the express contract or quasi ex contractu} 



Butter, etc. Co., 30 Fed. 513 ; C^t7^- 
ningham v. German Ins. Bank, 101 
Fed. 977 ; 41 C. C. A. 609 ; Farmers' 
L. & T. Co. V. Toledo, etc. Ry. Co., 
67 Fed. 49, 56-58. 

' Weber v. Spokane Nat. Bank, 
€4 Fed. 208 (construing U. S. Rev. 
Stales., § 5202, as to national banks). 
/^BeU & Coggeshall Co. v. Ky. 
GMs Works Co. (Ky.), 50 S. W. 2 ; 
20 Ky. Law Rep. 1684 ; First Nat. 
Bank v. D. Kieffer Co., 95 Ky. 97; 
23 S. W. 675 ; WenLock v. River Dee 
Co., 10 A. C. 354 (construing a 
special act). 

But of. Weber v. Spokane Nat. 
Bank, 64 Fed. 208 (stated infra, 
§ 1070) ; Sherman Center Tovm Co. 
V. Morris, 43 Kan. 282 ; 23 Pac. 569 ; 
19 Am. St. Rep. 134 (declaring that 
■where statute does not require the 
incorporation paper to fix a limit to 
the indebtedness to be incurred by 
the company a clause naming such a 
limit has no more force than a by- 
law and is merely directory); Ossi^ 
pee, etc. Mfg. Co. v. Canney, 54 N. H. 
295 (statute limiting indebtedness 
declared to be directory). 

For a method of evading a 



limitation on the amount of author- 
ized indebtedness, see supra, § 70. 

» See infra, § 1031. 

But as to the rights of a bona 
fide purchaser of a negotiable in- 
strument without knowledge that 
the limit had been exceeded, see 
Gordon v. Sea Fire Life Ass. Soc., 
1 H. & N. 599, and infra, § 1705. 

* Sioux City Terminal, etc. Co. of 
North America, 82 Fed. 124; 27 
C. C. A. 73; Garrett v. Burlington 
Plow Co., 70 Iowa 697 ; 29 N. W. 
395; 59 Am. Rep. 461 (where the 
creditor was a director) ; Warfield 
V. Marshall County Canning Co., 72 
Iowa 666; 34 N. W. 467; 2 Am. 
St. Rep. 263 (creditor a director); 
Beach v. Wakefield, 107 Iowa 567; 
76 N. W. 688 ; 78 N. W. 197 (apply- 
ing the same rule to debts secured 
by mortgage contracted by a rail- 
way company in excess of a statu- 
tory limit) ; Union Trust Co. v. 
Mercantile Library Hall Co., 189 
Pa. St. 263 ; 42 Atl. 129. 

Cf. Poole v. West Point Butter, 
etc. Ass'n, 30 Fed. 513; Vanderveer 
v. Asbury Park, etc. Ry. Co., 82 
Fed. 355 ; Kraniger v. People's Bldg. 



109 



§119 



THE INCORPORATION PAPER 



[Chap. II 



§ 119. Effect of Failure to state all Particulars required by 
Law. — All the legal requirements must be complied with. If 
any of the matters required by the statute to be stated is omitted, 
the instrument is fatally defective ; ' and even if the attempt 
to incorporate be not wholly void, the company will be at best 
a de facto corporation. Thus, where a statute provides that an 
incorporation paper shall prescribe re gulations for transf ers of 
shares, the instrument should not attempt to delegate to the 
directors the power to enact regulations or by-laws on that sub- 
]ect.^ The onlyj aofflLfor difference of opinion is upon the ques- 
tion whether a given provision ofthejncorporatJQO law.in.respect 
'^'^"^^^^^^^^^^^M^^^^^^^S^^^JSm^^^-^^od&Lo^ or 
"dtf§clory7 and upon the question jvhether a^failure to, comply 



" with^ me laanda^fy; reguirementJa..j§^ 

lo prevMiJ the company from attaining the status oi a, de facto 



corporatioi 



Soc, 60 Minn. 94; 61 N. W. 904 
(holding that a. loan which extends 
beyond the Umit is valid up to the 
limit but is void as to the excess 
where the money was not applied 
for the company's benefit) ; Bdl & 
CoggeshaU Co. v. Ky. Glass Works 
Co. (Ky.), 50 S. W. 2; 20 Ky. Law 
Rep. 1684 (holding that a claim 
which exceeds the amount of the 
limit is vaUd up to the limit but 
void beyond as regards other credi- 
tors who contracted their claims 
without notice that the limit had 
been exceeded) ; First Nat. Bank 
v. D. Kieffer Milling Co., 95 Ky. 
97; 23 S. W. 675 (similar to last 
case) ; Humphrey v. Patrons' Mer- 
cantile Ass'n, 50 Iowa 607 (holding 
that the company is liable for the 
excess "at least to the extent of 
the consideration received"); Con^ 
necticiU River Sav. Bank v. Fiske, 
60 N. H. 363 (where the court said 
it was immaterial whether or not 
the loan was vitra vires) ; Inter- 
noMonal Trust Co. v. Davis, etc. Mfg. 
Co., 46 Atl. 1054; 70 IST. H. 118 
(holding that where a mortgage is 



executed to secure an issue of bonds 
the aggregate of which exceeds the 
limit, bonds issued before the limit 
is reached are well secured) ; Auer- 
bach V. Le Sueur Mill Co., 28 Minn. 
291; 9 N. W. 799; 41 Am. Rep. 
285 (note issued for loan in excess 
of Umit fixed by incorporation paper 
valid in hands of bona fide pur- 
chaser) ; Wood v. Carry Water Works 
Co., 44 Fed. 146 (bona fide pur- 
chasers entitled to enforce bonds 
issued in excess of two thirds of 
capital paid in). 

See also infra, § 1705, as to nego- 
tiable instruments issued in excess 
of the limit. 

' WiUiarrts v. Heviitt, 47 La. Ann. 
1076. 

' Bank of Attica v. Manufac- 
turers, etc. Bank, 20 N. Y. 501. 

' See infra, § 289, and the present 
chapter passim. 

Cf. Cayuga Lake R. R. Co. v. 
Kyle, 64 N. Y. 185 (company held a 
corporation dejado notwithstanding 
indefiniteness in stating location of 
proposed railway). 



no 



§ 31-§ 162] UNNECESSARY PROVISIONS § 120 

§ 120-§ 122. Insertion of Provisions in Addition to 
those required by Law. 

§ 120. Right to insert Additional Provisions. — The law 
should not prohibit the insertion in an incorporation paper of 
ftther provisions over and above the matters required to be 
stated; for the instrument is not merely a statutory form but is 
also an agreement like articles of partnership. That such addi- 
tional provisions may be inserted in the incorporation paper 
and when inserted therein become part of the company's funda- 
mental constitution, is settled, in England at least. Hence, any 
additional provisions so inserted, although not required to be 
stated, cannot be altered except in the mode, if any, provided for 
altering the essential parts of the instrument,' unless indeed the 
incorporation paper itself authorizes alterations of these addi- 
tional provisions.^ Although there is no reason why the privi- 
lege of inserting in the company's incorporation paper and 
embedding in its constitution particulars that are not required 
by law to be stated in the instrument should not be held to exist 
in America ' as well as in England, yet the privilege, even when 
expressly conferred by statute (as is sometimes the case) is not 



' Ashbury v. Watson, 30 Ch. D. But see Stevedore's Beneficial 

376 (headnote inadequate, — over- Ass'n, 14 Phila. 130 ; Indiana Bond 

ruling dicta in Ouinness v. Land Co. v. Ogle, 22 Ind. App. 593, 595; 

Corporation, 22 Ch. D. 349, 364, 54 N. E. 407 ; O'Brien v. Cummings, 

377, and Winstone's Case, 12 Ch. D. 13 Mo. App. 197 (holding a clause 

239, 251, and distinguishing Duke's in an incorporation paper limiting 

Case, 1 Ch. D. 620) ; Stevedore's the number of shares which one per- 

Benefidal Ass'n, 14 Phila. (Pa.) 130 son might hold of no greater effect 

(semble). than a mere by-law) ; Renn v. 

But see Oban & Aidtmore-Glen- United States Cement Co. (Ind.), 73 

livet Distilleries, 5 Fraser (So.) 1140. N. E. 269 (provision purporting to 

' Underwood v. London Music fix number of directors held alter- 

/TaW (1901), 2 Ch. 309; Wdsbach able by a mere by-law). 

Incandescent Gas Light Co. (1904), In Sherman, etc. Town Co. v. 

1 Ch. 87. Morris, 43 Kan. 282 ; 23 Pac. 569 ; 

Cf. Nelson v. Keith^'Brien Co. 19 Am. St. Rep. 134, it was said, 

(Utah), 91 Pac. 30 (stated infra, obiter, that a provision in an incor- 

§ 144 note). poration paper fixing a limit to the 

' Cf. Mohawk Nat. Bank v. Sche- amount that the company is au- 

nectady Bank, 78 Hun (N. Y.) 90; thorized to borrow has, where the 

28 N. Y. Supp. 1100; Gibbs v. Long law does not require such limit to 

Island Bank, 83 Hun (N. Y.) 92; be stated, the force of a by-law only. 

31 N. Y. Supp. 406 ; Bent v. Under- In Grangers' Life, etc. Ins. Co. v. 

down. 156 Ind. 516; 60 N. E. 307. Kamper, 73 Ala. 325, 341, it was 

111 



§ 121 THE INCORPORATION TAPER [ClIAP. II 

very often availed of on this side of the Atlantic. Indeed, Ameri- 
can lawyers have scarcely begun to appreciate the scope that is 
given for legal ingenuity in drawing incorporation papers. By 
means of this right of adding to the indispensable provisions 
of these instruments, it may be possible to secure some of the 
advantages of the elasticity and freedom of regulation that the 
English system of "articles" or recorded by-laws affords. 

§ 121. TTnauthorized as distinguished from Unnecessary Pro- 
visions — EfEect of inserting. — Of course, care must be taken 
that any additional provisions inserted in the incorporation 
paper over and above the particulars required to be stated shall 
not be contrary to law. For provisions which are expressly or 
impliedly prohibited, as distinguished from merely unnecessary 
provisions, are, if inserted , ineffective. To be sure, even prohibited 
provisions do not have the effect of invalidating the whole in- 
strument provided all that is required by law to be stated is 
found therein.' Utile per inviile non vitiatur. The prohibited 
provisions are void, but they do not vitiate the rest of the in- 
strument. Thus, where the statute requires the assent of the 
shareholders to any increase of capital, a provision in the in- 
corporation paper purporting to authorize an increase of capital 
by the directors alone, although of course itself void, does not 
prevent the company from being legally incorporated.^ So, a 
provision purporting to limit or diminish the shareholders' 
legal liability to creditors is simply void.' Similarly, where the 
law authorizes incorporation for certain purposes, an incorpora- 
tion paper which besides specifying those purposes adds others 
not warranted by law, the company is validly incorporated, but 



said that "there is no authority of lating transfers of shares are un- 
law for introducing more into it authorized; Bullqrd v. Bank, 18 
(the incorporation paper), and if Wall. 589 (headnote inadequate), 
more be introduced it is mere sur- ' See in addition to cases cited 
plusage, not adding to or detracting below, Becket v. Uniontovm Bldg. 
from the force of the declaration." Ass'n, 88 Pa. St. 211 ; Albright v. 
The National Banking Act pro- Lafayette, etc. Ass'n, 102 Pa. St. 411. 
vides that the incorporation paper ' Eastern Plank Road Co. v. 
of a national bank may in addition Vaughan, 14 N. Y. 546. 
to the required particulars contain Cf. Grangers' Life, etc. Ins. Co. 
other provisions for the regulation v. Kamper, 73 Ala. 325. 
of its affairs; and it has been held " Van Pelt v. Gardner, 54 Nebr. 
that under this statute provisions 701 ; 75 N. W. 874. See also infra, 
in the articles of incorporation regu- § 122. 

112 



§ 31-§ 162] UNNECESSARY PROVISIONS § 121 

cannot exercise the additional powers unwarrantably sought to 
be conferred upon it.' It has recently been held in England 
that where a statute authorizes a reduction of capital, if pro- 
vided for in the articles or by-laws, a clause in the incorpora- 
tion paper providing for a reduction does not have the same 
effect as a similar clause in the articles, but is wholly void.^ 
This decision is technical, and on principle one would have 
thought that any provision which is permissible and effective if 
found in the by-laws or articles should be legal and effective if in- 
serted in the incorporation paper or memorandum of association. 
If the law requires the paper to be approved by a judge 
or other public officer, he may withhold his approval if the 
paper contains any prohibited provisions ; ' and, indeed,, even 
a mere registrar charged with ministerial functions may 
refuse to record an instrument which contains any illegal provi- 

' Heck V. McEwen, 12 Lea commercial railway) ; Saunders v. 

(Tenn.) 97; Shick v. Citizens' En- Farmer, 62 N. H. 572 (held a cor- 

terprise Co., 15 Ind. App. 329; 57 poration de facto). 

Am. St. Rep. 230 _ (distinguished in Quaere, what would be the effect if 

Wiiliams v. Citizens' Enterprise Co., some of the objects be not merely 

25 Ind. App. 351, 354; 57 'N. E. unauthorized but actually illegal or 

581) ; Cowell v. Springs Co., 100 immoral. Cf. infra, Chapter V. 

TJ. S. 55, 60 (headnote inadequate) ; In some cases a clause in an in- 

Tennessee, etc. Lighting Co. v. Massey, corporation paper has been thought 

56 S. W. 35 (Tenn.) ; Shoun v. Arnv- to constitute, so to speak, color of 

strong, 59 S. W. 790 (Tenn.) ; Humph- authority for the exercise of powers 

reys v. Mooney, 5 Colo. 282, 292. therein conferred even though those 

But see State ex rd. Lederer v. powers be not authorized by the 

International Investment Co., 88 incorporation law: Prairie Lodge 

Wise. 512 ; 60 N. W. 796 ; 43 Am. St. v. Smith, 58 Miss. 301 (headnote 

Rep. 920 (where the unauthorized inadequate) ; Carson City Sav. Bank 

object was thought to be the pri- v. Carson City Elevator Co., 90 Mich, 

mary purpose and the authorized ob- 550 ; 51 N. W. 641 ; 30 Am. St. Rep. 

jects merely subordinate purposes 454. 

of the incorporation). ' Dexine Patent Packing & Rubber 

Cf. Bayou Cook,'etc. Co. v. Dovllat, Co., 88 L. T. 791. 

35 So. 729; 111 La. 517; David ' Butchers' Beneficial Ass'n, 35 

Bradley Mfg. Co. v. Chicago, etc. Pa. St. 151; Agudath Hakehiloth, 

Traction Co. (111.), 82 N. E. 210 18 N. Y. Misc. 717 ; 42 N. Y. Supp. 

(held, that where a corpora,tion is 985; Benevolent Society, 10 Phila. 

incorporated to operate a "street (Pa.) 19; Woodberry v. McClurg, 

railway" under a law providing for 78 Miss. 831 ; 29 So. 514; Miller v. 

the incorporation of commercial Tod, 67 S. W. 483 ; 95 Tex. 404 ; 

interurban railways only, the word People v. Rose, 188 111. 268 ; 59 N. E. 

"street" should be regarded as px- 432. 

punged from the incorporation Cf. Medical College of PhUadel- 

paper and the company deemed a phia, 3 Whart.(Pa.) 445. 
VOL. I. ~ 8 113 



§ 122 THE INCOEPOKATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

sions.' But on the other hand the action of a ministerial officer 
in recording the instrument does not preclude judicial inquiry 
into the legality of any of its provisions.^ 

§ 122. What Provisions are unauthorized. — The existing au- 
thorities do not afford much aid in determining what provisions 
in an incorporation paper are illegal and void, where a provision 
is not deemed illegal merely because it is not required. Any 
provision that is contrary to express or implied statutory regula- 
tions* of course cannot stand.' Thus, where the purchase by 
a corporation of its own shares is deemed to be illegal, a clause 
in an" incorporation paper purporting to authorize the company 
to purchase its own shares would doubtless be void.* So, a 
clause purporting to vest in the directors a discretion to declare 
dividends at any time, whereas a statute requires the dividend 
days to be fixed, would be void.^ A federal judge sitting in 
Louisiana has held that a piovision in an incorporation paper 
purporting to give the company a lien on its shares for debts 
owing by the holders is void;' but this decision appears to 

» Dancy v. Clark, 24 App. D. C. Whalen, 104 N. Y. Supp. 555 ; Lin- 

487; State ex rd. Gorman v. Nichols coin Bldg., etc. Ass'n v. Graham, 7 

(Wash.), 82 Pac. 741 ; People ex Nebr. 173 (headnote inadequate — 

reZ. Barney v. Whalen, 104 N. Y. clause purporting to authorize lend- 

Supp. 555 ; Rex v. Registrar Joint ing at usurious interest). 
Stock Companies (1904), 2 Ir. 634 * Infra, § 627. Cf. § 624. 
(where the name of the company ^ Marquand v. Federal Steel Co., 

contained a false statement) ; Peo- 95 Fed. 725. 

pie ex rd. Blossom v. Ndson, 46 N. ° New Orleans Nat. Banking 

Y. 477 (attempt to form a corpora- Ass'n v. WUtz, 10 Fed. 330 (head- 

tion for business purposes, in addi- note inadequate), 
tion to the purpose of promoting Cf. O'Brien v. Cummings, 13 Mo. 

the temporal interests of others, App. 197 ; Lyman v. State Bank of 

under a statute for formation of Randolph, 81 N. Y. App. Div. 367; 

benevolent and charitable corpora- 80 N. Y. Supp. 901, affirmed short 

tions); People ex rd. Barney v. 179N. Y. 577; 72 N. E. 1145. 
Whalen, 106 N. Y. Supp. 434. The decision in Third Nat. Bank 

Cf. People V. Bose, 219 111. 46 ; 76 v. Buffalo German Ins. Co., 193 

N. E. 42 (where the instrument U. S. 581, that a provision in the 

adopted the same name as an ex- "articles of association" of a na- 

isting company) ; State ex rd. Os- tional bank, which perform some 

borne v. Nichols, 38 Wash. 309 ; of the functions of an incorporation 

80 Pac. 462. paper, purporting to give the bank 

' People ex rd. Peahody v. Chicago a lien on its several shares for debts 

Gas Trust Co., 130 111. 268, 22 N. E. owing by the respective holders, can 

798, 17 Am. St. Rep. 319; 8L. R. A. be explained by the fact that the 

497. Cf. infra, § 267. national bank act expressly forbids 

' Cf. People ex rd. Barney v. banks to lend on the security of 

114 



§ 31-§ 162] UNNECESSARY PROVISIONS § 122 

have been ill considered, and was reached by assimilating an 
incorporation paper, or so-called charter, to mere by-laws, 
without adverting to the cardinal distinction between them in 
that the one is matter of record so that all who deal with the 
company have constructive notice, while mere by-laws rest in 
pais. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Iowa in a well-reasoned 
judgment, while recognizing that where a mere by-law confers 
upon the corporation a lien upon its shares for debts due from 
the shareholders, bona fide purchasers of a share-certificate are 
not affected thereby, nevertheless held that a similar provision 
contained in an incorporation paper creates a lien which is 
effective against all the world, because everybody has construc- 
tive notice of the contents of the incorporation paper.' In 
Indiana, a provision declaring that shares may be issued at a 
discount has been held effective,^ but the opposite result was 
reached by the Supreme Court of Ohio in a case relating to 
a West Virginia corporatioti.' A Vice-Chancellor of New 
Jersey has expressed the opinion that a clause in an incorpora- 
tion paper authorizing the directors to bind the company without 
a board meeting is void although the New Jersey law expressly 
authorizes the insertion in an incorporation paper of "any 
provision creating, defining, Umiting and regulating " the powers 
of directors ; * but this expression of opinion, although sup- 
ported by an elaborate statement of reasons, was not strictly 
necessary to the decision, and is submitted to be so narrow and 
unjust that the New Jersey Court of Errors, which is distin- 
guished for breadth and sanity of judgment in matters of 
corporation law, is unlikely to reach the same conclusion.* 



their own shares and by the fact ' Security Trust Co. v. Ford 

— which seems to have had more (Ohio), 79 N. E. 474. Accord: 

weight with the court — that Con- Twigg v. Thunder Hill Mining Co., 

gress, by repealing the express pro- 3 Brit. Columb. 101. 

vision in the Act of 1863 for such ' Audenried v. East Coast Milling 

liens, had indicated a legislative in- Co. (N. J.), 59 Atl. 577. 

tent that the shares should be alien- ' CSf. Bell & Coggeshall Co. v. 

able without any such restriction. Ky. Glass Works Co., 50 S, W. 2; 

' Dempster Mfg. Co. v. Down, 126 20 Ky. Law Rep. 1684 (enforcing 

Iowa 80 (headnote inadequate) ; 101 a clause in an incorporation paper 

N. W. 735; 106 Am. St. Rep. 340. which vested the management of 

' Bent v. Underdown, 156 Ind. the company in executive officers 

516 ; 60 N. E. 307. Cf. Street & Co. who were to act without a meeting). 
17 Vict. L. R. 717. 

lis 



§ 123 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

One of the inferior courts in Pennsylvania has even gone so 
far as to hold that a provision in an incorporation paper of a 
social club providing that a member shall have as many votes at 
elections of oflBcers as he holds shares is void;' and this decision 
is the more remarkable because a similar provision in mere 
by-laws is by the weight of authority quite valid.^ A clause in 
an incorporation paper vesting the exclusive control of the 
company in the first directors for a period of years, and provid- 
ing that until the expiration of that time the shareholders should 
have no right to vote or hold meetings (except in an advisory 
capacity), has been held by a federal judge to be valid and not in 
conflict with statutory provisions for annual and other meetings 
of shareholders, which provisions were construed to apply only 
to those companies whose incorporation papers contain no 
stipulation to the contrary.* This decision is remarkable among 
American cases in that it errs, if at all, on the side of a liberal and 
elastic construction of the law. Accordingly, one is not sur- 
prised to find that an Indiana court upon very similar facts 
has reached a diametrically opposite conclusion.* 



§ 123. Incorporation of other Documents into Instrument 
by Reference. — By analogy to accepted principles relating to 
deeds of real estate and similar instruments, an incorporation 
paper may refer to, and by reference incorporate, any existing 
recorded paper ,^ but not an unrecorded document or a document 
not at the time in existence. Thus, a reference in the incorpora- 
tion paper to by-laws to be subsequently adopted by the com- 
pany will not make such by-laws part of the company's recorded 

' Commonwealth ex rel. Nicker- copies of each other, but each signed 

son V. Conover, 30 Leg. Int. (Pa.) by different persons) ; Monroe Re- 

200. publican Clvh, 6 Pa. Dist. R. 515 

^ See infra, § 1216. (application for charter typewritten 

' Union Trust Co. v. Carter, 139 upon several sheets of paper joined 

Fed. 717. together with eyelets, instead of 

* State ex rel. Ross v. Anderson, being written upon one single sheet, 

67N. E.207; 31 Ind. App. 34. Baid to be irregular); Stevedore's 

" Cf. Lake Ontario, etc. R. R. Co. Beneficial Ass'n, 14 Phila. (Pa.) 130 

V. Mason, 16 N. Y. 451 (where arti- (similar point to last case) ; Ac- 

ticles of incorporation consisted of countants' Ass'n, 5 Pa. Dist. Rep. 

several separate instruments, exact 699 (similar point to last two cases). 

116 



§ 31-§ 162] EXECUTION OF INSTRUMENT 



§124 



constitution nor charge persons who may afterwards deal with the 
company with notice of their existence and contents.' 



§ 124-§ 131. Execution of Instrument. 

§ 124. In general — Signature — Number of Subscribers, etc. — 
An incorporation paper must of course be signed; if unsigned, 
it is a nullity.' Moreover, it must be signed by the number of 
subscribers required by law. This is an essential point.^ Thus, 
if the law requires, say, five or more subscribers, a paper signed 
by three only is invalid.* On the other hand, where the law 
requires three subscribers, two of the three may be husband and 
wife ; ^ baron and feme are not nowadays for this purpose 
regarded as one person. Signature by a mark is suflScient.' 
A fortiori, a subscriber need not sign his full name : a signature 
designating a subscriber's Christian name by an initial merely 
is sufficient.'' If the stfl fiHtr pr—""*" *^"* *^'^ pliirft "f ff«''rlp"'^p 
q f^the subscribers ska ll ht- stfi.tpf] th° p^^^-'^^hn r Tr°"rlltnriy a 
failure to give the place ot residence of each of a number sufficient 
to perfect the organization cannot be deemed disregard of a 
mere directory provision.* 



' Royal Bank of India's Case, 4 
Ch. 252. 

' Lawrie v. SUshy (Vt.), 56 Atl. 
1106 ; 76 Vt. 240 ; 104 Am. St. Rep. 
927 ; Unity Ins. Co. v. Cram, 43 
N. H. 636 (explained in Ossipee, etc. 
Mfg. Co. V. Canney, 54 N. H. 295, 
313). 

Cf. Kaiser v. Lamrence Savings 
Bank, 56 Iowa 104 (headnote in- 
adequate) ; 8 N. W. 772 ; 41 Am. 
Rep. 85. 

' See infra, § 1084. 

* Helping Hand Marriage Ass'n, 
15 Phila. 644 (headnote inade- 
quate) ; Ehoads v. Hoernerstovm 
Bldg., etc. Ass'n, 82 Pa. St. 180; 
Hamilton Road Co. v. Tovriwend, 
13 Ont. Rep. 534; People ex rel. 
Weatherly v. Golden Gate Lodge, 
(Cal.), 60 Pac. 865; 128 Cal. 257; 
State ex rel. Clapp v. Critchett, 37 
Minn. 13 ; 32 N. W. 787. 

Cf. Johnson v. Okerstrom, 70 



Minn. 303, 310; 73 N. W. 147 
(paper signed by less than required 
number of persons held colorable 
compliance with law sufficient to 
give rise to incorporation de facto) ; 
Duggan v. Colorado Mtge., etc. Co., 
11 Colo. 113, 117 (headnote inade- 
quate, — holding that forgery of 
one of the requisite minimum num- 
ber of signatures is not ground for 
collateral attack on validity of 
incorporation). 

^ Good Land Co. v. Cole (Wise), 
110 N. W. 895. 

" Board of Trustees of Seventh 
Street, etc. Church v. Campbell, 48 
La. Ann. 1543 ; 21 So. 184. 

' State ex rel. Callings v. Beck, 
81 Ind. 500. 

' Busenback v. Attica, etc. Gravel 
Road Co., 43 Ind. 265. As to such 
provisions, see also, Steinmelz v. 
Versailles, eic. Turnpike Co., 57 Ind. 
457. 



117 



§125 



THE INCORPORATION PAPER 



[Cha^. II 



§ 125. Sealing of Instrument. — The instrument need not 
be under the seals of the subscribers unless the statute so re- 
quires; but a provision that the paper shall be under.jseal can- 
UO Lrbe' deemed directory m erely.^ As more fully explained 
below, a provision that the paper "shall bind the company 
and each member to the same extent as if each member had 
signed his name and affixed his seal thereto," does not require 
the instrument to be sealed by the subscriber&J) 

§126. Acknowledgment -of Instrument. — A provision that 
the instrument shall be acknowledged as well as signed isjua^da- 
tory ; '" but a magistrate's certificate that the paper was " suK^ 
scribed and sworn to " before him sufficiently shows that it was 
acknowledged.* Where the instrument is required to be acknowl- 
edged before a clerk of court or justice bf the peace it is invalid 
if acknowledged before a notary publicv'even though the notary 



' Grifpn v. Clinton Line, etc. B. R. — headnote inadequate) ; Danne- 

Co., 11 Fed. Cas. 27. broge Gold, etc. Co. v. Ailment, 26 

Cf. Warner v. Cullender, 20 Ohio Cal. 286 (acknowledgment by one 

St. 190. of subscribers by attorney Jield, 

' WhiHey Partners, 32 Ch. D. not ground for collateral attack on 

337. See infra, § 131. Validity of incorporation where a 

' Greenbrier Industrial Exposi- statute forbade such attack if the 

tion V. Rodes, 37 W. Va. 738; 17 company claims in good faith to be a 

S. E. 305 ; Doyle v. Mizner, 42 corporation) ; Franke v. Mann, 106 

Mich. 332; 3 N. W. 968; People Wisc.ll8;81N.W. 1014;48L.R. A. 

ex rel. Long Island R. R. Co. v. 856 (lack of acknowledgment no bar 

Board of R. R. Commrs., 75 N. Y. to incorporation de facto) ; StdiU v. 

App. Div. 106; 77 N. Y. Supp. 380 Zidick. 48 N. J. Law 599 (headnote 

(holding acknowledgment by each of inadequate) ; 7 Atl. 362 (formal 

the required number of signatories defect in certificate of acknowledg- 

to be requisite) ; People v. Monte- ment no bar to incorporation de 

dto Water Co., 97 Cal. 276; 32 facto); Central Agricultural, etc. 

Pac. 236; 33 Am. St. Rep. 172; Ass'n, y. Ala. Gold Ufe Ins. Co., 70 

Kaiser v. Lawrence Savirigs Bank, Ala. 120 (lack of acknowledgment 

56 Iowa 104 (headnote inadequate) ;. not fatal to corporate existence 

8 N. W. 772 ; 41 Am. Rep. 85. de facto). 

Cf. Wall V. Mines, 130 Cal. 27; As to the conclusiveness of a 

62 Pac. 386 (provision for verifica- magistrate's certificate of acknowl- 

tion by affidavit held mandatory) ; edgment, see inft-a, § 283. 

First Nat. Bank v. Rockefeller, 195 ' * CuykendaU v. Douglas, 19 Hun 

Mo. 15 (headnote misleading) ; 93 (N. Y. ) 577. 

S. W. 761 ; Duggan v. Colorado ' Shields y. Clifton Hill Land 

Mortgage, etc. Co., 11 Colo. 113; Co., 94 Tenn, 123; 28 S. W. 668; 

17 Pac. 105 (lack of acknowledg- 45 Am. St. Rep. 700; 26 L. R. A. 

ment held not to prevent such 509. 

colorable compliance with law as Cf. First Baptist Soc. v. Rapalee, 

to give rise to a corporation de facto 16 Wend. (N. Y.) 605 (acknowledg- 

118 



§ 31-§ 162] EXECUTION OF INSTRUMENT § 129 

is by another statute authorized in general terms to take acknowl- 
edgments of all written instruments.' An acknowledgment taken 
by one of the subscribers of the paper in his capacity as notary is 
void.^ The officer taking the acknowledgment need not certify 
that the persons who acknowledged the instrument are personally 
known to him unless such is the express requirement of the 
statute, even though as to acknowledgments of deeds of real 
estate such a certificate is required.' And, of course, a provision 
that the paper shall be " subscribed by five or more, persons . . . 
and acknowledged by each" is not satisfied by a papersigned 
by five persons but acknowledged by four of them onl^£; 

§ 127. Place of Execution. — An incorporation paper may 
be both subscribed and acknowledged in a foreign state.^ 

§ 128. Execution of Duplicate Instruments. — The New York 
Court of Appeals in 1857 decided that " articles of associa- 
tion" might consist of several distinct papers, exact copies or 
transcripts of each other with the exception of the signatures;* 
but this case oan hardly be relied upon as approving such a 
practice under modern incorporation laws, unless each of the 
duplicates is signed by the requisite minimum number of 
subscribers. 

§ 129. Execution and Delivery in Escrow. — It has been held 
that an incorporation paper cannot be executed and delivered 
in escrow. That is to say, if such a paper is signed and delivered 
to some person with the understanding that it shall not be used 

ment before commissioner of deeds ' People ex rel. Bernard v. Cheese- 

ineffective when statute requires ac- man, 7 Colo. 376 ; 3 Pac. 716 ; John- 

knowledgment before a judge, — a ston v. Eviing Female University, 

decision which is criticised in'B«;^aZo, 35 111. 518. 

etc. R. R. Co. V. Cary, 26 N. Y. 75, * People v. Monteeito Water Co., 

78, as overlooking the distinction 97 Cal. 276 ; 32 Pac. 236 ; 33 Am. 

between incorporation de jure and St. Rep. 172. 

<ie facto) ; Hagerma/n v. Ohio Bldg., ' Humphreys v, Mooney, 5 Colo. 

etc. Ass'n 25 Ohio St. 186, 200-201 282, 293. 

(acknowledgment before notary in- Cf. Re Charter Acknowledgments, 

stead of justice of the peace not 28 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 187 (Op. of 

ground for collateral attack on cor- Atty,-Gen,) ; Dooley v. Cheshire 

porate existence). Glass Co., 15 Gray (Mass.) 494. 

' State ex rel. Attorney-General v. " Lake Ontario, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Lee, 21 Ohio St. 662. Mason, 16 N. Y. 451. 

^ People ex rel. Erie R. R. Co. v. Cf. Sodus Bay, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

Board of Railroad' Commissioners, Hamiin, 24 Hun (N. Y.) 390. 
105 N. Y. App. Div. 273 ; 93' N. Y. 
Supp. 584. 

119 



§ 130 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

except upon the performance of a certain condition, nevertheless, 
if in violation of these instructions the paper is recorded pres- 
ently, no objection can be made on account of the non-perform- 
ance of the condition.' 

§ 130. Who may act as Subscriber. — -Jl,|ple§,s^ spine positive 
restriction is found i n the jgta tute any person may ax;t a^ a su b- 

,J£Eite^fiijiaJfi££ffJporatisiaPftE?r- Thus, the subscribers are 
often required to be citizens,^ but in absence of such a provision 
a non-resident or alien may be a subscriber.^ Even an infant, it 
has been held, may be a subscriber, and although he may dis- 
affirm any agreement to take shares, yet such disaffirmance will 
not invalidate his subscription of the incorporation paper after 
rights have vested in reliance thereon, and will not render the 
incorporation void ab initio;* but on the other hand, in Canada 
it has been held, upon reasoning certainly not less forcible, that 
the incorporation laws contemplate as corporators only persons 
sui juris and not infants.^ Indeed, in a Canadian case, the opin- 
ion was expressed that a married woman could not be a cor- 
porator ; ° but under modern statutes removing the common 
law disabilities of coverture, the rule on this point is different.' 
Coke in commenting on the general statute of 39 Eliz., c. 5, for 
incorporation of hospitals, says that the act "enables not persons 
within age, or feme coverts without their husbands, of nan compos 

' Rehbein v. Rafir, 109 Wise. 136 ; Moxie Nerve Food Co. v. Baumbaeh, 

85 N. W. 315. 32 Fed. 205; Central R. R. Co. v. 

But see Corey & Co. v. Morrill, Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 31 N. J. Eq. 

61 Vt. 598 ; 17 Atl. 840. 475 ; Demarest v. Flack, 128 N. Y. 

' As to the effect of signature by 205 ; 28 N. E. 645 ; 13 L. R. A. 854 ; 

a person falsely stated to be a citi- Humphreys v. Mooney, 5 Colo. 282. 
zen, see American Salt Co. v. Heiden- ' Laxon & Co. (2), (1892), 3 Ch. 

heimer, 80 Tex. 344 ; 15 S. W. 1038 ; 555. 
26 Am. St. Rep. 743, and infra, §283. Of. Nassau Phosphate Co., 2 

As to whether the instrument Ch. D. 610. 
itself must show on its face that ' Hamilton, etc. Road Co. v. 

the subscribers are citizens, see St. Tovmsend, 13 Ont. App. 534. 
Ladislaus, etc. Ass'n, 19 Pa. Co. Ct. Cf. Globe Mutual Benefit Ass'n, 

Rep. 25; Enterprise Mutual Bene- 135 N. Y. 280; 32 N. E. 122; 17 

ficial Ass'n, 10 Pliila. (Pa) 380 ; L. R. A. 547. 

Halbert v. San Saba, etc. Ass'n ° Hamilton Road Co. v. Tovm- 

(Tex.), 34 S. W. 636 (holding that send, 13 Ont. 534. 
citizenship need not appear). Cf. ' Good Land Co. v. Cole (Wise), 

Sword V. Wickersham.. 29 Kan. 746. 110 N. W. 895 ; Opinion of Attomey- 

As to stating the residence of General, 18 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 492 (over- 
subscribers, see further, supra, § 124. ruling Re Application of Charter, 27 

« Rmss v. Bos, L. R. 5 H. L. 176 ; Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 399). 

120 



§ 31-§ 162] EXECUTION OF INSTRUMENT § 131 

mentis, or any other persons disabled by law, to found, etc." ' 
An English text-writer expresses the opinion that a corporation 
with the requisite power would be sufficient as a subscriber of 
a memorandum of association ; ^ but it is submitted that the 
modern incorporation acts contemplate that natural persons 
only shall subscribe the incorporation paper, and accordingly 
it has been held in America not only that all corporators must 
be natural persons,^ but even that a corporation should be re- 
strained by injunction from forming a subsidiary corporation 
through its agents and officers, acting not individually but on 
behalf of their company.* 'A signature in a firm name has been 
thought to be sufficient,^ and perhaps such a signature may be 
treated as a subscription by the several partners and so valid;* 
but the question is on principle open to doubt. Where the 
statute requires the incorporation paper to be signed by certain 
officers of the projected company, it is sufficient if the paper is 
signed by the persons who are in fact those officers, although 
their "official character does not appear from the instrument in 
question.^ CtMWMirsp.ly. if the sta.t.iite require that the si|)i-_ 
^^"'W ^"-■■'hrfS r'MfLSiCTi ■'^^CT"^"'"''- ^y fK dirf^ct^nrs of the 

*'|T3T7 Signature by Agent or Attorney. — - The English Court 
of Appeal has held that a signature by agent or attorney com- 
plies with the statute, and that the agent's authority may 
be oral merely and need not appear of record." But in that case 

' 2 Coke Inst. 722. Junction By. Co., 43 Ark. Ill (head- 

^ Palmer's Company Law, 3d ed., note inadequate) ; Day v. Postal 

19. It has been held that a corpora- Td. Co., 66 Md. 354; 7 Atl. 608. 
tion may found and incorporate a, ' Ogdensburgh, etc. E. B. Co. v. 

hospital under the stat. 39 Eliz., o. Frost, 21 Barb. (N. Y.) 541. 
5 : Mayor of Newcastle-upon-Tyne v. ° Behbein v. Bahr, 109 Wise. 136 ; 

Attorney-General, 12 CI. & Fin. 402, 85 N. W. 315 (where the subscrip- 

foUowing 2 Coke Inst. 722. tion was held to be the act of those 

' Central B. B. Co. v. Pennsyl- partners only who signed the 

vania B. B. Co., 31 N. J. Eq. 475; instrument). 

Factors, etc. Ins. Co. v. Harbor Pro- ' St. Louis, etc. B. B. Co. v. 

tection Co., 37 La. Ann. 233; Denny Southwestern Tel., etc. Co., 121 Fed. 

Hotel Co. V. Schram, 6 Wash. 134, 276; 58 C. C. A. 198. 
137 ; 32 Pac. 1002 ; 36 Am. St. Rep. » Valk v. CrandaU, 1 Sandf. Ch. 

130. (N. Y.) 179. 

* Central B. R. Co. v. Pennsyl- » Whitley Partners, 32 Ch. D. 337. 
vania B. B. Co., 31 N. J. Eq. But see Be Charter Acknowl- 

475. edgments, 28 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 187 

But see Niemeyer v. Little Bock (Op. of Atty.-Gen.). 

121 



§ 132 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

the instrument was signed personally by seven other persons — 
the minimum number prescribed by the statute — so that in 
strictness the only question before the court was whether the 
signature by attorney was a binding subscription to the number 
of shares written after the name; for even if the doubtful signa- 
ture had been rejected, the instrument being still signed by the 
requisite number of persons, the incorporation would have been 
valid. New York Court of Appeals has gone even further and 
held that some of the minimum number of subscribers required 
by the statute may sign by attorney and that the authority of the 
agent, although not apparent of record, will be presumecC^ 
Statutes sometimes provide^ tttat, the instrument shall be exe- 
edee 



cuted and acknowledged like a deed of real estate ; and in that 
case, of course, no execution by proxy could avail unless the 
power of attorney were under seal and recorded. But a pro- 
vision that the instrument shall "bind the company and each 
member to the same extent as if each member had signed his 
name and aflSxed his seal thereto " ^ does not require the sub- 
scribers to seal the paper and does not make the instrument a 
deed so as to require a power of attorney to execute it to be under 
seal.' 



§ 132. Function of Subscribers as Shareholders or otherwise. 
— The English Companies Act and most of the more modern 
American incorporation laws require each subscriber to every 
incorporation paper to subscribe for at least one share, writing 
after his name the number of shares he takes.' But if there be no 
such aflBrmative requirement — and this was the case with many 

' New York, Lackawanna, etc. For a full statement of the law 

Ry. Co., 99 N. Y. 12 ; 1 N. E. 27. respecting subscriptions to shares by 

^ Companies Act, 1862, § 11. signing the incorporation paper of 

s Whitley Partners, 32 Ch. D. 337. a company, see infra, § 238-§ 248. 

' Where an incorporation paper In Valk v. CrandaU, 1 Sandf. 

is signed by three persons and con- Ch. (N Y.) 179, where the statute 

tains a statement that the stock is required the incorporation paper to 

to be "divided half-and-half be- be signed by the shareholders, an 

tween the parties," each subscriber instrument signed by the directors 

takes one-third of the shares. Bates and giving the names of other share- 

V. Wilson, etc. Co., 14 Colo. 140 ; 24 holders, but not signed by them, 

Pac. 99. was held invalid. 

122 



§ 31-§ 162] REGISTRATION OF INSTRUMENT 



§133 



of the earlier American statutes, some of which are^still in force 
— the signatories of the incorporation paper were not necessarily 
shareholders.^ Their functions and powers are the subject of 
detailed consideration below. ^ 



§ 133-§ 137. Registration of Instrument. 

, § 133. Necessity for Registration. — The registration of the 
incorporation paper is a matter of the utmost importance. 
By means of the registry, the public is informed, constructively 
if not actually, of the objects of the company, of the amount of 
its nominal capital, and of the other particulars respecting the 
enterprise required by law to be stated. Hence, without regis- 
tration in the office of the proper official or registrar, the com- 
pany cannot be deemed incorporated even de fact<^J It has 

Mo. 310; Cresswell v. Oberly, 17 111. 
App. 281 (semble). 

But see Vanneman v. Young, 52 
N. J. Law 403 ; 20 Atl. 53 (where a 
statute providing that upon regis- 
tration of the instrument the com- 
pany should be incorporated from 
the date mentioned in the paper for 
the commencement of corporate ex- 
istence seems to have been construed 
to make the corporate existence upon 
recording relate back to the date 
mentioned in the instrument, where 
the registration was delayed until a 
later date) ; Pinkerton v. Pa. Trac- 
ton Co., 193 Pa. St. 229; 44Atl.284; 
Merrick v. Reynolds Engine, etc. Co., 
101 Mass. 381 (where statute provided 
for articles of agreement which were 
not required to be recorded, and for 
the execution of a certificate by the 
officers, which should state the pur- 
poses of the company, etc., and was 
required to be recorded, the execution 
and record of the certificate were held 
to be conditions subsequent rather 
than precedent to incorporation) ; 
Harrod v. Hamer, 32 Wise. 162 (same 
point as that of last case). 

As to the effect of recording the 
paper surreptitiously, without the 
authority of the subscribers, see 
Picker v. Larkin-, 27 111. App. 625. 



' Coyote, etc. Co. v. Ruble, 8 Oreg. 
284 ; Densmore Oil Co. v. Densmore, 
64 Pa. St. 43, 54 ; Singer Mfg. Co. v. 
Peck, 9 S.Dak. 29; 67 N. W. 947; 
Bristol, etc. Trust Co. v. Jonesboro, 
etc. Trust Co., 101 Tenn. 545; 48 
S. W. 228. 

But see Dancy v. Clark, 24 App. 
D. C. 487, 507-509 (where the sub- 
scribers of the incorporation paper 
were declared to be shareholders 
from the incorporation of the com- 
pany, although apparently no stat- 
ute made them such). 

' Infra, § 165-§ 167. 

' Lusk V. Riggs, 97 N. W.,1033; 
70 Nebr. 713; Abbott v. Omaha 
Smelting Co., 4 Nebr. 416 ; Field v. 
Cooks, 16 La. Ann. 153 ; Bigelow v. 
Gregory, 73 111. 197 ; Childs v. Hurd, 
32 W. Va. 66 ; 9 S. E. 362 ; Brad- 
dock Boro' V. Penn Water Co., 189 
Pa. St. 379 ; 42 Atl. 15 ; Elgin Nat. 
Watch Co. V. Loveland, 132 Fed. 41 ; 
Goodale Lumber Co. v. Shaw, 41 
Oreg. 544; 69 Pac. 546; Bergeron 
V. Hobbs, 96 Wise. 641 ; 71 N. W. 
1056 ; 65 Am. St. Rep. 85 ; Guckert 
V. Hacke, 159 Pa. St. 303 ; 28 Atl. 
249 (attempted to be distinguished 
in Pinkerton v. Pa. Traction Co., 
193 Pa. 229) ; Garnett v. Richardson, 
35 Ark. 144 ; Hurt v. Salisbury, 55 



123 



§ 134 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

been said that the execution of an incorporation paper is anal- 
ogous to the execution of a deed of real estate, and that the in- 
strument is devoid of legal effect until registration, which is the 
equivalent of delivei^ j 

§ 134. What must be registered — Copy or Original. — If 
the statute requires a copy of the instrument, verified by the 
affidavit of two or more subscribers, to be recorded, it has been 
held that thg law is not satisfied by the recording of the original 
instrument^although the court seems to have thought that the 
recording of the original paper might form such colorable com- 
pliance with the statute as to give rise to a corporation de facto. 
If the statute, as is usually the case, requires registration of the 
original, there might be a difficult question whether registration 
of a copy would amount even to colorable compliance with law. 

§ 135. What amounts to Registration. — The essential ele- 
ment in recording is the act of depositing the paper with the 
proper officer.' An averment in a pleading that an incorpora- 
tion paper had not been filed with the recorder is a sufficient 
allegation that it had not been recorded ; * and, conversely, an 
allegation that it had been recorded necessarily implies that it 
was filed.^ Consequently, an error of the registrar in endorsing 

' Humphreys v. Mooney, 5 Colo. 111. 67, 73 (headnote inadequate) 

282, 293. 27 N. E. 596 (holding an allegation 

^ SiocMTO V. Heati, 105 Wise. 431; that a certificate of incorporation 

81N. W. 673; 50 L. R. A. 324. had not been recorded to be an 

' See San Diego Gas Co. v. insufficient denial of incorporation. 

Frame, 137 Cal. 441 ; 70 Pac. 295 ; as the instrument might have been 

Pittston Engine, etc. Co., 11 Pa. Co. filed for record and not actually 

Ct. Rep. 182. recorded). 

But cf. Btfronville Creamery Ass'n ' Wood v. Union Gospel Church 

V. Ivers, 100 N. W. 387 ; 93 Minn. 8 Bldg. Ass'n, 63 Wise. 9 ; 22 N. W. 

(where the paper was duly filed for 756. 

record but was never actually re- ' Vawter v. Franklin College, 53 

corded) ; Johnson v. Okerstrom, 70 Ind. 88. 

Minn. 303, 310; 73 N. W. 147 But see B^geron v. Hobhs, 96 

(semble, similar point to that of Wise. 641; 71 N. W. 1056; 65 

last case). Am. St. Rep. 85 (holding that to 

See also State ex rel. O'Brien v. leave the paper with the registrar 
Bethlehem, etc. Gravel Road Co., 32 temporarily for the purpose of being 
Ind. 357 (holding an allegation that recorded and then withdrawn is not 
the paper had not been filed "with compliance with a statute requiring 
the recorder," not to be a sufficient it to be filed) ; Bushnell v. Con- 
averment that it had not been filed solidated Ice Machine Co., 138 111. 
in his office, sed qucere) ; Bushnell v. 67, 73 ; 27 N. N. 596 (stated supra. 
Consolidated Ice Machine Co., 138 note 3). 

124 



§ 31-§ 162] REGISTRATION OF INSTRUMENT § 137 

upon the paper an incorrect date as the date of filing in no 
respect afPects the validity of the incorporation; ' and the same 
is true of an error in recording the paper in a wrong book.^ 

§ 136. Powers and duties of Registrar. — The registrar may 
refuse to record a paper which on its face complies with law if he 
has independent knowledge, or finds from extraneous evidence 
that some of the requirements of law have not in fact been com- 
plied with — for example, if some of the subscribers required 
by law to be citizens are in fact non-residents,' a fortiori, the 
registrar may refuse to record any paper which on its face is 
irregular, for example, if the instrument contain in addition 
to the matters required by law further and illegal provisions.' 
Although the registrar may and indeed should examine an in- 
strument offered for record and if it fail to comply with law re- 
fuse to receive it,^ yet if his determination in that regard be 
erroneous, he may be compelled by mandamus to register it.' 
The effect of an erroneous determination by the registrar, or by 
any other official to whom the instrument is submitted, that the 
paper is entitled to record is considered below.' 

§ 137. Registration in more than one Office. — Sometimes 
the instrument, or a duplicate or copy^ is required to be registered 
in several different offices, e. g., in the office of a county clerk, 
and in the office of the secretary of state. In such cases, refer- 

' State ex rel. Padgett v. Foulkes, ' People ex rel. Davenport v. Rice, 

94 Ind. 493, 496. 68 Hun (N. Y.) 24; 22 N. Y. Supp. 

^ San Diego Gas Co. v. Frame, 631 (approval of paper by a judge to 

137 Cal. 441 ; 70 Pac. 295 ; Walton whom a statute required it to be 

V. RUey, 85 Ky. 413 ; 3 S. W. 605. submitted held not to be conclu- 

' American Salt Co. v. Heiden- sive on the registrar) ; People ex rel. 

heimer, 80 Tex. 344, 347 ; 15 S. W. Blossom v. Nelson, 46 N. Y. 477. 

1038 ; 26 Am. St. Rep. 743 (semble). ' American Salt Co. v. Heiden- 

But see Staie ex rel. Home Bldg., heimer, 80 Tex. 344, 347 ; 15 S. W. 

etc. Ass'n v. Rotwitt, 17 Mont. 537 ; 1038 ; 26 Am. St. Rep. 743 (semble) ; 

43 Pac. 922 (holding that the regis- People ex rel. U. S. Grand Lodge v. 

trar is confined to the face of the Payn, 161 N. Y. 229 ; 55 N. E. 849 ; 

paper and cannot go into the mo- McChesney v. Batman (Ky.), 89 

tives of the subscribers). S. W. 198; State v. Taylor, 55 Ohio 

As to refusal to record an instru- St. 61 ; 44 N. E. 513. 

ment because the proposed corpo- Cf. State ex rel. Hutchinson v. 

rate name is unduly similar to that McGraih, 92 Mo. 355 ; 5 S. W. 29 , 

of another corporation, see People Illinois Watch Case Co. v. Pearson; 

ex rel. Fdter v. Rose, 80 N. E. 293 ; 140 111. 423 ; 31 N. E. 400 ; 16 L. R. 

225 III. 496. See also infra, § 449. A. 429. 

* See'supra, § 121. ' § 266-§ 270. 

125 



§ 137 THK INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

ence must be had to the terms of the particular statute in question 
in order to determine the relative importance of the filing with 
the local officer and the filing with the state officer. 

For example, under some statutes, the most important point 
is the filing of the instrument with the state officer, and the 
statutory provision for filing a duplicate or copy with a county 
officer is construed as directory merely, or at any rate non- 
compliance therewith is regarded as a .breach of condition sub- 
sequent to be availed of only by the state on direct proceedings 
to declare the corporate existence forfeited^or as a mere irregu- 
larity which when the company goes into operation as a corpor- 
ation de facto will not justify a collateral attack on its existence.^ 
Under such statutes, the corporation never comes into existence 
even de facto where the instrument is recorded in the county 
office but not with the state of^cei^)/ 

On the other hand, the terms of the statute may show that the 
all-important step is the filing of the instrument with the county 
officer * and that the provision for filing a duplicate or copy with 
the state officer is directory merely,^ or a condition subsequent to 
incorporation," or a requirement such that disregard of it will 
not prevent the company from becoming a corporation de facto.'' 
Under such statutes the fact that the instrument is recorded in 
the wrong county is a serious irregularity and prevents the com- 
pany from becoming a corporation de jure even though a copy is 
duly filed with the secretary of state, a copy of whose certificate 

' Jhons V. People, 25 Mich. 499. ' First Nat. Bank v. Dames, 43 

' Bushnell v. Consolidated Ice Ma- Iowa 424 ; Mokdumne HiU Mining 

chine Co., 138 111. 67, 73 ; 27 N. E. Co. v. Woodbury, 14 Cal. 424 ; 73 

596; Curtis v. Meeker, 62 111. App. Am. Dec. 658; Portland, etc. Turn- 

49 (with which compare Loverin v. pike Co. v. Bohb, 88 Ky. 226; 10 

McLaughlin, 161 111. 417; 44 N. E. S. W. 794; Rassbeck v. Desterreicher, 

99); Humphreys v. Mooney, 5 Colo. 55 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 516; 4 Abb. 

282, 295. N. C. 444 ; Walton v. Riley, 85 Ky. 

» Card V. Moore, 68 N. Y. App. 413 ; 3 S. W. 605. 
Div. 327 ; 74 N. Y. Supp. 18, ' Hyde v. Doe, 4 Sawy. 133 ; Van- 

affirmed short, 173 N. Y. 598 (re- neman v. Young, 52 N. J. Law 403 ; 

lating to the law of Connecticut). 20 Atl. 53 ; Grand River Bridge Co. 

* Childs V. Hurd, 32 W. Va. 66; 9 v. Rollins, 13 Colo. App. 4; 21 Pac. 

S.E. 362 (relating to law of N.Y.) 897; Tarbell v. Page, 24 111. 46; 

" Oarnett v. Richardson, 35 Ark. LeonardsviUe Bank v. WiUard, 25 

144 (headnote inadequate) ; Cross v. N. Y. 574 ; Central Agricultural, etc. 

Pinckneyville Mill Co., 17 111. 54, 56. Ass'n v. Ala. Gold Life Ins. Co., 70 

Cf. BarUett v. Wilbur, 53 Md. 485 Ala. 120 (headnote inadequate), 
(relating to law of New York). 

126 



§ 31-§ 162] PUBLICATION IN NEWSPAPER § 138 

of incorporation is recorded in the county where the original 
incorporation paper ought to have been recorded.' 

Still other statutes have been construed to make both the filing 
with the county oflacer and with the state officer of equal im- 
portance and both indispensable to the creation of even a de 
facto co rporation.' Even under such statutes, if the instru- 
ment isduTy filed with the secretary of state, the fact that a 
certified copy of the incorporation paper, or even the secretary of 
state's certificate of incorporation, instead of a duplicate original 
of the incorporation paper, is recorded in the county office, is 
not deemed so serious an irregularity as to prevent the company 
from becoming a de facto corporation.* 

Of course, where the instrument is duly registered both in the 
county office and in the state office, failure to observe a statutory 
requirement for registration in any other county in which the 
company may transact business can be no more than a cause of 
forfeiture of corporate existence.* 



§ 138. Publication in Newspaper. — Publication of the in- 
corporation paper, or of extracts or abstracts thereof, in some 
newspaper is sometimes required, and perf orms, somewhat the 
same jiuKltian...asJJi&Ji:egJsti3'tiOTi_gf_tibe^ Neveflthe - 

Jess. such pu] jlcalJ,Qii-^eyen-.g]i en required has been held not to 
be a condition precedent to incorporation.' "" 

' Martin v. Deetz, 102 Cal. 55 ; * Anderson v. Railroad, 91 Tenn. 

36 Pac. 368 ; 41 Am. St. Rep. 151 44 ; 17 S. W. 803. 
(note that the court conceded that Cf. Young Reversible Lock-Nut 

if the company had transacted busi- Co. v. Young Lock-Nut Co., 72 Fed. 

ness as a corporation it tvould have 62 (as to a New York statute). 
been a corporation de facto). ° See Church of the Holy Com- 

^ Indianapolis, etc. Co. v. Herki- munion, 14 Phila. 121 ; Seaton v. 

mer, 46 Ind. 142 ; Brewer v. State, 7 Grimm, 110 Iowa 145 ; 81 N. W. 225 ; 

Lea (Tenn.) 682; Lusk v. Riggs, 97 Sweney Bros. v. Talcott, 85 Iowa 103, 

N. W. 1033; 70 Nebr. 713; Sims v. 110; 52 N. W. 106. 
C(mmonwealthJlS.^.929; 114 Ky. ^Holmes v. GiUiland, 41 Barb. 

827 ; Hurt v. Salisbury, 55 Mo. 310. (N. Y.) 568 ; Walton v. Riley, 85 Ky. 

Cf. Loverin v. McLaughlin, 161 413; 3 S. W. 605. 
111.417; 44 N. E. 99. Cf. Wood v. WUey Construction 

' Huntington Mfg. Co. v. Scho- Co., 56 Conn. 87, 97-98; 13 Atl. 

field, 62 N. E. 106 ; 28 Ind. App. 95 ; 137 ; Dooley v. Cheshire Glass Co., 15 

Williamson v. Kokomo Bldg., etc. Gray (Mass.) 494, Harrod v. Hamer, 

Ass'n, 89 Ind. 389. 32 Wise. 162. 

127 



§ 139 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

§ 139-§ 142. Svbmission of Instrument to Pvblic Ojficer for 

Approi)al. 

§ 139. Examination of Instrument by Begistiar when paper 
fded for Record. — General incorporation acts often provide 
that each incorporation paper must be submitted to some pub- 
lic official for his approval. As we have seen, a mere registrar 
charged with the duty of recording the instrument may refuse 
to receive for record a paper which does not comply with the 
statutory requirements; ' and thus he may be said to be in a 
certain sense invested with the duty of passing upon and ap- 
proving the instrument. But under, statutes of this class, the 
officer's approval is a mere incident in, or part of, the registra- 
tion, and does not constitute a distinct step in the process of 
incorporation. 

§ 140. Submission to some other Officer before filing for 
Record. — Other statutes provide that every incorporation 
paper, before it is filed for record with the registrar, must be 
submitted to a judge or to some administrative official and be 
indorsed with a certificate of his approval.^ Under statutes of 
this class, the approval of the judge is a preliminary to registra- 
tion. Although the indorsement of approval by the court or 
officer does not preclude the registrar from refusing to record the 
paper if he find upon inspection that it does not comply with 
the law,^ nevertheless he ought not to record any instrument 
offered for registration unless it bear the official indorsement of 
approval. If he do so, the incorporation would seem to be irreg- 
ular even though the instrument may in fact in all its terms 
comply with law. Perhaps, however, the irregularity would not 
be deemed such as to prevent the company from attaining a 
de facto existence.* 

But see Bigdow v. Gregory, 73 111. ing (Iowa) 111 N. W. 974; Berkson, 

197; Clegg V. Hamilton, etc. Co., 61 Hitghes <fe Co. v. Anderson, 115 

Iowa 121 ; 15 N. W. 865 ; Heinig v. Iowa 674 ; 87 N. W. 402. 

Adams, etc. Mfg. Co., 81 Ky. 300 >■ Supra, § 136. 

(overruled) ; Eisfeld v. Kenworth, ' Cf. Richmond Factory Ass'n v. 

50 Iowa 389 ; Unity Ins. Co. v. Cram, Clarke, 61 Me. 351. 

43 N. H. 636. ' Peopleexrel.Davenportv.Rice,68 

As to what is a newspaper "as Hun (N.Y.)24; 22 N.Y. Supp. 631. 

convenient as practicable to the * As to the effect of fraud in 

principal place of business," see procuring the approval, see infra, 

Clinton Novelty Iron Works v. Neit- § 267. 

128 



§ 31-§ 162] OFFICIAL APPROVAL § 142 

§ 141. Submission by way of Petition to Officer for Issue of 
Charter. — Still other statutes provide that the incorporation 
paper shall be in the nature of a petition addressed to a court, 
or to the governor of the state or other executive officer; and 
that thereupon the court or official to whom the petition is 
addressed shall, if he find that the same complies with law, 
issue a "charter " or "certificate of incorporation " incorporating 
the applicants according to the prayer of the petition. Under 
statutes of this class, the submission of the petition or incorpora- 
tion paper to the judge or other ofiicer is an integral and essential 
part of the incorporation, and without such submission and 
approval there can be no corporation at all — not even a corpora- 
tion de facto} The application for issue of the "charter" or 
decree of incorporation is an ex parte proceeding, and no third 
person has any right to intervene and object to the granting of 
the apphcation.^ Under some such statutes, the officer to whom 
the appHcation is addressed is invested with a considerable 
degree of discretion, and may, for example, refuse an application 
where the proposed corporate name is likely to cause confusion 
even though it do not amount to an infringement of any legal 
rights.' 

§ 142. Issue of Certificate of Approval after Registration. — 
Still other statutes, for example, the English Companies Act of 
1862, provide that after the instrument has been recorded, the 
registrar or some other official shalLissue a certificate stating 
that the instrument. has been recorded and that the company is 
incorporated. If the language of the statute show that the 
incorporation is to date from the approval by the registrar, or 
other public official, and the issue of his certificate, there can 
be no corporation — not even a cOTporation_ de_/acto — until 
such approval be securedarTd thecStificateissued.'' Bjit in thp 

' As to the effect of fraud in pro- charter were heard) ; Bradley Ferti- 
curing the oflBcial approval, and the User Co., 19 Pa. Co. Ct. 271. 
question whether the officer may ' Polish Nat. Cath. Church, 31 Va,. 
revoke his approval, see infra, § 267. Super. Ct. 87 ; Philadelphia Lying- 

' Young Women's Christian Ass'n in Charity v. Maternity Hospital, 29 
V. St. Louis Women's Christian Pa. Super. Ct. 420. 
Ass'n, 115 Mo. App. 228; 91 S. W. ■* Cf. Stowe v. Flagg, 72 111. 397; 
171. First Nat. Bank v. Rockefeller, 195 Mo. 

But cf. Polish Nat. Catholic 15, 41-42 (semble) ; 93 S. W. 761 ; 
Church, 31 Pa. Super. Ct. 87 (where Sexton v. Snyder, 119 Mo. App. 668 
the opponents to the granting of the (headnote inadequate) ; 94 S. W. 562. 
VOL. I. — 9 129 



§ 143 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

■fthspTipe of.^,n -ex plicit provision m aking-tlaejss ue of the c pr fP^"^*^ 
a^j^nHitinn prpf^ fHent t o incorporation — and a fortiori where 
the law provides that the subscribers of the incorporation paper 
shall be incorporated from the registration of the instrument — 
the certificate is of only evidentiary value, and is needed only as 
convenient proof that the law has been complied with.' ■vin.auch 
cases^_the_Jai lure to submit the instr um ent to the pro per official. 
or an omission J o secura-tb&-£eitifi£ai£_pf incorporation, is at_ 
^most_abrjE;achj3La condition subsequent, to be availed oI%Jhe 
state alone.^ 



§ 143. Alteration of Instrument after Execution and before 
Registration. — If any material alteration be made in the incor- 
poration paper after its. execution and before its registration, 
without the assent of all the subscribers, the paper in its altered 
form is certainly not binding upon the parties.^ The effect of 
recording the document as altered, under statutes making 
registration conclusive evidence of compliance with law; will be 
considered hereafter.* Lord Cairns once expressed the opinion 
that any alteration of this sort would, like a fraudulent alter- 
ation in a deed or promissory note, render the whole instru- 
ment altogether void, so that it would no longer, in its unaltered .. 
form, be binding upon the subscribers.^ Although an incorpora- 
tion paper is not a sealed instrument unless, expressly required 
to be under seal, still Lord Cairns's dictum corresponds with 
the policy of the law. For whether or not the document is a 
technical common law specialty, it is certainly a very formal and | ) ' f 
peculiar instrument, and should, in this respect, for the preven.- ^ ' 
tion of frauds, be governed by the same rules as a deed. So, it ^ 

has been, held that where an incorporation paper when signed 
by one of the subscribers contains material blanks, there is no 

' Sparks v. Woodstock Iron, etc. tion v. Rodes, 37 W. Va. 738; 17 

Co., 87 Ala. 294, 298; 6 So. 195. S. E. 305. 

' As to the effect of fraud in pro- As to immaterial alterations, see 

curing the certificate, and as to the Union Agricultural, etc. Ass'n v. 

question whether the officer grant- NeUl, 31 Iowa 95. 
ing the- certificate may revoke his * See infra, § 268-§ 270. 
determination, see infra, § 267. » Peel's Case, 2 Ch. 674, 681. 

* Greenbrier Industrial Exposi- 

130 



§ 31-§ 162] ALTERATION AFTER REGISTRATION § 144 

authority without the subsequent consent of that subscriber to ' 
fill up the blanks.' In Maryland, it was held that where a 
subscriber to an incorporation paper, which had been materially 
altered after he had signed, subsequently acknowledged the 
instrument in ignorance of the alteration, he was not estopped 
from relying on the alteration as a defense .to an action on his 
agreement to accept and pay for shares in the company ; '^ but 
this decision goes to the very verge of the law, for where the 
rights of innocent third parties may accrue on the faith of the 
acknowledgment, the subscribers should not in general be 
allowed to plead ignorance of what they were doing. Possibly, 
in such a case, although the alteration may be a defense to an 
action upon the subscriber's agreement to take shares, it may 
not a nnul the incorporation of the c ompany. Indeed, that 
seems to have been the view of the Maryland court in the case 
last cited. It would seem that an incorporation paper may 
always be altered, with the unanimous consent of the sub- 
scribers, at any time before it is recorded.' 

§ 144-§ 160. ALTERATION AFTER REGISTRATION. 

§ 144. Alteration after Recording generally impossible with- 
out enabling Statute. — ■ The general scheme of the incorpora- 
tion laws contemplates that each metaorahdum of association 
or incorporation paper shall, from the time of registration be the 
unalterable constitution of the company.* This policy of the 
law cannot be circumvented by 'inserting a clause authorizing 
the company t6 alter the provisions of the instrument at pleasure ; 
for such a clause would be void as regards any matters required 
by law to be fixed and determined in the incorporation paper.' 

' Dutchess, etc. R. B. Co. v. Mab- Co. (1904), 1 Ch. 87 {semble) ; Dexine 

bett, 58 N. Y. 397. Patent Packing & Rubber Co., 88 L. T. 

' Hughes v. Anlietam Mfg. Co., 791. 
34 Md. 316. But see Thornton v. Bdcom, 85 

' Cf. Gade v. Forest Glen Brick Iowa 198 ; 52 N. W. 190 (criticised 

Co., 165 111. 367 ; 46 N. E. 286. supra, § 118) ; Nelson v. Keith- 

* Ci. New York Cable Ry. Co., 109 O'Brien Co. (Utah), 91 Pac. 30 

N. Y. 32 ; 15 N. E. 882 (where an (where, in a rather cloudy opinion, 

attempt was made to amend an in- the court appears to hold that under 

strument which in its original form a statute providing that no altera- 

was fatally defective). tion in the incorporation paper shall 

' Wdsbach Incandescent Gas Light change the liability of holders of 

131 



§ 145 THE INCOKPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

We have seen above that this rule that an incorporation paper 
cannot be altered apphes even to matters not required to be 
stated in the instrument/ except that the paper itself may 
provide otherwise.^ An unauthorized attempt to amend the 
incorporation paper is void, and of course therefore the corpo- 
rate existence and power of the company to carry on business 
under the original instrument is not affected.' 

§ 145. Reformation for Mistake. — Not even, a court of 
equity has power to rectify a mistake in an incorporation paper 
after it has been duly recorded. This conclusion was reached in 
regard to the articles of association of an English company(^nd 
a fortiori the same principle would apply to a memorandum of 
association or incorporation paper. The blunder is, therefore, 
beyond remedy unless the statute provides some means of alter- 
ing the instrument. 

§ 146. Historical Outline of Statutes authorizing Alterations. 
— The English Companies Act of 1862 in its original form 
provided no mode for altering the memorandum of association 
except in respect to increasing the capital of the company and 
to changing its name.* By an act of 1867, the power of reducing 
the capital was conferred subject to certain conditions." By a 
still later act,' a power is conferred of altering the object clause 
of the memorandum whenever "it appears that the alteration is 
required in order to enable the company (1) to carry on its 
business more economically or efficiently, or (2) to attain its 
main purpose by new or improved means, or (3) to enlarge or 
change the local area of its o^rations, or (4) to carry on some 
business or businesses which under existing circumstances 
may conveniently or advantageously be combined with the 
business of the company, or (5) to restrict or abandon any of 
the objects specified" in the original instrument. In each case 

paid-up shares without unanimous Bank, 75 Minn. 196, 205 (headnote 

consent, a clause in an incorporation inadequate) ; 77 N. W. 822. 

paper authorizing alterations in the * Evans v. Chapman, 86 L. T. 381. 

instrument by majority vote is suf- ' Companies Act, 1862, § 12 and 

ficient warrant for an alteration by § 13. 

mere majority vote changing in some ' Companies Act, 1867 (30 and 31 

respects the liability of holders of Vict., c. 131). 

paid-up shares). ' Companies (Memorandum of 

> Supra, § 120. Association) Act, 1890 (53 and 54 

' Supra, § 120. Vict., c. 62). 

• Richards v. Minnesota Sav. 

132 



§ 31-§ 162] ALTERATION AFTER REGISTRATION § 147 

the proposed alteration must receive the approval of the court, 
which is not to be given without aflfording to dissenting share- 
holders and to creditors an opportunity to be heard in opposition 
to the alteration. 

In most of the UnitedS tates, the statutes prov ide a method 
^of makin g some alterations _inj_or a.mpnrlTnp nts t" >„incorporation 
^__gapsc5;, gti^.not„ infreq uently, a po wer.. la .co nferred, unlim ited 
in terms, of making any alterations that may be desired. 

§ 147-§ 149. What Alterations are authorized by enabling 

Statutes. 

§ 147. In general. — Even where statutes confer a power 
of alteration broadly, without any express limitation whatsoever, 
nevertheless, it is submitted that no complete and radical change, 
creating, in substance, a new corporation, could be made against 
the opposition of any shareholder.' For instance, a joint-stock 
insurance company cannot ainend its incorporation paper so as 
to give the policy-holders the right to vote at meetings of the 
company, and thus virtually convert the company from a joint- 
stock company into a mutual company.^ A fortiori, where the 
statute expressly provides that no amendment shall "change 
substantially the purposes" of the company, a corporation 
formed for the purpose of manufacturing gas and electricity 

' But see Mercantile Statement Co. Bubstantially the purposes of the 

V. Kneal, 51 Minn. 263; 53 N. W. organization, a gas company was 

632; David Bradley Mfg. Co. v. allowed to amend its incorporation 

Chicago, etc. Traction Co. (111.), 82 paper so as to acquire power to fur- 

N. E. 210 (amendment changing nish electric light), 
object of company from construe- As to whether the alteration may 

tion of a street railway or tramway authorize an abandonment of the 

to construction of an interurban original chief object of the company, 

commercial railway held valid). compare Thellusson v. Valentia 

As to what is a substantial change (1907), 2 Ch. 1 (where the "rules" 

in the objects of the company, see of an unincorporated club, which 

State V. Taylor, 55 Ohio 61 ; 44 N. E. originally provided for pigeon-shoot- 

613 (stated infra) ; Commonwealth v. ing and which by amendtoent had 

Licking Valley Bldg. Ass'n, 82 S. W. been enlarged so as to include other 

435 ; 26 Ky. L. Rep. 730 (where a sports, were permitted to be further 

so-called amendment was held to amended so as to provide for dis- 

have created a new corporation) ; continuing pigeon-shooting at the 

Picard v. Hughey, 58 Ohio St. 577 ; club). 

51 N. E. 133 (where, ^under a " Lord v. Equitable Life Ass. Soc, 

statute expressly prohibiting any 96 N. Y. Supp. 10 ; 109 N. Y. App. 

amendment which should change Div. 252. 

133 



§ 147 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

for light, heat, or power cannot amend its incorporation paper 
so as to add to its objects the operation of a street railway.' 
Even where the power of amendment is in terms unlimited, the 
company may not make an alteration reducing the rate of the 
preferential dividend on the preferred shares as fixed in the original 
instrument,^ or avoiding valid contracts of the corporation.' 
j/"^ On the other hand, the statutory power of amendment, un- 
I less in terms restricted, applies to all the clauses of the original 
J instrument,* such, for example, as the clause fixing a limit to 
^ the period of corporate existence,* or determining the corporate 
name,' or the clause marking out the objects of the company,^ 
\ except possibly the clause fixing the amount of the capital.* Stat- 
utory power to alter the nature of the business carried on by 
the company authorizes a change in the place, as specified in the 
incorporation paper, at which the business is to be carried on, 
even though the character of the business is not altered.' Where 
a railway company has power to alter its incorporation paper 
for the purpose of correcting an informality or defect in the 
original instrument, an amendment which makes a change in 
the proposed route is not permissible."* 

' State V. Taylor, 55 Ohio St. 61 ; As to alterations in the voting 

44 N. E. 513. rights of the shareholders, see Loe- 

' Pronick v. Spirits DistribvMng wenthal v. Rubber Reclaiming Co., 

Co., 58 N. J. Eq. 97 ; 42 Atl. 586. 52 N. J. Eq. 440 ; 28 Atl. 454 (where 

Cf. infra, § 672-§ 674. the statute authorizing amendments 

' Cf . Brown v. Grand Fountain, was passed after the execution of the 

28 App. D. C. 200. See also infra, original incorporation paper). 
§ 722-§ 724. • Fort Pitt B. & L. Ass'n v. Model 

' Cf. Bernstein v. Kaplan (Ala.), Plan B. & L. Ass'n, 159 Pa. 308; 

43 So. 581 (headnote inadequate — 28 Atl. 215. 

construing a statute wliich after em- ' Mercantile Statement Co. v. 

powering the corporation to alter the Kneal, 51 Minn. 263 ; 53 N. W. 

instrument in certain particulars 632. 

concluded by authorizing "such ' Continental Varnish, etc. Co. v. 

other alteration, amendment, or Secretary of State, 87 N. W. 901 ; 

change of its charter as may be de- 128 Mich. 621. As to increase or 

sired"); Fidelity Mut. Aid Ass'n, reduction of capital, see further infra, 

12 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 269, 271 Chapter XI. 

("A general power to alter or amend ' Meredith v. New Jersey Zinc, 

a charter is a power to alter or amend etc. Co., 59 N. J. Eq. 257 (headnote 

any part of the charter"). inadequate) ; 44 Atl. 55. 

' People ex rd. Ward v. Green, '» Riverhead, etc. R. R. Co., 36 N. 

116 Mich. 505; 74 N. W. 714; Ovid Y. App. Div. 514; 55 N. Y. Supp. 

Elevator Co. v. Secretary of State, 90 938. 
Mich. 466 ; 51 N. W. 536. 

134 



§ 31-§ 162] ALTERATION AFTER REGISTRATION § 148 

§ 148. Under British Act of 1890 and similar Statutes. — 
The British courts have often been called upon to decide whether 
proposed changes in a company's objects can be brought 
within the power of alteration conferred by the Act of 1890, 
which has been already referred to.' In order to come within 
the clause authorizing an alteration in the objects which may 
enable the company to carry on its business more economically 
or efficiently, the proposed alteration must "leave the business 
of the company substantially what it was before, with only such 
changes in the mode of conducting it as will enable it to be 
carried on more efficiently."^ Neither that clause nor the 
clause authorizing an alteration for the purpose of enabling 
the company to carry on some business that may be conven- 
iently or advantageously combined with the old business will 
warrant a change whereby a club of cyclists is converted into 
a club to which tourists of any kind, particularly motorists, 
may be admitted.' In one case, where it was sought to make 
an alteration which merely amplified the description of the 
company's objects by re-writing the object-clause and putting 
it in modern form, Cozens-Hardy, J., expressed disapproval, 
saying, " I do not think it is within the scope of the statute simply 
to improve the language of a memorandum of association — if 
it be an improvement - — by re-writing the memorandum in 
modern form, and to enable a company to adopt one of 
Mr. Palmer's modern forms ; " * but it is understood that in a 
number of unreported cases precisely such changes were con- 
firmed.* It has been held in Newfoundland under an exactly 
similar statute that none of the clauses of the act — not even 
the clause authorizing an amendment "to restrict or abandon 
any of the objects" specified in the original instrument — will 
justify a clause to provide for a sale of the company's entire 
property, undertaking, and goodwill." In Australia, an amend- 
ment to the memorandum of association of a life insurance 
company vastly enlarging the classes of securities in which the 

' Supra, § 146. Accord: AustTolian Widows' Fund 

= Cyclists' Touring Club (1907), lAfe Ass. Soc, 24 Vict. L. R. 613. 
1 Ch. 269, 274. " 1 Palmer's Company Precedents, 

' Cyclists' Touring Club (1907), 9th ed., 1154-1155. 
1 Ch. 269. ' St. John's Electric Light Co. 

* ConsettlrmCo. (1901), ICh. 236. (1897-1903), Newfoundland 440. 

135 



§ 149 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

company's funds might be invested was disapproved.' British 
judges have confirmed the following amendments among others, 
— an amendment enabling a marine insurance company to 
engage in fire, life, and accident insurance in connection with 
marine risks ; ^ an amendment enabling a boiler insurance com- 
pany to insure against other risks;' an amendment enabling a 
company formed for the purpose of investing in government 
securities to invest in other securities;* and an amendment em- 
powering the company to issuQ. debentures.* 

§ 149. Amended Provision must be such as might be inserted 
in an Original Instrument at Time of Amendment.— ^ As a rule no. 
provision can be injected by amendment into an incorporation 
paper that could not at the time of the making of the amendment 
be inserted in the incorporation paper of a new company. Thus, 
where a statute provides that no company "hereafter organized " 
under any other statute shall have the word "trust" as part of 
its name, a company previously organized under another law 
cannot subsequently amend its incorporation paper by inserting 
the word "trust" in the corporate name.* 



§ 150. Necessity for accompan3ang Amendment by Change of 
Name when old Name would be Misleading. — Where the statute 
reposes in some court or officer a discretion to confirm or dis- 
allow a proposed amendment, it seems that the judge or officer 
should exact as a condition of his approval a change in the cor- 
porate name where use of the old name as apphed to the new 
business might be misleading.' At least, this seems to be the 
practice under the British Companies (Memorandum of Associa- 
tion) Act of 1890.* Where the old name indicates the locality 

' National Mut. Life Ass'n, 26 But cf. Governments Stock Invest- 

Vict. L. R. 490. ment Co. (1891), 1 Ch. 649. 

2 AllianceMarine Ass. Co. {1892), ' Reversionary Interest Soc. (,1892), 

1 Ch. 300. 1 Ch. 615. 

' National Boiler Ins. Co. (1892), ° State ex rel. Osborne v. Nichols, 

1 Ch. 306. 38 Wash. 309 ; 80 Pac. 462. 

* Foreign & Cohnial Government ' As to the illegality of mislead- 

Trust Co. (1891), 2 Ch. 395 ; Govern- ing corporate names, see supra, § 62, 

ments Stock Investment Co., No. 2 and infra, § 305, § 450. 

(1892), 1 Ch. 597. * Foreign & Colonial Government 

138 



§ 31-§ 162] ALTERATION AFTER REGISTRATION § 152 

in which the company's business is carried on, the court in con- 
firming an alteration in the memorandum of association enlarg- 
ing the area of its operations exacted as a condition that the 
name should be changed so as no longer to suggest that the 
operations were to be confined to the place mentioned in the 
old name; ^ but in a somewhat similar case a Scotch court 
decided that no change of name was necessary.^ 

§ 151. Fees payable on Amendment. — The fees payable on 
filing of the amended instrument are usually if not always 
regulated by statute. Where one section of a statute prescribes 
one fee for filing any amended incorporation paper and another 
section provides that on an extension or renewal of corporate 
existence the same fees shall be payable as are required for an 
original incorporation, a corporation wishing to prolong its 
corporate existence so that instead of being fifty years as fixed 
in the certificate of incorporation the corporate existence shall 
be perpetual, cannot by filing an amended certificate with an 
alteration in the clause relating to the period of corporate 
existence escape with payment of merely such fees as are required 
for filing of an amendment to the incorporation paper, but must 
pay the much heavier fees required for filing a certificate of 
extension of corporate existence.' 

§ 152. Eflect of Amendment on Instrument originally void 
or on previous invalid Amendment. — While an instrument 
originally void cannot be made valid by an amendment duly 
executed and filed,"* yet in such a case what was intended as an 
amended instrument may, if it contain all the statutory requi- 
sites, operate as an original incorporation paper.^ An amend- 
ment attempted to be made at a time when no power of 

Trusi Co. (1891), 2 Ch. 395; Govern- » People ex rd. New York, etc. 

merits Stock Investment Co. (No. 2), R. R. Co. v. Railroad Comm'rs, 81 

(1892), 1 Ch. 597 ; Alliance Marine N. Y. App. Div. 242 ; 81 N. Y. Supp. 

Ass. Co. (1892), 1 Ch. 300; National 20, affirmed short, 67 N. E. 1088. 
Boiler Ins. Co. (1892), 1 Ch. 306. This was recognized in State ex 

' Indian Mechanical Gold Ex- ret. Clapp v. Critchett, 37 Minn. 13, 

trading Co. (1891), 3 Ch. 538. 14 ; 32 N. W. 787. 

' Kirkcaldy Steam Laundry Co., 6 Cf. Valk v. Crandall, 1 Sandf. Ch. 

Fraser (Sc.) 778. (N. Y.), 179; State ex ret. Thompson 

' National Lead Co. v. Dickinson, v. Colias (Ala.) 43 So. 190 (where a 
57 Atl. 138 ; 70 N. J. Law 596 ; af- statute expressly authorized the cur- 
firmed short, 62 Atl. 1135. ing of defects in the original paper 

' State ex rel. Clapp v. Critchett, by filing a supplement thereto). 
37 Minn. 13 ; 32 N. W. 787. 

137 



§ 153 THE INCORPOEATION PAPER [ChAP. II 

amendment existed may be recognized and validated by a sub- 
sequent amendment adopted after a passage of a statute author- 
izing amendments to be made.' 

§ 153. Alteration against Opposition of Minority Share- 
holders. — A power of altering the incorporation paper or any 
clause thereof, such as the clause fixing a limit to the period of 
corporate existence, if conferred by law when the original in- 
corporation paper is executed, should be read into the contract 
between the several shareholders without any express reference 
thereto, so that the power may be exercised against the opposi- 
tion of individual shareholders.^ Indeed, it would seem that 
the statutory power of alteration would exist even in spite of an 
express clause in the original paper attempting to exclude its 
application. 

§ 154. Statute allowing Alteration unless prohibited in origi- 
nal Instrument. — Where a statute authorizes an alteration of 
the incorporation paper, unless otherwise provided in that in- 
strument itself, there must in order to preclude alteration be an 
express prohibitory clause in the instrument.' 

§ 155. Formalities required in making Alteration. — Unless 
otherwise provided by statute, an amendment to an incorpora- 
tion paper must be acknowledged and recorded in the same way 
as the original instrument.* Where an amendment is required 

' People ex rd. Ward V.Green, 116 52-53; 17 S. W. 803 (holding that 

Mich. 605 ; 74 N. W. 714. amendment is not effective until re- 

Cf. Spinning v. Home Building, corded not only in county record of- 

etc. Ass'n, 26 Ohio St. 483. fice but also with the secretary of 

' Smith V. Eastwood Wire Mfg. state). 
Co., 58 N. J. Eq. 331; 43 Atl. 567; Cf. Lamb & Sons v. Dobson, 90 

Port Edwards, etc. By. Co. v. Arpin, N. W. 607; 117 Iowa 124. 
SO Wise. 214 ; 49 N. W. 828 (holding But see Boca, etc. R. R. Co. v. 

dissenting shareholders not released Sierra Valleys Ry. Co. (Cal.), 84 Pac. 

from obligation to pay calls by 298, 301; Jackson v. Crown Point 

amendment increasing capital in pur- Mining Co., 21 Utah 1 ; 59 Pac. 238 ; 

Buance of statute in force at time of 81 Am. St. Rep. 651 (where it was 

incorporation). held that although an amendment 

But cf. Pronick v. Spirits Dist. which is "fundamental" is not effec- 

Co., 42 Atl. 586 ; 58 N. J. Eq. 97. tive until recorded as required by