(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 law of municipal corporation in the United States"

\ 




KF 



KF 5305.155"*"' ""'""">' '"'"'' 
A freatise on the law of municipal corpo 




3 1924 019 959 125 




((nrnpU Slam ^rJyool ICtbraty 



A TREATISE 



ON 



THE LAW OF 

1 

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS 



IN THE 



UNITED STATES. ,,.: 

BY \;y^, \ 

CHRISTOPHER G. TIED EMAN, 

Author of " Real Property," " Limitations of Police Powei-," etc. and 
Professor of Law in the University of the City of New York. 



New York and Albany: 
BANKS & BROTHERS, LAW PUBLISHERS. 

18^4. 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year One Thousand Eight 

Hundred and Ninety-four, 

Bt CHRISTOPHER G. TIEDEMAN, 

in the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 



V 



PREFACE. 

« 

The writing of a preface to a work like the present 
is rather a perfunctory performance, where the author 
and the merits and peculiar features of his work are 
known. The reader and critic will find, by an exami- 
nation of these pages, that the present volume, like the 
other works of the author, is designed to present with- 
in the confines of one volume a succinct and clear state- 
ment of the law of Municipal Corporations, by an inclu- 
sion of everything material, and exclusiofi of everything 
immaterial, to the clear comprehension of the general 
principles and rules of law, bearing upon, or involved 
in, the subject. v 

The author desires to make a public acknowledg- 
ment of his indebtedness to Mr. H. C. Underbill, LL. B. 
of Brooklyn, N. Y., for his active and efficient assistance 
in the preparation of the manuscript for the press. 

C. G. T. 

University of tlie City of New Tork, 
January, 1894. 



vi TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

Section 31. Proof of corporate existence. 

32. Power to repeal and amend city charter, effect of exercise of 

such power. 

33. Special power when repealed by general laws. 

34. Implied repeal of general laws by special laws. 

CHAPTER IV. 
Dissolution of Municipal Corporations. 

Section 37. How dissolved in England. 

38. How dissolved in the United States. 

39. Forfeiture of corporate existence. 

40. Effect of dissolution of corporation. 

41. Eights of creditors on a dissolution of a municipal corpora- 

tion. 

42. The rights of creditors where a second corporation has been 

established in its place. 

43. Effect of dissolution of corporation in general, where no other 

corporation has been substituted therefor. 

44. Revival by a new charter. 

CHAPTER V. 
Corporate iN^anie, Seal and Boundaries. 

Section 47. Corporate name, how obtained. 

48. Change of corporate name — Name acquired by reputation. 

49. Effect of misnomer in general. 

50. Use of corporate name in suits. 

51. Requirement of a corporate seal. 

52. Seal, how proved. 

53. Boundaries, how defined. 

54. Corporate boundaries by reference to streams and highways. 

55. Enlargement of boundaries — Annexation of territory. 

56. What territory may be annexed — Farm lands. 

57. Effect of extension of city boundaries. 

58. Effect of annexation of one town to another. 

59. Effect of division of one town into two. 

60. Legislative power to apportion property and debts in cases of 

annexation and division. 

61. Procedure in cases of annexation — When annexation legal. 

62. Exercise of power beyond city limits, only one corporation 
' over same area. 

63. Division of municipal territory into wards. 

CHAPTER VI. 
Municipal Elections and Officers. 

Section 65. Time and place of holding elections. 

66. Qualifications of voters — Residence. 

67. Who are municipal officers ? 

68. Legislative control over officers. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. VU 

Section 69. Qualification for municipal office — ^Women when eligible. 

70. Civil service examinations. 

71. Preference for veterans. 

72. Official bonds. 

73. Official oaths. 

74. Disqualifications on account of prior official position. 

75. Appointments to office. 

76. Exercise of the appointing power. 

77. Legality of appointment presumed. 

78. Acceptance of office. 

79. Compensation. 

80. Assignment of salary. 

81. Holding over after expiration of term of office. 

82. Vacancies. 

83. Removals when for cause. 

84. Proceedings to remove for cause. 

85. Illegal removals — Right to salary. 

86. Resignations — Incompatible officers — Change of residence. 

87. General povrers and duties of officers. 

88. De facto officers. 

89. Police officials — Power to arrest. 

90. The mayor — Nature of his duties and powers. 

91. Liability of the officer to the corporation. 

92. Municijial liability for official acts. 

93. Jurisdiction of courts over elections. 

CHAPTER VII. 

Mnnicipal Councils, Meetings, Records and Courts. 

Section 95. Notice of corporate meetings — New England town meet- 
ings — Ad j ournment. 

96. Town councils — Pi'esiding officers. 

97. Regular, special and adjourned meetings. 

98. Methods of proceeding — Ayes and noes. 

99. Quorum of the council — Joint bodies — Action of the ma- 

jority binding. 

100. Municipal business must be transacted by the council as a 

body — Meetings. 

101. Municipal courts at common law. 

102. Municipal courts — Power to establish. 

103. Competency of corporators as jurors, judges and witnesses. 

104. Summary proceedings — Jury trials. 

105. Review by Superior Court — Jury trials. 

106. Custody of municipal records— Power to amend. 

107. Municipal records as evidence — ^Admissions. 

108. Admissibility of parol evidence to explain municipal records, 

CHAPTER VIII. 
Charter Powers, their Nature, Construction and Limitations. 

Section 110. Classification and construction of charter powers. 



viii TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

Section 111. Imperative and discretionary powers distinguished. 

112. Discretionary powers. 

113. Delegated powers cannot be delegated. 

114. Usage in construing powers — Prescription. 

115. The indemnity for officials acting in good faith. 

116. The police power of municipal corporations— Its scope and 

limitations. 

116 a. Territorial limits of police regulations. 

117 The municipal power to legislate upon subjects covered by 

State statutes. 

118. Sanitary regulations — Slaughter houses— Cemeteries— Un- 

wholesome provisions. 

119. Sanitary regulations continued — Contagious diseases — Re- 

moval of refuse — Water supply. 

120. The regulation and abatement of nuisances in general. 

121. Regulation of harbor and navigable waters. 

122. Eegulation of occupations and amusements. 

123. Licenses, when a police regulation, and when a tax. 

124. License power of municipal corporation construed. 

125. Licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquors. 

126. Supervision and care of paupers, vagrants, indigent, insane 

and sick persons. 

127. Inspection of goods and other commodities. 

128. Establisliment and regulation of public markets. 

129. Impounding of animals — Ordinances respecting dogs. 

130. Prevention of fires — ^Fire limits — Purchase of fire apjiaratus. 

131. Regulation of buildings and their construction. 

132. Eegulation of private wharves. 

133. Public wharves. 

134. Ferries and ferriage. 

135. Regulations providing for the public welfai'e, peace and 

safety. 
135 a. Regulations of railroads within city limits. 

136. Power to appropriate funds for lobbying purposes. 

137. Power to borrow money. 

138. Payment of bounties. 

139. Celebrations and entertainments.' 

140. Rewards. 

141. Erecting, furnishing and repairing public bviildings. 

142. Compromises and arbitrations. 

143. Power of municipality to sue and be sued. 

144. Power to create private monopolies. 

144 a. Power to create and operate municipal monopolies — Mur 
nicipal ownership of gas, electric light and waterworks . 

CHAPTER IX. 

Ordinances. 

Sectiow 145. Definition — Ordinances and resolutions distinguished. 
146. Power to pass ordinances. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. IX 

Section 147. Delegation of power of legislation — OfBcial non-liability. 

148. Method of enactment — Mode, time and proof of publication 

— Mayor's approval. 

149. Ordinances must be enacted in good faith. 

150. Ordinances must be lawful and reasonable. 

151. Ordinances must not be oppressive. 

152. Ordinances must be impartial and general. 

153. Those on whom ordinances are binding — Notice — Evidence. 

154. Power to enforce ordinances by fines or imprisonment. 

155. Forfeiture. 

156. Procedure to enforce ordinances — Arrest. 

157. Action in name of corporation. 

158. Pleading ordinances. 

159. Validity of ordinances, a question of law. 

160. Evidence — Defence — Construction of ordinances. 

161. Repealing ordinances. 

162. Eatification of invalid ordinances by Legislature. 

CHAPTER X. 
Municipal Contracts. 

Sectioit. 163. Inherent or implied power to contract. 

164. Implied contracts. 

165. Mode of contracting, writing or seal when necessary — Stat- 

ute of Frauds. 

166. Municipal contracts with its agents. 

167. Form of contracts made by municipal agents. 

168. Non-liability of public ofiBcial acting within his authority. 

169. Authority of municipal officials to contract — Ultra vires. 

170. Ratification, what constitutes. 

171. Contracts for public works — Contractor's bond — ^Payment. 

172. Advertising and letting to lowest bidder — Patented articles. 

173. Bids — Sealed proposals — Taxpayer's remedy — ^Fraud in bid- 

ding. 

174. Annulment of contracts — Corporate control of work. 

175. Contracts for water supply. 

176. Contracts with attorneys at law. 

CHAPTER XI. 

Municipal Securities. 

Section 177. Municipal warrants — Negotiability — Form and effect — Pre- 
sentment — Payment. 

178. Warrants payable out of a particular fund. 

179. Presentment of warrants — ^Indorsement — Actions by and 

against whom. 

180. When actions may be brought — ^Defences — Statute of Limi- 

tations. 

181. Municipal scrip — Illegal obligations as circulating medium. 

182. Implied power to borrow money and to emit negotiable 

paper. 



X TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

Section 183. Power to issue negotiable securities. 

184. Public purposes— Aid to railroad. 

185. Construction, completion and location of road as affecting 

the validity of bonds issued in its aid. 

186. Subscriptions for stock— Conditions precedent. 

187. Legislative power to compel the issue of bonds for public 

purposes. 
187 a. Curative statutes valididating irregular subscriptions and 
invalid securities. 

188. Bonds issued in aid of private purposes — Constitutional pro- 

hibitions. 

189. Consent of taxpayers or voters as a condition precedent to 

issue of municipal bonds. 

189 a. Limitations upon municipal indebtedness. 

190. The municipal coupon bond — Its nature and definition. 

190 a. Execution of the municipal bond — By what officials must 

it be signed. 

191. Negotiability of coupon bonds— Eights of holder of the 

same. 

191 a. To whom payable— Transfer by indorsement or delivery. 
191 6. Eegistration of municipal securities by State officials. 

192. Presentment of coupons for payment. 

192 a. The time of payment. 

192 b. Interest and exchange on bond and coupon. 

193. Actions on bonds and coupons. 

193 a. "When consideration paid to corporation for invalid bond 

may be recovered. 

194. Legislative control of remedies to enforce payment of mu- 

nicipal debts. 

194 a. Remedies for enforcement of municipal indebtedness. 

195. Defences to bonds — Conflict of decisions. 

195 a. Burden of proof. 

196. Doctrine of estoppel, as applicable to hona flde holders — ■ 

Effect of i-ecitals in the bonds. 

197. Renewal and funding. 

198. Disposal and sale of bonds. 

199. Statute of Limitations. 

CHAPTER XIL 
Kight of Mnnicipal Corporations to own aud control Property. 

Section 200. Eight of municipal corporations to acquire property. 

201. Real estate beyond corporate limits. 

202. Donations of land to a municipal corporation. 

203. Power of municipal corporations to serve as trustee of a 

charitable use. 

204. Devises and grants for objects foreign to corporate purposes. 

205. Gifts or grants to unincorporated communities. 

206. Interference by State courts in performance of trusts by mu- 

nicipal corporations. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. XI 

Section 207. Invalid grants to municipal corporations, how invalidated. 

208. Povrer of alienation. 

209. Povrer to mortgage. 

210. Povrer to lease corporate property. 

211. Requisites of conveyances by municipal corporations. 

212. Sale of corporate property on execution — Liability for debts, 

CHAPTER XIII. 

Dedication of Property to Public Use. 

Section 214. General statement. 

215. . General requisites of statutory dedications. 

216. Extent of statutory dedication. 

217. General requisites of common law dedication. 

218. Wlio may dedicate. 

219. Intention to dedicate, how established. 

220. Presumption of intention from long user. 

221. Platting and sale of lots as evidence of intention. 

222. A dedication irrevocable, when accepted. 

223. Effect of acceptance. 

224. Extent of common law dedication, as respects donor's titla 
223. Public right to alluvium and accretions. 

226. Dedication to use as public square. 

227. Dedication to other public uses. 

228. Effect of misuser or abandonment of dedicated lands. 

229. Alienation of dedicated lands. 

CHAPTER XIV. 
Eminent Domain. 

Section 230. Eminent domain defined. 

231. Constitutional limitations. 

232. Exercise of power regulated by Legislature. 

233. Delegation of power to municipal corporations. 

234. What is a public purpose. 

234 a. Power to take lands for a private road. 

235. Power to take land for ornamental purposes. 

236. Power to take lands for purpose of draining them. 

237. Power to take land beyond city limits. 

238. What property may be taken. 

239. What constitutes a taking. 

240. Exercise of eminent domain by municipal corporations. 

241. Conditions precedent to the exercise of the power. 

242. Effect of discontinuance of proceedings. 

243. Compensation required. 

244. Who entitled to receive compensation. 

245. Who assesses the damages. 

246. The measure of value or damages. 

247. When payment should be made. 

248. Apportionment of damages among lots benefited. 

249. Revisory proceeding — Certiorari. 

250. Effect of accepting damages. 



Xll TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER XV. 

Municipal Taxation and Local Assessments. 

Section 253. Taxation defined and distinguished from eminent domain 
and police power. 

254. Taxation authorized only for public purposes. 

255. Municipal authority to levy taxes whence derived. 

256. Municipal power to tax, when implied. 

257. Legislature may change the taxing power of municipalities 

at will. 

258. Federal limitations in the exercise of the power of taxation. 

259. Constitutional provisions as to requirements of uniformity 

and equaUty. 

259 a. Uniformity and equality in local assessments. 

260. Road tax and compulsory labor on the same. 

260 a. Poll tax, constitutional. 

261. Power to tax professions, trades and callings. 

262. Power to levy retrospective taxes. 

263. Municipality cannot delegate its authority. 

264. Power of taxation a continuing one. 

265. Power of taxation cannot be varied or enlarged by city or- 

dinances. 

266. Limitation of tax rate cannot be exceeded. 

267. Construction and reconcilement of general laws with special 

charter provisions. 

268. What can be taxed. 

269. Discrimination between real and personal property, when 

permissible. 

270. Exemption from taxes, when permitted. 

271. Public property not taxable. 

272. What property is within municipality for purposes of taxa- 

tion. 

273. Taxation of banks, railways and other corporations. 

274. Taxation of incorporeal heraditaments. 

275. Choses in action when taxable. 

276. Taxation of agricultural land. 

277. Local assessments for sewers. 

278. Notice to and assent of abutters to assessments. 

279. Power of Legislature to dispense with notice. 

280. Reassessments. 

281. Adjoining owner's relation to contract— His liability. 

282. Methods of collection. 

283. Lien of taxes. 

284. Statute of Limitations. 

CHAPTER XVL 
Streets, Bridges and Turnpikes. 

Section 286. Definition of street. 

287. AUeys. 

288. Conflict of jurisdiction over streets. 



TABLE OP COKTENTS. XIU 

Section 289. Delegation of legislative power over streets. 

290. Construction of charter powers over streets. 

291. Power to pave construed. 

292. Power to improve, pave and grade continuous. 

293. Eights of the municipality in soil of the streets, in general. 

294. Eight of municipality in soil of the streets for construction 

of sewers and cisterns. 

295. Pipes in streets, for gas and other purposes. 

296. Power to grant an exclusive franchise to lay pipes and to use 

streets for other semi-private purposes. 

297. Poles for the hanging of telegraph and other wires — Abut- 

ters' right to compensation. 

298. Openings in and vaults under sidewalks. 

299. Municipal regulation of street travel and traffic. 

300. Street obstructions. 

301. Legislative control of streets — Eights of abutting owners 

therein. 

302. Legislative power over the construction of railroads. Its 

delegation to cities ; construction of grant. 

303. Eights of abutting owners, how affected by construction of 

steam railroads along the street. 

304. Abutting owners, how affected by surface street railways. 

305. Elevated street railways in relation to abutting owners. 

306. Municipal control over the construction and operation of rail- 

roads in streets. 
306 a. Electric and cable cars on street railways. 

307. Eemedies of abutters — Measure of damages. 

308. Vacation of streets by Legislature — ^Delegation of power to 

municipal corporations. 

309. Proceedings to vacate. 

310. Burden and means of proving vacation and abandonment. 

311. Compensation to abutters on vacation. 

312. Statute of Limitations, as applicable to the public easement 

in street — ^Equitable estoppel. 

313. Definition, character and construction of public bridges. 

314. Legislative and municipal powers over bridges. 

314 a. Kational control over construction and maintenance of 
bridges. 

315. County liability for maintenance and repair of public bridges. 

316. Eights and duties of municipal corporations in building, re^ 

building and maintaining bridges. 

317. Private bridges on or intersecting highways. 

318. Turnpikes. 

319. Extent of municipal power over turnpike. 

320. Incidents of toll. 

321. Tlie law of the road. 



xiv TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER XVII. 
Liability of Municipal Corporations for Torts. 

Section 324. Implied liability of municipal corporations. 

325. QMasi-municipal corporations not liable for breach of official 

duty. 

326. Liability of municipal corporations for illegal taxes, fines 

and licenses. 

326 a. Payment must be compulsory. 

327. Municipal corporations not liable for nonperformance of dis- 

cretionary duties. 

327 a. Failure to abate nuisances. 

327 h. Liability for negligent supply of water. 
828. Liability for manner in which discretionary powers are ex- 
ercised. 

329. Consequential damages — Changes in the grade of streets — 

Improvements. 

330. Constitutional and statutory provisions, guaranteeing com- 

pensation for property damaged — Eemedy. 

331. Municipal corporations not liable for failure to enforce ordi- 

nances. 
331 a. Liability for mistake as to corporate powers. 

332. Municipality not liable for neglect or misconduct of health 

officers. 

333. Municipality not liable for torts of police officials. 
333 o. Liability for torts of firemen. 

334. Liability for property destroyed by mobs and rioters. 

335. Destruction of buildings to prevent a conflagration. 

335 a. Destruction of property under military and sanitary regu- 

lations. 

336. Receipt of consideration, as a ground of liability for negli- 

gence. 

336 «. Liability as an owner of property. 

337. How may negligence be proven. 

338. Negligence of municipal servants — ^What must be proven — 

Torts ultra vires. 
338 a. Who is a municipal officeT or agent. 

339. Liability for the condition of highways and streets — Munic- 

ipal and g«asi-municipal corporations distinguished. 

340. Statutory liability for neglect in maintenance and repair of 

highways — Construction. 

341. QMasi-municipal corporation, when liable for specific duties. 

342. Municipal liability for injury from defective streets — Horses 

taking fright. 

343. Bailings or barriers, signs and lights, to guard excavations, 

areas, and basements. 

344. Accidents caused by ice and snow. 
344 a. Negligence in lighting streets. 

345. Falling of weighty things in highways. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. XV 

Section 346. Right to go outside the traveled path — Estoppel to deny ex- 
istence of highway — Sidewalks. 

347. Liability for work given out on contract — Liability for torts 

of contractors. 

348. Liability for torts of abutters — Liability of abutters for the 

same. 

349. Liability for neglect in performance of ministerial duties. 

350. Defects and obstructions created by municipal corporations. 
350 a. Necessity for, and evidence admissible, to show notice, in 

order to charge corporation with negligence. 

351. Proximate cause. 

352. Contributory negligence. 

352 a. Damages in suits for negligence. 

353. Bridges. 

354. Water courses. 
354 a. Surface water. 
.355. Drains and sewers. 

CHAPTEE XVIII. 
Mandamns and Quo Warranto. 

Section 359. Nature of mandamus and wherein it differs from injunction. 

360. Mandamus against municipal corporations. 

361. Mandamus and quo warranto distinguished. 

362. Distinction between discretionary and mandatory powers, 

as limiting the right to mandamus. 

363. Who may apply for the writ. 

364. Prior judgment, when not necessary. 

365. Practice — Effect of laches. 

366. Framing the writ and order to show cause. 

367. Importance of a correct direction and proper service of the 

alternative writ. 

368. Beturn to the alternative writ. 

369. Peremptory wi'it, when allowed — Means of enforcing obedi- 

ence. 

370. Final judgment — Effect of resignation or death of officials. 

371. Mandamus, as applicable to municipal elections and to elec- 

tive officers. 

372. Mandamus, as applicable to removal and suspension of offi- 

cials. 

373. Mandamus, as applicable to custodians of public records and 

of public funds. 

374. Mandamus against school officers. 

875. Mandamus in aid of the rights of municipal creditors. 

376. Mandamus to compel levy of a special tax for specific object 

377. Mandamus, as applicable to municipal improvements. 

378. Nature of quo warranto. 

379. By whom proceedings are instituted. 

380. Practice and procedure — Power discretionary. 



Xvi TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

Section 381. How far remedy by quo warranto is superseded by special 
statutory proceedings for the control of contested elections . 

382. User on part of usurper necessary. 

383. The burden of proof. 

384. Quo warranto proceedings to secure the forfeiture of a mu- 

nicipal charter. 

385. Quo warranto to test the legal existence of municipal cor- 

porations. 

386. Effect of judgment in quo warranto. 

387. Effect of judgment, when not rendered during official term. 

CHAPTER XIX. 
Bemedies against Mnnicipal Corporations in General. 

Section 391. Equitable remedies. 

392. Necessity for equitable remedies — Code of Procedure — Pre- 

liminary injuction. 

393. Equitable jurisdiction over municipal officials. 

394. Municipal corporations as trustees. 

395. Taxpayers' suits in equity. 

396. Injunction to restrain damages to private property — ^Multi- 

plicity of suits. 

397. Injunction to restrain the collection of taxes. 

398. Scope of certiorari. 

399. What may be examined under writ of certiorari. 

400. Indictment. 

401. Writ of prohibition. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



References are to Sections. 



Aaron v. Broiles, (64 Tex. 316) 327, 

328 
Abbett V. Johnson Co., (114 Ind. 61) 

353 
Abbott V. Hermon, (7 Me. 118) 170 
Abbott V. Mills, (3 Vt. 521) 219 
Abbott V. K. C, etc., E. R. Co., (83 

Mo. 271) 354 a 
Abbott V. Cottage City, (143 Mass. 

521) 217 
Abby V. Billups, (35 Miss. 618) 51 
Abel V. Pembroke, (61 N". H. 357) 

140 
Aberdeen v. Blackmar, (6 Hill, 324) 

348 
Aberdeen v. Sykes, (59 Miss. 236) 196 
Aberdeen v. Sanderson, (8 Sm. & M. 

670) 13 
Abernethy v. Van Buren, (52 Mich. 

353) 353 
Abilene v. Hendricks, (36 Kan. 6) 

350 & 
Abraham v. Gt. Northern, etc., (16 

Q. B. 386) 314 
Academy v. Aberdeen, (21 Miss. 645) 

13 
Acker v. Anderson, (20 S. C. 495) 353 
Ackley School Dist. v. Hall, (113 U. 

S. 135) 28, 183 
Adam v. Wright, (84 Pa. 720) 33 
Adams ». Bay City, (44 N. W. E. 138) 

294 
Adams v. Emerson, (6 Pick. 58) 293 
Adams v. Farnsworth, (15 Gray, 423) 

164 
Adams v. Lancashire & Y. R'y Co., 

(L. E. 4 C. P. 739) 352 
Adams v. Lindell, (5 Mo. Ap. 197) 28 
Adams v. Mack, (3 N. H. 493) 107 
Adams v. Mayor, (29 Ga. 56) 125, 150 
Adams v. Memphis & L. R. R. E. 

Co., (2 Coldw., Tenn. 645) 209 
Adams v. Newfane, (8 Vt. 271) 249 
Adams v. Natick, (13 Allen, 429) 343 
Adams v. Ohio Falls Car Co., (31 N. 

E. E., Ind. 92, 57) 226 
Adams v. E. R., (2 Coldw. 645) 182 
Adams c. Rome, (50 Ga. 765) 209 

ii 



Adams v. Somerville, (2 Head, 

Tenn. 363) 267 
Adams v. Walker, (34 Conn. 466) 354 a 
Adams v. Whittlesey, (3 Conn. 560) 

169 
Addis V. Pittsb., (85 Pa. St. 379) 172, 

281 
Addy V. Janesville, 70 Wis. 401) 355 
Adger ». Mayor, (2 Spear, 719) 300 
Adler v. Whitbeck, (9 N. E. Rep., 

Ohio, 672) 123 
Adler ». Metro. E. R. Co, (33 N. E. R., 

935; 138 N.T. 173)301 
Ad ley v. Reeves, (2 M. & S. 61) 154, 

155, 156 ' 
Adolph V. Central etc. Co., (65 N. Y. 

554) 302, 321 
Advertiser etc. v. Detroit, (43 Mich. 

116) 87 
^tna L. I. Co. v. Nexson, (84 Ind. 

.347) 352 a 
JEtna Mills v. Waltham, (126 Mass. 

122) 338. 
^tna L. I. Co. v. Middleport, (124 

U. S. 534) 195 c 
African Society v. Varick, (13 Johns. 

38) 47, 49 
Agaw^am N. Bk. v. South Hadley, 

(128 Mass. 503) 195 d 
Agnew V. Brail, (124 111. 312) 142, 163 
Agnew V. Coruima, (55 Mich. 428) 

351 
Ah Fov, Ex parte, (57 Cal. 92) 123 
Ahrens v. Fiedler, (43 N. J. L. 400) 

363 
Aiken Ave., In re, (11 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 

228) 228, 278 
Aiken v. Railroad Co., (20 N. Y. 370) 

134 
Aiken T. C. v. Lythgoe, (7 Rich. Law, 

4.35) 219 
Airy Street, Re, (113 Pa. St. 281) 28 
Akron o. Chamberlain Co., (34 O. 

State, 328) 292 
Alam V. Boyd, (87 Pa. St. 477) 167 
Ala. M. R. Co. V. Newton, (Ala. 92, 

10 So. R. 89) 245 
Alabama S. R. Co. v. Railroad, (87 

Ala. 154) 314. 

xvii 



xvm 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



References are to Sections. 



Alabama State Bar Assn., Ex parte, 

(Ala. 91, 18 So. E. 768) 363 
Albany v. Cunliff, (2 ST. Y. 165) 169, 

338 
Albany North R. R. v. Brownell, (24 

N. T. 345) 301 
Albany City Nat. Bk. v. Albany, (92 

N. T. 363) 70 
Albany Street, In re, (11 Wend. 149) 

259 a 
Albany etc. Co. v. Brownell, (24 N. 

Y. 345) 391 
Albertine v. Huntsville, (60 Ala. 486) 

3506 
Albian v. Hedrick, (90 Ind. 545) 352 
Albnow V. Sibley, (30 Minn. 186) 339 
Albright v. Council, (9 Rich., S. C. 

399) 163 - * 

Albrittin v. Huntsville,(60 Ala. 486) 32 
Albuquerque v. Beres, (13 S. Ct. 143; 

147 U. S. 87) 397 
Alcorn v. Philadelphia, (112 Pa. St. 

494) 264, 338 a 
Alcorn v. Horner, (38 Miss. 652) 259 a 
Alden v. Minneapolis, (24 Minn. 254) 

354 a, 329 
Alderman v. Finley, (5 Eng., 10 Ark. 

423) (1850) 30, 31 
Aldrich v. Gorham, (77 Me. 287) 342, 

351 
Aldrich v. Howard, (7 R. I. 87) 120 
Aldrich v. Tripp, (11 R. I. 141; 23 

Am. Rep. 434) 92, 336 
Aldridge v. Railroad Company, (2 

Stew. & Port. 199; 23 Am. Dec. 

307) 232 
Alexander v. Alexandria, (5 Cranch, 

2)33 
Alexander v. Baltimore, (5 Gill, Md. 

383, 39.3) 255 
Alexander v. Bennett, (60 N. Y. 204) 

104 
Alexander ». Helber, (35 Mo. 334) 

282 
Alexander v. Kerr, (2 Rawle, 83) 120 
Alexander v. Milw., (16 Wis. 247) 

292, 329 
Alexander v. McDowell, (67 N. C. 

330) 365 
Alexander v. Railroad Co., (3 Strob. 

S. C. Law, 594) 133 
Alexander v. State, (16 Ala. 661) 400 
Alexander v. Tolleston Club of Chi- 
cago, (110 111. 65) 207 
Alexander ». Vicksburg, (68 Miss. 

564) 92 . 
Alger V. Easton, (119 Mass. 77) 92 
Alger ». Lowell, (3 Allen, 402) 343, 

352 
Allen V. Boston, (Mass. 93, 34 N. E. 

R. 519) 299 



Allen V. Burlington, (45 Vt. 202) 326 o 
Allen V. Chippewa Falls, (52 Wis. 

530) 353, 354 a 
Allen 1). Dallas, etc., Co., (3 Woods, 

316) 195 c 
Allen V. Decatur, (24 111. 332) 338 
Allen V. Galveston, (51 Tex. 302) 165, 

259 a, 290. 
Allen V. Hancock, (16 Vt. 230) 352 
Allen V. Jay, (60 Me. 124, 11 Am. 

Rep. 185) 254 
Allen V. Jersey City, (N. J. 91, 22 

Atl. R. 257) 
Allen V. Jones, (47 Ind. 442) 240 
Allen V. McKean, (1 Sumn. 276) 2. 85 
Allen ». Louisiana, (103 U. S. 580) 189, 

195 d 
Allen V. Sea, etc., Assn., (9 C. B. 574) 

177 
Allen V. Vincennes, (25 Ind. 531) 310 
Allen V. Willard, (57 Pa. St. 374) 347, 

352 
Allen Co. v. Clinton, (Ind. 93, 32 

ST. E. R. 735) 325 
Allegheny v. Campbell, (107 Pa. St. 

530) 132, 336 a 
Allegheny v. Ohio & Pa. R. R. Co., 

(26 Pa. St. 355) 289 
Allegheny City ». McClurkin, (14 Pa. 

St. 81) 169 
AUe. Co. V. Van Campen, (3 Wend. 

49)<72 
Allegheny Co. v. Broadwaters, (69 

Md. 533) 352 
AUentown Bor. v. Saeger, (20 Pa. St. 

421) 326 a 
AUentown Sch. Dis. v. Derr, (115 Pa. 

St. 439) 192 6 
Allentown v. Grim, (109 Pa. St. 113^ 

148 
Allentown v. W. U. Tel. Co., (23 Pa. 

St. 1070) 123 
Alletson v. Chichester, (L. R. C. P. 

319) 351 
AUine v. LaMars, (71 Iowa, 654) 344, 

352 
Allisons. R. W. Co., (9 Bush, 247) 

395 
All Saints Church v. Lovett, (1 Hall, 

N. Y. 191) 48 
Almy V. Churcli, (26 Atl. R. 58, R. I. 

93) 312 
Althen v. Kelley, (32 Minn. 280) 293 
AHgelt V. San Antonio, (81 Tex. 436) 

169 
Alton u. Hope, (68 111. 167) 354a 
Alton V. 111. Transp. Co., (12 HI. 60) 

229, 312 
Alton V. Kirsch, (68 HI. 261) 156 
Alton V. MuUedy, (21 HI. 76) 113, 

164 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



XIX 



References are to Sections. 



Alpero V. San Francisco, (32 Fed. 

Rep. 503) 392 
Alvord». Syracuse Sav. Bk., (9 K. Y. 

599) 196 
Amboy v. Sleeper, (31 111. 499) 117 
Ambrose v. Buffalo, (20 N. Y. S. 129; 

29 Abb. N. C. 140) 396 
Amer. B. N. Co. v. N. Y. E. R. R., 

(13 N. Y. S. 626) 248 
American Bk. Note v. Railway Co., 

(59 N. Y. Super. Ct. 175) 3H6 
American Ins. Co. v. Oakley, (9 Paige 

N. Y., 496) 51, 164 
Amer. F. Go. v. Board, (43 Fed. R. 

609) 259 
Am. L. I. Co. V. Bruce, (105 U. S. 328) 

196 
Am. Nic. Pav. Co. v. Elizabeth City, 

(4 Fisher Pat. Cases, 189, 197) 338 
Amer. Trint Wks. v. Lawrence, (23 

N. J. L. 595) 335 
Amer. R. F. Co. v. Haven, (101 Mass. 

398) 373 
Am. Union Exp. Co. v. St. Joseph, 

(66 Mo. 675) 261 
Amery v. City, (72 Iowa, 401) 279 
Araey v. Allegheny City, (24 How. 

364) 148 
Amey v. Allegheny City, (24 How. 

364) 254 
Ames ». Dorset, (23 Atl. R. 857) 354 
Ames V. Duryea, (6 Lans. 155) 66 
Ames V. Kansas. (11 U. S. 449) 380 
Ames V. P. H. L. Co., (11 Mich.) 139 
Ames B. Lake Superior & Miss. R. R. 

Co., (21 Minn. 241) 245 
Amite City v. Clements, (24 La. An. 

27) 2, 8 
Amoskeag Co. v. Goodale, (62 N. H. 

BH) TA2 
Amperse v. Kal. Counc, (59 Mich. 

78) 362 
Amperse ». Kalamazoo, (75 Mich. 228, 

42 N. W. R. 821) 327 
Amy V. Des Moines, (11 Wall. 136) 

349 
.Vmv V. Galena, (7 Fed. Rep. 163) 14 
Amy V. Watertown, (130 U. S. 302) 86 
Amyx V. Taber, (23 Cal. 370) 129- 
Anderson v. Anderson, (42 Vt. 350) 

66 
Anderson v. Bain, (22 N. E. R. 323) 

330 
Anderson v. Boone Co., (61 Mich. 

489) 354 
Andersons. Comrs., (12 Ohio St. 365) 

108 
Anderson v. Donnell, (7 S. E. R. 523) 

30, 158 
Anderson v. East, (117 Ind. 126, 129) 

327, 345 



Anderson v. Kerns Draining Co., (14 

Ind. 199) 234 
Anderson v. Mayfield, (Ky. 92, 19 S. 

W. R. 598) 12, 255, 270 
Anderson v. O'Connor, (98 Ind. 168) 

145 
Anderson v. O'Donnell, (7 S. E. R. 

524) 104 
Anderson v. Pemberton, (89 Mo. 61) 

241, 232 
Anderson v. Santa Anna, (116 U. S. 

364) 17, 195 
Anderson v. St. Louis, (47 Mo. 484) 

241, 249. 
Anderson v. State, (23 Miss. 459) 270 
Anderson Co. v. Beal, (113 lb. 227) 

216 
Anderson Co. v. Houston etc. Co., (52 

Tex. 228) 216 
Andover b. Gould, (6 Mass. 40) 330 
Andrews ». Dyer, (81 Me. 104) 49 
Andrews v. Estes, (11 Me. 267) 167 
Andrews v. Ins. Co., (37 Me. 256) 146 
Andrews b. King, (77 Me. 224) 84 
Andrews v. Portland, (79 Me. 484) 

79, 85 
Andrews v. Pratt, (44 Cal. 309) 79, 

208 
Annapolis v. Harwood, (32 Md. 471) 

282 
Annapolis v. State, (30 Md. 212) 28 
Anne Arundel Co. o. Duckett, (20 

Md. 467) 327 a, 349 
Anthony Street, In re, (20 Wend. N. 

Y. 618) 242 
Anthony b. Adams, (1 Met. 284) 4, 92, 

338 
Antones v. Eslava's Heirs, (9 Port. 

Ala. 527) 217 
Antoni ». Greenhow, (107 U. S. 766) 

283 
Apple V. Crawford Co., (105 Pa. St. 

300) 79 
Appleby v. K. York, (41 N. Y. 481) 

362 
Appleby v. Mayor, (15 How., N. Y. 

Pr. 428) 172 
Ansley v. Wilson, (50 Ga. 418) 282 
Arbegust v. Louisville, (2 Bush, Ky. 

271) 56 
Archer b. Stelinas, (93 Cal. 43) 215 
Areata v. Jfrcata R. R. Co., (92 Cal. 

639) 302, 303 
Arents v. Commonwealth, (18 Gratt. 

776) 190, 192 
Argente v. San Francisco, (16 Cal. 

255) 282 
Argus Co. V. Mayor etc., (55 N. Y. 

495) 165 
Arimond v. Green Bay Co., (31 Wis. 

316) 238, 355 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



Beterences are to Sections. 



Arkadelphia v. Windham,. (49 Ark. 

139) 339 
Arkadelphia L. Co. v. Arkadelphia, 

(19 S. W. Kep. 1053) 134, 261 
Arkansas E. P. Co. v. Sarrells, (Ark. 

88, 8 S. W. R. 683) 217, 229 
Arlington v. Barnet, (15 Vt. 745) 288 
Armfield v. Salen, (19 N. T. S. 44) 

51 
Ai-ms V. Knoxville, (32 Dl. Ap. 604) 

328 
Armstrong v. Ackley, (71 Iowa, 76) 

350 ft 
Armington v. Barnet, (15 Vt. 745) 233 
Armstrong v. St. Louis, (69 Mo. 309) 

249 
Armstrong v. Brunswick, (79 Mo. 

319) 325, 327 a 
Armstrong v. Toler, (11 Wheat. 258) 

352 
Armstrong Co. v. Clarion Co., (66 Pa. 

St. 318) 164 
Armsworth v. S. E. Ky. Co., (11 Jur. 

758) 352 a 
Am V. Kansas City, (15 Fed. Hep. 

336) 355 
Arnold v. Cambridge, (106 Mass. 352) 

397 
Arnold v. Cov. & Cine. Br. Co., (1 

Duvall, Ky. 372) 245 
Arnold v. Decatur, (29 Midi. 11) 232 
Arnold v. Hawkins, (95 Mo. 569, 8 

S. W. E. 718) 266 
Arnold v. Heniy Co., (81 Ga. 730) 315, 

353 
Arnold v. Shields, (n Dana, Ky. 18) 

250, 401 
Amot V. McClure, (4 Denio, N. Y. 

45) 250 
Amoult V. New Orleans, (11 La. An. 

54) 28, 55 
Arouheimer v. Stokley, (11 Phila. 

283) 130 
Aroma v. Auditor, (15 Fed. Kep. 843) 

190 a 
Arapahoe v. Albie, (38 N. W. R. 

737) 31 
Arapahoe Co. v. Crotty, (9 Colo. 138) 

362 
Airowsmith v. New Orleans, (24 La. 

An. 194) 217 
Arundel v. McCulloch, (10 Mass. 70) 

314 
Askew V. Hale Co., (54 Ala. 639) 3, 

339 353 
Ash V. People, (11 Mich. 347) 124, 

128 
AshbeiTy v. W. Senaca, (58 Hun, 602) 

335 
Ashbrook v. Com., (1 Bush, 139) 118 
Asher v. Texas, (128 U. S. 129) 258 



Asheville Com'rs v. Means, (7 Ired. 

L., N. C. 406) 256 
Ashley's Case, (4 Abb. Pr. Rep. 35) 96 
Ashley v. CaUiope, (71 Iowa, 466) 62 
Ashley v. Port Hm-on, (35 Mich. 296) 

355 
Ashley v. Reynolds, (2 Strahan, 916) 

326 a 
Ashton ». Rochester, (14 N. Y. S. 

855) 162 
Ashton V. Rochester, (10 N. E. R. 

965, 133 N. Y. 187) 278 
Aspinwall o. Daviss, (22 How. 364) 

12, 14 
Assessors, etc., v. Commissioners, (3 

Brews. Pa. 333) 348 
Assessor v. State, (21 N. J. L. 557) 

273 
Astor V. N. Y. Arcade Ry. Co., (113 

N. Y. 93) 28, 302 
Asylum ». New York, (12 N. E. R. 

279, 104 N. Y. 381) 268 
Atchison «. Bartholon, (4 Kan. 124)27 
Atchison v. Butcher, (3 Kan. 104) 17 
Atchison v. Challis, (9 Kan. 603) 328 
Atchison v. Jansen, (21 Kan. 560) 

339 
Atchison v. King, (9 Kan. 550) 148, 

351, 352 a 
Atchison v. Lucas, (83 Ky. 451) 69 
Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Maquilkin, 

(12 Kan. 301) 17, 53, 55, 61 
Atchison, etc., Co. v. Miss. R. R. Co., 

(31 Kan. 660) 302 
Atchison, etc., Co. v. Nare, (17 Pac. 

R. 587) 396 
Athern v. District, (33 Iowa, 105) 108 
Atliens V. Hemerick, (Ga. 93, 16 S. 

E. E. 72) 165 
Atkins V. Phillips, (Fla. 91, 8 So. R. 

429) 99, 123 
Atkins V. Randolph, (31 Vt. 336) 14, 

15, 18 
Atkinson v. Mott, (102 Ind. 431) 129 
Atkinson, etc., Co. v. Phillips Co., 

(25 Kan. 261) 185 
Atlantic An. E. R. Co., In re, (32 N. 

E. R. 771, 136 N. Y. 292) 302 
Atlanta v. Gate R. Co., (Ga. 88, 4 S. 

E. R. 209) .306 
Atlanta v. Gate City, etc., (71 Ga. 

106) 301 
Atlanta v. Green, (67 Ga. 386) 330 
Atlanta v. Perdue, (53 Ga. 607) 346 
Atlanta v. Wilson, (60 Ga. 473) 343, 

352 
Atl. & Pac. R. E. Co. v. Cleino, (2 

Dillon, 175) 270 
Atlantic City Waterworks v. Atlan- 
tic City, (39 X. J. Eq. 367) 144, 163, 

296. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



XXI 



References are to Sections. 



Ail. etc. Tel. Co. v. Chicago etc. R. 

E. Co., (7 Blss. 158) 297 
Attala Co. B'rd v. Grant, (17 Miss. 

77) 369 
Attaway v. Cartersville, (58 Ga. 740) 

333 
Attorney General v. Aspinwall, (2 

My. & C. 613) 393 
Attorney General v. Barstow, (4 Wis 

749) 67, 371 
Attorney General v. Boston, (142 

Mass. 300) 290 
Attorney General v. Boston, (123 

Mass. 469) 359, 363, 3(55, 384, 392 
Attorney General v. Brown, (24 N. 

J.. Eq. 89) 120 
Attorney General v. Bowman, (2 B. 

& P. 532) 104 
Attorney General v. Bradley, (36 

Mich. "447) 28 
Attorney General v. Bridge Co. (20 

6i-ant, U. C. 34) 353 
Attorney General v. Cohoes, (6 Paige, 

133) 396 
Attorney General v. Corporation of 

Worcester, (2 Phillips, 3) 48 
Attorney General ». Corporation of 

Leicester, (9 Beav. Eng. 546) 48 
Attorney General v. Corporation of 

Poole, (4 M. & Cr. 17) 105' 
Attorney General v. Detroit, (29 

Mich. 108) 18 
Attorney General v. Detroit, (26 

Mich. 263) 165, 394 
Attorney General v. Detroit, (55 

Mich. 181; 5 Am. & Eng. Cor. Cas. 

497) 165 
Attorney General v. Ean Claire, (37 

AVis. 400) 254, 396. 
Attorney General v. Ely, (4 Wis. 420) 

65 
Attorney General v. Foote, (11 Wis. 

14) 383 
Attorney General v. Gas Co., (19 

Bag. L. & Eq. 639) 120 
Atty. Gen. i'. Goodrich, (5 Grant, 

Can. 402) 308 
Attorney Gen. v. Hackney Local Bd. 

(L. K, 20 Eq. 626) 355 
Atty. Gen. v. Hatch, (60 Mich. 229) 8 
Atty. General v. Heelis, (2 Sim. & 

Stu. 67) 393 
Atty. Genl. v. Hud. Riv. R. R., (9 J^. 

J. Eq. 526) 314 
Atty. Gen. ». Johnson, (2 Wils. Ch.) 

391 
Atty. Gen. v. Kerr, (2 Beav. 420) 49 
Atty. Gen. v. Lawrence, (11 Mass. 

90) 371 
A-ttorney General v. Leeds, (L. R. 5 

Ch. App. 5^3) 35.5 



Attorney Genl. v. Litchfield, (13 

Simons, 547) 393 
Atty. Gen. v. Lock, ( 3 Atk. 164) 110 
Atty. Gen. v. Lombard, etc., (1 W. N. 

C, Pa. 491) 300 
Attorney General ». Mid. Kent etc., 

(L. R. 3 Ch. 100) 353 
Atty. Gen. v. Mayor of Rye, (7 Taunt., 

Eng. 546) 49, 50 
Atty. Gen. v. Mayor of Norwich, (2 

M. & C. 406) 115 
Atty. Gen, v. Mayor, (3 Duer, 119) 113 
Atty. Gen. v. Mayor, (128 Mass. 312) 

371 
Atty. Gen. v. Metro. R. R. Co., (125 

Mass. 515) 304 
Atty. Gen. v. Morris etc. Co., (20 X. 

J. Eq. 530) 302 
Atty. General v. Myers, (58 Hun, 218) 

360 
Attorney General v. Norwich, (13 

Simons, 225) 393 
Atty. General v. Parker, (3 Atk. 576) 

67 
Attorney Genl. ■». Poole, (4 Mylne 

& C. 613) 393 
Atty. Gen. ». Preston, 56 lb. 177) 87 
Attorney Gen. v. Salem, (103 Mass. 

138) 384 
Atty. Gen. v. Tarr, (148 Mass. 309) 223 
Atty. Gen. v. Toronto, (14 Grant's 

Ch., Can. 073) 302 
Atty. Gen. v. Trombly, (50 N. W. R. 

744; 89 Mich. 50) 18 
Atty. Gen. v. Siddon, (1 C. & J. 220) 

104 
Attoi-ney General ». Shewsbury, (6 

Beav. 220) 37 
Atty. Genl. v. Walworth L. & P. Co., 

(Mass. 90, 31 N. E. R. 482) 396 
Attorney Gen. v. Winnebago L. <fe 

F. R. PI. R. Co., (11 Wis. 42) 265 
Atty. Gen. v. Worcester, (2 Philips, 

3) 47, 49 
Atwater v. Canandaigua, (124 N. Y. 

602) 92 
Auburn Theol. Sem. v. Childs, (4 

Paige, N. T. Ch. 418) 202 
Auburn v. Goodwin, (21 N. E. R. 

212) 215 
Auburn v. Paul, (24 Atl. R. 817; 84 

Me. 212) 279 
Auditor v. Cochrane, (9 Bush, 7) 79 
Auditor v. Davies, (2 Pike, 494) 5 
Auditor v. Maier, (54 N. W. R. 640) 

270 279 
Auditor v. Stiles, (83 Mich. 460) 28 
Augusta, etc.. In re, (12 Up. Can. Q. 

B. 522) 316, 363 
Augusta V. Dunbar, (50 Ga. 387, 392) 

(1873). 



XXll 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



Augusta V. Augusta Bank, (56 Me. 

176) 1916 
Augusta V. Hafers, (59 Ga. 151) 343 
Augustas. Hudson, (88 Ga. 599; 15 

S. E. R. 678) 324 
Augusta V. Leadbetter, (16 Me. 45) 

143 
Augusta E. Perkins, (8 B. Mon., Ky. 

437) 208, 221 
Augusta V. Sweeny, (44 Ga. 463) 79 
Augusta Bank ». Augusta, (49 Me. 

500) 254 
Augusta Council i. Dunbar, (50 Ga. 

387) 271 
Augusta etc. Co. r. Randall, (4 S. E. 

K. 674) 259 
Augusta Factory v. Counsel, (83 Ga. 

734; 10 S. E. K. 359) 397 
Aurora v. Bitner, (100 Ind. 396) 350o 
Aurora v. Colshire, (55 Ind. 584) 346 
Aurora r. Dale, (90 111. 46) 352 
Aurora v. Fox, (78 Ind. 1) 108, 293 
Aurora v. Hillman, (90 111. 61) 3506 
Aurora v. Love, (93 111. 521) 355 
Aurora v. Puffer, (56 HI. 270) 327 
Aurora v. West, (9 Ind. 74) 2, 8 
Austin r. Allen, (6 Wis. 134) 108 
Austin c. Austin Gasi. & C. Co., (69 

Tex. 180) 259 a, 270 
Austin V. Carter, (1 Mass. 231) 349 
Austin V. Coggeshall, (12 K. I. 329) 

139 
Austin r. French, (7 Met. 126) 72 
Austin V. Gas Co., (Tex. 88, 7 S. W. 

E. 200) 270 
Austin V. Gulf, Col. & Santa Fe R. 

K., (45 Tex. 234) 259 a 
Austin V. Murray, (16 Pick, 121) 118, 

121, 158 
Austin V. Seattle, (2 Wash. St. 667) 

259 a 
Austin V. Walton, (68 Tex. 507) 158 
Avery v. Tyringham, (3 Mass. 277) 83 
Avoyo V. !New York, (54 How. Pr. 

Rep. 245) 336 
Ayer v. Xorwich, (39 Conn. 376) 342 
Ayers v. Turnp. Co., (4 Halst. 33) 320 
Ayers v. Appeal, (122 Pa. St. 366) 2ii 
Ayers i-. Penn. E. Co., (20 Atl. E. 54) 

224 
Ayies V. Hammondsport, (29 X. E. 

R. 2(35 ; 130 X. Y. 665) 344 
Ayres v. Pa. R. R. Co., (48 X. J. L. 

44 (1856); s. c, 57 Am. Rep. 538) 

228 

B. 

B. & H. Ferry Co. v. Davis, (48 Iowa, 

133) 134, 144 
B. Mercer Bor. Road, (14 Serg. & R. 

447) 288 



B. & O. R. Co. V. Walker, (45 Ohio, 

577; 16 N. E. E. 475) 317 
Bab B. Clerk, (F. Moore, 411) 154 
Babbage v. Powers, (29 IST. E. R. 132 ; 

130 N. Y. 281) 299 
Babcock V. Beaver Creek, (31 N. W. 

R. 423) 326 a 
Babcock V. Buffalo, (56 N. Y. 268) 120 
Babcock v. Fond du Lac, (58 Wis. 

230) 326 a 
Babcock v. Goodrich, (47 Cal. 488) 

167, 177, 375 
Babcock ». GuiKord, (47 Vt. 519) 350 6 
Babson t. Eockport, (101 Mass. 93) 

340 
Baby c. Baby, 5 W. C. Q. B. 510) 169 
Backman v. Charlestown, (42 S. C. 

125) 164, 170 
Backus V. Deti-oit, (49 Mich. 110) 132, 

133 217 
Bacon v. Boston, (28 X. E. E. 9) 355 
Bacon v. Boston, (3 Cush. 174) 340 
Bacon v. Eobertson, (18 How., V. S. 

480) 37, 40 
Bacon r. York, (26 Me. 491) 371 
Badger r. Boston, (130 Mass. 170) 248 
Badger v. United States, (93 U. S. 

599; s. c, 6 Biss. 308) 370 
Badkins r. Robinson, (53 Ga. 613) 128 
Bailey r. Xew York, (3 HiU, 531, 539) 

11, 92, 336 a, 350 a 
Bailey v. Xew York, (2 Denio, 433) 

332, 338 a. 
Bailey r. R. R. Co., (4 Harr. (Del.) 

389) 301, 308 
Bailey t>. Spring Lake, (61 Wis. 227) 

351 
Bailey v. Wobui-n, (126 Mass. 416) 

234, 338 
Bailey v. Culver, (12 Mo. App. 175) 

287 
Bailey v. Fairfield, (Brayt., Yt. 126) 

352 a 
Bailyville v. Lowell, (20 Mass. 178) 

142 
Bain v. Mitchell, (82 Ala. 304) 90, 102 
Baird b. Bank of Wash., (11 Serg. & 

R. 411) 207 
Baird v. Rice, (63 Pa. St. 489) 226, 

301, 308 
Bagely r. People, (43 Mich. 355) 287 
Bagg B. Detroit, (5 Mich. 336, 346) 

395 
Baker r. Big Rapids, (31 X. W. R. 

810) 326 a 
Baker v. Boston, (12 Pick. 184) 120, 

299, 338 
Baker b. Chambles, (4 G. Greene, 

Iowa 428) 167 
Baker v. Cincinnati, (11 Ohio St. 534) 

259 a, 261, 326 a 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



XXlll. 



References are to Sections. 



Baker v. Cushman, (127 Mass. 103) 98 
Baker ». Gartside, (86 Pa. St. 498) 281 
Baker v. Johnson, (41 Me. 15) 3.59, 

360 
Baker c. Jobnston, (21 Mich. 319) 165, 

217, 221, 226 
Baker v. Pittsburgh, (4 Pa. St. 49) 79 
Baker v. Portland, (58 Me. 199) 352 
Baker v. Pt. Huron Police Coins., 

(62 Mich. 327) 75 ' 

Baker v. Seattle, (2 Wash. St. 576) 

16, 178, 187 a, 189 
Baker v. State, (80 Wis. 416) 18 
Baker ». State, (27 Ind. 485) 327 a 
Baker v. St. Louis, (75 Mo. 671) 224 
Baker v. Steamboat Milwaukee (14 

Iowa, 214) 102 
Baker v. Tehr, (97 Pa. St. 70) 321 
Baker v. Vanderberg, (Mo. 89, 12 S. 

W. R. 462) 220 
Baker v. Windham, (13 Me. 74) 115 
Balch V. Essex Co. Com'rs, (103 Mass. 

106) 235, 241 
Baldwin v. Bangor, (36 Me. 518) 249 
Baldwin v. Foss, (71 Iowa, 389) 327 
Baldwin v. Hastings, (83 Mich. 639) 

276 
Baldwin Co. v. Liquor Dealers, (42 

Ga. 325) 125 
Baldwin v. Montgomery Council, (53 

Ala. 437) 268 
Baldwins. Newark, (38 N. J. 158) 194 
Baldwin r. Phila., (99 Pa. St. 164) 79 
Baldwin v. Shine, (Ky. 87, 2 S. W. 

R. 164) 262, 397 
Baldwin v. Turnpike, (40 Conn. 238) 

351 
Baleman v. City of Covington, (1 S. 

W. 361) 133 
Balfe V. Bell, (40 Ind. 337) 270 
Balfe V. Lamraers, (109 Ind. 347) 282, 

397 
Ball V. Armstrong, (10 Ind. 181) 348 
Ball V. Winchester, (32 N. H. 435) 

325 
Ball B. Woodbine, (61 Iowa, 83.) 92, 

327 a, 331 
Ballard v. Davis, (31 Miss. 525) 99 
Ballard v. Harrison, (4 M. & W. 392) 

346 
Ballard Pews Co. v. Mandel, (2 Mac- 
Arthur, D. C. 351) 87 
Baltimore v. Black, (56 Md. 333) 242 
Baltimore v. Board of Police, (15 Md. 

376) 8, 89 
Baltimore v. Branmam, (14 Md. 227) 

346 
Baltimore v. Chase, (2 Gill & J., Md. 

376) 282 
Baltimore ». Clunet, (23 Md. 449) 159 
Baltimore v. Gill, (31 Md. 575) 395 



Baltimore v. Green Mt. Cem. Prop. 

(7 Md. 517) 270 
Baltimore b. Hook, (62 Md. 371) 241 
Baltimore v. Holmes, (39 Md. 243) 352 
Baltimore v. Horn, (26 Md. 194) 17, 

250 
Baltimore ». Howard, (6 Har. & J. 

(Md.) 383) 282 
Baltimore v. Hussey, (Md. 88, 9 Alt. 

19) 262 
Baltimore v. Johnson, (62 Md. 225) 

281 
Baltimore v. Lefferman, (4 Gill, Md. 

425) 326 a 
Baltimore v. Musgrave, (48 Md. 272) 

242 
Baltimore v. O'Neill, (63 Md. 336) 

338 a 
Baltimore v. Pennington, (15 Md. 

12) 347 
Baltimore v. Poultney, (25 Md. 18) 

99, 100 
Baltimore v. R. R. Co., (21 Md. 275) 

393 
Baltimore v. Radeke, (49 Md. 217) 

120, 152 
Baltimore v. Ray mo, (13 Atl. Rep. 

383) 281 
Baltimore v. Reynolds, (20 Mo. 1) 

165, 169 
Baltimore?). Scharf, (54Md.499) 113, 

279 
Baltimore v. State, (15 Md. 376) 270 
Baltimore ». St. Agnes Hospital, (48 

Md. 419) 247 
Baltimore b. White, (2 Gill, 444) 133, 

220 
Baltimore & O. R. R. Co. v. Marshall 

County, (3 W. Va. 319) 270 
Baltimore & O. R. R. Co. v. District, 

(3 MaoArthur, 122) 284 
Baltimore & O. R. R. Co. v. County 

of Jefferson, (29 Fed. Rep. 305) 28 
Baltimore & Susq. R. R. Co. v. Nes- 

bit, (10 How., U. S. 395) 242 
Baltimore O. & C. R. Co. v. Ketring, 

(23 N. E. R. 527, 122 Ind. 5) 259 a 
Baltimore C. P. Ry. Co. v. McDon- 
nell, (43 Md. 534) 136 
Baltimore U. P. R. Co. v. Baltimore, 

(71 Md. 405) 302 
Baltimore, etc., Co. v. Bateman, (68 

Md. 389) 342 
Baltimore, etc., Co. b. Baltzell, (23 

Alt. R. 74) 241 
Baltimore, etc., v. Fifth Bap. Ch., 

(108 U. S. 317) 301 
Baltimore, etc., Co. v. Kemp, (01 

Md. 74) 352 a 
Baltimore, etc., Co. v. Mali, (66 MA. 

53) 306 



XXIV 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



Beferences are to Sections. 



Baltimore, etc., Co. v. Magender, 

(34 Md. 79) 354 
Baltimore etc. R. E. Co. v. Magruder, 

(3.5 Md. 79, 6 Am. Rep. 310) 238 
Baltimore etc. R. 9. Co. v. Pitts- 
burgh etc. Co., (17 W. Va. 812) 238 
Bamford v. Turnley, (113 Eng. C. L. 

66) 120 
Bamber v. Rochester, (26 Hun, 587) 

92 
Banbury's Case, (10 Mod. 346) 37 
Bancroft v. Cambridge, (126 Mass. 

438) 116 
Bancroft v. Dumas, (21 Vt. 456) 123 
Bancroft v. Lynnfield, (18 Pick. 566) 

115 
Bangor v. Gotling, (35 Me. 73) 283 
Bangor v. Lausil, (51 Me. 521) 354 a, 

355 
Bangs V. Dunn, (66 Cal. 72) 80 
Bangs V. Snow, (1 Mass. 181) 110 
Bangor S. Bk. v. Stillwater, (49 Fed. 

R. 721) 164, 181, 183 
Banguss b. Atlanta, (12 S. W. R. 750; 

74 Tex. 029) 346 
Bank v. Bergen Co., (115 U. S. 334) 

196 
Bank v. Brainerd, (51 N. W. 814, 

Minn. 92) 3 
Bank v. Bridge, (30 N. J. L. 112) 32 
Bank v. Brown, (26 N. Y. 467) 24 
Bank v. Charlotteville etc. Co. (5 S. 

C. 156) 165 
Bank v. Daudridge, (12 Wlieat. 64) 

108 
Bank ». Davis, (1 McCarter Ch.- N. 

J., 286) 33 
Bank v. Dibrell, (3 Sneed, 379) 80 
Bank v. Franklin Co., (65 Mo. 105) 

179 
Bank v. Farmington, (41 K. H. 32) 

179 
Bank v. Gottschalk, (14 Pet. 19) 167 
Bank v. Grenada, (48 F. 278) 192 
Bank v. JLockwood, (2 Harring., Del. 

8)42 
Bank v. Meredith, (44 Mo. 500) 397 
Bank v. Patterson, (7 Cranch, 299) 

164, 165 
Bank v. Petway,- (3 Humph., Tenn. 

522) 81 
Bank v. Poitiaux, (3 Rand., Va. 136) 

207 
Bank v. Kew Orleans, (12 La. An. 

421) 326 a 
Bank v. Niagara, (6 Cow. 196) 380 
Bank v. Nilcs, (1 Doug. Mich., 401) 

207 
Bank v. Seton, (1 Peters, 299) 98 
Bank v. Statesville, (84 N. C. 169) 
170, 190 a 



Bank v. Supervisors, (5 Denio, 517) 

115 
See Bank v. Wilkes-Barre, (24 Atl. 

11, Pa. 92) 272 
Bank etc. v. Railroad Co., (30 Vt. 

159) 51 
Bank etc. v. St. Joseph, (31 Fed. 

Rep. 216) 195 d 
Bankhead v. Brown, (25 Iowa, 540) 

234 a, 235 
Bank of Chenango v. Brown, (26 N. 

T. 467) 161 
Bank of Chillicothe ». Mayor, (7 Ohio, 

pt. 2, 31) 110, 182 
Bank of Columbia v. Patterson, (7 

Cranch, 299) 51 
Bank of Commerce v. Grenada, (44 

Fed. Rep. 262) 196 
Bank of Commerce v. New York 

City, (2 Black, 620) 258 
Bank of Commonwealtli v. New 

York, (43 N. Y. 184) 326 a 
Bank of Ga. v. Savannali, (Dudley, 

130) 273 
Bank of Ind. v. Madison, (3 Ind. 43) 

273 
Bank of Ireland u. Evans, (32 Eng. 

Law & Eq. 23) 51 
Bank of La. v. City of N. O., (5 Am. 

Law Reg. N. S. 555) 191 
Bank of Middlesex v. Rutland R. Co., 

(30 Vt. 159) 51 
Bank of Rome v. Village of Rome, 

(19 N. Y. 24) 191 
Bank of Rome v. Rome, (18 N. Y. 38) 

24 
Bannagan v. District, (2 Mackey 285) 

355 
Banton v. Wilson, (4 Tex. 400) 371 
Barben v. Pol. Jury, (15 La. An. 559) 

314 
Barber Surgeons v. Pelson, (2 Lev. 

252) 158 
Barber v. Jackson Co., (40 111. App. 

42) 326 a 
Barber v. Roxbury, (U Allen, 318) 

340, 342 a 
Barber v. Sag. City, (34 Mich. 52) 87 
Barbierc. Connelly, (118 U. S. 27) 121 
Barbour v. Camden, (51 Me. 608) 139 
Barbour b. Ellsworth, (67 Me. 294) 

332 
Barbour Co. v. Horn, (48 Ala. 566) 

.352 a 
Barbour Co. v. Brinson, (36 Ala. 362) 

325 
Barbour Co. v. Horn, (48 Ala. 566) 325 
Barclay v. Brabston, (49 N. J. L. 629) 

399 
Barclay v. Howell's Lessee, (6 Pet. 
498) 217, 218, 219, 220, 221 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



XXV 



References are to Sections. 



Bardwell v. Jamaica, (15 Vt. 438) 313 
Barker v. Peo., (3 Cow. 686) 83 
Barker v. Savage, (45 N. Y. 19) 346 
Barker v. State, (18 Ohio, 514) 56, 

270, 276 
Barker v. Worcester, (139 Mass. 74) 

340 
■Barkley v. Levee Com'rs, (93 U. S. 

258) 42, 67, 81 
Barlow v. Newman, (2 W. Bl. 959) 131 
Barnard v. District, (20 Ct. of 01. 257) 

171 
Barnert v. Paterson, (48 N. J. L. 395) 

99 
Barnes v. Bakersfield, (57 Vt. 375) 79 
Barnes v. Barnes, (5 Vt. 388) 31 
Barnes v. Oliicopee, (138 Mass. 67) 

343 
Barnura v. Concord, (2 N. H. 392) 340 
Barnes 1). District, (91 U. S. 551) 324, 

328,336 a, 339, 345, 349 
Barnes v. Dyer, (56 Vt. 469) 259 a 
Barnes v. lull's, (138 Mass. 67) 343 
Barnes v. Lacon, (84 111. 461) 195 d' 
Barnes v. Newton, (46 Iowa, 567) 346 
Barnes v. Suddard, (117 111. 237) 207 
Barnes v. Phila., (3 Phila. 409) 92 
Barnes v. Ward, (9 C. B. 392) 348 
Barnes v. Williams, (13 S. W. R. 845) 

79 
Barnett v. Johnson, (15 N. J. Eq. 

481) 303 
Barnett v. Mayor, (48 N. Y. 395) 176 
Barnett v. New Orleans, (13 La. An. 

105) 200 
Barney v. Baltimore, (1 Hughes C. C. 

118) 133, 225 
Barney v. Dewey, (12 Johns. 225) 348 
Barney v. Lowell, (98 Mass. 570) 92, 

338, 338 a 
Barling v. West, (29 Wis. 307; 9 Am. 

Hep. 576) 124, 146 
Bartch v. Cutler (Utah, 1890, 24 

Pac. Rep. 526) 79 
Barthol v. Meader, (72 Iowa, 125) 186 
Bartons. Syracuse, (36 N. Y. 54) 3506, 

355 
Barton v. Union Cattle Co., (44 N. W. 

R. 454) 396 
Bartram v. Cen. C. Co., (25 Cal. 283) 

320 
Barr v. Denisten, (19 N. H. 170, 180) 

397 
Barr » City, (Ifi S. W. R. 483, Kan. 

91)3506 
Barr v. Oscaloosa, (45 Iowa, 275) 311 
Bjirre v. Greenwich, (1 Pick. 120) 69 
Barret v. Henderson, (4 Bush, 255) 

2(57, 268 
Barrett v. New Orleans, (33 La. An. 
542) 362 



Ban-ett v. New Oris., (38 La. An. 101) 

79 
Barrett v. County Court, (44 Mo. 197) 

191 
Barrett v. Seward, (22 Vt. 176) 69 
Barron v. Baltimore, (2 Am. Jour. 

103) 355 
Barron v. Detroit, (94 Mich. 601) 324, 

328 
Barrow B. Nashville & C. Turnp. Co., 

(9 Humph. 304) 207 
Barrow v. Wilson, (39 La. An. 403) 

211 
Barry v. St. Louis, (17 Mo. 121 
Barry v. Lo.well, (8 Allen, 127) 328, 

355 
Bartemeyer ». Iowa, (18 Wall. 129) 

121 
Barter v. Com., (3 Pa., P. & W. 253) 

104, 117, 156, 339 
Barteson v. Minneapolis, (33 Minn. 

468) 241 
Bartle v. Des Moines, (38 Iowa, 414) 

189 a 
Bartlet v. State, (13 Kan. 99) 278 
Bartlett v. Kittery, (68 Me. 357) 352 
Bartlett v. U. S. (25 Ct. CI. 389) 79 
Bartlett v. Hooksett, (48 N. H. 18) 

342 
Bartlett v. Amherstbergh, (14 W. C. 

Q. 152) 164 
Basto V. Himrod, (8 N. T. 483) 24 
Barton ti. Gadsden, (79 Ala. 495) 161 
Barton v. Montpelier, (30 Vt. 650) 

344, 346 
Barton v. New Orleans, (16 La. An. 

317) 118, 79 
Barton v. Sch. Dist. (Idaho 92, 29 
.iPac. R. 43) 32 

Barton v. Syracuse, (36 N. Y. 54) 349 
Bass V. Columbus, (30 Ga. 845) 187 a 
Bass V. Fontleroy, (U Tex. 698) 11, 

12, 13 
Bass B. Fort Wayne, (121 Ind. 389; 

23 N. E. R. 259) 282, 3.54 
Bass etc. Co. v. Parks Co., (115 Ind. 

234) 169 
Bassett v. Fish, (73 N. Y. 310) 338 
Bassett v. Den, (17 N. J. L. 432) 73 
Bassett v. Porter, (4 Cush. 487) 31 
Bassett v. St. Joseph, (53 Mo. 290) 

346 
Bassford, In re, (50 N. Y. 509) 148 
Bastable v. Syracuse, (72 N. Y. 64) 

355 
Bateman v. Ashton, (3 H. & N. 322) 

163, 169 
Bateman v. Covington, (Ky. 91, 74 

S. W. B. 361) 169 
Bateman v. McGowan, (1 Met., Ky 

533) 105 



XXVI 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

Befereuces are to Sections. 



83; 



Bates Co. ». Winters, (97 U. S, 

s. c, 112 U. S. 325) 186, 195 d 
Bates V. Bassett, (60 Vt. 530) 210 
Bates ». Gerber, (82 Cal., 22 Pac. E. 

1115) 192 
Bates V. Mobile, (46 Ala. 158) 272 
Bates V. Plymouth, (14 Gray, 163) 

363, 373 
Bates D. Porter, (15 Pac. Rep. 732) 

178, 194 
Bates j;. Rutland, (62 Vt. 178; 20 Atl. 

278) 92 
Bates V. Westborougli, Mass. 90, (23 

N. E. R. 1070) 355 
Bath Co. 0. Amy, (13 Wall. 244) 184 
Barthold c. Philadelphia, (26 Atl. E. 

304; 154 Pa. St. 109) 324, 328, 

336 a 
Baton Rouge v. Bearing, (15 La. An. 

208) 102 
Battersby v. New York, (7 Daly, 16) 

344 
Battle V. Mobile, (9 Ala. 234) (1846) 

255, 264 
Battles V. Landenslager, 84 Pa. St. 

446) 195 b 
Batty V. Duxbery, (24 Vt. 155) 313 
Baugan v. Mann, (59 111. 492) 218 
Bauman v. Campan, (58 Mich. 444) 

327 
Baumgard v. New Orleans, (9 La. An. 

119) 338 
Baumgartner v. Hasty, (100 Ind. 575) 

23, 130 
Baxter v. Com., (3 Pa., Pen. & W. 

253) 155 
Baxter v. Providence, (12 R. I. 310) 

354 a 
Baxter v. Seattle, (3 Wash. St. 3qg) 

146 
Baxter v. Winooski, (22 Vt. 123) 325 
Bayer B. Franklin Co., (51 Mo. 205) 

177 
Bayerque v. San Fraacisco, (1 McAll. 

175) 135 
Bayha v. Webster Co., (18 Neb. 131) 

79 
Bavha v. Taylor, (36 Mo. App. 427) 

294 
Bayley v. Taber, (5 Mass. 285) 190 a 

192 6 
Bayly v. Mayor, (3 Hill, 538) 325 
Bayliss v. Peterson, (15 Iowa, 279) 

167 
Bea B. Seeman, (W. Va. 92, 15 S. E. 

R. 173,) 399 
Beach v. Elmira, (58 Hun, 606) 326 a 

355 
Beach v. Frankeuberger, (4 W. Va. 

712) 348 
Beach ». Haynes, (12 Vt. 15) 208 



Beach v. Parmenter, (28 Pa. St. 196) 

321 
Beachy v. Lamkin, (1 Idaho, 48) 368 

370 
Beaufort v. Duncan, (1 Jones, N. C. 

Law, 234) 200, 211 
Beaumont b. Wilkes-Barre, (Pa. 90) 

(21 Atl. 888) 259 a 
Beal V. McVicker, (8 Mo. App. 202) 

80 
Beals ». Providence Rubber Co., (11 

R. L 381) 270 
Beals V. Evans, (10 Cal. 459) 179 
Bean v. Jay, (23 Me. 117) 95, 142 
Bean v. AUentown, (Pa. 90, 23 Atl. 

R. 1062) 324, 328 
Beard v. Decatur, (64 Tex. 7) 79 
Beardsley v. Hartford, (50 Conn. 529) 

343 
Beardsley v. Smith, (16 Conn. 375) 

212, 315, 375 
Beardsleec. French, (7 Conn. 125) 312 
Beasley v. Beckley, (28 W. Va. 81) 

399 
Beatty v. Gilmore, (16 Pa. St. 463) 

347, 352 
Beatty v. Knowles, (4 Pet., U. S. 

152, 157) 30, 31, 256 
Beatty v. Titus. (47 N. J. L. 89) 314 
Beaver v. Manchester L. J., (26 Q. B. 

311) 313 
Beaver County v. Armstrong, (6 

Wright 63) 192 b 
Beaver County v. Armstrong, (44 Pa. 

St. 63) 190 
Beaver Creek v. Hastings, (32 Mich. 

528) 95, 97 
Beaver Dam v. Frings, (17 Wis. 398) 

200 
Bechtel v. Carslake, (3 Stockton Ch. 

500) 396 
Bechtel B. Village of Edgewater, (45 

Hun, N. Y. 245) 54 
Beck ». Carter, (68 N. Y. 283) 338, 34S 
Becker v. St. Charles, (37 Mo. 13) 223 
Becker ». Washington, (7 S. W. R. 

291, Mo. 88) 148 
Becket v. Midi. By. Co., (L. R. 3 C. 

P. 82) 330 
Beckett v. Midland R. Co., (1 L. R. 

C. P. C. 241 ; on appeal, 3 C. P. C. 82) 

231 
Beckman v. Railroad Company, (3 

Paige 45 ; 22 An. Dec. 679) 232 
Beckwell v. Amador Co., (30 Cal. 237) 

79 
Beckwith v. Racine, (7 Biss. 142) 81 
Bedford v. Taunton, (9 Allen, 207) 

92 
Bedford etc. v. Anderson, (45 Pa. St, 

388) 359 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



xxvu 



References are to Sections. 



Bedford Union Poor Guard v. Bed- 

ford Impr. Commissioners, (7 

Exoh. 777) 259 a 
Bedlo-w V. M. Y. Floating D. D. Co., 

(112 N. Y. 63) 132 
Beebe v. Robinson, (52 Ala. 67) 67, 

362 
Beebe v. State, (26 Ind. 301) 121 
Beecher v. Cheshire, (125 Mass. 555) 

195 
Beecher v. Derby etc. Co., (24 Conn. 

491) 352 a 
Beecher v. People, (38 Mich. 289) 

287 
Beekraan, In re, (31 How. Pr. 16) 99 
Beekman v. Saratoga & Schenectady 

R. R. Co., (3 Paige, 73, 22 Am. 

Dec. G79) 233, 247 
Beers v. Arkansas, (20 How. U. S. 

527) 5 
Beers v. Beers, (4 Conn. 535) 105, 245 
Beers v. Houghton, (9 Pet. 329) 194 
Beers v. Pinney, (12 Wend. 309) 348 
Bees man v. Peoria, (16 111. 484) 102 
Begein v. Anderson, (28 Ind. 79) 62, 

118 
Belcher v. Farrar, (8 Allen, 325) 118 
Belchers S. R. Co. v. St. Louis Grain 

Elev., (13 S. W. R. 822, Mo. '90) 

133, 210 
Belfast etc. Co. v. Brooks, (60 Me. 

568) 189 
Belknap v. Rheinhart, (2 Wend. 375) 

169 
Bell V. Americus, (3 S. E. R. 612) 190 
Bell V. Burlington, (68 Iowa, 296) 223 
Bell V. City of York, (31 Neb. 842) 

344 
Bell V. Foutch, (21 Iowa, 119) 288, 

■iV> 
Bell V. Gouge, (23 N. J. L. 624) 200 
Bell & Manvers, (2 U. C. C. P. 507) 

115 
Bell V. McClintock, (9 Watts, 119) 353 
Bell V. Pierce, (51 N. Y. 12) 272 
Bell V. Platteville, (71 Wis. 139) 108, 

210 
Bell V. Prouty, (43 Vt. 279) 234 a 
Bell V. Sun Printing Co., (42 N". Y. 566) 

48 
Bell V. West Point, (51 Miss. 262) 349 
Bellaire Gob. Co. v. Findlay, (5 Ohio 

Cir. Ct. 418) 86, 166 
Bellamy ». Atlanta, (75 Ga. 167) 350 a 
Bell County v. Alexander, (22 Tex. 

350) 203, 204 
Bellefontaine Ry. Co. o. Himter, (33 

Ind. 335) 352 
Belleville v. Stookev, (23 111. 44) 215 
Belleville S. Bk. v. Winslow, (30 Fed. 

Rep. 488) 180 



Bellinger v. N". Y. Central R. R. Co., 

(23 N. Y. 42) 239 
Bellmyer v. Marshalltown, (44 Iowa, 

564) 165 
Bellows v. Bank etc., (2 Mason C. C. 

43)43 
Bell Point v. Pence, (17 S. W. R. 197) 

254 
Belo V. Forsythe Co., (76 N. C. 489) 

196 
Belt Line S. R. Co. v. Crabtree, (2 

Tex. Ap. C. C, § 662) 330 
Bend v. Kenosha, (17 Wis. 284) 397 
Benbow v. Iowa City, (7 Wall. 313) 

368 
Bender v. Dungan, (99 Mo. 126) 282. 
Bender v. Nashua, (17 N. H. 477) 239 
Benedict v. Denton, (Walk. Ch. 336) 

52 
Benedicts. Goit, (3 Barb. 459) 286, 

329 
Benjamin v. Wheeler, (8 Gray, 409, 

412) 330 
Beuoist V. St. Louis, (19 Mo. 179) 56 
Benoit d. Conway, (10 Allen, 528) 114 
BenoitD. Wayne Co., (20 Mich. 176)85 
Bennett v. Berminghain, (31 Pa. St. 

15) 124, 260, 272, 300 
Bennett ». Buffalo, (17 N. Y. 383)283, 

326 a 
Bennett v. Fifield, (13 R. I. 139) 342 
Bennett v. Fisher, (26 Iowa, 497) 250 
Bennett v. Lovell, (12 R. I. 160) 342 
Bennett v. McCaffrey, (28 Mo. App. 

220) 373 
Bennett v. New Orleans, (14 La. An. 

120) 92, 314, 338 a 
Bennett v. People, (30 111. 389) 124 
Bennington v. Park, (50 Vt. 178) 196 
Bennington K. Smitli, (29 Vt. 254)288 
Bensinger v. District, (0 Mackey, 285) 

279 
Benson v. Carmel, (8 Me. 110) 177 
Benson v. Mayor, (10 Barb. 223) 134 
Benson v. Mayor, (24 Barb. 248) 184 
Benson v. Monroe, (7 Cush. 125) 326, 

327 
Benson v. Waukesha, (41 N. W. R. 

1017) 328, 342 
Bentley v. County, (25 Minn. 259) 

164, 281 
Bentley v. Phelps, (27 Barb. 524) 78, 

79, 85 
Benton v. City Hospital, (140 Mass. 

13) 324, 332 
Benton v. Hamilton, (11 N. E. R. 238, 

110 Ind. 294) 328 
Benton v. Jackson, (2 Johns. Ch. 

325) 25 
Benton v. Milwaukee, 50 Wis. 368) 

265 



XXVlll 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

References ai'e to Sections. 



Bentz V. Armstrong, (8 Watts & S. 

40) 355 
Benwaie v. Pine Valley, (53 Wis. 

52Y)3506 
Bereldin v. Baltimore, (15 Md. 18) 

278 
Bergen v. Clarkson, (1 Halst, 352) 97 
Bergen v. State, (32 N. J. L. 490) 161 
Bergman v. Cleveland, (40 Ohio St. 

651) 125 
Bergman v. St. Louis etc. Co., (Mo. 

90, 1 S. W. 384) 146 
Berks Co. etc. o. Myers, (6 Serg. & 

Rawle, 12) 49, 50 
Berlin v. Gorhara, (84 N. H. 266) 2, 
• 24 
Berlin B. Co. v. Wagner, (57 Hun, 

346) 15 
Berliner v. Waterloo, (14 Wis. 378) 

216 
Berraingham v. Rumsey, (63 Ala. 

352) 130 
Bernarrtin v. No. Dnfferrin, (19 Can. 

S. C. E. 581) 51, 165 
Bernards v. Morrison, (133 U. S. 523) 

196 
Bernards v. Stebbins, (109 U. S. 341) 

192 () 
Bernlieimer v. Kilpatrick, (53 Hun, 

316) 131 
Bertholf v. O'Reilly, (74 N. Y. 509) 

121 
Berryraan v. Pt. Bur well Co., (24 U. 

C. Q. B. 34) 121 
Bethura v. Turner, (1 Me. Ill) 225 
Betts V. District, (20 Ct. of CI. 445) 

171 
Betts V. Warren, (5 Harr. 4) 397 
Betts V. Williamsburg, (18 Pa. St. 26) 

248 
Bever v. North, (107 Ind. 544) 348 
Beveridge v. Livingstone, (54 Cal. 54) 

174 
Beverly c. Barlow, (10 U. C. C. P. 

178) 49 
Bibb Co. V. Dorsey, (Ga. 93, 15 S. E. 

R. 687) 325 
Bibb Co. Ct. V. Orr, (12 Ga. 137) 180 
Bibel V. People, (67 111. 175) 113 
Biddle ». Hussman, (23 Mo. 597) 244 
Biddle o. Willard, (10 Ind. 63) 82 
Bieling r. Brooklyn, (24 N. E. R. 

389, 120 X. T. 98) 345 
Biencourt v. Parker, (27 Tex. 558) 86 
Bier v. Garrell, (30 W. Va. 95) 79 
Bigelow V. Hillman, (37 Me. 58) 98, 

101 
Bigelow 15. P. Amboy, (1 Dutch. 297) 

108, 291 
Bigelow V. Randolph, (17 Gray, 541) 

3300,338 



Bigelow V. Weston, (3 Pick. 267) 

342 
Bigelow V. West Wis. Ry. Co., (27 

Wis. 478) 245 
Bigg V. London, (L. R. 15 Eq. 376) 

330 
Biggs V. Board of Com'rs, (Ind. 93, 

34 K. E. R. 500) 326 
Biggs V. McBride, (17 Or. 640) 361 
Big Rapids v. Comstock, (65 Mich. 

78, s. c, 31 N. W. Rep. 811) 312 
Bilbie v. Lumley, (2 East, 469) 327 
Billard v. Erhart, (35 Kau. 611) 120, 

396 
Billings V. Mayor, (68 N. Y. 413) 79 
Billings 1). O'Brien, (45 How. Pr. 392) 

80 
Bills V. Goshen, (117 Ind. 221) 150 
Bingham v. Stewart, (13 Minu. 106) 

167 
Binghamptonc. Ry. Co., Cf., (61 Hun, 

479) 14, 306 
Binks V. Yorkshire etc. Co., (3 B. & 

S. 244) 348 
Binssee v. Wood, (37 N. Y. 530) 348 
Bircklev v. Boston, (20 Fed. Rep. 207) 

212 
Bird V. Wasco, (3 Or. 282) 79 
Birdsall v. Clark, (73 N. Y. 73) 113 
Birdsall v. Russell, (29 N. Y. 220) 

192 6, 195 b 
Birmingham v. Anderson, (40 Pa. St. 

506) 219 
Birmingham v. Klein, (89 Ala. 461) 

259 a 
Birmingham v. R. R. Co., (Ala. 93, 

13 So. 841) 150, 300. 
Birmingham v. Rumsey, (63 Ala. 352) 

212 
Birmingham <fe P. M. St. Ry. v. Bir- 
mingham St. Ry. Co., (79 Ala. 465) 

144 
Birmingham etc. Co. v. Birm. Co., 

(79 Ala. 465) 302 
Bishop V. Banks, (33 Conn. 121) 120 
Bishop B. Cone, (3 N. H. 513) 106 
Bishop V. Macon, (7 Ga. 200) 335 
Bishop V. Centralia, (49 Wis. 

346, 353 

Bishop V. Moormap, (98 Ind. 1) 391 
Bishop V. Schuylkill, (8 Atl. Rep. 

449) 330 a 
Bishop's Residence v. Hudson, (9 

Mo. 07, 4 S. W. R. 435) 270 
Bissell V. Collins, (28 Mich. 277) 293 
Bissell B. Jett'ersonville, (27 How. 

287) 17, 108, 287 
Bissell V. Kankakee, (64 111. 249) 188 
Bissell V. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 

(23 N. Y. 61) 224 
Bissell I). R. R., (22 N. Y. 268) 104 



TABLE or CASES CITED. 



XXIX 



References are to Sections. 



Bishero. Richard, (9 Ohio S^, 495) 

313 
Bissell V. Saxton, (77 N. Y. 191) 72 
Bixby V. Gass, (54 Mich. 551) 898 
Black V. Baltimore, (50 Md. 236) 242 
Black V. Boyd, (155 Pa. St. 163) 397 
Black I). Cohen, (32 Ga. 021) 187 a, 196 
Black V. O'Haia, (5 Atl. Rep. 598) 312 
Black 1). Phila. etc. Co., (58 Pa. St. 

249) 302 
Black V. Seal, (6 Houst. 541) 258 
Black V. Sherwood, (6 S. E. R. 484) 

271 
Black V. Thomson, (107 U. S. 162) 

338 a 
Black 1). Ross, (37 Mo. App. 250) 393 
Blackburn v. Walpole, (10 Pick. 543) 

95 
Blackman r. Halves, (72 Ind. 515) 

234 a 
Blackman v. Houston, (2 So. 193) 271 
Blackman v. Lehman, (03 Ala. 519) 

183, 191 
Blackmar v. Royal I. Co., (17 N. E. 

R. 580) 261 
Blackstone v. Taf t, (4 Gray, 250) 59 
Blackstone v. White, (41 Pa. St. 330) 

31 
Blackwell v. Same, (38 Up. Can. Q. 

B. 172) 352 
Bladen v. Phila., (60 Pa. St. 464) 79 
Blair v. Cumrig, (111 U. S. 373) 184 

188 
Blair o. Forehand, (100 Mass. 136) 129 
Blair c. Pelham, (118 Mass. 420) 3505 
Blaisdell v. Portland, (39 Me. 113) 

343 
Blake v. Ferris, (5 N. Y. 48) 347 
Blake ». Lowell, (143 Mass. 296) 3506 
Blake v. Midland Ry. Co., (18 Q. B. 

93) 353 
Blake v. Newfield, (68 Me. 365) 343 
Blake v. Portsmouth, (39 N. H. 435) 

111 
Blake v. Rich, (34 N. H. 282) 238 
Blake ». Sturtevant, (12 N. H. 567) 88 
Blake v. U. S., (103 U. S. 227) 83 
Blake c. Walker, (23 S. C. 517) 110 
Blakely u. Devine, (36 Minn. 53) 355 
Blakeiey v. Troy, (18 Hun, 167) 344 
Blakie ». Staples, (13 Grant, 67) 393 
Blanc V. Murray, (36 La. An. 162) 120 
Blanc 1). New Orleans, (1 Martin, La. 

O. S. 65) 268 
Blanchard: ». Bissell, (11 Ohio St. 96) 

53, 56, 145, 331 
Blanchard v. Blackstone, (102 Mass. 

343) 167 
Blanchard ». Kansas City, (16 Fed. 

Rep. 444) 330 
Blanding v. Burr, (13 Cal. 843) 258 



Blanton v. McDowell Co., (101 N. C. 

532) 197 
Bleecker v. Ballou, (3 Wend. 263) 270 
Blessington v. Boston, (26 N. E. R. 

1113) 350 
Bleu V. Bear Riv. etc. Co., (81 Am. 

Dec. 1.32) 170 
Bliss V. Ball, (99 Mass. 597) 224 
Bliss B. Brooklyn, (4 Fisher Pat. Cases 

596) 338 
Bliss J). Hosmer, (15 Ohio, 44) 238 
Bliss V. Kraus, (16 Ohio St. 155) 118 
Bliss B. Lawrence, (58 N. Y. 442) 8J 
Bliss V. So. Hadley, (145 Mass. 91) 

340 
Black D. Jacksonville, (36 111. 301) 148 
Blodgett V. Boston, (8 Allen, 237) 23 j, 

340 
Blodgett V. Royalton, (17 Vt. 40) 223 
Bloodgood ». Mohawk & H. R. R. R. 

Co., (18 Wend. 9) 236, 247 
Bloomfield v. Char. O. Bk., (121 V. 

S. 121) 4, 93, 375 
Bloomfield v. Trimble, (54 Iowa, 399) 

134 
Bloomfield etc. Co. v. Calkins, (62 N. 

Y. 386) 287, 295, 302, 306 
Bloomington v. Bay, (42 111. 503) 325 

377 
Bloomington B. Blodgett, (24111. App. 

650) 397 
Bloomington v. Brokaw, (77 111. 194) 

354 a 
Bloomington b. Chamberlain, (104 

111.268)3506 
Bloomington ». Perdue, (99 111. 329) 

189 a 
Bloomington b. Pollock, (31 N. E. R. 

146) 330 
Bloomington v. Richardson, (38 111. 

60) 134 
Bloomington Assn. v. People, (28 K. 

E. R. 1076) 270, 271 
Bloomsburg S. & E. L. Co. v. Gard- 
ner, (17 Atl. R. 521) 352 
Blount 1). Janes ville, (31 Wis. 640) 113 
Blucher v. Milsted, (31 Tex. 621) 66 
BlufEton V. Mathews, (92 Ind. 213) 351 
Blufftonc. Studabaker, (106 Ind. 129) 

130 
Blurab V. City of Kansas, (84 Mo. 112) 

347 
Blunt V. Hay, (4 Sandf. Ch. 363) 120 
Bluffton B. Silver, (63 Ind. 262) 401. 
Bly !). Whitehall, (24 N. E. R. 943) 

346, 352 
Blythe v. Birmingham, (11 Exch. 

781) 353 
Board, In re, (48 Fed. R. 350) 40 
Board v. Bacon, (96 Ind. 31) 353 
Board v. Barnett, (107 111. 507) 287 



XXX 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



References are to Sections. 



Board v. Bish, (Col. 93, 33 Pac. 184) 

325 
Board v. Bolton, 104 111. 220, 189 a 
Board v. Brown, (89 Ind. 48, 52) 313 
Board v. Citizens etc. Co., (47 Ind. 

40Y) 169 
Board v. Chipps, (Ind. 92, 29 N. E. R. 

1002) 353 
Board v. Com'rs, (107 N. C. 110) 12 
Board v. Creirston, (32 N. E. li. 735) 

317 
Board v. Currituck Co., (107 N. C. 

110) 256 
Board v. Davies, (24 Pac. R. 540) 23 
Board v. Davises, (1 Wash. St. 290) 2 
Board v. Dav, (19 Ind. 450) 182 
Board v. Deprez, (87 Ind. 509) 353 
Board c. Dombke, (94 Ind. 72) 350 6, 

353 6 
Board v. Fuller, (111 Ind. 410) 338 a 
Board v. Fulton, (111 N. Y. 410) 282 
Board v. Gantt, (Md. 9, 21 Atl. E. 

548) 359 
Board v. Heister, (37 N. Y. 672) 18, 

301 
Board v. Johnson, (Miss. 90, 7 So. 

390) 282 
Board v. Johnson, (Ind. 91, 26 K. E. 

R. 821) 79 
Board v. Legg, (110 Ind. 479) 353 
Board v. Levee Com'rs, (66 Miss. 

248) 244 
Board v. Mitchelltown, (Ind. 92, 30 

N. E. E. 937) 315 
Board v. McGurrin, (6 Daly, 349) 87, 

126 
Board v. IST. Y. H. M. Co., (15 Atl. R. 

1098) 396 
Board v. Pearson, (120 Ind. 426) 353 
Board v. R. & V. Grav. Road Co., (87 

Ind. 502) 313 
Board v. School District, (Ark. 90, 19 

S. W. E. 969) 270, 271 
Board v. Sisson, (2 Ind. App. 311) 

353 
Board ». State, (61 Ind. 379) 374 
Board v. Thompson, (106 Ind. 534) 

316 
Board v. Wilgus, (22 Pac. R. 615) 215 
Board v. Wis. etc. Co., (45 Wis. 543) 

186 
Board v. Washington Tp., (23 N. E. 

Rep. 257) 315, 353 
Board of Aid. of Denver v. Darrow, 

(22 Pac. Rep. 784) 398 
Board of Com'rs v. Beirly, (23 IST. E. 

R. 672, 122 Ind. 46) 314 
Board of Com'rs v. Bank, (30 Pac. 

22) 282 
Board of Com'rs v. Brod., (29 N. E. 

E. 430) 353 



Board of Com'rs v. Shielde, (62 Mo. 

247) 26 
Board of Com'rs v. Templeton, (51 

Ind. 266) 397 
Board of Education v. Fonda, (77 N. 

Y. 350) 72 
^oard of Education of Barlor Dist. 

V. Board etc. of Valley Dist., (30 

W. Va. 424) 59, 60, 67, 531 
Board of Health of Buena Vista v. 

East Saginaw, (45 Mich. 257) 59 
Board of Trade Tel. Co. v. Barnett, 

(107 111. 507) 297, 330 
Board of Trustees v. Schroeder, (58 

111. 353) 154 
Board etc. v. Sti-ader, (18 N. J. L. 

108) 313 
Board etc. ». ^^eidenberge^, (78 111. 

58) 212 
Board etc. of Chickasaw Co. v. Board 

etc. of Sumner Co., (58 Miss. 619) 

55 
Bock V. State, (50 Ind. 281) 320 
Bodine v. Trenton, (36 N. J. L. 198) 

113 
Bodman v. American Tract Society, 

(9 Allen, 447) 49 
Boduri v. Fennell, (1 Wils. 233) 157 
Bodwic 0. Fennell, (1 Wils. 233) 156 
Boehm v. Baltimore, (61 Md. 259) 

118, 338 o 
Bogart V. Lamotte, (44 N. W. R. 612) 

189 
Bogert V. Indianapolis, (13 Ind. 134) 

118 
Bogert V. Elizabeth, (27 N. J. Eq. 

568) 259 a 
Bohan v. Avoca, (154 Pa. St. 404) 324 
Bohan v. Pt. Jervis G. L. Co., (25 N. 

E. R. 246) 120 
Bohen v. Waseca, (32 Minn. 176) 345 
Bohlman v. Green Bay & L. P. R. R. 

Co., (30 Wis. 105) 247 
Boland v. City, (32 Mo. App. 8) 352 
Bolles V. Brimaeld, (120 U. S. 759) 

17, 187 a, 216 
Bolter V. Kew Orleans, (10 La. An. 

321) 156 
Bolton V. Board, (1 Bradw. 193) 196 
Bolton V. San Antonio, (21 S. W. R. 

64,) 395 
Bolton K. Colder, (1 Watts, 360) 321 
Bond V. Wool, (107 N. C. 139) 396 
Bond V. Newark, (19 X. J. Eq. 376) 

281 
Bonham v. Xeedles, (103 U. S. 648) 

196 
Bonham v. Taylor, (16 S. W. E. 555) 

13, 200 
Bonine v. Richmond, (76 Mo. 437) 

350a 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



XXXI 



References are to Sections. 



Bonner 5. City of New Orleans, (2 

Woods 0. C. 135) 191 b, 192 
Bonner v. State, (7 Ga. 473) 361, 371 
Bonomi v. Backhouse, (9 H. L. 0. 

513) 329 
Book V. Earl, (87 Mo. 246) 189 a 
Booker v. Young, (12 Gratt. 303) 100 
Boom V. Utica, (U Barb. 104) 119, 169 
Booraem v. North Hudson County 

Ey. Co., (39 N. J. Eq. 465) 223 
Boorman v. Santa Barbara, (65 Cal. 

313) 279 
Booth D. Woodbury, (32 Conn. 118) 

139 
Booth V. Shreveport, (29 La. An. 581) 

165 
Booth V. State, (4 Conn. 65) 130 
Boothroyd, In re, (15 M. & W. 1) 154, 

156 
Bordages v. Higgins, (20 S. W. K. 

726) 270, 282, 283 
Bordentown etc. v. Camden etc., (2 

Harr. 314) 301 
Boring v. Williams, (17 Ala. 510) 104 
Borough of Norristown Ry. Co., (23 

Atl. R. 1060) 306 
Borough of West Philadelphia, (5 W. 

& S. 281) 56 
Borough of Little Meadows, (28 Pa. 

St. 256) 56 
Borough of Blooming Valley, (56 

Pa. 66) 56 
Borrowman v. Mitchell, (2 Up. Can. 

Q. B. 135) 224 
Boston I). Baldwin, (139 Mass. 315) 

103 
Boston V. Crowley, (38 Fed. 202) 314, 

353 
Boston V. liecraw, (17 How. 426) 218 
Boston V. Middlesex etc. Co., (1 Al- 
len, 324) 354 
Boston I). Bobbins, (126 Mass. 384) 243 
Boston V. Shaw, (1 Met. 130) 330 
Boston V. Simmons, (150 Mass. 461) 

92 
Boston !). Richardson, (13 Allen, 160) 

2l'4, 295, 302 
Boston V. Worthington, (10 Gray, 

496) 348 
Boston V. No. Staf. E. Co., (5 De G. 

& S. 584) 120 
Boston & S. Glass Co. b. Boston, (4 
. Met. 181) 326 a 
Boston Beer Co. 11. Massachusetts, 

(97 U. S. 25) 121 
Boston Belting Co. v. Boston, (149 

Mass. 44) 355 
Boston. C. & M. R. R. Co. v. Gilraore, 

(37 N. H. 410) 273 
Boston etc. v. Boston R. R., (23 Pick. 
360) 314 



Boston etc. Co. v. Folsom, (46 N. H. 

64) 279 
Boston etc. v. Boston, (140 Mass. 87) 

290 
Boston etc. Co. v Cambridge, (34 N. 

E. R. 382) 317 
Boston Glass Manuf. v. Langdon, 

(24 Pick. 49) 37 
Boston I. Co. V. Pomfret, (20 Conn. 

590) 106 
Boston Seamen's Fr. Soc. v. Boston, 

(116 Mass. 181) 144, 248, 259 a 
Boston Soc. of Red. Fathers v. Bos- 
ton, (129 Maas. 178) 270 
Boston Mill Dam v. Newman, (12 

Pick. 467) 233, 235 
Boston Mfg. "Co. v. Com., (12 N. E. 

E. 362, 144 Mass. 598) 258, 326 
Boston Overseers of the Poor o. 

Sears, (22 Pick. 122) 205 
Boston Roll. Mills i\ Cambridge, 

(117 Mass. 396) 120, 121 
Boston Water Power Co. v. Boston 

& W. R. R. Co., (23 Pick. 360) 238 

302 
Boss V. Hewitt, (15 Wis. 260) 191, 

195 d 
Boss V. Hewett, (20 Wis. 460) 183 
Bosworth V. Budgen, (7 Mod. 461) 

101 
Bosworth V. New Orl., (26 La. 464) 

79, 101 
Bosworth V. Swansey, (10 Metcf. 363) 

352 
Bott V. Pratt, (33 Minn. 323) 152 
Boucher v. Haven, (40 Conn. 456) 

3506 
Boughman v. Clarksburgh, (10 W. 

Va. 394) 396 
Boughton J). Carter, (18 Johns. 405) 

238 
Boulder v. Niles, (9 Colo. 415) 339, 

349 
Bouldin v. Baltimore, (15 Md. 18) 

125, 278, 397 
Boundary, In re, (23 iLtl. R. 1041) 53 
Bound V. Wise. etc. Co., (45 Wis. 

543) 189 a 
Bouton V. Supervisors, (5 C. L. J. 

105) 212 
Boutle 1). Emmet, (9 So. 921) 91 
Bowditch V. Boston, (101 U. S. 16) 

333, 335 
Bowdoinham v. Richmond, (6 Greenl. 

112) 60 
Bowles V. Landaff, (59 N. H. 164) 

147 
Bowley «. Walker, (8 Allen, 21) 309 
Bowlin V. Furman, (28 Mo. 427) 208 
Bowling Green v. Carson, (10 BusJi, 

64) 128 



xxxu 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Beferences are to Sections. 



Bow 15. AUentown, (34 N. H. 351, 372) 

25, 31, 32, 206 
Bowen v. Greensboro, (4 S. E. R. 

159) 189 
Bowen v. Huntington, (14 S. E. E. 

217, 35 W. Va. 682) 348 
Bowen v. Mayor, (79 Ga. 709) 189 
Bowen v. Detroit Ry., (54 Mich. 496, 

52 Am. Rep. 822) 306 
Bower v. State Bank, (5 Ark. 234) 

47, 49 
Bowers b. Bowers, (26 Pa. St. 74) 67 
Bowers ». Supplee, (11 Phila. 223) 87 
Bowman v. Boston, (5 Cusli. 1) 223 
Bowns B. May, (24 N. E. R. 947, 120 

K. Y. 357) 326 a 
Boyd V. Chambers, (78 Ky. 140) 102 
Boyd B. Kenuelly, (9 Vroom, 146) 

195 5 
Boyd V. Conklin, (64 Mich. 583) 354 a 
Boyd B. Insurance Patrol, (113 Pa. 

St. 169) 325 
Boyd V. Selma, (11 So. 393) 326 a 397 
Boyer v. State, (16 Ind. 451) 220 
Boyer b. Reading, (24 Atl. R. 1070) 

282, 291, 292 
Boykin v. State, (11 So. R. 66) 31 
Boyland b. New York, (1 Sandf. 27) 

Boyle V. Brooklyn, (71 K. Y. 1) 278, 

391 
Boyle B. Phila. etc., (54 Pa. St. 314) 320 
Boylston b. Mason, (102 Mass. 541) 

348 
Boylston Mai-ket Association v. Bos- 
ton, (113 Mass. 523) 245 
Boyter b. Dodsworth, (6 T. E. 681) 

85 
Bozant v. Campbell, (9 Rob. 411) 119, 

152 
Brabham v. Hindo Co., (54 Miss. 363) 

325 
Brace b. jST. Y. Cen., (27 N. Y. 271) 

286 
Brackenridge B. Fitchburg, (145 Mass. 

160) 340, 352 • 
Brackett v. Blake, (7 Met. 335) 80 
Braconier v. Packard, (136 Mass. 50) 

363 
Bracy v. Smith, (64 Miss. 17) 83 
Bradbury b. "Walton, (21 S. W. R. 

869) 311 
Bradf. b. Just, (33 Ga. 332) 67 
Bradford b. Chicago, (25 111. 411) 

326 a, 327 
Braddy b. Milledgeville, (74 Ga. 516) 

299 ' 

Bradley v. Brown, (32 Up. Can. Q. B. 

46) 352 
Bradley v. X. Y. etc. R. R. Co., (21 

Conn. 294) 234 a 



Bradley b. State, (22 Tex. App. 330) 

330 
Bradley v. Franklin Co., (65 Mo. 638) 

187 a 
Bradnox's Case, (1 Vent. 196) 158 
Bradshaw b. Omaha, (1 Neb. 16) 259 

276 
Bradwell b. Illinois, (16 Wall. 130) 69 
Bradwell v. Pittsburgh & W. E. R. 

Co., (139 Pa. St. 404)352 
Brady v. Bartlett, (56 Cal. 350) 173 
Brady v. Howe, (50 Miss. 607) 74, 82 
Brady B. Lowell, (3 Cush. 121) .339 
Brady v. Mayor, (1 Barb. 584) 142 
Bradley 1). N. Y. & N. H. E. E. Co., 

(21 Conn. 294) 23:^ 
Brady u. N. W. Ins. Co., (11 Mich. 

425, 440) 130 
Brady v. New York, (20 N. Y. 312) 

169 
Brady v. West, (50 Miss. 68) 18 
Braham b. San Jose, (24 Cal. 585) 209 
Braintree b. Battles, (6 Vt. 395) 31 
Brainard v. N. Y. & H. E. E. Co., (25 

N. Y. 496) 190 
Brakken b. Minneapolis & St. L. Ey. 

Co., (29 Minn. 41) 224 
Braun v. Chicago, (110 111. 186) 261 
Brayton b. Fall River, (112 Mass. 218) 

121 
Bray b. Wallingford, (20 Conn. 416, 

419) 325 
Branahau v. Hotel Co., (39 Ohio St. 

333) 301 
Brander b. Chesterfield, (5 Call. 548) 

316, 363 
Brandon v. Avery, (29 N. Y. 469) 102 
Brandrifl: v. Harrison Co., (55 Iowa, 

164) 397 
Branham b. San Jose, 24 Cal. 585, 

602) 169 ■ 
Branson b. Philadelphia, (47 Pa. St. 

329) 294 
Breaux v. Bridge, (30 La. An. 1105) 

148 
Breckenridge ». Fitchburg, (145 Mass. 

160) 352 
Breckinridge v. State, (27 Tex. App. 

513) 83 
Breed v. Cunningham, (2 Cal. 368) 

Breevort b. Detroit, (24 Mich. 322) 172 
Breeze b. Haley, (10 Colo. 5, 13 Pac. 

R. 913) 397 
Brehm b. New York, (104 N. Y. 586) 

Brenham v. Brenham Water Co., (67 

Tex. 542) 110, 124, 144 
Brenham v. (Jerm. Am. Bk., (12 S 

Ct. 559, 144 U. S. 173, lb. 12, S. Ct! 

975, 144 U. S. 549) 183, 188 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



XXXIU 



Beferences are to Sections. 



Brennan v. Biadsliaw, (53 Tex. 330) 

361 
Brennan v. Laohat, (14 Daly, 197) 

131 
Brennan D.Weatherford, (53 Tex. 330) 

.52 
Brennan v. Bradsliaw, (53 Tex. 330) 

38 
Breninger v. Belvedere, (44 N. J. L. 

350) 146, 158 
Brewer v. Springfield, (97 Mass. 152) 

397 
Brewls v. Duluth, (3 McCrary, 219) 59 
Brewster v. Davenport, (51 Iowa, 

427) 355 
Brewster v. Hyde, (7 N". H. 206) 95 
Brewster b. Harwich, (4 Mass. 278) 

58, in 

Brewster v. Syracuse, (19 N. T. 116) 

16, 187 
Brevoorti). Detroit, (24 Mich. 322) 

281 
Brevoort ». Detroit, (24 Mich. 322) 

397 
Brick Pres. Ch. v. Mayor etc. N. Y., 

(5 Cow. 540) 113, 118 
Bridge v. Grand junction Ky. Co., 

(3 M. & W. 244) 352 
Bridge ». Hampton, (47 N^. H. 161) 

279 
Bridge Co. v. U. S., (105 U. S. 470) 

314 
Bridge Co. v. City of East St. Louis, 

(121 111. 238, 12 N. E. R. 723) 268 
Bridge Corp. v. Lowell, (15 Gray 106) 

318 
Bridges v. Griffin, (33 Ga. 113) 261 
Bridges v. No. London Ry. Co., (L. 

R. 6 Q. B. 377) 352 
Bridges v. Shallcross, (6 W. Va. 562) 

76 
Bridgen v. Bannerman, (8 Jones, 53) 

249 
Bridgeport v. New York & New Ha^ 

ven R. R. Co., (36 Conn. 258; s. c, 

4 Am. Rep. 63) 259 
Bridgeport v. R. R. Co., (15 Conn. 

475) 17, 110, 169 
Bridgfo'rd v. Tuscumbia, (4 Woods, 

611) 108, 130. 
Briegel e. Philadelphia, (19 Atl. Rep. 

10, 38) 336 a 
Brieswick v. Brunswick, (51 Ga. 639) 

155 
Briggs V. Boat, (7 Allen, 287) 127 
Briggs V. Guilford, (8 Vt. 264) 352 
Briggs V. Oliver, (4 H. & N. 403) 337 
Briggs V. Lewiston etc. Co., (79 Me. 

363) 304 
Briggs V. Whipple, (6 Vt. 95) 30, 31, 

115, 176 

/- iii 



Bright V. Super's, (18 Johns. 242) 79 
Brightman v. Bristol, (65 Me. 426) 

120 
Brightman b. Kirner, (22 Wis. 54) 

271 
Brimmer v. Boston, (102 Mass. IP) 

113, 302 
Brinck v. Collier, (56 Mo. 160) 223 
Brinkmeyer v. Evans, (29 Ind. 187) 

338 a 
Brine b. Gt. West. Ry., (110 Eng. 

Com. L. 402) 329, 354 o 
Briscoe v. Bank, (11 Pet. 257) 5 
Briscoe v. Drought, (11 Ir. C. L. R. 

250) 354 

Bristol, In re, (3 Q. B. Div. 10) 360 
Bristol V. New Chester, (3 N. H. 524) 

23, 24, 60, 67 
Bristol V. Ontario, (69 Conn. 472) 

49 
British C. R. Co. v. Meredith, (4 D. 

& E. T. R. 794) 329 
Brittan v. Newland, (2 Dev. & Bat. 

N. C. 363) 50 
Britton b. Cummington, (107 Mass. 

347) 343 
Britton b. Mayor etc., (21 How. Pr. 

251) 113 

Britton v. Philadelphia, (32 Pa. St. 

387) 283 
Britton v. Platte City, (2 Dillon C. 

0. 1) 375 
Britton v. Steber, (62 Mo. 370) 18 
Broadway b. McAtee, (8 Cusn. 508) 

282 
Broadway etc. Co. v. New York, (49 

Hun, 126) 306 
Broadwell v. Chapin, (2 111. App. 

511) 169 
Broadwell b. City, (75 Mo. 213) 329 
Broburg v. Des Moines (63 Iowa, 523) 

344 
Brocaw v. Gibson Co., (73 Ind. 543) 

186 
Brock V. Hisben, (40 Wis. 674) 377 
Brock District b. Bowen, (7 Up. Can. 

Q. B. 471) 49 
Brockman b. Creston, (44 N. W. R. 

822) 393, 395 
Broder v. Saillard,(3 B. & D. 62) 120 
Brodhead v. Milwaukee, (19 Wis. 624) 

139, 188 
Brodnax b. Groom, (64 N. C. 244) 392 
Brody ». Weeks, (3 Barb. 157) 120 
Brokaw v. Terre Haute, (97 Ind. 176) 

242 
Brensom b. Kinsie, (1 How. 316) 14, 

194 
Bronson c. Newberry,(2 Dougl. 38)194 
Bronson b. Southbury, (37 Conn. 199) 

352 



XXXIV 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



References are to Sections. 



Broodwell v. Kansas City, (75 Mo. 

213, 42 Am. Rep. 409) 92 
Brook D. Horton, (68 Cal. 554) 309 
Brookline v. Westminster, (4 Vt. 224) 

54 
Brookly v. Dreslin, (57 N. Y. 591) 

113, 123 
Brooklyn v. B. City R. R. Co., (47 N. 

T. 475) 302, 306, 348 
Brooklyn v. Meserole, (26 Wend. 132) 

391 
Brooklyn B. Nodine, (26 Hun, 512) 300 
Brooklyn v. N. Y. Ferry Co., (87 N. 

Y. 204) 133 
Brooklyn v. Scholes, (31 Hun, 110) 78 
Brooklyn v. Smitli, (104 111. 429) 42 
Brooklyn v. Toynbee, (31 Barb. 282) 

117 
Brooklyn El. Ry. Co., In re, (11 N. Y. 

S. 161, 57 Hun, 590) 10 
Brooklyn & Newton R. R. Co. b. Co- 
ney Island R. R. Co., (35 Barb. 364) 

238 
Brooklyn C. R. R. Co. v. Brooklyn 

City R. R. Co., (32 Barb. 364) 10, 

238 
Brooklyn Park Comm'rs v. Arm- 
strong, (45 N. Y. 234, 240) 14, 226 
Brooklyn S. T. Co. v. Brooklyn, (78 

N. Y. 524) 396 
Brooklyn etc. Co. v. Brooklyn City 

R. R. Co., (32 Barb. 358) 302 
Brooklyn v. Metcalf, (32 N. Y. 591) 

191 
Brooks V. Baltimore, (48 Md. 265) 

2.59 a 
Brooks V. Fisher, (21 Pac. R. 652, 79 

Cal. 173) 3 
Brooks V. Hart, (14 N. H. 307) 321 
Brooks v. Memgan, (86 Mich. 576) 

121, 256 
Brooks V. Mitchell, (9 M. & W. 15) 

183 
Brooks V. Riding, (46 Ind. 15) 312 
Brooks V. Satterlee, (49 Cal. 289) 172 
Brooks ». Topeka, (34 Kan. 277) 219 
Brookville v. Arthurs, (18 Atl. R. 

1076) 348 
Brookville v. Gagle, (73 Ind. 117) 156 
Broome v. N. Y. & N. J. Tel. Co., 

(42 N. J. L. 141, 7 Atl. Rep. 851) 

297, 396 
Brophy v. Hyatt, (10 Col. 223,) 129 
Bropliyu. Landman, (28 Ohio St. 542) 

265, 278 
Brophy v. Perth Amboy, (44 N. J. L. 

217) 156 
Broughton v. Pensacola, (93 U. S. 

266) 32, 40, 41 
Brouwer v. Appleby, (1 Sandf. 158) 

24, 31 



BroTver v. New York, (3 Barb. 254) 

336 a 
Brown, Ex parte, (48 Fed. R. 435) 

258 
Brown b. Beatty, (34 Miss. 227) 243 
Brown ». Beatty, (34 Miss. 227) 247, 

249 
Brown v. Belleville, (30 Up. Can. Q. 

B. 373) 164 
Brown b. Bon Homme Co., (46 N. W. 

Rep. 173) 190 a, 196 
Brown b. Boulder, (18 Tex. 431) 66 
Brown b. Brown, (7 Oreg. 285) 202 
Brown b. Cayuga, etc. R. R. Co., (12 

N. Y. 486) 239 
Brown b. Chi. etc. Co., (101 Mo. 484) 

244 
Brown b. Crego, (29 Iowa, 321) 359 
Brown b. Davies, (3 T. R. 80) 191 
Brown b. District, (127 U. S. 579) 99 
Brown b. Daplessis, (14 La. An. 842) 

295 , 

Brown b. Fitchburg, (128 Mass. 282) 

277 
Brown b. Gates, (15 W. Va. 131) 212, 

364, 375. 
Brown v. Hunn, (27 Conn. 382) 130 
Brown b. Insurance Co.,( 3 La. An. 

177) 38 
Brown b. Jefferson, (16 Iowa, 339) 

352 
Brown v. Jenks, (32 Pac. R. 701) 282 
Brown b. Jerome, (102 111. 371) 102 
Brown b. Johnson Co., (1 Green, 486) 

180 
Brown b. Lindsay, (35 Up. Can. Q. B. 

509) 164, 166 
Brown b. Lowell, (8 Met. 172) 292, 

330 
Brown v. Lutz, (54 N. W. R. 526) 148, 

150 
Brown v. Manning, (6 Ohio, 298) 194, 

215, 219, 221, 226, 228 
Brown b. Mayor, (63 N. Y. 239) 170, 

280 
Brown b. Mayor, (57 Mo. 156) 342 
Brown v. McCollum, (76 Iowa, 479) 

65 
Brown b. Memphis, (97 U. S. 300) 1.") 
Brown b. Milliksn, (42 Kan. 769) 196 
Brown b. Muzzy, (117 Ind. 2.58) 120 
Brown b. Nicholson, (5 C. B. N. S. 

468) 156 
Brown v. Painter, (44 Iowa, 368) 326 
Brown b. Port Pleasant, (15 S. E. R. 

209) 192, 196 
Brown v. Pittsburgh, (16 Atl. R. 43) 

270 
Brown b. Prov. R. R. Co., (5 Gray, 

35) 354 
Brown b. Purdy, (6 N. Y. S. 143) 119 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



XXXV 



References are to Sections. 



Brown v. Rome etc. Co., (86 Ala. 206) 

279 
Brown v. Ruse, (69 Tex. 589) 360 
Brown v. Sarnla, (11 Up. Can. Q. B. 

87) 355 
Brown v. Turner, (70 N. C. 93) 67, 271 
Brown v. Vinaliiaven, (65 Me. 402) 

116 
Brown ». "Watson, (47 Me. 161) 352 a 
Brown v. Werner, (40 Md. 15) 347 
Brown v. Wlnterport, (79 Me. 305) 

95, 170 
Brownell v. Greenwich, 114 N. Y. 

518) 192 
Browning v. Owen Co., (44 lud. 11, 

13) 316, 338 
Browning v. Camden & W. R. & Tr. 

Co., (3 H. W. Green, Ch. 47) 249 
Brown's Adrar. v. Guyandotte, (34 

W. Va. 299, 12 S. E. R. 707) 333 
Brownville v. Cook, (4 Neb. 101) 117 
Brownsville v. Loague, (129 U. S. 

493) 376 
Bruce v. Cromar, (22 Up. Can. Q. B. 

321) 49 
Bruce v. Dickey, (116 111. 527) 170, 

176 
Bruker v. Covington, (69 Ind. 33) 352 
Brumagim v. Tillinghast, (18 Gal. 

265) 326 a 
Brumbaugh v. Philadelphia, (154 Pa. 

St. 109) 324 
Brunei ». Brunei, L. R. (12 Eq. 298) 66 
Bruner v. Bryan. (50 Ala. 523) 85 
Brunswick v. Fahm, (60 Ga. 109) 79, 

85 
Brunswick ». Litchfield, (2 Me. 28) 15 
Brush E. L. Co. v. Jones, (5 Ohio Cir. 

Ct. R. 340) 296 
Brusso V. Buffalo, (90 N. T. 679) 342, 

346 S53 
Bryan v. Bates, (15 HI. 87) 155 
Bryan u. Cattell, (15 Iowa, 538) 86, 

363 
Bryan v. Page, (51 Tex. 532) 104 
Bryans v. Almond, (87 Ga. 564) 300 
Bryant v. Randolph, (6 N. Y. S. 438) 

352 
Bryant v. St. Paul, 33 Minn. 289) 92, 

332,338 a 
Bryant's Lessee v. McCandless, (7 

Ohio, pt. 2, 135) 217 
Bryson v. Phila., (47 Pa. St. 329) 117 
Bryson v. Spaulding, (20 Kan. 427) 

365 
Bubb 1). Lycoming, (134 Pa. St. 112) 79 
Buchanan v. Alexander, (4 How. 20) 

80 
Buchanan v. Curtis, (25 Wis. 99) 219 
Buchanan v. Duluth, (42 N. W. R. 

204) 365 



Buchanan t. Litchfield, (102 U. S. 

278) 189 a 
Buck V. Biddeford, (84 Me. 433) 346, 

3506 
Buck 0. Lockport, (6 Lans. 251) 375 
Buckbee d. Brown, (21 Wend. 110) 

132,336 a 
Buckland ». Conway, (16 Mass. 396) 

142 
Buckley v. Bviggs, (30 Mo. 452) 165 
Buckley v. English, (129 111. 646) 282 
Buckley v. New Bedford, (29 N. E. 

R. 201) 328 
Bucknali v. Story, (36 Cal. 67) 256 
Bucknell v. Story, (36 Cal. 67) 282 
Buckner v. Augusta, (1 A. K. Marsh, 

9) 229 
Buckner v. Hart, (52 Fed. 835) 302 
Buell ». Ball, (20 Iowa, 282) 56, 61 
Buell 1). Buckingham, (16 Iowa, 284) 

99, 100 
Buell r. State, (45 Ark. 336) 122 
Buffalo, In re (15 N. Y. S. 858) 238 
Buffalo, In re (78 N. Y. 362) 241 
Buffalo B. Bettinger, (76 N. Y. 393) 

142, 143 
Buffalo V. Chadcayne, (31 N. E. Rep. 

443) 130 
Buffalo v. Hallaway, (7 N. Y. 493) 347 
Buffalo V. Harling, (52 N. W. R. 931) 

215, 300 
Buffalo ij. Webster, (10 Wend. 100) 

159 
Buffalo & N. Y. R. R. Co. v. Brain- 

ard, (9N. Y. 100) 234 a 
Buffalo etc. Co. ». New York etc. R. 

Co., (10 Ab. N. C. 107) 121 
Buff. etc. R. Co. V. Falconer, (103 

U. S. 821) 188 
Buffalo T. Co. V. Buffalo, (58 N. Y. 

639) 338 
Buford ». State, (72 Tex. 182) 8, 24, 

32 
Buhren v. D. D. E. etc. Co., (53 Hun, 

571) 321 
Bulger V. Eden, (82 Me. 352) 92 
Bulick V. Connely, (42 Ind. 134) 174 
Bulkley b. Eckert, (3 Pa. St. 368) 80 
Bull V. Read, (13 Gratt. 78, 98) 78, 

255 
Bull B. Sims, (23 N. Y. 570) 177, 178 
BuUard v. Shirley, (27 N. E. R. 766) 

204 
Bullock V. Curry, (2 Met. 171) 201 
Bullock V. Durham, (19 N. Y. S. 635) 

353 
Bullock V. Glomple, (45 111. 218) 155 
Bullock V. New York, (99 N. Y. 654) 

352 
Burapass ti. Taggart, (26 A'-k. 398, 

7 Am. Rep. 623) 258 



XXX VI 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

Keferences are to Sections. 



Bunch V. Edenton, (90 K. C. 431) 348 
Buncombe T. Co. v. Baxter, (lOIred. 

222) 318 
Bunu ». People, (32 111. App. 410) 79 
Bunn V. Peo., (45 111. 397) 67 
Burbach v. Schweinler, (56 Wis. 386) 

221 
Burbank v. Fay, (65 N. T. 57, 71) 312 
Burch V. Hardwick, (35 Gratt. 34) 18, 

89, 333 
Burcbfield v. New Orleans, (7 So. 

Eep. 448) 172 
Burckholter v. McCormellsville, (20 

Ohio St. 308) 123, 125 
Burden v. Stein, (27 Ala. 104) 234 
Burditt V. Twenson, (17 Tex. 489) 120 
Bureau Co. t. Railroad Co., (44 111. 

229) 259 
Burferning v. Chi. etc. Co., (48 N. 

W. E. 444) 29 
Burford v. Grand Rapids, (58 Mich. 

98) 331 
Burgess v. Jefferson City, (21 La. 

An. 143) 172 
Burgess v. Koontz, (64 Md. 134) 88 
Burges v. Mabin, (70 Iowa, 633) 186 
Burgess v. Pue, (2 Gill, 11) 255 
Burleigh v. Rochester, 5 Fed. Rep. 

667) 183, 190 a 
Burgess v. Seligman, (107 U. S. 20) 

195 
Burgess of Darby, (21 Atl. R. 394, 

140 Pa. St. 250) 59 
Burham v. Ohio etc. Co., (23 TST. E. 

R. 799) 330 
Burke, In re, (62 N. Y. 224) 264, 296 
Burke v. Edgar, (67 Cal. 182) 79 
Burke v. Miss. R. Ry. Co., (29 Mo. 

App. 370) 3.54 a 
Burlington v. B. & M. R. R. Co., (41 

Iowa, 134) 282, 283 
Burlington D. Burl. Ey. Co., (49 Iowa, 

144) 302 
Burlington v. Commonwealth, (41 

Pa. St. 63) 220 
Burlington v. Est. Law, (43 K J. L. 

13) 161 
Burlington v. Dennison, (42 N. J. L. 

165) 98, 130 
Burlington v. Gilbert, (31 Iowa, 356) 

278 
Burlington v. Keller, (18 Iowa, 59) 

125, 154 
Burlington v. Leebrick, (43 Iowa, 

252) 53 
Burlington u. Palmer, (67 Iowa, 681) 

281 
Burlington v. Plank Rd., (11 Iowa, 

75) 165 
Burlington v. Quick, (47 Iowa, 226) 

282 



Burl. & Mo. R. R. R. Co. v. Spear- 
man, (12 Iowa, 112) 259 a, 273, 291 
Burlington etc. Co. v. Reinhaokle, 

(15 Neb. 279) 302 
Burlington R. Co. v. Clay Co., (13 

Neb. 367) 177 
Burl. W. Co. V. Woodward, (49 Iowa, 

58) 189 a 
Burmeister, In re, (76 N. Y. 174) 148, 

264 
Burnet v. Auditor, (12 Ohio, 54) 360 
Burnett, In re, (35 La. An. 461) 154 
Burnett, In re, (30 Ala. 461) 125 
Burnett v. Buffalo, (17 N. Y. 383) 241, 

256 
Burnett v. Harrington, (7 S. W. R. 

812) 217 
Burnett v. Portage Co. etc., (12 Ohio 

St. 57) 375 
Burnett v. Sacramento, (12 Cal. 76) 

259 a, 278 
Burnham v. Butler, (31 N. Y. 480) 321 
Burnham v. Brown, (23 Me. 400) 183 
Burns b. Baltimore, (48 Md. 198) 259a 
Burns v. Bradford, (137 Pa. St. 361) 

350 a 
Burns v. Bender, (36 Mich. 139) 363 
Burns v. Clarion Co., (62 Pa. St. 351) 

2,8 
Burns v. La Grange, (17 Tex. 415) 102, 

104, 398 
Burns v. Milw. & Miss. R. R. Co., (9 

Wis. 450) 250 
Burns v. Toronto, (42 Up. Can. Q. B. 

560) 346 
Burnes v. Atchison, (2 Kan. 454) 23, 

24, 256, 397 
Burr 1). Chariton Co., (2McCray, 604) 

196 
Burr V. Leicester, (121 Mass. 241) 

292, 293 
Burr V. Newcastle, (49 lud. 322) 290 
Burr V. Plymouth, (48 Conn. 460) 

344, 352 
Burrell Tp. v. Uncapher, (117 Pa. St. 

353) 343 
Burrill v. Augusta, (78 Me. 118) 92 
Burrill v. Boston, (2 Cliff C. C. 590) 

164, 165 
Burritt v. New Haven, (42 Conn. 172) 

306 
Burroughs v. Norton Co., (29 Kan. 

196) 79 
Burrton v. Harvey etc. Bank, (28 

Kan. 390) 177 
Burson v. Huntington, (21 Mich. 415) 

258 
Burton v. Chattanooga, (7 Lea, 739) 

355 
Burt V. Brigham, (117 Mass. 307, 459) 

232 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



XXXVll 



References are to Sections. 



Burt 13. Lima etc. Co., (21 TST. Y. S. 

482) 302 
Bush V. Oarbondale, (87 111. 74) 112 
Bush B. Dubuque, (69 Iowa, 233) 120 
Bush V. Johnson, (23 Pa. St. 209) 220 
Bush V. Portland, (23 Pao. E. 667) 

354 a 
Bush V. Shipman, (4 Scam. 190) 8 
Bush V. Whitney, (1 Chip. 369) 208, 

210 
Bushville v. Adams, (107 Ind. 475) 342 
Bussier v. Pray, (7 S. & R. 447) 79 
Butcher u. Camden, (29 N. J. Eq. 478) 

79 
Butchers Bk. v. Bullock, (3 B. & P. 

434) 154 
Butcher's Co. v. Bullock, (3 Bos. & 

P. 434, 437) 159 
Butchers Un. S. House v. Cres. City 

L. S. Landing, (111 U. S. 746) 118 
Butler, In re, (127 N. Y. 463) 247 
Butler 0. Bangor, (67 Me. 385) 345, 

347 
Butler V. Charlestown, (7 Gray, 12) 

114, 165, 167 
Butler V. Chicago, (56 111. 341) 279 
Butler V. Dunham, (27 111. 474) 184, 

191, 196 
Butler V. Edgewater, (6 N. Y. S. 174) 

354 354 d 
Butler V. Hunter, (7 H. & N. 826) 347 
Butler V. Milwaukee, (15 Wis. 498) 

176 
Butler V. Nevin, (88 111. 575) 165, 265 
Butler V. Palmer, (1 Hill, 335) 11 
Butler V. Penn., (10 How. 402) 79 
Butler V. Regents, (32 Wis. 124) 67 
Butler 13. Passaic, (44 N. J. L. 171) 145 
Butler 13. Ravine R. Sewer Comm'rs, 

(39 N. J. L. 665) 242 
Butler V. Thomasville, (74 Ga. 570) 

391 
Butler 13. Toledo, (5 Ohio St. 225) 280 
Butler's Appeal, (73 Pa. St. 448) 255 
Butman v. Fowler, (17 Ohio, 101) 288 
Butolph 13. Blust, (5 Lans. 84) 155 
Butterfield v. Boston, (20 N. E. Rep. 

113) 353 
Butternut i3. O'Malley, (50 Wis. 333) 

59 
Butterworth 13. Bartlett, (50 Ind. 537) 

311 
Butterworth v. U. S., (112 U. S. 50) 

359 
Button V. Frink, (51 Conn. 342) 338 
Buttriok r. Lowell, (1 Allen, 172, 19 

Am. Dec. 721) 9, 116, 170, 338a 
Butts 1). Wood, (37 N. Y. 317) 166 
Butz 13. Muscatine, (8 Wall. 578) 14 
Byerly v. Anamosa, (44 N. W. 359) 

3.52 



Byers 13. Olney, (16 lU. 35) 104, 125, 

156 
Byrne v. Covington, (21 S. W. R. 

1050) 192 
Byrnes, In re, (57 Hun, 590) 17, 187 a 
Byrnes v. Cohoes, (67 N. Y. 204) 92, 

355 
Byrnes 13. Minn. etc. Co., (38 Minn. 

212) 354 

c. 

Cabot 13. Britt, (36 Vt. 349) 108 
Cadmus 13. Farr, (47 N. J. L. 208) 99 
Cahaba 13. Burnett, (34 Ala. 400) 326 a 
Cahill 13. Insurance Co., (2 Doug. 

Mich. 124) 31 
Cahokia S. Trustees v. Rantenberg, 

(88 111. 219) 167 
Caiaker v. Mathews, (25 Ga. 571) 80 
Cain 13. Syracuse, (95 N. Y. 83) 120, 

327 a 
Cairncross 1). Pewaukee, (Mo. 91, 47 

N. W. R. 13) 350 a 
Cairo 13. Allen, (3 111. App. 398) 212 
Cairo 13. Bross, (101 111. 475) 124 
Cairo etc. 13. People, (92 III. 170) 301 
Cairo v. Campbell, (116 111. 305) 360 
Cairo etc. Co. 13. Sparta, (77 111. 505) 

14, 187 a, 192 
Cairo & F. R. R. Co. 13. Trout, (32 

Ark. 17) 243, 245 
Cagwin 13. Hancock, (84 N. Y. 532) 196 
Calder v. Smalley, (66 Iowa, 219) 348 
Calder 13. Kurby, (5 Gray, 597) 125 
Caldwell o. Rupert, (10 Bush, 182) 

256 
Caldwell 13. Burke Co. Jus., (4 Jones 

Eq. N. C. 323) 255 
Caldwell ». Boone, (51 Iowa, 687) 333 
Caldwell 0. Alton, (33 111. 416) 110, 

128 
Caldwell ». Wright, (25 111. Ap. 74) 

142 
Caledonian Ry. Co. v. Ogilvie, (2 

Macq. 229) 330 
Calhoun 13. Fletcher, (63 Ala. 574) 150 
Calhoun Co. 13. Galbralth, (99 U. S. 

214) 188, 191 b 
California etc. Co. 13. Butte Co., (18 

Cal. 671) 186 
California 13. Cen. etc. Co., (8 S. Ct. 

1073) 258 
Calking 13. Baldwin, (4 Wend. N. Y. 

667) 243, 247 
Calkins 13. Hartford, (33 Conn. 57) 342 
Call 13. Chadbourne, (46 Me. 206) 24 
Call 13. Hagger, (8 Mass. 430) 184 
Callahan 13. State, (2 Stew. & P. Ala. 

379) 84 
Callahan b. New York, (66 N. Y. 656) 

102 



XXXVIH 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

Beferences are to Sections. 



Callahan v. Hallett, (1 Caines, 104) 79 
Callahan v. Burlington, (23 Iowa, 

562) 347 
Callam v. Saginaw, (50 Mich. 7) 16, 

141 
Callan v. Wilson, (127 U. S. 540) 104 
Callanan v. Oilman, (107 U. S. 360) 

300 
Callanan ji. Wayne Co., (73 Iowa, 709, 

36 N. W. R. 654) 271 
Callen v. Wilson, (127 U. S. 540) 245 
Callen v. Junction City, (41 Kans. 

466) 55 
Callendar v. Marsh, (1 Pick. 432) 292 

313 
Call Pub. Co. V. Lincoln, (29 Neb. 

149) 165, 166 . 
Calloway v. Milledgeville, (48 Ga. 

309) 32Q 
Calwell V. Boone, (51 Iowa, 687) 92, 

331 
Cambridge University v. Crofts, (10 

Mod. 208) 50 
Cambridge v. Charlestown etc., (7 

Met. 70) 317 
Cambridge v. Middlesex, (125 Mass. 

519) 330 
Camden v. Allen, (26 N. J. L. 398) 

183 
Camden v. Block, (65 Ala. 236) 105 
Camden v. Mulford, (26 N. J. L. 49) 

249, 278, 398 
Cameron, In re, v. East Missouri, (13 

Up. Can. Q. B. 190) 154 
Camp V. Knox Co., (3 Lea, 199) 177 
Camp V. Minneapolis, (33 Minn. 461) 

59 
Campan v. Detroit, (14 Mich. 276) 

245, 249 
Campan v. Board, (Mich. 91, 49 N. 

W. K. 39) 308 
Campeni). Langley, (39 Mich. 451) 129 
Campbell v. Bear Elver Co., (35 Cal. 

679) 353 
Campbell v. City of Kenosha, (5 Wall. 

194) 254 
Campbell v. Evans, (45 Mass. 356) 129 
Campbell v. Fairhaven, (54 Vt. 336) 

350 a 
Campbell v. Karr, (26 III. App. 305) 

219 
Campbell v. Kansas, (Mo. 90, 13 S. 

W. E. 897) 221 
Campbell V. Kenosha, (5 Wall. 194) 

170 
Campbell ». Lunsford, (83 Ala. 512, 

3 S. E. 522) 348 
Campbell v. Laclede Gasl. Co., (84 

Mo. 352) 225 
Campbell v. Montgomery, (53 Ala. 

527)92, 327 a 



Campbell v. Polk Co., (3 Iowa, 467) 

178 
Campbell v. Seaman, (63 N. T. 568) 

120 
Campbell v. St. Louis, (71 Mo. 106) 87 
Campbell v. Stillwater, (32 Minn. 308) 

342, 347 

Campbell Co. Court v. Newport, (12 

B. Mon. Ky. 538) 221, 228 
Canaan v. Derush, (47 N. H. 212) 51, 

164 
Canal etc. Co. v. C. C. E. Co., (41 La. 

An. 561) 302 
Canal Street, In re, (11 Wend. 155) 

242 
Canal Street, In re, (E. I. 93, 25 Atl. 

E. 975) 8 
Canal, In re, v. Walker Street, (12 N. 

T. 406) 105 
Cane v. Brigham, (39 Me. 39) 183 
Canning v. Williamstown, (1 Cush. 

451) 352 a 
Cannon v. New Orleans, (20 Wall. 

577) 133 
Cannon v. Janirer, (3 Houst. 27) 363 
Canova v. State, (18 Fla. 512) 368 
Cantril v. Sainer, (59 Iowa, 26) 148 
Canto, Ex parte, (21 Tex. App. 61) 

128 
Capdevielle, In re, (33 L. J. Exch. 

306) 66 
Cape Girardeau ». Eilev, (72 Mo. 220) 

150 
Cape Girardeau v. Hill, (118 U. S. 68) 

194 
Cane May etc. Co. v. Cape May, (35 

N. J. Eq. 419) 161 
Capmartin v. Pol. Jury, (19 La. An. 

448) 177 
Card V. Ellsworth, (65 Me. 547) 342 
Cardwell v. Bridge Co., (113 Mass. 

205) 314 
Carey's Appeal, (75 Pa. St. 201) 66 
Carey ». Eae, (58 Cal. 168) 346 
Carey v. East Saginaw, (44 N. W. 

Eep. 168) 165, 171 
Carleton v. Washington, (38 Kan. 

728) 130 
Carleton v. Peo., (10 Mich. 250) 88, 96 
Carlett v. Leavenworth, (27 Kan. 673) 

352 
Carli V. Stillwater, etc., (28 Minn. 

373) 302 
Carlis, In re, (11 B. L 638) 74 
Carlisle v. Brisbane, (113 Pa. St. 544) 

343, 350 

Carlton, In re, (16 Hun, 497) 98 
Carlton v. Washington, (28 Kan. 390) 

183 
Carlyle v. Clinton, (30 N. E. E. 782) 

278 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



XXXIX 



References are to Sections. 



Carlyle v. Sharp, (51 111. 71) 79 
Carlyle W. L. & P. Co. v. Carlyle, (31 

111. App. 325) 169, 296 
Carman v. Steub.etc. Co., (4 Ohio St. 

939) 347 
Carncross v. Lykes, (22 Fla. 587) 

282 
earning v. Lowerse, (6 Johns. Ch. 

439) 396 
Caro ». Metro. Ry. Co., (46 N. Y. 

Super. Ct. 138) 305 
Carolina S. B. Co. v. Railroad, (30 S. 

C. 539) 314 
Carolus ». New York, (0 Bosw. 15) 

352 
Carondelet v. McPherson, (20 Mo. 

192) 229 
Carondelet C. N. Co. b. New Orleans, 

(10 So. Rep. 87) 12 
Carpenter's Case, (2 Pars. 537) 65 
Carpenter v. Bristol, (21 Pick. 258; 

see, ante, § 249) 377 
Carpenter v. Cohoes, (81 N. Y. 21) 

339, 353 
Carpenter ». Jennings et al., (77 111. 

250,) 248 
Carpenter u. Oswego, etc., (24 N. Y. 

655) 302 
Carpenter v. Peo., (8 Colo. 116) 74 
Carpenter v. Snelling, (97 Mass. 452) 

258 
Carr v. Conyers, (10 S. E. R. 630, 84 

Ga. 287) 158 
Carr ». Dooley, (122 Mass. 257) 110 
Carr v. LeFevre, (27 Pa. St. 413) 191, 

193 
Carr ». McCampbell, (61 lud. 9) 106 
Carr v. Northern Liberties, (35 Pa. 

St. 324) :)28, 329 
Carr ». Phillips, (39 Mich. 319) 87 
Carr v. St. Louis, (9 Mo. 102) 102 
Carrick jj. Johnston, (26 Up. Can. Q. 

B. 65) 346 
Carrie ». Carrie, (42 Mich. 509) 399 
Carrier v. Shawangunk, (10 Fed. Rep. 

220) 216 
Cai-riger v. Morristown, 1 Lea, 116, 

Tenn.) 56, 276 
Carrington v. St. Louis, (89 Mo. 208) 

332 
Carroll v. Lynchburg, (6 S. E. R. 133) 

130 
Carroll «. Mitchell, (37 "W. Va. 130) 

282 
Carroll u. Silbenthaler, (37 Cal. 193) 

79 
Carroll v. Tishaningo etc., (28 Miss. 

38) 128, 325, 365 
Carroll v. Tuscaloosa, (12 Ala. 173) 

123, 398 
Carroll v. Wall, (35 Kan. 36) 96 



Carroll Co. u. Smith, (111 U. S. 556) 

195, 195 d, 196 
Carroll Co. v. United States, (18 Wall. 

71) 177, 195, 377 
CarroUton K. R. Co. v. Winthrop, (5 

La. An. 36) 200 
Carrolltown ». Clark, (21 111. App. 

74)96 
Carron v. Martin, (26 N. J. L. 594) 

165 278 398 • 

Carro'ther's v. Board, (16 W. Va. 527) 

397 
Carruthers v. Harnett, (Tex. 91, 2 S. 

W. R. 523) 395 
Carson ». Blazer, (2 Binn. 475, 4 Am. 

Dec. 463) 239 
Carson v. Central etc. Co., (35 Cal. 

325) 303 
Carson ». Hartford, (48 Conn. 68) 248 
Carter v. Bos. & Prov. R. R. Co., (139 

Mass. 525) 313 
Carter v. Chicago, (57 111. 283) 396 
Carter v. Dow, (16 Wis. 298) 129 
Carter ». Durango, (27 Pao. R. 1057, 

16 Colo. 534) 83. 
Carter d. Kalloch, (56 Ind. 335) 172 
Carter ». Monticello, (68 Iowa, 178) 

350 a 
Carter v. Propes, (104 Mass. 236) 15, 

187, 314 
Carters. Sympson, (8 B. Mon. 155) 78 
Carter County v. Sinton, (120 U. S. 

517) 28 
Cartersville v. Baker, (73 Ga. 686) 141 
Cartersville v. Cook, (22 N. E. JR. 14, 

129 111. 152) 346 
Cartersville n. Lanham, (67 Ga. 753) 

129 
Cartersville v. Lyon, (69 Ga. 577) 103 
Cartersville Imp. Gas & W. Co. b. 

Cartersville, (16 S. E. R. 25, Ga. 93) 

165 
Cartersville W. Co. u. Cartersville, 

(Ga. 92, 16 S. E. R. 70) 270 
Carthage v. Rhoads, (14 S. W. 181) 129 
Cartwright ». Belmont, (58 Wis. 370) 

346 
Cartright v. Crow, (44 Mo. Ap. 563) 

32 
Cary Libi'ary ». Bliss, (151 Mass. 364) 

9, 10 
Cary v. Pekin, (88 111. 154) 56, 276 
Case ».' Blood, (71 Iowa, 632) 374 
Case c. Fowler, (65 Ind. 29) 172 
Case V. Johnscm, (91 Ind. 477) 166 
Case ». Hall, (21 111. 632) 129 
Case V. Mobile, (80 Ala. 538) 30, 158 
Case V. Bellows, (31 N. H. 501) 106 
Case V. Dillon, (2 Ohio St. 607) 189 a 
Cases of Phila. & Trenton R. R., (6 

Whart. 25) 302 



xl 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

Eeferences are to Sections. 



Case of State Tax on Foreign-held 

Bonds, (15 Wall. 300) 258 
Cash V. Whitworth, (13 La. 401) 234 
Caskey v. Greensb., (78 Ind. 233) 72 
Cass Co. V. Gilletf, (100 U. S. 585) 

186, 188 
Cass Co. V. Johnston, (95 U. S. 360) 

189, 196 
Cass County v. Banks, (44 Mich. 467) 

222 223 
Cassidy v. Stookbridge, (21 Vt. 391) 

352 
Cassidy v. Angell, (12 R. I. 447) 337 
Castle. V. Wintah, (2 Wyam. 126) 79 
Castleberry v. Atlanta, (74 Ga. 164) 

329 
Castor V. Uxbridge, (39 Up. Can. Q. 

B. 113) 342, 351 
Caspary v. Portland, (19 Or. 496, 

24 P. 1036) 92 
Caswell V. St. Mary's PI. R. Co., (28 

Up. Can. Q. B. 247, 254) 342 
Catling V. Carteret, (92 N. C. 536) 282 
Cator B. Lenisham Dlst., (5 B. & S. 

115) 355 
Cattail V. Ireson, (E. B. & E, 91) 104 
Catterlin u. Frankfort, (79 Ind. 547) 

348 
Cavanagh v. Boston, (139 Mass. 426) 

120, 338 
Caverly ». Lowell, (1 Allen, 289) 79 
Cawley v. Peo., (95 111. 249) 72 
Cedar Rapids etc. Co. v. Whelan, (64 

Iowa, 694) 279 
Cedar Rapids, (Iowa, 92, 51 N". W. K. 

1142) 232 
Cemetery v. Com'rs, (152 Mass. 408) 

267 
Cemetery Asso. v. Railroad, (121 111. 

199) 120 
Centenary M. B. Ch. v. Parker, (43 

Jif. J. L. 307, 12 Atl. R. 142) 49 
Centervllle v. Woods, (57 Ind. 192) 

348, 351 
Central d. Wilcoxen, (3 Col. 566) 179 
Central v. Sears, (2 Col. 588) 145 
Cen. Branch Un. P. R. Co. v. Smith, 

(23 Kan. 745) 188 
Central Br. etc. Co. v. Pate, (21 Kan. 

539) 352 
Cen. Bridge v. Lowell, (15 Gray, 106) 

87, 100, 144 
Central City Horse R'y Co. v. Fort 

Clark etc. R'y Co., (87 111. 523) 144, 

802 
Central Branch etc. Co. ». Andrews, 

(26 Kan. 702) 330 
Centraliav. Krouse, (64 111. 19) 350 a, 

352 
Central Land Co. v. Providence, (15 

R. I. 246) 221 



Central Park Com'rs, (61 Barb. 40) 

308 
Central R. R. Co. v. Hetfield, (29 N. 

Y. 206) 302 
Cent. Pa. Tel. & Supply Co. B.Wilkes- 

Barre & W. S. R. Co., (11 Pa. Co. 

Ct. 417) 306 a 
Center v. Finnev, (17 Barb. 94) 321 
Centre Street Vac, Re (115 Pa. St. 

247, 259 a 
Cerro Gordo v. Rawlings, (25 K. E. 

R. 1006) 123 
Chad 13. Tilsed. (5 J. B. Moore) 114. 
Chaddock v. Wilbraham, (5 C. B. 645) 

156 
Chadwick v. Colfax, (51 Iowa, 70) 212 
Chadwick v. Melvin, (68 Pa. St. 333) 

65 
Chaffee's Appeal, (56 Mich. 244) 243 
Chaffee v. Granger, (6 Mich. 51) 163 
Chagrin F. Co. v. Cane, (2 Ohio St. 

419) 
Chahoon's Case, (29 Graft. 822) 102 
Chalkley v. Riclimond, (88 Va. 402, 

14 S. E. R. 339) 328 
Chamberlain v. Cleveland, (34 Ohio 

St. 551) 259 a 
Chamberlain v. Dover, (13 Me. 466) 

95, 106, 108 
Chamberlain v. Eliz. S. Cordage Co., 

(41 N. J. Eq. 43) 302 
Chamberlain v. Evansville, (76 Ind. 

542) 106, 145 
Champaign v. Harmon, (98 111. 491) 

282 
Chamberlain v. Warburton, (1 Utah, 

267) 359 
Chamberlain v. Wheatland, (7 N. Y. 

S. 190) 352 
Chamberlain v. West End of London 

& C. P. R. Co., (110 E. C. L. R. 604) 

231 
Chambers Co. ». Clews, (21 Wall. 317) 

186, 195 a 
Chambers v. St. Louis, (29 Mo. 543) 

13, 200, 201, 203, 207 
Chambers v. Green, (L. E. 20 Eq. 

552) 363 
Champaign v. Harmon, (98 111. 491) 

200 
Champaign v. Patterson, (50 111. 62) 

349 
Champion v. Board, (5 Dak. 416) 398 
Chance ». Temple, (1 Iowa, 179) 365 
Chancy v. State, (118 Ind. 494) 283 
Chandler v. Attica, (18 Fed. Rep. 299) 

197 
Chandler u. Boston, (112 Mass. 200) 56 
Chandler v. Bradish, (23 Vt. 416) 81 
Chandler v. Bay St. Louis, (57 Miss. 
526) 177 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



xli 



Chandler v. Reynolds, (19 Kan. 249) 

67 
Chapman «. Douglas Co., (107 U. S. 

848) 164 
Chapmail v. Gates, (54 N". T. 132) 247 
Chapman v. Lowell, (4 Cush. 378) 87, 

174 
Chapman v. Rochester, (110 N. Y. 

273) 120 
Chapin u. Brown, (15 R. I. 579) 221 
Chapln B. School District in Win- 
chester, (35 N. H. 445) 49 
Chapin ». Sullivan etc., (39 jST. H. 564) 

293 
Chapin v. Vt. & Mass. R. R. Co., (8 

Gray, 575) 191 
Chapin v. Worcester, (124 Mass. 464) 

248 
Chaplin v. Wheatland, (128 111. 264) 

355 
Chares v. State, (3 W. Va. 567) 83 
Chariton v. Barber, (54 Iowa, 360, 37 

Am. Kep. 209) 122 
Chariton v. HoUiday, (60 Iowa, 391) 

148 
Charity Hos. v. Stickney (3 La. An. 

550) 123, 259 a 
Charles v. Mayor, etc., (27 N. J. L. 

203) 84 
Charles v. Hoboken, (3 Dutch. 203) 99 
Charles Riv. etc. v. Warren, 11 Peters, 

422) 320 
Charleston v. Chur, (2 Bailey, S. C. 

164) 158 
Charleston v. Oliver, (16 S. C. 47) 156 
Charleston v. Werner, (S. C. 93, 17 S. 

E. R. 33) 253 
Charleston o. Reed, (27 W. Va. 681) 

130 
Charleston Council v. St. Philip's 

Church, (1 McMul. 139) 267 
Charleston Councils. Condy, (4 Rich. 

L. 254) 207 
Charleston etc. Co. v. Comstock, (W. 

Va. 92, 15 S. E. R. 69) 246 
Charleston etc. Co. v. Comstock, (Va. 

92, 15 S. E. R. 69) 241 
Cf. Charlestown etc. Co. ». Comstock, 

(W. Va. 92, 15 S. E. R. 69) 245 
Charlestown v. Com'rs, (109 Mass. 

270) 398 
Charlton v. Allegheny, (1 Grant Cas. 

208) 329 
Chase v. City of Oshkosh, (Wis. 92, 

51 N. W. R. 560) 300 
Chase v. Cleveland, (44 Ohio St. 505) 

344 
Chase v. Lowell, (7 Gray, 33) 79 
Chase v. Lowell, (24 N. E. R. 212) 

3506 
Chase v. Mer. Bk., (19 Pick. 564) 375 I 



Chastain v. Town Council, (29 Ga. 

333) 125 
Cheany v. Hooser, (9 B. Mon. 330) 2, 

55, 56 
Cheesborough, In re, (17 Hun,-]^. Y. 

561) 236 
Cheetham v. Hampson, (4 D. & E. T. 

R. 318) 348. 
Chelmsford Co. v. Demarest, 7 Gray, 

Mass. 1) 72 
Chemung Bk. v. Sup'rs, (5 Den. 517) 

177, 190 a 
Cheney, In re, (27 Pao. R. 436, 90 

Cal. 617) 117, 134 
Chenv v. Shelbyville, (19 Ind. 84) 124 
Cheny v. Board, (52 N. J. L. 544) 232 
Cherokee v. Sioux City & I. P. Town 

Lot Co., (52 Iowa, 279) 241 
Cherokee Co. v. Wilson, (109 U. S. 

621) 368 
Cherokee Co. v. Chew, (44 Kan. 162) 

79 
Chesapeake & O. Ey. Co. v. MuUins, 

(22 S. W. 558) 279 
Chesapeake, etc. Canal Co. v. Balti- 
more, etc. R. R. Co., (4 Gill. & J. 5) 

238 
Cheshire Co. etc. v. Stevens, (10 N. 

H. 133) 320 
Chess V. Birmingham, (1 Grant, Pa. 

Cas. 438) 260 
Chessborough, In re, (17 Hun, 561) 

120 
Chestnutwood v. Hood, (68 111. 132) 

395 
Chicago V. Bixby, (84 111. 82) 344 
Chicago V. Baer, (41 111. 306) 259 a 
Chicago V. Bartree, (100 111. 57) 123 
Chicago V. Colby, (20 111. 614) 270 
Chicago B. Dalle, (115 111. 386) 350 b 
Chicago V. Deomody, (61 111. 431) 92 
Chicago V. Edwards, (58 111. 252) 79 
Chicago V. Fowler, (60 111. 322) 350 b 
Chicago V. Gage, (95 111. 593) 72 
Chicago V. Gallagher, (44111. 295) 328, 

343 
Chicago V. Hueuesbein, (85 111. 594) 

354 
Chicago V. Hislop, (61 111. 86) 343 
Chicago V. Hoy, (75 111. 530) 342 
Chicago V. Hesing, (83 111. 204) 343 
Chicago B. Halsey, (25 111. 595,) 212 
Chicago V. Johnson, (53 111. 91) 350 b 
Chicago V. Johnson, (98 111. 618) 219 
Chicago V. Joney, (60 111. 383) 92 
Chicago V. Keefe, 114 111. 222) 340 
Chicago V. Kelly, (69 111. 475) 352 a 
Chicago V. Langlass, (52 111. 256) 346, 

3.52 o 
Chicago v. Larned, (34 111. 203) 244, 

248 



xlii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Seferences are to Sections. 



Chicago V. Lafliu, (49 111. 172) 120 
Chicago 0. Major, (18 111. .<549) 352 a 
Chicago V. McLean. (24 N. E. 527) 352 
Chicago V. McCarthy, (75 111. 602) 

346, 3506 
Chicago V. McGiven, (78 111. 347) 344 
Chicago V. Megraw, (75 111. 566, 570) 

338 
Chicago V. McGiven, (78 111. 347) 336 a 
Chicago V. Martin, (49 111. 241) 352 a 
Chicago V. Murphy, (84111. 224) 350 a 
Chicago V. Middlebrook, (32 N. E. K. 

457, 111. 93) 312, 
Chicago V. McGraw, (75 HI. 566) 92, 

329 
Chicago V. O'Brennan, (65 111. 560) 

336 a, 348 
Chicago V. People, (56 111. 327) 192 
Chicago V. Quimby, (38 111. 274,) 127, 

154 
Chicago B. Eumpf., (45 111. 90) 124, 

134 
Chicago V. Robbins, (2 Black, 418) 

301 347 377 
Chicago V. Schmidt, (107 111. 186) 

351 
Chicago V. Shober etc., (6 111. App. 

560) 92 
Chicago V. Sexton, (115 111. 230) 189 a 
Chicago B. Taylor, (125 U. S. 161) 

231, 330 
Chicago V. Wheeler, (25 111. 478) 242 
Chicago V. Wright, (32 111. 192) 282 
Chicago V. Wright, (69 111. 328) 18, 

217, 222 
Chicago V. Union Building Assn., 

(102 111. 379, 399) 392, 396 
Chicago & A. E. K. Co. b. Adler, (56 

111. 344) 8 
Chicago V. Alton Ky. Co., (67 111. 11) 

136 
Chicago, B. & Q. E. Co. v. Quincy, 

(28 N. E. R. 1069) 302 
Chicago, B. & Q. E. E. Co. b. County 

of Otoe, (16 Wall. 667) 254 
Chicago, B. & Q. E. R. Co. b. Banker, 

(44 111. 26) 215 
Chicago, D. & V. E. R. Co. b. St. 

Anne, (101 111. 151) 186 
Chicago Dock Co. b. Garrity, (115 

111. 155) 33 
Chicago etc. Cor. v. Aldrich, (111. 90, 

24 N. E. E. 763) 246 
Chicago etc. Co. v. Aurora, (99 111. 

205) 186, 192 6 
Chicago etc. Co. v. Becker, (3 Fed. 

Rep. 883) 150 
Chicago etc. Co. b. Bates, (18 S. W. 

R. 1133) 245 
Chicago etc. Co. b. Blume, (111. 91, 

27 N E. E. 601) 246 



Chicago etc. R. R. Co. b. Boone Co., 

(44 111. 240) 259 
Chicago etc. Co. b. Chicago, (28 X. 

E. E. 756) 308 
Chicago etc. b. Chicago, (121 111. 176) 

303, 306 
Chicago etc. Co. ». Chicago, (111. 92, 

29 ISr. E. R. 1109) 238 
Chicago etc. N. W. Co. b. Dey, (35 

Fed. Eep. 896) 150 
Chicago etc. Co. b. Dunbar, (100 111. 

110) 303 
Chicago etc. b. Elgin, (91 111. 251) 312 
Chicago etc. Co. v. ElUthorpe, (Iowa 

90, 43 N". W. E. 277) 215 
Chicago etc. Co. b. Elliott, (Mo. 92, 

18 S. W. R. 901) 245 
Chicago etc. v. Basley, (26 Pac. R. 

731) 244 
Chicago etc. Co. v. Eaton, (26 K. E. 

E. 575) 246 
Chicago etc. Co. v. Francis, (70 111. 

238) 330 
Chicago etc. Co. b. Grierson, (29 

Pac. 1082) 241 
Chicago etc. Co. v. Haggerty, (67 111. 

113) 136 
Chicago etc. R. R. Co. b. Lake, (71 

111. 333) 232, 233 
Chicago etc. Co. b. Morrow, (Kan., 

22 Pac. E. 413) 354 
Chicago etc. Co. b. Missouri, (7 S. 

Ct. 693, 120 U. S. 569) 270 
Chicago etc. R. R. Co. b. Newton, 

(36 Iowa, 299) 308, 306 
Chicago etc. Co. b. Nix, (111. 91, 27 

N. E. 81) 246 
Chicago etc. Co. b. Sawyer, (69 111. 

285) 353 
Chicago etc. E. R. Co. b. Stein, (75 

111. 41) 239 
Chicago etc. Co. v. Ubanks, (18 S. 

W. R. 1134) 245 
Chicago etc. Co. b. Quincy, (27 N. 

E. E. 232) 350 
Chicago Lake Ft. Case, (33 Fed. 

Eep. 730) 132 
Chicago Packing etc. Co. v. Chicago, 

(88 111. 221) 62, 152 
Chicago E. I. & E. R. Co. b. Joliet, 

(79 111. 39) 160 
Chicago E. Co. b. Pinokney, (74 111. 

277) 189 
Chi. K. & W. R. Co. B. Harris, (Kan. 

92, 30 Pac. R. 456) 365 

Chick B. Newberry, (27 S. C. 419) 339 

Chickasaw Co. v. Clay Co., (62 Miss. 

325, 11 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 16) 

67 » ±- / 

Chickesaw Co. b. Sumner Co., (58 
Miss. 619) 59 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



xliii 



References are to Sections. 



Chicot Co. V. Kruse, (47 Ark. 80) 376 
Chioopee Bank v. Chapin, 1(8 Mete. 

Mass. 40) 19.j c 
Chldsey v. Canton, (17 Conn. 475) 3.53 
Child V. Hudson Bay Co., (2 P. Wms. 

207) 146 
Child V. Bemus, (R. I. 21 Atl. Rep. 

539) 124' 
Child V. Boston, (4 Allen, 41) 314 
Chilton V. Railroad, (16 M. & W. 212) 

154 
Chilvers v. People, (11 Mich. 43) 134 
Chilton V. Brooks, (69 Md. 584, 28 

Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 32) 57 
Chippewa Co. v. Aud. Gen., (32 N. W. 

R. 651) 270 
Chittenden Co. b. Shanks, (Ky.89, 11 

S. W. R. 468) 183 
China ». Southwiok, (12 Me. 238) 353 
Chinn v. Trustees, (82 111. 236) 365 
Chisolm V. Montgomery, (2 Woods, 

584) 196 
Christ V. Polk Co., (48 Iowa, 302) 87 
Christensen, Ex parte, (85Cal.208) 150 
Christopher e. Mayor, (13 Barb. 567) 

172 
Christy's Adm. v. St. Louis, (20 Mo. 

143) 326 a 
Chronic v. Pugh, (111. 91, 27 N. E. R. 

415) 236 
Chumasero v. Potts, (2 Mont. 242) 365 
Church V. Town of Knightstown, (35 

Ind. 177) 61 
Church Case, (5 Robt. 649) 95 
Church V. City of New York, (55 N". 

Y. Super. 160) 270 
Church V. Cherryfield, (33 Me. 460) 

342 
Churchill v. Walker, (68 Ga. 681) 

32, 380 
Churchman D. Indianopolis, (110 Ind. 

259) 265 
Chute V. State, (19 Minn. 271) 300 
Cicero v. Clifford, (53 Ind. 191) 193 
Cicotte V. Church, (rift Mich. 552) 51 
Circleville v. Jfeuding, (41 Ohio St. 

465) 347 
Cincinnati v. Bryson, (15 Ohio, 625) 

123 
Cincinnati v. Buckingham, (10 Ohio, 

257) 124, 128, 155, 250 
Cincinnati v. Bryson, (15 Oliio, 625,) 

256 
Cincinnati «. Cameron, (33 Ohio St. 

336) 12, 171 
Cincinnati v. Coombs, (16 Ohio, 181) 

241 
Cincin. v. Evans, (5 Ohio St. 594) 

312 
Cincinnati v. McMilken, (6 Ohio Ct. 
R. 188) 255 



Cincinnati v. Penny, (21 Ohio St. 499) 

294, 329 
Cincinnati v. Rice, (15 Ohio, 225) 134 
Cincin. v. Sloane, (31 Ohio St. 1) 83 
Cincinnati v. Stone, (5 Ohio St. 38) 

347 
Cincinnati ». White's Lessee, (6 Pet. 

435) 215, 219, 220, 226, 311 
Cincinnati v. Mt. Auburn Cable R'y 

Co., (28 W'kly L. Bui. 276) 302 
Cincinnati Col. v. State, (19 Ohio, 92, 

110) 270 
Cincinnati etc. v. Clinton Co., (1 Ohio 

St. 77) 375 
Cincinnati etc. Co. v. Cooper, (22 N. 

E. R. 340) 352 
Cine. etc. Co. v. Curamingsville, (14 

Ohio St. 523) 302 
Cincinnati Inc. Plane Ry. Co. v. City 

& S. Tel. Ass'n, (Ohio '92, 27 N. E. 

890) 306 a 
Cincinnati's Lessee v. Hamilton Co. 

Com'rs, (7 Ohio, part 1, 88) 215, 

217, 219 
Cincinnati Mut. Health Ass'n v. Ro- 
senthal, (55 111. 85) 258 
Cisco V. Roberts, (36 K. T. 292) 133 
Citizens v. Sands, (Mich. 93, 55 N. W. 

452) '297 
Citizens etc. Co. v. Camden H. R. R. 

Co., (33 N. J. Eq. 267) 304 
Citizens Gas Co. ». El wood, (114 Ind. 

332) 145, 152 
Citizens Co. v. Jones, (34 Fed. Rep. 

579) 144, 302 
Citizens St. R. Co. ». Memphis, (5:! 

Fed. 715) 290, 301 
Citizens W. Co. v. Bridgeport Hyd. 

Co., (55 Conn. 1) 17, 144, 296 
City V. Alexander, (23 Mo. 483) 184 
City V. Blaokemore, (17 Ind. 318) 106 
City V. College, (Mo. 92, 20 S. W. R. 

35) 270 
City V. Cunningham, (47 N. W. R. 

930) -350 
City V. Jewish Hospital, (30 W. N. C. 

25) 270 
City V. Fowler, (34 Ind. 140) 281 
City V. Given, (60 Pa. St. 136) 85 
City V. Moore, (113 Pa. St. 597) 282 
City V. Murphy, (3 S. E. Rep. 326) 

326 
City V. Morris Canal, (12 N. J. Eq. 

547, 561) 312 
City V. Rule, (93 Pa. St. 15) 259 a 
City V. Sears, (2 Col. 588) 79 
City V. Suburban Ry. Co. of Savan- 
nah, (77 Ga. TAl) 136 
City V. Tiffany, (22 N. T. S. 604) 259 a 
City Bank of Dallas v. Vogel, (51 

Tex. 354) 273 



xliv 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

Keferences are to Sections. 



City Bank B.Albany, (92 N. Y. 363) 170 
City Com'rs v. Benjamin, (2 Strob. 

508, S. 0.) 150 
City Council v. Alirens, (4 Strobb, 

241, S. C.) 124 
City Council v. Corleis, (2 Bailey, 

189, S. C.) 160 
City Council v. Dunn, (1 McCord, S. 

C. 333) 159 
City Council v. Feldman, (3 Rich. S. 

C. Law, 385) 160 
City Council r>. Goldsmith, (12 Rich. 

S. C. Law, 470) 123 
City Council d. Hudson, (15 S. E. R. 

878, 88 Ga. 599) 336 a 
City Council ». Church, (4 Strobh. 

306) 18 
City Council ». King, (4 McCord. S. 

C. 487) 48, 103 
City Council v. Louisville etc. Co., 

(4 So. Rep. 626) 130 
City Council v. Moorehead, (2 Rich. 

S. C. Law, 430) 51, 52 
City Council v. Plank Rd. Co., (31 

Ala. 76) 169 
City Council v. Rogers, (2 McCord, 

495) 127 
City Council ». Schmidt, (11 Rich. 

S. C. Law, 343) 160 
• City Council v. Seeba, (4 Strobh. 

Law S. C. 319) 158 
City Council v. Payne, (2 Nott & 

McC. 475) 116 
City Council v. Pepper, (1 Rich. S. 

C. Law, 364) 103 
City Com. of Charleston v. Benjar 

min, (2 Strobh. S. C. Law, 508) 134 
City F. I. Co. V. Corliss, (21 Wend. 

367) 335 
City Gas & M. Co. v. Elwood, (114 

Ind. 332) 296 
City etc. v. Goldsmith, (2 Speers S. 

C. 435) 150 
City etc. Co. v. Savannah, (77 Ga. 

731) 306 
City Nat. Bk. v. Paducah, (9 S. W. 

R. 218, Ky. 87) 258 
City of Bloomington v. Pollock, (31 

N. E. R. 146) 292 
City of Anderson v. East, (117 Ind. 

126) 331 
City of Buffalo v. Schleifer, (21 N. 

Y. S. 913) 153 
City of Covington v. Southgate, (15 

B. Mon. 491) 259 
City of Delphi v. Bowen, (61 Ind. 29) 53 
City of Galesburg ». Hawkinson, (75 

lU. 152) 53 
City of Gloversville v. Johnston G. & 

K. R. Co., (21 N. Y. S. 146, 66 Hun, 

627) 396 



City of Jacksonville v. Ledwith, 

(Fla.,'7 So. R. 885) 128 
City of Kansas v. Johnson, (78 Mo. 

661) 267 
City of Louisville v. Louisville Gas 

Co. (22 S. W. R. 550, Ky. 93) 281 
Cf. City of Muscatine v. Chicago R. 

I. & P. Ry. Co., (55 jSr. W. R. 100, 

Iowa, 93) 282 
City of Nevada v. Morris, (43 Mo. 

App. 586) 113 
City of New York, In re, (63 Hun, 

632) 241 
City of Olympia ». Mann, (1 Wash. 

St. 389) 130 
City of Pittsburgh, In re, (138 Pa. 

St. 401, 27 W. N. C. 457) 259 a 
City of Passaic, In re, (23 Atl. R. 

517, N. J. 92) 87 
City of Pensacola v. Louisville etc. 

R. Co., (21 Fla. 492) 55 
City of Rock Island v. Huesing, (25 

111. App. 600, 21 N. E. R. 558) 395 
City of St. Louis v. Spiegel, (2 S. 

W. R. 839, 40 Mo. 587) 261 
City of Springfield ». Knott, (49 Mo. 

App. 412) 278 
City of Wilkes-Barre's App., (116 Pa. 

St. 246, 9 Atl. R. 308) 267 
City R. R. Co. v. City R. R. Co., (20 

N. J. Eq. 61) 304 
Claiborne Street, In re, (4 La. An. 7) 

240 
Claiborne Co. v. Brooks, (111 U. S. 

400, 406) 177, 184 
Claflin V. Hopkins, (4 Gray, 502) 139, 

397 
Clapp V. Board of Pol., (72 N. Y. 

415) 83 
Clapp V. City of Spokane, (53 Fed. 

515) 294, 393 
Clapp V. Hartford, (35 Conn. 66) 30 
Clapp V. Town, (3 N. Y. State Rep.) 

317 
Clarendon v. Phila., (13 Phila. 54) 75 
Clark B. Adair, (79 Mo. 526) 325 
Clark V. Board, (24 Iowa, 366) 374 
Clark V. Barrington, (41 N. H. 44) 352 
Clark B. Boston etc. Co., (N. H., 31 

Am. & Eng. Cor. Cas. 548) 136 
Clark B. Corinth, (41 Vt. 449) 340 
Clark V. Crane, (57 Cal. 629) 360 
Clark B. Com., (4 Pick. 125) 321 
Clark B. Com., (14 Bush, 166) 288 
Clark B. Cape May, (50 N. J. L. 558) 83 
Clark B. Cuckfleld Union, (11 Eng. 

L. & Eq. 442) 165 
Clark B. District, (3 Mackey, 79) 344 
Clark B. Davenport, (14 Iowa, 494) 

266 
Clark B. Butcher, (9 Cow. 674) 326 a 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



xlv 



Clark V. Des Moines, (19 Iowa, 199) 

17Y, 178 
Clark V. Janesville, (10 Wis. 136) 148, 

191 
Clark V. Denten, (1 B. & A. 92) 114 
Clark V. Easton, (146 Mass. 43) 338 a 
Clark V. Fry, (8 Ohio St. 358, 374) 

300, 347 
Clark V. Iowa City, (20 Wall. U. S. 

583) 180,190, 192, 193 6 
.Clark B. Lincoln Co., (20 Pac. K. 

576) 379 
Clark V. Lookport, (49 Barb. 580) 

349, 352 
Clark V. Louisville W. Co., (Ky. 91, 

14 S. W. R. 502) 271 
Clark Co. v. Lawrence, (63 HI. 32) 
Clark 13. Lincoln Co., (25 Am. & Eng. 

Car. Cas. 211) 325 
Clark 13. Lebrew, (9 B. & C. 52) 114 
Clark V. Leathers, (5 S. W. R. 576) 

255, 270 
Clark V. McKenzie, (7 Bush, 523) 371 
Clark V. Mayor etc. of N. Y., (3 

Barb. 290) 92 
Clark i). Mobile Com'rs, (36 Ala. 621) 

80 
Clark V. No. Muskegon, (50 N. W. E. 

254, 88 Mich. 808) 80 
Clark !3. People, (15 111. 213) 383 
Clark V. Polk Co., (19 Iowa, 248) 

169, 190 a 
Clark V. Pratt, (55 Me. 546) 87 
Clark 13. Pratt, (47 Me. 55) 211 
Clark V. Peckham, (10 R. I. 35) 121 
Clark V. Richmond, (88 Va. 355) 339, 

.343 
Clark V. Richmond, (5 S. E. E. 869) 

352 
Clark V. Syracuse, (13 Barb. 32) 896 
Clark V. Saybrook, (21 Conn. 318) 329 
Clark V. School Dist., (3 R. I. 199) 

179, 182 
Clark V. South Bend, (85 Ind. 276) 

130, 146 
Clark V. Syracuse, (13 Barb. 32) 720 
Clark V. Utica, (18 Barb. N. Y. 451) 

245 
Clark 13. Wilmington, (5 Harr. 243) 

329, .3.54 a 
Clark V. Washington, (12 Wheat. 524) 

165 
Clark Co. 13. Paris, (11 B. Mon. 143, 

154) 364 
Clark Co. v. Paris etc. Co., (11 B. 

Mon. 143) 186 
Clarke's Fees, In re, (25 Hun, 593) 79 
Clarke v. Bank, (5 Eng., 10 Ark. 516) 

30,31 
Clarke i3. Birmingham etc. Co., (41 

Pa. St. 147) 353 



Clarke d. Board, (27 111. 310) 65 
Clarke v. Farmers' etc. Co., (15 

Wend. 256) 51 
Clarke B. Janesville, (10 Wis. 136) 190 
Clarke «. Potter Co., (1 Barr, Pa. 163) 

50 
Clarke v. Providence, (15 Atl. E. 763) 

201, 208, 225, 226 
Clarke 13. Rochester, (24 Barb. 481) 

244 
Clarke 13. Rogers, (81 Ky. 43) 231 
Clarke Co. Comm'rsis. State, (61 Ind. 

75) 368 
Claughey 13. Hancock Co., (46 111. 

856) 118 
Clay, In re, (22 N. Y. S. 112) 278 
Clayards 13. Dethick, ( 12 Q. B. 439) 

352 
Clayburgh ». Chicago, ( 25 111. 535) 

92, 336 a, 349 
Clay County 13. McAleer, (115 U. S. 

616) 266 
Clayton v. Caroy, (4 Md. 26) 871 
Clayton 13. Laf argue, (23 Ark. 187) 

397 
Clayton 13. Heidelberg, (17 Miss. 623) 

401 
Clayton 13. Mc Williams, (49 Miss. 

311) 180 
Cleary 13. Trenton, (50 N. J. L. 381) 83 . 
Clee 1). Sandars, (42 N. W. R. 154, 

Mich. 89) 483 
Cleghorn v. Postlethwaite, (43 111. 

428) 279 
Clemeuce v. Auburn, (66 N. Y. 834) 

327 
Clemens 13. Mayor, (16 Md. 208) 282 
Clerk 13. Tucket, (3 Lev. 281) 155 
Cleveland 1;. Board, (55 Barb.*288) 

397 
Cleveland 13. King, (132 U. S. 295) 

347, 350!; 
Cleveland 13. Jersey City, (39 N. J. L. 

629) 359 
Cleveland v. St. Paul, (18 Minn. 279) 

3.50 a 
Cleveland 13. Spier, ( 16 Q. B. N. S. 

399) 337 
Cleveland 13. Wick, (18 Ohio St. 303) 

248 
Cleveland etc. Co. «. Wynant, (114 

Ind. 525) 342 
Cleveland, P. & A. R. R. Co. 13. Penn- 
sylvania, (15 Wall. 800) 245, 258 
Clifford 13. Dam, (81 K. Y. 52) 300, 

348 
Clifford 13. Tyman, (61 IST. H. 508) 

321 
Clift 13. State, (Ind. 93, 38 N. E. R. 

211) 800 
Clifton 13. Cook, (7 Ala. 114) 65 



xlvi 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



Cline V. Cornwall, (21 Grant, Can. 

142) 300 • 
Clinton v. Cedar etc. Co., (24 Iowa, 

455, 480) 2, 301, 302, 303, 306 
Clinton v. Henry Co., (Mo. 93, 22 S. 

W. R. 494) 270, 282 
Clinton v. Phillips, (58 111. 102) 150 
Clinton v. Strong, (9 Johns. 370) 326 a 
Clinton Bridge, (10 Wall. U. S. 454) 

313 
Clintonville v. Keeting, (4 Denio, 

341) 33, 125 
Clough V. Hart. (8 Kan. 487) 176 
Cloughessy v. Waterbury, (51 Conn. 

405) 344, 350 & 
Clowes V. Staffordshire, (L. E. 8 

Chapp. 125) 396 . 
Cluggish V. Rogers, (13 Ind. 538) 90 
Clulow V. McClelland, (151 Pa. St. 

583) 317 
Coach Co. B. Camden H. E. E. Co., 

(33 N. J. Eq. 267) 302 
Coal Ridge etc. Co. v. Jennings, (127 

Pa. St. 397, 17 Atl. E. 986) 259 
Coast etc. Co. v. Savannah, (30 Fed. 

Eep. 646) 306 
Coast Line etc. Co. v. Cohen, (50 Ga. 

451) 302, 396 
Coats V. Dubuque, (68 Iowa, 550) 291 
. Coates V. Canaan, (51 Vt. 131) 344, 

348, 352 
Cobb V. Boston, (122 Mass. 181) 116 
Cobb V. Dalton, (53 Ga. 426) 324 
Cobb V. Hague, (13 S. E. R. 633, 87 

Ga. 450) 393 
CobbettB. Slowman, (9Exch. 633) 104 
Cobb V. Kingman, (15 Mass. 197) 59 
Cobb V. Portland, (55 Me. 381) 777 
Cobb V. Standi.sh, (14 Me. 477) 352 
Coburu V. Ellenwood, (4 N. H. 99) 

211 
Coe V. Eailroad Co., (10 Ohio St. 372) 

273 
Coe V. Caledonia & M. Ey. Co., (27 

Minn. 197) 186 
Coe V. Wise, (5 B. & S. 440, 475) 121, 

336 a 
Coe V. Lake Co., (37 N. H. 254) 396 
Cochran v. McCleary, (22 Iowa, 75) 

38, 96, 361, 379 
Cockburn v. Bank, (13 La. An. 389) 

106 
Cockerel v. Cholmondely, (1 Euss. & 

Myl. 418) 192 6 
Coffin V. Cohn, (7 Cush. 355) 129 
Coffin V. Nantucket, (5 Cush. 269) 

113, 355 
Coffin V. Plymouth, (49 Me. 173) 107 
Coffin B. Portland, (11 Sawy. C. C. E. 

600) 228 
Coffin V. State, (7 Ind. 157) 79 



Coggeshall et al., New Eochelle Trs. 

V. Pelton, (7 Johns. Ch. 292) 202, 

204 
Coghlan v. Ottawa, (1 App. Can. E. 

54) 355 
Cogswell V. N. Y., N. H. & H. E. E. 

Co., (103 N. T. 10) 120, 329 
Coggswell V. Lexington, (4 Cush. 

307) 342 
Cohen v. New York, (113 N. T. 532) 

300, 331 
Cohen v. Wigfall, (8 Rich. Law, 237,) 

66 
Cohn V. Parcels, (72 Cal. 367) 226 
Cohoes V. D. & H. Can. Co., (31 N. 

E. E. 887) 218, 220 
Coit V. Elliott, (28 Ark. 204) 365 
Coit V. Lyons, (33 Conn. 109) 83 
Coit V. State, (28 Ark. 417) 84 
Colbeck V. Beford. (21 Up. Can. Q. 

B. 276) 340, 347, 3506 
Colburn v. Chattanooga, (17 Am. L. 

E. N. S. 191) 395 
Cold Spring etc. v. Tolland, (9 Cush. 

492) 54 
Cold water v. Tucker, (36 Mich. 474) 54 
Cole V. Cheshire, (1 Gray, 441) 66 
Cole V. Drew, (44 Vt. 49) 291 
Cole V. Kegler, (64 Iowa, 59) 120 
Cole u. Le Grange, (113 U. S. 1, 7 

Am. & Eng. Cor. Cas. 379) 188 
Cole V. Muscatine, (14 Iowa, 296) 327, 

330 
Cole V. Medina, (27 Barb. 218) 349 
Cole V. Nashville, (4 Sneed, 162) :131 a 
Coleman v. Chester, (14 S. C. 286) 

338 a 
Coleman v. Flint etc. (64 Mich. 160) 

312 
Coleman u. Marion Co.. (50 Cal. 493) 

186 
Coleman u. Martin, (50 Cal. 493) 185 
Coleman v. San Rafael Turnpike Co., 

(49 Cal. 517) 200 
Coleman v. Sec. Ave. E. E., (38 N. T. 

201) 302 
Coleman v. Thurmond, (56 Tex. 514) 

312 
Coles V. Trustees, (10 Wend. 658) 100 
Coles V. Madison Co., (Breese, 111. 

120) 8 
Coles Co. ». Allison, (23 111. 437) 65, 

160 
Col. Co. V. Bryson, (13 Fla. 281 ) 369 
Collier v. U. S., (22 Ct. of CI. 125) 79 
Collieries v. Gibb, (L. E. 5 Ch. Div. 

713) 301 
Collector v. Dendinger, (38 La. An. 

261) 110 
Collector v. Hubbard, (12 Wall, 1, 12) 

164,326 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



xlvii 



References are to Sections. 



Collector v. Board, (47 N. W. E. 227, 

83 Mich. 367) 360 
Collins V. Camden, (27 N. J. Eq. 293) 

397 
Collins V. Council Bluffs, (32 Iowa, 

324) 344, 352 a 
Collins V. Davis, (.59 Iowa, 256) 398 
Collins V. Dorchester, (6 Cush. 396) 

107, 342 
Collins V. Hatch, (18 Ohio, 523) 120, 

150 
Collins V. Holyoke, (146 Mass. 298) 

98, 277 
Collins ». Hall, (Ga. 93, 17 S. E. -E. 

622) 150 
Collins V. Louisville, (2 B. Mon. Ky. 

134) 122, 256, 265 
Collins V. Macon, (69 G-a. 542) 219, 

338 
Collins V. New Albany, (59 Ind. 396) 

55, 56 
Collins V. Philadelphia, (93 Pa. St. 

272) 328, 335 
Collins V. State, (8 Ind. 344) 18, 82 
CoUiusville ». Scanland, (58 111. 221) 

129 
Collins V. Swindle, (6 Grant. 282) 166 
Collins I). Savannah, (77 Ga. 745) 327 
Collins V. Tracy, (36 Tex. 546) 83 
Collins V. Welch, (58 Iowa, 72) 142 
Colonial Bank v. Eich. Bank of Yar- 
mouth, (11 App. Gas. 84) 327 
Colstrum v. Minn. etc. E. E. Co., (33 

Minn. 516)39 6 
Colton V. Hanohet, (13 111. 615) 315 
Colton V. Phillips, (56 N. H. 220) 86 
Colton V. Price, (50 Ala. 424) 85 
Colton 1). Eossi, (9 Cal. 595) 247 
Columbia v. Harrison, (2 Const. E. 

S. C. 213) 156, 160 
Columbia o. Hunt, (5 Eich. L., S. G. 

550) 154, 256 
Columbia Co. Com'rs v. King, (13 

Fla. 451) 364, 370, 375 
Columbia D. B. Co. v. Geisse, (35 N. 

J. L. 558) 231 
Columbus V. Dahn, (36 Ind. 330) 217, 

219, 221 
Columbus V. Jaques, (30 Ga. 506) 226, 

391 
Columbus V. Sohl, (44 O. State, 479) 

278 
Columbus V. Story, (35 Ind. 97) 265 
Columbus V. Street E. E. Co., (45 

Ohio St. 98) 144, 274 
Columbus V. Woolen Mills, (33 Ind. 

435) 355 
Columbus City v. Cutcomp, (61 Iowa, 

672) 125 
Columbus etc. Co. v. Wright, (15 S. E. 

R. 293) 272 



Columbus G. Co. v. Columbus, (Ohio, 

93, 33 N. E. E. 292) 290, 292, 293, 324 
Col. etc. Co. V. Humphrey, (26 Pac. 

E. 165) 245 
Columbus V. Col. etc. Co., (45 Ohio, 

98) 306 
Columbus V. Columbus, (Wis. '92, 52 

N. W. E. 425) 2, 18 
Columbus & W. Ey. Co. v. Witherow, 

(82 Ala. 190) 224 
Colville V. Judy, (73 Mo. 651) 279 
Colwell V. Peden, (3 Watts, Pa. 327, 

328) 326 a 
Commonwealth, Appeal of, (9 Atl. 

524, Pa. 87) 327 
Com. V. Adams, (114 Mass. 323) 352 
Com. V. Alden, (143 Mass. 113) 120 
Com. V. Alger, (7 Cush. 53) 82, 132, 

135, 244 
Com. V. Allen, (128 Mass. 308) 378, 

380, 381 
Commonwealth v. Allegheny Coun- 
ty, (37 Pa. St. 277, 290) 191 b, 212, 

365, 368 
Commonwealth v. Alb urge r, (1 

Whart. Pa. 469) 219 
Com. V. Arrison, (15 S. & E. 130) 

96 
Com. V. Arnold, (3 Litt. 309, Ky.) 84 
Com. V. Arrott S. P. M. Co., (22 Atl. 

E. 243) 270 
Com'rs V. Aspinwall, (24 How. IT. S. 

376) 369 
Com. V. Athearn, (3 Mass. 285) 373 
Com. D. Bank, (28 Pa. St. 389) 379 
Com'rs V. Baxter, (35 Pa. St. 263) 105 
Com. V. Barry, (Hard. 229, Ky.) 83 
CommonwealtlL v. Belden, (13 Met. 

10, Mass.) 223 
Com. V. Bean, (Thach. 85, Mass. 

Crim. Gas.) 158 
Com. V. Blaisdell, (107 Mass. 234) 300 
Com. V. Borden, (til Pa. St. 272) 156 
Com. V. Boston, (97 Mass. 555) 286, 

297 
Com. V. Brenham, (22 N. E. E. 628) 

855 
Com. V. Breunan, (103 Mass. 70) 125 
Com. !). Brooks, (90 Mass. 439) 123, 

209 
Com. V. Browden, (Thach. Cr. Gas. 

9) 102 
Com. V. Bumm, (10 Phila. 162) 380 
Com. V. Cambridge, (7 Mass. 158) 309 
Com. V. Capp, (48 Pa. St. 53) 301 
Com. V. Gen. IBridge Corp., (12 Gush. 

244) 313 
Com. V. Cen. Pass. etc. Co., (52 

Wend. 506) 378 
Com. V. Chambei's, (1 J. J. Marsh 

160) 83 



xlviii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



Commonwealth v. Chaplin, (Pick. 

199, 16 Am. Dec. 386) 239 
Commonwealth v. Charlestown, (1 

Pick. 180, Mass.) 240 
Com'is V. Chase, (6 Cush. 248) 107, 

129 
Commonwealth u. Cole, (26 Pa. St. 

187) 220 
Commonwealth v. Commissioners, 

{o Kawle, 75) 65 
Commonwealth v. Cluley, (56 Pa. St. 

270) 380 
Cora. V. Crogan, (Pa. '93, 26 Atl. E. 

697) 76 
Com. V. Crowell, (30 N. E. K. 1015) 

258 
Commonwealth v. Gary Improve- 
ment Co., (98 Mass. 19, 22) 258 
Com. V. Cutter, (29 N. E. Kep. 1146) 

119, 134, 158 
Commonwealth v. Cullen, (1 Harris 

133, Pa.) 38 
Com. V. Dallas, (3 Teates, 300) 162 
Com. V. Davis, (140 Mass. 485) 154, 

148 
Com'rs V. Day, (19 Ind. 450) 179 
Com. V. Deerfield, (6 Allen, 449) 313 
Com. V. Denworth, (145 Pa. St. 172, 

22 Atl. E. 820) 18 
Com. V. Dow, (10 Met. 382, Mass.) 125 
Com. V. Duff, (87 Ky. 586) 34 
Com. V. Eichenburg, (21 Atl. Eep. 

258) 123 
Com. V. Ellis, (11 Mass. 465) 398 
Commonwealth v. Emigration Sav. 

Bank, (98 Mass. 12) 192 b 
Com'rs V. Emery, (11 Cush. 406) 104 
Com. V. Evans, (74 Pa. St. 124) 67 
Com. V. Erie etc. Co., (27 Pa. St. 339) 

302 
Com. V. Fenton, (139 Mass. 195) 299 
Com'rs t). Frankfort, (Ky. '92, 17S. W. 

287) 802 
Com. V. Gamble, (62 Pa. St. 343) 67 
Com. V. Gardner, (133 Pa. St. 284) 

123 
Com. D. Gay, (5 Pick. 44) 155 
Com. V. German Soc, (15 Pa. St. 251) 

85 
Com. V. Germania Ins. Co., (Pa. '91, 

22 Atl. E. 240) 259. 
Com. V. Genther, (17 S. & E. 135) '91 
Com. V. Gillespie, (23 Atl. E. 393) 

399 
Com. 0. Gill, (3 Whart. 228) 383 
Com. V. Goodrich, (13 Allen, 545) 118, 

152 
Com. 0. Guardians, etc., (6 S. & E. 

469, Pa.) 83 
Com. V. Hanley, (7 Pa. St. 513) 82 
Com. V. Hastings, (9 Met. 259) 89 



Com. V. Hawkes, (123 Mass. 525) 8 ; 

102 
Com. V. Harris, (101 Mass. 29) 120 
Com. V. Henry, (49 Pa. St. 530) 363, 

377 
Com. V. Hopkinsville, (7 B. Mon. 38) 

400 
Commonwealth v. Industrial Assn., 

"(98 Mass. 12) 190 
Com. o. Jones, (10 Bush, 725) 83 
Com. V. Jones, (12 Pa. .St. 365) 69, 

380 
Commonwealth v. Johnson, (2 Binn. 

275, Pa.) 360 
Commonwealth v. Judges, (8 Pa. St. 

391) 24 
Com. V. King, (13 Met. 115, Mass.) 

300 
Com. V. Kinperts, (12 Pa. Co. Ct. E. 

463) 400 
Commonwealth v. Lancaster, (5 

Watts. 152, Pa.) 375 
Com'rs 13. Leech, (44 Pa. St. 332) 105, 

381 
Com. V. Leight, (1 B. Mon. 107) 90 
Commonwealth v. Look, (108 Mass. 

452) 239 
Commonwealth v. Lowell Gasl. Co., 

(12 Allen 75, Mass.) 274 
Commonwealth v. Lyndall, (2 Brew. 

425, Pa.) 368 
Com. V. Mathews, (122 Mass. 60) 123 
Com. V. Maury, (82 Va. 882) 261 
Com. V. McPeek, (Ky. '91, 20 S. W. 

E. 220) 83 
Com. V. McCafferty, (145 Mass. 384) 

301 
Com. V. McWilliams, (11 Pa. St. 61) 

184 
Com. V. McClosky, (2Eawle, 369, Pa.) 

105, 381 
Commonweath v. McCarter, (98 Pa. 

St. 607) 380 
Com. V. MacFerron, (25 Atl. E. 556) 8 
Cora. V. McKibben, (14 S. W. E. 572) 

270 
Com'rs B. Meeser, (44 Pa. St. 341) 105, 

379 
Commonwealth v. Milton, (12 B. Mon. 

212, Ky.) 258 
Com. V. Moorhead, (118 Pa. St. 344, 

12 Atl. E. 424) 223 
Com. V. New Bedford, (2 Gray, 229) 

400 
Com. V. Ife-wburyport, (103 Mass. 129) 

400 
Com'rs V. N. Y. etc. Co., (Pa. '90, 22 

Atl. 212) 259 
Com. V. Odenweller, (Mass. '92, 30 N. 

E. 1022) 158 
Com. V. Patch, (97 Mass. 221} 129 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



xlix 



References are to Sections. 



Commonwealth v. Pa. Canal Co., (66 

Pa. St. 41, 5 Am. Rep. 329) 238 
Commonwealth ». Painter, (10 Pa. 

St. 214) 24 
Com. V. Page, (Mass. '92, 29 N. E. 

R. .512) 300 
Com. V. Parker, (9 Mete. 263) 331 a 
Com. V. Parks, (9 Phila. 481, Pa.) 

363 
Com. V. Parks, (30 N. E. Rep. 1'74) 

134 
Com. V. Passmore, (1 Serg. & R. 217) 

300 
Com. V. Patch, (97 Mass. 221) 121 
Com. V. Peo., (99 111. 587) 377 
Com. V. Perkins, (43 Pa. St, 400) 212, 

375 
Com. V. Pindar, (11 Met., Mass. 539) 

104 
Commonwealth v. Pittsburgh, (34 

Pa. St. 496) 182, 183, 266, 359, 362 

364, 368 
Com. V. Pittsburgh, (41 Pa. St. 278) 

183 
Com. V. Pittsburgh, (88 Pa. St. 66) 

375 
Commonwealth v. Pittsburgh etc. E. 

R. Co., (58 Pa. St. 26) 302 
Com. V. Pittston F. B. Co., (Pa. '92, 

24 Atl. 87) 314 
Com. V. Philada. Co., (5 Rawle, 75) 

361 
Com. V. Phila. Comrs., (5 Binn., Pa., 

534) 76 
Com. V. Philadelphia, (27 Pa. St. 497) 

326 
Com. 1). Plaisted, (19 N. E. 224, 148 

Mass. 375) 18 
Commonwealth v. Quarter Sessions, 

(8 Pa. St. 395) 24 
Com. V. Read, (1 Gray, 475) 102, 103, 

120 
Com. V. Reynolds, (137 Pa. St. 389) 

26 
Com. V. Reynolds, (8 Pa. Co. Ct. E. 

568) 28 
Commonwealth v. Riohter, (1 Pa. St. 

467) 239 
Com. V. Roark, (8 Cush. 210) 104 
Com. V. Robertson, (5 Cush. 438) 150 
Com. V. Robinson, (5 Cush. 438, 442) 

158 
Com. ». Eodes, (5 Mon., Ky., 318) 360 
Com. V. Rosencrans, (9 Pa. Co. Ct. 

399) 123 
Commonwealth b. Roxbury, (9 Gray, 

510) 40 
Com. V. Roy, (140 Mass. 432) 146 
Com. ». R. E. Co., (27 Pa. St. 339) 

290 
Com. V. Rush, (14 Pa. St. 186) 129 

iv 



Cora. V. Ryan, (5 Mass. 90) 103 
Commonwealth v. Shumau's Adm., 

(18 Pa. St. 34.3) 250 
Com. u. Shepp, (10 Phila. 518) 380 
Com. V. Shaw, (1 Pitts., Pa. 492) 104 
Com. B. Shaver, (3 W. & S. .338) 83 
Com. V. Slifer, (25 Pa. St. 23) 83 
Com. V. Smead, (11 Mass. 264) 380 
Cora. V. Smith, (132 Mass. 289) 65 
Com. V. St. Patricks etc., (2 Binn. 

441)83 
Com. I). Stodder, (2 Cush. 262) 124 
Com. ■». Sutherland, (3 So. R. 145) 83 
Com. V. Taunton, (7 Allen, 309) 314 
Commonwealth ». Taylor, (36 Pa. St. 

263) 369 
Com. V. Temple, (14 Gray, 69) 321 
Com. V. Tewksbury, (11 Met. ,551) 116 
Com. V. Turner, (1 Cush. 493) 125, 

145, 140 
Com. V. Upton, (6 Gray, 473) 120 
Com. V. Vt. & Mass. R. R. Co., (4 

Gray, 22) 400 
Com. V. Wilmington, (105 Mass. 599) 

343 
Commonwealth ». Wilder, (127 Mass. 

1)207 
Com', v. Williams, (79 Ky. 42) 83 
Com. ». Wilkinson, (16 Pick. 175) 318 
Com. V. Wellsboro etc. Co., (35 Pa. 

St. 152) 391 
Com. V. Wetzel, (84 Ky. 537, 2 S. W. 

R. 123) 34 
Com. V. Westborough, (3 Mass. 406) 

309 
Com. V. Woelpei', (3 Ser. <fe Rawle, 

Pa. 20) 61 
Com. V. Wolbert, (6 Binn. 292) 72 
Com. ■». Worcester, (3 Pick. 462) 32, 

150, 158, 299 
Commonwealth v. Wood, (10 Pa. St. 

93) 215 
Commonwealth ». Woods, (4 Pa. St. 

113) 248 
Comer v. Folsom, (13 Minn. 219) 139 
Commercial Nat. Bank v. lola, (2 

Dillon, C. C. E. 353) 27, 183 
Commercial Bank v. Hughes, (17 

Wend. 94) 179 
Commercial Nat. Bk. v. Portland, 

(Or. '93, 33 Pac. R. 532) 172 
Com'rs V. Bryson, (13 Ela. 281) 397 
Com'rs V. Bowie, (34 Ala. 4(il) 247 
Com'rs V. Com., (72 Pa. St. 24) 377 
Com'rs c. Com'rs of Harvey Co., (26 

Kan. 181) 28, 67 
Com'rs V. Chandler, (96 U. S. 205) 184 
Com'rs V. Chitwood, (8 Ind. .504) 108 
Com'rs I). Day, (19 Ind. 450) 179 
Com'rs r. Dick, (5 Daly, 391) 120 
Com'rs V. Duckett, (20 Mo. 468) 9 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Beferences arc to Sections. 



Com'rs V. Frost, (4 Daly, 353) 121 
Com'rs V. Gas Co., (12 Pa. St. 318) 

150, 159 
Com'rs etc. v. Gibson, (36 Md. 229) 325 
Com'rs V. Hicks, (2 Ind. 527) 30 
Com'rs V. Huff, (91 Ind. 333) 312. 
Com'rs V. Harper, (38 111. 104) 279 
Com'rs V. Harris, (7 Jones, Law, 281) 

154 
Com'rs V. Hearn, (59 Ala. 371) 98, 106 
Com'rs V. Harris, (7 Jones, 281) 117 
Com'rs V. Keller, (6 Kansas, 518) 177 
Com'rs V. Leckey, (6 S. & E., Pa. 166) 

99 
Com'rs etc. v. Martin, (4 Mich. 557) 

325 
Com'rs V. Mich. etc.'Co., (Mich. '92, 

51 N. W. E. 447) 238 
Com'rs V. Newby, 31 111. App. 378) 

241, 249 
Com'rs V. Northern Lib. Co., (12 Pa. 

St. 318) 120 
Com'rs V. Nichols, (14 Ohio St. 260) 

1916 
Com'rs V. Pidgeon, (23 Hun, 346) 120 
Com'rs V. Powe, (6 Jones L. 134) 118 
Com'rs V. Beynolds, (44 Ind. 509) 166 
Com'rs V. Taylor, (2 Bay, S. C. 282) 

312 
Com'rs V. Templeton, (51 Ind. 266) 

173 
Com'rs u. Town, (19 111. App. 259) 

398 
Com'rs V. Westchester, (9 Pa. Co. Ct. 

Eep. 542) 306 o 
Com'rs etc. v. Withers, (29 Miss. 21) 

244 
Com'rs etc. v. N. C. Gas Co., (12 Pa. 

St. 318) 301 
Com'rs of Assessment, In re, (18 

Albany Law J. 1P9) 301 
Com'rs of Elizabeth, In re, (49 N. J. 

L. 20) 28 
Com'rs of Howard v. Legg, (110 Ind. 

479) 352 
Com'rs of Manor v. Clark, (94 U. S. 

279) 191 
Com'rs of Ottawa v. Nelson, (19 Kan. 

234) 67, 259 
Com'rs of Parks, In re, (53 Hun, 556) 

223 
Com'rs of Pilots v. Clark, (33 N. Y. 

251) 133 
Com'rs of Shawnee Co. v. Carter, (2 

Kan. 115) 55 
Com'rs of Wash. Park, Albany, In re, 

(56 N. T. 144) 242 
Com'rs of Wilm. v. Eoby, (8 Ire. Law 

250) 152 
Conboy ». Iowa City, (2 Iowa, 90) 

105, 148, 158 



Concord v. Boscawen, (17 ff. H. 465) 

201 
Concord v. Concord etc. Co., (18 Atl. 

E. 87) 302 
Concord v. Portsmouth Sav. Bk., (92 

U. S. 625) 12, 14, 188 
Concord v. Eobinson, (121 U. S. 165) 

184, 196. 
Concordia Cem. Assn. v. Minn. etc. 

Co., (12 N. E. E. 536, 121 111. 199) 

246 
Concord Com'rs v. Patterson, (8 

Jones L., N. C. 182) 261. 
Condon v. Jersey City, (43 N. J. L. 

412) 165 
Condron v. New Orleans, (43 La. An. 

1202) 87 
Cone V. Hartford, (28 Conn. 363, 375) 

248, 259 a, 294 
Conery v. N. O. W. W. Co., (7 So. E. 

8, 41 La. An. 910) 113, 165, 174 
Conery v. New Orleans W. W. Co., 

(39 La. An. 770) 395 
Conestoga etc. Co. v. Lancaster, (151 

Pa. St. 543) 319. 
Congdon v. Norwich, (37 Conn. 414) 

344 
Cong. Society o. Sperry, (16 Conn. 

200) 95 
Congreve v. Morgan, (5 Duer, 495) 

342 
Congreve v. Smith, (18 N. Y. 79) 348 
Conhocton etc. Co. v. Buffalo etc. Co., 

(3 Hun, 523) 354 
Conklinc. Keokuk, (73 Iowa, 343) 330 
Conkling v. Springfield, (24 N. E. 67, 

124 111. 420) 326 a 
Conlin v. Aldrich, (98 Mass. 557) 371 
Camden v. Clerke, (Hobart, Eug. 32) 

49 
Connelly u. Griswold, (7 Iowa, 416) 

245, 249 
Conuett V. Chicago, (29 N. E. E. 280; 

114 111. 233) 86 
Conn. V. Breed, (4 Pick. 460) 314 
Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Cleveland, 

etc. E. E. Co., (41 Barb. 9) 191, 

192 6 
Conner v. Albany, (1 Blackf . 43) 134 
Conner v. Bent, (1 Mo. 235) 12 
Conner u. Mayoi-, (2 Sandf. 355) 78 
Conner v. Mayor, (5 N. Y. 285) 79 
Conner v. Morris, (23 Cal. 447) 177 
Conner ». Prest. etc., (1 Blackf. 42) 

286 
Conniffi v. San Francisco, (67 Cal. 45) 

338 
Connors v. Mayor etc., (11 Hun, 439) 

328 
Conover v. Devlin, (15 How. Pr. 477) 

88 



TABLE 01^ CASES CITED. 



Bcferences are to Sections. 



Conrad v. Smith, (32 Mich. 429) 396 
Conrad v. Ithaca, (16 N. Y. 158) 349 
Conservatoi's v. Ash, (10 Barn. & 

Cres. 349) 25 
Consolidated Association v, Avegno, 

(28 La. 552) 191 
Consumers' G. T. Co. v. Harless, (Ind. 

92, 29 N. E. R. 1062) 242 
Converse v. Fort Scott, (92 U. S. 503) 

186 
Conway, In re, (62 N. Y. 504) 148 
Conway v. Beaumont, 61 Tex. 10) 324 
Conway ». Cutting, (51 N. H. 407) 80 
Conwell V. Emeric, (2 Ind. 35) 239, 

335 
Conwell V. State, (107 Ind. 571) 106 
Cook V. A.namosa, (66 Iowa, 427) 

3.36 a, 850 f; 
Cook V. Boston, (9 Allen, 393) 326 
Cook V. Burlington, (30 Iowa, 94) 

221, 222 
Cook V. Candee, (52 Ala. 109) 360 
Cook ». Charlestown, (98 Mass. 80) 

342 
Cook V. Crandall, (Utah 91, 26 P. E. 

927) 276 
Cook V. Gregg, (40 111. 439) 129 
Cook !). Harris, (61 N. Y. 448) 215, 217 
Cook V. Hillsdale, (7 Mich. 115) 221 
Cook V. Lowe, (25 111. Ap.) 177 
Cook V. Macon, (64 Ga. 460) 333 
Cook V. Milwaukee, 24 Wis. 270) 325 
Cook V. Mock, (40 Kan. 472) 65 
Cook V. Portland,(20 Or. 580) 27, 259 a 
Cook ». Racine, (49 Wis. 244) 397 
Cook V. South Park Com'rs, (61 111. 

115) 246, 248 
Cook Co. V. McCrea, (93 111. 236) 110 
Cooke V. Tanner, (40 Conn. 378) 305 
Cooke V. School Dist., (21 Pac. R. 

496, 12 Colo. 453) 59 
Cooley V. Essex Co., (27 jST. J. L. 415) 

339 
Cooley 1). Granville, (10 Cush. 57) 110 
Cooley V. Westhrook, (57 Me. 181) 

351 
Coohdge V. Learned, (8 Pick. 505) 225 
Coolidges. Brookline, (114 Mass. 592) 

136 
Coombs V. Purrington, (42 Me. 332) 

346 
Coonly V. Albanv, (30 K E. R. 382, 

132 N. Y. 145) "ise 
Cooper, Ex parte, (3 Tex. App. 489) 

129 
Cooper, In re, (28 Hun, 515) 129 
Cooper I). Alden, (Harrlng. Ch. Mich. 

72) 226 
Cooper I). Atlanta, (53 Ga. 638) 338 
Cooper V. Dallas, (Tex. 18 S. W. R. 

565) 292, 330 



Cooper V. Detroit, (42 Mich. 5S4) 129, 

.308 
Cooper V. Lampeter, (8 Watts, 128) 99 . 
Cooper c. Mills Co., (69 Iowa, 350) 341 
Cooper V. Phibbs, (L. R. 2 li. "L. 149) 

327 
Cooper v. Sullivan Co., (65 Mo. 542) 

186 
Copes V. Charleston, (10 Rich. S. C. 

L. 502) 118, 187 a 
Copes V. Mathews, (18 Miss. 398) 109 
Cope V. State, (126 Ind. 51) 300 
Copp V. jSTeal, (7 jST. H. 275) 211 
Corbett u. Bradley, (7 Nev. 106) 349 
Corbiu J). America Mills, (27 Conn. 

274) 347 
Corcoran v. Peekskill, (108 N. Y. 151) 

351 
Cordell v. New York etc. Co., (75 N. 

Y. 330) 352 
Cordille v. Frizell, (1 Nev. 130) 81, 82 
Corey ». Chicago etc. Co., (100 Mo. 

282) 242 
Corfield v. Coryell, (4 Wash. C. C. 

380) 121, 258 
Corley v. Hill, (4 C. B. N. S. 556) 342 
Corliss, In re, (11 R. I. 638) 67 
Cormaok v. Wolcott, (17 Am. & Eiig. 

Corp. Cases, 309) 373 
Cornell v. People, (107 111. 372) 2 
Cornell v. Guilford, (1 Denio, 510) 

139, 164 
Cornell v. Barnes, (1 Denio, 35) 72 
Cornell College v. Iowa County, (32 

Iowa, 395 
Corning v. Green, (23 Barb. 33) 28 
Cornish v. Pease, (19 Me. 184) 95 
Cornish B. Toronto St. R'y Co., (23 

Up. Can. C. P. 355) 352 
Cornman v. Eastern Counties R. Co., 

(4 H. & N. 781) 351 
Corpus Christi v. Woessnei', (58 

Texas, 462) 189 a 
Corp. of Rochester v. Lee, (15 Sim. 

Eng. 376) 49 
Corrigan v. Gage, (68 Mo. 541) 150 
Corsicana v. Carr, (75 Tex. 207) 110 
Corsicana v. White, (57 Tex. 382) 92 
CortB. State, (28 Ark. 417) 83 
Corvallis v. Carlile, (10 Dreg. 139) 110 
Corinth v. Locke, (20 Atl. R. 809, 62 

Vt. 411) 200 
Cory V. Freeholders, (44 N. J. L. 445) 

170 
Cosby V. Owensboro etc., (10 Bush, 

288) 302 
Costello V. Landwehr, (28 Wis. 522) 

314, 337 
Costello V. Conshohocken, (8 Pa.) 355 
Costars. Brush, (25 Wend. 628) 113 

134 



Hi 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



Coster V. N". J. R. R. Co., (22 N. Y.) 

239 
Coster B. New York, (43 X. T. 399) 308 
Cotes V. Davenport, (9 Iowa, 227) 92 
Cotter c. Doty, (5 Ohio, 393, 398) 155 
Cottomi). Griest, (1 Am. & Eng. R. R. 

Cas. 474 n) 302 
Cotton V. Com., (6 Fla. 610) 184 
Cotter V. Doty, (5 Ohio, 393) 154 
Cotton B. Hamilton & T. Ry. Co., 

(14 Up. Can. Q. B. 87) 247 
Cotton V. Wood, (8 C. B. N. S. 568) 

.352 
Cottonwood V. Smith, (36 Kan. 401) 

134 
Cougot V. New Orleans, (16 La. An. 

21) 128 
Coulson V. Portland, (Deady, 481) 

189 a 326 a 
Coulsen v. Harris, (43 Miss. 728) 397 
Coulter V. Robertson, (24 Miss. 278) 

40 
Council V. Ahrens, (4 Strobh. L. 241) 

125 
Council V. Creraonini, (36 La. An. 

247) 152 
Council V. Pepper, (1 Rich. L. 364) 

124, 299 
Council Bluffs v. Stewart, (51 Iowa, 

385) 189 a 
Council Bluffs v. Waterman, (53 N. 

W. R. 289) 79 
County V. Hackett, (1 Wall. 83) 191 
County I). People, (s Neb. 136) 15 
County i). State, (11 111. 202) 12 
County V. Simmons, (10 111. 516) 107 
County V. Wise, (18 Atl. R. 31) 341 
County Com'rs v. Cox, (6 Ind. 403) 

37,40 
County Court v. County Court, (2 

Bush, 93) 67 
County Court v. Griswold, (58 Mo. 

175) 18, 50, 234 
County of Erie u. Erie, (113 Pa. St. 

360) 271 ' 
County of Kent v. Grand Rapids, (61 

Mich. 144) 228 
County of Mobile v. Kimball, 102 TJ. 

S. 691) 259 a 
County of St. Clair v. Peo., (85 111. 

396) 377 
County of Scotland v. Thomas, 94 U. 

S. 682) 186 
County of Wilson v. National Bank, 

(103 U. S. 776) 191 b 
Cousins B. State, (50 Ala. 113. 20 Am. 

Rep. 290) 261 
Couts B. Neer, (70 Tex. 468) 348 
Covington b. Beyle, 6 Bush, 204) 106, 

259 a 
Covington ». Bryant, (7 Bush, 248) 348 



Covington b. Casey, (3 Bush, 698) 278 
Covington v. East St. Louis, (78 111. 

548) 55, 147, 152 
Covington v. Ludlow, (1 Met. 295) 

106 
Covington b. Nelson, (35 Ind. 532) 397 
Covington b. Rockingham, (93 N. C. 

134) 397 
Covington etc. Co. b. Sandford, (20 

S. W. 1031) 320 
Covington etc. Co. b. Covington, 9 

Bush, 127) 113 
Covington G. L. Co. b. Covington, 

(17 S. W. 808) 256, 274 
Covington & M. R. Co. b. Athens, (11 

S. E. R. 663) 110 
Cowan's Case, (1 Overt. 311) 288 
Cowdin ». Huff, (10 Ind. 83) 79 
Cowert, Ex parte, (9 So. R. 225) 28 
Cowen B. West Troy, (43 Barb. 48) 

150 
Cowen B. Mayor, (3 Hun, 632) 79 
Cowles B. Brittain, (2 Hawks, 204) 

258 
Cowley V. Rushville, (60 Ind. 327) 125 
Cowley B. Sunderland, (6 H. & N. 

565) 336 o, 338 a 
Cox B. Burlington, (43 Iowa, 612) 79 ' 
Cox V. Louisville, N. A. & C. B. R. 

Co., (48 Ind. 178) 224, 302, 303 
Cox B. New York, (102 N. Y. 519) 79 
Cox B. State, (3 Blackf. 193) 314 
Cox B. St. Louis, (11 Mo. 431) 158 
Cox B. Westchester Tp. Co., (33 Barb. 

414) 352 
Coy B. Lyons, (17 Iowa, 1) 194 a, 3^3, 

375 
Coyne v. Rennie, (32 Pac. R. 578) 79 
Crabtree v. Baker, (75 Ala. 71) 355 
Craig B. Andes, (93 N. Y. 405) 189 
Craig B. Chicot, (40 Ark. 233) 177 
Craig B. Dimmock, (47 111. 308) 258 
Craig B. Leitensdorfer, (123 U. S. 209) 

359 
Craig B. People, (47 111. 487) 396 
Craig V. Philadelphia, (89 Pa. St. 265) 

259 o. 
Craig B. People, (47 111. 487) 318 
Craig B. Richmond, (1 Phila. 33) 177 
Craig B. Sedalia, (63 Mo. 417) 346, 

352 
Craige b. Lewin, (3 Curt. 435) 66 
Craft B. Lofinck, (34 Kan. 365, 11 

Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 21) 60, 67 
Craftes o. Metro. Ry. Co., (L. R. 1. 

C. P. 300) 351 
Cramer v. Burlington, (42 Iowa, 315) 

352 
Crarapton b. Zabriskie, (101 U. S 

601) 183 
Crandall b. Araadar, (20 Cal. 72) 375 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



liii 



Crane v. Des Moines, (47 Iowa, 105) 

79 
Crane v. Fond du Lac, (16 Wis. 196) 

212 
Crane v. Janesville, (20 Wis. 305) 

265 
Crangle v. Harrisburg, (1 Pa. 132) 

247 
Crandall v. Amador, (20 Cal. 72) 359 
Cranston v. Augusta, (61 G-a. 572) 

129 
Craw V. Tolono, (96 111. 255) 282 
Crawford ». Burrell Tp., (53 Pa. St. 

219) 270 
Crawford v. Carson, (35 Ark. 565) 

359 
Crawford ». Delaware, (7 Ohio St. 
459) 239, 292, 329 

Crawford u. Dunbar, (52 Cal. 36) 75 
Crawford i5. Louisville, etc., Co., (39 

Ind. 192) 186 
Crawford v. Mobile & G. E. Co., (67 

Ga. 405) 226 
Crawford v. Spenney, (21 111. 288) 

140 
Crawford v. Township, (24 Mich. 

248) 83 
Crawford ». Topeka, (32 Pac. E. 476) 

150, 300 
Crawford b. Valley E. E. Co., (25 

Gratt. 467) 106 
Crawford v. Wilson, (7 Ark. 219) 177 
Crawley b. Mershor, (61 Ga. 284) 375 
Crawford Co. b. Wilson, (7 Ark. 219) 

179 
Crawfordsville v. Bond, (96 lud. 236) 

354 
Crawfordsville v. Smith, (79 Ind. 

308) 342 
Crawfordsville v. Braden, (28 K. E. 

E. 849) 144 a, 146 
Crawshaw v. Eoxbury, (7 Gray, 374) 

140, 170 
Craven b. Eodeuhausen, (21 Atl. Eep. 

774) 120 
Creighton v. Piper, (14 Ind. 182) 74 
Creighton v. San Francisco, (42 Cal. 

446) 8 
Creighton b. Scott, (14 Ohio St. 438) 

291 
Crepps B. Durden, (Cowp. 640) 154 
Crescent G. Co. v. New Orleans, etc., 

(27 La. An. 148) 296 
Crescent b. Anderson, (114 Pa. St. 

643) 352 
Crete v. Cliilds, (11 Neb. 252) 352 a 
Crimson v. Deck, (51 X. W. 55) 396 
Crittenden Co. v. Crump, (25 Ark. 

234) 79 
Criveaud b. St. Louis Cable & W. Ey. 

Co., (33 Mo. App. 458) 306a 



Crockett v. Boston, (5 Cush. 182) 

222 
Crocker b. Collins, (15 S. E. E. 951) 

311, 312 
Croft B. Bennington, etc., Co., (23 

Atl. E. 922) 243 
Cromarty c. Boston, (127 Mass. 329) 

342 
Crommett v. Pearson, (18 Me. 344) 

108 
Cromwell ». Conn. Brown Stone Q. 

Co., (50 Conn. 470) 229 
Cronin b. Delavan, (50 Wis. 375) 346 
Crook 1). People, (106 111. 237) 383 
Crosby d. New London, etc., Co.. 

(26 Conn. 121) 195 b 
Crosby v. Warren, (1 Eich. 385) 
Cross B. Mayor, (18 N. J. Eq. 305) 

312 
Cross B. Morristown, (3 C. E. Green, 

305) 33, 143, 170, 265 
Crossett v. Janesville, (28 Wis. 420) 

329, 338 
Crosstown Ey. Co., In re, (22 N. T. 

S. 818, 68 Hun, 236) 303 
Crow V. Oxford Tp., (119 U. S. 215) 

19 b, 196 
Crowder v. Sullivan, (28 N. E. E. 94) 

31, 165 
Crowell B. Hopkinton, (45 N. H. 9) 

139 
Crowell B. Sonomo Co., (25 Cal. 313) 

325, 375 
Grower v. Ewers, (39 111. App. 34) 

354 a 
Ci-owning v. Barnett, (30 Ark. 560) 

283 
Crowley u. Davis, (63 Cal. 460) 396 
Crowley v. Copley, (2 La. An. 329) 

259 a 
Crowther v. Yonkers, (15 N. Y. S. 

588) 330 
Croxall B. Sherrerd, (5 Wall. 268) 187 
CrugerB. Hudson E. E. E. Co., (12 

N. Y. 190) 221, 34.5 
Cruikshanks v. Charlestown Council, 

(1 McCord 360) 248, 263 
Crydon Hospital v. Farley, (6 Taunt.) 

49 
Crutchfleld v. Warrensberg, (30 Mo. 

App. 456) 165 
Ci-ystal B. Des Moines, (65 Iowa, 502) 

343 
Cudden b. Eastriok, (1 Salk. 143, 192, 

6 Mod. 124) 154 
Cuff B. Newark, (35 N. J. L. 17) 347 
Culbertsen v. So. Belle, (1 Newb. 

461) 120 
Culbertson v. Fulton, (127 111. 30) 

189 a 
Cullen, In re, (33 Hun, 534) 16 



liv 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



CuUen V. Carthage, (103 Ind. 196) 

115, 163, 176 
CuUom V. DuUoff, (94 111. 330) 79 
Culver V. Garbe, (43 N. W. B. 237) 

354 
Culver V. Jersey City, (45 N. J. L. 

256) 259 a 
Culver V. Streator, (22 N. E. Eep. 

810) 92, 129, 333 
Cumberland v. Willison, (50 Ind. 138) 

92, 329, 336 a, 354 
Cumberland etc. Co. v. Barren Co., 

(10 Bush, 604) 186 
Cumberland etc. Co. v. Washington 

Co., (10 Bush, 564) 186 
Cumberland etc. K. R. App., (62 Pa. 

St. 218) 396 
Cummings v. Brooklyn, (11 Paige, 

596) 248, 281 
Cummings v. Missouri, (4 Wall. 277) 

73,83 
Cummings v. National Bk., (101 U. 

S. 153) 259, 397 
Cummings v. Perham, (1 Met. 555) 

129 
Cummings v. Saux, (30 La. An. 207) 

166 
Cummings c. St. Louis, (2 S. W. E. 

130, 90 Mo. 259) 208, 216, 396 
Cummins ». Seymour, (79 Ind. 491) 

286, 328 
Cummins v. City, (79 Ind. 491) 338 
Cunard S. S. Co. v. Voores, (50 N. T. 

Super. 253) 132 
Cunningham v. Almonte, (21 Up. 

Can. C. P. 459) 161 
Cunningham v. Squires, (2 W. Va. 

422) 105, 398 
Cunningham v. St. Louis, (96 Mo. 

53)344 
Curling v. Thornton, (2 Add. 219) 66 
Curran v. Arkansas, (15 How. 312) 40 
Currant v. Shattuck, (24 Cal. 427) 

247 
Currier v. Marietta etc. E. E. Co., 
■ (11 Ohio St. 228) 232 
Curry v. Bank, (8 Porter, 361) 51 
Curry v. District Townshij) etc., (62 

Iowa, 102) 2 
Curry d. Jones, (4 Del. Oh. 559) 397 
Curry v. Mannington, (23 W. Va. 14) 

342 
Curry ». Mt. Sterling, (Vj 111. 320) 

240, 241 
Curry v. Savannah, (64 Ga. 290) 212 
Curtis V. Butler Co., (24 How. 435) 

99, 254 
Curtis V. Hope, (19 Conn. 154) 223 
Curtis V. Keesler, (14 Barb. 521) 215 
Curtis V. Eochester etc. Co., (18 N. 

Y. 534) 352 a 



Curtis V. Whipple, (24 Wis. 350) 183, 

188 
Cusick V. Norwich, (40 Conn. 376) 

293,3506 
Cushing !). Adams, (18 Pick. 110)-300' 
Cushing o. Boston, (128 Mass. 330; 

300 
Cushing V. Frankfort, (57 Me. 541) 

84, 88 
Cushing V. The John Prazer, (21 

How. U. S. 184) 133 
Cushman v. Carver, (19 Minn. 295) 

198 
Cushman v. Highland Ditch Co., (33 

Pac. 344) 396 
Cushman v. Smith, (34 Me. 247) 243 
Cutcomp B. Utt, (60 Iowa, 156) 148 
Cuthbert v. Com., (9 S. E. 185) 261 
Cutler V. Mason Co., (56 Miss. 115) 

195 
Cutting, In re, (94 V. S. 14) 360 
Cutting V. Stone, (7 Vt. 471) 53 
Cuyler v. Eochester, (12 Wend. 165) 

92 338 
Czar'niecki's App., (11 Atl. E. 660) 

120, 396 

D. 

Dailey v. New Haven, (60 Conn. 314) 

202, 394 
Dailey v. State, (8 Blackf. 329) 74, 86 
Daily v. E. E., (80 Ga. 793, 7 S. E. B. 

146) 303 
Daily v. St. Paul, (7 Minn. 390) 18 
Daily v. Worcester, (131 Mass. 452) 

343 
Daly V. Morgan, (69 Md. 460, 23 Am. 

& Eng. Corp. Cas. 434) 55, 259 
Daly V. E. E. Co., (80 Ga. 793, 7 S. E. 

E. 146) 302 
Dale V. Webster Co., (41 N. W. Eep. 

1)353 
Dallam v. Oliver, (3 Gill, 445) 283 
Dalrymple v. Whitingham, (26 Vt. 

345) 177 
Dalton V. Com. Council, (50 Mich. 

129) 3506 
Dalton V. S. E. Ey. Co., (4 C. B. N. 

O. 296) 352 
Dalton V. Northampton, (19 N. H. 

362) 245 
Dalzell G. & L. Co. v. Findlay, (5 

Ohio Cir. Ct. E. 418) 86, 166 
Dameron v. Irwin, (8 Ire. L. 421) 169 
Damon ». Grauby, (2 Pick. 355) 100 
Damon ». Soituate, (20 An. Eep. 315) 

352 
Damour v. Lyons, (44 Iowa, 276) 302 

338 a 
Damp V. Dane, (29 Wis. 419) 279 
Dana, In re, (7 Benedict, 1) 105 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Iv 



References are to Sections. 



Dana v. Jackson St Wharf Co., (31 

Cal. 118) 200 
Dana v. San Francisco, (19 Cal.) 486 

177 
Danaher v. Brooklyn, (51 Hun, 563) 

92 
Danbury & N. R. R. Co. v. Norwalk, 

(37 Conn. 109) 349 
Dane v. Derby, (34 Me. 95) 368 
Danforth v. Schoharie T. Co., (12 

Johns. 227) 51, 164 
Danks v. Quackenbush, (1 K. T. 129) 

194 
Daniel v. Memphis, (11 Humph. 582) 

1.3, 32 
Daniel v. New Orleans, (29 La. An. 1) 

278 
Daniel v. Richmond Trs., (78 Ky. 542) 

258 
Daniels ». Burford, (10 Up. Can. Q. 

B. 478) 145, 393 
Daniels v. Denver, (2 Col. 669) 355 
Daniels v. Lebanon, (58 N. H. 284) 

352 
Daniels v. Railroad Co., (35 Iowa, 

129) 243 
Daniels v. Clegg, (28 Mich. 31) 322 
Daniels v. Wilson, (27 Wis. 492) 226 
Daniellv v. Gabanis, (52 Ga. Ill) 17, 

182 
D'Antignac v. Augusta, (31 Ga. 700) 

265 
Danerhower v. District, (7 Mackey, 

99) 239 a 
Danville v. Shelton, (76 Va. 325) 110, 

148 
Danville v. Sutherlin, (20 Gratt. 255) 

177, 180 
Dargan v. Boston, (12 Allen 223) 105 
Dargan v. Mobile, (31 Ala. 469) 92, 333 
Dargan v. Waddell, (9 Ii-e. 244) 120 
Darling v. Baltimore, (51 Md. 1) 212 
Darling v. Gunn, (50 111. 424) 279 
Darling b. St. Paul, (19 Minn. 389) 113 
Darling v. Westmoreland, (52 N. H. 

401)342,3506 
Darlington v. Mayor, (31 N. Y. 164) 

2, 8, 11, 336 a 
Dannalier v. Brooklyn, (51 Hun, 563) 

336 a 
Darly v. Worcester, (131 Mass. 452) 

343 
Dartmouth Col. v. Woodward, (4 

Wlieat. 636) 1, 11 
Darrow ti. People, (8 Colo. 417) 69 
Darst 0. Griffin, (48 N. W. R. 819) 12, 

239 a 
Dasey v. Skinner, (11 N. T. S. 821, 

57 Hun, 593) 255 
Dashiell v. Baltimore, (45 Md. 615) 

265 



Dashner v. Mills Co., (55 N. W. R, 

468) 325 
Dassler, In re, (35 Kan. 678, 12 Pac. 

R. 678) 290 
Datton V. Albion, (50 Mich. 129) 350 a 
Daugherty v. Thompson, (9 S. W. R. 

99) 271 
Davenport v. Dodge, (105 U. S. 237) 

375 
Davenport v. Hallowell, (10 Me. 317) 

167 
Davenport v. Hannibal, (18 S. W. R. 

1122) 344 a 
Davenport v. Kleinschmidt, (6 Mont. 

502, 13 Pac. 249) 395 
Davenport v. Lord, (9 Wall. 409) 368 
Davenports. Mayor etc. of N. T., (67 

N. Y. 456) 74, 86 
Davenport v. Miss. & Mo. R. R. Co., 

(16 Iowa, 348) 267, 273 
Davenport v. Peoria Ins. Co., (17 

Iowa, 276) 212 
Davenport v. Richmond, (81 Va. 636) 

134 
Davenport v. Ruckman, (37 N. Y. 568) 

349, 352 
Davenport Co. v. Davenport, (13 

Iowa, 229) 104 
Davenport G. L. etc. Co., (13 Iowa, 

229) 189 a 
Davidson v. Boston & Maine R. R. 

Co., (3 Cush. 91) 239. 
Davidson v. New Oris., (96 IT. S. 134) 

259 a, 279 
Davidson v. Ramsey, (18 Minn. 482) 

183 
Davidson v. Woodruft, (68 Ala. 356) 

105 
Davidson Col. v. Chambers' Execu- 
tors, (3 Jones Eq. 253) 207 
Davie v. Huebner, (45 Iowa, 575) 310 
Davies ». Burns, (5 Allen, 349) 79 
Davies v. New York, (48 N. Y. Sup. 

Ct. 194) 87 
Davies ». Saginaw Co., (89 Mich. 295) 

18 
Daviess Co. v. Dickinson (117 U. S. 

657) 189 a, 196 
Daviess Co. v. Howard, (13 Bush, 102) 

190 a 
Davis V. American Soc, (76 N. Y. 

362) 396 
Davis V. Anita, (73 Iowa, 325) 150 
Davis V. Bangor, (42 Me. 522) 300, 400 
Davis V. Berger, (54 Mich. 692) 73 
Davis V. City of Clinton, (50 Iowa, 

585) 298 
Davis V. Clinton, (20 Alb. L. Jour. 56) 

294 
Davis V. Crawfordsville, (119 Ind. 1) 

354 a, .355 



Ivi 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Befcrcnces are to Sections. 



Davis V. Dudley, (4 Allen, 557) 342 
Davis V. Des Moines, (75 Iowa, 500) 

189 a 
Davis V. Dubuque, (20 Iowa, 448) 56 
Davis V. East Tenn. V. & G. R. Co., 

(87 Ga. 605, 13 S. E. R. 567) 303 
Davis V. Hill, (41 N. H. 329) 343 
Davis V. Jackson, (61 Mich. 530) 165 
Davis V. Lake Shore etc. Co., (114 

Ind. 364, 16 IST. E. E. 639) 397 
Davis V. Los Angeles, (24 Pac. K. 771, 

86 Cal. 37) 259 a 
Davis V. Litchfield, (33 K. E. E. 888) 

259 a 
Davis V. Mayor, (14 N. Y. 506) 113 
Davis V. Mayor, (61 Mich. 530) 170 
Davis V. Montgomery, (51 Ala. 139) 

331 
Davis 13. Morier, (2 Call. 303) 327 
Davis V. New York, (14 N. Y. 506, 

532) 302 
Davis V. New York, (1 Duer, 451) 369 
Davis V. Nichols, (39 111. App. 610) 

240 
Davis V. Patten, (41 Kan. 480) 75 
Davis V. Portland W. Com'rs, (14 

Oreg. 98) 2 
Davis V. Eamsey Co., (18 Minn. 482) 

184 
Davis V. Read, (65 N. Y. 560) 113, 263 
Davis V. Richardson, (45 Miss. 499, 7 

Am. Rep. 632) 258 
Davis V. Rood, (65 N. Y. 566) 263 
Davis V. R. R. Co., (87 Ga. 605) 302 
Davis V. Sabita, (63 Pa. St. 90) 221 
Davis V. Sawyer, (133 Mass. 289) 120 
Davis V. Sch. Dis. No. 2, (24 Me. 349) 

170 
Davis V. State, (7 Md. 151) 28 
Davis V. State, (4 Stew. & P. 83) 117 
Davis V. Yuba Co., (75 Cal. 452) 192 6 
Davis V. Woolnough, (9 Iowa, 104) 

28, 102 
Davlin v. New York, (63 N. Y. 8) 28 
Davy V. Levy, (39 La. 551) 347 
Dawes v. Hawkins, (4 Law T. N. S. 

288) 224, 318 
Dawson v. Croisan, (23 Pac. R. 257, 
_ 18 Ore. 431) 397 
uawson V. Fred'k Co., (2 H. & M. 

132) 360 
Dawson v. Huttner, (43 Ga. 133) 335 
Dawson Co. v. McNaraar, (10 Neb. 

276, 4 N. W. R. 991) 184 
Day V. Austin, (22 S. VV. R. 757) 190 
Day V. Green, (4 Oush. 438, 439) 99, 

113 
Day V. Kent, (1 Oreg. 123) 65 
Dayton v. Lynes, (30 Conn. 351) 67 
Day V. Mt. Pleasant, (70 Iowa, 193) 

343 



Day V. Milford, (5 Allen, 98) 345 
Dayton v. Pease, (4 Ohio St. 80) 327, 

350, 354 
Dayton v. Quigley, (29 N. J. Eq. 77) 

150 
Dayton v. Rutland, (84 111. 279) 223, 

313 
Dean v. Charlton, (23 Wis. 590) 172 
Dean v. Gleason, (16 Wis. 1, 15) 270 
Dean «. Sullivan E. E. Co., (22 N. H. 

316) 238 
Deane v. Eandolph, (132 Mass. 475) 

338 
Deane v. Todd, (22 Mo. 90) 112 
Deansville Cemetery Association, In 

re, (66 N. Y. 569, 23 Am. Eep. 86) 

232 
Debolt V. Cincinnati, (7 Ohio St. 237) 

79 
Decatur v. Fisher, (53 111. 407) 352 a 
Decatur'i). Vermillion, (77 111. 315) 79 
Decatur Co. v. Humphreys, (47 Ga. 

565) 232 
Dechert v. Com., (113 Pa. St. 229) 363 
Decorah v. Bullis, (25 Iowa, 15, 18) 88 
Decorah ». Dunston, (38 Iowa, 96) 

123 
DeCordova v. Galveston, (4 Tex. 470) 

180 
Deeds v. Sanborn, (26 Iowa, 419) 276 
Deeflir u. Bowen, (61 Ind. 29) 397 
Deeham v. Johnson, (141 Mass. 23) 

363 
Dehairl v. Morford, (30 Pac. E. 593) 

279 
Deiman v. Fort Madison, (30 Iowa, 

542) 56, 276 
Deitz V. City, (1 Col. 323) 22, 125, 158 
Delacy v. N. Eiver N. Co., (1 Hawks, 

274) 372 
Delalianty v. Warner, (75 Ex. 185) 

393 
Delafreed v. Illinois, (2 Hill, 159) 5 
Delafield v. State, (2 Hill, 159) 169 
Delaney v. Salina, (34 Kan. 53) 202 
DeLaney, Ex parte, (43 Cal. 478) 134 
Delaplaine v. C. & N. W. Ey. Co., 

(42 Wis. 214) 132 
Delaware Co. v. Atkins, (24 N. E. R. 

319) 397 
Del. Co. V. GrifEen, (17 Iowa, 166) 79 
Delaware Co. v. Ry. Co., (10 Pa. Co. 

Ct. 326) 273 
Delaware Railroad Tax, (18 Wall. 

206) 270 
Delgado v. Chavez, (11 S. Ct. 874, 

140 U". S. 586) 359 
Delger w. St. Paul, (14 Fed. R. 567) 

339, 349 
Dehnonico v. New York, (1 Sandf. 

222) 355 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Ivii 



References are to Sections. 



Delphi V. Lowery, (74 Ind. 520) 343, 

3506 
Delta Lumber Co. v. Board, (40 N. 

W. R. 1) 314 
Demaresti). New York, (74 N. Y. 161) 

2 
Demarest v. Wickham, (03 jST. Y. 334) 

371 
Demaltos v. New Whatcom, (29 Pac. 

K. 933) 60 
Demers v. Daniels,- (39 N. W. E. 98) 

220 
Doming v. James, (72 111. 78) 397 
Demopolis r. Webb, (6 So. Rep. 408) 

215, 218, 391 
Dempsey v. Burlington, (66 Iowa, 

687) 148 
Den V. Vreelanrtt, (2 Halst. 352) 52 
Denby r. Wilier, (59 Wis. 240) 349 
Denning v. Eoome, (6 Wend. 651) 

98, 107 
Dennis v. Maynard, (15 111. 477) 12 
Dennison v. Kansas City, (95 Mo. 

416) 278, 279 
Denniston v. Clark, (125 Mass. 216) 

293 
Denton v. Jackson, (2 Johns. Ch. 320) 

201, 206 
Denver v. Bayer, (7 Col. 113) 330, 338 
Denver v. Capelli, (4 Col. 25) 328 
Denver v. Clements, (3 Col. 484) 219, 

286 
Denver v. Deane, (10 Col. 375) 342, 

350 6 
Denver v. Dunsmore, (7 Colo. 328) 349 
Denver v. Knowles, (30 Pac. E. 1041) 

259 a 
Denver o. Mullen, (7 Cpl. 345) 120 
Denver v. Rhodes, (9 Col. 554) 294, 

349 
Denver Circle R. Co. v. Nestor, (10 

Col. 403) 289, 330 
Denver etc. Co. v. Church, (28 Pac. 

R. 468) 272 
Denver etc. Co. o. Denver C. Ry. Co., 

(2 Col. 673) 302 
Denver & R. G. Ry. Co. v. Church, 

(28 Pac. R. 468) 273 
De Pere i\ Town of Bellevue, (31 

Wis. 120, 11 Am. Rep. 602) 59 
De Ponthieu «. Pennyfatlier, (5 Taunt. 

634) 309 
De Puy V. City of Wabash, (32 N. E. 

R. 1016) 282 
Derby v. Allina;. (40 Conn. 410) 194 
Deringey v. Ottawa, (15 Ont. 712) 329 
Dermont v. Detroit, (4 Mich. 435) 355 
DeEochburne v. Com., (12 Minn. 78) 

399 
DeRussey »: Davis, (13 La. An. 468) 

110 



Des Moines v. Cassady, (21 Iowa, 

570) 283 
Des Moines ». Chicago, R. I. & P. R. 

R. Co., (41 Iowa, 569) 144 
Des Moines v. Gilchrist, (67 Iowa, 

210) 130 
Des Moines v. Hall, (24 Iowa, 234) 

194, 215, 224 
Des Moines v. Layman, (21 Iowa, 

158) 245 
Des Moines v. The Chicago, R. I. & 

P. R. R. Co., (41 Iowa, 569) 274 
Des Moines etc. Co. v. Des Moines, 

(44 Iowa, 505) 296 
Des Moines St. R. Co. b. Ry. Co., (33 

N. W. R. 610) 302 
Des Moines Street R. R. Co. o. Des 

Moines Broad-gaiige St. Ry. Co., 

(73 Iowa, 513) 144 
Desmond v. Jefferson, (19 Fed. Rep. 

483) 110, 182 
Desmond d. McCarthy, (17 Iowa, 525) 

106 
Despard v. Pleasants Co., (23 W. Va. 

318) 174 
DesPlaines v. Poyer, (123 111. 348) 

120, 396 
De Soto V. Brown, (44 Mo. 148) 117, 

156 
Detroit v. Blakely, (21 Mich. 84) 327 
Detroit v. Beckman, (34 Mich. 125) 

325, 327 a, 329 
Detroit v. Blakeby, (21 Mich. 84) 339 
Detroit u. Corey, (9 Mich. 165) 9, 143, 

35", 
Detroit v. Davis, (1 Doug. 106) 165 
Detroit v. Detroit etc., (37 Mich. 558) 

301 
Detroit v. Det. & E. PI. R. Co., (12 

Mich. 333) 301 
Detroit v. Det. R. Co., (43 N. W. Rep. 

447) 261 
Detroit v. Det. & Milw. R. R. Co., (23 

Mich. 173) 215, 218, 219, 220, 221 
Detroit v. Ft. Wayne etc. Co., (54 N. 

W. R. 958) 302 
Detroit v. Hosmer, (44 N. W. Rep. 

622) 172, 173 
Detroit c. Howell P. R. R. Co., (43 

Mich. 140) U 
Detroit c. Jackson, (1 Doug. 106) 165 
Detroit v. Jopp, (52 Mich. 458) 282 
Detroit v. Martin, (34 Mich. 170) 326 a 
Detroit v. Plank Rd. Co., (12 Mich. 

333) 319 
Detroit v. Redfield, (19 Mich. 376) 

79 
Detroit City R'y v. Mills, (48 N. W. 

100) 306 a 
Detroit etc. Co. u. Mahoney, (36 N 

W. Rep. 69) 320 



Iviii 



TABLE OF OASES CITED. 

Eeferences are to Sections. 



Detroit F. P. Co. v. State, (47 Mich. 

135) 67 
Detroit Home v. Detroit, (76 Mich. 

521) 14 
Detroit Y. M. Soc. v. Detroit, (3 

Mich. 172) 270 
De Turk o. Com., (129 Pa. St. 151) 75 
De Vass v. Kiolimon<l, (18 Gratt. 338) 

9, 183, 191 6 
Deveaux v. Detroit, (Harring. Ch. 

98) 312 
Devereaux i;. City of Brownsville, 

(29 Fed. Rep. 742) 42 
Deverill i-. Grand Tr. Ry. Co., (25 

Up. Can. Q. B. 517) 351 
Devers «. York, (150 Pa. St. 208, 30 

W. N. C. 390j 10, 162 
Devlin v. New York, (131 N. Y. 123) 

244 
Devore's Appeal, (56 Pa. St. 163) 53, 

61 
Devoy v. New York, (39 Barb. 169) 79 
Dew V. Parsons, (18 Eng. Com. L. 87) 

326 a 
Dewey, Ex parte, (11 Pick. 265) 69 
Dewey v. Detroit, (15 Mich. 311) 349 
Dewey v. Garvey, (130 Mass. 89) 80 
Dewey v. Niagara Co. Sup., (62 N. Y. 

294) 326 
Dewhurst v. Allegheny City, (95 Pa. 

St. 437) 28 
Dewitt V. Elmira Transfer Co., (134 

N. Y. 495) 312 
De Witt V. Ithaca, (15 Hun, 568) 194 
Dexter b. Canton, (79 Me. 463) 317 
Dexter v. Tree, (117 111. 535) 221, 287 
Dey V. Jersey City, (19 N. J. Eq. 412) 

99, 100, 148 
Diamond v. Cain, (21 La. An. 309) 18 
Diamond v. Lawrence Co., (37 Pa. 

St. 353) 195 b 
Diamond M. Co. v. New Haven, (55 

Conn. 510) 328 
Diamond M. Co. r. Powers, (51 Mich. 

145) 374 
Dibble v. New Haven, (56 Conn. 199) 

173, 175 
Dickenson v. Fitohburg, (13 Gray, 

546) 245 
Dickey ii. Tennison. (27 Mo. 373) 234 a 
Dickey v. Tel. Co., (46 Me. 483) 300 
Dickinson v. New York, (92 N. Y. 

584) 312 
Dickinson u. Worcester, (7 Allen, 18) 

355 
Dickinson v. Worcester, (138 Mass. 

555) 264 
Dickinson v. Poughkeepsie, (74 N. 

Y. 65) 164, 172 
Dickinson Co. v. Hogan, (39 Kans. 

606, 18 Pac. Rep. 611) 279 



Dickson v. Hill, (75 Ga. 360) 371 
Dickson v. Hollister, (123 Pa. St. 421, 

16 Atl. R. 484) 352 a 
Dickson J). Racine, (61 Wis. 545) 259 a 
Dickson v. Hollister, (123 Pa. St. 421) 

348 
Diehm v. Cincinnati, (15 Ohio St. 

305) 92 
Dill V. Roberts, (30 Wis. 178) 280 
Dill V. Wareham, (7 Mete. 438) 4, 169 
Dillard v. Webb, (55 Ala. 468) 113 
Dilley v. Wilkes-Barre etc. Co., (12 

Pa. Co. Ct. R. 270) 301 
Dillingham v. Snow, (5 Mass. 547) 31 
Dillon V. Syracuse, (9 N. Y. Sup. 98) 

174 
Dingley v. Boston, (100 Mass. 544) 

116, 120, 236 
Dingman v. People, (51 111. 277) 113 
District v. Armes, (107 U. S. 519) 

3.506 
District v. Bait. & P. R. R. R. Co., (1 

Mackey, 314) 348 
District o. Cornell, (130 U. S. 655) 

177 
District o. Gas Co., (20 D. C. 39) 295 
District?). McElligott, (117 U. S. 621) 

352 
District v. Saville, (1 McArthur, 581) 

121 
District v. Waggaman, (4 Mackey, 

328) 158 
District b. Wash. & Ct. R. Co., (1 

Mackey, 361) 284 
District b. Woodbury, (136 U. S. 450) 

350 6 
Dively v. Ced. Falls, (27 Iowa, 227) 

164, 177 
Diveney v. Elmira, (51 N. Y. 506) 103, 

339, 352 
Divine b. Harvey, (7 B. Mon. 439) 80 
Dixon V. Mayes, (13 Pac. 471) 276 
Dixon Co. V. Field, (111 U. S. 83) 

191 6, 196, 216 
Dixon Co. V. Halstead, (23 Neb. 297, 

37 N. W. R. 621) 258 
Dixon V. Board of Woi-ks, (L. R. 7 

Q. B. D. 418) 329 
Dix V. Dummerston, (19 Vt. 263) 142 
Dobbins v. Commissioners of Erie 

Co., (16 Pet. 435) 258 
Dobbs r. StaufEer, (24 Kan. 12) 365 
Dobson B. .Ilohenadel, (30 W. N. C. 

54) 215, 221 
Dock V. Garrity, (115 111. 155) 132 
Doe V. Attica, (7 Ind. 641) 226 
Doe V. Jones, (11 Ala. 63) 217, 225 
Dodd V. Hartford, (25 Conn. 232) 112, 

397 
Doe B. Manchester, B. & -R. Ry. Co., 

(14 M. & W. 687) 243 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 
References are to Sections. 



lix 



Doe etc. v. Norton, (11 M. & W. 913) 

48 
Doe I'. Wash'n Co., (30 Minn. 392) 79 
Dodd V. Hartford, (2.5 Conn. 232) 391 
Dodd t. Miller, (14 Ind. 433) 5 
Dodge V. Essex Co. Com'rs, (3 Met. 

380) 243, 247, 377 
Dodge c. Granger, (24 Atl. E. 100) 92 
Dodge V. Gridley, (10 Ohio, 173) 152 
Dodge t). More, (37 Iowa, 388) 271 
Dodge Co. V. Chandler, (96 U. S. 205) 

184 
Dodson V. Ft. Smith, (33 Ark. 508) 55 
Dodson V. Moch, (4 Dev. & B. L. 14H) 

13 a, 129 
Doherty v. Braintree, (20 N. E. R. 

106, 148 Mass. 495) 353 
Dolan V. Mavor, (68 N. Y. 279) 79, 85 
Dolan V. New York, (62 jST. Y. 472) 

278 
Doll !). State, (45 Ohio St. 445) 166 
Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, 

(19 Wall. 227) 282 
Dolores No. 2 Land & Canal Co. v. 

Hartman, (29 Pac. R. 378) 242 
Domestic T. & T. Co. u. Newark, (49 

N. J. L. 344) 297 
Donald <;. Rehrer, (22 Fla. 198) 393 
Donaldson c. Boston, (16 Gray, 508) 

3506 
Donch V. Board Com'rs of Lake Co., 

(30 N. E. R. 204) 326 
Donnelly v. Teasdale, (21 Fla. 652) 85 
Donnaher v. State, (8 Sm. & M. 649) 

290 
Donnelly v. Deckei-, (58 Wis. 461) 294 
Donohue v. Will Co., (100 111. 94) 83, 

399 
Donohue v. Kendall, (50 N. Y. Super. 

386) 131 
Donovan n. County, (60 Conn. 339) 24 
Donovan c. New York, (33 N. Y.291) 

169 
Donovan t. Vickshurg, (23 Miss. 247) 

155 
Donsraan v. Milwaukee, (1 Pinn. 81) 

58 
Doolittle B. Bryan, (14 How. U. S. 

563) 87 
Dooley v. Kansas City, (82 Mo. 444) 

338 
Dooly V. Sullivan, (112 Ind. 451) 347, 

350 a 
Dooly Block v. S. L. T. Co., (33 Pac. 

R. 229) 302 
Dorchester v. Wentworth, (31 N. H. 

451) 249, 398 
Doiey V. Boston, (146 Mass. 336) 98, 

277 
Dorgan v. Boston, (13 Allen, 223) 248 
Dormau v. Ames, (12 Minn. 451) 3-53 



Dormon v. Jacksonville, (13 Fla. 589) 

292, 330 
Dorrity v. Eapp, (72 N. Y. 307) 131 
Dorsey, In re, (7 Port. Ala. 293) 83 
Dorsey v. Ansley, (72 Ga. 460) 380 
Dorsey v. Smith, (28 Cal. 21) 79 
Dorsey v. Racine, (60 Wis. 292) 3506 
Dorsey Co. v. Whitehead, (47 Ark. 

205) 169 
Doster v. Atlanta, (72 Ga. 233) 92 
Dougherty «. Austine, (94 Cal. 601) 

18 
Dougherty v. Supervisors, (12 Pa. 

Co. Ct. R. 304) 315 
Dougherty v. R. R. Co., (21 N. J. L. 

442) 241 
Doughty V. Hope, (3 Denio, 249) 250 
Douglas, In re, (3 Q. B. 825) 120 
Douglas, In re, (46 N. Y. 42) 148 
Douglas B. Com., (2 Rawle, 262) 

130 
Douglas V. Com'rs, (108 Pa. St. 559) 

360, 362 
Douglas 11. Essex Co., (38 N. J. L. 

214) 75 
Douglas V. Harrison, (9 W. Va. 162) 

391 
Douglas V. Placerville, (18 Cal. 643) 

397 
Douglas V. Town of Harrisville, (9 

W. Va. 162) 53 
Douglas V. Timme, (49 N. W. R. 266) 

79 
Douglas V. Virginia City, (5 Nev. 

147) 163, 182 
Douglas Co. V. Pike Co., (101 U. S. 

677) 216 
Douglas Co. V. Walbridge, (38 Wis. 

179) 186 
Douglass V. Branch Bank etc., (19 

Ala. 659) 49 
Douglass V. State, (31 Ind. 429) 85 
Dounaher v. State, (8 S. & M. 649) 

136 
Dovenyi). Elmira, (51 N. Y. 506) 3506 
Dover v. Fox, (9 B. Mon. 200) 226 
Dover v. Twombly, (42 N. H. 59) 72 
Dow V. Bullock, (13 Gray, 136) 81 
Dow i>. Humbert, (91 U. S. 294) 194 a, 

396 
Dowen v. Team, (6 Rich, 398) 312 
Dowlan v. Sibley, (36 Minn. 430) 2 
Dowling V. Altsohul, (33 Pac. R. 495) 

279 
Downer v. Boston, (7 Gush. 277) 277 
Downing «. Indiana etc. Co., (129 Ind. 

443) 8, 9 
Downing v. Marshall, (23 N. Y. 366) 

200, 202 
Downing v. Rugar, (21 Wend. 178) 97 . 

99 



Ir 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



References are to Sections. 



Dows V. Town of Elrawood, (34 Fed. 

Kep. 114) 28 
Dows V. Chicago, (11 Wall. 108) 397 
Doyle V. Wragg, (1 F. & F. 7) 352 
Doyle ». Austin, (47 Cal. 353) 271 
Doyle V. Continental Ins. Co., (94 TJ. 

S. 535) 258 
Doyle V. Raleigh, (89 N. C. 133) 67 
Drain Commissioners v. Baxter, (57 

Mich. 127) 62 
Drake v. Lowell, (13 Mete. 292) 345 
Drake v. Mayor etc., (7 Lans. 340) 87 
Drake v. Phillips, (40 HI. 388) 356, 

397 
Draper v. Springport, (104 U. S. 501) 

165, 191 6, 193 b 
Dreher v. Fitohburg, (22 Wis. 675) 

342 
Dressel v. Keokuk, (47 Iowa, 597) 155 
Dressell v. Kingston, (32 Hun, 533) 

347 
Drevon v. Drevon, (34 L. J. Ch. 129) 

66 
Drew V. Sutton, (55 Vt. 58) 343, 346 
Drexel v. Lake, (127 111. 54) 355 
Driess v. Frederick, (11 S. W. K. 493) 

352 a 
Driggs V. Philips, (103 N. Y. 77) 310 
Drisko v. Columbia, (75 Me. 73) 95 
Driver v. Western Union R. R. Co., 

(32 Wis. 569, 14 Am. Rep. 726) 246 
Dronberger D. Reed, (11 Ind. 420) 247 
Drott V. Riverside, (4 Ohio Cir. Ct. 

312) 79 
Drucker v. Manhattan Ry. Co., (106 

N. Y. 157, 16 J. & S. 429) 305 
Dry Dock E. B. & B. R. Co. v. New 

York, (47 Hun, 231) 302 
Duanesburg d. Jenkins, (40 Barb. 

579) 184 
Dubach v. H. & St. Jo., etc. Co., (89 

Mo. 483) 208, 302, 396 
Dubois V. Augusta, (Dudly, 30) 119 
Dubois V. Canal Co., (4 Wend. 285) 

167 
Dubois V. Kingston, (102 N. Y. 219) 

336 a, 342, 352 
Duboistown v. Roch. Brew. Co., (9 

Pa. Co. Ct. R. 442) 123 
Dubuque v. Benson, (23 Iowa, 248) 

210, 224 
Dubuque v. 111. Cent. R. R. Co., (39 

Iowa, 56) 273 
Dubuque v. Maloney, (9 Iowa, 450) 

120, 217, 221, 224, 294 
Dubuque v. Korthwestern L. Ins. 

C(i., (29 Iowa, 9) 268 
Dubuque v. Rebman, (1 Iowa, 444) 

105 
Dubuque v. Wooten, (25 Iowa, 571^ 

279 ' ' 



Dubuque F. Col. v. Township etc., 

(13 Iowa, 555) 170. 
Dubrio v. Voss, (19 La. Ann. 210) 83 
Ducat V. Chicago, (48 111. 172) 258 
Ducheneau v. Ireland, (13 Pac. 87) 

401 
Duckworth v. New Albany, (25 Ind. 

283) 134 
Ducksworth v. Johnson, (4 H. & N. 

653) 352 a 
Dudley v. Bolles, (00 Wend. 465) 321 
Dudley v. Frankfort, (12 B. Mon. 

610) 290. 312, 396 
Dudley v. Gilmore, (35 Kan. 555) 397 
Dudley v. Westen, (1 Met. 477) 107 
Duerr v. Board, (26 Atl. R. 144) 83, 

84 
Duffield v. Detroit, (15 Mich. 474) 249 
Duify V. Dubuque, (63 Iowa, 171) 343, 

345 
Duffy V. Hobson, (40 Cal. 240) 258 
Duffy V. Upton, (113 Mass. 544) 337 
Dugau V. Baltimore, (1 Gill & J. 499) 

282 
Dugan V. Bridge Co., (27 Pa. St. 303) 

314 
Dugan V. Mayor, (5 Gill & J. 375) 133 
Dugan V. United States, (3 Wheat. 

172) 167 
Dugro, In re, (50 N. Y. 513) 172 
Duke !). Brown, (96 N. C. 127) 195 d 
Duke V. Rome, (20 Ga. 633) 327, 331 a 
Duke of Buccleuch v. Metro. Board, 

(L. R. 5 H. L. C. 418) 330 
DuUauty v. Town of Vaughn, (45 N. 

W. Rep. 1128) 170 
Dullea V. Taylor, (35 Up. Can. Q. B. 

395) 354 
Duluth B. Mallet, (43 Minn. 204) 120 
Duluth V. St. Paul etc. Co., (51 N. W. 

R. 1163) 221 
Duluth V. Krupp, (49 N. W. Rep. 235) 

123 
Dumesnil v. Dupont, (18 B. Mon. 

800) 120 
Dummer v. Jersey City, (20 N. J. L. 

80) 217, 227 
Dunbar v. Boston, (112 Mass. 75) 92 
Dunbar v. Frazer, (78 Ala. 538) 362 
Dunbar v. Soule, (129 Mass. 284) 202 
Duncan v. Cen. P. Ry. Co., (4 S. W. 

R. 228) 397 
Duncan v. Louisville, (8 Bush. 98) 

242, 337 
Duncan v. Niles, (32 111. 532) 169 
Duncan v. State, (10 So. 815) 25, 31, 

314 
Duncombe v. Ft. Dodge, (38 Iowa, 

281) 165, 171 
Dundas v. Lansing, (42 N. W. R. 

1011) 3506 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Ixi 



References are to Sections. 



Dunham v. Chicago, (55 111. 357) 270 
Dunham v. Rochester, (,') Cow. 462) 

124, 150 
Dunkin v. Troy, (61 Barb. 437) 844 
Dunlap V. Gallatin Co., (15 111. 9) 

282 
Dunlap V. Snyder, (17 Barb. 561) 129 
Dunn V. Charleston, (Harper, Law, 

189) 235, 238 
Dunn V. Great Falls, (31 Pac. R. 1017) 

297 
Dunn V. Rector etc. of St. Andrews 

Church, (14 Johns. 118) 51 
Dunnell v. Newell, (2 A. 766, 15 R. I. 

233) 326 a 
Dunnell Mfg. Co. v. Pawtucket, (7 

Gray, 277) 327 
Dunnovan v. Green, (57 111. 63) 195 
Dunsmore's App., (52 Pa. St. 374) 8, 

104 
Dupage Co. v. Jenks, (65 111. 275)397 
Dupree v. Brunswick, (85 Ga. 727) 

130 
Duroch's App., (62 Pa. St. 491) 2, 8 
Durango v. Pennington, (8 Cal. 257) 

165, 170 
Durant b. Jersey City, (25 N. J. L. 

309) 279 
Durant v. Kauffman, (34 Iowa, 194) 

56, 259 
Durant o. Palmer, (5 Dutch. 544) 348 
Durant v. Iowa Co., (Woolw. 69) 

189 a 
Durgin v. Dyer, (68 Me. 143) 127 
Durgin v. Lowell, (3 Allen, 398) 220 
Durham v. Hussraau, (55 N. W. 11) 

312 
Durkee b. Kenosha, (59 AVis. 122) 92 
Durkee v. Jamesville, (2S Wis. 464) 

256, 347 
DurrB. Howard, (21 Ark. 211) 104 
Durr B. Howard, (6 Ark. 461) 104 
Dusenbury o. M. U. T. Co., (Abb. 

New Cas. 440) 297 
Dusenbury b. Mayor, (25 N. J. Eq. 

295) 397 
Dutchess Mfg. Co. v. Davis, (14 

Johns. 238) 48, 49 
Dutton B. Aurora, (114 111. 138) 119 
Dutton B. Board, (41 Miss. 236) 339 
Dutton B. Strong, (1 Black, 23) 132 
Dwight V. Springfield, (4 Gray, 107) 

249, 398, 399 
Dwight Printing Co. v. Boston, (122 

Mass. 583) 237 
Dwyer b. Brenham, (65 Tex. 526) 110 
Dyckman b. New York, (5 N. Y. 434) 

241 
Dyer b. Bayne, (54 Mich. 87) 76 
Dyer b. Brogan, (70 Cal. 136) 108 
Dyer b. Chase, (52 Cal. 440) 291 



Dyer b. Covington, (10 Pa. St. 200) 

177 
Dygert b. Schenck, (23 Wend. 446) 

313, 315, 328, 348 

E. 

Eager, In re, (46 N. T. 190) 172 
Eagle V. Beard, (33 Ark. 497) 67 
Eames v. New Engl. Worsted Co., 

(11 Met. 570) 248 
Eames b. Northumberland, (44 N. H. 

67) 311 
Eames b. Savage, (77 Me. 212) 375 
Eakia b. Brown, (1 E. D. Smith, 44) 

348 
Earing b. Lansing, (7 Wend. 185) 321 
Earl Beauchamp b. Winn, (L. R. 6 H. 

L. 2J3) 327 
Earl of Ripon b. Hobart, (3 Mylne & 

K. 169) 120 
Earle v. New Brunswick, (38 N. J. 

L. 47) 218 
Barley's App., (103 Pa. St. 273) 169 
Earnhart b. Lebanon, (5 Ohio Cir. Ct. 

R. 578) 162 
Earp B. Earl, (71 111. 193) 120 
East & West India Docks Co. c. 

Gattke, (3 MacN. & G. 155) 231 
East Ave. Bapt. Church, In re, (11 

N. Y. S. 113, 57 Hun, 590) 17, 187 a 
East Ang. E'ways Co. v. East Co. Ry. 

Co., (11 C. B. 775) 169 
Easterly v. Goodwin, (35 Conn. 279) 

66 
Eastern Ry. v. Portsmouth, (62 N. H. 

344) 303 
E. Dallas b. State, (73 Tex. 370) 380 
East Dannas b. State, (73 Tex. 371) 55 
East Hartford b. Hartf. R. Co. (10 

How. 511) 12 
East Kingston b. Towle, (48 N. H. 

57) 129 
Easton S. E. & W. E. Ry. Co. Appeal, 

(25 W. N. C. 493) 302 
E. Lincoln b. Davenport, (94 IT. S. 

801) 186, 196 
East Livermore b. Fai'mington, (74 

Me. 154) 66 
Eastman v. Meredith, (36 N. H. 280) 

132, 314, 325, 332, 355 
Eastman b. Clackamas Co., (34 Fed. 

Rep. 139) 339 
Easton Road, (8 Eawle, 195) 288 
Easton b. Neff, (102 Pa. St. 474) 327 
Easton's Case, (12 A. &. E. 645) 104 
East Riv. etc. Co. v. Donnelly, (93 N. 

Y. 557) 173 
East Portland b. Multnomah Co., (6 

Ore. 62) 259 
East Riv. Bridge etc., In re, (26 Hun, 

490) 305 



Ixii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



East St. Louis v. Flanlgan, (26 111. 

App. 449) 13, 189 a 
East St. Louis v. Gas Co., (98111. 415) 

104 
East St. Louis v. Giblin, (3 111. App. 

219) 347 
East St. Louis v. Klug, (3 111. App. 

90) 347 
E. St. Louis V. Launtz, (20 111. App. 

644) 87 
East St. Louis v. St. John, (47 111. 

463) 240 
East St. Louis w. Trustees, (102 111. 

489) 123 
East St. Louis v. Underwood, (105 

111. 308) 2ii() 
East St. Louis v. Wehrung, (46 111. 

392) 113, 125 
East St. Louis v. Zebley, (110 U. S. 

321) 260 
East St. Louis etc. Ry. Co. v. Eisen- 

trant, (24 N. E. K. 760) 354 
East St. Louis etc. Co. v. East St. 

Louis, (31 m. App. 398) 161 
East Stroudsburg, In re, (9 Pa. Co. 

Ct. 529) 48 
Eaton V. Boston etc. E. R. Co., (51 

N. H. 504) 233, 239, 353 
Eaton V. Burke, (22 Atl. R. 452) 34, 

361, 363 
Eaton V. Manitowoc Co., (44 Wis. 489) 

3, 282 
Eaton V. Monroe. (63 Mich. 525) 171 
Eaton E. R. R. Co., (51 N. H. 504, 

529) 292, 329 
Eaton V. State, (7 Blackf. 65) 380 
Eaton & H. R. R. Co. v. Hunt, (20 

Ind. 457) 191 b 
Eaves, In re, (30 Fed. Rep. 21) 83 
Ebey b. Ebey, (1 Wash. Ter. 185) 244 
Eckhard u. Donahue, (9 Daly, 214) 

283 
Eckstein, In re, (24 Atl. R. 63, 30. 

W. N. C. 59) 86 
Edenton o. Wool, (65 N. C. 379) 102 
Edenville v. C. M. & P. R. Co., (77 

Iowa, 69) 218 
Edgerly v. Concord, (59 N. H. 78) 

338 a 
Edgerton i-. Green Cove Springs, (19 

Ela. 140) 248, 259 a 
Edgerton v. Municipality, (1 La. An. 

435) 375 
Edgewood, In re, (18 Atl. R. 646) 24 
Edge wood W. Co. v. Troy W. Co., (7 

Pa. Co. Ct. R. 476) 238 
Edings c. Seabrook, (12 Rich. L. 504) 

239 
Edmonds v. Herbrandson, (50 N. W. 

R. 970) 26 
Edmunds v. Gookins, (20 Ind. 477) 55 



Edmundston i-. Pittsburgh etc. Co. 

(Ill Pa. St. 316) 347 
Edwards b. Kearzey, (96 U. S. 595) 

194 
Edwards b. U. S., (103 U. S. 471) 78, 

86, 370 
Edwards v. Watertown, (61 How. Pr. 

463) 93, 113 
Eflfingham v. Hamilton, (68 Miss. 

523) 374 
Ege ». Koontz, (3 Pa. St. 109) 327 
Egington, In re, (2 E. & B. 717) 104 
Egleston b. City Council, (1 Mill. 

Const. 45) 102 
Egypt Street, (2 Grant, 455) 33 
Egyptian Levee Company v. Hardin, 

(27 Mo. 495) 248 
Ehrgott V. Mayor etc. of New York, 

(96 >r. Y. 264, 6 Am. & Eng. Corp. 

Cas. 31, 48 Am. Rep. 622) 57, 3386, 

351, 352 a 
Eichels b. Evansville St. Ry. Co., (78 

Ind. 261) 33, 144, 304 
Eichenlaub v. St. Joseph, (21 S. W. 

R. 8) 146 
Eidemiller r. Wyandotte City, (2 

Dillon C. C. 376) 249 
Eifert o. Central Covington, (15 S. 

W. R. 180) 276 
Eilert b. Oshkosh, (14 Wis. 576) 265 
Elam V. State, (75 Ind. 518) 81, 82 
Elder b. Dwight Mfg. Co., (4 Gray, 

201) 104 
Eldora v. Burlingame, (62 Iowa, 32) 

108 
Eldridge b. Smith, (34 Vt. 484) 235 
Elgin B. Beckwith, (119 111. 367) 225 
Elgin B. Eaton, (83 111. 537) 330 
Elgin 0. Kimball, (90 111. 356) 355 
Elgin V. PofE, (38 111. Ap. 362) 92 
Eliasou B. Coleman, (86 IST. C. 235) 67 
Elizabeth b. Combs, (10 Bush, 382) 

311 
Elizabeth b. Force, (29 N. J. Eq. 591) 

192 &, 195 6 
Elizabethtown c. Leffler, (23 111. 90) 

158 
Elizabethtown etc. Co. v. Thompson, 

(79 Ky. 52) 803 
Elizabeth L. etc. Co. e. Combs, (10 

Bush. 382) 352 a 
Elkins V. Athearn, (1 Hill, 50) 363 
Elkliart v. Ritter, (66 Ind. 136) 352 a 
Elkhart b. Weckwire, (22 N. E. E. 

342) 348, 355 
EUerman o. McXains, (30 La. An. 65) 

12, 13 
Ellet V. St. Louis etc. Co., (76 Mo. 

518) 353 
EUebric Ry. Co. b. Grand Rapids, (84 

Mich. 257) 302 



TABLE or CASES CITED. 

Beferences are to Sections. 



Ixiii 



Elliott V. Falrhaven etc. R. R. Co., 

(32 Conn. 579, 58t)) 238, 304 
Elliott V. Oil City, (18 Atl. R. 553) 

355 
Elliott V. Oliver, (29 Pac. R. 1) 368 
Elliott V. Pliila., (f Pliila. 128) 92, 

312 
Elliott V. Williamson, (11 Lea, 38) 

312 
Ellis V. Bristol, (2 Gray, 370) 373 
Ellis !). Iowa City, 29 Iowa, 229) 354 a, 

355 
Ellis V. Peru, (23 111. Ap. 35) 352 
Ellis V. Sheffield etc., (23 L. J. Q. B. 

42) 295 
Ellis V. State, (5 Ind. 77) 5 
Ellis V. State, (4 Ind. 1) 07 
Ellis V. State, (21 S. W. R. 66) 312 
Ellis B. Ry. Co., (77 Wis. 114) 184 
Ellison V. Lindford, (28 Pao. R. 744) 

276 
Ellison t). Aldermen of Raleigh, (89 

N. C. 125) 361, 371 
EUsworth 0. Lord, (42 N. W. R. 389, 

40 Minn. 337) 217, 220 
Ellsworth V. Nelson, (46 N. W. R. 

740) 29 
Ellsworth !). Rossiter, (26 Pac. 274) 

165 
Ell. Co. V. Kitchen, (14 Bush, 289) 364 
Ellyson, In re, (20 Gratt. 10) 401 
Elma V. Carney, (30 Pac. R. 732) 283 
Elmendorf v. Covert, (1 Hill, 674) 

398 
Elmendorf c. Mayor, (25 Wend. 693) 

54, 98 
Elmwood V. Marcy, (92 U. S. 289) 

187 a 
Elsterc. Springfield, (301^. E. R. 274) 

292, 329 
Elrod ». Bernadotte, (53 111. 368) 212, 

375 
Elstonj). Crawfordsville, (20 Ind. 272) 

61 
Elwell V. Prop'rs etc., (3 H. of L. 

Cases, 812) 312 
Elwell !). Greenwood, (26 Iowa, 377) 

396 
Ely V. Parsons, (55 Conn. 83) 220 
Ely V. Rochester, (26 Barb. 133) 141 
Ely V. Supervisors, (36 N. Y. 297) 122 
. Elyton Ld. Co. v. Ayres, (62 Ala. 413) 

397 
Episcopal C. So. v. Epis. Church, (1 

Pick. 372) 170 
Erd V. Paul, (22 Minn. 446) 3506, 351 
El' Paso V. Causey, (1 111. Ap. 531) 

336 a 
Embury v. Conner, (3 N". Y. 511) 240 
Emerich «. Indianapolis, (118 Ind. 

279) 62 



Emerson v. Saltmarsh, (7 A. & E. 

266) 259 a 
Emerson v. Babcock, (66 Iowa, 257) 

300 
Emery v. Lowell, (104 Mass. 13) 326 a, 

355 
Emery v. Mariaville, (56 Me. 315) 

177, 179 
Emery v. San Francisco Gas Co., (28 

Cal. 345) 248, 256, 271, 281 
Emery v. Washington, (1 Brayton, 

128) 223 
Emigrant Co. v. Wright Co., (97 U. 

S. 339) 166 
Emmelmaun v. Indianapolis, (108 

Ind. 530) 343 
Emmerton v. Mathews, (7 H. & N. 

586) 127 
Emmett, In re, (65 How. Pr. 266) 

84 
Emmert v. Belong, (16 La. An. 317) 

92 
Emmons ». Lewiston, (24 N. E. R. 

58) 123 
Empire L. & B. Ass'n i>. City of At- 
lanta, (77 Ga. 496) 396 
Emporia v. Gilchrist, (15 Pao. 532, 

37 Kan. 621) 327 
Emporia v. Norton, (16 Kan. 236) 17, 

148 
Emporia v. Smith, (22 Pac. R. 616) 8, 

55 
Emporia v. Sohmidling, (7 Am. Eng. 

Cor. Cas. 86) 342 
Emporia v. Soden, (25 Kan. 588) 239, 

396 
Emporia v. Volner, (12 Kan. 622) 105 
Enfield Bridge Co. v. Hartford, (17 

Conn. 40) 313 
Enfield v. Jordan, (119 U. S. 680) 3 
England v. New York Publishing 

Co., (8 Daly, 375) 48 
English V. People, (96 111. 566) 256 
English V. Smock, (34 Ind. llo) 391 
Enrighti). Atlanta, (78 Ga. 288) 3506 
Erie's App.,( 91 Pa. St. 398) 189 
Erie v. Caulkins, (85 Pa. St. 24) 92, 

343 
Erie v. Erie Canal Co., (59 Pa. St. 

174) 2, '8, 15, 136, 319 
Erie v. Flint, (8 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 482) 2 
Erie v. Reed's Ex., (113 Pa. St. 468) 

255, 392 
Erie v. Sohwingle, (22 Pa. St. 384) 

352 
Erie v. Magill, (101 Pa. St. 616) 352 
Erie Co. v. Butler, (120 Pa. St. 374) 

281 ' 

Erie Co. v. Jones, (119 N. Y. 337) 79 
Erie County v. E. Water Com'rs, 

(113 Pa. St. 368) 271 



Ixiv 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



Ernst V. Kunkle, (5 Ohio St. 520) 

259 a 
Escanaba v. Chicago, (107 U. S. 678) 

314 
Eschback v. Pitts, (6 Md. 71) 282, 

283, 284 
Eslava v. Jones, (83 Ala. 139) 338 
Essex J). Assessors, (26 N. E. K. 431) 

271 
Essex V. Day, (52 Conn. 483) 196 
Essex Pub. Rd. Board v. Skinkle, 

(140 U. S. 334) 8, 32 
Estes D. Owen, (90 Mo. 113) 291, 293 
Estelle V. Lake Crystal, (27 Minn. 

243) 331 a, 346, 352 
Estep V. Keokuk Co., (18 Iowa, 199) 

169 
Estey V. Starr, (56 Vt. 690) 98 
Estey V. Westminster, (97 Mass. 324) 

170 
Etherington v. Wilson, (L. K. 1 Ch. 

Div. 160) 66 
Etherington v. P. P. etc. E. E. Co., 

(88 ST. Y. 641) 352 a 
Eudora v. Miller, (30 Kan. 494) 314, 

353 
Eufaula v. McNab, (67 Ala. 588) 110, 

188 
Eufaula v. Simmons, (86 Ala. 515) 

354 a 
Eureka Basin, In re, (96 If. T. 42) 

188 
Eureka v. Davis, (21 Kan. 578) 125 
Eureka v. Armstrong, (22 P. Rep. 

828) 221, 310 
Eustace v. Johns, (38 Cal. 3) 346, 348 
Evans v. Adams, (122 Ind. 362) 352 
Evans d. Evansville, (37 Ind. 229) 219 
Evans v. Erie Co., (66 Pa. St. 222) 

312 
Evans v. Jus., (3 Hayw. 26) 83 
Evans v. Job, (8 Nev. 322) 26 
Evans b. Miss. etc. Co., (64 Mo. 453) 

396 
Evans v. North Side etc. Co., (26 Fed. 

Rep. 718) 353 
Evans v. People, (28 N. E. R. 1111) 

278 
Evans v. Populus, (22 La. Ann. 121) 

79 
Evans v. Trenton, (24 N. J. L. 764) 79 
Evans v. Utica, (69 N. T. 166) 352 
Evanstou b. Gunn, (99 U. S. 660) 324, 

349 ' 

Evansville v. Decker, (84 lud. 325, 

328) 353 
Evansville v. Evans, (37 Ind. 229) 217 
Evansville v. Evansville, (15 Ind. 395) 

177 ' 

Evansville v. Hall, (14 Ind. 27) 272 
Evansville i). Martin, (41 Ind. 145) 120 



Evansville v. Paige, (23 Ind. 525) 56, 

220 
Evansville v. Phistere, (34 Ind. 36) 

397 
Evansville v. State, (118 Ind. 426) 18, 

256 
Evansville etc. Co. v. Crist, (116 Ind. 

453) 352 
Evansville etc. Co. v. Evansville, (15 

Ind. 395) 196 
Evansville & C. R. R. Co. v. Miller, 

(30 Ind. 209) 245 
Everett v. Baily, (24 Atl. R. 700, 150 

Pa. St. 152) 313 
Everett v. Council Bluffs, (46 Iowa, 

6) 120 
Everett v. Marquette, (53 Mich. 450) 

120 
Everson v. Syracuse, (100 N. T. 577) 

338 
Evertsen v. Nat. Bank of Newport, 

(11 N. Y. S. C. 694) 190 
Every v. Smith, (26 L. J. Excb. 344) 

224 
Ewbanks v. Ashley, (36 111. 177) 148, 

156 
Ewing V. Dallas Co., (19 S. W. R. 380) 

40 
Ewing V. Hoblitzelle, (85 Mo. 73) 302 
Ewing V. Filley, (43 Pa. St. 384) 65, 

104 
Ewing V. St. Louis, (5 Wall. 413, 419) 

397, 398 
Ewing V. State, (16 S. W. R. 872) 54 
Exchange Alley, In re, (4 La. An. 4) 

240 
Exchange Bank of Columbus v. 

Hines, (3 Ohio St. 1) 269 
Exeter v. Starre, (2 Show. 159) 158 
Excelsior Brick Co. v. Haverstraw, 

(62 Hun, 620) 308 
Eyerly v. Jasper Co., (72 Iowa, 149) 

375 
Eyerman v. Provenchere, (15 Mo. 

App. 256) 171 
Eyerman v. Blaksley, (78 Mo. 145) 

248 
Eyerman v. Blaksley, (78 Mo. 145) 

259 a 
Eyler v. County Com'rs, (49 Md. 257) 

347 
Eyraan v. People, (6 111. 8) 400 

F. 

Faber v. St. Paul etc. Co., (29 Minn. 

465) 136 
Fair v. Philadelphia, (88 Pa. St. 309) 

327 a, 354 (i 
Fair v. London & N. W. Ry. Co., (21 

L. T. n: S. 327) 352 a 
Fairchild v. Bascom, (35 Vt. 398) 309 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Ixv 



References are to Sections. 



Fail-child ». Ogdensburg etc. Co., (15 

N. T. 338) 177 
Fairchild v. R. Co., (15 N. Y. 387) 179 
Fail-child v. Wall, (29 Pac R. 60, 93 

Cal. 401) 281 
Fairfield v. People, (94 111. 244) 262 
Fail-field v. RatclifE, (20 Iowa, 396) 

256 
Faiiiawn Coal Co. v. Scranton, (23 

Atl. R. 1069, 148 Pa. St. 231) 328 
Falconer v. BufC. etc. Co., (69 N. Y. 

491) 186 
Fall Eiv. etc. v. Old Col. R. R., (5 

Allen, 221) 814 
Falls V. Cairo, (58 111. 408) 826 a 
Falmer v. Nuckolls Co., (6 Neb. 204) 

395 
Fanning v. Gregoire, (16 How. 524) 

134 
Faribault v. Misener, (20 Minn. 396) 

260 a 
Fai-ibauelt v. Wilson, (34 Minn. 254) 

153 
Fai-ist etc.Co. C.Bridgeport, (60 Conn. 

278) 235 
Farmers etc. v. Coventry, (10 Johns. 

389) 320 
Farmers L. & I. Co. v. Galesburg, 

(133 U. S. 156) 174 
Farmers M. Co. v. R.R.Co., (10 Pa. Co. 

Ct. R. 25) 232 
Farmers M. Co. v. R. R. Co., (21 Atl. 

902, 28 W. N. C. Ill) 247 
Farmington etc. Co. v. Commission- 

ei-s, (112 Mass. 206) 279 
Farmington R. W. P. Co. v. Comrs., 

(112 Mass. 206) 399 
Farnham v. Sherry, (74 Wis. 568, 37 

N. W. R. 577) 271 
Farnumu. Concord, (2N. Y. 392) 325, 

352 ■ 
Famsworth v. Boston, (121 Mass. 

173) 368 
Farnsworth v. Pawtucket, (13 R. I. 

82) 169 
Farrar v. Greene, (32 Me. 574) 352 
Farrar v. St. Louis, (80 Mo. 379) 279 
Farfell v. Bridgeport, (45 Conn. 191) 

07, 85, 89 
Farrell v. King, (41 Conn. 448) 106 
Farrell v. Winchester Ave., (61 Conn. 

127, 23 Atl. 757) 306 a 
Farrelly v. Cincinnati, (2 Disney, 516) 

852 a 
Farrington v. Tennessee, (95 IT. S. 

679) 273 
Farris v. Dudley, (78 Ala. 124) 354 a 
Farquar v. Roseburg, (21 Pac. Rep. 

1103) 349 
Farwell v. Cambridge, (11 Gray, 413) 

245 



Farwell v. Chicago, (71 Illinois 269) 

298 
Farwell e. Hathaway, (22 N. E. R. 

849) 267 
Farwell v. Smith, (1 Harr. 133) 158 
Fash V. Third etc. Co., (1 Daly, 105) 

302 
Faulkner v. Home, (29 N. E. R. 645) 
•49 
Fauntleroy v. Hannibal, (1 Dillon, 

C. C. 118) 31 
Faust v. Huntington, (91 Ind. 498) 

220 
Fay, In re, (15 Pick. 243) 184 
Fay B. Weber, (48 N. W. R. 859) 39 6 
Fay V. Wood, (32 N. W. R. 614) 263 
Fayette v. Shafrath, (25 Mo. 445) 104 
Fayette Co. ». Peoples Bank, (47 

Ohio St. 503) 259 a 
Feiten v. Milwaukee, (47 Wis. 494) 

242 
Feldman v. Charleston, (23 S. C. 57) 

188 
Fellows V. Walker, (89 Fed. R. 657) 

26, 392 
Fellows 1). Fayette Soh. Dis., (39 Me. 

559) 326 a 
Fellowes v. New Haven, (44 Conn. 

240) 329 
Feltmakers v. Davis, (1 Bos. & P. 98, 

100) 149, 157 
Feltham v. England, (L. R. 2 Q. B. 

3.3) 337 
Felton V. Addison, (101 Ind. 58) 279 
Fennimore v. New Orleans, (20 La 

An. 124) 836 a 
Fenton ». Scott, (17 Or. 189) 65 
Fenwick v. Sears, (2 Cranch. 150) 77 
Fesh V. Com., (4 Dana, 522) 102 
Fession v. Landrey, (24 N. E. R. 96) 

221 
Ferguson v. Chittenden, (6 Ark. 479) 

99 
Ferguson v. Davis Co., (57 Iowa, 601) 

853 
Ferguson v. Landran, (5 Bush, 230) 

254 
Ferguson b. Selma, (43 Ala. 398) 118, 

120 
Fernald v. Boston, (12 Cush. 574) 

830 
Ferris v. Bramble, (5 Ohio St. 109) 

234 a 
Ferris v. Wellborn, (64 Miss. 29) 896 
Ferry u. Ferry, (2 Cush. 92) 199 
Ferry Co. v. Boston, (101 Mass. 350) 

360 
Fertilizer Co. ». Hyde Park, (97 U. 

S. 659) 129 
Fetterly ». Municipality etc., (14 U. 

C. Q. B. 433) 164 



Ixvi 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Beferences are to Sections. 



Ficklen v. Taxing District, (145 U. S. 

1, 12 S. Ct. 810) 258 
Fidelity etc. Co. v. Shenandoah etc. 

Co., (32 W. Va. 244) 53 
Field V. Can-, (59 111. 198) 215, 221 
Field V. Chipley, (79 Ky. 260) 80 
Field D. Commonwealth, (32 Pa. St. 

478) 83, 85 
Field V. Des Moines, (39 Iowa, 57?) 

335, 338 
Field ». Girard Col., (54 Pa. St. 233) 75 
Field B. West Orange, (36 N. J. Eq. 

118) 354 a 
Fields 1;. Stockley, (99 Pa. St. 306) 

335 
Fifth St., In re, (17 Wend. 667) 329 
Fifteenth Ward, Ee, (11 Phila. 466) 

63 
Filby V. Combe, (2 M. &W. 677) 129, 

130 
Files V. State, (3 S. W. K. 817, 48 Ark. 

529) 270 
Finch V. Temaha Co. Sup., (29 Cal. 

453) 269 
Fink V. Milwaukee, (17 Wis. 26) 155 
Fink ». Missouri etc. Co., (82 Mo. 

283) 347 
Fink V. Newark, (40 N. J. L. 11) 247 
Finley v. Philadelphia, (32 Pa. St. 

381) 272 
Finnell v. Kates, (19 Ohio St. 405) 

279 
Finney v. Oshkosh, (18 Wis. 220) 265 
Finnegan v. Fernandina, (15 Fla. 379) 

282 
Fire Dept. v. Chanman, (10 Daly, 

377) 131 
Fire Dept. v. Hill, (14 N. Y. S. 158) 

13 
Fire Dept. v. Kip, (10 Wend. 266) 23, 

31 
Fire Dept. v. Stetson, (14 Daly, 125, 

6 N. y. St. R. 255) 131 
Fire Dept. v. Sturtevant, (33 Hun, 

407) 131 
Fire Dept. v. Wendell, (13 Daly, 430) 

lol 

Fire Dept. v. Wright, (3 E. D. Smith, 

478) 258 
First Bap. Church v. Utica etc., (6 

Barb. 313) 301 
First Eccl. Soo. of H. v. Hartford, 

(38 Conn. 274) 326 
First Municipality o. McDonough, (2 

Robinson, 244) 182 
First N. Bk. v. Arlington, (16 Blatch. 

57) 190 a 
First Nat. Bk. v. Americus, (68 Ga. 

119) 326 a 
First Nat. Bk. v. Cook, (77 111. 622) 

397 



First Nat. Bk. v. County Com'rs, (14 

Minn. 79) 191 
First Nat. Bk. v. Lindsay, (43 Fed. 

R. 619) 259 a 
First Nat. Bk. v. Mt. Tabor, (52 Vt. 

87) 191, 193 
First Nat. Bk. etc. v. Nat. Ex. Bank, 

(92 U. S. 122) 143 
First Nat. Bk. v. Salem etc. Co., (39 

Fed. R. 89) 51 
First Nat. Bk. of Louisville ». Com- 
monwealth, (9 Wall. 353) 258 
Fish V. Dodge, (4 Den. 311) 120 
Fish V. Kelly, (17 C. B. N. S. 194) 338 
Fish V. Rochester, (6 Paige, 268) 293 
Fisli 11. Weatherwax, (2 Johns. Cas. 

217) .371 
Fisher v. Beard, (32 Iowa, 346) 217, 

221 
Fislier b. Boston, (104 Mass. 87) 92, 

130, 332, 335, 338 a 
Fisher v. .Charlestown, (17 W. Va. 

595, 17 lb. 682) 375 
Fislier v. Harrisburg, (2 Grant Cas. 

291) 154, 294 
Fisher v. McGirr, (1 Gray, 1) 122 
Fisher v. Rochester, (6 Lans. 223) 293 
Fisher v. Sch. Dis. No. 17, (4 Cush. 

494) 99, 170 
Fisher v. San Diego, (24 Pac. 1000, 

86 Cal. 158) 54 
Fisher v. Thirkell, (21 Mich. 1) 298 
Fisk V. Chester, (8 Gray, 506) 66 
Fisk V. Havana, (88 111. 208) 219 
Fisk B. Jefferson Par. etc., (11617.8. 

131) 79, 377 
Fiske, Ex parte, (72 Cal. 125) 130, 148 
Fiske B. Hazard, (7 R. I. 4.38) 139 
Fiske B. Chicago etc. E. E. Co., (13 

Barb. 472) 66 
Fitch V. Creighton, (24 How. 159) 283 
Fitch V. Pinckard, (5 111. 78) 110, 159, 

265 
Fitchburg etc. Co. b. Grand etc. Co., 

(1 Allen, 552) 302 
Fitz u. Boston, (4 Cush. 365) 342 
Fitzpatrick v. Slooum, (89 N. Y. 358) 

92 
Fitzgerald v. Berlin, (64 Wis. 203)346 
Fitzgerald b. Berlin, (51 Wis. 81) 343 
Fitzgerald v. Weston, (32 Wis. 354) 

352 
Fitzsimmons v. B'klyn, (102 N. Y. 

536) 79 
Fitzsimmons v. Brooklyn, (102 N. Y. 

536) 85 
Flack ». Fry, (32 W. Va. 364) 62 
Flagg B. Elmira, (33 Mo. 440) 192 6 
Flagg B. Hudson, (142 Mass. 280) SSI 
Flagg B. Palmyra, (33 Mo. 440) 196, 
364, 376 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

Keferences are to Sections. 



Ixvii 



Flagg ». St. Charles, (27 La. An. 319) 

177 
Flagg V. Worcester, (13 Gray, 601) 

328, 355 
Flanagan v. Plainfield, (44 N. J. L. 

118) 121 
Flatbusli Av., In re, (1 Barb. 286) 

259 a 
Flatbush, In re, (60 N. Y. 398) 15 
Fleckner v. U. S. Bank, (8 Wheat. 

338, 357) 165 
Fleming, In re, (4 Hill, 581) 359 
Fleming b. Shenandoah, (71 Iowa, 

456) 352 a 
Fleming v. Guthrie, (3 Law Rep. An. 

53) 360 
Fleming v. Manchester, (44 L. J. N. 

S. 617) 328 
Fleming ». Mershom, (37 Iowa, 413) 

397 
Fletcher v. Auburn etc. Co., (25 

Wend. 462) 302 
Fletcher v. Oliver, (25 Ark. 289) 259 
Fletcher v. Oshkosh, (18 Wis. 229) 

265 
Fletcher ». Peck, (6 Cranch, 135) 10 
Fleuellen v. Proetzel, (15 S. W. R. 

1043) 32 
Flick, In re, (6 Gulp, 329) 224 
Flint v. Russell, (5 Dill. 151) 120 
Flori B. St. Louis, (69 Mo. 341) 325 

336 a 
Flower, In re, (29 IST. E. R. 463) 16 
Floyd V. Cora'rs, (14 Ga. 358) 102, 

104, 156 
Floyd V. Turner, (23 Tex. 293) 243 
Floyd Acceptances, (7 Wall. 667) 177 
Floyd Co. V. Day, (19 Ind. 450) 179, 

180 
Flynn v. Boston, (26 N. E. B. 868) 54 
Flynn u. Canton, (40 Md. 312) 324, 

327, 346 
Flynn ». Com'rs, (22 N. E. R. 1100) 

316 
Flynn ». Detroit, (53 N. W. R. 815, 

93 Mich. 590) 312, 314 
Flynn ». Taylor, (28 N. E. R. 418, 127 

N. Y. 596, aff'g 6 N. Y. S. 96) 396 
Fogg V. Nahant, (98 Mass. 578) 342 
Foley J). Haverhill, (144 Mass. 352) 

326 
Folinsbee v. Amstex-dam, (21 N. Y. 

S. 42) 292 
Follman u. Mankato, (45 Minn. 457) 

355 
FoUmer ». Nuckolls Co., (6 Neb. 204) 

173 
FoUweiler ». Lutz, (112 Pa. St. 107) 

66 
Folsom V. Underhill, (36 Vt. 580) 223, 

352 



Folsom V. Sch. Dis., (91 HI. 404) 182 
Folsom, In re, (56 N. Y. 60) 264 
Folts V. Huntley, (7 Wend. 210) 244 
Foltz B. Kerlin, (105 Ind. 221) 74 
Foot V. Bronson, (4 Lansing, 47) 355 
Foote t). Hancock, (15 Blatchf. 343) 

195 c, 199 
Foote V. Cincinnati, (11 Ohio, 408) 

24,244 
Forbush v. Norwich, (38 Conn. 225) 92 
Force v. Batavia, (61 111. 99) 65 
Ford B. Board etc., (81 Cal. 19) 83 
Ford B. Clough, (8 Me. 334) 142, 302 
Ford B. Cartersville, (84 Ga. 213) 266 
Ford B. Har. Comrs., (81 Cal. 19) 79 
Ford B. No. Des Moines, (45 N. W. R. 

1031) 24 
Ford B. Thrailkill, (84 Ga. 169) 146 
Ford B. Umatilla Co., (16 Pac. Rep. 

33) 353 
Ford B. Williams, (13 N. Y. 577, 585) 

167 
Foreman b. Canterbury, (L. R. 6 Q. 

B. 214) 342 
Fork Ridge etc. Assn. b. Redd, (10 

S. E. R. 405, 33 W. Va. 262) 232 
Forney b. Calhoun Co., (86 Ala. 463) 

215, 218 
Forney b. Calhoun Co., (84 Ala. 215, 

4 So. 153) 216 
Forristal v. Milwaukee, (57 Wis. 628) 

174 
ForsterB. Scott, (17 N. Y. S. 479) 243 
Forsyth b. Kreuter, (100 Ind. 27) 278 
Forsyth b. Atlanta, (45 Ga. 152) 327 a 
Porsythe v. Hooper, (11 Allen, 419) 

347 
Fort Dodge b. More, (37 Iowa, 388) 

271 
Fort Dodge b. Minn. R. R. Co., (54 

N. W. R. 243) 317 
Ft. Edward etc. ». Payne, (17 Barb. 

567) 318 
Fortin b. East Hampton, (145 Mass. 

196) 344 
Fort Scott ». Hickman, (112 U. S. 

150) 199 
Fort Smith v. Dodson, (46 Ark. 296) 

155 
Fort Smith v. McKibhen, (41 Ark. 45) 

312 
Fort St. etc. Co. b. Jones, (83 Mich. 

415) 241 
Fort Wayne v. Breeze, (23 N. E. 1038) 

352 
Fort Wayne b. Combs, (107 Ind. 75) 

353 
Fort Wayne b. DeWitt, (47 Ind. 396) 

312 a 
Fort Wayne b. Jackson, (7 Blackf 

36)50 



Ixviii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



Fort Wayne v. Lake Shore & M. S. 

Ky. Co., (32 N. E. R. 215) 208 
Fort Wayne v. Eosenthal, (75 Ind. 

156) 166 
Fort Wayne v. Shaaf, (106 Ind. 66) 

259 a, 397 
Fort Worth v. Davis, (57 Tex. 225) 

265 
Fort Worth etc. Co. v. Downie, (82 

Tex. 383) 246 
Fort Worth v. Howard, (22 S. W. E. 

1059) 330 
Fort Worth v. Crawford, (74 Tex. 404) 

120, 327 a 
FosdiokB. Hempstead, (125 N. Y. 581, 

26 N. E. K. 801) 203 
Fosdick V. Perryville, (14 Ohio St. 

472) 188 
Foshay v. Glen Haven, (25 Wis. 288) 

342 
Fosters. Boston, (127 Mass. 290) 350 b 
Foster v. Coleman, (10 Cal. 27«) 177 
Foster v. Findlay, (5 Ohio Cir. Ct. 

455) 86 
Foster v. Goddard, (40 Me. 64) 321 
Foster v. Juniata B. Co., (4 Har. 393) 

■353 
Foster v. Kansas, (112 U. S. 201) 83, 

121 
Foster v. Kenosha, (12 Wis. 615) 195 
Foster v. Koads, (19 Johns. 191) 153 
Foster v. Scarf, (15 Oliio St. 535) 65 
Foster v. St. Louis, (71 Mo. 157) 254 a 
Foster v. Shaw, (7 Serg. & Kawle, 

163) 52 
Foster ■». Swope, (41 Mo. App. 137) 

352 
Fountain v. Warren Co., (27 N". E. R. 

125) 15 
Fourth Av., In re, (4 Wend. 452) 359 a 
Fowle V. Alexandria, (3 Pet. 398) 32, 

331 
Fowler, In re, (53 K. T. 60) 232, 233 
Fowler v. Atkinson, (6 Minn. 579) 167 
Fowler v. Pierce, (2 Cal. 165) 368 
Fox V. Catherine etc. Co., (12 Pa. Co. 

Ct. 180) 302 
Fox V. Glastenbury, (29 Conn. 204) 

352 
Fox V. Hart, (11 Ohio, 414) 312 
Fox V. Lansingburgh, (59 Hun, 617) 

326 a, 350 6 
Pox V. McDonald, (13 So. R. 416) 74 
Fox ». Northern Liberties, (3 Watts 

& S. 103) 338 
Fox V. Rockford, (38 111. 451) 288 
Fox V. Sackett, (10 Allen, 535) 352 
Fox V. Shipman, (19 Mich. 218) 177 
Fox I). State, (5 How. 410) 117 
Fox's Will, (52 N. Y. 530, 94 U. S. 
315) 202 



Frammer v. Richmond, (31 Gratt. 

646) 123 
Francis v. Blair, (96 Mo. 515) 18 
Francis v. Cockrell, (5 Q. B. 184) 121 
Francis v. Troy, (74 N. Y. 338) 164 
Franey v. Miller, (11 Pa. St. 434) 215 
Frank, In re, (52 Cal. 606) 110, 150, 

159 
Frank v. San Fran., (21 Cal. 668) 375 
Frankford etc. v. Philadelphia, (58 

Pa. St. 119) 302 
Frankfort v. Anghe, ( 15 W. E. Rep. 

802) 158 
Frankfort B. Co. v. Williams, (9 Da- 
na, 403) 317 
Frankfort Bridge Co v. Frankfort, 

(18 B. Mon. 41) 51, 164 
Frankfort etc. Co. v. Philadelphia, 

(58 Pa. St. 119) 123 
Franklin v. S. E. Ry. Co., (3 H. & N. 

211) 352 a 
Franklin B. Fisk, (13 Allen, 211) 354 a 
Franklin v. Winopa etc. Co., (37 

Minn. 409) 351 
Franklin Co. Ct. v. Dep. Bank, (9 S. 

W. R. 212) 268 
Franklin Co. Gram. Sch. v. Baily, (62 

Vt. 467) 9 
Franklin Co. Comm'rs v. Lathrop, 

(9 Kan. 453) 215 
Franklin's Trust, (24 Atl. 626) 203 
Franklin Wlif. Co. v. Portland, (67 

Me. 46) 355 
Franklyn v. Portland, (67 Me. 46) 

300 
Franklyn, Succession of, (7 La. Ann. 

395) 66 
Frankner v. Aurora, (85 Ind. 130) 331 
Franz v. Railroad Co., (55 Iowa, 107) 

238, 303 
Frautz ». Jacob, (11 S. W. 654) 188 
Frazee, In re, (63 Mich. 396) 152, 154 

159 
Frazier b. Warfield, (73 Md. 279) 114 
Freburg v. Davenpoi-t, (63 Iowa, 119) 

329 
Freeh v. Philadelphia, ( 39 Md. 574) 

338 
Frederick v. Augusta, (5 Ga. 561) 17, 

134, 101 
Frederick v. Goshen, (20 Md. 436) 395 
Frederick Co. v. Winchester, (57 

S. E. Rep. 884) 216, 226, 229 
Freedman v. Sigel, ( 10 Blatclif. 327) 

258 
Freeholders v. Barber, ( 2 Halst. 64) 

124 
Freeholders D. Towns, (20 N. Y. State 

Rep. 394) 310 
Freeholders v. Strader, ( 18 K. J. L. 
lOS) 325 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Ixix 



References are to Sections. 



Freeland v. Hastings, (10 Allen, 570) 

138, 254. 
Freeman v. Phlla., (13 Pliila. 154) 92 
Fieemansburg v. Rogers, (8 Atl. 872) 

292 
Freeport v. Isbell, (83 III. 440) 344 a 
Fi-eeport v. Marks, ( 59 Pa. St. 253) 

149 
Fremont v. Boling, ( 11 Cal. 380) 397 
Fremont etc. Co. v. Holt Co., (45 

N. W. R. 163) 326 
Fremont v. Marley, (25 Keb. 138) 355 
Fremont etc. v. Sherwin, (6 Neb. 48) 

184 
French ». Auburn, (62 Me. 452) 164 
French v. Boston, (129 Mass. 592) 353 
French v. Brunswick, (21 Me. 29) 346 
French v. Quincy, (3 Allen, 9) 202, 

203 
French v. Springwells H. Comm'rs, 

(12 Mich. 267) 249 
French v. White, (24 Conn. 174) 234 
Frend v. Dennett, (4 C. B. 576) 165 
Fresno v. Canal & Irr. Co., (32 Pac. 

943) 300 
Fretwell v. Troy, (18 Kan. 271) 123 
Frevert v. Finrock, (31 Ohio St. 621) 

391 
Frick V. St. Lonis etc. Co., ( 75 Mo. 

595) 136 
Friday v. Floyd, (63 HI. 50) 129 
Friesner v. Charlotte, ( 52 N. W. 18) 

24 
Frigally v. Memphis, (6 Coldw. 382) 

104 
Frio V. Earnest, (16 S. W. 1036) 325 
Fritsch v. Allegheny, (91 Pa. St. 226) 

342 
Fritz V. First Div. etc. Co., (22 Minn. 

404) 129 
Fritz V. Hobson, ( L. R. 14 Ch. Div. 

542) 120, 307 
Fritz ». Kansas City, (84 Mo. 632) 

325, 327, 346 
Frolickstein v. Mobile, (40 Ala. 725) 

134 
Frommer v. Richmond, ( 31 Gratt. 

646) 124 
Front «. Belmont, (6 Allen, 152) 136 
Front St. Cable Ry. Co. v. Johnston, 

(25 Pac. R. 1084) 212 
Frost v. Flick, (1 Dakota, 131) 397 
Frost V. Leatherman, (55 Mich. 33) 

265 
Frost V. Waltham, (12 Allen, 85) 352 
Frostburg v. Duffy, ( 70 Md. 47) 355 
Frostburg v. Hitchins, ( 16 Atl. R. 

380) 355 
Fi-y V. Albemarle Co., (9S. E. R. 1004) 

325 
Fry V. Comrs., (82 N. C. 304) 375 



Fry, In re, (3 Mackey, 135) 105 
Fry's Election, (71 Pa. St. 302) 66 
Fullam V. Brookfleld, (9 Allen, 1) 

165, 167 
Fuller V. Atlanta, (66 Ga. 80) 329 
Fuller V. Chicago, (89 111. 282) 189 a 
Fuller V. Edings, (11 Rich. Law, 739) 

133, 239 
Fuller V. Groton, (14 Gray, 340) 115 
Fuller, In re, (25 Ark. 261) 363 
Fulliam v. Muscatine, (30 N. W. R. 

861) 346, 352 
Fulsome v. Concord, (46 Vt. 135) 351 
Fulton V. Lincoln, (9 Neb. 358) 165, 

265 
Fulton V. Mehrenfield, (8 Ohio St. 

440) 215 
Fulton V. Riverton, ( 42 Minn. 395 ) 

196 
Fulton Co. V. Miss. etc. Co., (21 111. 

338) 189 
Fulton Co. V. Rickel, ( 106 Ind. 501 ) 

325, 353 
Fulweiler v. St. Louis, ( 61 Mo. 479 ) 

103 
Funk's Admrs. ». Waynesboro, (10 

Atl. R. 427) 242 
Furraan v. Nichol, (8 Wall. 44) 14 
Furnell v. St. Paul, (20 Minn. 117) 

342, 346, 350 b. 

<3r. 

GabeU v. Houston, (29 Tex. 335) 134 
Gaddis v. Richmond, (92 Ind. 119) 

196 
Gaffney v. Brown, (150 Mass. 479) 352 
Gaffney v. Gough, (36 Cal. 104) 282 
Gage V. Chicago, (32 N. E. R. 264) 278 
Gage V. Chicago, (2 111. App. 332) 87 
Gage V. Evans, (90 111. 569) 397 
Gage V. Graham, (57 111. 144) 
Gage V. Hornelsville, (41 N. Y. 87) 87 
Gage V. Nichols, (135 111. 128) 187 a, 

256 
Gahagan v. Boston etc. Co., (1 Allen, 

187) 306 
Gainbur v. Mayoret, (4 Sand. 109) 83 
Gaines v. Hot Spr. Co., (39 Ark. 262) 

312 
Galbes ». Girard, (46 Fed. R. 500) 5 
Galbraith v. Luttiech, (573 111. 209) 

108, 310 
Galbraith v. Olivet, (3 Pitts. 79) 120 
Galbreath v. Armour, (4 Bell App. 

Cas. 374) 302 
Galbreath v. Newton, (30 Mo. Ap. 

380) 278 
Gale V. Kalamazoo, (23 Mich. 344) 

113, 124 
Gale V. Mayor, (8 Hun, 370) 87 
Galena v. Amy, (5 Wall. 705) 14 



Ixs 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

Eeferences are to Sections. 



Galena v. Corinth, (48 111. 42,S) 163 
Galesburg v. Hawkinson, (75 111. 152) 

53 
Gall V. Cincinnati, (18 Ohio St. 563) 

128 
Gallegher v. St. Paul, (28 Fed. Rep. 

305) 346 
Gallowaj v. Corbett, (52 Mich. 460) 

399 
Galoway v. London, (1 H. L. 34) 392 
Galtin v. Tarborough, (78 N. C. 119) 

259 
Galveston v. Barbour, (62 Tex. 172) 

336 o, 352 a 
Galveston c. Devlin, (19 S. W. K. 395) 

86 
Galveston v. Heard, (54 Tex. 420) 

259 a, 281 
Galveston ». Loomis, (54 Tex. 517) 

163, 189 a 
Galveston v. Menard, (23 Tex. 349) 

312 
Galveston v. Morton, (53 Texas, 409) 

170 
Galveston v. Posnainsky, (62 Tex. 

118) 324, 351 
Galveston v. Williams, (6 South 

West. Eep. 860) 221 
Galveston City Co. v. Galveston, (56 

Tex. 486) 326 a 
Galveston etc. Co. v. Fuller, (63 Tex. 

467) 330 
Galveston Wharf Co. v. Galveston, 

(63 Tex. 14) 133, 271 
Gamble v. St. Louis, (12 Mo. 617) 

220 
Gannon v. Hagadon, (10 Allen, 106) 

354 a 
Gant's App., (23 Pitts. Leg. J. 219) 

308 
Garden City v. Abbott, (34 Kan. 283) 

146, 300 
Gardenier v. Sup., (17 St. Eep. 983) 

362 
Gardiner Cotton & W. F. Co. b. Gar- 
diner, (5 Me. 133) 272 
Gardner v. Haney, (86 Ind. 17) 374 
Gardner v. Johnston (12 Atl. Kep. 

888) 223 
Gardner v. INewburg, (2 Johns. Ch. 

162) 234, 396 
Gardner v. Ogden, (22 JT. Y. 332) 166 
Gardner v. State, (21 N. J. L. 557) 

267 
Garmer v. St. Louis, (37 Mo. 554) 79 
Gargan v. Railroad, (12 S. W. R. 259) 

311 
Garland v. Gaines, (2 S. W. R. 460) 

326 
Garland v. Towne, (55 N. H. 55) 300, 

348 



Garlinghouse v. Jacobs, (4 N. T. 161) 

325 
Garlington v. Copeland, (10 S. E. K. 

616) 282 
Garratt v. Canandaigua, (61 Hun, 

623) 328 
Garrett v. St. Louis, (25 Mo. 505) 

259 a, 271 
Garrison v. Chicago, (7 Biss. 480) 

144 a, 295 
Garrison v. New York, (21 Wall. 196) 

242 
Garrittee v. Baltimore, (23 Md. 422) 

121 
Gartsede v. East St. Louis, (43 111. 

47) 392 
Garvin r. Daussman, (16 N. E. R. 826) 

279 
Garvin v. Gorman, (63 Mich. 221) 399 
Garvin v. Wells, (8 Iowa, 286) 158 
Garvin v. Wiswell, (83 111. 215) 177, 

179 
Garviss v. Daussman, (114 Ind. 429) 

279 
Gas Co. -0. Des Moines, (44 Iowa, 508 

147 
Gas Co. ». Norwich City Gas Co., (25 

Conn. 19) 295 
Gaskins v. Allen, (73 Ga. 746) 344 a 
Gass V. Greenville, (4 Sneed. 62) 127 
Gass V. State, (34 Ind. 424) 381 
Gassett v. Andover, (21 Vt. 342) 51 
Gatch V. Des Moines, (63 Iowa, 718) 

259 a 
Gates V. Del. Co. (12 Iowa, 405) 86 
Gates V. Hancock, (23 N. H. 528) 165 
Gaunt V. Fynuey, (L. R. 8 Ch. Ap. 8) 

120 
Gause v. BuUard, (16 La. An. 197) 283 
Gause v. Clarksville, (1 McCrary, 78) 

164, 182, 196 
Gay V. Bradstreet, (39 Me. 580) 249 
Gay V. Cadby, (L. R. 2 C. P. Div. 391) 

129, 130 
Gay V. Cambridge, (128 Mass. 887) 

336 a, .3506 
Gay V. Gilmore, (76 Ga. 725) 359 
Gay !). Mut. Union Tel. Co., (12 Mo. 

App. 485, 494) 297 
Gearhart v. Dixon, (1 Pa. St. 224) 108, 

265 
Geary v. Kansas, (61 Mo. 378) 87 
Gebhardt v. Reeves, (75 111. 301) 215, 

228 
Geddis v. Parrish, (21 Pac. R. 314) 

354 
Gedge v. Commonwealth, (0 Bush, 

61) 223 
Gee V. Metro. R'y Co., (L. R. 8 Q. B, 

177) 352 
Gee V. Wilden, (Lut. 1320, 1324) 156 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
Beferences are to Sections. 



Ixxi 



Gehrig's Est., In re, (27 N. E. K. 784) 

202 
Geiger v. Filor, (8 Fla. 325) 133, 302 
Gelpcke v. Dubuque, (1 Wall. 20) 

192 b, 254 
Geneseo v. Harper, (38 111. 103) 398 
Geneva v. Cole, (61 111. 397) 282 
Genoa v. Woodruff, (92 U. S. 502) 192, 

192 6 
Genois v. St. Paul, (35 Minn. 330) 

292, 329 
Gentile v. State, (29 Ind. 409) 26 
George v. Oxford, (16 Kan. 72) 05, 189 
Georgia etc. Co. v. Archer, (87 Ga. 

237) 247 
Georgia etc. Co. v. State, (15 S. E. R. 

293) 273 
Gerberling v. Wunnenberg, (51 Iowa, 

125) 220 
Gerhard v. Seekonk Com'rs, (o Atl. 

Kep. 199) 311 
Gerken v. Sibley Co., (39 Mun. 433) 79 
Germania v. State, (7 Md. 1) 123, 261 
German Sch. v. Dubuque, (64 Iowa, 

736) 328 
Gerry c. Stone, (1 Allen, 519) 139 
Getchell v. Benton, (47 N. W. K. 468) 

184, 188, 220 
Gettysburg, Ke, (90 Pa. St. 355) 63 
Gibbons v. Ogden, (9 Wheat. 1) 314 
Gibbons v. K. E. Co., (36 Ala. 410) 

184 
Gibbons v. Sheppard, (65 Pa. St. 20) 

398 
Gibbs V. Beaufort, (20 S. C. 213) 92, 

328 
Gibbs V. Hampden, (19 Pick. 298) 371 
Gibbs V. Liverpool, (3 H. & N. 164) 

121 
Giblin v. Mclntire, (2 Utah, 384) 

352 a 
Gibsen v. Baily, (9 N. H. 168) 106 
Gibson v. Borough, (22 Pittsb. Leg. 

64) 300 
Gibson v. Coraopolis, (22 Pitts. L. J. 

64) 300 
Gibson v. Owens, (21 S. W. E. 1107) 

279 
Giesy v. Cincinnati etc. E. E. Co., (4 

Ohio St. 308) 238 
Giffen v. Olathe, (24 Pac. E. 470) 221 
Gifford V. Hulett, (19 Atl. E. 230) 120 
•Gifford V. White Plains, (25 Hun, 

606) 170 
Gilbert p. R. E., In re, (70 N. T. 

361) 144, 305 
Gilbert v. Luce, (11 Barb. 91) 86 
Gilbert ». Marshall, (18 B. Mon. 427) 

79 
Gilbert v. New Haven, (40 Conn. 162) 

108 



Gilbert v. Eoxbury, (100 Mass. 185) 

344 
Gilbert v. W. C. V. M. etc. E. E. Co., 

(33 Gratt. 599) 190, 192 b 
Gilbrough ». Norfolk Co., (1 Hughes, 

410) 191, 195 b, 195 d 
Gilchrist's Appeal, (109 Pa. St. 600) 54 
Gilchrist v. Garden, (26 Up. Can. C. 

P. 1) 345 
Gilder v. Brenham, (67 Tex. 345) 219, 

221, 223 
Gildersleeve v. Alexander, (2 Speer, 

298) 66 
Gildersleeve v. Board, (17 App. Pr. 

201) 99 
Giles V. Sch. Dis., (31 N. H. 304) 69 
Gilfeather v. Council Bluffs, (69 

Iowa, 310) 354 a 
Gilham v. Wells, (21 Alb. Law Jour. 

319, 64 Ga. 192) 125 
Gilkerson v. Fred'k Jus., (13 Gratt. 

577) 259 a 
Gillespie's App., (30 W. N. C. 337) ; 

203 
Gillespie v. Dubuque, (1 Wall. 175) 

184 
Gillespie v. Lincoln, (52 N. W. E. 

811) 92 
Gillespie v. Mayor, (6 Daly, 286) 79 
Gillespie etc. Co. v. St. Louis, etc., 

(6 Mo. App. 554) 353 
GlUett V. Logan Co., (67 111. 256) 98, 

113 
Gillette o. Hartford, (31 Conn. 351) 

56, 259 
Gillinwater v. Miss. etc. E. E. Co., 

(13 111. 1, 4) 232 
Gillison v. Charlestown, (16 W. Va. 

282) 355 
Gilluly V. Madison, (63 Wis. 518) 349, 

355 
Gilman v. Deerfield, (15 Gray, 577) 

352 
Gilman v. Laconia, (55 N. H. 130) 

354, 355 
Gilman v. Milwaukee, (61 Wis. 588) 

110 
Gilman v. Milwaukee, (55 Wis. 328) 

229 
Gilman v. Sheboygan, (2 Black, 510) 

14) 253 
Gilman ». Waterville, (59 Me. 491) 

326 
Gilmartin v. Mayor, (55 Barb. 239) 

345 
Gilmer v. Atlanta, (77 Ga. 688) 350 & 
Gilmer v. Gilmer, (32 Ga. 685) 66 
Gilmer v. Lime Point, (18 Cal. 229) 

233 
Gilmore v. Driscoll, (122 Mass. 199) 

329 



Ixxii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



References are to Sections. 



Gilmore v. Hentig, (32 Kan. 156) 277 
Gilmore v. Holt, (4 Pick. 258) 129 
Gilmore v. Fox, (10 Kan. 509) 397 
Gilmore v. Lewis, (12 Ohio, 281) 79 
Gilmore v. Norton, (10 Kan. 491) 

27 
Gilmore v. Utica, (131 N. Y. 26) 281 
Gilson V. Board, (27 N. E. B,. 235) 

259, 259 a 
Ginochio v. State, (18 S. W. 82) 125 
Girard v. Bissell, (45 Kan. 56) 123 
Girard v. New Orleans, (2 La. An. 

897) 201 
Girard v. PhiladelpMa, (7 Wall. 1) 21, 

41 
Glaesner v. Auheuser etc. Co., (13 S. 

W. K. 707) 396 
Glantz V. So. Bend, (106 Ind. 305) 

842, 350 
Glass V. Ashburg, (49 Cal. 571) 128 
Glass V. Fritz, (23 Atl. R. 1050) 354 a 
Glass V. White, (5 Sneed, 475) 267 
Glasscock v. Lyons, (20 Ind. 1) 79, 85 
Glasgow !). Bowse, (43 Mo. 479) 261 
Glasgow J). St. Louis, (17 S. W. R. 

743) 308, 311 
Gleucoe v. Peo., (78 111. 382) 65, 362, 

368 
Glenn v. Baltimore, (5 G. & J. 429) 

120 
Glenn v. Lynn, (89 Ala. 608) 28 
Glenn v. Shannon, (12 P. C. 570) 327 
Gllck V. Bro. K. R. Co., (19 D. 0. 412) 

302 
Glover «. Mayor etc. of N. T., (7 Hun, 

232) 92 
Gloversville v. Howell, (70 N. T. 287) 

24, 153 
Glynn v. Baker, (1 East, 510) 191 
Godchaux v. Carpenter, (19 Nev. 415) 

241 
Goddard v. Harpswell, (24 Atl. 958, 

84 Me. 499) 338 
Goddard, In re, (16 Pick. 504) 33, 

155, 156 
Goddard v. Jacksonville, (15 111. 588) 

125 
Goddin v. Crump, (8 Leigh, 120) 255 
Godfrey v. Alton, (12 111. 29) 215 
Godfrey v. Claflin, (21 Pick. 1) 327 
Goetler d. State, (45 Ark. 454) 117 
Goettman v. Mayor etc. of N. Y., (6 

Hun, 132) 78, 86 
Goldi). Philadelphia, (115 Pa. St. 184) 

342 
Goldsboro v. Moffett, (49 Fed. R. 213) 

165 
Goldsohmidt b. New Orleans, (5 La. 

An. 436) 177, 190 a 
Goldsmith v. New Orleans, (31 La. 

646) 125 



Goldsworthy v. Linden, (43 N. W. 

R. 656) 3506 
Goldthwaite v. East Bridgewater, (5- 

Gray, 61) 342 
Goldwaite v. Montgomery Council, 

(50 Ala. 486) 158, 261 
Goooh V. Gregory, (65 N. C. 142) 212 
Goodale v. Fennell, (27 Ohio St. 426) 

14 
Goodale v. Tuttle, (29 N. Y. 459) 354 a 
Goodell, In re, (14 Johns. 325) 373 
Goodell V. Baker, (8 Cowen, 286) 95 
Goodenow v. Butterick, (7 Mass. 140, 

142) 32 
Goodfellow V. New York, (100 N. Y. 

15) 342 
Goodhue v. Beloit, (21 Wis. 636) 59 
Gondier v. Cormack, (2 E. D. Smith, 

204) 347 
Goodln V. Des Moines, (55 Iowa, 67) 

343 
Goodloe B. Cincinnati, (4 Ohio, 500) 

329 
Goodnough v. Oshkosh, (24 Wis. 549) 

3506 
Goodnough v. Powell, (32 Pac. K. 

396) 397 
Goodnow V. Com'rs, (11 Minn. 31) 177 
Goodnow V. Ramseyles, (11 Minn. 31) 

177 
Goodrich v. Detroit, (12 Mich. 279) 

163 
Goodrich o. Brown, (30 Iowa, 291) 

104 
Goodrich v. Chicago, (20111. 445) 327, 

327 a 
Goodsen ». Des Moines, (66 Iowa, 

255) 350 a 
Goodspeed v. Fuller, (46 Me. 141) 327 
Goodtitle v. Alker, (1 Burr. 133) 224 
Goodwin b. Des Moines, (55 Iowa, 

617) 348 
Goodwin v. McGehee, (15 Ala. 2331 

209 , 

Goodwin v. Roberts, (L. R. 1 App. 

Cas. 476) 183 
Goodwyu and Railway Co., In re, (13 

U. C. C. P. 254) 49 
Goognis V. Bos. & A. E. Co., (30 N. 

E. R. 71) 238 
Gordon v. Baltimore, (5 Gill, 231) 270 
Gordon Co. v. Harris, (81 Ga. 220) 79 
Gordon ». Preston, (1 Watts, 385) 209' 
Gordon B. Richmond, (18 Am. & Eng. 

Corp. Cases, 251) 349, 352 
Gorgier v. Melville, (3 B. & C. 45) 

183, 191 
Gorhara, In re, (43 How. Pr. 263) 189 
Gorham v. Campbell, (2 Cal. 135) 65 
Gorhara b. Cooperstown, (59 N. Y. 

660) 312 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Ixxiii 



References are to Sections. 



Gorliam v. Springfield, (21 Me. 61) 

24, 55, 67 
Goring V. McTaggart; (92 Ind. 200) 

282 
Gorman v. Low, (2 Edw. Ch. 324) 1.55 
Gormley v. Clark, (134 TJ. S. 338) 221 
Gormley v. Day, 28 N. E. K. 693, 114 

111. 195) 359. 
Goshen v. Gravy, (58 Ind. 268) 134 
Goshen v. Croxton, (34 Ind. 239) 156 
Goshen v. Kern, (63 Ind. 468) 123 
Goshen v. Meyers, (119 Ind. 196) 313, 

353 
Goshen v. Stonington, (4 Conn. 209) 

67 
Goss V. Vermontville etc., (44 Mich. 

319) 368 
Goshorn v. Smith, (92 Pa. St. 435) 337 
Gosling V. Veley, (19 L. J. Q. B. 135) 

145 
Gosman v. State, (106 Ind. 203) 81, 82 
Gosport V. Evans, (112 Ind. 133) 352 
Gosselin v. Chicago, (103 111. 623) 215 
Gottschalk v. Becher, (49 N. W. E. 

715, 32 Neb. 653) 57 
Gould V. Atlanta, (60 Ga. 164) 338 
Gould V. Baltimore, (58 Md. 46, 59 

lb. 378) 265 
Gould ». Booth, (66 N. T. 62) 325 
Gould V. Gapper, (5 East, 345) 401 
Gourley v. Hankins, (2 Iowa, 75) 88, 

211 
Gould B. Hudson K. etc. Co., (6 N. 

y. 522) 132 
Gould V. Paris, (68 Tex. 511) 189 a 
Gould V. Rochester, (105 N". Y. 46) 54 
Goulden v. Scranton, (15 Atl. R. 483) 

354 a 
Gould ». Sterling, (23 N. Y. 458) 183 
Goulds. Taylor Orphan Asylum, (46 

Wis. 106)200 
Gould V. Topeka, (32 Kan. 485) 328 
Governor v. Justice of Clark Co., (19 

Ga. 97) 325 
Governor v. McEwen, (5 Humph. 

241) 2, 8 
Gov. St. Ry. Co. v. Hanlon, (53 Ala. 

70) 321 
Goyne v. Ashley Co., (31 Ark. 552) 

177 
Grady v. Walsner, (46 Ala. 381) 120 
Graff 0. Baltimore, (10 Md. 544) 242 
Grafftyc. Bushville, (187 Ind. 502) 

258 
Graf ten ». Till wood, (32 Pac. R. 1026) 

169 
Grafton Bk. v. Doe, (19 Vt. 463) 199 
Graham v. Carondolet, (33 Mo. 262) 

96 
Graham v. Conger, (4 S. W. R. 327) 

259 a 



Graham v. Greenville, (67 Tex. 62) 

55 59 
Graham k. State, (1 Ark. 171) 102 
Gramlish v. Wurst, (86 Pa. St. 74) 348 
Granby v. Thurston, (23 Conn. 416) 

4, 54, 67 
Grand v. Detroit, (51 N. W. E. 999) 

362 
Grand Chute v. Winegar, (15 "Wall. 

373) 186. 195 
Grand Is. etc. Co. v. West, (45 N. W. 

E. 242) 166 
Grand Rapids v. Bateman, (53 N. W. 

R. 6) 117 
Grand Rapids v. Blakely, (40 Mich. 

367) 326 
Grand Rapids v. Hughes, (15 Mich. 

54) 105, 154 
Grand Rapids v. Wyman, (46 Mich. 

516)3506 
Grand Eapids v. Grand Eapids & Ind. 

E. E. Co., (58 Mich. 641) 241 
Grand Eapids Booming Co. v. Jarvis, 

(30 Mich. 308) 239 
Grand Eapids etc. E. R. Co., (38 

Mich. 62, 47 Mich. 393) 304, 305 
Grand Rapids etc. v. Grand Rapids 

etc., (20 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 

270) 296 
Grand Eapids etc. Co. v. Gray, (38 

Mich. 461) 102 
Grand Rapids etc. Co. v. Van Drille, 

(24 Mich. 409) 279 
Grand Rapids Electric etc. Co. v. 

Grand Rapids Edison etc. Co., (33 

Fed. Rep. 659) 144, 289, 395 
Grand Rap. Sch. Euruiture Co. . 

Grand Eapids, (52 N. W. E. 1028) 

259 a 
Grandville v. Jenison, (86 Mich. 567, 

49 N. W. 544) 215 
Grand Surrey Canal Co. ». Hall, (1 

M. & Gr. 392) 218, 312 
Granger v. Avery, (64 Me. 292) 54 
Granger v. Pulaski Co., (26 Ark. 37) 

325, 333 
Grans v. Davenport, (18 Iowa, 179) 

132 
Grants. Brooklyn, (41 Barb. 381) 355 
Grant v. Cooke, (7 D. C. 165) 195 
Grant b. Davenport, (36 Iowa, 396) 

174, 395 
Grant v. Detroit, (51 N. W. E. 997) 

362 
Grant v. Dalliber, (11 Conn. 234) 60 
Grant v. Erie. (69 Pa. St. 420) 328, 355 
Grant v. Huston, (16 S. W. K. 680) 

209 
Grant v. Lake Co., (17 Or. 453) 192 
Grannis v. Cherokee Township, (47 

Fed. E. 427) 187 a 



Ixxiv 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Beferences are to Sections. 



Grant v. Stillwater, (35 Minn. i'4- 

300 
Grant Co. v. Bradford, (72 Ind. 455) 

140 
Grantham v. State, (14 S. E. K. 892) 

12, 125 
Grassick v. Toronto, (30 U. C. Q. B. 

306) 339 
Graves v. Cole, (3 Dak. 301) 363 
Graves v. Gas Co., (83 Iowa, 74) 396 
Graves v. Colby, (9 Ad. & Bl. 356) 157 
Graves v. Otis, (2 Hill, 466) 87, 239, 

292, 329 
Graves v. Shattuck, (35 N. H. 257) 

300 
Gray v. Bayward, (5 Del. Ch. 499) 396 
Gray v. Board, (139 Mass. 328) 277, 

294 
Gray v. Brooklyn, (2 Abb. App. Cas. 

267) 92 
Gray v. Brooklyn, (10 Abb. Pr. K. 

186) 2, 8 
Gray v. Emporia, (23 Pac. K. 944, 43 

Kan. 704) 345 
Gray v. Harris, (107 Mass. 492) 317 
Gray v. Iowa L. Co., (26 la. 387) 301, 

308 
Gray v. Latham, (84 Ala. 546) 180 
Gray v. Mount, (45 Iowa, 591) 189 
Gray v. Pullen, (32 L. J. Kep. Q. 169) 

347 
Gray v. Sheldon, (8 Vt. 402) 53, 54 
Gray v. State, (2 Hairing. 76) 102 
Grayville v. Whitaker, (85 111. 439) 315 
Great Falls Ice Co. v. District, (19 D. 

C. 327) 17, 398 
Greathouse v. Dunn, (60 Cal. 311) 87 
Great West. Ry. Co. etc.. In re, (23 

Up. Can. C. P. 28) 161 
Greeley v. Jacksonville, (17 Fla. 174) 

161 
Greeley v. Maine Cent. R. R. Co., (53 

Me. 200) 354 a 
Greeley v. People, (60 111. 19) 184 
Green v. Burke, .(23 Wend. 490) 88 
Green v. Canaan, (29 Conn. 157) 218 
Green v. Cape May, (41 N. J. L. 45) 

110 
Green v. Dandy, (12 Vt. 338) 344 
Green v. Durham, (1 Burr. 131) 96 
Green v. Dyersburg, (2 Flip. 477) 192 
Greens. Eastern Ry. Co., (53N.W. R. 

808) 301 
Greer v. East Haddam, (51 Conn. 

547) 106 
Green ». Fresno, (30 Pac. R. 544) 18 
Green v. Hogan, (27 N. E. R. 413) 203 
Green v. Hoi way, (101 Mass. 243, 3 

Am. Rep. 339) 258 
Green v. Hotaling, (44 K. J. L. 347) 

271 



Green v. Indianapolis, (52 Ind. 490) 

28, 107 
Green v. Mayor etc., (5 Alb. Pr. R. 

503) 2 
Green o. Marks, (25 111. 221) 212 
Green v. Oaks, (17 111. 249) 220 
Green v. Orf ord, (15 Ont. 506) 171 
Green?). Pittsburgh etc. Co., (8 Watts 

6 S. 85) 302 

Green v. Rutherford, (1 Ves. 462) 203 
Green v. Reading, (9 Watts, 382) 292, 

329 
Green v. Savannah, (6 Ga. 1) 104, 116, 

120 
Green v. State, (5 Ohio, 136) 108 
Green v. Swift, (47 Cal. 536) 329 
Green v. Ward, (82 Va. 324) 256, 265 
Green B. & M. Co. v. Outagamie Co., 

(45 N. W. R. 536) 26 
Green Bay v. Beames, (50 Wis. 204) 

98, 146 
Greencastle Township v. Black, (3 

Ind. 587) 61 
Green Co. v. Conness, (109 U. S. 104) 

187, 195 
Green u. Eubanks, (80 Ala. 204) 325 
Greene c. Hudson Co., (44 N. J. L. 

388) 86 
Greene Co. v. Daniel, (102 U. S. 187) 

375 
Greenfield v. Moore, (33 Ind. 597) 

364, 375 
Greenough v. Wakefield, (127 Mass. 

275) 139 
Greensboro v. Ehrenreich, (80 Ala. 

579) 150 
Greensboro v. MuUins, (13 Ala. 341) 

117, 124 
Greensburg v. Laird, (8 Pa. Co. Ct. 

R. 608) 8 
Greensburg Bor. v. Young, (53 Pa. 

St. 280) 259 a 
Green Township, (9 Watts & S. 22) 38 
Greenville v. Mason, (53 N. H. 515) 59 
Greenville W. Works v. Greenville, 

7 So. Rep. 409) 110, 163 
Greenwood v. Freight Co., (105 N. S. 

13) 10 
Greenwood v. Louisville, (13 Bush, 

226) 333 
Greenwood v. Westport, (53 P. 824) 

324, 336 a 
Greer v. Covington, (83 Ky. 410) 282 
Greer v. New York, (3 Rob. 406) 335 
Greggs V. Foote, (4 Allen, 195) 247, 

338 a 
Gregor v. Allen, (33 La. An. 870) 86 
Gregory v. Adams, (14 Gray, 242) 340, 

353 
Gregory e. Bridgeport, (41 Conn. 76) 

113, 163 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Ixxv 



Keferences are to Sections. 



Gregory v. Knight, (50 Mich. 61) 312 
Gregory v. Lincoln, (13 Neb. 352) 221 
Gregsteno. Chicago, (34 K. E. E. 426), 

299 
Grenada Co. v. Brogden, (112 U. S. 

261) 187 a 
Gribble v. Sioux City, (38 Iowa, 390) 

352 
Gridley v. Barker, (1 B. & P. 236) 99 
Gridley v. Bloomington, (68 111. 50) 

298, 348 
Grierson v. Ontario, (3 Up. Can. Q. 

B. 623) 148 
Griffin's Appeal, (109 Pa. St. 150) 220 
Griffin v. House, (18 Johns. 397) 320 
Griffin «. Johnson, (10 S. E. K. 719, 

84 Ga. 279)3506 
GritBn v. Mayor, (3 N. Y. 456) 327 
Griffin v. Macon Co., (36 Fed. Eep. 

885) 199 
Griffin v. Powell, (64 Ga. 625) 299 
Griffin v. Kanney, (35 Conn. 239) 258 
Griffin v. Wilcox, (21 Ind. 370) 184 
Griffiths V. Harries, (2 M. & W. 335) 

156 
Grigsby v. Bowles, (79 Tex. 13) 360 
Grim ». Weisenbeig, (57 Pa. St. 433) 

139, 326 
Grimes v. Blake, (16 Ind. 160) 327 
Grimes v. Hamilton Co., (37 Iowa, 

290) 142 
Grimes v. Keene, (52 N. H. 330) 107, 

336 
Gi-imley v. Santa Clara Co., (68 Cal. 

575) 326 
Grimmet v. Askew, (48 Ark. 171) 177 
Grimshaw. Grand Trunk Ey. Co., (19 

Up. Can. Q. B. 493) 243, 247 
Grinnel v. Adams, (34 Ohio St. 44) 

279 
Griswold v. Bay City, (35 Mich. 452) 

294 
Grogan v. Broadway F. Co., (87 Mo. 

321) 345 
Grogan 1). San Francisco, (18 Cal. 590) 

2, 170, 211 
Gross V. Kenfield, (57 Cal. 626) 79 
Gross ». Lampasas, (11 S. W. 1086) 

'355 
Grossenbach v. Milwaukee, (65 Wis. 

31) 346 
Grotou V. Haines, (36 K H. 388) 354 
Grove v. Fort Wayne, (45 Ind. 429) 

300, 345 
Grove v. Kansas City, (75 Mo. 672) 

343 
Grovenvelt v. Burwell, (1 Ld. Eayra. 

454, 469) 398 
Grube v. Nichols, (36 111. 93) 219, 220 
Grube v. St. Paul, (34 Minn. 420) 

92 



Grube v. Mo. Pacite, (11 S. W. Eep. 

736) 290 
Grumbine v. Washington, (2 McAr- 

thur (578) 333, 338 a 
Guardians v. Vestry of St. Leonard 

Shoreditch, (L. E. 2 Q. B. Div. 145) 

130 
Gubaske v. New York, (12 Daly, 182) 

3506 
Gueble v. Epply, (28 Pac. E. 89) 24 
Gude V. Mankato, (30 Minn.) 3506 
Guerin v. Eeese, (33 Cal. 292) 283 
Guernsey v. Burlington, (4 Dill. 372) 

184 
Guerrero, In re, (69 Cal. 88) 125, 148 
Guest V. Brooklyn, (69 N. Y. 506) 

249, 259 a, 391 
Guest V. Lower M. W. Co., (21 Atl. 

E. 1001) 212 
Guier v. O'Daniel, (1 Binn. 349) 66 
Guilder v. Otsego, (20 Minn. 74) 15, 

187 
Guilfont V. Parish, (28 La. An. 413) 

177 
Guilford v. Chenango Co., (13 N. Y. 

143) 187 
Guillard v. Analine, (10 Martine, 479) 

87 
Guillotte V. New Orleans, (12 La. An. 

432) 127 
Gulick V. New, (14 Ind. 93) 102 
Gulf City St. Ey. Co. v. Galveston, 

(69 Tex. 660, 7 S. W. E. 520) 306 
Gulf C. & S. E. Co. V. Eiordan, ( 22 

S. W. E. 519) 113 
Gulf City Ey. Co. v. Galveston City 

Ey. Co., (65 Tex. 502) 144 
Gulf etc. Co. V. Gascamp, ( 69 Tex. 

545) 352, 353 
Gun V. Hubbard, (97 Mo. 311) 65 
Gunn V. Barry, (15 Wall. 610, 623) 186 
Gunnarssohn v. Sterling, (92 111. 669) 

123 
Gunning Gravel Co. v. New Orleans, 

(13 So. 182) 292 
Gurnee v. Chicago, (40111. 165 ) 87, 

264, 291 
Gurnsey v. Edwards, ( 26 N. H. 224) 

108 
Guthrie v. New Haven, (31 Conn. 308) 

223, 288 
Guthrie v. Territory, (31 Pac. E. 190) 

22 
Gutsweller ». People, (14 111. 142) 2, 8 
Gutta Per. v. Starkley, (11 Phila. 

219) 172 
Guy V. Baltimore, (100 U. S. 434) 

258 
Gwinnell v. Earner, ( 10 L. E. C. P. 

658) 348 
Gwynn v. Homan, (15 Ind. 201) 219 



Ixxvi 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



References are to Sections. 



TT. 



Haag ». Vanderburgh Co., (60 Ind. 

611) 92, 338 
Haas V. Chicago R. etc. Co., (41 Wis. 

44) 136 
Haherman b. Baker, (128 N. Y. 253) 

229 
Haokensack Water Co. v. Hoboken, 

(lY Atl. 307) 144 a 
Hackettstown ». Swackhammer, (37 

N. J. L. 191) 177 
Haddock's Case, (T. Kaym. 435) 101 
Hadley v. Mayor, (33 N. Y. 603) 79, 

85, 381 
Hadley v. Taylor, L. E. (1 C. P. 53) 

348 
Hadsell v. Hancock, (3 Gray, 526) 

95, 115 
Haefling v. San Antonio, (20 S. W. 

Rep. 85) 123, 262 
Haflord v. New Bedford, (16 Gray, 

297) 92, 327 a, 335 
Hagan b. Campbell, (8 Port. 9) 132 
Hager v. Burlington, (42 Iowa, 661) 

265 
Hagerstown v. Dechert, (32 Md. 369) 

102 
Hagood V. Clark Co., (20 Ga. 845) 325 
Hague V. Phila., (48 Pa. St. 527) 165, 

169 
Haight V. Grist, (64'Sr. S. 739) 258 
Haight V. Keokuk, (4 Iowa, 199) 133, 

225 
Haight V. Love, (39 N. Y. 14) 82 
Haight V. New York, (24 Fed. Rep. 

93) 332, 338 a 
Haines v. Readfleld, (41 Me. 256) 326 a 
Haines v. Sch. Dis.,(41 Me. 246) 95 
Ilairstou v. Hairston, (27 Miss. 704) 

68 
Hake v. Henderson, (4 Dev. 1) 78 
Ha) but V. Forrest City, (34 Ark. 246) 

165 
Haldaue v. Eckford, L. R. (8 Eq. 

Cas. 631) 66 
Hale V. Houghteu, (8 Mich. 458) 119, 

144 a, 163 
Hale V. Johnson, (80 111. 185) 347 
Hale V. Kenosha, (29 Wis. 599) 269 
Hale V. Wilkinson, (21 Gratt. 75) 258 
llaliburton v. Frankford, (14 Mass. 

214) 214 
Halifax b. City Ry. Co., (1 Russ. Ch. 

Eq. 319) 306 
Hall, In re, (50 Conn. 131) 69 
Hall V. Baker, (27 Am. & Eng. Cor. 

Cas. 208) 142 
Hall D. Baltimore, (56 Md. 187) 221 
Hall V. Beveridge, (81 111. 128) 79 
Hall V. Bristol, (L. R. 2 C. P. 322) 

231, 329, 330 



Hall V. Bunte, (20 Ind. 804) 283 
Hall V. Burlingham, (88 Mich. 438) 

29 
Hall B. Cockrell, (28 Ala. 507) 169 
Hall B. Chippewa Falls, (47 Wis. 267) 

265 
Hall B. Grantham etc., (13 M. & W. 

114) 320 
Hall B. Jackson Co., (95 111. 353) 177 
Hall B. Lowell, (10 Cush. 260) 351 
Hall B. Manchester, (40 JST. H. 410) 

342, 344 
Hall V. Marysville, (19 Cal. 391) 271 
Hall V. Somerswarth, (39 N. H. 511) 

360 
Hallahan v. Herbert, (11 Ab. Pr. N. 

S. 326) 283 
Halleck b. Boyleston, (117 Mass. 469) 

106 
Hallenback v. Hahn, (2 Neb. 377) 184 
Hallenbeck v. Winnebago Co., (95 

111. 148) 353 
Hallett B. Bassett, (100 Mass. 167) 66 
Hallgrene v. Campbell, (82 Mich. 

255) 88 
HalpiuB. Campbell, (71 Mo. 493) 259 a 
Halpin v. Kansas City, (76 Mo. 335) 

343 348 349 
Ham'B. New York, (70 N. Y. 459) 

338 a 
Ham V. Salem, (10 Mass. 350) 234 
Ham B. Wisconsin R. Co., (61 Iowa, 

716, 329 
Hambleton v. Town of Dexter, (89 

Mo. 188) 39 
Hamden ». New Haven etc. Co., (27 

Conn. 158) 306 
Hamden v. Rice, (24 Conn. 350) 202 
Hamerick v. Rouse, (17 Ga. 56) 392 
Hamersley v. New York, (56 N. Y. 

533) 241 
Hamlin b. Dingman, (5 Lans. 61) 88 
Hamilton B. Boston, (4 Allen, 475) 340 
Hamilton v. Carthage, (24 111. 22) 

160 
Hamilton v. Columbus, (52 Ga. 435) 

349 
Hamilton v. Chicago etc. Co., (15 N. 

E. R. 854) 223, 229 
Hamilton v. Chicago etc., (124 111. 

241) 287 
Hamilton v. Dubuque, (50 Iowa, 213) 

326 
Hamilton v. Ft. Wayne, (73 Ind. 1) 

259 a, 279 
Hamilton v. Garrett, (62 Tex. 602) 

338 a 
Hamilton B. McNeil, (13 Gratt. 389) 

53, 54 
Hamilton b. New Castle etc. Co., (9 

Ind. 859) 165, 169, 211 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



Ixxvii 



Hamilton v. Shelbyville, (33 N. E. E. 

1007) 169 
Hamilton ». State, (3 Tex. App. 643) 

117 
Hamilton v. State, (3 Ind. 452) 363, 

373 
Hamilton v. State, (113 Ind. 179, 15 

N. E. Kep. 258) 316 
Hamilton v. Vicksburg etc., (34 La. 

An. 970) 314 
Hamilton Co. v. Mighels, (7 Ohio St. 

109) 3, 325 
Hamilton Gaslight & Coke Co. v. 

City of Hamilton, (37 Fed. Eep. 

832) 144 a 
Hammar ». Covington, (3 Met. 494) 

362, 377 
Haramarskold v. Bull, (11 Rich. L. 

493) 169 
Hammerslough v. Kansas City, (57 

Mo. 219) 249 
Hamraett v. Philadelphia, (65 Pa. St. 

146, 3 Am. Kep. 615) 259 a 
Hammond b. Hames, (25 Md. 541) 24, 

123 
Hammond v. McLachlan, (1 Sandf. 

323) 224 
Hampshire ». Franklin, (16 Mass. 76) 

11, 60 
Hampson v. Taylor, (15 E. I. 83) 351 
Hampstead ». Underhill, (20 Ark. 

337) 368 
HH.mpstead v. Des Moines, (63 Iowa, 

36) 330 
Hancock v. Bowman, (49 Cal. 413) 283 
Hancock v. Chicot Co., (32 Ark. 575) 

195 
Hand, In re, (52 Hun, 206) 220 
Handt!. Newton, (92 IST. Y. 88) 211 
Hand v. Tippecanoe, (26 Ind. 179) 79 
Handel v. Elliott, (60 Tex. 145) 283 
Handy v. Collins, (60 Md. 229) 265 
Handy v. New Orleans, (39 La. An. 

107) 395 
Hanes v. N. C. E. E. Co., (109 N. C. 

490) 243 
Hanger v. Des Moines, (52 Iowa, 193) 

110, 140 
Hankins v. CuUoway, (88 111. 485) 73 
Hanlon v. Keokuk, (7 Iowa, 477) 352 
Ilannen v. Sfe Louis, (62 Mo. 313) 

338 a 
Hanner v. Grizzard, (89 N. C. 115) 69 
Hanney v. Kansas City, (94 Mo. 334) 

351 
Hannewinkle v. Georgetown, (15 

Wall. 547) 249 
Hannibal v. Draper, (15 Mo. 634) 221, 

227 
Hannibal v. Fauntleroy, (105 U. S. 

408) 189, 196 



Hannibal v. Hannibal & St. J. etc., 

(48 Mo. 480) 290 
Hannibal v. Winchell, (57 Mo. 172) 

290, 396 
Hannon v. Agnew, (98 N. Y. 439) 333 
Hannon v. Grizzard, (96 N. C. 293) 79 
Hannon v. Halifax, (89 N. C. 123) 361 
Hannon v. St. Louis Co., (62 Mo. 313) 

336 a 
Hanscome v. Omaha, (11 Neb. 37) 

397 
Hansen v. Vernon, (27 Iowa, 28) 253, 

254 
Hansmeister v. Porter, (21 Fed. Rep. 

335) 391 
Hanson v. Eastman, (21 Minn. 209) 

222, 286 
Hanson i>. Hunter, (53 N. "W. E. 84) 

110, 297 
Hanson v. Vernon, (27 Iowa, 28) 183 
Harard v. Drainage Co., (51 111. 17) 

15 
Harbaugh v. Monmouth, (74 111. 371) 

125 
Harbeck v. Toledo, (11 Ohio St. 219) 

240, 241 
Harbeck v. Vanderbilt, (20 N. Y. 398) 

190 a 
Harbormaster v. Southerland, (47 

Ala. 511) 133 
Hardcastle v. So. Yorkshire Ey. Co., 

(6 H. & N. 72) 348 
Harding v. Goodlett, (3 Yerg. 40) 232 
Harding v. Hale, (61 111. 192) 219, 220 
Harding v. Eockford etc. Co., (65 111. 

90) 65, 195 a 
Harding v. Eockford etc. Co., (65111. 

90) 189 
Harding v. Stamford Water Co., (41 

Conn. 87) 239, 354 
Hardenbrook v. Ligonier, (95 Ind. 

70) 160 
Hardy v. Brooklyn, (90 N. Y. 435) 

328 
Hardy v. Keens, (52 N. H. 570) 324, 

340, 345 
Hardy v. N. C. etc. Co., (74 N. C. 

734) 317 
Hardy v. Waltham, (3 Meto. 103) 130 
Hargreaves v. Taylor, (3 Best & S. 

613) 327 a 
Hargro v. Hodgdon, (26 Pac. 1100) 

217 
Harker v. Anderson, (21 Wend. 375) 

179 
Harker v. Mayor, (17 Wend. 199) 158 
Harlem G. Co. v. Mayor etc., (33 N. 

Y. 389) 172 
Harlem ». City, (3 Mete. 494) 316 
Harlow v. Humiston, (6 Cow. 189) 

328 



ixxvm 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



References are to Sections. 



Harmon v. Chicago, (110 111. 400) 120 
Harmon v. Lynchburg, (33 Gratt. 37) 

335 a 

Harmon v. Omaha, (17 Neb. 548) 330 
Harmon c. St. Louis Co., (62 Mo. 

313) 3 
Harmon v. W. & G. K. Co., (7 Mackey, 

255) 352 
Haruell v. Curtis, (1 E. B. Smith, 78) 

321 
Harner v. Columbus etc. Co., (29 

Wkly. L. Bui. 387) 303 
Harness v. Chesapeake & C. Canal 

Co., (1 Md. Ch. Dec. 248) 249 
Harney v. Indianapolis, (32 lud. 244) 

395 
Harper's Ap., (109 Pa. St. 9) 281 
Harper v. Elberton, (23 Ga. 566) 268 
Harper v. Milwaukee, (30 Wis. 365) 

336 a, 346, 347 

Harpswell b. Phipps, (29 Me. 313) 107 
Harpurt v. Wils., (1 Mod. 47) 320 
Harrawer v. Eitson, (37 111. 301) 300 
Harriman v. Boston, (114 Mass. 241) 

350 6 
Harrington v. Berkshire Co. Com'rs, 

(22 Pick. 263) 242 
Harrington v. Buffalo, (24 IST. E. R. 

186) 344 
Harrington v. Lansingburgh, (110 N. 

Y. 145) 347 
Harrington v. Miles, (11 Kan. 480) 

129 
Harrington v. Plainview, (27 Minn. 

224) 186, 395 
Harrington v. St. Paul etc. Co., (17 

Minn. 215) 302 
Harrington v. Ward, (9 Mass. 251) 

338 
Harris v. Atlanta, (62 Ga. 290) 92, 333 
Harris v. Barber, (9 S. Ct. 314, 129 U. 

S. 366) 399 . 
Harris v. Board, (32 N. E. E. 92) 341, 

353 
Harris b. Elliott, (10 Pet. 25) 228 
Harris v. Intendant, (28 Ala. 577) 125 
Harris v. Intendant, (3 Ala. 137) 110 
Harris i;. Nesbit, (24 Ala. 398) 134, 

384 
Harris b. Newbury, (128 Mass. 321) 

343 
Harris b. People, (59 N. Y. 599) 28 
Harris v. School Hist., (28 N. H. 58) 

106, 170 
Harris v. Schuylkill etc. Co., (21 Atl. 

R. 590, 28 W. N. C. 44) 246 
Harris b. Wakeman, (Sav. 254) 158 
Harris b. Whitcomb, (4 Gray, 433) 

108 
Harris b. Mobbs, (L. R. 3 Ex. D. 268) 

300 



Harris County ». Taylor, (58 Tex. 

690) 219 
Harrisburg b. Sayler, (87 Pa. St. 216) 

347 
Harrisburg b. Segelbaum, (151 Pa. 

St. 172, 24 Atl. R. 1070) 291 
Harrisburgh b. Seek, (104 Pa. St. 53) 

33 
Harrisburg b". Taylor, (87 Pa. St. 216) 

92 
Harrison b. Baltimore, (1 Gill. 264) 

119, 332 
Harrison v. Bridgton, (16 Mass. 16) 

13, 67 
Harrison b. Brooks, (20 Ga. 537) 120 
Harrison B. Electric Co., (48 N. W. R. 

1005) 395 
Harrison b. Good, (L. R. 11 Eq. 338) 

120 
Harrison b. Hernsheim, (28 La. An. 

881) 57 
Harrison b. James, (2 Chitty, 347) 

320 
Harrison b. Milwaukee, (49 Wis. 247) 

265, 326 a 
Harrison v. New Haven, (34 Conn. 

136) 342 
Harrison b. N. O. Ry. Co., (.34 La. 

An. 452) 302 
Harrison b. Parker, (6 East, 154) 224 
Harrison v. Seal, (5 So. E. 622) 215, 

221 
Harrison b. State, (9 Mo. 526) 134 
Harrison b. St. Marks Church, (12 

Phila. 259) 120 
Harrison b. Vicksburg, (11 Miss. 581) 

255, 258 
Harrold v. Simcoe, (16 U. C. C. R. 

43) 339 
Harrow b. State, (1 Greene, 439) 300 
Harshman b. Bates Co., (92 U. S. 569) 

186 
Hart V. Bloomfield Tp., Trs., (15 Ind. 

226) 220 
Hart o. Brooklyn, (36 Barb. 226) 

3.50 a 
Hart B. Buckner, (54 Fed. Rep. 925) 

396 
Hart B. Burnett, (15 Gal. 580) 229 
Hart B. Cedar Rapids, (63 Wis. 634) 

342 
Hart V. Hudson Riv. R. R. Co., (80 

N. Y. 622) 337 
Hart !;. Mayor, etc., (9 Wend. 571) 

120 
Hart B. Mayor, (6 Wend. 571) 154 
Hart V. New Orleans, (12 Fed. Rep. 

292) 212 
Hart B. Red Cedar, (63 Wis. 634) 852 
Harter ». Kenochan, (103 U. S. 562) 

186 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

Keferences are to Sections. 



Ixxix 



Hartford ». Bennett, (10 Ohio St. 

441)78 
Hartford v. Talcott, (48 Conn. 525) 

S48 
Hartford v. "West Middle Sch. Dist., 

(45 Conn. 462) 270 
Hartford Bk. v. Hart, (3 Day. 493) 

107 
Hartford Co. v. Baker, (17 Pick. 432) 

320 
Hartington v. Luge, (50 N. W. R. 

957) 56 
Hartley, In re, (31 L. J. M. 232) 127 
Hartley o. Keokuk, etc. Co., (52 N. 

W. R. 352) 249 
Hartshorn b. Potroff, (89 111. 509) 250 
Hartshorn v. Schoff, (58 N. H. 197) 

99 
Hartwell v. Littleton, (13 Pick. 229) 

106 
Harvard College v. Boston, (104 Mass. 

470) 270 
Harvard College v. Gore, (5 Pick. 

370) 66 
Harvard Col. v. Stearns, (15 Gray, 1) 

396 
Harvey v. Lackawanna etc. R. R. Co., 

47 Pa. St. 428) 239 
Harvey v. Olney, (42 111. 336) 326 a 
Harvey v. Kansas etc. Co., (48 Kan. 

228) 249 
Harvey v. Rush Co., (32 Kan. 159) 79 
Harvey v. Thomas, (10 Watts, 63) 

2.34 a 
Harvey b. "W. P. S. Co., (1 Doug. 193) 

179 
Harward v. St. Clair & M. Levee & 

Dr. Co., (51 111. 130) 254 
Harwood v. Lowell, (4 Cush. 310) 

352 a 
Harwood v. Marshall, (9 Md. 83) 361 
Hasbrouck v. Milwaukee, (21 Wis. 

217) 14, 15, 165, 375 
Hascard v. Somany, (Freem. 504) 211 
Hasey v. White Pig B. S. Co., (1 

Doug. 193) 177 
Haskell v. Burlington, (30 Iowa, 232) 

282 
Haskell v. New Bedford, (108 Mass. 

208) 120, 244, 855 
Haskins «. Super's, (51 Miss. 506) 

377 
Hassen v. Rochester, (65 N. Y. 516) 

270, 397 
Hastings v. Columbus, (42 Ohio St. 

585) 148 
Haswell v. New York, (81 N. Y. 255) 

79 
Hatch 0. Barr, (1 Ham. 390) 167 
Hatch V. Bufealo, (38 N. Y. 276) 249 
Hatch V. Mann, (15 Wend. 44) 79 



Hatch V. Vermont Cent. R. R. Co., 

(25 Vt. 49) 239 
Hates V. Jones, (1 Ired. L. 129) 365 
Hatton V. Chatham, (24 111. App. 622) 

287 
Hanghey-B. Hart, (62 Iowa, 96) 348 
Havemeyer v. Iowa Co., (3 Wall. 294) 

184, 216, 254 
Havemeyer v. Min. Point, (32 Wis. 

396) 368 
Haven v. Asylum, (13 N. H. 532) 107 
Haven v. Grand Junction E. K. Co., 

(109 Mass. 88) 190 
Haven v. Lowell, (5 Met., 35) 99 
Haverhill B. Groveland, (25 N. E. 976) 

15 
Havird, In re, (24 Pac. Rep. 542) 79 
Hawe B. Plainfiold, (37 N. J. L. 145) 

102 
Hawes v. Fox Lake, (33 Wis. 438) 348 
Hawk V. Bonn, (6 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 

452) 897 
Hawkhurst u. New York, (48 Hun, 

588) 353 
Hawkins ». Carroll Co., (50 Miss. 785) 

186 
Hawkins v. Com'rs, (14 Ind. 521) 373 
Hawkins v. Hawke Co. Com'rs, (14 

Ind. 521) 360 
Hawkins v. Jonesboro, (68 Ga. 527) 

15 
Hawkins v. Kercheval, (10 Lea, 535) 

83 
Hawkins v. Rochester, (1 Wend. 54) 

242 
Hawkins v. Saunders, (45 Mich. 491) 

300 
Hawkins v. The Justices, (12 Lea, 

351) 279 
Hawks V. Charlemont, (107 Mass. 

414) 838 
Hawley v. Baltimore, (33 Md. 270) 

221 
Hawley v. Harrall, (19 Conn. 142) 

250, 290 
Hawley b. Sheldon, (24 Atl. R. 717) 

354 
Hawthorne v. East Portland, (13 

Oreg. 271) 265 
Hawthorn v. St. Louis, (11 Mo. 59) 

80 
Hay B. Alexandria etc. Co., (20 Fed. 

Rep. 15) 169 
Hayden v. Attleborough, (7 Gray, 

338) 223, 346 
Hayden v. Madison, (7 Me. 76) 170 
Hayden v. Noyes, (5 Conn. 391) 95, 

121 
Hayes v. Appleton, (24 Wis. 544) 110 
Hayes v. Cambridge, (136 Mass. 402) 

344 



Ixxx 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



Haynes ». Cape May, (50 N". J. L. 55) 

154 
Hayes v. Hyde Park, (27 N. E. 522) 

352 
Hayes v. Mich. etc. Co., (Ill U. S. 

228) 306 

Hayes v. Oshkosh, (33 Wis. 314) 335 
Hayes v. Taylor, 52 N. W. R. llti) 311 
Hayes v. West Bay City, (51 N. W. 

R. 1067) 347 
Hayes v. White, (66 Me. 305) 373 
Hayf ord v. Belfast, (69 Me. 63) 326 
Haynes, In re, (22 Alt. R. 923) 29 
Haynes v. Burlington, (38 Vt. 350) 

238 
Haynes v. Cape May, (50 N. J. L. 55) 

158 
Haynes ». Cape May, (52 N. J. L. 180) 

110 
Haynes v. Covington, (21 Miss. 408) 

169 
Haynes v. Duluth, (47 Minn. 458) 

246 
Haynes ». State, (3 Humph. 480) 79 
Haynes v. Thomas, (7 Ind. 38) 217, 

311 
Hays V. State, (8 Ind. 425) 215 
Hays V. Pac. Mail St. Co., (17 How. 

596) 272 
Hays V. Risher, (32 Pa. St. 169) 233 
Hayward v. Davidson, (41 Ind. 214) 

207 
Hayvrard v. Mayor, (8 Barb. 492) 318 
Hayward v. Sch. Dis. No. 13, (2 Gush. 

419) 170 
Haywood v. Bleecker, (11 Johns. 432) 

78 
Haywood ». Mayor, (12 Ga. 404) 146, 

150 
Hayzlett v. Mt. Vernon, (33 Iowa, 

229) 270 

Hazen v. Strong, (2 Vt. 427) 118 
Hazleliurst v. Freeman, (52 Ga. 245) 

303 
Hazzard ii. Heacock, (39 Ind. 172) 

282 
Heacock v. Sherman, (14 Wend. 58) 

313, 315 
Head v. Ins. Co., (2 Cranch, 127) 165 
Healey v. New Haven, (49 Conn. 394) 

331 
Health Dept. v. Knoll, (70 N. Y. 

530) 118 
Health Dept. v. Purdon, (99 N. Y. 

237) 120 
Health Dept. v. Van Cott, (51 N. T. 

413) 87 
Healy v. New York, (3 Hun, 708) 

352 
Hearsey v. Pruyn, (7 Johnson, 179) 

320 



Heath, In re, (3 Hill, 42) 105, 381 
Heatli 1). Des Moines etc. Co., 61 la. 

11) 302 
Hebard v. Ashland Co., (55 Wis. 145) 

189 a 
Heblich v. Judge, (10 S. W. R. 465) 

362 
Hebron R'd v. Harvey, (90 Ind. 192, 

46 Am. Rep. 199) 294 
Hecker v. Mayor, (18 Abb. Pr. 369) 

92 
Hecker v. N. Y. Balance Dock Co., 

(24 Barb. 215) 133 
Heckerman v. Hummell, (19 Pa. St. 

64) 300 
Hecock V. Van Dusen, (45 W. W. R. 

343) 266 
Hedges v. Dam., (72 Col. 520) 91 
Hedges b. Dixon Co., (37 Fed. Rep. 

304) 189 a 
Hedges v. Madison, (6 111. 306) 315, 

325 
Hedley v. Franklin Co., (4 Blackf. 

116) 86 
Heegel b. Wichita, (19 Kan. 562) 353 
Heeney v. Sprague, (11 R. I. 456) 147, 

324, 346, 348 
Hegan v. Eighth Av. etc. Co., 15 N. 

Y. 380) 321 
Heft V. Payne, (31 Pac. 874) 282 
Heidelberg v. Horst, (62 Pa. St. 301) 

167 
Heigel v. Wichita, (19 S. W. R. 562) 

315 
Heilbrou, Ex parte, (65 Cal. 609) 118 
Heine v. Levee Com'rs, (19 Wall. 660) 

194 a, 256 
Heiple v. East Portland, (13 Oreg. 97) 

286, 288 
Heirs of Hollimau v. Peebles, (1 Tex. 

673) 66 
Heise v. Town Council, (6 Rich. 404) 

154, 155 
Heise v. Columbia, (6 Rich. 404) 155 
Heiser v. New York, (104 N. Y. 68) 

330 
Heiskill v. Baltimore, (65 Md. 125) 90 
Heitz B. St. Louis, (19 S. W. 735) 215, 

221 
Heizer b. Yohn, (37 Ind. 415) 57 
Helana b. Lowell, (3 Allen, 407) 147, 

152 
Helena v. Thompson, (29 Ark. 569) 

328, 354 
Hellen v. Noe, (3 Ired. 493) 120, 155 
Heller v. Alvarado, (20 S. W. R. 1003) 

159 
Heller b. Stremmel, (52 Mo. 309) 74 
Heller b. Mayor, (53 Mo. 159) 92 
Heman v. Payne, (27 Mo. App. 481) 

294 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



Ixxxi 



References are to Sections. 



Hammer v. Hustace, (51 Hun, 457) 

111 
Hemphill v. Boston, (8 Cush. 105) 223 
Hempstead v. Howard, (51 Ark. 344) 

59 
Henbaok c. State, (53 Ala. 523, 25 

Am. Rep. 650) 123 
Hendee v. Pinkerton, (14 Allen, 381) 

51 
Hendersliatt o. Ottumwa, (46 Iowa, 

658) 329 
Henderson v. Baltimore, (8 Md. 352) 

256, 265, 278 
Henderson v. Central etc. Co., (20 

Am. & Eng. Ey. Cas. 542^ 302 
Henderson v. Covington, (14 Bush, 

312) 324 
Henderson v. Davis, (106 N. C. 88) 

29, 65 
Henderson v. Lambert, (8 Bush, 607) 

56, 276 
Henderson v. Minneapolis, (32 Minn. 

219) 354 a 
Henderson v. Marietta, (64 Ga. 286) 

165 
Henderson v. McCullough, (12 S. W. 

E. 932) 270 
Hendersonville v. McMinn, (82 N. C. 

532) 158 
Hendrick's App., (103 Pa. St. 358) 

330 
Henkel v. Detroit, (40 Mich. 249) 120, 

286, 327 
Henks u. Minneapolis, (42 Minn. 530) 

344 
Henley v. Lyme Eegis, (5 Bing. 91, 3 

Mo. & P. 298, 3 B. & Ad. 77, 2 CI. 

& Ein. 331, 8 Bligh N. R. 690, 1 

Bing. X C. 222, 1 Scott, 29) 336 a 
Hennel v. Board, (132 Ind. 32, 31 N. 

E. R. 462) 326 
Hennepin County Com'rs v. Dayton, 

(17 Minn. 260) 226 
Henner, In re, (13 Pet. 230) 85 
Hennessy v. New Bedford, (26 N. E. 

R. 999) 328 
Hennessy v. St. Paul, (37 Fed. Rep. 

565) 120, 131 
Hennepin Co. v. Bartelson, (34 N. 

W. R. 222) 289 
Hennepin Co. v. Jones, (18 Minn. 

199) 79 
Hennington v. Lansingburgh, (36 

Hun, 598) 92 
Hensoldt v. Petersburgh, (63111. Ill) 

150 
Henry v. Chester, (15 Vt. 460) 256 
Henry «. Dubuque & Pacific R. R. 

Co., (2 Iowa, 288) 238 
Henry v. Dubuque & Pac. R. E. Co., 

(10 Iowa, 540) 249 

vi 



Henry v. Pittsburgh etc., Co., (8 

Watts & S. 85) 329 
Henry v. Thomas, (119 Mass. 583) 278 
Henry v. Underwood, (1 Dana, 247) 

232 
Henshaw v. Hunting, (1 Gray, 203) 

225 310 312 
Hentz V. L. I. etc. Co., (13 Barb. 646) 

306 
Hercules Sr. W. v. Elgin etc. Co., (30 

N. E. R. 1050) 246 
Herd v. Cist, (12 S. W. R. 466) 72 
Hering v. Scott, (107 111. 600) 309 
Heriots Hospital Feoffees v. Ross, 

(12 Clark & P. 507) 332 
Heme v. Gaston, (2 E. & E. 66) 104 
Herring v. District, (3 Mackey, 572) 

329, 355 
Hei-rington v. Lansingburgh, (110 

N. T. 545) 347 
Herschberger o. Pittsburgh, (115 Pa. 

St. 78) 283 
Hersev ». Milw. Co. Sup., (16 Wis. 

185)" 270, 397 
HershofE v. Beverly, (43 N. J. L. 139) 

102 
Herzo v. San Francisco, (33 Cal. 140) 

164 
Heselton v. Harmon, (14 Atl. R. 286) 

221 
Hesketh v. Braddock, (3 Burr. 1858) 

101, 156 
Hess V. Baltimore etc. Co., (52 Md. 

242, 36 Am. Rep. 371) 304 
Hetheringtoni). Sterry, (28 Kan. 429) 

86 
Hewes v. Rice, (40 Cal. 255) 265, 279, 

326 
Hewison v. New Haven, (37 Conn. 

475) 324, 345, 349 
Hewitt's Appeal, (88 Pa. St. 55) 55, 

56, 259 
Hewitt V. Judge, (34 N. W. E. 248) 

399 
Hey V. Philadelphia, (81 Pa. St. 44) 

342, 343 
Heyleman, Ex parte, (92 Cal. 492) 

288 
Heyneman o. Blake, (19 Cal. 579) 

245 
Heyward v. Mayor, (7 N. Y. 324) 200, 

202, 244 
Heywood v. Buffalo, (14 N. Y. 534) 

297 391 
Hubbard v. People, (4 Mich. 126) 122 
Hickerson v. Mexico, (58 Mo. 61) 219 
Hicklin v. McLear, (18 Or. 126) 221 
Hickman's Case, (4 Harr. 580) 234 a 
Hickman v. O'Neill, (10 Cal. 294) 102 
Hickok 0. Hine, (23 Ohio St. 523) 

314 



Ixxxii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



References are to Sections. 



Hiokoki). Plattsburgh, (15 Barb. 421) 

92 328 
Hiokok V. Shelburne, (4 Vt. 409) 107 
Hickock V. Trustee, (16 N. T. 161) 

325 
Hickoxc. Cleveland, (8 Ohio, 543) 

329 
Hicks V. Dorn, (42 N". T. 41) 329 
Hielscher i'. Minneapolis, (49 N. W. 

E. 287) 311 . 
Hiestand v. ]Sr. O., (14 La. An. 330) 

79, 110 
Higbee v. Camden etc. Co., (20 N. J. 

Eq. 435) 396 
Higert v. Greencastle, (43 Ind. 574) 

344, 346 
Higgins V. Cliicago, (18 111. 276) 242, 

377 
Higgins 15. Princeton, (4 Halst. Ch. 

309, 320) 129 
Higginson v. Nahant, (11 Allen, 530) 

235 
Highgate v. State, (7 Atl. K 898) 270 
Highland Turnpike v. McKean, (11 

Johns. 154) 31 
Hight V. Monroe Co., (68 Ind. 576) 163 
Hightower v. Slaton, (54 Ga. 108) 80 
Higley ». Bunce, (10 Conn. 567) 148 
Hilbish ». Catherman, (64 Pa. St. 154) 

138, 139 
Hildreth v. Lowell, (11 Gray, 560) 92, 

234, 279, 338 
Hildreth's Heirs v. Mclntire, (1 J. J. 

Marsh, 206) 96 
Hill V. Boston, (122 Mass. 344) 324, 

336 a, 344 
Hill V. Boylan, (40 Miss. 618) 67 
Hill V. Charlotte, (72 N. C. 55) 328, 

331 
Hill V. Dalton, (72 Ga. 314) 102 
Hill V. Decatur, (22 Ga. 203) 123, 125, 

153 
Hill V. Kahoka, (35 Fed. Eep. 321) 31 

39 
Hill V. Higdon, (5 Ohio St. 243) 259 a 
Hill ». La Crosse E. E. Co., (11 Wis. 

214) 273 
Hill u. Laurens Co., (13 S. E. R. 318) 

325 
Hill V. Lexington, (18 Mo. 401) 119 
Hill V. Mayor, (72 Ga. 314) 104 
■ Hill V. Peekskill, (101 N. Y. 490) 197 
Hill ,;. Supervisors, (12 N. Y. 52) 315 
Hill V. Soott, (32 Fed. Eep. 716) 369 
Hill V. St. Louis, (59 Mo. 412) 329 
Hill V. Warrell, (49 N. W. E. 479, 87 

Mich. 135) 272 
Hill B. Worcester, (4 Gray, 414) 377 
Hillegas v. Hilley, (5 Pa. St. 97) 120 
Billiard v. Eichardson, (3 Gray, 349) 



Hillsboro v. Ivey, (20 S. W. E. 1012, 

1 Tex. Civ. App. 653) 324, 327, 336 a 
Hilsdorf v. St. Louis, (45 Mo. 94) 338 a 
Hilsorp V. St. Louis, (45 Mo. 94) 92 
Himmelman v. Byrne, (41 Cal. 500) 

281 
Himmelman B. Cahn, (49 Cal. 285) 172 
Himmelman v. Cofran, (36 Cal. 411) 

280 
Himmelman v. Danos, (35 Cal. 441) 

265 
Himmelman v. Oliver, (34 Cal. 246) 

265 
Himmelman v. Spanagel, (39 Cal. 

389) 281 
Hinchman v. Detroit, (9 Mich. 103) 

308 
Hinchman v. Paterson etc. Co., (17 

N. J. Eq. 75) 302, 303, 304 
Hinckley v. Penobscot, (42 Me. 89) 352 
Hinckley t/. Somerset, (145 Mass. 326) 

342 
Hinckley v. IJnion Pac. E. E., (129 

Mass. 52) 191 
Hincks v. Milwaukee, (46 Wis. 569) 

347 
Hindman's Appeal, (85 Pa. St. 406) 66 
Hine v. Keokuk, (42 Iowa, 636) 302, 

306 
Hine v. New Haven, (40 Conn. 478) 

130 
Hiner v. Fond du Lac, (71 Wis. 74) 339, 

3506 
Hiues V. Charlotte, (12 Mich. 278) 331 
Hines v. Leavenworth, (3 Kan. 186) 

259 a 
Hines v. Lockwood, (41 How. Pr. 

435) 291 
Hinze v. People, (92 111. 406) 78 
Hirsh V. State, (21 N. Y. 785) 123 
Hitchcock V. Galveston, (96 U. S. 

341) 164, 169, 263, 278 
Hitchins v. Frostburg, (68 Md. 100) 

349, 355 
Hite V. Goodman, (1 D. & B. Eq. 364) 

169 
Hittinger v. Boston, (139 Mass. 17) 

272 
Hitz, Ex parte, (111 U. S. 766) 398 
Hixon V. Lowell, (13 Gray, 59) 339, 

340, 345 
Hixon V. Oneida Co., (52 N. W. E. 

445) 188 
Hoadley's Admrs. v. San Francisco, 

(124 U. S. 639) 208 
Hoag V. Durfey, (1 Aiken, 286) 106 
Hoag V. Greenwich, (133 N. Y. 152) 

192 
Hoag V. Lake Shore & Mich. S. E. 

Co., (85 Pa. St. 293) 351 
Hoag 1). Lamont, (60 N. Y. 96) 104 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



Ixxxiii 



Hoagland v. Culvert, (20 N. J. L. 387) 

73 
Hoagland v. Delaware, (17 1^. J. Eq. 

107) 397 
Hoagland v. Sacramento, (52 Cal. 

142) 16 
Hoard b. Des Moines, (62 Iowa, 326) 

354 a 
Hobnrt v. Detroit, (7 Mich. 246) 172, 

397 
Hobart v. Supervisors, (17 Cal. 23) 24 
Hobbs V. Lowell, (19 Pick. 415) 223 
Hoboken v. Gear, (3 Dutch. 265) 148 
Hoboken d. Penn. K. K. Co., (124 U. 

S. 656) 132, 225 
Hoboken Land & Imp. Co. ». Hobo- 
ken, (36 N. J. Law, 540) 194, 225, 

308 
Hobson V. Monteith, (15 Oreg. 251) 

221, 224 
Hobson V. Philadelphia, (155 Pa. St. 

131) 300 
Hodge's Appeal, (84 Pa. St. 359) 190 
Hodges V. Baltimore etc. Co., (58 

Md. 603) 302 
Hodges V. Buffalo, (2 Denio, 110) 110, 

139, 141, 169, 338 
Hodges !). Runyon, (30 Mo. 491) 167 
Hodges B. Schuler, (22 N. T. 114) 179 
Hodgmau v. Chicago etc. Co., (23 

Minn. 153) 185, 186, 395 
Hodgraan b. St. Paul etc. Co., (20 

Minn. 48) 185 
Hodgson B. De Beauchesne, (12 

Moore, P. C. 285) 66 
Hodgson B. Dexter, (1 Cranch, 345) 

80 
Hoeft B. Seaman, (46 How. Pr. 24) 

132 
Hoelil v. Muscatine, ( 57 Iowa, 444) 

354 
Hoey B. Gilroy, (129 N. Y. 132) 300, 

327 
Hoffman b. Jersey City, (34 IN. J. L. 

172) 127 
Hoffman ». Van Nostrand, (42 Barb. 

174) 43, 49 
Hofman b. Jer. City, (34 ]Sr. J. L. 172) 

75 
Hogan B. Ingle, (2 Cranch, 355) 284 
Hogg B. Zanesville, (5 Ohio, 410\eU 
Hohman b. Chicago, (29]Sr. E. R. 671) 

329 • 

Hoke V. Field, (10 Bush, 144) 76 
Hoke B. Henderson, (4 Dev. 1) 67, 86 
Hoke B. Perdue, (62 Cal. 545) 397 
Holberg b. Macon, (55 Miss. 112) 398 
Holbrook u. Dickinson, (46 111. 285) 

282 
Holdane b. Cold Springs Trs., (21 N. 
Y. 474) 222 



Holdswarth b. Dartmouth, (11 A. & 

E. 490) 115 
HoUaday o. Marsh, (3 Wend. 142) 153 
Holland b. Baltimore, (11 Md. 186) 

33, 278, 397 
Holland b. Bartch, (22 N. E. E. 83) 

321 
Holland b. San Francisco, (7 Cal. 361) 

13 
Hollenbeck b. Marshalltown, (62 la. 

21) 104 
Hollenbeck v. Winnebago Co., (9 III. 

148) 325 
HoUiday b. People, (10 111. 216) 8, 12 
Holliday b. St. Leonardo Par., (11 C. 

B. 192) 355 
Hollingsworth ». City of Detroit, (3 

McLean, 472) 192 6 
Hollingsworths b. Com'rs, ( 54 N. W. 

R. 70) 325 
Hollingsworth b. Tensas, ( 17 Fed. 

Rep. 109) 116, 247 
Hollister v. Sherman, (63 Cal. 38) 

397 
HoUoway v. Delano, (28 A. N. C. 190) 

224 
Holloway b. Southmayd, (18 N. Y. S. 

707) 224 
Hollo well Bank v. Hamlin, (14 Mass. 

178) 107 
HoUwedel, Ex parte, (74 Mo. 395) 104 
Holton B. State, (28 Pla. 303) 29 
Holtzhauser b. Newport, (22 S. W. R. 

752) 267 
Holmes v. Fihlenburg, (54 111. 203) 

102 
Holmes v. Jersey City, (12 N. J. Eq. 

299) 223, 248, 259 a 
Holmes b. Wilson, (10 A. & E. 503) 

120 
Holmquist, Ex parte, (27 Pao. R. 

1099) 150 
Holyoke b. Grand Trunk etc. Co., (48 

N.H. 541) 352 a 
Homan b. Stanley, (66 Pa. St. 464) 

348 
Home Ins. Co. v. Council, (93 TJ. S. 

116) 12 
Homer b. Blackburn, (27 La. An. 544) 

134 
Homersham b. Woly etc., (4 Eng. 

Law & Eq. 426) 165 
Hon. B. State, (89 Ind. 249) 288 
Honea b. Monroe, (63 Miss. 171) 364 
Hood's Estate, (21 Pa. St. 106) 66 
Hood V. Lynn, (1 Allen, 103) 139 
Hooker v. New Haven, (14 Conn. 146) 

239 292 
Hool B. U. S., (1 Cranch, 98) 92 
Hoole B. Attorney General, (22 Al-u 

190) 190, 218, 220 



Ixxxiv 



TABLE OF CASES CI'I'ED. 



References are to Sections. 



Hooper v. Bridgewater, (102 Mass. 

512) 234 
Hooper v. Ely, (46 Mo. 505) 395 
Hooper v. Goodwin, (48 Me. 79) 88 
Hope M. Co., In re, (1 Sawy. 710) 283 
Hope B. Barnett, (78 Gal. 9) 220 
Hope V. Deaderick, (8 Humpli. 1) 255 
Hopeston v. Eads, (32 111. App. 75) 

326 a 
Hopkins v. MahofEy, (11 Serg. & 

Rawle, 126) 167 
Hopkins v. Mason, (61 Barb. 469^ 279 
Hopkins v. Mayor of Swansea, (4 M. 

& W. 621) 145, 152 
Hopkins v. Whitesides, (1 Head, 31) 

42 
Hoppikus V. Com'rs, (16 Cal. 249) 

189 a 

Horrasel ». Smyth, (7 C. B. 729) 348 
Horn V. Atl. etc. Co., (35 N. H. 169) 

302 
Horn V. Baltimore, (30 Md. 218) 169 
Horn V. People, (26 Mich. 224) 133 
Hornbeck v. Westbrook, (9 Johns. 

73) 204 
Hornblower v. Duden, (35 Cal. 664) 

176 
Horner v. Coffey, (25 Miss. 434) 212 
Horner ». Coffey, (25 Miss. 434) 375 
Horney v. Sloan, (1 Smith, 136) 152 
Horton v. Grand Haven, (24 Mich. 

465) 245 
Horton v. Ipswich, (12 Gush. 488) 

344, 352 
Horton V. Mayor, (4 Lea, 39, 40 Am. 

Reps. 1) 294 
Horton v. Mobile School Cora'rs, (43 

Ala. 596) 28 
Horton v. Nashville, (4 Lea, 47) 328, 

355 
Horton v. Newell, (23 Atl. R. 610) 92 
Horton o. Thompson, (71 N. Y. 513) 

170 
Horton v. Watson, (23 Kan. 229) 75 
Hotchin v. Kent, (8 Mich. 526) 170 
Hot Springs etc. Co. v. Williamson, 

(45 Ark. 429) 330 
Houfe V. Fulton, (29 Wis. 296) 342, 

343 
Houfe V. Town, (34 Wis. 608) 313 
Hough V. Cook County Land Co., (73 

111. 23) 207 
Houghton V. People, (55 N. Y. 398) 

190 a 

House V. Greensburg, (93 Ind. 533) 

30, 31, 53, 309 
House V. Montgomery Co., (60 Ind. 

580) 353 
House Bill, In re, (21 Pac. R. 484, 12 

Colo. 289) 8, 32 
House Bill, In re, (48 N. W. 275) 26 



Householder v. Kansas City, (83 Mo. 

488) 330 
Houseman ». Com., (100 Pa. St. 222) 

67, 83 
Houston, In re, (47 Fed. 539) 258 
Houston B. Clay Co., (18 Ind. 396) 169 
Houston B. H. B. & M. Ry. Co., (19 

S. W. Rep. 786) 306 a 
Houston B. Houston City Ry. Co., 

(19 S. W. R. 127) 302 
Houston B. Izaaks, (68 Tex. 116) 347, 

3506 
Houston 0. Ry. Co., (19 S. W. R. 127) 

14 
Houston etc. Co. v. Odam, (53 Tex. 

343) 303 
Hove V. Alexandria, (1 Cranch, 98) 

329 
HoveldeuB. Kansas, etc. Co., (79 Mo. 

632) 302, 303 
Hover ». Barkhoof, (44 N. Y. 113) 

325 
Hovey b. Mayo, (43 Me. 322) 292, 336 
Howard's Case, (Hutt. 87) 37 
Howard v. Bridgewater, (16 Pick. 

189) 400 
Howard b. Chiu-ch, (18 Md. 451) 248 

259 a 
Howard u. Ingersoll, (13 How. 427 

354 
Howard b. Lee, (3 Sandf. Ch. 281) 

120 
Howard b. Pritchett, (85 Ind. 68) 353 
Howard v. Providence, (6 R. I. 514) 

245 
Howard b. Rogers, (4 Harr. & J. 278) 

221 
Howard b. Shields, (16 Ohio St. 184) 

65 
Howard v. Shoemaker, (35 Ind. Ill) 

86, 102 
Howard b. Shaw, (126 HI. 53) 279 
Howard v. Worcester, (27 N. E. R. 11) 

328 
Howard S. Ins. b. Newark, (18 Atl. 

R. 672) 280 
Howe, In re, (1 Paige 214) 204 
Howell B. Bristol, (8 Bush, 493) 248, 

259 a 
Howe B. Boston, (7 Gush. 273) 326 
Hoyyell b. Buffalo, (15 N. Y. 512) 72, 

259, 326 
Hd^e 0. Com'rs, (47 Pa. St. 361) 316 
Howe B. Crawford, (47 Pa. St. 361) 

362, 363 
Howe B. Freeman, (14 Gray, 566) 273 
Howe B. Keeler, (27 Conn. 538) 17 c 
Howe B. Lowell, (101 Mass. 99) 350 a 

351 
Howe B. New Orleans, (12 La. An, 

481) 327 a, 331, 345, 348 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

Beferences are to Sections. 



Ixxxv 



Howe V. Norris, (12 Allen, 82) 127 
Howe V. Plainfield, (37 N. J. L. 145) 

24, 104, 117 
Howe u. Plainfield, (41 N. H. 135) 

350 a 
Howell V. City of Tacoraa, (3 Wash. 

St. 711) 278 
Howell V. Peoria, (90 111. 104) 395 
Howell V. Phila., (38 Pa. St. 471) 282 

Atl. K. 862) 375 
Hower's App., (127 Pa. St. 134; 17 
Howland v. Luce, (16 Johns. 135) 86 
Howland v. Maynard, (34 N. E. E. 

515) 338 
Howland v. Maynard, (34 N. E. K. 

595) 324 
Hoyle V. New Orleans, etc. Co., (23 

La. An. 535) 302 
Hoyle V. P. & M. K. K., (54 N. T. 

314) 273 
Hoyt V. East Saginaw, (19 Mich. 39) 

148, 259 a, 277 
Hoyt V. Hudson, (27 Wis. 656) 354, 

354 a 
Hoyt V. Thompson, (19 N. T. 207, 

218) 170 
Hubbard v. Concord, (35 X H. 52) 

342, 346, 350 a 
Hubbard ». Lyndon, (28 Wis. 674) 

177, 190 a 
Hubbard b. Mason City, (60 Iowa, 

400) 352 
Hubbard u. Medford, (25 Pac. Kep. 

640) 130 
Hubbard i>. Preston, (51 N. W. Kep. 

209) 129 
Hubbard v. Windsor, (15 Mich. 146) 

95 
Hubbell V. Viroqua, (67 Wis. 343) 

327 328 
Hubbell V. Yonkers, (104 N. Y. 434) 

328, 336 a, 343 
Huber v. Baugh, (43 Iowa, 514) 155 
Ruber v. Gazley, (18 Ohio, 18) 221 
Hubert v. People, (49 N. Y. 132) 28 
Huddleson v. Kuffin, (6 Ohio St. 604) 

75, 155 
Huddleston v. West Belleview, (111 

Pa. St. 110) 355 
Hudler v. Golden, (36 N. Y. 447) 283 
Hud man v. Slaughter, (70 Ala. 546) 

363 
Hudson V. Bridgeport, (25 Conn. 426) 

241 
Hudson c. Geary, (4R L 485) 134 
Hudson V. Denver, (20 Pac. R. 329, 

12 Colo. 157) 83 
Hudson B.Thorne, (7 Paige, 261) 120, 

158. 
Hudson V. Vareis, (34 N. W. E. 503) 

396 



Hudson V. Winslow, (35 N. J. L. 437) 

196 
Hudson T. Co. v. Jersey City, (49 N. 

J. L. 303) 297 
Hudson etc. Co. v. Seymour, (35 N. J. 

L. 47) 18 
Hudson Co. v. State, (24 N. J. L. 718) 

24 
Hudson E. T. Co. v. Watervliet T. & 

E. Co., (61 Hun, 140) 306 a 
Huesing v. Eock Island, (128 111. 465) 

118, 127 
Huff v. Cook, (44 Iowa, 639) 69 
Huff V. Lafayette, (108 Ind. 14) 61 
Huffman b. Greenwood, (23 Kan. 

281) 79 
Huffman v. San Joaquin Co., (21 Cal. 

426) 315 
Hugg V. Camden, (20 N. J. Eq. 6) 

176 
Hughes V. Beggs, (16 N. E. Rep. 817) 

309 
Hughes V. Court, (42 N. W. R. 984, 

75 Mich. 574) 84 
Hughes V. Milligan, (22 Pac. E. 313) 

26 
Hughes V. Orange Co. Assn., 56 Hun, 

396) 348 
Hughes B. Worcester, (2 E. I. 493) 

301 
Hulbert ». Mason, (29 Ohio St. 562) 

61 
Huletti). Hulett, (37 Vt. 518) 66 
HullB. County, (12 Iowa, 142) 177 
Hull B. Kansas City, (54 Mo. 601) 342 
Hull B. Sup'rs, (19 Johns. 259) 362, 

363 
Hullman b. Honcomp, (5 Ohio St. 237) 

361 379 
Humboldt b. Long, (92 V. S. 642) 183, 

196 
Humboldt Co. b. Dinsmore, (75 Cal. 

604) 279 
Hume B. Mayor, (74 N. Y. 264) 300, 

345 
Hume ». New York, (47 N. Y. 639) 

350 a 
Humes b. Knoxville, (1 Humph. 403) 

292 329 
HummelFs Case, (9 Watts, 416) 67 
Hummer b. Hummer, (3 Greene, 42) 

105, 381 
Hummill b. Boston, (106 Mass. 350) 

397 
Humphrey, In re, ( 10 Wend. 612) 99 
Humphrey b. Baltimore, (47 Md. 145) 

242 
Humphreys B. County, (56 Pa. St. 

204) 352 
Humphreys Co. b. McAdoo, (7 Heisk, 

585) 194 a 



Ixxxvi 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



Hunkerline's App., (70 Pa. St. 102) 

396 
Hunneman v. Fire Dis., (37 Vt. 40) 

130 
Hunnecutt v. State, (12 S. W. E. 106) 

361 
Hunt V. Armbruster, (17 N. J. Eq. 

208) 131 
Hunt V. Booneville, (65 Mo. 620) 92, 

338, 352 a 
Hunt V. Chicago, (98 HI. 147) 221 
Hunt V. Hamilton, (25 Kan. 82) 67 
Hunt V. Lambertville, (45 K J. L. 

279) 145 
Hunt«. Mayor, (109 N. T. 134) 342 
Hunt V. New York, (109 N. Y. 134) 

331a 
Hunt V. Pownal, (9 Vt. 411) 342, 351 
Hunt I). Kousmaniere, (1 Pet. 15) 327 
Hunt V. School District, (14 Vt. 300) 

95 
Hunt V. Utica, (18 N. Y. 442) 241 
Hunt V. Wimbledon Loc. Board, (4 

Ont. Kep. C. P. D. 48) 165 
Hunter v. Chandler, (45 Mo. 452) 79, 

85 
Hunter v. Cobb, (1 Bush, 239) 258 
Hunter v. Farren, (127 Mass. 381) 120 
Hunter v. Newport, (5 E. I. 325) 232 
Hunter v. Sandy Hill Trs., (6 Hill, 

407) 217 
Hunter v. Windsor, (24 Vt. 327) 338 a 
Huntington v. Boyle, (9 Ind. 296) 164 
Huntington v. Cheesbro, (57 Ind. 74) 

123 
Huntington v. Union Pac. Ey. Co., 

(2 Sawy. 503) 397 
Huntley 1). Luscombe, (2 B. & P. 530) 

104 
Hurford v. Omaha, (4 Neb. 336) 110, 

Hurden v. Stein, (27 Ala. 104) 234 
Hurla B. Kansas City, (27 Pac. 143, 

46 Kan. 738) 56, 276 
Hurlbut V. Litchfield, (1 Eoot, 520) 

333 
Hurley v. Miss. & Eum Eiver B. Co., 

(34 Minn. 143) 215, 221 
Huron v. McCall, (46 Micb. 565) 110 
Huron D. C. v. London D. C, (Up. 

Can. Q. B. 302) 143 
Huss, In re, (27 N. E. E. 784) 203 
Hussen v. Eochester, (65 N. Y. 516) 

248 
Hussey u. Smith, (99 U. S. 24) 88 
Hussner v. B'klyn etc. Co., (114 N. 

Y. 433) 306 
Hatchings v. Scott, (4 Halst. 218) 

102, 104 
Hutchins ». Priestly, (61 Mich. 252) 

352 



Hutchinson v. Pratt, (11 Vt. 402, 423) 

226 
Hutchinson v. Pratt, (11 Vermont 

402)106 
Hutchinson v. Priestly, (25 Va. 226) 

330 
Huthsing v. Bosuquet, (3 McCrary, 

152) 140 
Hutson V. New York, (9 N. Y. 163) 

328 345 
Hutten V. Camden, (39 N. J. L. 122) 

118 
Hutton B. Windsor, (34 Up. Can. Q. 

B. 487) 352 
Hurn, Ex parte, (9 So. E. 615) 360 
Hyatt V. Bates, (35 Barb. 308) 891 
Hyatt V. Eondout, (44 Barb. 385) 327, 

353 
Hyde v. Franklin, (27 Vt. 185) 177, 

179,190 a 
Hyde v. Jamaica, (27 Vt. 443) 223, 

340 
Hyde v. State, (52 Miss. 655) 81 
Hydes v. Joyce, (4 Bush, 464) 113, 

263 
Hyde Park v. Borden, (94 111. 26) 256 
Hyde Park v. Carton, (132 lU. 100) 

279 
Hyde Park v. Chicago, (124 HI. 156) 

391 
Hyde Park v. Com'th, (12 N. E. K. 

238) 162 
Hymes v. Aydelott, (26 Ind. 431) 176, 

245 



Idaho Springs v. Woodward, (10 Col. 

104) 338 
Illinois V. Hlinois Central E. E. Co., 

(33 Fed. Eep. 730) 132, 225 
111. & Mich. Canal Trs. v. Chicago, 

(12 111. 403) 240 
111. & Mich. Canal Trs. v. Havens, (11 

111. 554) 217 
Illinois Cen. E. E. Co. v. Com'rs of 

East Lake Fork Drainage Dist., (21 

N. E. E. 925) 259 a 
Illinois Cen. E. E. Co. v. Hutchinson, 

(47 111. 408) 352 
Illinois Cen. E. E. Co. v. Miller, (10 

So. E. 61, 68 Miss. 760) 354 a 
Illinois etc. Co. v. Chicago, (28 N. E. 

E. 740) 249 
111. etc. E. & C. Co. V. St. Louis etc. 

Co., (2 Dill. 70) 113, 133 
Illinois Ins. Co. v. Littlefield, 67) 

111. 368) 217, 219, 223 
Imlay v. Union Branch E. R. Co., (26 

Conn. 249) 238, 302 
Inchbold v. Eobinson, (L. R. 4 Ch. 

App. 388) 120 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Ixxxvii 



Betcrences are to Sections. 



Independence v. Moore, (32 Mo. 392) 

117 
Indiana v. Woram, (6 Hill, 33) 5 
Indiana Central Ry. Co. v. Oakes, (20 

Ind. 9) 243 
Indianapolis v. Cook, (99 Ind. 10) 342 
Indianapolis ». Cross, (7 Ind. 9) 217, 

219, 288 
Indianapolis v. Emraelman, (108 Ind. 

530) 340 
Indianapolis v. Gas Co., (66 Ind. 39G) 

32, 110, 169, 295 
Indianapolis v. Hartley, (67 111. 439) 

311 
Indianapolis v. Home, (59 Ind. 215) 12 
Indianapolis v. Huegle, (18 N. E. R. 

172) 117 
Indianapolis v. Imberry, (17 Ind. 175) 

230, 265, 286 
Indianapolis v. Kingsbury, (101 Ind. 

200) 224 
Indianapolis v. Lawyer, (38 Ind. 348) 

263, 354 
Indianapolis v. McClure, (2 Ind. 147) 

319, 353 
Indianapolis v. Murphy, (91 Ind. 382) 

287 
Indianapolis v. Patterson, (14 !N'. E. 

R. 551) 56 
Indianapolis v. Scott, (72 Ind. 196) 

345, 3506 
Indianapolis c. State, (37 Ind. 489) 

819 
Indianapolis v. Sturm, (39 Ind. 159) 61 
Indianapolis v. Vajen, (111 Ind. 240, 

12 N. E. R. 311) .326 
Indianapolis v. Wasson, (74 Ind. 133) 

87 
Indianapolis & B. R. R. Co. v. In- 
dianapolis, (12 Ind. 620) 219, 229 
Indianapolis etc. Co. v. Calvert, (110 

Ind. 535) 396 
Ind. etc. Co. v. Kercheval, (16 Ind. 

84) 302 
Ind. etc. Co. v. Lawrenceburg, (34 

Ind. 304) 303, 306 
Indianapolis etc. v. Ross, (47 Ind. 23) 

312 
Indianapolis etc. v. State, (37 Ind^ 

489) 308 
Ind. Central R. R. Co. v. Hunter, (8 

Ind. 74) 245 
Indianapolis, P. & C. R. R. Co. v. 

Ross, (47 Ind. 25) 270 
Indianapolis R. R. Co. c. Smith, (52 

Ind. 428) 305 
Ind. R. R. Co. V. Connelly, (10 Ohio, 

St. 165) 253 
Indianola v. Jones, (29 Iowa, 282) 165 
Industrial School v. Whitehead, (2 

Beasley, N. J. 290) 32 



Inge V. Police Jury, (14 La. An. 117) 

234 
Ingerson v. Berry, (14 Ohio, 315) 87, 

371 
Ingham Co. Sup., (20 Mich. 95) 308 
Ingle V. Jones, (43 Iowa, 280) 30, 32 
Inglis V. Railway Co., (16 Eng. Law 

& Eq. 55) 106, 148 
Ingraham v. Chicago etc. Co., (46 

Iowa, 366) 303 
Inhabitants of Hampshire v. Inhabi- 
tants of Franklin, (16 Mass. 36) 59 
Inhabitants v. String, (5 Halst. 323) 

47 
Inhabitants v. Weir, (9 Ind. 224) 169, 

177 
Inhabitants v. Wood, (13 Mass. 193) 

25 
Inhabitants of Upper Alio way's 

Creek v. String, (10 N. J. L. 323) 49 
Insane Asylum v. Higgins, (15 111. 185) 

50 
Insurance Co. o. Baltimore, (23 Md. 

296) 363 
Insurance Co. v. Sandars, (36 N. H. 

352) 97 
Insurance Co. v. Sortwell, (8 Allen, 

217) 97 
IntendantB. Chandler, (6 Ala. 899) 

110 
Inter. & G. N. Ry. ». State, (73 Tex. 

356) 380 
International Bk. v. Bradley, (19 N. 

Y. 245) 102 
International etc. Co. v. Halloran, 

(53 Tex. 46) 353 
Inter. Nat. Bk. v. Franklin, (65 Mo. 

105) 180 
Iowa City i'. Foster, (10 Iowa, 189) 79 
Iowa Col. Trs. v. Davenport, (7 Iowa, 

213) 249 
Ireland v. Rochester, (51 Barb. 414) 

171 
Irish V. Webster, (5 Greenl. 171) 167 
Iron R. R. Co. v. Ironton, (19 Ohio 

St. 299) 133, 232 
Ironton v. Kelley, (38 Ohio St. 50) 92, 

347, 350 a 
Irvin V. IST. O. St. L. & C. R. R. Co., 

(94 111. 112) 272 
Irvine v. Wood, (51 N. T. 224) 298, " 

348 
Irving B. Devors, (65 Mo. 625) 148 
Irving !). Ford, (32 N. W. R. 601) 327 
Irwin, In re, (16 N". Y. S. 606, 62Hun, 

619) 354 
Irwin V. Bradford, (22 Up. Can. C. P. 

421) 342 
Irwin ». Dixion, (9 Hqw. 10) 218, 219 
Irwin B. Great So. Telephone Co. 

(37 La. An. 63) 297, 301 



Ixxxviii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
Beferences are to Sections. 



Irwin V. Mariposa, (22 U. C. C. P. 367) 

115 
Irwin V. Mobile, (57 Ala. 6) 259 a, 278 
Isomu. Railroad Co., (3S Miss. 300) 

245 
Ison V. Manley, (76 Ga. 804) 120, 301 
Ivihsou V. Hance, (1 Wyora. Ter. 270) 

182 
Ivory V. Deerpark, (116 N. Y. 476) 346 
Ivy ». Lusk, (11 La. An. 486) 82 



Jacks V. Helena, (41 Ark. 213) 185 
Jackson v. Belleview, (30 Wis. 250) 

342 
Jackson v. Bowman, (39 Miss. 671) 

169 
Jackson v. Brush, (77 111. 59) 395 
Jackson v. Cory, (8 Johns. 385) 205 
Jackson v. Hartwell, (8 Johns. 422) 

203, 204 
Jackson v. Hathaway, (15 Johns. 447) 

224, 298 
Jackson v. Humphrey, (1 Johns. 498) 

87 
Jackson v. Hyde, (28 U. C. Q. B. 294) 

337 
Jackson ». Leroy, (5 Cow. 397) 206 
Jackson v. Morris, (1 Denio, 199) 129 
Jackson v. People, (9 Midi. Ill) 102, 

105, 398 
Jackson v. Pike, (9 Cow. 61) 203 
Jackson v. Pratt, (10 Johns. 381) 52 
Jackson v. Rutland etc. R. R. Co., 

(25 Vt. 150) 238 
Jackson v. Vicksburg etc. R. R. M. 

Co., (2 Woods C. C. 141) 192 6 
Jackson v. Walsh, (23 Atl. R. 778) 8 
Jackson v. T. & G. K. R. Co., (2 Am. 

Law Reg. 585) 193 
Jackson Co. v. Applewhite, (62 Ind. 

464) 163 
Jackson Co. Horse Ry. Co. v. Inter- 
State Rapid Transit Co., (24 Fed. 

Rep. 306) 144 
Jackson County v. Hall, (55 HI. 444) 

193 6 
Jacksonport v. Watson, (33 Ark. 704) 

395 
Jacksonville v. Allen, (25 111. Ap. 54) 

75,84 
Jacksonville v. Mtna, F. Eng. Co., (20 

Fla. 100) 130 
Jacksonville v. Doan, (33 N. E. R. 

878") 324 
Jacksonville v. Drew, (19 Fla. 106) 

347 
Jacksonville ». Holland, (19 111. 271) 

156 
Jacksonville v. Jacks. Ry. Co., (67 

111. 540) 215, 229 



Jacksonville v. L'Engle, (20 Fla. 344) 

55 
Jacksonville o. Lambert, (62 HI. 519) 

355 
Jacksonville v. Ledwith, (7 So. R. 

885) 256, 274 
Jacksonville v. McConnel, (12 111. 

138) 270 
Jacksonville etc.^R. Co. v. Virden, 

(104 111. 339) 189 
Jacobs, In re, (98 N. T. 98) 121 
Jacobs V. Bangor, (16 Me. 187) 352 
Jacobs 1). Hamilton Co., (4 Fisher 

Pat. Cas. 81) 3, 338 
Jacquith v. Richardson, (8 Mete. 213) 

321 
Jager v. Adams, (123 Mass. 26) 348 
James, Ex parte, (L. R. 9 Ch. 609) 

327 
James v. Darlington, (36 N. W. Rep. 

835) 309 
James v. Jefferson, (66 Tex. 578) 81 
James ». Johnson, (6 Johns. Ch. 423) 

190 a 
James u. Pine Bluff, (49 Ark. 199; 4 

S. W. Rep. 760) 289 
James v. Portage City, (5 N. W. R. 

31) 346 
James u. San Francisco, (6 Cal. 528) 

352 
James Admr. v. Harrodsburg, (3 S. 

W. R. 135) 327, 328 
Jameson v. People, (16 111. 257) 31, 

51 
James River etc. v. Anderson, (12 

Leigh, 276) 301, 306 
Jamison b. Springfield, (53 Mo. 224) 

243 
Jane v. Alley, (64 Miss. 446) 87 
Janesville v. Markoe, (18 Wis. 350) 

144 
Janey's Executors v. Latene, (4 

Leigh, 327) 205 
Jansen v. Atchison, (16 Kan. 358) 

346, 348, 349 
January v. Johnson Co., (3DiIl. C. C. 

392) 192 b 
Jarman v. Patterson, (7 Mon. 647) 

155 
Jarrolt v. Moberly, (103 U. S. 508) 

188 
Jarvis v. Dean, (3 Bing. 447) 217 
Jarvis v. Mayor etc. of New York, (2 

N. Y. Leg. Obs. 396) 85 
Jay's Case, (1 Vent. 302) 84 
Jeffers v. Jeffers, (107 N. Y. 650) 354 
Jefferson v. Courtmire, (9 Mo. 693) 

117 
Jefferson v. McCarty, (74 Mo. 55)282 
Jefferson v. Mt. Vernon, (33 N. E. 

R. 1091) 255 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
Beferences are to Sections. 



Ixxxix 



Jefferson b. St. Louis Co., (21 S. W. 

R. 217) 316 
Jefferson Branch Bank v. Skelly, (1 

Black, 436) 270 
Jefferson Co. v. ArrigM, (51 Miss. 

68) 365 
Jefferson Co. v. City of Mt. Vernon, 

(33 N. E. E. 1091) 282 
Jef. Co. V. Cowan, (54 Mo. 234) 278 
Jefferson Co. v. Slagle, (66 Pa. St. 

202) 99 
Jefferson Co. v. St. Louis Co., (21 S. 

W. 217) 317 
Jefferson City v. Opel, (49 Mo. 190) 

270 
Jefferson City G. L. Co. v. New Or- 
leans, (41 La. An. 91) 58 
Jeffersonville v. Ferryboat, (35 Ind. 

19) 133 
Jeffersonville v. Meyers, (2 Ind. App. 

532) 330 
Jeffersonville v. O' Conner, (37 Ind. 

95) 310 
Jeffersonville v. Patterson, (32 Ind. 

140) 87 . 
Jeffersonville v. The J. Shallcross, 

(35 Ind. 19) 164 
Jeffreys v. Gurr, (2 B. & Add. 841) 

25 
Jeffries v. Harington, (11 Colo. 191) 

69 
Jeffries v. Lawrence, (42 Iowa, 498) 

186, 256 
Jelliff V. Newark, (48 N. J. L. 101) 

264 
Jenkins v. Andover, (103 Mass. 94, 

104) 188, 254, 392 
Jenkins D. Cheyenne, (1 Wy. Ter. 287) 

156 
Jenkins v. Putnam, (12 N. E. E. 613) 

111 
Jenkins v. Thomasville, (35 Ga. 145) 

102 
Jenkins v. Wilm. & W. K. Co., (110 

N. C. 438) 354 a 
Jenksn. Lima Twp., (17 Ind. 326) 

326 a 
Jenks V. Williaras, (115 Mass. 217) 300 
Jenney v. Brooklyn, (120 N. Y. 164) 

328, 336 a 
Jennings o. Tisbury, (5 Gray, 73) 223 
Jennings v. Van Schaick, (108 N. Y. 

530) 348 
Jennings Co. Com'rs v. Verbarg, (63 

Ind. 107) 173 
Jensen v. Supervisors (47 Wis. 298) 

15 
Jerome v. Kio Grande, (18 Fed. E. 

873) 375, 396 
Jerome v. Eoss, (7 Johns. Ch. 315) 

238 



Jersey City v. Canal Co., (12 N. J. 

Eq. 227) 397 
Jersey City v. Dummer, (Spencer, 

106) 225 
Jersey City v. Hudson, (13 N. J. Eq. 

420) 120 
Jersey City v. Lembeck, (31 N. J. Eq. 

255) 391 
Jersey City v. Morris Canal & B. Co., 

(1 Beasley, 547) 225 
Jersey City v. N. J. Cen. E. E., (40 

N. J. Eq. 417, 2 Atl. Eep. 262) 301, 

308 
Jersey City». O'Callaghan, (41 N. J. 

L. 349) 327 
Jersey City ». E. E. Co., (20 N. J. Eq. 

360) 2, 33 
Jersey City v. Eiker, (38 N. J. L. 225) 

326 a 
Jersey City ». State, (1 Vroom, 521) 

319 
Jersey City ». State, (30 N. J. L. 521) 

98, 223, 308 
Jersey City etc. Co. v. J. C. Bergen « 

etc. Co., (21 N. J. Eq. 550) 302 
Jessen v. Sweigert, (66 Cal. 182) 348 
Jett V. Eiohmond, (78 Ind. 316) 117 
Jewett ». New Haven, (38 Conn. 368) 

92 
Jex V. New York, (103 N. Y. 536) 391 
Jochem v. Eobinson, (66 Wis. 638) 

348 
John and Cherry Streets, In re, (19 

Wend. 659) 308 
Johnes v. State, (4 Ohio St. 493) 368 
Johnson, In re, (73 Cal. 228) 122 
Johnson v. Almeda County, (4 Cal. 

106) 247 
Johnson v. Americus, (46 Ga. 80) 103 
Johnson v. Atlantic etc. E. E. Co., (35 

N. H. 569) 238, 354 
Johnson v. Barclay, (1 Harr. N. J. 1) 

104 
Johnson v. Canal St. Ey. Co., (27 La. 

An. 53) 321 
Johnson o. Chi. St. P. M. & Q. Ey. 

Co., (50 N. W. 771) 354a 
Johnson v. City of Parkersburg, (16 

W. Va. 402) 239 
Johnson v. County of Stark, (24 111. 

75) 191, 1916, 192 6 
Johnson v. District, (118 U. S. 19) 

328, 355 
Johnson v. Drummond, (20 Graft. 

419) 272 
Johnson v. Duer, (21 S. W. E. 800) 

259 a. 
Johnson v. Enfield, (42 N. H. 197) 

342 
Johnson v. Freeport, etc. Co., (Ill 

111. 413) 232 



xc 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



References are to Sections. 



Johnson v. Hud. R. E. Co., (6 Duer, 

634) 352 a 
Johnson v. Indianapolis, (16 Ind. 227) 

47 
Johnson b. Irasburgh, (47 Vt. 28) 352 
Johnson v. Joliet & C. R. E. Co., (23 

111. 202) 241 
Johnson v. Lexington, (14 B. Men. 

648) 261 
Johnson v. Milwaukee, (40 Wis. 315) 

2.59 a 
Johnson ». Milwaukee, (46 Wis. 568) 

346,3.50 6 
Johnson v. Oregon City, (2 Oreg. 

327) 275 
Johnson ». Parkersburgh, (16 W. Va. 

402) 330 
Johnson v. Philadelphia, (60 Pa. St. 

445) 123 
Johnson v. Eeardon, (16 Minn. 431) 

155 
Johnson v. Simonton, (43 Cal. 242) 

147 
» Johnson v. Small, (5 B. Mon. 25) 321 
Johnson v. Thayer, (94 U. S. 631) 

185 
Johnson v. Wilcox, (19 Atl. R. 939) 

352 
Johnson v. Wilson, (2 N. H. 202) 78 
Johnson v. Winfield, (29 Pac. R. 559, 

48 Kan. 129) 158 
Johnson Co. v. January, (94 U. S. 

202) 196 
Jolinston V. Becker Co. Com'rs, (27 

Minn. 64, 6 N. W. R. 411) 266 
Johnston v. Charleston, (1 Bay, 441) 

65 
Johnston v. District, (118 U. S. 19) 

354 
Johnston v. Macon, (62 Ga. 645) 263 
Johnston v. Simonton, (43 Cal. 242) 

118 
Johnston v. Prov. etc. Co., (10 R. I. 

365) 306 
Johnston u. Wilson, (2 K H. 202) 76, 

77, 82 
Joliet ». Harwood, (86 111. 110) 347 
Joliet 0. Seward, (99 111. 267) 350 a 
Joliet V. Verley, (35 111. 58) 319, .353 
Joliet V. Walker, (7 111. App., 267) 

350 6 
Jones V. Andover, (9 Pick. 146) 95 
Jones V. Borough of Bangor, (144 Pa. 

St. 688, 29 W. N. C. 245) 330 
Jones V. Boston, (104 Mass. 75) 259 a, 

345, 392 ' . ' 

Joues V. Chamberlain, (16 N'. E. R 

72) 255 
Jones V. Cincinnati, (18 Ohio, 318, 

323) 256 
Jones V. Clifford, (3 Ch. Div. 779) 327 



Jones V. Estate of Keep, (19 Wis. 369) 

258 
Jones V. Grant Co., (14 Wis. 518) 79 
Jones V. Hmibut, (13 Neb. 125) 189 o 
Jones V. Ins. Co., (2 Daly, 307) 147 
Jones V. Keith, (37 Tex. 394) 313 
Jones V. Jefferson, (66 Tex. 576) 86, 

370 
Jones V. Minneapolis, (31 Minn. 230) 

3506 
Jones V. Miracle, (21 S. W. R. 241) 

282 
Jones V. New Haven, (34 Conn. 1) 9, 

325 339 345. 
Jones V. Nichols, (46 Ark. 207) 348 
Jones V. Powell, (Palm. 537) 120 
Jones V. Richmond, (18 Gratt. 517) 

163, 333 
Jones V. Bobbins, (8 Gray, 329) 105 
Jones V. Schulmyer, (39 Ind. 119) 283 
Jones V. Soulard, (24 How. 41) 54 
Jones V. Stanstead, S. & 0. E. E. Co., 

(L. E. 4 P. C. App. 98, 120) 243, 247 
Jones V. Waltham, (4 Cush. 499) 343 
Jonesboro v. Cairo, etc. E. E. (110 

U. S. 192) 28 
Jonesboro v. McKee, (2 Yerg, 167) 

282 
Jonnston v. Super's, (19 Johns. 272) 

377 
Jordan c. Hannibal, (87 Mo. 673) 353 
Jordan ». Helwig, (1 Wilson, 447) 

131 
Jordan v. School District, (38 Me. 

164) 95, 107 
Joyce V. Parkhurst, (22 N. E. E. 899, 

150 Mass. 243) 75 
Joyce V. Woods, (78 Ky. 386) 120, 272 
Joyner v. Third Sch. Dis., (3 Cush. 

567) 326 
Judd V. Claremont, (23 Atl. E. 427) 

351 
Judge V. Meriden, (38 Conn. 90) 338 a 
Judkins v. Hill, (50 N. H. 140) 65 
Judsou V. Bridgeport, (25 Conn. 426) 

232 
Jugman v. Chicago, (78 HI. 405) 118 
Juker V. Commonwealth, (20 Pa. St. 

484) 65 
Julia Bldg. Assn. v. Bell Tel. Co., (88 

Mo. 258) 297 
Junction City v. Webb, (23 Pac. R. 

1073) 162 
Junction R. E. Co. ». Philadelphia, 

(88 Pa. St. 424) 259 a 
Junkins v. Union Sch. Dis., (39 Me. 

220) 99, 167 
Just B. Township, (42 Mich. 573) 364 
Justices V. G. & W. Co., (9 Ga. 475) 

320 
Justice B. Orr, (12 Ga. 137) 179 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



XCl 



Eeferenees are to Sections. 



K. 



Kaime v. Barter, (73 Mo. 316) 218 
Kaiser b. Weise, (86 Pa. St. 366) 276 
Kalbrier ». Leonard, (34 Ind. 497) 56, 

276 
Kane v. Baltimore, (15 Md. 240) 234, 

241 
Kane v. Fond du Lac, (40 Wis. 495) 

142 
Kane v. State, (17 Atl. E. 557, 70 Md. 

546) 399 
Kankakee v. Linden, (38 111. App. 

6o7) 328 
Kankakee v. People, (24111. App. 410) 

316 
Kankakee v. Potter, (119 111. 327) 278 
Kansas v. Swope, (79 Mo. 446) 110 
Kansas ». Topeka, (31 Kan. 452) 125 
Kansas City v. Clark, (68 Mo. 588) 161 
Kansas City v. Flanagan, (69 Mo. 22) 

165 
Kansas City v. Payne, (71 Mo. 159) 

282 
Kansas Cityj). Kichards, (34 Mo. App. 

521) 294 
Kansas City etc. Co. ■». Alderman, 

(47 Mo. 349) 185 
Kansas City B. & I. Co., In re, (35 

Kan. 557) 315 
Kansas etc. Co. v. Burge, (40 Kan. 

736) 47 
Kansas etc. Co. v. Miller, (2 Col. 442) 

353 
Kansas etc. Co. v. Payne, (49 Fed. E. 

114, 4 U. S. App. 77) 247, 249 
Kansas M. L. Ins. Co. v. Hill, (33 

Pac. 300) 397 
Kan. Pac. E. E. Co. v. Wyandotte 

Co., (16 Kan. 587) 326 a 
Kappes V. Appel, (14 Bradw. 179) 348 
Karst V. St. Paul etc. Co., (22 Minn. 

118) 292, 329 
Karwisch b. Atlanta, (44 Ga. 404) 134 
Kathraan b. New Orleans, (11 La. 

An. 145) 28 
Katzenberger v. Aberdeen, (121 U. 

S. 172) 17 
Kaufle V. Delaney, (25 W. Va. 410) 62 
Kavanagh v. Brooklyn, (38 Barb. 232) 

328, 349 
Kavanagh b. Mobile etc. E. E. Co., (4 

S. E. Eep. 113) 396 
Kavanaugh v. State, (41 Ala. 399) 67 
Kay V. Kerk, (24 Atl. E. 326) 354 
Kayser o. Trustees etc. of Brenen, 

(16 Mo. 88) 53 
Kean b. Asch, (27 N. J. Eq. 57) 397 
Keane b. Waterford, (29 N. E. E. 130. 

130 N. Y. 188) 344 
Kearney b. Ballentine, (23 Atl. E. 

821) 241 



Kearney b. London B. & S. C. Ey. 

Co., (L. E. 5 Q. B. 411) 342 
Kearney b. L. B. & S. C. E. W. Co., 

(40 L. J. Q. B. 2>5; 317 
Kearney b. Metro. E. E. Co., (129 N. 

Y. 76) 244 
Keasey v. Bricker, (60 Pa. St. 9) 365 
Keasy b. Louisville, (4 Dana, 154) 329 
Keating b. Kansas City, (84 Mo. 415) 

169, 327 
Keavrhacker v. Cleveland etc. E. E. 

Co., (3 Ohio St. 172) 301 
Keenan b. Goodwin, (24 Atl. 148) 87 
Keenau b. Perry, (24 Tex. 253) 83 
Keeney b. Jersey City, (47 N. J. L. 

449) 165, 170 
Keeler b. Milledge, (24 N. J. L. 142) 

87 
Keese ». Denver, (10 Colo. 112) 278 
Keckely b. Com'rs, (4 McCord, 257) 

153 
Kehrer v. Eichmond, (81 Va. 745) 

354 a 
Keith B. Brockton, (136 Mass. 119) 344 
Keith B. Easton, (2 Allen, 552) 342, 

346 
Keith B. Philadelphia, (27 Am. & 

Eng. Corp. Cas. 93) 56 
Keith B. Setter, (25 Kans. 100) 66 
Keithsburg b. Frick, (34 111. 405) 170 
Keizer b. Lovett, (85 Ind. 240) 396 
Keller B. Corpus Christi, (50 Tex. 

614) 116, 239 
Keller b. Hicks, (22 Cal. 460) 179 
Keller b. Hyde, (20 Cal. 593) 177 
Keller b. Savage, (17 Me. 444) 106, 108 
Keller b. State, (11 Md. 525) 258 
Keller v. State, (31 Iowa, 493) 261 
Kelley v. Edwards, (99 Cal. 460) 371 
Kelley v. Mayor etc., (4 Hill N. Y. 

265) 177 
Kelley b. Mayor etc. of N. Y.,(4 E. D. 

Smith, 291) 92 
Kelley b. McCorraick, (28 Mass. 318) 

192 i. 
Kellinger b. Forty Sec. etc. Co., (50 

N. Y. 206) 302 
Kellogg B. Ely, (15 Ohio St. 64) 278, 

.327 
Kellogg B. Hickman, (12 Colo. 256) 66 
Kellogg B. Janesville, (34 Minn. 132) 

339 
Kellogg B. Northampton, (4 Gray, 

65) 342, 346 
Kellogg B. Oshkosh, (14 Wis. 678) 66 
Kellogg B. Thompson, (66 N. Y. 88) 

294, 312, 354 
Kelly's Case, (8 Gratt. 8) 223 
Kellv V. Baltimore, (53 Md. 134) 395 
Kelly B. Chicago, (62 111. 279) 173, 

395 



xcu 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

Beferences are to Sections. 



Kelly V. Columbus, (41 Ohio St. 263) 

348 
Kelly u. Doody, (22 N. E. E. 1084, 116 

ISr. Y. 575) 352 
Kelly V. Mayor, (4 Hill, 263) 165, 178 
Kelly V. Mayor etc. of N. Y., (11 N. 

Y. 432) 92 
Kelly V. Meeks, (87 Mo. 396) 53, 55 
Kelly ». Milau, (21 Fed. Rep. 842)110 
Kelly D. Milwaukee, (18 Wis. 83) 328 
Kelly B. New York, (11 N". Y. 432) 347 
Kelly V. Pittsburgh, (85 Pa. St. 170, 

104 XJ. S. 78) 259, 276 
Kelly V. Wimberly, (61 Miss. 548) 368 
Kelly etc. v. Lawrence F. Co., (22 N. 

E. Rep. 639) 310 
Kelsey v. Glover, (15 Vt; 708) 342 
Kemble's App., (19 Atl. R. 946) 397 
Kemmerer v. State, (7 Neb. 133) 365 
Kemper v. Campbell, (26 Pac. 53) 

329 
Kemper ». Cincin. etc., (11 Ohio. 392) 

320 
Kemper v. Louisville, (14 Bush, 87) 

103, 329, 354 
Kenaday 5). Lawrence, (128 Mass. 318) 

350 & 
Kendall v. Albia, (73 Iowa, 241) 352 a 
Kendall v. Boston, (118 Mass. 234) 

337 
Kendall v. Camden, (47 N. J. L. 64) 

381 
Kendall v. Clinton, (53 Mass. 526) 79 
Kendall v. County, (12 111. App. 210) 

316 
Kendall v. King, (84 Eng. C. L. 483) 

182 
Kendall v. Post, (8 Oreg. 141) 245, 293 
Kendall p. Stokes, (3 How. 109) 91, 

359, 363 
Kendall b. U. S., (12 Pet. 584) 375 
Kennard v. Burton, (25 Me. 39) 321 
Kennard v. Louisiana, (92 U. S. 480) 

83 
Kennard Cass Co., U. S. C. C, (3 

Dillon C. C. 147) 193 
Kennedy b. Board, (2 Pa. St. 367) 120 
Kennedy v. Covington, (8 Dana, 61) 

133 
Kennedy v. Mayor, (73 N. Y. 365) 

336 a, 343 
Kennedy v. Newman, (1 Sandf. 187) 

250 
Kennedy v. Phelp, (10 La. An. 227) 

120 
Kennedy v. Sacramento, (19 Fed. 580) 

375 
Kennedy v. Sowden, (1 McMullen, 

328) 152, 154 
Kennedy v. Washington, (3 Cranch 

C. C. 595) 393 



Kennett's Petition, (24 N. H. 135) 

239 
Kennon v. Gilmer, (131 TT. S. 22) 352 a 
Kenosha v. Lamson, (9 Wall. 478) 

1916 
Kensington Com'rs v. Wood, (10 Pa. 

St. 93) 329, 354 a 
Kent V. Dickinson, (25 Gratt. 817) 

360 
Kent B. Cheyenne, (2 Wyom. 6) 328 
Kent V. Kentland, (62 Ind. 291) 259 
Kent V. Lincoln, (32 Vt. 591) 350 
Kent B. Worthington Brd., (L. R. 10 

Q. B. 118) 336 a 
Kentucky v. Denison, (24 How. 66) 

5, 8, 359 
Kentucky Seminary b. Wallace, (15 B. 

Mon. 35) 47, 49 
Kenzie v. Chicago, (2 Scam. 188) 51 
Keogh V. Wilmington, (4 Del. Ch. 

491) 173, 362 
Keokuk v. Keokuk, I. S. Dis., (53 

Iowa, 352) 346 
Keokuk v. Keokuk P. Co., (45 Iowa, 

196, 206) 133 
Keokuk b. Merriam, (44 Iowa, 432) 

373 
Keough V. Board, (31 N. E. R. 587) 

361 
Keough B. Holyoke, (31 N. E. E. 387) 

66 
Kepner v. Com., (40 Pa. St. 124) 96, 

145 
Kepple V. Keokuk, (61 Iowa, 653) 292 
Kern o. Isgrigg, (31 N. E. K. 455) 

396 
Kerr v. Dougherty, (79 N. Y. 327) 202 
Kerr v. Josliu, (66 Hun, 629) 396 
Kerr b. Preston, L. R. (6 Ch. Div. 463) 

335 
Kerr b. South Park Com'rs, (117 U. 

S. 379) 246, 248 
Kerr ». Trego, (47 Pa. St. 292) 87, 96 
Kerr v. W. S. R. Co., (27 N. E. 833) 

238 
Ketchum b. BuHalo, (14 N. Y. 356) 

128, 182, 200 
Ketchum v. Duncan, (96 U. S. 671) 

190 
Ketchum v. Newman, (116 N. Y. 422) 

131 
Kettering b. Jacksonville, (50 111. 39) 

160, 302 
Kettle B. Tremont, (1 Neb. 329) 308 
Keyes v. Tait, (19 Iowa, 123) 220 
Keys V. Marion Co., (41 Cal. 252) 308 
Keys B. Marcellus, (50 Mich. 439) 

343, 346 
Keys V. Westford, (17 Pick. 277) 110 
Keyser v. Sch. Dis., (35 N. H. 477) 

170 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



XCIU 



References are to Sections. 



Keyser v. McKissan, (2 Eawle, 139) 

88 
Keystone Cas. Appeal, (7 Atl. E. 579) 

259 
Kibele ». PhiladelpWa, (105 Pa. St. 

41) 350 rt 
Kidd V. Pearson, (128 U. S. 1) 121 
Kidder v. Peoria, (29 111. 77) 2J:1 
Kiernan, In re, (62 N. Y. 457) 278 
Kies V. Erie, (19 Atl. E. 942, 26 W. 

K. C. 112) 92 
Kile V. Yellowhead, (80 111. 208) 250 
Kiley ». Cranar, (51 Mo. 541) 106 
Kiley v. Kansas City, (87 Mo. 103) 

825, 327 a, 349 
Kilgus V. Trustees, (22 S. W. E. 750) 

270 
Killon V. Herman, (43 Kan. 37) 81 
Kimbe v. White W. V. Canal Co., (1 

111. 285) 243 
Kimball v. Chappell, (27 Abb. N. C. 

437)49 
Kimball b. Homan, (42 N. W. K. 167) 

311 
Kimball v. Kenosha, (4 Wis. 321) 308 
Kimball ». Lamprey, (19 N. H. 215) 

95, 373 
Kimball v. Marshall, (44 N. H. 465) 

99 
Kimball ». Kockland, (71 Me. 137) 

247 
Kimball v. Rosendale, (42 Wis. 407) 

187 a 
Kimble v. White W. V. Canal Co., 

(1 Ind. 285) 247 
Kimere v. State, (129 Ind. 589) 371 
Kincaid's App., (66 Pa. St. 412) 118 
Kincaid ». Hardin Co. , (53 Iowa, 430) 

325, 375 
Kine ». Defenbaugh, (64 111. 291) 245 
King 1). Ashwell, (12 East, 22) 161 
King V. Benton Co., (10 Greg. 512) 

279 
King V. Bower, (1 Barn. & Cr. 492) 

99 
King V. Buller, (8 East. 389) 99 
King i;. Butler, (15 Johns. 281) 168 
King V. Davenport, (98 111. 505) 130- 
King V. Dimpsey, (2 T. E. 96) 154 
King V. Doolittle, (1 Head, 77) 327 
King «. Eord, (70 Ga. 628) 129, 130 
King V. Glassop, (4 B. & A. 616) 156 
King V. Grant, (1 Barn. & Adol. 104) 

32 
King B. Hawkins, (16 Pac. Eep. 434) 

80 
King ». Hungerford Market Co., (4 

B. & Al. 427) 243 
King V. Hunter, (65 N. C. 203) 67 
King I'. Hyde, (21 L. J. May. Cas. 94) 

156 



King ». Johnson, (8 Q. B. 102) 156 
King B. Mahaska, (75 Iowa, 329) 170 
King V. Mayor, (1 Str. 385) 97 
King XI. Mayor, (12 T. E. 182) 85 
King V. MoLure, (84 N. C. 153) 82 
King V. Moore, (3 B. & Ad. 184) 120 
King V. N. Y. Cent. & H. E. E. E. 

Co., (66 N. Y. 181) 347 
King V. Norris, (1 Ld. Eaym. 337) 48 
King u. Oshkosh, (44 N. W. E. 745, 

75 Wis. 517) 324, 349 
Kip D. Paterson, (2 Dutch. 298) 156 
King V. Portland, (31 Pac. E. 482) 

278 
King V. Portland, (2 Oreg. 146) 259 a 
King V. Priest, (6 T. E. 538) 154 
King V. Reed, (43 N. J. L. 186) 277 
King V. Sadler, (4 C. & P. 218) 120 
King 13. Seale, (8 East, 568) 154 
King V. Sev. & Wye. E. E., (2 B. & 

Aid. 646) 363 
King ». Smith, (5 M. & S. 133) 154 
King V. Symonds, (1 East, 189) 154 
King V. Thompson, (2 T. E. 18) 156 
King V. Thompson, (87 Pa. St. 365) 

325 
King V. Williams, (2 Maule & Sel. 

141) 99 
King V. Wyatt, (2 Ld. Eaym. 1478) 

154 
Kingland v. Clark, (24 Mo. 24) 244 
Kingman ». Brockton, (26 K. E. E. 

968) 13, 184, 200 
Kingman ». Plymouth Co. Com'rs, 

(6 Cush. 306) 249 
Kingsburg «. Dedham, (13 Allen, 186) 

342 
Kingsbury B. Sch. Dis., (12 Mete. 99) 

95, 99, 100, 167 
Kingsland v. New York, (110 IST. \. 

569) 132, 133 
Kingsley v. Brooklyn, (78 N. Y. 200) 

171 
Kings Co. E. E. E. Co., In re, (105 

X. Y. 97) 305 
Kinmundy u. Mayham, (72 111. 462) 

110 
Kinney v. Troy, (108 N. Y. 567) 344 
Kinney v. Zimpleman, (36 Tex. 554) 

255 
Kinsey v. Kellogg, (65 Cal. Ill) 79 
Kinsley v. Chicago, (124 111. 359) 124 
Kinsley v. Monougaliela Co., (31 W. 

Va. 464) 174 
Kinsley ». Norris, (60 N. H. 131) 170 
Kinzie v. Chicago, (2 Scam. 188) 51 
Kirby v. Boylston Ass'n, (14 Gray, 

249) 346, 348 
Kirby v. Citizens St. Ey. Co., (48 Md. 

168) 294 
Kirby v. Shaw, (19 Pa. St. 258) 259 a 



xeiv 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Keferences are to Sections. 



Kirk V. King, (3 Pa. 436) 203 

Kirk !). Nowill, (1 Terra, K. 118, 124) 

154, 155 
Kirkbride b. Lafayette Co., (108 U. 

S. 208) 185 
Kirkeri). Cincinnati, (27 JST.E. R. 898) 

88 
Kirkhara o. Russell, (76 Va. 956) 110, 

150 
Kirkpatrick v. Knapp, (28 Mo. App. 

427) 348 
Kirkwood u. Be Soto, (87 Cal. 894) 

79 
Kirkwood v. Newbury, (122 N. T. 

571) 15 
Kirtland v. Macon, (66 Ga. 385) 301 
Kisler v. Cameron, (39 Ind. 488) 371 
Kistnerj). Indianapolis, (100 Ind. 210) 

327 a 
Kittanning Coal Co. v. Common- 

wealtli, (78 Pa. St. 100) 259 
Kittle V. Pfeiffer, (22 Cal. 490) 221 
Klamrath v. Albany, (53 Hun, 206) 98 
Klatt V. Milwaukee, (53 "Wis. 196) 343 
Klein v. Dallas, (8 S. W. Rep. 90) 339, 

351 
Klein v. N. O., (99 U. S. 149) 212 
Klein v. Smitli Co., (54 Miss. 254) 

365, 375 
Klein v. Warren Co., (54 Miss. 254) 

365, 375 
Kling !). City, (27 Mo. App. 231) 346 
Klinger v. Bickel, (117 Pa. St. 326) 

130 
Klinkeuer b. Sell. Dis., (11 Pa. St. 

444) 217 
Knapp V. Hoboken, (39 N. J. L. 394) 

182 
Knapp V. Mayor etc., (39 N. J. L. 

394) 177 
Knapp V. Swaney, (56 Mich. 345) 171 
Knarr, In re, (127 Pa. St. 554, 18 Atl. 

R. 639) 362 
Kuaust, In re, (101 N. Y. 188) 28 
Kneedler v. Norristown, (100 Pa. St. 

468) 150 
Kneeland b. Furlong, (20 Wis. 437) 

173 
Kneeland v. Milwaukee, (15 Wis. 

454) 270 
Kneeland v. Pittsburgh, (11 Atl. R. 

657) 261 
Kniper v. Louisville, (7 Bush, 599) 

110 
Knight V. CarroUton R. R. Co., (9 

La. An. 284) S02 
Knight B. Ferris, (6 Houst. 293) 308 
Knight B. Haight, (57 Cal. 169) 87 
Knight B. Town of Ashland, (61 Wis. 

233) 59, 67, 176 
Knight V. Wells, (1 Lut. 519) 40 



Knight B. Wells, (1 Lord Ryan, Eng.. 

80) 49 
Knoedler v. NorristowD, (100 Pa. St. 

368) 130 
Knolbloch v. Chicago etc. Co., (31 

Minn. 402) 136 
Knoblock b. R. R. Co., (31 Minn. 402) 

290, 306 
Knorr v. Miller, (5 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 

609) 302, 395 
Knowles v. Crampton, (11 Atl. Rep. 

593) 321 
Knowles b. Yates, (31 Cal. 82) 65 
Knowlton b. Pittsfield, (62 N. H. 5.35) 

346 
Knowlton v. Plantation No. 4, (14 

Me. 20) 170 
Knowlton ». Rock Co. Sup., (9 Wis. 

410) 269 
Knox V. New York, (55 Barb. 404) 

396 
Knox ». Metro. R. R. Co., 58 Hun, 

517) 249 
Knox B. Peterson, (21 Wis. 247) 282 
Knox Co. V. Goggin, (16 S. W. R. 684) 

209 
Knox Co. V. Aspinwall, (24 How. 376) 

369 
Knox Co. ». McComb, (19 Ohio St. 

320) § 208 
Knoxville b. Bell, (12 Lea, 157) 347 
Knoxville v. Bird, (12 La. 121) 130 
Knoxville v. King, (7 Lea, 441) 152 
Knoxville b. R. R., (50 N. W. R. 61) 

154 
Koch V. Bridges, (45 Miss. 247) 349 
Koch V. North Ave. R'y Co., (23 

Atl. Rep. 463) 306 a 
Koch B. R'y Co., (23 Atl. R. 463) 302 
Koehler b. Black R. Falls Iron Co., 

(2 Black, 715) 51 
KoenigB. Arcadia, (43 N. W. 734) 353 
Koester v. Ottumwa, (34 Iowa, 41) 

343 
Kohlhapp B. W. Roxbury, (120 Mass. 

596) 108 
Konrad b. Rogers, (70 Wis. 492) 208 
KoonecB. Russell, (103 N. C. 179) 14 
Koons V. Lucas, (52 Iowa, 177) 292 
Kooutz V. Burgess, (64 Md. 134) 88 
Kopf V. Utler, (101 Pa. St. 27) 312 
Koppikus V. Commissioners, (16 Cal. 

248) 245 
Korn V. Met. Ry. Co., (59 Hun, 505) 

244 
Koshkonong v. Burton, (104 TJ. S. 

668) 192 6, 312 
Kosmak b. New York, (117 N. Y. 

361) 294 
Kosemisko v. Slamberg, (9 So. R. 297) 

119 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



XCV 



!^eferences are to Sections. 



Kountze v. Omaha, (5 Dillon, 443) 

56, 276 
Kramer v. Cleveland Co., (5 Ohio St. 

140) 232 
Kranz v. Baltimore, (64 Md. 491) 355 
Kreigh v. Chicago, (80 111. 407) 289 
Kretsoh v. Helme, (45 Ind. 438) 172 
Krickle v. Com., (1 B. Mon. 361) 1.58 
Kroop V. Forman, (31 Mich. 144) 232, 

279 
Kucheman v. Chicago etc. Co., (46 

Iowa, 366) 302, 303 
Kuhn V. Chicago, (30 111. App. 203) 

159 
Kumler v. Silsbee, (88 Ohio St. 445) 

301 
Kundinger v. Saginaw, (59 Mich. 355) 

103, 241 
Kiinklei). Franklin, (13 Minn. 127) 139 
Kunz V. Troy, (104 JST. T. 344) 347, 

349, 3506 
Kupfer V. So. Parish, (12 Mass. 185) 

99 
Kyle V. Board, (94 Ind. 115) 316 
Kyle V. Malin, (8 Ind. 34) 110, 256, 278 
Kynaston v. Shrewsbury, (2 Stra. 

1051) 95 
Kyne v. Wilmington etc. Co., (14 Atl. 

K. 922) 303 



Labette Co. Com'rs v. Moulton, (112 

U. S. 217) 368, 375 
Laboiirdette v. Municipality, (2 La. 

An. 527) 100 
Labrie v. Manchester, (59 N. H. 120) 

87 
La Clef ». Concordia, (41 Kan. 423, 

21 Pac. E. 272) 92 
Lacon v. Page, (48 111. 499) 346, 349 
Lacour v. New York, (3 Duer, 406) 

327, 336 a, 355 
Ladd ».■ Dickey, (84 Me. 190) 282 
Ladd V. Foster, (31 Fed. E. 827) 121 
Ladd V. French, (6 N. Y. Sup. 56) 

293 
Ladd V. Sale, (57 N". H. 210) 80 
Ladd V. Spencer, (31 Pac. E. 374) 279 
Lade v. Shepherd (2 Stra. 1004) 217, 

224 
Ladies Dec. Art Club, (25 W. N. C. 

75) 120 
Lafargo v. Magee, (6 Cal. 285) 177 
Lafayette ». Fowler, (84 Ind. 140) 113, 

397 
Lafayette v. Bush, (19 Ind. 326) 247 
Lafayette v. Jenners, (10 Ind. 79) 288 
Lafayette v. Nagle, (113 Ind. 425) 330 
Lafayette v. Spencer,, (14 Ind. 399) 

329 
Lafayette v. State, (69 Ind. 218) 75 



Lafayette v. Timberlake, (88 Ind. 330) 

327, 331 
Lafayette v. Wortman, (107 Ind. 404) 

329 
Lafayette & I. E. E. Co. v. Smith, (6 

Ind. 249) 243, 247 
Lafayette etc. E. E. v. Geiger, (34 Ind. 

185) 24 
Lailin v. Tearney, (23 N. E. E. 389) 

120 
LaGrange v. Cutler, (6 Ind. 354) 79 
LaGrange v. Treas., (24 Mich. 468) 

108 
Lahr's Case, (104 N. Y. 268) 297,305. 

306 
Laird v. De Soto, (22 Fed. Eep. 421) 

32,42 
Lake v. Williamsburgh, (4 Den. 520) 

178, 281 
Lake Co. v. Eollins, (130 U. S. 662, 

26 Am. Eng. Cor. Cas. 465) 177 
Lake etc. Water Co. v. Contra Costa 

Co., (67 Cal. 669) 234 
Lake Erie etc. Co. v. Michener, (117 

Ind. 465) 39 6 
Lake Erie W. & St. L. E, E. Co. v. 

Heath, (9 Ind. 558) 245 
Lake Sliore etc. Co. v. Cincinnati etc. 

Co., (116 Ind. 578) 279 
Lake Shore etc. E. E. Co. v. Chicago 

etc. E. E. Co., (97111. 506) 144, 238, 

302 
Lake Shore etc. Co. v. Chicago, (33 

N. E. E. 602) 279 
Lake Shore & M. S. E. E. Co. v. Chi- 
cago, (56 111. 454) 263 
Lake Shore & M. S. E. Co. v. Dunkirk, 

(20 N". Y. S. 596) 282 
Lake View v. Lebahn, (9 K. E. E. 

269, 120 111. 92) 215, 221 
Lake View v. Letz, (44 111. 81) 118 
Lake View v. Eose Hill Cem. Co., 

(70 111. 192) 118 
Lake View v. Tate, (130 111. 247) 136 
Lakin v. Ames, (10 Cush. 198) 67 
Lamar u. Wilkius, (28 Ark. 34) 360 
Lamar County ». Clements, (49 Tex. 

847) 218 
Lamb v. Lane, (4 Ohio St. 167) 245 
Lamb v. Lynd, (44 Pa. St. 336) 105, 

371 
Lamb b. People, (113 111. 137) 96 
Lamb v. Shays, (14 Iowa, 567) 212 
Lamb v. St. Louis & W. Ey. Co., (33 

Mo. App. 489) 306 a 
Lambar v. St. Louis, (15 Mo. 610) 

354 a 
Lamborn v. Dickinson Co., (97 U. S. 

181) 327 
Lamculle etc. Co. v. Fairfield, (51 Vt, 

257) 195 d 



XCVl 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Keferences are to Section^. 



Lamm v. Port Deposit etc., (49 Md. 

233) 170 
Lamoille v. Fairfield, (51 Vt. 257) 

195 a 
Lamsden v. Cross, (10 W's. 282 259 a 
Lamville etc. Co. v. Fairfield, (51 Vt. 
. 257) 195 
Lancaster v. Clayton, (o S. W. K. 

864) 256, 270 
Lancaster v. Fulton, (24 W. N. C. 

401) 79 
Lancaster v. Rush, (52 N. W. K. 837) 

276 
Lan. Can. Co. v. Parnably, (11 A. & 

E. 223) 324, 349 
Lane. Co. v. Fulton, (18 Atl. Rep. 

384) 79 
Lancy v. Bryant, (30 Me. 466) 107 
Land v. Coffman, (50 Mo. 243) 207 
Landee v. S. I. R. Co., (53 N. Y. 450) 

102 
Lander v. Sell. Dis., (33 Me. 239) 95 
Land Grant etc. Co. v. Davis Co., (6 

Kan. 256) 186 
Landis v. Vineland, (23 Atl. R. 357) 

150 
Landon v. Lund, (38 N. W. Rep. 699) 

348 
Lane, Ex parte, (76 Cal. 587, 18 Pac. 

Rep. 677) 158 
Lane v. Boston, (125 Mass. 519) 330 
Lane v. Embden, (72 Me. 354) 190 a, 

216 
Lane v. Kennedy, (13 Ohio St. 42, 49) 

312 
Lane v. Saginaw, (53 Mich. 442) 241 
Lane v. Schamp, (20 N. J. Eq. 82) 

196, 392 
Lane Co. d. Oregon, (7 Wall. 80) 282 
Lang V. Board, (22 N. E. R. 667) 79 
Lang V. Smith, (7 Bing. 284) 191 
Langam v. Atchison, (35 Kan. 318) 

145, 352 
Langdon v. Castleton, (30 Vt. 285) 

176 
Laugdon v. Mayor, (93 N. Y. 129) 10 
Langsdale t. Bonton, (12 Ind. 467) 

108 
Langsdale v. Nicklans, (38 Ind. 289) 

283 
Langston v. S. C. R. R., (2 S. C. 248) 

192, 192 6 
Langworthy v. Dubuque, (13 Iowa, 

86) 61 
Lanier v. Macon, (59 Ga. 187) 261 
Lans. V. County Treas., (1 Dillon C. 

C. 522) 194, 369 
Lansing v. Toolan, (37 Mich. 152) 

343, 350 ' 

Lansing v. Van Garder, (24 Mich. 

456) 171 



Lapham ». Curtis, (5 Vt. 371) 353 
Lapleine v. Morgan etc. Co., (40 La. 

An. 661) 352a 
La Plume v. Gardner, (23 Atl. R. 899) 

29 
Larimie Co. ». Albany Co., (92 TJ. S. 

307) 2, 8, 55 

Laredo v. Macdonnell, (52 Tex. 511) 

170 
Largen v. State, (13 S. W. R. 161, 76 

Tex. 323) 38 
Larkin v. Burl. C. R. & Ry. Co., (52 

N. W. R. 480) 136, 146 
Larkin v. Saginaw Co., (11 Mich. 88) 

328 
Larmon v. District, (5 Mackey, 330) 

350 a 
Larned v. Briscoe, (29 N. W. R. 22, 

62 Mich. 393) 87, 92, 329 
Larsen v. Grand Forks, (3 Dak. 307) 

339, 345 
La Salle Co. v. Simons, (10 111. 513) 

326 a 
La Salle etc. Co. v. Donoghue, (127 

111: 27) 259 
Latlirop V. Bank, (8 Dana, 114) 51 
Lathrop v. Cent. la., (69 Iowa, 105) 

108, 310 
Lathrop v. Sunderland, (23 Atl. R. 

619) 31 
Lanensteia v. Fond du Lac, (28 Wis. 

336) 113, 200 
Laughlin v. Washington, (63 Iowa, 

652) 223, 226 
Launder v. Chicago, (111 111. 291) 124 
Launtz v. People, (113 111. 137) 100 
Lauteryung, In re, (48 N. T. Super. 

308) 118 

Lavalle v. People, (68 HI. 252) 380 
Laver v. McGlachlin, (28 AVis. 364) 88 
Law V. Dodd, (1 Ex. 845) 129 
Law B. Johnston, (118 Ind. 261) 279 
Law V. Pettengill, (12 N. H. 340) 106 
Lawden, In re, (89 N. Y. 548) 277 
Lawe V. Kaukauna, (70 Wis. 306, 35 

N. W. Rep. 561) 218 
Lawler v. Boom Co., (56 Me. 443)329 
Lawless v. Troy, (63 Hun, 632) 344 
Lawrence, In re, (69 Col. 608) 125 
Lawrence v. Jeff. Par. Pol. Jury, (35 

La. An. 601) 218 
Lawrence v. Killam, (11 Kan. 499) 

163, 291 ; 

Lawrence v. Mt. Vernon, (35 Me. 100) i 

342 
Lawrence ». Nahant, (136 Mass. 477) 

294 
Lawrenoeburg v. Wurst, (16 Ind. 337) 

Lawrence etc. Co. i-. Williams, (35 
Ohio St. 168) 302 



Lawrence Co. v. K. W. E, 

(32 Pa. St. 144) 198 
Lawrence Co. App., (67 Pa. St. 87) 

198 
Lawson v. Seattle, (33 Pac. 347) 324 
Lawthorne, Ex parte, (18 Gratt. 85) 

82 
Lawton v. Comm'rs, (3 Caines, 179) 

105 
Laycock v. Baton Eouge, (35 La. An. 

475) 165, 189 a 
Layton ». New Orleans, (12 La. An. 

515) 15, 60 
Lea V. Hernandez, (10 Tex. 137) 38 
Lea B. State, (10 Lea, 478) 42 
Leach I!. CargiU, (60 Mo. 316) 265, 

278 
Leake v. Philadelphia, (24 Atl. 351) 

306 
Leame v. Bray, (3 East, 593) 321 
Learned v. Burlington, (2 Am. Law 

Reg. 394) 266 
Lease v. Howard, (14 Johns. 479) 284 
Leat V. Tilson, (72 Cal. 404) 279 
Leathers v. Aiken, (9 Fed. Rep. 679) 

133 
Leavenworth v. Booth, (15 Kans. 627) 

123, 258 
Leavenworth v. Barnes, (94 IT. S. 70) 

196 
Leav. V. Kinney, (99 U. S. 623) 86, 

370 
Leavenworth v. Norton, (1 Kan. 432) 

256 
Leavenworth v. Rankin, (2 Kan. 357) 

281 
Leavenworth etc. R. R. Co. v. Platte 

Co., (42 Mo. 171) 189 
Leav. Co. v. Sellew, (99 U. S. 624) 

86 
Leavit v. Cambridge, (120 Mass. 157) 

120 
Leavitt v. Eastman, (77 Me. 117) 108 
Leazure v. Hillegas, (7 Serg. & Rawle, 

313) 207 
Lebanon o. Heath, (47 N. H. 353) 51 
Lebanon ». O. & M. R. R. Co., (77 

111. 5.S9) 397 
Lebanon v. Warren Co. Com'rs, (9 

Ohio, 80) 219, 226 
LeClaire v. Springfield, (49 111. 476) 

347 
LeClef V. Concordia, (21 Pac. Eep. 

272) 324 
LeClerq v. Gallipolis, (7 Ohio, pt. 1, 

218) 226, 308, 396 
LeCouteulx v. Buffalo, (33 N. Y. 333) 

200 
Ledbetter v. State, (10 Ala. 241) 84 
LeDuc V. Hastings, (38 N. W. E. 803) 

254, 270 

vii 



TABLE OP CASES CITED 

References are to Sections. 

E. Co., 



XCVll 



Ledwich v. McKim, (53 N. Y. 307) 

191 b, 195 6 
Lee V. Lake, (14 Mich. 12) 217, 21g, 

219 
Lee V. Mound Station, (118 111. 304) 

226 
Lee V. Minneapolis, (24 Minn. 13) 

329, 354 a 
Lee V. Pembroke etc. Co., (57 Me. 481) 

354 
Lee V. Sandy Hill, (40 N. Y. 442) 338 
Lee V. Templeton, (13 Gray, 476) 326 
Lee V. Thomas, (49 Mo. 112) 56 
Lee V. Wallis, (1 Kenyon, 295) 154, 

155 
Lee V. Yarborough, (85 Ala. 590) 315 
Lee Co. Sup. ■o. Eogers, (7 Wall. 175) 

14, 254, 369 
Leeds, In re, (53 N. Y. 400) 172 
Leeds v. Eichmond, (102 Ind. 372) 

289, 294, 338, 347 
Leeds & Co. v. Hardy, (11 So. 1) 282 
Leemau v. Hinton, (1 Dur. 37) 83 
Leeper v. South Bend, (106 Ind. 375) 

276 
Lees V. Drainage Com'rs, (24 111. 

App. 487) 398 
Lees V. Manchester, (11 East, 645) 320 
Leete v. Pilgrim etc. Ch., (14 Mo. 

App. 590) 120 
Lefever v. Detroit, (2 Mich. 586) 282 
Legg V. Annapolis, (42 Md. 203) 359, 

368 
Legrand v. Sidney College, (5 Munf. 

324) 51 
Lehigh v. Hoffart, (116 Pa. St. 119) 

325, 353 
Lehigh Bridge Co. ». Lehigh, (4 

Eawle, 24) 353 
Lehigh C. Co. v. Chicago, 26 Fed. 

Eep. 415) 330 
Lehigh Valley Coal Co. o. Chicago, 

(26 Fed. Eep. 415) 245 
Lehigh Valley v. Trone, (28 Pa. St. 

206) 132 
Lehigh W. Co. App., (102 Pa. St. 515) 

113 
Lehman u. Brooklyn, (29 Barb. 234) 

337, 352 a 
Lehman v. Eobinson, (59 Ala. 219) 

279 
Lehn «. San Francisco, (66 Cal. 76) 

328, 355 
Leecht v. Burlington, (34 N. W. E. 

494) 270 
Leiter v. Pike, (127 111. 287) 244 
Leland «.' Portland, (2 Oreg. 46) 218 
Leloup V. Port of Mobile, (127 U. S. 

640) 258 
Leman v. New York, (5 Bosw. 414) 

338 



XCVIU 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

Keferences are to Sections. 



Lemington v. Blodgett, (37 Vt. 215) 

164 
Lemon v. Hayden, (13 Wis. 159) 222 
Lemon v. Peyton, (64 Miss. 161) 24 
Lenawee Co. Bk. v. Adrian, (33 N. 

W. K. 304) 397 
Lennig v. Ocean City Assoc, 41 N. 

J. Eq. 24) 227 
Lennon v. N. Y., (55 N. T. 361) 17, 

250, 280, 301 
Leonard o. Brooklyn, (71 N. T. 498) 

212 
Leonard v. Canton, (35 Miss. 189) 169 

326 a 
Leonardo Herr v. Baton Eouge, (4 

So. 240) 200, 218, 225 
Le Pointe v. O'Malley, (47 Mis. 332) 

59 
Leroux v. Bay Circ. J., (45 Mich. 416) 

365 
Les Bois v. Bramell, (4 How. 449) 

229 
Lesley v. White, (1 Speers L. 31) 164 

325 
Leslie v. Lewiston, (62 Me. 488) 340 
Leslie v. St. Louis, (47 Mo. 474) 241, 

249 
Leslie v. White, (1 Spears, 31) 51 
Letch B. Wells, (48 N. T. 586) 195 d 
Levasser v. Washbui-n, (11 Gratt. 572) 

312 
Levasseur v. Havestraw, (63 Hun, 

627) 344 
Levering v. Mayor, (7 Humph. 553) 52 
Levyi). Mayor, (1 Sandf. 465) 327 a, 

331 
Levy V. Salt Lake City, (3 Utah, 63) 

110, 336 
Lewellen v. Lockhardts, (21 Gratt. 

570) 123 
Lewenthal v. Kew York, (5 Lans. 

532) 349 
Lewis V. Atlanta, (77 Ga. 756) 345, 348 
Lewis V. Atlas etc. Ins. Co., (61 Mo. 

534) 352 a 
Lewis V. Barbour Co., (105 U. S. 739) 

1916, 195 d 
Lewis V. Bourdon Co., (12 Kan. 186) 

189 
Lewis V. Elizabeth, (25 N. J. Eq. 298) 
Lewis V. Frankfort, (79 Ind. 446) 391 

92 
Lewis V. Marion, (14 Ohio St. 515) 

362 
Lewis V. Marshall, (16 Kan. 102) 371 
Lewis V. Mayor, (9 C. B. N. S. 401) 

176 
Lewis V. Oliver, (4 Abb. Pr. Rep. 121) 

86 
Lewis V. Eochester, (9 C. B. X. S. 

401) 176 



Lewis V. San Antonio, (7 Tex. 288) 

220 
Lewis V. Seattle, (32 Pac. K. 794) 246, 

255 
Lewis V. Sherman Co., (1 McCrary, 

377) 196 
Lewis V. Sherman Co., (5 Fed. Eep. 

269) 184 
Lewis V. Shreveport, (108 U. S. 282) 

170 
Lewis ». United States, (Morris, 199) 

124 
Lewis V. Washington, (5 Gratt. 265) 

235 
Lewiston V. Proctor, (27 111. 414) 156 

375 
Lexington Ave., In re, (63 Hun, 629) 

278 
Lexington v. Butler, (15 Wall. 296) 

193 6 
Lexington v. Long, (31 Mo. 369) 103 
Lexington v. McQuillan's Heirs, (9 

Dana, 513) 259 a 
Lexington v. MuUiken, (7 Gray, 280) 

360, 375 
Lexington v. Sargent, (64 Miss. 621) 

398 
Lexington etc. Co. v. Applegate, (8 

Dana, 289) 302, 303 
Libbey v. Ellsworth, (32 Pac. R. 228) 

281 
Liberty Bell, (23 Fed. E. 843) 395 
Liberty v. Hmd, (74 Me. 101) 92 
Liddell, Ex parte, (29 Pac. E. 251, 

93 Cal. 633) 29 
Life Assoc, of Am. v. St. Louis Co. 

Assessors, (49 Mo. 512) 270 
Liffin V. Beverly, (145 Mass. 549) 350 6 
Ligare v. Chicago, (23 N. E. E. 934) 

121 
Lilly V. Taylor, (88 N. C. 489) 212, 375 
Lima v. L. Cem. Ass'n, (42 Ohio St. 

128) 283 
Limestone Co. v. Eather, (48 Ala. 

433) 186, 364, 375 
Linck 1). Litchfield, (31 N. E. E. 123) 

47, 278 
Lincoln v. Boston, (148 Mass. 578) 

331 o 
Lincoln v. Chapin, (132 Mass. 470) 91 
Lincoln ». Smith, (45 N. W. E. 41) 

344, 346 
Lincoln v. Stockton, (75 Me. 141) 169 
Lincoln ». Warren, (23 N. Pac. Kep. 

45)309 
Lincoln v. Worcester Co., (8 Cush. 

55) 326 
Lincoln v. Yeoman, (51 N. W. E. 844) 

83 
Lincoln Ave. Co. v. Daum, (79 111. 

299) 320 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 

Jleferences are to Sections. 



XCIX 



Lindliolm v. St. Paul, (19 Minn. 245) 

346 
Lindsay v. Chicago, (115 111. 120) 148 
Lindsay v. Omaha, (46 N. W. R. 627) 

308 
Lindsey v. Sackett, (20 Tex. 516) 82, 

361 
Lindsley v. Tiickett, (20 Tex. 516) 371 
Linega v. Rittenhouse, (94 111. 208) 

381 
Lining v. Charlston Council,' (1 Mc- 

Cord, 345) 268 
Linnehan v. Rollins, (137 Mass. 123) 

347 
Linton b. Athens, (53 Ga. 588) 56 
Lippilman v. Cincinnati, (40 Cir. Ct. 

357) 113 
Llppincott V. Lasher, (44 N. J. Eq. 

120) 299 
Lipps V. Philada., (38 Pa. St. 503) 277 
Liquidators etc. ■». Coleman, (L. K. 

6 E. &. S. App. C. 189) 166 
Liquidators v. Municipality, (6 La. 

An. 21) 14, 194 
List V. Wheeling, (7 W. Va. 501) 184, 

188 
Litch V. Wentworth, (71 111. 146) 397 
Litchfield v. Ballon, (114 U. S. 190) 

189 a 

Litchfield ». Vernon, (41 N. Y. 123) 

301 
Little V. Cogswell, (25 Pac. R. 727) 32 
Little t!. Madison, (49 Wis. 605) 92, 

333 
Little V. Madison, (42 Wis. 643) 300, 

331a 
Little V. Merrill, (10 Pick. 543) 95 
Little V. Union Township, (40 N. J. 

L. 397) 15 
Littlefield v. Maxwell, (31 Me. 134) 

225 
Little Miami etc. R. R. Co. v. Dray- 
ton, (23 Ohio St. 510) 238, 302 
Little Miami R. R. Co. v. CoUett, (6 

Ohio St. 182) 245 . 
Little Rock v. Bank, (98 U. S. 308) 

183 
Little Rock v. Barton, (33 Ark. 436) 

261 
Little Bock ». Parish, (36 Ark. 166) 

53 
Little Bock v. State Bk., (3 Eng. 227) 

190 a 

Little Rock v. Willis, (27 Ark. 572) 

349 
Little Rock v. Woodruff, (14 N. E. 

E. 18) 246 
Littler v. Lincoln, (1Q6 111. 353) 217, 

222 
Littler ». McCord, (38 111. Ap. 147) 

282 



Littleton v. Richardson, (34 N. H. 

179, 187) 348 
Livaudais v. Municipality, (5 La. An. 

8)221 
Livezey v. Philadelphia, (64 Pa. St. 

106) 353 
Livingston v. Albany, (41 Ga. 21) 269 
Livingston v. Mayor, (8 Wend. 85) 

221, 248, 286 
Livingston v. McDonald, (21 Iowa, 

160) 355 
Livingston v. Paducah, (80 Ky. 656) 

259 a 
Livingston v. Peppin, (31 Ala. 542) 

119, 163, 174 
Livingston Co. v. Welder, (64 111. 

427) 395 
Liverpool etc. Co. v. Board, (11 So. 

R. 91) 272 
Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 

(10 Wall. 566) 258 
Lloyd V. New York, (5 N. Y. 369) 

2, 8, 92, 324, 350, 355 
Lloyd V. Silver Bow Co., (28 Pac. R. 

453) 18, 79 
Loan V. Boston, (106 Mass. 450) 340, 

346 
Loan Assn. v. Topeka, (20 Wall. 655) 

194 a 
Locke V. Cen. City, (4 Colo. 65) 79 
Locke V. Rochester, (5 Lansing, 11) 98 
Lockett V. Ft. Worth Co., (78 Tex. 

211) 120 
Lockhart v. Craig St. Ry. Co., (139 

Pa. St. 419, 21 Atl. Rep. 26) 306 a 
Lockhart v. Troy, (48 Ala. 581) 17, 28 
Lockwood V. Kew York, (2 Hilton, 

66) 347 
Lockwood ». N. Y. & N. H. R. R. 

Co., (37 Conn. 391) 225 
Lockwood V. St. Louis, (24 Mo. 20) 

248, 259 a, 271, 397 
Lockwood V. Weston, (23 Atl. R. 9) 

273 
Lodi V. State, (18 Atl. R. 749) 27 
Loeser v. Leebman, (14 N. Y. S. 569) 

396 
Loeser v. Redd, (14 Bush, 18) 259 a 
Loewer v. Sedalia, (77 Mo. 431) 352 
Loftus, In re, (61 Hun, 627) 365 
Logan V. Buck, (3 Utah, 301) 110 
Logan V. Pyne, (43 Iowa, 524) 110, 

134, 144 
Logan V. Western Co., (87 Ga. 533) 

27 
Logan Co. v. Lincoln, (81 lU. 156) 

160, 312 
Logansport v. Blackmore, (17 Ind. 

318) 165 
Logansport ». Dunn, (8 Ind. 378) 

219, 221 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Befereuces are to Sections. 



Logansport v. Crockett, (64 Ind. 319) 

98, 106, 161 
Logansport v. Deck, (70 Ind. 64) 

347 
Logansport v. Dicle, (70 Ind. 65) 92 
Logansport o. Dykeman, (116 Ind. 15) 

165, 189 a 
Logansport v. Humphrey, (84 Ind. 

487) 65 
Logansport v. Justice, (74 Ind. 378) 

350 6 
Logansport v. La Rosa, (99 Ind. 117, 

8 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 512) 61 
Logansport v. Wright, (25 Ind. 512) 

325, 355 
Loker ». Brookline, (13 Pick. 343, 

348) 169, 344 
Lombard v. East Towas, (48 N. W. 

E. 947), 3.50 d 
Lomber v. Mayor etc. (7 Alb. Pr. E. 

248) 2, 8 
London v. Barnard, (22 Conn. 552) 

110 
London v. Headen, (76 K C. 72) 78 
London v. Lynn, (1 H. Bl. 206) 369 
London v. Wood, (12 Mod. 686) 101, 

154 
Londonderry v. Andover, (28 Vt. 

416) 31 
Londonderry v. Derry, (8 N. H. 320) 

67 
Long V. Battle Creek, (39 Mich. 323) 

108, 222 
Long V. Duluth, (51 N. W. Eep. 913) 

144. 
Long V. Fuller, (68 Pa. St. 170) 234 
Long V. Harrisburg, (126 Pa. St. 143, 

19 Atl. E. 89) 246 
Long B. Talley, (91 Mo. 595) 106 
Long V. Taxing District, (7 Lea, 134) 

121 
Long Island E. E. Co. v. Brooklyn, 

(8N.Y. 8.805)303 
Longmore v. G. W. E. Co., (35 L. J. 

C. P. 135) 121 
Longworth v. Cincinnati, (34 Ohio, 

St. 101) 248 
Longworth v. Cincinnati, (48 Ohio 

St. 637) 247 
Longworth's Ex'rs v. Evansville, (32 

Ind. 322) 26 
Look, In re, (1 Con. Sur. 403) 49 
Lord V. Anoka, (36 Minn. 176) 95, 97 
Lord V. Bigelow, (6 Vt. 465) 25 
Lord V. Orconto, (47 Wis. 386) 113 
Lord V. Parker, (83 Me. 530) 282 
Lord Colchester v. Kewney, (L. E. 1 

Exch. 368) 270 
Lorillard v. Monroe, (11 N. Y. 392) 

67,325,338 a 
Loring v. Small, (50 Iowa, 271) 212 



Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Water 

Co., (61 Cal. 65) 261 
Los Angeles v. So. Pac. E. E. Co., (67 

Cal. 433) 144, 274 
Los Angeles etc. v. Los Angeles, (30 

Pac. E. 523) 229 
Los Angeles G. Co. ». Toberman, 

(61 Cal. 199) 165 
Lot V. Eoss, (38 Ala. 156) 256, 265, 

267 
Lotz V. Eead. I. Co., (10 Pa. Co. Ct. 

E. 497) 224 
Louis V. Allen (13 Mo. 400) 55 
Louis V. Brown Tp., (109 TJ. S. 162) 

195 d 
Louis V. Shreveport, (3 Woods, 205) 

187 a 
Louisen v. Hauee, (1 Wyo. 570) 397 
Louisiana v. Hardin, (11 Mo. 551) 

90 
Louisiana v. New Orleans, (102 U. S. 

203) 194 
Louisiana v. Pilsbury, (105 U. S. 301) 

161, 258 
Louisiana v. St. Martin's Par., (Ill 

U. S. 716) 364 
Louisiana v. Wood, (102 U. S. 294) 

164, 193 6 
LouisianaBk. ». N. O. Co., (3 La. An. 

294) 110 
Louisiana ex rel. v. St. Martins etc., 

(Ill U. S. 716) 375 
Louisville i'. Bank, (3 B. Mon. 144) 

133 
Louisville v. Commonwealth, (1 Du- 

vall, 285) 21, 200, 212, 271 
Louisville v. Henning, (1 Bush, 381) 

261, 327 
Louisville v. Hyatt, (2 B. Mon. 177) 

278 
Louisville v. Kean, (18 B. Mon. 9) 

362, 368, 370 
Louisville v. Liebfried, (17 S. W. R. 

870) 229 
Louisville v. McKenrey, (7 Bush, 651) 

106, 108 
Louisville v. Murphy, (18 Eng. Cor. 

Cas. 421) 176 
Louisville v. EoUing Mill, (3 Bush, 

416) 292 
Louisville v. Shreveport, (27 La. An. 

623) 186 
Louisville b. University, (15 B. Mon. 

642) 9, 11, 13 
Louisville b. Webster, (108 111. 414) 

130 
Louisville v. Wible, (84 Ky. 290) 113 
Louisville etc. Co. v. Asher, (15 S. 

W. E. 517) 246 
Louisville etc. Co. b. Barrett, (16 S. 

W. R. 278) 246 



TABLK OF CASES CITED. 

Keferences are to Sections. 



ci 



Louisville etc. Co. ». Com., (12 S. W. 

E. 1064) 326 a 
Louisville etc. Co. ». Davidson Co., 

(1 Smead, 637) 186 
Louisville etc. Co. v. Falvey, (104 Ind. 

409) 352 a 
Louisville etc. Co. v. Ingram, (14 S. 

W. R. 534) 246 
Louisville etc. Co. x>. Louisville, (8 

Bush, 415) 294, 302 
Louisville etc. Co. ». Shanks, (94 Ind. 

598) 352 a 
Louisville etc. Co. v. Snider, (20 N. 

W. R. 284) 352 a 
Louisville etc. Co. ». State, (3'Head, 

523) 400 
Louisville etc. v. Thompson, (10*7 

Ind. 442) 317, 353 
Louisville etc. Co. v. Wood, (113 Ind. 

544) 352 a 
Louisville & P. Canal Co. v. Com- 
monwealth, (7 B. Mon. 160) 270 
Louisville & N. A. etc. v. State, (25 

Ind. 177) 359 
Louisville & N. R. Co. ». Orr, (15 S. 

W. R. 8) 120 
Louisville & N". W. R. Co. v. Bullett 

Co., (17 S. W. R. 632) 187a 
Louisville Br. Co. m. Louisville, (81 

Ky. 189) 42, 56, 272 
Louisville Gas Co. v. Citizens' Gas 

Co., (115 U. S. 683) 144 
Louisville N. A. & Chic. Ry. Co. ». 

Shires, (108 111. 617) 31 
Louisville N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. 

State, (122 Ind. 443) 259 a 
Loughbridge v. Harris, (42 Ga. 500) 

232 
Loughran u. Des Moines, (72 Iowa, 

772) 354 
Loute B. Allegheny Co., (10 Pitts. L. 

J. 24) 375 
Love V. Balhr, (47 Cal. 364) 79 
Love ». Jer. City, (40 N. J. L. 456) 79 
Love u. Schenck, (12 Ired. 304) 12, 67 
Lovejoy v. Dolan, (10 Cush. 495) 
Lovejoy v. Whipple, (18 Vt. 379) 190 a 
Lovengarth d. Bloomington, (71 111. 

238) 352 
Lovett !). Steam Sawmill Asso., (6 

Paige, 54) 211 
Lovingston v. Wider, (53 111. 302) 255 
Low 1-. Commissioners, (R. M. Charlt. 

302) 76, 156 
Low B. Lewis, (46 Cal. 549) 271 
Lowe ». Howard County, (94 Ind. 

553) 212 
Lowe B. Omaha, (50 K. W. R. 760) 

330 
Lowell B. Boston, (111 Mass. 463) 

188, 254, 294 



Lowell B. Boston etc. Corp., (23 Pick, 

24) 306, 347 
Lowell B. French, (6 Cush. 223) 282 
Lowell B. Prop'rs, (104 Mass. 18) 313 
Lowell B. Spalding, (4 Cush. 277) 348 
Lowell B. Watertown, (58 Mich. 568) 

352 
Lowell B. Wentworth, (6 Cush. 221) 

279, 281 
Lowell B. Wheelock, (11 Cush. 391) 

108, 281 
Lowell B. Wyman, (12 Cush. 273, 276) 

335 
Lowenstein v. Myers, (20 N. T. S. 

761) 118 
Lower Maoungie b. Merkhoffer, (71 

Pa. St. 276) 343 
Lowery b. Delphi, (55 Ind. 250) 353 
Lownsdale b. Portland, (Deady, 1, 

39) 218 
Lowry v. Rainwater, (70 Mo. 152) 122 
Loyd ». Columbus, (15 S. E. E. 818) 

338 
Lucas B. Board, (44 Ind. 524) 12 
Lucas Co. B. Hunt, (5 Ohio St. 488) 

169 
Lucas B. Lat. Com'rs, (11 G. & J. 

506) 123 
Lucas B. McGlashau, (20 Up. Can. Q. 

B. 81) 104 
Lucas B. New York, (21 Barb. 245) 

352 a 
Lucas B. Shepherd, (16 Ind. 368) 86 
Lucas B. Tippecanoe Co., (44 Ins. 

524) 2, 8 
Luce B. Board, (153 Mass. 108) 361 
Luck Eipon, (52 Wis. 196) 352 a 
Ludlow B. Cine. So. Ry. Trs., (78 Ky. 

357)270 
Luehrmau b. Shelby Co. etc., (2 Lea, 

425) 8, 12, 90 
Luke B. Brooklyn, (43 Barb. 54) 54 
Luling B. Eacine, (1 Biss. 314) 195 
Lum B. Bowie, (18 S. W. E. 142) 24, 

256 
Lumbard b. Aldrich, (8 N. H. 31) 107 
Lumber Co. b. Brooklyn, (71 N. Y. 

580) 92 
Lumsden v. Milwaukee, (8 Wis. 485) 

245 
Lund u. New Bedford, (121 Mass. 

286) 232 
Lundborn b. Mainstee, (93 Mich. 170) 

397 
Lunkenheuner b. Comp., (23 W. L. 

Bull. 433) 110, 115 . 
Lusk B. Perkins, (48 Ai-k. 238) 179 
Lultterloh b. Cedar Key, (17 Tex. 

489) 120 
LutterlohB. Cumberland Co. 

Comm'rs, (65 N. C. 403) 369 



cu 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

Beferenees are to Sections. 



Luther v. Winnisimmet Co., (9 Cush. 

171) 354 
Luther w. Worcester, (97 Mass. 268) 

344 
Luzerne Co. v. Trimmer, (95 Pa. St. 

97)79 
Lycoming jj. Union, (15 Pa. St. 166) 

16, 60 
Lyde v. County, (16 Wall. 6) 190 a 
Lyell ». Lapeer Co., (6 McLean, 446) 

180 
Lyman v. Amherst, (107 Mass. 339) 

352 
Lyman v. Burlington, (22 Vt. 131) 

249 
Lyman v. Hampshire, (140 Mass. 

311)3506 
Lynam o. White, (2 Aiken, 255) 338 a 
Lynch v. Lafland, (4 Colder, 96) 82 
Lynch v. New York, (76 N". T. 60) 

294, 328, 342, 354 o, 355 
Lynch v. People, (16 Mich. 472) 158, 

195 d 
Lynch ». E. E. Co., (57 Wis. 480) 

395 
Lynchburg v. Norfolk & N. W. E. E. 

Co., (SO Va. 237) 261 
Lynchburg v. Slaughter, (75 Va. 57) 

195 d 
Lynde v. Co., (16 Wall. 6) 195 
Lyndon v. Stadbridge, (2 H. & N. 45) 

130 
Lynn v, Cumberland, (26 Atl. E. 

1001) 72 
Lyon V. Adamson, (7 Iowa, 509) 167 
Lyon V. Alley, (130 U. S. 177) 283 
Lyon V. Cambridge, 136 Mass. 409) 

344a 
Lyon V. Com., (3 Bibb. 430) 69 
Lyon V. Fishmongers Co., (L. E. 1 

App. Cas. 662) 132 
Lyon V. Grand Eapids, (30 Mich. 253) 

87 
Lyon V. Irish, (58 Mich. 518) 169 
Lyon V. Jerome, (15 Wend. 569) 233, 

238 
Lyon J). Eeceiver of Taxes, (52 Mich. 

271) 326 a 
Lyons Highway Comm'rs v. People, 

(38 111. 347) 368 
Lyons v. Desotelle, (124 Mass. 387) 

352 
Lyth V. Buffalo, (48 Hun, 175) 87, 

113, 148 

M. 

Maas B. Miss., K. & T. Ey. Co., (11 

Hun, 8) 195 6 
Mabey v. Tarver, (1 Hump. 94) 123 
Macbeath v. Haldimond, (1 D. & E 

Term, 172) 168 



Macei). Com'rs, (99 N. 0. 65, 5 S. E. 

E. 740) 397 
Macey v. Titcombe, (19 Ind. 135) 172 
MacDonald v. Mayor, (32 Hun, 89) 

67 
Mackey v. Vicksburgh, (64 Miss. 777) 

336 a 
Mackinnon v. Person, (25 Eng. L. & 

Eq. 457) 315 
Macklot V. Davenport, (17 Iowa, 379) 

381 
MacNaughton ■». Elkhart, (85 Ind. 

384) 348 
Macomber v. Duane, (2 Allen, 541) 

80 
Macomber v. Godfrey, (108 Mass. 

219) 354 
Macomber v. Taunton, (100 Mass. 

255) 331 a 
Macon ». Dasher, (16 S. E. R. 75) 

208, 211 
Macon v. First Nat. Bank, (59 Ga. 

648) 263 
Macon v. Franklin, (12 Ga. 239) 217, 

218 
Macon v. Huff, (60 Ga. 221) 166 
Macon v. Jones, (67 Ga. 489) 272 
Macon v. M. Sav. Bank. (60 Ga. 133) 

263, 273 
Macon v. Patty, (57 Miss. 386) 282 
Macon v. Shaw, (16 Ga. 172) 398 
Macon Co. t. Huidekoper, (99 U. S. 

592) 194 a 
Macon Co. v. People, (121 111. 616) 

316 
Macon etc. Co. v. Eiggs, (13 S. E. R. 

312) 238 
Macoy i>. Curtis, (14 S. C. 367) 81 
Maddox v. Graham, (2 Met. 56) 365, 

368 
Maddox v. Randolph, (65 Ga. 216) 

350 6 
Maddrey v. Cox, (73 Tex. 538) 55 
Maddux v. Newport, (14 S. W. E. 

957) 259 a 
Madison ». Harbor Board, (25 Atl. 

R. 337) 328 
Madison v. Hatcher, (8 Blackf. 341) 

117 
Madison v. Kelso, (32 Ind. 79) 79, 83 
Madison v. Korbley, (32 Ind. 74) 83 
Madison v. Smith, (83 Ind. 502) 175, 

195 a, 349, 363 
Madison Co. v. Priestley, (42 Fed. 

817) 189 
Madison v. Whitney, (81 Ind. 261) 

272 
Magarity v. Wilmington, (5 Hous. 

530) 354 a 
Magee v. Calaveras Co., (10 Cal. 376) 

362, 363 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

Beferences are to Sections. 



cm 



Magee v. Commonwealth, (46 Pa. St. 

358) 259 a 
Maggie P., (25 Fed. Kep. 202) 163 
Magie v. Stoddard, (25 Conn. 565) 86 
Magill V. KaufEman, (4 S. & E. 317) 

51, 164 
Magneau v. Fremont, (47 N. W. R. 

280) 255 
Magrath v. Brock. Twp., (13 Up. Can. 

Q. B. 629) 250 
Maguire v. Hughes, (13 La. An. 281) 

90 
Maguire v. Smock, (42 Ind. 1) 278 
Mahady v. Busher etc. Co., (91 N. T. 

148) 297, 300 
Mahany v. Scholly, (84 Pa. St. 136) 

341 
Mahan, In re, (20 Hun, 301) 172 
Maher v. Chicago, (38 111.266)51, 169 
Mahogany v. "Ward, (17 Atl. K. 860) 

321 
Mahon v. Columbus, (58 Miss. 310) 

210 
Mahoney ». Metro. Ky. Co., (104 

Mass. 73) 352 
Mahoney d. The Bank of the State, 

(4 Ark. 620) 25 
Main v. McCarthy, (15 111. 442) 155 
Makemson v. Kaufman, (35 Ohio St. 

444) 397 
Malchus V. Highlands Dist., (4 Bush, 

547) 259 a 
Maleverer v. Spink, (1 Dyer, 36 b) 335 
Mallory v. Austin, (7 Barb. 626) 320 
Mallory v. Hibernia etc. Co., (21 Pac. 

R. 525) 348 
Mallory v. Griffey, (85 Pa. St. 275) 

287 
Mallory v. Mallett, (6 Jones Eq. 345) 

42 
Mallory v. Super's, (2 Cowen, 531) 79 
MaUoy v. Bennett, (15 Fed. Rep. 371) 

352 a 
Malone's Est., (21 S. C. 188) 2 
Malone v. Murphy, (2 Kan. 250) 104 
Maltus V. Shields, (2 Mete. 553) 56, 

276 
Manaska v. Ingalls, (16 Iowa, 81) 72 
Manchester v. Hartford, (30 Conn. 

118) 346 
Manchester?;. Smyth, (18 Am. & Eng. 

Corp. Cas. 474) 130 
Manderschid v. Dubuque, (20 Iowa, 

73) 219, 346 
Mangan ». Atterbury, (lEx. 239)382 
Manhattan R. Co., In re, (162 N. Y. 

301) 172 
Manhattan Co. v. Van Keuren, (23 

N. J. E. 251) 120 
Manistee L. Co. v. Springfield, (52 N^. 

W. E. 468) 326 



Mankato v. Arnold, (36 Minn. 62) 

104 
Manley v. Atchison, (9 Kan. 358) 92 
Manley v. Emlen, (46 Kan. 655, 27 

Pac. 844) 279 
Mann v. Pentz, (2 Sandf. Ch. 257) 52 
Manners v. Haverhill, (135 Mass. 165) 

338 
Manning v. Fifth Parish, (6 Pick. 16) 

108 
Manning v. Lowell, (130 Mass. 21) 

355 
Manning v. Woodstock, (22 Atl. R. 

42, 59 Conn. 224) 350 a 
Manny, In re, (14 How. 24) 360 
Manrose v. Parker, (90 111. 581) 220 
Mansfield v. Moore, (21 111. App. 326) 

346 
Manuel ». Cumberland, (98 N. C. 9) 

339 
Manufacturing Co. v. Davis, (14 

Johns. 238) 48 
Manufacturer's Ins. Co. v. Loud, (99 

Mass. 146) 258 
Manus v. Givens, (7 Leigh, 689) 360 
Manzy v. Hardy, (13 Neb. 36) 327 
Mappa V. Los Angeles, (61 Cal. 309) 

172 
Marble v. Worcester, (4 Gray, 395) 

342, 343 
March v. Com., (12 B. Mon. 25) 117, 

146 
March v. Portsmouth etc. Co., (19 

N. H. 372) 238, 354 
Marden v. Portsmouth, (59 N. H. 18) 

79 
Marden v. Potter, (7 C. B., N. S. 641) 

104 
Marietta v. Fearing, (4 Ohio, 427) 2, 

129 
Marine Ins. Co. v. Railroad, (41 Fed. 

E. 643) 210 
Mariner v. Mackey, (25 Kan. 669) 212 
Marion v. Chandler, (6 Ala. 800) 398 
Marion t;. Skillman, (26 N. E. R. 676) 

329 
Marion Co. v. Clark, (94 U. S. 278) 

195 a 
Marion Co. v. Louisville Co., (15 S. 

W. R. 1061) 17 
Marion Co. ». Riggs, (24 Kan. 255) 

325 
Maris v. Mason, (37 Texas, 447) 232 
Market v. St. Louis, (56 Mo. 189) 346, 

3506 
Market etc. Co. v. Ceu. etc. Co., (51 

Cal. 583) 302 
Markle ». Akron, (14 Ohio, 586) 104 
Markle v. Borough, (21 Atl. R. 794) 

326 a, 335 
Markle v. Wright, (13 Ind. 548) 379 



eiv 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



References are to Sections. 



Marley v. Gt. "Western Ry. Co., (16 

Up. Can. Q. B. 504) 352 a 
Marmet v. State, (45 Ohio St. 63, 12 

ST. E. E. 463) 261 
Marriage v. Lawrence, (3 B. & Aid.) 

107 
Marriott v. Hampton, (2 Esp. 546) 

326, 326 a 
Marseilles v. Howland, (124 111. 551) 

287. 
Marsh v. Brooklyn, (59 IS". T. 280) 249 
Marsh v. Fulton Co., (10 "Wall. 676) 

170, 195 d 
Marsh v. Little Valley, (64 N. Y. 112) 

375 
Marshall ii. Anderson, (78 Mo. 85) 218 
Marshall v. Cook, (38 IH. 44) 65 
Marshall v. Guion, (11 N. T. 461) 132 
Marshall v. Kerns, (2 Swan. 68) 65, 

371 
Marshall D. Silliman, (61 111.218) 187 a 

189, 395 
Marshall i-. Smith, (L. R. 8 C. P. 416) 

154 
Marshall v. Vicksburg, (15 "Wall. 146) 

270 
Marshall v. Vultee, (1 E. D. Smith, 

294) 132 
Marshall Co. v. Cook, (38 111. 44) 195 
Marshall Co. «. Jackson Co., (36 Ala. 

613) 350 6 
Marshall Co. v. Schenck, (5 "Wall. 

772) 170, 183 
Marshalltown v. Blum, (58 Iowa, 184) 

258 
Marshalltown v. Forney, (61 Iowa, 

578) 308 
Martel v. E. St. Louis, (94 111. 67, 21 

Alb. L. J. 195) 160 
Martin ». Aston, (60 Cal. 65) 62 
Martin v. Br. Bank, (15 Ala. 587) 207 
Martin v. Brooklyn, (1 Hill, 541) 169, 

242, 355 
Martin v. Carron, (26 N. J. L. 228) 

259 a 
Martin v. Dix, (52 Miss. 3) 56, 259, 

276 
Martin v. Dix, (52 Miss. 53) 2, 8 
Martin ». Evansville, (32 Ind. 85) 225 
Martin v. Gleason, (139 Mass. 183) 

234 
Martin v. Hewit, (44 Ala. 418) 283 
Martin v. Hilb, (14 S. W. R. 94) 294 
Martin v. Ingham, (36 Kan. 641) 303 
Martin v. Lemon, (26 Conn. 192) 99 
Martin v. Maher, (1 Hill, 545) 164 
Martin v. Mayor, (1 Hill. 545) 9, 113, 

169 
Martin v. O'Brien, (.34 Miss. 21) 133 
Martin v. Rosedale, (J9 K. E. K. 410) 

121, 258 



Martin v. Town, (56 Hun, 510) 397 
Martin v. Tripp, (51 Me. 184) 360 
Martindale v. Palmer, (52 Ind. 411) 

90, 159 
Martini, Ex parte, (23 Fla. 843) 155 
Martinsville v. Shirley, (84 Ind. 546) 

329 
Marvin v. New Bedford, (33 N. E. 

E. 605) 324 
Marx V. Croisan, (17 Ore. 393) 47 
Masen v. Ellsworth, (32 Me. 271) 3505 
Mason v. Ellsworth, (32 Me. 271) 352 a 
Mason v. Pearson, (9 How. 248) 111, 

349 
Mason v. Haile, (12 "Wheat. 370) 194 
Mason v. Lancaster, (4 Bush, 406) 261 
Mason v. London, (3 Baxt. 94) 61 
Mason v. Minturn, (4 W. Va. 302) 363 
Mason v. Spencer, (35 Kan. 512) 277 
Mason City etc. Co. v. Mason, (23 W. 

Ya. 211) 396 
Mass. -B. Harpeth, (7 Heisk. 283) 182- 
Massey v. Columbus, (75 Ga. 658) 352 
Massing v. Ames, (37 "Wis. 645) 265 
Massoth V. Delaware etc. Co., (6 N. 

T. 524) 136 
Masters v. Portland, (83 Pac. R. 540) 

259 a 
Masters v. Troy, (50 Hun, 485) 3506 
Masters v. "Warren, (27 Conn. 293) 

3.52 a 
Masterson v. Mt. Vernon, (58 N. Y. 

391) 92, 331a, 355 
Masterson v. Short, (7 Eobt. 241) 299 
Maher v. Chicago, (38 111. 66) 164 
Mathews v. Inhabitants, (134 Mass. 

355) 142 
Mathews v. Kelsey, (58 Me. 56) 300 
Mathewson v. Grand Rapids, (50 N 

"W. E. 651, 88 Mich. 558) 165, 169 
Mathias v. Mason, (33 N. W. E. 312) 

398 
Matthews v. Alexandria, (68 Mo. 115) 

113, 207, 208, 209, 263 
Matthews v. Mayor etc. of X. Y., (1 

Sandf. 132) 92 
Matlock V. Glover, (63 Tex. 231) 327 
Mattenly v. Disti-ict, (97 U. S. 687) 17 
Matter of Application of Department 

of Public Parks, (86 N. Y. 439) 28 
Matthiessen etc. v. Jersey City, (26 

N. J. Eq. 247) 21"8, 290 
Matthis V. Cameron, (62 Mo. 504) 177 
Matts 0. Hawkins, (5 Taunt. 20) 131 
Mattingly v. District, (97 U. S. 687) 

161 
Mattlnsie v. N. Y. El. R. Co., (17 N. 

Y. S. 536) 242 
Mau V. Liddle, (15 Nev. 271) 868 
Manch Chunk v. Kline, (100 Pa. St 

119) 344 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CV 



Beferences are to Sections. 



Maugh V. Milwaukee, (32 Wis. 200) 

337 
Maultby ». Leavenworth, (28 Kan. 

745) 352 
Mauldin v. City Council of Green- 
ville, (33 S. C. 1) 144a 
Maupin v. Franklin Co., (67 Mo. 327) 

165 
Maxey v. Loyal, (38 Ga. 531) 194 
Maximilian v. New York, (62 N. T. 

160) 9, 324, 338 a 
Maxwell v. Bay Bridge Co., (41 Mich. 

453) 314 
Maxwell ». Bryne, (36 Ind. 120) 120 
Maxwell v. Palmerton, (21 Wend. 

407) 129 
Maxwell v. San Luis Obispo, (71 Cal. 

466, 12 Pac. 484) 326 a 
Maxwell v. Stanislaus, (46 N. T. 100) 

172 
May V. Detroit, (2 Mich. K. P. Kep. 

23.5) 172 
May B. Juneau Co., (30 Fed. Eep. 

241) 338 
May V. Mercer Co., (30 Fed. Kep. 

247) 338 
May B. Sch. Dist., (22 Neb. 205) 312 
Mayer v. New York, (63 N. Y. 455) 

327 
Mayfield v. Moore, (53 111. 428) 79 
Mayhew v. Gay Head, (13 Allen, 129) 

106, 108 
Mayo V. Cincinnati, (1 Ohio St. 268, 

272) 123 
Mayo 1). James, (12 Gratt. 17) 250 
Mayor v. Allaire, (14 Ala. 400) 117 
Mayor d. Baily, (2 Denio, 433) 92 
Mayor v. Beasley, (1 Humph. 232) 

150 
Mayor v. Brown, (54 Ga. 229) 85 
Mayor v. City i3ank of Macon, (58 

Ga. 584) 195 d 
Mayor v. Cornell, (6 Coldw. 412) 312 
Mayor v. Eden Musee, (102 N. Y. 

593) 124 
Mayor v. Gear, (27 N. J. L. 265) 79 
Mayor v. Henly, (2 CI. & Fin. 331) 

324 
Mayor ». Hopkins, (13 La. An. 326) 

11 
Mayor v. Horn, (2 Harr. 190) 72 
Mayor v. Horner, (Cowp. 102) 31 
Mayor v. Hyatt, (3 E. D. Smith, 156) 

127 
Mayor v. Inman, (57 Ga. 370) 183 
Mayor v. .Johns Hopkins' Hosp., (56 

Md. 1) 279 
Mayor v. Keyser, (19 Atl. R. 706) 165, 

172, 173 
Mayor ». Lombard, (57 Miss. 125) 

183 



Mayor v. Lord, (17 Wend. 285) 335 
Mayor v. Magnon, (4 Martin, 1) 312 
Mayor v. Markham, (23 Ga. 402) 391 
Mayor v. Morgan, (7 Mart. N. S. 1) 

363 
Mayor v. Muzzy, (33 Mich. 61) 79 
Mayor v. New York, (63 N. Y. 455) 

281 
Mayor v. N. Y. & S. I. Ferry Co., (40 

N. Y. Super. 232) 134 
Mayor v. Ohio etc. Co., (26 Pa. St. 

355) 302 
Mayor v. Park Com'rs, (44 Mich. 

602) 234, 237 
Mayor v. Pendleton, (15 Md. 12) 342 
Mayor v. Phelps, (27 Ala. 55) 154 
Mayor v. Randolph, (4 W. & S. 514) 

329 
Mayor v. Roberts, (34 Ind. 471) 377 
Mayor v. Sands, (105 N. Y. 210) 89 
Mayor v. Simpson, (2 Q. B. 73) 100 
Mayor v. Sonneborn, (113 N. Y. 423) 

132 
Mayor v. State, (15 Md. 376) 67 
Mayor v. Stone, (20 Wend. 139) 335 
Mayors. Sheffield, (4 Wall. 189) 313, 

324, 342 
Mayor v. Thorne, (7 Paige, 261) 130 
Mayor v. Wright, (2 Port. 230) 107 
Mayor v. Wright, (6 Yerg. 497) 225 
Mayor and Burgesses etc., (10 Coke, 

120) 49 
Mayor v. Winfield, (8 Humph. 707) 

150 
Mayor etc. v. Colgate, (12 N. Y. 146) 

28 
Mayor etc. v. Crawford, (111 N. Y. 

638) 71 
Mayor etc. v. Cunliff, (2 N. Y. 165) 92 
Mayor etc. v. Lasser, (9 Humph. 757) 

92 
Mayor etc. Milledgeville v. Cooley, 

(55 Ga. 17) 349 
Mayor etc. v. Nichols, (4 Hill, 209) 

127, 150 
Mayor etc. v. Ordrenan, (12 Johns, 

152) 154, 155 
Mayor etc. v. Potomac Ins. Co., (58 

Tenn. 296) 192, 193 
Mayor etc. v. Rouse, (8 Ala. 515) 117 
Mayor etc. v. Root, (8 Md. 95) 80 
Mayor etc. v. Rowland, (26 Ala. 498) 

80 
Mayor etc. v. Shaw, (16 Ga. 172) 83, 

85 
Mayor etc. v. State Bk., (8 Ai-k. 227) 

87 
Mayor etc. v. Tenth Nat. Bank, (111 

N. Y. 446) 16 
Mayor etc. v. Tows., (5 Sneed, 186) 

18 



CVl 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



Mayor etc. v. Tucker, (1 Daly, 107) 

87 
Mayor etc. of Griffin ». City Bank, 

(58 Ga. 584) 191 
Mayor etc. of Lyme v. Henley, (2 CI. 

& F. 331) 37 
Mayor etc. of Washington ». Meigs, (1 

McArthur, 53) 129 
Mayor etc. of Baltimore v. State, (15 

Md. 376) 59 
Mayor etc. of Helena v. Thompson, 

29 Ark. 569) 92 
Mayor of Athens v. Georgia R. R., 

(72 Ga. 800) 153 
Mayor of Hoboken ». Harrison, (30 

N. J. L. 73) 75 
Mayor of London v. Lynn Regis, (1 

H. Bl. 206) 156 
Mayor of Lynn v. Turner, (Cowper, 

86) 349 
Mayor of Memphis v. Lasser, (9 

Humph. 757) 325, 349 
Mayor of Nashville v. Hogan, (9 Bax- 
ter, 495) 175 
Mayor of Nashville v. Ray, (19 Wall. 

478) 177, 182 
Mayor of N. T. v. Hyatt, (3 E. D. 

Smith, 156) 117 
Mayor of N. T. u. Williams, (16 N. T. 

502) 131 
Mayor of Rome ». Dodd, (58 Ga. 239) 

349 
Mayor of Savannah v. Waldner, (49 

Ga. 316) 325 
Mayor of St. Martinsville v. Mary 

Lewis, (32 La. An. 1293) 133 
Mayrhofer v. Board, (26 Pac. R. 646) 

212 
Mays V. Cincinnati, (1 Ohio St. 268) 

124, 256, 326 a 
Maysville v. Shultz, (3 Dana, id) 32 
Maywood Co. v. Maywood, (29 N. E. 

R. 704, 118 111. 61) 215, 226, 294 
Mazet V. Pittsburgh, (137 Pa. St. 548) 

395 
MoAlar K. Woodruff, (33 N. J. L. 213) 

104 
McAlister v. Albany, (18 Oreg. 426) 

350 
McAlister v. Clark, (33 Conn. 91) 122 
McAUiley v. Horton, (75 Ala. 491) 

399 
McAndrews ». CoUard, (42 N. J. L. 

189) 120 
McAi-thur !). Nelson, (81 Ky. 67) 67 
McArthur v. Saginaw, (58 Mich. 357) 

327, 339 
McAuliffe V. New Bedford, (27 N. E. 

R. 517) 84 
McAvoy I). Mayor, (54 How. Pr. 245) 

336 a 



McBean ». Chandler, (9 Heisk. 349) 

299 
McBean v. Martin, (31 Pac. R. 5) 282 
McBean v. Redick, (31 Pac. R. 7) 

282 
McBean ». San Bernardino, (31 Pac. 

R. 49) 165 
McBride v. Gr. Rap., (47 Mich. 236) 

79 
McBrien v. Grand Rapids, (56 Mich. 

95) 165, 360 
McCafferty v. McCabe, (4 Abb. P. R. 

87) 397 
McCafferty v. Spuyten Duyvil etc. 

Co., (61 N. Y. 178) 347 
McCaffrey v. Smith, (41 Hun, 117) 

299 
McCall V. Hancock, (10 Fed. Rep. 80) 

196 
McCalla ». Multnomah Co., (3 Oreg. 

424) 353 
McCallie v. Mayor of Chattanooga, 

(3 Head, 318) 53, 55 
McCann v. Sierra County, (7 Cal. 121) 

247 
MoCann v. State, (62 Ala. 138) 319 
McCannie v. Mayor etc. of Chatta- 
nooga, (3 Head, 317) 57 
McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Society, 

(9 Cow. 427) 200, 202 
McCartle v. Bates, (29 Ohio St. 419) 

100 
McCarthy v. Boston, (135 Mass. 197) 

324,338 a 
McCarthy v. Commonw., (110 Pa. St. 

243) 25 
McCarthy v. Deming, (51 Conn. 422) 

105 
McCarthy v. Portland, (67 Me. 167) 

342 
McCarthy v. St. Paul, (22 Minn. 527) 

330 
McCarthy c. Syracuse, (46 N. Y. 194) 

349,3.50 a 
McCany v. Bauer, (3 Kans. 237) 92 
McCash B. Burlington, (33 N. W. R. 

346, 72 Iowa, 26) 292 
McCaughey v. Pi-ovidence, (12 R. I. 

449)328, 336 a 
McCearly v. Lemeunier, (40 La. An. 

253) 217 
McChesney v. Hyde Park, (28 N. E. 

R. 1102) 259 a 
McClay v. Lincoln, (49 N. W. R. 282) 

56 
McClean v. State, (49 N. J. L. 471) 

120 
McCloskey v. Krelling, (18 Pac. 433) 

146 
McClung V. Silliman, (6 Wheat. 601; 

375 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

Beferences are to Sections. 



cvu 



McClure v. Oxford Township, (94 IT. 

S. 429) 191 
McClure v. Redwig, (28 Minn. 186) 

245 355 
McCluskey v. Cromwell, (11 N. Y. 

598) 72 
McComas v. Krug, (81 Ind. 327) 83 
McConike v. State, (17 Fla. 238) 371 
McConnell v. Dewey, (5 Neb. 385) 325 
McConnell v. Hammond, (16 Kan. 

228) 188 
McConupU V. Lexington Trs., (12 

Wheat. 582) 217 
McConnell v. Simpson, (36 Fed. Rep. 

750) 177 
McConrill jj. Jersey City, (39 N. J. L. 

38) 102 
McCord V. Hugh, (24 Iowa, 336) 349 
McCord B. Oakland, (27 Pac. 803, 64 

Cal. 134) 392 
McCord V. Pike, (12 N. E. R. 259) 

395 
McCord V. Tiger, (6Biss. 409) 121 
McCormack v. Brooklyn, (108 N. Y. 

49) 243, 249 
McCormick v. Bay City, (23 Mich. 

457) 98, 106 
McCormick v. City, (18 IST. Y. S. 272, 

63 Hun, 632) 324 
McCormick v. Calhoun, (80 S. C. 03) 

150 
McCormick v. Lafayette, (1 Ind. 48) 

247 
McCormick v. Patchin, (53 Mo. 33, 

14 Am. Rep. 440) 264, 291 
McCormick v. People, (28 N. E. 1106) 

18 
McCormick u. Washington Tp., (112 

Pa. St. 185) 317, 353 
McCormick v. W. Duluth, (50 N. W. 

R. 128, 47 Minn. 272) 26 
McCowan v. Whiteside, (31 Ind. 235) 

396 
McCoy V. Brant, (53 Cal. 247) 165, 169 
McCoy 1). Phila. etc. Co., (5 Del. 599) 

136 
McCracken v. Markesan, (45 N. W. 

R. 323) 352 
McCracken v. San Francisco, (16 Cal. 

591) 99, 165, 170 
McCrowell v. Bristol, (5 Lea, 685) 

120, 331, 400 
McCrowell v. Bristol, (16 S. E. R. 

807) 113, 282 
McCroy v. Griswold, (7 Iowa, 248) 

249 
McCulloch V. State, (11 Ind. 424) 149 
MoCullough V. Brooklyn, (23 Wend. 

459) 359 
Mc(^u]lough V. Maryland, (4 Wheat. 
316) 22 



McCullough V. Mayor etc., (23 Wend. 

458) 92, 178 
McCullough J). San Francisco Bd. of 

Ed., (51 Cal. 418) 226 
McCullough V. Talladega etc., (46 

Ala. 376) 165 ■ 
McCutcheon v. Homer, (43 Md. 483) 

327 a 
McDade v. Chester City, (117 Pa. St. 

414) 327, 328 
McDaniel v. Columbus, (13 S. E. R. 

745, 87 Ga. 440) 249 
McDeraiott v. Met. Pol. Brd.,(5 Abb. 

Pr. 422) 89 
McDermott v. Miller, (45 N. J. L. 

253) 371 
McDiarmid v. Fitch, (27 Ark. 100) 

371 
McDonald v. Ashland, (47 K. W. R. 

434) 350 b 
McDonald v. Corporation etc., (29 

Up. Can. C. P. 249) 353 
McDonald v. International & Gt. N. 

Co., (00 Tex. 590) 134 
McDonald!). Mayor, (68 N. Y. 23) 

165 
McDonald v. New York, (68 N. Y. 

23) 164 
McDonald v. Newark, (42 N. J. E. 

136) 129, 396 
McDonald v. Redwing, (13 Minn. 38) 

335 
McDonald v. Rehrer, (22 Fla. 198) 

393 
McDonald v. Schell, (6 Serg. & R. 

240) 105 
McDonald v. Schneider, (27 Mo. 405) 

210 
McDonald v. Philadelphia, (12 Pa. 

Co. C. & R. 672) 324 
McDonough v. Virginia City, (6 Nev. 

90) 327, 349 
McDougall V. Boston, (134 Mass. 149) 

350 6 
McDougall V. Salem, (110 Mass. 21) 

353 
McDuffie V. Cook, (65 Ala. 430) 362 
McElroy v. Albany, (05 Ga. 387) 92, 

333 
McElroy v. Kansas City, (21 Fed. 

Rep. 257) 330 
McEwen v. Gilker, (38 Ind. 233) 172 
McEwen v. Taylor, (4 G. Greene, 532) 

134, 144 
McFarlanj). Triton Ins. Co., (4Denio, 

392) 106 
McFarland v. Butler, (8 Minn. 116) 

194 
McFarland v. Orange etc. Co., (13 N. 

J. Eq. 17) 302 
MiFarlane o. Kerr, (10 Bosw. 249) 312 



CVIU 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



McFarnahan v. Pike, (91 Cal. 540) 

312 
McGafEagau v. Boston, (149 Mass. 

289) 3506 
McGai-ry v. IST. T. Co., (7 Kobt. 464) 

87 
MoGarty v. Deming, (51 Conn. 422) 

105 
McGaiy v. Lafayette, (12 Eob. 668) 

338, 352 a 
McGee's App., (140 Pa. St. 570) 308 
McGee's Appeal, (114 Pa. St. 470, 

478) 28, 312 
McGee v. Avondale, (7 Ohio Cir. Ct. 

K. 246) 282 
McGee b. Penn. E. E.. (114 Pa. St. 

470) 308 
McGee v. Salem, (149 Mass. 238) 12 
McGee u. State, (103 lud. 444) 86 
McGee v. State, (49 N. W. E. 220) 

361 
McGeehee v. Mathis, (21 Ark. 40) 

248, 259 a 
McGehee v. Columbus, (69 Ga. 581) 

326 a 
McGehee v. Woodville, (59 Miss. 

648) 219 
McGill V. District, (4 Mackey, 70) 

348 
McGinness v. New York, (26 Hun, 

142) 142 
McGinty v. Keokuk, (66 Iowa, 725) 

352 
McGonigle v. Allegheny, (44 Pa. St. 

118) 259 a 
McGrath v. Chicago, (24 111. App. 

19) 146 
McGrath v. Newton, (29 Kan. 364) 

261 
McGraw v. Whitson, (69 Iowa, 348) 

98, 148 
McGregor v. Baloh, (14 Vt. 428) 74 
McGregor v. Boyle, (34 Iowa, 268) 

327 
McGrew v. Stewart, (32 Pac. E. 896) 

290 
McGuinness v. Mayor, (52 How. Pr. 

450) 336 o 
McGuinness i'. Westchester, (66 Hun, 

256) 325 
McGuire, In re, (50 Hun, 203) 71 
McGuire v. Eapid City, (43 N. W. 

Eep. 706) 174 
McHardy c. Corporation etc., (1 App. 

C. 629; 39 Q. B. 546) 316 
McHenry v. Township, (31 N. W. 

Rep. 602) 362 
McHey v. Hyde Park, (37 Fed. E. 

389) 220 
Mclnerney v. Denver, (29 Pac. E. 

516) 18, 117, 146, 150 



Mclnerney v. Eeading, (150 Pa. St 

611) 324 
Mclnerney v. Eeed, (23 Iowa, 410) 

263, 282 
Mclnerney v. St. Joseph, (45 Mo. 291) 

354 o 
Mclnstry ». Tanner, (9 Johns. 185) 

88 
Mclntire c. Sch. Trustees, (3 111. App. 

77)72 
SEcIntire b. State, (5 Blackf. 384) 245 
Mclntire v. Wood, (7 Cransh, 504) 

375 
Mclver v. Clarke, (10 So. E. 581) 261 
McKay v. Buffalo, (74 N. T. 619) 333 
McKay v. Detroit etc., (2 Mich. 138) 

319 
McKay v. D. & E. E. E., (2 Mich. 

139) 318 
McKee v. Anderson Council, (Eice 

L. 24) 326 
MoKee t. Bidwell, (74 Pa. St. 218) 

352 
McKee v. Brown, (La. An. 306) 278 
MoKee v. Canal Co., (125 N. T. 353) 

247 
McKee ». MoKee, (8 B. Mon. 433) 155 
McKee v. Perchment, (69 Pa. St. 342) 

219 
McKee v. St. Louis, (17 Mo. 184) 217, 

219 
McKee v. Yernon Co., (3 Dill. 210) 

196, 197 
McKeesport etc. Co. u. Lyle, (131 

Pa. St. 437, 18 Atl. E. 1111) 238 
McKeigue v. Janesville, (68 Wis. 50) 

352, 352 a 
MoKellar v. Detroit, (57 Mich. 158) 

344 a 
McKenna v. Boston, (131 Mass. 142) 

220 
McKenna v. Lancaster Dist. E. 

Comm'rs, (Harper Law, 381) 221 
McKenzie v. Northiield, (30 Minn. 

456) 352 
McKeou V. Lee, (51 N. T. 300) 120 
McKevitt V. Hoboken, (45 N. J. L. 

482) 292 
MoKibbiu v. Port Smith, (35 Ark. 

352) 120, 130 
McKinley v.. Freeh., (29 N. J. Eq. 

164) 313 
McKinnon v. Penson, (25 Eng. L. & 

E. 457) 324 
McKnight v. Parish of Grant, (30 La. 

An. 361) 212 
McLane v. Sharp, (2 Harr. 481) 321 
McLarren v. Spalding, (2 Cal. 510) 

244 
McLaughlin v. Corry, (77 Pa. St. 109) 

344 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

Eeferences arc to Sections. 



cix 



McLaughlin v. Municipality, (5 La. 

An. 604) 92, 242 
McLaughlin v. Stevens, (18 Ohio, 94) 

117, 221 
McLaury v. McGregor, (.54 Iowa, 717) 

352 
McLean v. Great Western Ey. Co., 

(33 Up. Can. Q. B. 198) 242, 247 
McLeod V. Scott, (26 Pac. R. 1061) 

359 
McMahan v. Savannah, (66 Ga. 217) 66 
McMasters v. Commonwealth, (3 

Watts, 292) 248, 259 a 
McMeekin v. State, (9 Ark. 553) 80 
McMilleu V. Boyles, (6 Iowa, 304) 17, 

161, 187 a 
McMullen v. City Council, (1 Bay, 

46) 154 
McMurray v. Baltimore, (54 Md. 104) 

225 
McNally v. Cohoes, (27 N. E. E. 1043) 

350 a 
McNamara ». Clintonville, (62 Wis. 

207) 352 
McNamara v. Estes, (22 Iowa, 246) 

291 
MclSTeal etc. Co. v. Bullock, (38 Fed. 

R. 565) 212 
McNerney v. Reading, (150 Pa. St. 

611) 300 
McNiel V. Borland, (23 Cal. 144) 102 
McPhee v. Venable, (77 Ga. 772) 282 
McPherson v. Chebause, (28 N. E. R. 

404, 114111. 46) 117 
McPherson v. Foster, (48 Iowa, 48) 

189 o, 376 
McPherson b. Nichols, (29 Pac. R. 

679) 165 
McPike V. Pen, (51 Mo. App. 63) 397 
McRae v. O'Lain, (1 McMuUen's R. 

328) 129 
McReynolds v. Kansas etc. Co., (34 

Mo. App. 581) 246 
McShane v. Moberly, (79 Mo. 41) 218 
McSpedon ». New York, (7 Bosw. 

601) 164 
McVeany v. Mayor, (80 N. T. 185) 79, 

381 
McVerry v. Boyd, (26 Pac. 885) 329 
McVichie b. Knight, (51 N. W. R. 

1094) 190 
McVicker v. Cone, (21 Or. 353) 31 
McWilliams v. Morgan, (61 III. 89) 

227 
Meacham v. Fitchburgh R. R. Co., (4 

Cush. 291) 245 
Mead, In re, (74 N. Y. 216) 280, 301 
Mead v. Acton, (139 Mass. 341) 136, 

138 
Mead v. Boxborough, (11 Cush. 362) 



Mead v. Dreas, (36 Mich. 416) 83 
Mead v. New Haven, (40 Conn. 72) 

338 a 
Meadsville v. Dickson, (24 W. N. C. 

451) 283 
Meagher v. Story Co., (5 Nev. 244) 

79, 85, 102 
Mealing v. Augusta, (Dud. 221) 401 
Meares b. Cora'rs, (9 Ired. L. 73) 325, 

329, 349 
Mears v. Wilmington, (9 Ired. L. 73, 

82) 354 a, 355 
Mechan v. Hudson, (46 N. J. L. 276) 

79 
Mechanics Bk. v. Bk. of Columbia, 

(o Wlieat. 326) 167 
Mechanics Bk. v. Granger, (20 Atl. R. 

202) 325 
Mechanics' Bank v. Kansas City, (73 

Mo. 555) 397 
Medical Ins. v. Patterson, (5 Denio. 

618) 25 
Medina b. Perkins, (48 Mich. 67) 350 6 

351 
Medway Cotton Manufacturing Co. 

V. Adams, (10 Mass. 360) 47, 49 
Meech b. Buffalo, (29 N. Y. 210) 148 
Meeker v. Van Rensselaer, (15 Wend. 

397) 108, 120 
Megowan b. Com., (2 Mete. 3) 134 
Meier v. Portland, (19 Pac. R. 610) 

217 
Meigs B. Lister, (23 N. J. Eq., 320) 

120 
Meinzer v. Racine, (68 Wis. 241, 70 

lb. 561) 329 
Meissner v. Toledo, (31 Ohio St. 387) 

259 a 
MelleuB. West. R. R. Co., (4 Gray, 

501) 355 
Mellinger b. Houston, (68 Tex. 37) 

283 
Mellon V. Lansing, (19 Blatchf. 512, 

11 Fed. Rep. 829) 185 
Mells V. Gleason, (11 Wis. 470) 182 
Melvin b. Lisenby, (72 111. 63) 190 a 
Memphis v. Adams, (9 Heisk. 518) 

52, 110 
Memphis v. Brown, (97 U. S. 203, 300) 

362, 365 
Memphis v. Hernando Ins. Co., (6 

Baxter, 527) 255 
Memphis v. Kimbarough, (12 Heisk. 

133) 336 a 
Memphis v. Laski, (9 Heisk. 511) 80 
Memphis v. Mem. W. Co., (5 Heisk. 

528) 175 
Memphis v. O' Conner, (53 Mo. 468) 

158 
Memphis v. United States, (97 U. S. 

293, 97 lb. 284) 362 



ex 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



References are to Sections. 



Memphis ». Woodford, (12 Heisk. 499) 

79, 85 
Memphis etc. Co. v. Memphis, (4 

Coldw. 406) 302 
Memphis etc. Co. v. State, (11 S. W. 

E. 946) 306 
Memphis Ketc. Co. v. Thompson, (24 

Kan. 170) 186 
Memphis etc. r. Williamson, (9 Heisk. 

314) 296 
Memphis & C. R. R. Co. v. Payne, 

37 Miss. 700) 243 
Memphis & St. L. Packet Co. v. Gri'ey, 

(9 Bush, 137) 221 
Mendenhall v. Burton, (22 P. 558) 29, 

31 
Mer. Eep. Co., In re, (115 ^^. T. 176) 

48 
Mercer v. Corbin, (117 Ind. 450) 300 
Mercer v. Jackson, (54 III. 39) 347 
Mercer v. Pittsburgh etc. Co., (36 Pa. 

St. 99) 290, 302 
Mercer v. Railroad Co., (36 Pa. St. 99) 

11, 240 
Mercer Co. v. Hacket, (1 Wall. 83) 

191 6, 196, 254 
Mercliants Bank v. Little Rock, (5 

Dill. 299, 98 U. S. 308) 181 
Merch. Bk. v. Xew York, (97 N. T. 

355) 171 
Merchant's etc. Bank v. Bergen Co., 

(115 U. S. 384) 190 a 
Meridian v. Phillips, (4 So. R. 119) 

2T1 
Merretti,-. Portchester, (71 N. T. 309) 

265 
Merriam, In re, (84 N. T. 596) 281 
Merriam c. Moody, (25 Iowa, 163) 

110, 282 
Merriam v. New Orleans, (14 La. An. 

318) 122, 123, 159, 261 
Merriam v. Yuba Co., (72 Cal. 577, 

14 Pac. R. 137) 397 
Merrick v. Amherst, (12 Allen, 500) 

259, 259 a 
Merrick r. Baltimore, (43 Md. 219) 

242 
Merrifield v. Worcester, (110 Mass. 

216) 328, 355 
Merrill v. Abbott, (62 Ind. 549) 278 
Merrill v. Burbank, (23 Me. 538) 211 
Merrill v. Claremont, (58 X. H. 468) 

351 
Merrill v. Hampden, (26 Me. 234) 

342 
Merrill v. Humphrey, (24 Mich. 170) 

397 
Merrill v. Monticello, (138 X. S. 673) 

182, 183 
Merrill v. Plainfield, (45 X. H. 126) 

395, 397 



Merrill b. Portland, (4 ClifE. C. C. R. 

138) 329, 351 
Merrill v. Toledo, (6 Ohio Cir. Ct. 

430) 27 
MeiTiraack E. S. Bk. v. Lowell, (152 

Mass. 556) 327 b 
Merrimac Riv. Can. Prop. v. Lowell, 

(7 Gray, 223) 335 
Meriwether B. Garrett, (102 U. S. 472) 

2,39 
Merri wether v. 11. S., (22 Court of 

Claims, 332) 41, 79 
Mersey Docks c. Gibbs, Samec. Pen- 

haUow, (L, E. 1 H. L. Cases, 93, 1 

H. & ]Sr. 439) 132, 324, 350 a 
Mersey Dock Cases, (11 H. Lds. 

Cases, 687) 336 
Mertz V. Cook, (108 N. Y. 505) 196 
Merwiu v. Chicago, (45 111. 133) 80 
Merz v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., (88 Mo. 672) 

136, 306 
Merz r. Missouri P. R. Co., (1 S. W. 

R. 382) 153 
Mich. Cen. R. R. v. Coleman, (28 

Mich. 440) 338 
Messenger v. Buffalo, (21 N. Y. 196) 

165 
Metcalf V. Hetheringtou, (11 Ex. 257) 

121 
Metcalf V. Seattle, (25 P. 1010, 1 Wash. 

St. 305) 189 
Metcalf V. St. Louis, (11 Mo. 103) 153 
Methodist Church, In re, (66 K Y. 

395) 256 
Methodist Church v. Baltimore, (6 

Gill, 391) 148, 240 
Meth. E. Church v. Ellis, (38 Ind. 3) 

270 
Meth. E. Church v. Hoboken, (33 X. 

J. L. 13) 221, 222, 229 
Meth. E. Church ». Wyandotte, (31 

Kan. 721) 329 
Metro. Asylum v. Hill, (L. R. 6 App. 

Cas. 193)329 
Metro. Board v. Hiester, (37 N. Y. 

661) 118 
Metropolitan Board of Excise v. Bar- 

rie, (34 N. Y. 657) 125 
MeU-o. City R. R. v. Chicago, (96 111. 

62) 120 
Meti-o. etc. Co., In re, (19 N. E. E. 645) 

302 
Metro. E. R., In re, (12 N. Y. S. 502) 

241, 244 
Metro. S. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, (16 S. 

E. 49) 107 
Metzger v. Attica R. Co., (79 N. Y. 

171) 189 
Meuser v. Risdon, (36 Cal. 239) 113 
Meyer i-. Bridgeton, (37 N. J. L. 160) 

158 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



CXI 



Meyer v. Brown, (65 Gal. 583) 375 
Meyer v. BuiTitt, (60 Conn. 117) 282 
Meyer v. Carolan, (9 Tex. 250) 362 
Meyer ». City of Muscatine, (i Wall. 

384) 183, 184, 254 
Meyer v. Fromm, (108 Ind. 208) 148 
Meyer ». Graham, (50 N. W. R. 763) 

314 
Meyer v. Johnson, (53 Ala. 241) 274 
Meyer o. Porter, (65 Cal. 67) 39 
Meyers v. Chicago etc. Co., (57 Iowa, 

555) 136, 150, 306 
Meylert's Executor v. Sullivan Co., 

(19 Pa. St. 181) 326 a 
Mexell V. Morgan, (24 Atl. 216) 354 a 
Miami Co. v. Blake, (21 Ind. 32) 79 
Michael v. St. Louis, (20 S. W. R. 

666, 112 Mo. 610) 897 
Michigan v. Ballance, (24 K. E. E. 

117) 346 
Michigan City v. Boeckling, (23 N. E. 

R. 518, 122 Ind. 39) 110, 324, 342. 
Michigan City ». Roberts, (34 Ind. 

471) 362, 363 
Michigan Ld. etc. Co. v. Republic, (32 

N. W. R. 882) 326 
Michigan Vav. Co. v. Detroit, (Mich. 

201) 360 
Middlesex etc. Co. v. Wakefield, (103 

Mass. 261) 302 
Middlesex H. & M. Soc. v. Davis, 3 

Mete. 138) 47 
Middlesex R. R. Co. v. Charlestown, 

(8 Allen, 330) 274 
Middleton v. Mullica, (112 N. Y. 433) 

190 a 
Middleton Bank v. Dubuque, (15 

Iowa, 394) 209, 211 
Middleton U.Wharton, (41 Minn. 266) 

221 
Middletown Village, In re, (82 N. T. 

196) 234 
Mifflin 1). Railroad Co., (16 Pa. St. 182) 

302 
Milakers v. Foster, (6 Oregon, 378) 

318 
Milan v. Tenn. etc. Co., (11 Lea, 329) 

195 d 
Millburne ». Cedar Rapids etc. E. E. 

Co., (12 Iowa, 246) 238, 303 
Miles V. Albany, (7 Atl. 601) 255 
Miles V. Boregh, (3 Gale & D. 119) 

106 
Miles V. Chamberlain, (17 Wis. 446) 

129 
Miles V. Charleton, (29 Wis. 400) 28 
Miles V. Duncan, (6 B. & C. 671) 326 a 
Milford V. Holbrook, (9 Allen, 17) 348 
Miles V. Kern, (29 Pao. R. 720) 158 
Milford V. Milford W. Co., (124 Pa. 

St. 610, 17 Atl. R. 185) 166 



Milford V. Mil. Water Co., (124 Pa. 

St. 610) 170 
Milford etc. Co. v. Brush, (10 Ohio, 

111) 49 
Milhan v. Sharp, (17 N". T. 611) 10, 

396 
Military Parade Ground, In re, (60 

N. Y. 319) 242 
Mill V. Mc Williams, (50 Ala. 427) 375 
Mill Dam Foundry v. Hovey, (21 

Pick. 417) 51 
Miller, In re, (44 Mo. App. 125) 156 
Miller v. Berlen, (13 Blatchf. 245) 

195 d 
Miller v. Bridgewater, (29 N. J. L. 

54) 377 
Miller v. Burch, (32 Tex. 208) 120 
Miller v. English, (1 Zabr. 317) 65 
Miller v. Ford, (4 Rich. L. 376) 169 
Miller v. Iron Co., (29 Mo. 122) 325 
Miller v. Lerch, (1 Wall. Jr. 210) 203 
Miller v. Manstow, (20 Atl. 6) 354 
Miller v. Mc Williams, (50 Ala. 427) 

212 
Miller v. Mc Williams, (50 Ala. 427) 

375 
Miller v. Mobile, (47 Ala. 163) 247, 

249, 278 , 

Miller v. Milw., (14 Wis. 642) 163 
Miller ». Morristown, (42 N. J. Eq. 

62) 249 
Miller v. O'Reilly, (84 Ind. 168) 156 
Miller v. Prairie du Chien R. R., (34 

Wis. 533) 314 
Miller v. Sacramento, (25 Cal. 98) 
Miller v. Savannah Fire Co., (26 Ga. 

678) 130 
Miller v. Sch. Trustees, (88 111. 26) 

398 
Miller v. Schenck, (43 N. W. R. 225) 

215, 311 
Miller v. St. Paul, (38 Minn. 134) 345 
Miller v. State, (106 Ind. 415) 87 
Miller v. Stewart, (9 Wheat. 702) 72 
Miller v. Thompson, (3 Man. & Gr. 

576) 177 
Miller v. Windham, (23 Atl. R. 1132, 

30 W. >r. C. 85) 354 
Millerton v. Frederick, (114 Pa. St. 

435) 189 a, 195 d 
Milliken v. Council, (54 Tex. 388) 83, 

122 
Milliken v. Weatherford, (54 Tex. 

388) 121 
Millikin «. Bloomington, (72 Ind. 

161) 55 
MiUs i). Brevoort, (77 Mich. 210) 360 
,Mills V. Brooklyn, (32 N. Y. 489) 328, 

329 355 
Mills '«. Charleton, (29 Wis. 411) 1415, 

254 



cxu 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Keferences are to Sections. 



Mills V. Detroit, (54 IST. W. E. 897) 

278 
Mills V. Gleason, (11 Wis. 470) 99 
Millville Borough, In re, (10 Pa. Co. 

Ct. R. 321) 2 
Mills V. Jefferson, (20 Wis. 50) 192 
Mills 11. Thornton, (26 111. 300) 272 
Mills V. Williams, (11 Ired. 558) 2 
Mills Co. Bk. t. Mills Co., (67 Iowa, 

697) 180 
Milne v. Davidson, (5 Martin, 586) 

152 
Milne v. Mayor etc., (13 La. 69) 53 
Milner's Admx. v. Pensacola, (2 

Woods, 632) 32 
Milnes v. Duncan, (6 B. &C. 671)327 
Milnes v. Huddersfield, (L. R. Q. B. 

Div. 124) 325, 336 
Milwaukee v. Davis, (6 Wis. 377) 350, 

352 
Milwaukee v. Kaefler, (116 U. S. 219) 

397 
Milwaukee)). Milw. etc. Co., (7Wis. 

85) 302 
Milwaukee Iron Co. v. Hubbard, (27 

Wis. 51) 391, 397 
Milwaukee I. School v. Schubel (29 

Wis. 444) 398 
Mims V. West, (38 Ga. 18) 195 d 
Minden v. Silverstein, (36 La. An 

912) 125 
Miners Bank v. U. S., (5 How. 213) 

380 
Miners D. Co. v. Zellerbaoh, (37 Cal. 

543) 169 
Minhinnah v. Haines, (29 N. J. L. 

388) 377 
Minick v. Troy, (83 N". Y. 514, 516) 

350 b, 352 
Minkler v. State, (14 Neb. 181) 83 
Minor c. Bank, (1 Pet. 46) 91 
Minot B. W. Roxbury, (112 Mass. 1) 4 
Minter v. Durham, (13 Or. 470) 282 
Minton ». Larue, (27 How. 475) 110 
Minton v. Larue, (23 How. 435) 134 
Jlinneapolis v. Wilkin, (30 Minn. 140, 

L'84) 245, 246 
Jlinn. G. L. Co. v. Minneapolis, (30 

X. AV. R. 450, 36 Minn. 159) 113 
Minn. Vail. Co. v. Doran, (17 Minn. 

188) 354 
Minn. Linseed Oil Co. v. Palmer, (20 

Minn. 468, 475) 256, 391 
Mirande, Ex parte, (73 Cal. 365) 97, 

121 
Missouri etc. Co. d. Com'rs, (12 Kan. 

482) 165 
Blissouri etc. Co. v. Fort Scott, (15' 

Kan. 435) 185 
Missouri etc. Co. v. Wilson, (45 Mo. 

App. 1) 244 



Missouri etc. Co. v. Wyandotte, (23 

Pac. R. 950) 146 
Mitchell V. Boardman, (10 Atl. Kep. 

452) 365 
Mitchell V. Franklin & C. Tump. Co., 

(3 Humph. 456) 243, 247 
Mitchell V. Illinois etc. Coal Co., (68 

111. 286) 232 
Mitchell V. Lemon, (34 Md. 176) 155 
Mitchell i: Malone, (77 Ga. 301) 87 
Mitchell V. Milwaukee, (18 Wis. 92) 

172, 397 
Mitchell ». Rockland, (41 Me. 363) 

116, 169, 325, 332, 338 
Mitchell V. United States, (21 Wall. 

350) 66 
Mitchell V. Williams, (27 Ind. 62) 129 
Mitchellville v. Polk Co. Sup., (54 

Iowa, 554) 271 
Mithoff V. Can-oUton, (12 La. An. 

185) 234 
Mize V. Glenn, (38 Mo. Ap. 98) 354 
Moale 1-. Baltimore, (5 Md. 314) 221, 

244 
Moar V. Harvey, (128 Mass. 219) 66 
Moars v. Smedley, (6 Johns. Ch. 28) 

391 
Moberry ». Jeffersonville, (38 Ind. 

198) 265 
Mobile V. Baldwin, (57 A]a. 61) 397 
Mobile V. Guille, (3 Ala. 140) 127 
Mobile V. Jones, (42 Ala. 630) 155 
Mobile V. Mood, (53 Ala.) 133 
Mobile V. Richardson, (1 Stew. & 

Port. 12) 243, 245, 247 
Mobile ». Watson, (116 IT. S. 289, 13 

Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 337) 2, 14, 

42, 59 
Mobile etc. Co. v. Peebles, (47 Ala. 

317) 397 
Mobile & S. H. R. R. Co. v. Kenner- 

ly, (74 Ala. 566) 270 
Mobile M. I. Co. v. Cleveland, (76 

Ala. 321) 362 
Mobile St. Bk. v. Oktibeha Co., (24 

Fed. Rep. 110) 196 
Mock V. Muncie, (32 N. E. R. 718) 

259 a 
Moffatt V. Henderson, (18 J. & S. 

211) 283 
Moffit V. Asheirlle, (103 N. C. 237) 92 
Mohan v. Jackson, (52 Ind. 590) 75 
Mohawk & H. R. R. Co. v. Clute, (4 

Paige, 384) 273 
Mohawk B. Co. v. TJtica E. E., (t! 

Paige, 554) 314 
Moises I). Thornton, (8 Term R. 303) 

52 
Moliter v. Sheldon, (37 Kan. 246) 224 
Mollandiau. Union Pac. Co., (14Fed. 

Eep. 394) 330 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CXUl 



References are to Sections. 



Momenoe ». Kendall, (14 N. App. 

229) 352 
Monaghan v. Phila., (28 Pa. St. 207) 

375 
Monaghan ». Sch. Dist.,(38Wis. 101) 

108, 310 
Monies ». Lynn, (119 Mass. 273) 3506 
Monk V. Xew Utrecht, (104 N. Y. 561) 

328, 352 
Monmouth v. Sullivan, (8 111. App. 

50) 343 
Monongahela u. Fischer, (111 Pa. St. 

9) .346 
Monongahela B. Mono. El. L. Co., (12 

Pa. Co. Ct. K. 529) 301 
Monongahela B. Co. v. Bevard, (11 

Atl. R. 575) 353 
Monongahela B. Co. v. Pittsburgh 

etc., (114 Pa. St. 478) 317 
Monongahela Navigation Co. v. 

Coons, (6 Watts & S. 101) 239 
Monroe v. Gerspach, (14 Mich. 41) 

118 
Monroe v. Hoffman, (29 La. Ann. 

651) 75, 130 
Monroe v. Meuer, (35 La. An. 1192) 

104 
Monroe v. State, (63 Miss. 135) 371 
Montague v. Horton, (12 Wis. 597) 178 
Montana etc. Co. r. R. R. Co., (12 

Pac. R. 916) 249 
Montolair v. Railroad Co., (18 Atl. 

R. 242, 45 N. J. E. 436) 2 
Montolair v. Ramsdell, (107 U. S. 147) 

28, 196 
Monterey v. Berkshire, (7 Cush. 394) 

398 
Monterev ». Berkshire Co. Com'rs, 

(7 Cush. 394) 249 
Montgomery v. Bridge Co., (110 Pa. 

St. 54) 246 
Montgomery v. Hughes, (65 Ala. 

201) 32 
Montgomery u. Locke, (11 Pac. R. 874) 

354 
Montgomery v. Scott, (34 Wis. 338) 

337 
Montgomery v. Townsend, (80 Ala. 

489, 2 So. 155) 245, 292 
Montgomery v. Wright, (72 Ala. 411) 

352 
Montgomery v. Wyman, (22 N. E. R. 

845, 130 111. 17) 270 
Montgomery Council v. Gilmer, (33 

Ala. 116) 355 
Montgomery Council v. Townsend, 

(80 Ala. 489) 330 
Montgomery Co. v. Elston, (32 Ind. 

27) 258 
Montgomery C. C. v. M. W. P. R. 

Co., (1 Ala. 76) 169 

viii 



Montgomery Gas Light Co. v. City 

Council, (6 So. 113, 87 Ala. 245) 393 
Monticello v. Fox, (28 N. E. R. 1025, 

3 Ind. Ap. 481) 327 
Montpelier v. East Montpelier, (29 

Vt. 12) 12, 206 
Montrose v. State, (61 Miss. 429) 102 
Moody V. Mayor, (43 Barb. 282) 336 a 
Moon V. Ionia, (46 N. W. R. 25) 346 
Mooney v. Kenneth, (19 Mo. 551) 158 
Moor 1). Cornville, (13 Me. 293) 170 
Moore v. Abbott, (32 Me. 46) 342 
Moore v. Albany, (98 N. Y. 396) 329 
Moore v. Albert, (32 Me. 46) 352 
Moore v. Allen, (98 N. Y. 396, 13 Am. 

& Eng. Cor. Cas. 262) 170 
Moore v. Atlanta, (70 Ga. 611) 392 
Moore v. Bailey. (8 Mo. App. 156) 

279 
Moore v. Chicago, (60 111. 243) 263 
Moore b. Chicago etc. Co., (75 Iowa, 

263) 354 
Moore v. Gadsden, (87 N. Y. 84) 348 
Moore v. Graves, (3 N. H. 308) 69 
Moore v. Fayetteville Comm'rs, (80 

N. C. 154) 261 
Moore B. Kenockee Tp., (42 N. W. R. 

944) 353 
Moore v. Little Rock, (42 Ark. 66) 

218, 2S1 
Moore v. Mayor, (73 N. Y. 238) 148, 

164 
Moore v. Moore, (47 N. Y. 467) 258 
Moore v. Newfield, (4 Greenl. 44) 95, 

108 
Moore v. New York, (4 Sandf. 450, 

8 N. Y. 110) 244 
Moore v. New York, (8 N. Y. 110) 218 
Moore v. New York, (73 N. Y. 238) 

169 
Moore ». People, (14 How. 13) 117 
Moore v. Platteville, (47 N. W. R. 

1055) 326 a 
Moore V. Quirk, (105 Mass. 49) 258 
Moore ». Richmond, (8 S. E. R. 387) 

339, 352 
Moore & Sanford, (24 N. E. R. 423) 

232 
Moore v. State, (16 Ala. 411) 117 
Moore v. State, (48 Miss. 147) 117 
Moore v. State, (11 La. 35) 129 
Moore v. St. Paul, (51 N. W. R. 219) 

256 
Moore v. Taylor, (29 W. N. C. 495) 

270 
Moore V. Walla Walla, (2 Wash. 184) 

120 
Moose V. Carson, (104 N. C. 431, 10 

S. E. 689) 244 
Mootry v. Danbury, (45 Conn. 450) 

120,854 a 



CXIV 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



References are to Sections. 



Moran v. Long Island City, (101 N. 

T. 439) 33 
Moran ». Miami, (2 Black, 722, 732) 

183, 190 
Moran ». New Orleans, (112 IT. S. 69) 

150 
Moreland v. Mitchell Co., (40 Iowa, 

394) 313, 315, 353 
Moreland v. Wliitford, (54 Wis. 150) 

399 
Morey v. Brown, (42 N. H. 373) 129 
Morey v. Fitzgerald, (56 Vt. 487) 342, 

346 
Morey ». Newfane, (8 Barb. 645) 2 
Morford v. Barnes, (8 Yerg. 444) 105, 

245 
Morford v. linger, (8 Iowa, 82) 28, 55 
Morgan's Ap., (25 W. N". C. 532) 396 
Morgan v. Atlanta, (77 Ga. 662) 32 
Morgan v. Chicago & A. K. R. Co., 

(96 U. S. 716) 217 
Morgan v. Cree, (46 Vt. 773, 14 Am. 

Kep. 640) 270 
Morgan v. District, (10 Ct. of CI. 156) 

177 
Morgan v. Hallowell, (57 Me. 375) 

339 
Morgan v. King, (35 N. T. 454) 245 
Morgan ». Menzies, (60 Cal. 341) 164 
Morgan v. Muldoon, (82 Ind.«847) 348 
Morgans Parham, (16 Wall. 471) 272 
Morgan t. Quackeubush, (22 Barb. 

74) 65 
Morgan Co. v. Thomas, (76 111. 120) 

186 
Morganthaler v. Cities, (4 Ohio Cir. 

Ct. 495) 369 
Morin v. Multonah Co., (22 Pao. 490) 

325 
Morley v. Carpenter, (22 Mo. App. 

240) 291 
Morley v. Power, (5 Lea, 691) 364, 

371, 374 
Morrell v. Sylvester, (1 Greenl. 248) 

72 
Morrill v. State, (38 Wis. 428, 20 Am. 

Rep. 12) 261 
Morris v. Baltimore, (5 Md. 248) 326 a 
Morris v. Bowen, (Wright, 749) 287 
Morris V. Chicago, (11 111. 650) 240 
Morris v. City of Rome, (10 Ga. 532) 

134 
Morris v. Council Bluffs, (67 Iowa, 

343) 329, 354 a 
Morris v. Dixfield, (30 Me. 157, 160) 

170 ' 

Morris v. Lone Star, (5 S. W. R. 519) 

268, 270 
Morris v. Nashville, (6 Lea, 337) 61 
Morris u. Newark, (26 Atl. R. 82) 71 
Morris ». People, (3 Denio, 381) 115 



Morris v. Staps, (Hob. 211) 158 
Morris v. State, (62 Tex. 728) 2, 14 
Morris v. State, (65 Tex. 53) 38 
Morris v. State, (84 Ala. 446, 4 So. R, 

628) 49 
Morris Banking & Canal Co. v. Lewis, 

(1 Beasl. 323) 191 b 
Morris Canal etc. Co. v. Fisher, (1 

Stock. 667) 191 
Morris Canal & B. Co. v. Central K. 

B. Co., (16 J^. J. Eq. 419) 225 
Morris Canal Co. v. Ryei-son, (27 N. 

J. L. 457) 353 
Morris etc. v. Fagin, (22 N. J. Eq. 

430) 300 
Morris etc. Co. •». Newark, (10 N. J. 

Eq. 352, 357) 302 
Morris etc. Co. v. Prudden, (20 N. J. 

Eq. 530) 396 
Morrison v. Hankson, (87 111. 587) 

212, 375 
Morrison v. Hershire, (32 Iowa, 271) 

259 a, 397 
Morrison v. Jacoby, (14 N. E. R. 546, 

114 Ind. 84) .397 
Morrison v. Lawrence, (98 Mass. 219) 

92, 98, 108, 338 
Morrison v. McDonald, (21 Me. 550) 

90, 102 
Morristown v. Mayor, (67 Pa. St. 355) 

345 
Morrow v. Surber, (97 Mo. 155) 177 
Morrow ». Weed, (4 Iowa, 77) 279 
Morrow Co. v. Hendryx, (14 Oreg. 

397) 67 
Morse v. Belfast, (77 Me. 44) 346 
Morse v. Boston, (109 Mass. 446) 344 
Morse ». New York, (73 N. Y. 238) 

338 
Morse v. Richmond, (41 Vt. 435) 342 
Morse u. Sweenie, (15 Bradw. 486) 

331 
Morse v. Westport, (110 Mo. 502, 19 

S. W. R. 831) 292 
Morse v. Zeize, (34 Minn. 55) 219 
Mortimer u. McCollan, (6 M. & W. 67) 

107 
Mortimer v. Metro. El. E. Co., (29 N. 

E. R. 5, 129 N. Y. 81) 244 
Morton v. Lee, (28 Kan. 287) 88 
Morton v. Power, (33 Minn. 521) 175 
Morton v. Smith, (48 Wis. 265) 348 
Morton etc. v. Wysong, (51 Ind. 4) 320 
Morvillei). Tract Soc, (123 Mass. 129) 

164 
Moser v. Mayor, (21 Hun, 163) 67 
Moses B. Kearney, (31 Ark. 261) 363 
Moses V. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. Co., 

(21 111. 516) 302, 303, 329 
Moses V. St. Louis Dock Co., (84 Mo. 

242) 241 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



cx-v 



Mosey v. Troy, (61 Barb. 580) 351 
Moshei- V. Sch. Dis., (44 Iowa, 122) 

16, 189 o 
Moss V. Cummiiifrs, (44 Mich. 359, 22 

Alb. L. ,T. 376) 326 
Mott V. Hioks, (1 Cow. 513, 13 Am. 

Rep. 550) 51, 164, 168 
Mott V. Reynolds, (27 Vt. 206) 106 
Mott V. Schoolbred, (L. R. 20 Eq. 22) 

300 
Motz 1). Detroit, (18 Mich. 495) 259 a 
Moulton V. Evansville, (25 Fed. Rep. 

382) 196 
Moulton V. Sanford, (51 Me. 127) 342 
Moultrie v. Rockingham etc. Bk. (92 

U. S. 631) 186 
Moundsville v. Fountain, (27 W. Va. 

182) 104, 125 
Moundsville v. Velton, (13 S. E. R. 

373) 31 
Mt. Carmel v. Wabash Co., (50 111. 

69) 125 
Mt. Clair v. Remsdell, (107 V. S. 147) 

28 
Mt. Desert ». Monmouth, (72 Me. 348) 

60 
Mt. Pleasant v. Breeze, (11 Iowa, 399) 

146 
Mt. Pleasant v. Beckwith, (100 U. S. 

514) 42 
Mt. Moriah Cem., (81 Pa. St. 235) 363 
Mt. Morris Sq., In re, (2 Hill, 20) 98 
Mt. Morris v. Williams, (38 111. Ap.' 

401) 192 
Mt. "Vernon b. Hovey, (52 Ind. 563) 

184 
Mt. Vernon v. Patton, (94 111. 65) 176 
Mt. Washington Road Co., Re, (35 

jST. H. 134) 235 
Mowatt V. Wright, (1 Wend. 355) 

326 a 
Mower v. Leicester, (9 Mass. 247) 

315 
Mowery v. Salisbury, (82 N. C. 175) 

129 
Mowry ». Providence, (10 R. I. 52) 

208, 312, 396 
Moyamensing ». Long, (1 Pa. 143) 

300 
Mudge I). Williamsport, (78 Pa. St. 

158) 87 
Muhler v. Kansas, (123 U. S. 623) 

121, 231 
Muhlenbrink v. Com'rs, (42 N. J. L. 

364) 123 
Mulhall 15. Quinn, (1 Gray, 105) 80 
Mullarkey v. Cedar Falls, (19 Iowa, 

21) 113 
Mullegan v. Ellis, (12 Abb. Pr. 259) 

120 
MuUen v. Rutland, (55 Vt. 77) 343 



Mullen V. St. John, (57 N. Y. 567) 

337, 342, 348 
Muller V. District, (5 Mackey, 286) 

352 a 
Muller V. Mayor etc., (63 K. T. 355) 

87 
Mulligan v. Smith, (59 Cal. 206) 232, 

241, 278 
MuUikin v. Bloomington, (27 Ind. 

161) 56, 61 
Mumma v. Potomac Co., (8 Pet. 

2S5) 10, 40 
Munger v. Marshalltown, (56 Iowa, 

210) 339, 352 
Munger v. Tonawanda R. R. Co., (4 

N. Y. 349) 239 
Munic. V. Bank, (5 Rob. 151) 270 
Municipality v. Commissioners, (1 

Rob. 279) 32 
Municipality v. Cutting, (4 La. An. 

335) 128, 146 
Municipality v. Dubois, (10 La. An. 

56) 123 
Municipality v. Kirk, (5 La. An. 34) 

225 
Municipality b. Levee, S. C. P. Co., 

(7 La. An. 270) 222, 242 ■ 
Municipality b. McDonough, (2 Rob. 

244) 200 
Municipality v. Palfrey, (7 La. An. 

497) 221 
Municipality b. Pance, (6 La. An. 

515) 282 
Municipality v. Pease, (2 La. An. 

538) 133 
Municipality v. Theater Co., (2 Rob. 

La. 209) 17 
Municipality No. 2 v. Com. Bank of 

N. O., (5 Rob. 151) 267 
Municipalitv No. 2 b. Dubois, (10 

La. An. 56) 261 
Municipality No. 2 b. Duncan, (2 La. 

An. 182) 269 
Municipality No. 2 b. Dunn, (10 La. 

An. 57) 259 a 
Munio. No. 2 b. Guillotte, (14 La. 

An. 297) 281 
Municipality No. 2 v. N. O. & Car. 

R. R. Co., (10 Rob. 187) 267, 270 
Municipality No. 1 v. La. State 

Bank, (5 La. An. 394) 273 
Municipality No. 3 B. Johnson, (La. 

An. 20) 268 
Municipality No. 2 v. Orleans Cot. 

Press Co., (6 Rob. 411) 266 
Municipality No. 1 v. Wheeler, (IC 

La. An. 745) 262 
Municipality No. 2 v. White, (9 La. 

An. 446) 261 
Municipality No. 3 v. Ursuline Nuns^ 

(2 La. An. 611) 276 



CXVl 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
Keferences are to Sections. 



Munk V. "Watertown, (67 Hun, 261) 

324 
Munn V. Pittsburgh, (40 Pa. St. 364) 

355 
Muiiro V. Munro, (7 01. & F. 842) 66 
Munsell v. Temple, (8 111. 96) 124 
Munsou V. Board, (8 So. 914, 43 La. 

An. 33) 259 a 
Munson v. Lyons, (12 Blatchf. 539) 

196 
Munson v. New York, (3 Fed. Rep. 

338) 338 
Muntum v. Larue, (23 How. 435) 144 
Murdock v. Academy, (12 Pick, 244) 

84 
Murdock o. Chaffee, (7 So. E. 519) 

282 
Murdock v. District, (22 Ct. of Claims, 

464) 171 
Murdock v. Memphis, (10 Wall. 590) 

32 
Murdock v. Woodson, (2 Dillon C. C. 

188) 26, 28 
Murdock etc. Co. v. Com., (152 Mass. 

28)5 
Murphy, In re, (7 Cow. 153) 65 
Murphy t). Brooklyn, (23 N. E. K. 887) 

338 
Murphy v. Chicago, (29 HI. 279) 113, 

239, 302, 329 
Murphy v. East Portland, (42 Fed. 

308) 393, 395 
Murphy w. Gloucester, (105 Mass. 

470) 342, 343 
Murphy v. Harrison, (29 Ark. 340) 

397 
Murphy v. Indianapolis, (83 Ind. 76) 

346 
Murphy v. Louisville, (9 Bush, 189) 

2, 8, 164, 170 
Murphy v. Lowell, (124 Mass. 564) 

336, 347 
Murphy o. McShane, (52 Md. 217) 

348 
Murphy b. People, (2 Cow. 815) 104 
Murphy v. People, (120 111. 234) 254 
Murphy v. Wilmington, (6 Houst. 

108) 277 
Murphy's Boro. v. Baker, (34 HI. 

App. 659) 350 b 
Murray v. Charleston, (96 U. S. 432) 

258, 278 
Murray v. Menefee, (20 Ark. 561) 239 
Murray v. Sardner, (2 Wall. 110) 195 d 
Murray v. Sharp, (1 Bosw. 539) 132, 

239 
Murray v. Tucker, (10 Bush, 249) 256, 

263 
Murray v. Virginia, (91 HI. 558) 55 
Murtagh v. St. Louis, (44 Mo. 479) 

332 



Muscatine v. Keokuk N. L. etc. Co, 

(45 Iowa, 185) 326 a 
Muscatine v. Packet Co., (45 Iowa, 

185) 326 a 
Muscatine v. R. R. Co., (1 Dillon C. 

C. R. 536) 14 
Muscatine v. Steck, (7 Iowa, 505) 102 
Muscatine Turnverein v. Fiinck, (18 

Iowa, 469) 38 
Musgrove v. St. Louis Ch., (10 La. 

An. 431) 118 
Muskegon!). Dow, (54 N. W. R. 170) 8 
Musselman v. Manly, (42 Ind. 462) 93 

106 
Musser v. Johnson, (42 Mo. 74) 52 
Mutual Ben. L. I. Co. v. Elizabeth, 

(42 N. J. L. 235) 196 
Mutual Ins. Co. v. Supervisors, (32 

Barb. 322) 397 
Mut. Sav. Inst. v. Eustin, (46 Mo. 

200, 203) 327 
Mut. Un. Tel. Co. ». Chicago, (16 

Fed. Rep. 309) 297 
Myall V. St. Paul, (30 Minn. 294) 391 
Myers v. Bank, (20 Ohio, 283) 22 
Myers v. Com., (1 Atl. 264, 110 Pa. 

8t. 217) 315 
Myers r. Croft, (13 Wall. 291) 207 
Myers v. Irwin, (2 Serg. & Rawle, 

368) 25 
Myers v. People, (26 111. 173) 102, 104 
Myers v. Simms, (4 Iowa, 500) 249 
Myers v. Snyder, (Bright, 489) 347 
Myers ti. St. Louis, (82 Mo. 367) 132 
Mygatt V. Green Bay, (1 Biss. 292) 

195 d 
Mytton V. Duck, (26 Up. Can. Q. B. 

61) 215 

N. 

Nagle V. Augusta, (5 Ga. 546) 290 
Nalle 1). Austin, (21 S. W. R. 375) 8 
Napa V. Easterby, (18 Pac. R. 353) 

148 
Napa V. E. Co. v. Napa Co., (30 Cal. 

435) 186, 362 
Napman i-. People, (19 Mich. 352) 

124, 158 
Narden c. Mount, (78 Ky. 86) 155 
Narraent v. Charlotte Co., (85 N. C. 

387) 196 
Narragausett, In re, (16 Atl. E. 907) 

65 
Nash V. Lowry, (37 Minn. 261) 287, 

302 
Nash V. St. Paul, (11 Minn. 174) 170, 

172 
Nashville v. Bank of Tenn., (1 Swan, 

269) 271 
Nashville v. Brown, (9 Heisk. 1) 347 
Nashville v. Ray, (19 Wall. 468) 177 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CXVU 



References are to Sections. 



Nashville v. Smith, (6 S. W. R. 273) 

271 
Nashville v. Thomas, (5 Coldvsr. 600) 

255, 273 
Nashville v. Weiser, (54 111. 245) 279 
Nason v. Boston, (14 Allen, 508) 344 
Nassau Street, Re, (11 Johns. 77) 270 
Natal V. State, (11 S. Ct. 636, 139 U. 

S. 621) 128 
National Bank v. Grenada, (44 Fed. 

262) 189, 190, 198 
Nat. Bank v. Kirby, (108 Mass. 497) 

191 
Nat. Exch. Bank v. Hartford etc. R. 

R. Co., (8 R. I. 375) 190, 191, 192 6, 

193 
National etc. Co. v. State, (21 Atl. R. 

570) 238 
Natl. Lumber Co. v. City of Wymore, 

(46 N. W. Rep. 622) 180 
Natl. Bank of Commerce v. Town of 

Grenada, (44 Fed. Rep. 262) 189 
Nat. St. Bank v. Marshall, (39 Iowa, 

490) 190 
National Waterworks v. Kansas City, 

(28 Fed. Rep. 921) 144, 296 
Natoma W. & M. Co. v. Clarkin, (14 

Cal. 544) 207 
Nauman v. Board, (41 N. W. R. 267) 

18 
Navasota v. Pearce, (46 Tex. 525) 325 
Nave V. Flack, (90 lud. 205) 352 
Naylor b. Galesburg, (56 111. 285) 161 
Neal V. Commonwealth, (17 Serg. & 

R. 67) 54, 62 
Neal B. Pittsburgh & C. R. R. Co., 

(2 Grant Cases, 137) 241 
Neale v. Overseers, (5 "Watts, 538) 73, 

88 
Neales v. State, (10 Mo. 498) 104 
Nealis v. Hayward, (48 Ind. 19) 290 
Neares. Mt. Auburn R. Co., (29 Wkly. 

L. Bui. 171) 303 
Nebraska City v. Campbell, (2 Black. 

590) 352 a 
Nebraska City v. Lampkin, (6 Neb. 

27) 329 
Nebraska City b. Rathbone, (20 Neb. 

288) 344 a 
Needham v. Thresher, (49 Cal. 393) 

360 
Neely v. Yorkville, (10 S. C. 141) 169, 

190 a 
Neenan v. Donoghue, (50 Mo. 593) 

174 
Neenan v. Smith, (60 Mo. 292) 281, 

282 
Neff V. Mooresville, (66 Ind. 279) 317 
NefE B. Wellesley, (148 Mass. 487, 20 

N. E. Ill) 352 
NeifEer v. Bank. (1 Head, 162) 165 



Neilson v. Newark, (49 N. J. L. 246) 

58, 67 
Nelson v. Edwards, (55 Tex. 389) 362 
Nelson v. Godfrey, (12 111. 22) 348 
Nelson v. Gridley, (12 111. 22, 23) 298 
Nelson b. La Porte, (33 Ind. 258) 256, 

295, 296 
Nelson b. St. Martins Parish, (111 U. 

S. 716) 14, 161 
Nelson b. Mayor, (5 Hun, 190) 87 
Nelson «. Milford, (7 Pick. 18) 115 
Nelson b. New York, (5 N. Y. Sup. 

688) 173 
Nesbit B. Riverside, (12 S. Ct. 144, U. 

S. 610) 192 
Nesbit B. Trumbo, (39 111. 110) 234 a 
Neshkoro v. Nest, (55 N. W. R. 176) 

300, 396 
Nette B. N. Y. El. R. Co., (20 N. Y. 

S. 844) 39 6 
Neuse v. Cora'rs, (6 Jones L. 204) 368 
Nevada v. Hampton, (13 Nev. 441) 16 
Nev. Sell. Dist. b. Shoecroft, (88 Cal. 

372) 26 
Nevert b. Boston, (120 Mass. 338) 335 
Nevies b. Peoria, (41 111. 502) 113, 328 

354 a 
New Albany v. Connelly, (7 Ind. 32) 

279 
New Albany b. Meekin, (3 Ind. 481) 

272 
New Albany b. Ray, (29 N. E. R. 611, 

3 Ind. Ap. 481) 328 
New Albany b. Sweeney, (13 Ind. 

245) 282 
New Albany Bk. v. Danville, (60 Ind. 

504) 182 
New Albany etc. Co. v. O'Dally, (13 

Ind. 353) 302 
New Albany & S. R. R. Co. b. Con- 
nolly, (7 Ind. 32) 238, 243 
Newark v. Del. etc. R. R. Co., (42 N. 

J. Eq. 196) 301, 308 
Newark b. Elliott, (5 Ohio St. 113) 

208 
Newark v. Murphy, (40 N. J. L. 145) 

155 
Newark Aq. Bd. b. Passaic, (45 N. J. 

Eq. 393) 120 
Newark Bank v. Assessors, (30 N. J. 

L. 22) 32 
Newark etc. Co. v. Newark, (23 N. J. 

Eq. 515) 302 
Newaygo b. Echtinan, (45 N. W. R. 

1010) 266 
New Bedford & F. Street Ry. Co. v. 

Acushnet Street Ry. Co., (143 Mass. 

200) 33 
New Bedford & F. etc. Co. b. Acush- 
net St. Rv. Co., (9 N. E. R. 536) 

302 



OXTlll 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



References are to Sections. 



New Boston v. Dumbarton, (12 N. 

H. 409, .412) 31 
New Brighton o. IT. Pres. Church, 

(96 Pa. St. 331) 330 
Newby v. Free, (72 Iowa, 379) 374 
Newby v. Platte County, (25 Mo. 258) 

245 
Newcomer v. Keedy, (2 Md. 19) 284 
New Decatur v. Berry, (90 Ala. 432) 

118, 169 
Newell V. Minn. etc. Ey. Co., (35 

Minn. 112) 144, 302 
Newell V. Smith, (53 Conn. 72) 327 
Newert v. Boston, (120 Mass. 338) 

338 a 
Newgass v. City of New Orleans, (42 

La. An. 165) 177 
Newgass v. New Orleans, (7 So. E. 

565) 183 
New Gass b. E. Co., (15 S. W. 188) 247 
New Hayen v. Fairhaveu etc. Co., (38 

Conn. 422) 259 a, 306 
New Haven v. New Haven & D. E. 

Co., (25 Atl. E. 316) 164 
New Haven v. Eailroad, (38 Conn. 

422) 283 
New Haven v. Whitney, (36 Conn. 

373) 291 
New Haven etc. Co. v. Chatham, (42 

Conn. 465) 106, 196 
Newiugton v. Jacobs, (25 Law T. N. 

S. 800, L. E. 7 Q. B. 53) 224 
New Jersey v. Fire Com'rs, (34 N. J. 

Eq. 117) 169 
New Jersey v. Yard, (95 IT. S. 112) 

32 
New Loudon o. Brainard, (22 Conn. 

552) 395 
Newliu V. Davis, (77 Pa. St. 317) 343 
Newman v. Emporia, (32 Kan. 456) 

145, 265 
Newman v. Metro, etc. Co., (118 N. 

Y. 618) 246 
Newman v. Scott etc., (1 Heisk. 787) 

375 ' 

Newmeyer v. M. & M. Co., (52 Mo. 

81) 395 
New Orleans v. Boudro, (14 La. An. 

303) 158 
New Orleans v. Brooks, (36 La. An. 

64) 97, 148 
New Orleans v. Cazelar, (27 La. An. 

156) 56 
New Orleans v. Clark, (95 IT. S. 644) 

60, 187, 295 
New Orleans v. Cora. Bank of N. O 

(10 La. An. 735) 261, 273 
New Orleans v. Costello, (14 La. An. 

37) 102, 154 
New Orleans v. Davidson, (30 La. An. 

541) 282 



New Orleans v. Fimerty, (27 La, 

Am. 681) 79 
New Orleans v. Graihle, (9 La. An. 

561) 282 
New Orleans v. Gravier, (11 Martin, 

620) 300 
New Orleans v. Home Ins. Co., (23 

La. An. 61) 212 
New Orleans v. Hoyle, (23 La. An. 

740) 2 
New Orleans v. Kaufmaan, (20 La. 

An. 283) 259 a 
New Orleans v. Louisiana Co., (140 

U. S. 654) 212 
New Orleans v. Meoli. & T. Bank, 

(15 La. An. 107) 273 
New Orleans v. Michoud, (10 La. 

An. 763) 56 
New Orleans v. Miller, (7 La. An. 

651) 117 
New Orleans v. McDonald, 53 Miss. 

240) 184 
New London v. Montville, (1 Eoot, 

184) 67 
New Orleans v. Morris, (105 U. S. 

600) 212 
New Orleans v. N. O. W. W. Co., 

(142 U. S. 79) 8, 15 
New Orleans v. N. O. etc. Co., (40 

La. An. 587) 303 
New Orleans v. N. O. W. Co., (142 

TJ. S. 79) 15 
New Orleans u. Pliillippi, (9 La. An. 

44) 120, 146 
New Orleans v. Poutz, (14 La. An. 

853) 17, 161 
New Orleans v. Staiger, (11 La. An. 

68) 261 
New Orleans o. St. Anna's Asylum, 

(31 La. An. 292) 270 
New Orleans v. Shepherd, (10 La. 

Ann. 268) 66 
New Orleans v. Souther Bank, (11 

La. An. 41) 170, 261, 273 
New Orleans v. Stafford, (27 La. An. 

417) 128 
New Orleans v. St. Louis Church, 

11 La. An. 244) 163 
New Orleans v. Turpin, (13 La. An. 

56) 123 
New Orleans v. Wilmot, (31 La. An. 

65) 133 
New Orleans v. Wire, (20 La. An. 

500) 282 
Ne.w Orleans v. United States, (49 

Fed. Eep. 40, 2 U. S. App. 125) 

194 
New Orleans v. U. S., (10 Pet. 662, 

737) 133, 217, 220, 225, 226, 229 
New Orleans Draining Co., In re, (11 

La. An. 338) 236, 249 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CXIX 



Beferences are to Sections. 



New Orleans etc. Co. v. Delamore, ! 

(114 U. S. 501) 302 
New Orleans etc. v. Hart, (40 La. 

An. 474) 290 
New Orleans etc. Co. c. Second Mun., 

(1 La. An. 128) 302 
New Orleans etc. R. R. Co. v, G-ay, 

(32 La. An. 471) 238 
New Orleans El. Ry. Co. v. New Or- 
leans, (39 La. An. 127) 148 
New Orleans etc. Co. v. New Orleans, 

(143 U. S. 192) 270 
New Orleans etc. R. R. Co. v. South- 
ern etc. Tel. Co., (.53 Ala. 211) 238 
N. O. Gas Co. ». Louisiana etc., 

(115 U. S. 650) 296, 395 
New Orleans M. & T. R. R. Co. v. 

Southern & Atl. Tel. Co., (53 Ala. 

211) 297 
New Orleans R. R. Co. v. New Or- 
leans R. Co., (26 La. An. 478) 2, 9, 

11 
New Orleans Waterworks ». Rivers, 

(115 V. S. 674) 144, 295. 
Newport v. Berry, (19 S. W. R. 238) 

272 
Newport v. Newport Light Co., (84 

Ky. 167) 144, 296 
Newport v. R'way Co., (89 Ky. 29) 270 
Newport v. So. Gov. etc. Co., (11 S. 

W. Eep. 964) 303 
Newport!). Taylor's Ex., (16 B. Mon. 

699) 221, 225 
Newport Trustees, (16 Sim. 346) 25 
Newport etc. Co. v. Eoote, (9 Bush, 

264) 329 
New Providence v. Halsey, (117 U. 

S. 33(i) 143, 183, 196 
Newsorae i'. Cocke, (44 Miss. 352) 83 
Newton v. Belger, (143 Mass. 598) 

131, 150 
Newton v. Devlin, (134 Mass. 490) 171 
Newtonville v. Gulp, (38 Ohio St. 13) 

85 
Newville Rd., (8 Watts, 172) 288 
New York v. Broadway & 8. A. R. 

R. Co., (17 Hun, 242) 274, 306 
New Yorku. B. S. & L. Co. v. B'k'lyn, 

(71 N. Y. 580) 336 a 
New York v. Bailey, (2 Denio, 433) 

237, 336 a, 354 
New York v. Cusliman, (10 Johns. 

96) 270 
New York v. Hart, (95 N. Y. 443, 452) 

225 
New York v. Kent, (5 N. Y. S. 567) 

210, 211 
New York v. Pentz, (24 Wend. 668) 

335 
New York »; Sec. Ave. R. Co., (32 

N. Y. 261) 113 



New York v. Sheffield, (4 Wall. 189) 

350 a 
New York v. Stuyvesant, (17 N. Y. 

34) 221 
New York v. Third Av. E. Co., (117 

N. Y. 404, 646) 302 
N. Y. Cable Ry., In re, (109 N. Y. 32) 

305 
N. Y. Dist. Ry. Case, In re, (107 N. 

Y. 42) 297 
N. Y. El. R. R. Co., In re, (70 N. Y. 

327, 41 Hun, 502) 144, 303 
New York etc. Bridge, In re, (72 N. 

Y. 527) 28 
N. Y. & B. Lumber Co. v. Brooklyn, 

(71 N. Y. 580) 92, 338 a 
N. Y. Bal. D. D. v. Mayor, (8 Hun, 

247) 126 
N. Y. Central etc. R. R. Co. v. Met. 

Gas. Co., (63 N. Y. 326) 233 
New York Conference v. Clarkson, 

(4 Halst. Ch. 541) 47, 49 
New York etc. Co. v. Brooklyn, (71 

N. Y. 580) 324 
N. Y. etc. R. Co. o. State, (13 Atl. R. 

1) 317 
New York etc. Co. v. Waterbury, (55 

Conn. 19) 148 
New York, L. E. & W. R. R. Co. b. 

Yard, (43 N. J. L. 121) 225 
N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co. <,■. New 

Britain, (49 Conn. 40) 270 
New York & New Haven R. R. Co. 

V. New Haven, (42 Conn. 279) 259 a 
N. Y. P. E. School, In re, (47 N. Y. 

556) 281 
Niagara etc. Co., In re, (40 Hun, 94) 

232 
Niagara Falls Susp. Br. Co. v. Bach- 
man, (66 N. Y. 261) 218, 219 
Niantic Sav. Bank v. Douglas, (5 111. 

579) 190 a 
Niblett V. Nashville, (12 Heisk. 684) 

349 
Nicholls V. Gt. Western R'y Co., (27 

Up. Can. Q. B. 382) 332 
Nichols, In re, (6 Abb. New Cas. 

474) 84 
Nichols, In re, (57 How. 395) 83 
Nichols V. Athens, (68 Me. 413) 342 
Nichols V. Bridgeport, (23 Conn. 189, 

208) 108, 232, 241, 248, 259 a 
Nichols B. McLean, (101 N. Y. 526) 

79,85 
Nichols i>. Minneapolis, (2 Am. & 

Eng. Cor. Cas. 562) 350 a 
Nioliols !). State, (89 Ind. 298) 400 
Nicholson v. Guardians L. R., (1 Q. 

B. 320) 164 
Nicholson P. Co. v. Painter, (35 Cah 
. 699) 165, 172 



cxx 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Keferenccs are to Sections. 



Nickerson ». Boston, (131 Mass. 306) 

120 
Nicol V. Magee, (9 Humpb. 252) 184 
Nicol V. Mayor, (9 Humph. 252) 2, 8, 

9, 163 
Nicoliu V. Lowrey, (49 N. J. L. 391) 

119, 150 
Nicoll, Re, (4 Hun, 340) 374 
SricoUi). N. Y. & E. R. R. Co., (12 N. 

Y. 121) 202, 203 
NicoU V. N. Y. & E. R. E. Co., (12 N. 

Y. 121) 200 
Niles W. W. Co. !). Niles, (59 Mich. 

311) 9, 165 
Nims 1). Troy, (59 N. Y. 500) 355 
Nims li. Boone Co., (66 Iowa, 272) 

313 
Ninth Nat. Bk. v. Knox Co., (37 Fed. 

Rep. 75) 196 
Nixon V. Biloxi, (5 So. R. 621) 220 
Noble V. BuUis, (23 Iowa, 559) 327 
Noble «. Richmond, (31 Grat. 271) 

325, 339, 345, 349 
Noble V. St. Albans, (5'! Vt. 522) 355 
Noblesville T. Co. v. Baker, (4 

Humph. 315) 318 
Nodine v. Union, (13 Oreg. 587) 158 
Noeling v. Allee, (10 N. Y. S. 97) 348 
Nolan D. King, (97 N. Y. 565) 348 
Nolan V. New Oris., (10 La. An. lOB) 

83, 85 
Nolin «. Franklin, (4 Yerg. 163) 120 
Noonan v. Smith, (50 Mo. 525) 259 a 
Noonan v. Stillwater, (33 Minn. 198) 

347 
Norfleet v. Cromwell, (70 N. C. 634, 

16 Am. Rep. 787) 236 
Norfolk City v. Ellis, (26 Gratt. 224) 

259 a 
Normaud v. Comm'rs, (8 Neb. 18) 395 
Norris v. Baltimore, (44 Md. 598) 242 
Norris v. Litchfield, (35 N. H. 918) 

352 
Norris v. Mayor etc. of Smythville, 

(1 Swan, 104) 53, 57 
Norris 13. People, (3 Denio, 331) 28 
Norris v. Staps, (Hob. 211) 149 
Norris v. Trustees, (7 Gill & Jolms. 7) 

15 
Norris v. Vt. Cent. R. R. Co., (28 Vt. 

99) 239 
Norristown v. Fitzpatrick, (94 Pa. 

St. 621) 327, 331, 331 a, 333 
Norristown v. Mayor, (67 Pa. St. 355) 

345 
Northampton Co. v. Eastern etc. Ey. 

(23 Atl. R. 895) 12 
Northampton Co. v. Lafayette Col- 
lege, (18 Atl. Rep. 516) 14 
No. Bait. Pass. Ry. Co. v. Baltimore, 

(23 Atl. 470) 302 



North & S. S. R. Co. v. Spullock, (88 

Ga. 283) 398 
No. Beach & M. R. R. Co.'s Appeal, 

(32 Cal. 499) 274 
North Chicago v. Lake View, (105 111. 

207) 120 
Northoott V. Smith, (4 Ohio Cir. Ct. 

565) 129 
N. C. R. R. Co. V. Carolina Cent. K. 

R. Co., (83 N. C. 489) 144, 238, 302 
North Chi. C. R. Co. v. Lake View, 

(105 111. 207) 302 
No. Central Ry. Co. v. Jackson, (7 

Wall. 262) 258 
No. Cen. R. R. v. Baltimore, (46 Md. 

425) 306 
Northeastern etc. Co. v. Payne, (8 

Rich. L. 177) 303 
Northern B. etc. v. London etc. (6 

M. & W. 428) 318 
Northern Cen. R. R. v. State, (31 Ind. 

357) 352 
Northern etc. Co. v. Baltimore, (21 

Md. 93) 302, 303 
Northern Indiana!). Mllliken, (7 Ohio 

St. 382) 102 
No. Ind. R. R. Co. d. Connelly, (10 

Oliio St. 159, 164) 259 a, 273 
Northern Liberties ». St. John's 

Church, (13 Pa. St. 104) 270 
North. Liberties Comrs. v. Gas Co., 

(12 Pa. St. 318) 308 
Northern T. Co. v. Chicago, (99 U. S. 

635) 329, 290 
Northern Pac. L. & M. Co. v. East 

Portland, (12 Pac. R. 4, 14 Oregon, 

3)164 
North. Pa. R. R. Co. v. Adams, (54 

Pa. St. 97) 192 
Northern P. Ry. Co. v. Roberts, (42 

Fed. 734) 184 
North Pac. Ry. Co. v. Spokane, (52 

Fed. 428) 396 
North Pac. etc. v. East Portland, (14 

Oreg. 3) 290, 339 
No. Pac. R. Co. V. Territory, (142 U. 

S. 49) 363 
Northern Pacific Terminal Co. v. 

Portland, (14 Oreg. 24) 241 
North Hempstead ». Hempstead, (2 

Wend. 109) 59, 67, 201, 204, 205 
North Manheim v. Arnold, (19 Pa. 

St. 380) 342 
North Mo. R. R. Co. v. Maguire, (49 

Mo. 490) 16, 255 
North Missouri R. R. Co. v. Lackland, 

(25 Mo. 515) 233 
No. Penn. Ry. v. Stone, (3 Phila. 421) 

306 
Northrop v. Graves, (19 Conn. 548) 

327 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



exxi 



North Springfield v. Springfield, (29 

N. E. R. 849) 59 
North Third Ave., In re, (3 N. T. S. 

fi41) 221 
North Vernon v. Voegeler, (103 N. T. 

L. 314) 301, 330 
Northwestern Univ. v. People, (80 

111. 333) 270 
Northyarmouth v. Skillings, (45 Me. 

133) 13 
Norton «. Brownsville, (129 U. S. 479) 

188 
Norton v. Dyersburg, (127 U. S. 160) 

195 a 
Norton v. Mansfield, (16 Mass. 48) 4 
Norton v. Peck, (3 Wis. 714) 3 
Norton v. Shelby Co., (118 U. S. 425) 

88, 96, 195 d, 196 
Norwich v. Story, (25 Conn. 44) 288 
Nottingham, In re, (1 O'M. & H. 245) 

65 
Nowell V. Mayor, (9 Exch. 457) 182 
Nowles V. Jasper Co., (86 Ind. 179) 79 
Nowlin V. State, (49 Ala. 41) 400 
Noyce v. Jones, (25 Neb. 643) 211 
Noyes v. City, (116 Mass. 87) 398 
Noyes o. Mason, (5 N. W. R. 595) 110 
Noyes v. Morristown, (1 Vt. 357) 352 
Noyes v. Ward, (19 Conn. 250) 215 
Nugent V. Putnam, (19 Wall. 241) 

186 
Nugent V. State, (18 Ala. 521) 102 

o. 

Oakey v. New Orleans, (1 La. 1) 269 
Oakham v. Holbook, (11 Cush. 299) 

353 
Oakland v. Carpenter, (13 Cal. 540) 

99 
Gates V. Hudson, (5 Eng. L. & Eq. 

469) 326 a 
Oatmau v. Taylor, (29 Wis. 657) 177 
O'Brien v. St. Paul, (25 Minn. 331) 

239, 354 a 355 
'O'Conner v. Pittsburgh, (18 Pa. St. 

187) 329 
O'Connor v. Memphis, (6 Lea, 730) 

42 
O'Connor v. New York, (16 Daly, 88) 

344 
O'Connor v. Otenabee, (35 Up. Can. 

Q. B. 73) 346 
Oconto Co. V. Hall, (47 Wis. 208) 99 
Odell V. Schroeder, (58 111. 353) 92, 

331, 333 
O'Dooherly v. Archer, (9 Tex. 295) 

105 
Odlin V. Woodruff, (12 So. Rep. 227) 

397 
O'Donnelli). Bailey, 24 Miss. 386)255, 

273 



O'Donnelli). Philadelphia, (2Brewst. 

481) 177 
O'Donovan v. Wilkins, (24 Fla. 281) 

118 
Oelet V. Newport Board of Aid., 14 

R. I. 295) 220 
O'Ferrall v. Colby, (2 Minn. 180) 371 
Ogburn v. Connor, (46 Cal. 346) 354 a 
Ogden 1). Daviess Co., (102 U. S. 634) 

184 
Ogden V. McLaughlin, (16 Pac. Rep. 

72) 122 
Ogden V. Raymond, (22 Conn. 379) 

67, 169 
Ogden V. Saunders, (12 Wheat. 213) 

194 
Odgen o. St. Joseph, (3 S. W. R. 25, 

90 Mo. 522) 268 
Ogg V. Lansing, (35 Iowa, 495) 327 a 

332 
O'Hale V. Sacramento, (48 Cal. 212) 

347 
O'Hara v. King, (52 111. 303) 373 
O'Hara^. New Orleans, (30 La. An. 

165) 169 
O'Hara v. Portland, (3 Oreg. 525) 2, 

8 
O'Hare v. Dubuque, (22 Iowa, 144) 

56 
Ohio V. Com'rs, (7 Ohio St. 280) 184 
Ohio V. Frank, (103 U. S. 697) 192 
Ohio etc. Co. v. Bridgeport, (43 111. 

Ap. 89) 317 
Ohio Riv. R. Co. v. Gibbons, (12 S. 

E. R. 1093) 396 
Ohio Riv. R. Co. v. Ward, (35 W. Va. 

481) 247, 249 
Ohio Val. I. Wks. v. Moundsville, (11 

W. Va. 1) 188, 365 
Oil City V. Boiler Works, (25 Atl. R. 

549, 152 Pa. St. 348) 294 
Oil City I). Oil City B. Works, (25 

Atl. R. 549) 282 
Oil City V. Trust Co., (11 Pa. Co. Ct. 

R. 350) 123 
O'Kane v. Treat, (25 111. 458) 288 
O'Keefe, In re, (19 N. Y. S. 676) 154 
O'Laughlin v. Dubuque, (42 Iowa, 

589) 346 
Olcott V. Supervisors, (16 Wall. 678) 

27, 216 
Old Colony R. Co. v. Fall River, (147 

Mass. 455) 398 
Old Colony R. R. Co. v. Miller, (125 

Mass. 1) 247 
Old South Soc. V. Boston, (127 Mass. 

378) 270 
O'Lean v. Steyner, (135 N. Y. 341) 

300 
O'Leary v. Board, (44 N. W. R. 608) 

92 



cxxu 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Befercnces are to Sections. 



O'Leary ». Mankato, (21 Minn. 65) 

343 
O'Leary v: Sloo, (7 La. An. 25) 291 
O'Lindaj). Lathrop, (21 Pick. 292) 298 
Olipliant V. Com'rs, (18 Kan. 386) 

108 
Oliver v. Council, (69 Ga. 165) 83 
Oliver v. Memphis etc. Co., (30 Ark. 

128) 397 
Oliver v. No. Pao. Ky. Co., (3 Ore. 84) 

352 a 
Oliver v. Worcester, (102 Mass. 489) 

9, 143, 314, 324, 332, 330 a 
Olmstead v. Camp, (33 Conn. 551) 

232 
Olmstead v. Dennis, (77 N. T. 378) 

86 
Olmstead v. Mayor, (42 N. T. Super. 

Ct. 289) 67 
OIney v. Harvey, (50 111. 453) 32, 212 
Olney v. Pearce, (1 R. I. 292) 73 
OIney v. Riley, (39 111. App. 401) 324, 

Olney v. Wickes, (18 Johns. 122) 168 
Olp V. Leddick (59 Hun, 627) 142 
Olson V. St. Paul, (38 Minn. 419) 355 
Olwer V. Omaha, (3 Dillon, 368) 56 
Omaha v. Hammond, (94 U. S. 98) 

174 
Omaha v. Jensen, (52 N. W. R. 833) 

347 
Omaha v. Olmstead, (5 Keb. 446) 103, 

349 
Omaha v. So. Omaha, (47 N. W. R. 

1113) 53, 55 
Omaha & R. V. R. Co. v. Brown, (46 

ISr. W. K. 39) 354 
Omaha Col. v. Rush, (22 Neb. 449, 35 

N". W. R. 222) 271 
Omaha H. R. Co. v. Cable Tramway 

Co., (30 Fed. Rep. 324) 302, 306 a 
O' Malay v. Freeport, (96 Pa. St. 24) 

121, 127 
O'Mally V. McGinn, (52 Wis. 353) 107 
O'Meara v. Mayor, (1 Daly, 425) 92 
Omslaer v. Phila. Co., (31 F. R. 354) 

121 
Oneida Bank v. Ontario Bank, (21 

N. T. 495) 164, 169, 193 b 
O'Neill V. Deerfleld, (86 Mich. 610) 

353 
O'Neill V. Hudson County, (41 N. J. 

L. 161) 242 
O'Neill V. New Orleans, (30 La. An. 

220) 325, 342, 346, 349 
O'Neill V. Register, (23 Atl. R. 960) 

84 
O'Neill V. West Branch, (45 N. W. R. 

1023) 346 
Onondaga Co. v. Briggs, (2 Denio, 26) 

326 a 



Onset St. E. Co. v. Com'rs, (154 

Mass. 395) 311 
Onstott V. Murray, (22 Iowa, 466) 

219 
Ontario Bank v. Bunnel:., (10 Wend. 

186) 267, 274 
Opelousas v. Andrus, (37 La. An. 639) 

148 
Opening of 163d St., In re, (61 Hun, 

365) 243 
Orange & A. R. R. Co. v. Alexan- 
dria, (17 Gratt. 176) 267 
Orcutt V. Kitley B. Co., (53 Me. 500) 

317 
O'Reilley v. Kingston, (114 N. T. 

439) 259 a, 342 
Oregon ». Pyle, (1 Oreg. 149) 79 
Oregon & W. M. S. Bk. ■». Jordan, 

(17 Pac. R. 621) 397 
Orford Union Cong. Soc. v. West 

Cong. Soc, (55 N. H. 463) 203 
Orme v. Richmond, (78 Va. 86) 336 a 

343 
O'Rourke v. Sioux Falls, (54 N. W. 

R. 1044) 324, 327 a 
Oroville etc. ». Plumas Co. Sups., (37 

Cal. 354) 186, 365 
Orphan Asylum's Appeal, (111 Pa. 

St. 135) 264 
Orr V. Baker, (4 Ind. 86) 270 
Orr V. O'Brien, (77 Iowa, 253) 314 
Osage V. Larkins, (19 Pac. B. 658) 

223, 287 
Osborn v. Danvers, (6 Pick. 98) 326 
Osborn v. Hart, (24 Wis. 89, 1 Am. 

Rep. 161) 234 a 
Osborn v. Hide, (68 Miss. 45) 187 a 
Osborn v. Sutton, (108 U. S. 44G) 

338 a 
Osborne v. Adams Co., (106 U. S. 

181) 188 
Osborne v. Detroit, (32 Fed. E. 36) 

350 i; 
Osborne ». Mobile, (16 Wall. 479) 255,. 

258 
Osborne v. Nicholson, (13 Wall. 662) 

184 
Osborne v. Tunis, (25 N. J. L. 633) 

211 
Osgood V. Clark, (6 Fost. 307) 53 
Osgood V. Green, (33 N. H. 318) 129 
Osgood V. Manhattan Co., (3 Cow. 

612) 107 
Oshkosh r. State, (50 Wis. 425) 399 
Oswald V. Grenet, (15 Tex. 118) 221 
Oswego V. Osw. Canal Co., (6 N. Y. 

257) 221, 223, 305 
Otoe Co. V. Baldwin, (111 U. S. 1) 17, 

28 
Ottawa V. Carey, (108 U. S. 110) 110, 

188 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



CXXUl 



References are to Sections. 



Otta\ra v. Chicago etc., (25 111. 42) 

279 
Ottawa V. County, (12 111. 339) 33 
Ottawa County v. Nelson, (19 Kan. 

234) 259 «, 261 
Ottawa V. People, (48 HI. 233) 362, 

363, 377 
Ottawa V. Eohrburgh, (21 Pao. E. 

1061)309 
Ottawa V. Seely, (65 111. 434) 352 a 
Ottawa V. Spencer, (36 111. 211) 259 a 
Ottawa V. Spruce, (40 111. 211) 248 
Ottawa V. Walker, (21 111. 605) 288 
Ottawa D. C. v. Law, (6 Can. Q. B. 

546) 143 
Ottumwa 1). Chinn, (75 Iowa, 405) 120 
Ottumwa V. Parks, (43 Iowa, 119) 348 
Ouachita Pack. Co. v. Aiken, (121 U. 

S. 444) 133 
Ould V. Richmond, (23 Gratt. 464) 

261, 268 
Owasso ». Itichfield, (45 N. W. E. 

129) 232, 240, 241 
Owen B. Brockschmidt, (54 Mo. 285) 

352 a 
Owen V. Smith, (31 Barb. 641) 41, 42 
Owensboro v. Callaghan, (17 S. W. 

E. 278) 280 
Owiugs i). Speed, (5 Wheat. 420) 31 
Overacre v. Garrett, (5 Lans. 156) 72 
Overseers v. New Berlin etc., (18 

Johns. 382) 60, 169 
Overseers v. Sears, (22 Pick. 122) 25 
Overton Bridge Co. v. Tayloi-, (51 N. 

W. E. 240) 212 



Pacific D. Seifert, (79 Mo. 210) 159 
Pac. Bridge v. Clackamas, (4 Fed. E. 

217) 15 
Pac. Ex. Co. V. Seibert, (142 U. S. 

339) 259 
Pacific E. R. Co. t'. Cass County, (53 

Mo. 17) 270 
Pacific E. E. Go. v. Chrystal, (25 Mo. 

544) 245 
Pao. E. E. Co. V. Leavenworth, (1 

Dillon, 393) 301, 302, 303 
Pacific Eailroad ». Lincoln Co., (1 

Dillon C. C. 314) 22 
Pacific E. E. Co. ». Seely, (45 Mo. 

212) 200 
Pac. E. E. Co. V. Wyandotte Co., (16 

Kan. 587) 326 a 
Pack V. New York, (3 N. Y. 222) 

347 
Packard b. Bovina, (24 Wis. 382) 180 
Packard v. JefEerson Co., (2 Col. 338) 

195 a 
Packard v. New Bedford, (9 Allen, 

200) 340 



Packard v. Packard, (16 Pick. 191) 

346 
Packet Co. v. Catlettsburg, (105 U. 

S. 559) 133 
Packet Co. v. Peoria, etc., (38 111. 

467) 314 
Packet Co. v. St. Louis, (100 U. S. 

423) 133 
Packet Co. v. St. Paul, (3 DiU. 454) 

133 
Paddocks v. Syraonds, (11 Barb. 112) 

177, 180 
Paducah etc. Co. v. Cone, (80 Ky. 

147) 306 
Page V. Baltimore, (34 Ind. 558) 134 
Page V. Belvln, (14 S. E. E. 843) 292, 

830 
Page V. Bucksport, (64 Me. 51) 352 
Page V. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ey. Co., 

(70 111. 324) 245 
Page V. Chicago, (60 111. 441) 263 
Page V. Clopton, (30 Gratt. 415) 360 
Page V. Hardin, (8 B. Mon. 648) 85, 

86 
Page ». Heineberg, (40 Vt. 81) 200 
Page B. Staples, (13 E. I. 306) 87 
Page B. State, (11 Ala. 849) 125 
Page B. St. Louis, (20 Mo. 136) 270 
Page B. Sumpter, (53 Wis. 652) 352 a 
Paine, In re, (1 Hill, 665, 667) 372 
Paine v. Boston, (124 Mass. 486) 147 
Paine b. Delhi, (116 N. Y. 224) 391 
Paine b. Spratley, (5 Kan. 525) 110, 

270, 282 
Painter B. Pittsburgh, (46 Pa. St. 

213) 92, 347 
Palatine b. Kruger, (12 N. E. E. 75, 

121 lU. 72) 293 
Palfrey b. Boston, (101 Mass. 329) 

258 
Pall B. Peo., (50 111. 432) 86 
Pallister v. Mayor, (67 Eng. C. L. 

744) 182 
Palmer b. Andover, (56 Mass. 600) 

351, 352 
Palmer b. Carroll, (24 N. H. 314) 91 
Palmer v. Lincoln, (5 Neb. 136) 347 
Palmer b. Mayor, (2 Sandf. 318) 79 
Palmer b. Silverthorn, (32 Pa. St. 65) 

300 
Palmer ». Stacy, (44 Iowa, 44) 365 
Palmer v. St. Albans, (60 Vt. 427) 

336 a, 350 
Palmer ». Strumpf, (29 Ind. 329) 

259 a, 319 
Palmer b. Waddell, (22 Kan. 352) 

354, 396 
Palmyra ». Morton, (25 Mo. 593) 153, 

241, 259 a, 279 
Panton Turnpike Co. b. Bishop, (11 

Vt. 198) 320 



CXXIV 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



References are to Sections. 



Paolo etc. Co. v. Anderson Co., (16 

Kan. 332) 186 
Papworth v. Milw., (64 Wis. 389) 298 
Para Eub. Shoe Co. v. Boston, (139 

Mass. 155) 354 
Paralee v. Camden, (49 Ark. 165) 122 
Parcel ». Barnes, (25 Ark. 261) 190 a 
Pardridge v. Hyde Park, (23 N. E. 

K. 345, 131 111. 537) 162 
Paret v. Bayonne, (39 K. J. L. 559) 

142 
Paris V. Graham, (33 Md. 94) 1.50 
Parish v. Eden, (62 Wis. 372) 350 6 
Parish v. Golden, (35 N. Y. 462) 106 
Parish v. Levy, (4 So. K. 309) 268 
Paris)! V. Keed, (2 Wash. St. 491) 365 
Parish v. Stearns, (21 Pick. 156) 373 
Parish of Plaquemines v. Fulhouze, 

(30 La. An. 64) 207 
Park Bank v. Vv'atson, (42 N. Y. 490) 

195 c 
Parke Co. Com'rs v. O'Conner, (86 

Ind. 531) 212 
Parker, In re, (120 U. S. 746) 359 
Parker ». Bos. & M. R. R, (3 Cush. 

107) 313 
Parker v. Catholic Bishop, (34 N. E. 

R. 473) 308, 311 
Parker ». Commonwealth, (6 Pa. St. 

607) 24 
Parker ». Dak. Co., (4 Minn. 59) 79 
Parker v. Greene, (2 B. & S. 299) 104 
Parker v. Gt. West. Ky. Co., (7 M. & 

G. 253) 326 a 
Parker v. Hubbard, (64 Ala. 203) 371 
Parker v. Lowell, (11 Gray, 353) 354 
Parker v. Macou, (39 Ga. 729) 120 
Parker v. Milldam Co., (20 Me. 353) 

239 
Parker o. Portland, (54 Mich. 308) 

363 
Parker v. Saratoga Co., (106 N. Y. 

392) 139 
Parker v. Smith, (3 HI. App. 366) 185 
Parker v. Truesdale, (55 JST. Y. 901) 

317 
Parker v. Union W. Wks., (42 Conn. 

309) 120 
Parker v. Williamsburgh, (13 How. 

Pr. 250) 176 
Parkersburgh v. Brown, (106 U. S. 

582) 194 a, 375 
Parkersburgh v. Brown, (106 U. S. 

487) 188, 194 a, 375 
Parkhill v. Brighton, (61 Iowa, 103) 

352 
Parkhurst ». Salem, (32 Pac. 304) 302 
Parks V. Boston, (8 Pick. 218) 244, 

249 
Parks V. Newburyport, (16 Gray, 29) 

354,354 a 



Parmlee v. Chicago, (60 111. 267) 195 
Parnaby v. Lan. Can. Co., (11 A. & 

E. 223) 121 
Parr ». Attorney Gen'l, (8 CI. & F. 

409) 105, 393 

Parr v. Greenbush, (42 Hun, 232) 163 
Parrott v. Bridgeport, (44 Conn. 180) 

360 
Parsons, In re, (54 N. Y. Super Ct. 

451) 79 
Parsons v. Atlanta Univ. Trs., (14 Ga. 

529) 223, 396 
Parsons v. Bethnal Green, (7 L. T. 

211) 355 
Parsons v. Goshen, (11 Pick. 396) 4, 

169 
Parsons v. Jackson, (99 U. S. 434) 191, 

192 6 
Parsons v. Lindsay, (26 Kan. 426) 

352 a 
Parsons v. Monmouth, (70 Me. 262) 

164 
Parsons v. Northampton, (154 Mass. 

410) 256 

Parvis v. Phila. etc. Co., (17 Atl. 702) 

352 
Pasadena v. Simpson, (91 Cal. 238) 

234 
Pasadena v. Stimson, (27 Pac. R. 604) 

31 
Passaic Bridge Cases, (3 Wall. 782) 

314 
Paterson v. Society etc. (24 N. J. L. 

385) 2, 62, 270, 277 
Paterson etc. Co. v. Paterson, (24 N. 

J. Eq. 158) 302 
Paterson Ry. v. Grundy, (26 Atl. 788) 

302, .303 
Patoka V. Hopkins, (30 N. E. R. 896) 

354 a 
Patter v. Castleton, (53 Vt. 435) 346 
Patterson v. Boston, (20 Pick. 159) 

244 
Patterson D. Caldwell, (1 Mete. 93) 

88 
Patterson ». Ind. etc. Co., (56 Ind. 

20) 320 
Patterson ». Miss. & E. R. Boom Co., 

(3 Dillon, 465) 231 
Patterson v. Yubaco, (13 Cal. 175) 

189 a 
Patton V. Cresswell, (21 N. E. 663)308 
Patton V. Springfield, (99 Mass. 627) 

277 
Patton V. Stephens, (14 Bush, 324) 

140 
Patton V. Vaughan, (39 Ark. 211) 83 
Paul V. Coulter, (12 Minn. 41) 128 
Paul V. Detroit, (32 Mich. 108) 286 
Paul V. GilflUan, (36 Minn. 298) 120 
Paul V. Kenosha, (22 Wis. 266) 164 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



CXXV 



References are to Sections. 



Paulsen v. Portland, (13 S. Ct. 750) 

278 
Pavey v. Utter, (132 111. 489) 33 
Pawlet V. Clark, (9 Crancli, 292) 217 
Pawton T. Co. ». Bishop, (11 Vt. 198) 

318 
Paxson. D. Sweet, (1 J. S. Green, 200) 

156, 158, 259 a 
Payne v. Brecon, (3 H. & N. 579) 51 
Payne v. English, (21 Pao. 952, 79 Cal. 

540) 893, 39f) 
Payne v. Mayor etc., (3 Hurl. F. 372) 

182 
Payne v. MoKinley, (54 Cal. 532) 396 
Peabody v. Flint, (6 Allen, 52) 379 
Peachey v. Somerset, (1 Str. 447) 

155 
Peacock v. Harris, (10 East, 104) 320 
Pearce v. Madison etc. Co. (21 How. 

441) 169 
Pearl Street, In re, (111 Pa. St. 565) 

221 
Pearsall v. Eaton, (42 N". W. Kep. 77) 

311 
Pearsall ». Eaton Co., (15 N. W. Rep. 

522) 279 
Pearsall v. Post, (20 Wend. Ill, 117, 

22 Wend. 425, 433) 225, 226 
Pearson ». Zable, (78 Ky. 170) 92, 347 
Pease v. Cornish, (19 Me. 191) 178 
Peay v. Little Rock, (32 Ark. 31) 248, 

259 a 
Peck V. Austin, (2 Tex. 152) 129, 331 
Peck V. Bellnap, (55 Hun, 91) 71 
Peck V. Board, (90 Cal. 384) 369 
Peck 13. Cooper, (112 111. 192) 328 
Peck ». Jones, (70 Pa. St. 85) 244 
Peck V. Prov. Steam Engine Co., (8 

R. I. 358) 216 
Peck V. Rochester, (3 K. T. Supp. 

872) 71 
Peck«. Sherwood, (56 N. T. 614) 259 a 
Peddioord b. B. etc. Co., (84 Md. 463) 

303 
Pedrick v. Baily, (12 Gray, 161) 87 
Peete v. Morgan, (19 Wall. 581) 138 
Pegram v. Cleve. Co. Comm'rs, (65 

N. C. 114) 370 
Pekin v. Newell, (26 HI. 320) 328, 338 
Pekin v. Reynolds, (31 111. 529, 82 Am. 

Dec. 244) 179, 192 
Pelham v. Pickersgill, (1 Term Rep. 

660) 320 
Pelican v. Rock Falls, (51 N. W. R. 

871) 60 
Pell V. Newark, (40 N. J. L. 71) 302 
Pella V. Scholte, (24 Iowa, 283) 217, 

312 
Pembina etc. Co. v. Pennsylvania, (8 

S. Ct. 737) 259 
Pendergast v. Peru, (20 111. 51) 148 



Pendleton v. Bank of Kentucky, (1 

Mon. 177) 49 
Peninsular Ry. Co. v. Howard, (20 

Mich. 18) 245 
Peninsular etc. Co. v. Crystal Falls, 

(60 Mich. 510) 217, 220 
Penn Hall, In re, (5 Pa. St. 204) 104 
Pennie, In re, (108 N. Y. 364) 281 
Penniman's Case, (103 U. S. 714) 

194 
Pennington c. Baehr, (48 Cal. 565) 

190 a 
Pennington v. Taniere, (12 Q. B. 

1011) 165 
Pennington v. Willard, (1 R. I. 93) 

219 
Pennook v. Coe, (23 How. 130) 190 
Pennoyer d. McConnaugliey, (140 U. 

S. 1)5 
Pennoyer v. Saginaw, (8 Mich. 534) 

354 a 
Pennsylvania v. Bridge Co., (13 How. 

518) 396 
Pennsylvania Co. v. Rathget, (32 

Ohio St. 66) 344 
Pennsylvania Co. v. Stagemeier, (118 

Ind. 305) 136, 331 
Pennsylvania Co. v. Varnan, (15 Atl. 

R. 624) 352 
Pennsylvania Dist. Election, (2 Par. 

526) 65 
Penn. etc. Co. v. Riblet, (66 Pa. St. 

164) 802 
Pennsylvania Globe G. L. Co. v. 

Scranton, (97 Pa. St. 538) 148 
Penna. R. Co. v. Angel, (41 N. J. Eq. 

316, 7 Atl. Rep. 432) 301 
Penn. Ry. Co. v. Ayres, (14 Atl. R. 

901) 216 
Penn. R. Co. v. Braddock El. Ry. Co., 

(81 W. N. C. 311) 317 
Pa. etc. Co. V. Danbridge, (8 Gill & 

J. 248, 310) 169 
Penn. R. R. v. Duquesne Bor., (46 Pa. 

St. 228) 288 
Pa. R. R. V. Lippincott, (116 Pa. St. 

472) 330 
Pa. R. R. Co. V. Marchant, (19 Pa. St. 

541) 330 
Penn. R. R. Co. v. McCloskey, (23 

Pa. St. 526) 352 a 
Penna. R. R. Co; v. Mish, (4 Cent. 

Rep. 279) 301 
Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. N. Y. etc. 

R. R. Co., (23 N. J. Eq. 157) 239 
Penn. R. Co. b. Phila. B. L. R. Co., 

10 Pa. Co. Ct. 625) 302 
Penn. R. R. Co. v. Pittsburgh Gr. 

Elev. Co., (50 Pa. St. 499) 224 
Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Porter, (29 

Pa. St. 165) 241 



CXXVl 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



References are to Sections. 



X'ennsylvania E. R. Co. v. St. Loius, 

A. & T. H. K R. Co., (118 U. S. 

290) 210 
Pa. E. R. Co. V. Slv., (65 Pa. St. 210) 

320 
Penn. R. R. Co. v. Schuylkill Co., 

(166 Pa. St. 55, 8 Atl. R. 914) .306 
Penn. Tp. v. Perry Co., (78 Pa. St. 

457) 314 
Penny Pot Landing Case, (16 Pa. St. 

79)'225, 312 
Penobscot v. Lawson, (16 Me. 224) 2 
Penoyeri). Saginaw, (8 Mich. 534) 120 
Penrose v. Erie Canal Co., (56 Pa. St. 

46) 184 
Pensacola v. Louisville etc. R. Co., 

(21 Fla. 492) 56, 61 
Pensacola & A. Ry. Co. v. State, (5 

S. Kep. 833, 25 Fla. 310) 150 
Pentz V. iEtna Ins. Co., (9 Paige, 568) 

335 
Peona etc. Co. v. People, (31 N. E. 

R. 113) 87, 263 
People V. Abbott, (45 Hun, 293) 375 
People V. Adams, (9 Wend. 333) 98, 

107 
People ». Albany M. Col., (62 How. 

Pr. 220) 83 
People V. Albany Co. Suprs., (12 

Johns. 414) 363 
Peo. V. Alb. R. R., (24 ST. Y. 261, 269) 

359 
People V. Albany, (11 Wend. 539, 543) 

132 
People V. Albertson, (55 N. Y. 50) 18 
People V. Allen, (52 N. Y. 538) 189 
People !). Allen, (6 Wend. 486) 76 
People V. Angle, (109 N. Y. 564) 71 
People V. Assessors, (1 Hill, 620) 5 
People B. Assessors, (111 N. Y. 505) 

14 
People V. Attorney General, (22 Barb. 

114) 363 
People V. Auditors, (75 N. Y. 317) 

339 
People V. Austin, (11 Col. 134) 177 
People V. Bagley, (85 Gal. 343) 42 
People V. Baine, (6 Cal. 509) 82 
People V. Baker, (35 Barb. 105) 368 
People D. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. 

Co., 117 N. Y. 150) 133 
People I). Bancroft, (29 Pao. R. 112) 39 
People V. Bank, (1 Doug. 282) 110 
People V. Baraga, (39 Mich. 534) 169 
People V. Barnard, (110 K. Y. 548) 

172 ' 

People V. Barnes, (114 N. Y. 317) 375 
People V. Bartlett, (6 Wend. 422) 82 
People V. Batchelor, (22 N. Y. 129) 97 
People V. Batchellor, (53 N. Y. 1281 

187 ' 



People V. Bedell, (2 Hill, 196) 75, 76 
People V. Benev. Soc, (24 How. Pr 

215) 84 
People V. Benfield, (80 Mich. 265) 72 
People V. Bennett, (29 Mich. 451, 18 

Am. Rep. 107) 56 
People V. Benson, (34 Barb. 24) 144, 

295 
People V. Blssell, (49 Cal. 407) 82 
People V. Blackhurst, (25 Abb. N. 0. 

230) 359 
People V. Blake, (60 Cal. 497) 220 
People V. Bloomington, (63 111. 207) 

362, 368 
People B. Bloomington, (38 111. App. 

125) 360 
People 1). Board, (18 Mich. 400) 374 
People V. Board, (33 Barb. 344) 118 
People B. Board etc., (72 N. Y. 445) 

83 
People V. Board, (9 Hun, 222) 83 
People V. Board, (99 ST. Y. 676) 99 
People I). Board, (5 N. Y. S. 392) 362 
People V. Boiird, (20 iST. Y. S. 1) 359 
People B. Board, (55 Hun, 445) 83, 84 
People V. Board, (62 Hun, 632) 365 
People B. Board, (69 Hun, 95) 294 
People V. Board etc., (127 111. 613) 

374 
People V. Board of Canvassers, (129 

N". Y. 360) 360 
People V. Board of Education, (15 N. 

Y. S. 308) 359 
People V. Board of Police, (19 N. Y. 

188) 363 
People ». Bond, (10 Cal. 563) 14 
People V. Boston etc. Co., (70 N. Y. 

569) 302 
People V. Bradley, (36 Mich. 447) 55, 

56 
People 13. Breen, (18 Mich. 247) 368 
People B. Brenhan, (3 Cal. 477) 65 
People V. Brennan, (18 Abb. Pr. 100) 

174 
People V. Brennan, (1 Abb. Pr. N. I. 

184) 79 
People V. Briggs, (114 N. Y. 56) 155 
People B. Briggs, (50 N. Y. 553) 9, 28 
People B. Brighton, (20 Mich. 67) 241, 

279 
People V. Broadway Wharf Co., (31 

Cal. 33) 200 
People V. Brooklyn, (77 N. Y. 503) 86 
People V. Brooklyn, (71 N. Y. 495) 

278 
People B. Brooklyn, (23 Barb. 404) 

377 
People ». Brooklyn, (4 N. Y. 419) 

259 a, 270, 283 
People B. Brooklyn, (1 Wend. 318) 

242 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CXXVU 



References are to Sections. 



People V. Brooklyn, (65 N. T. 349) 

306 
People V. Brooklyn Assessors, (111 

N. Y. 505) 271 
People B. Brooklyn Council, (77 N. 

Y. 503) 363 
People V. Brown, (2 Utah, 462) 117 
People V. Bryan, (68 N. Y. 71) 121 
People V. Buchanan, (1 Idaho, 681) 

158 
People I). Burlington, (20 Mich. 57) 

249 
People V. Burnside, (3 Lans. 74) 83 
People ». Cain, (47 N. W. E. 484, 84 

Mich. 223) 83 
People V. Calhoun Co., (36 Mich. 10) 

79 
People V. Campbell, (50 N. Y. Sup. 

Ct. 82) 84 
People V. Canaday, (73 N. Car. 193, 

21 Am. Eep. 465) 63 
People V. Canal Appraisers, (13 Wend. 

355) 239 
People V. Canal Board, (55 N. Y. 390) 

393 
People V. Canby, (55 111. 33) 75 
People V. Canty, (55 111. 33) 255 
People V. Carnell, (47 Barb. 329) 106 
People V. Carpenter, (24 N. Y. 86) 53, 

379 
People V. Carrique, (2 Hill, 93) 86 
People V. Carroll, (42 Hun, 438) 83 
People V. Case, (19 N. Y. S. 625) 363 
People V. Cass Co. Com'rs, (77 111. 

438) 363 
People V. Cassiday, (2 Lansing, 294) 

274 
People I). Cazneau, (20 Gal. 503) 76 
People V. Central Pac. K. K. Co., (43 

Cal. 398) 258 
People V. Central P. R. K. Co., (83 

Cal. 393) 282 
People V. Champion, (16 Johns. 61) 

368, 377 
People I). Chenango Co., (11 N". Y. 

563) 359 
People V. Chicago etc., (67 111. 118) 

306, 317 
People V. Chicago, (118 111. 520) 288 
People V. Chicago, (51 111. 17) 18 
People V. Civ. Ser. Bd., (41 Hun, 287) 

71 
People V. Civ. Ser. Bd., (17 Abb. N. 

C. 64) 87 
People V. Clark, (47 Cal. 456) 263 
People V. Clark, (70 N. Y. 518) 385 
People V. Clark Co., (50 111. 213) 375 
People B. Clarke, (50 111. 213) 360 
People V. Cline, (63 111. 394) 196 
People V. Clingan, (5 Cal. 389) 77 
People D. CofEey, (131 N. Y. 569) 374 



People V. Coleman, (133 N. Y. 279) 

273 
People V. Collins, (3 Mich. 347) 161 
People V. Collins, (19 Wend. 56) 363, 

370, 377 
People V. Com. Coun., (34 Mich. 201) 

375 
People V. Com. Council, (85 Cal. 369, 

24 Pac. R. 727) 360 
People V. Com. Counc, (78 N. Y. 39) 

362 
People V. Com., (45 Barb. 473) 377 
People V. Com'rs, (37 IST. Y. 360) 

318 
People V. Com'rs, (49 IT. Y. Super. 

Ct. 369) 83 
People V. Com'rs etc., (106 N. Y. 64) 

84 
People V. Com'rs, (4 N. Y. S. 41) 274 
People V. Com'rs, (6 Colo. 202).368 
People B. Com'rs, (11 How. Pr. 89) 

368 
People V. Com'rs, (4 Wall. 244) 258 
People V. Com'rs, (4 Neb. 150; 313 
People V. Couually, (4 Abb. Pr. N. S. 

375) 87 
People V. Connolly, (2 Abb. Pr. N. S. 

315) 375 
People V. Cook, (14 Barb. 259) 65 
People V. Cooper, (57 How. Pr. 416) 

83 
People V. Coon, (25 Cal. 635) 12, 14 
People V. Corner, (59 Hun, 299) 5 
People V. Cregier, (28 N. E. Rep. 812) 

125 
People V. Crissey, (91 N. Y. 613) 65, 

82 
People V. Croton Aqueduct Bd., (26 

Barb. 240) 173, 377 
People I). Cummlngs, (72 IST. Y. 433) 

363 
People V. Cunningham, (1 Denlo, 

524) 300 
People V. Curley, (5 Col. 412) 18, 102 
People V. Curtis, (1 Idaho N. S. 753) 

82 
People V. Davidson, (21 Pac. Rep. 

538, 79 Cal. 166) 220, 318 
People V. Dayton, (55 N. Y. 367) 16 
People u. Detroit, (37 Mich. 195) 301, 

319 
People ». Detroit, (41 Mich. 224) 172 
People V. Detroit, (18 Mich. 338) 381 
People V. Detroit, (28 Mich. 228, 15 

Am. Rep. 202) 170, 218 
People I). Doe, (36 Cal. 220) 271 
People V. Doolittle, (44 Hun, 293) 84 
People V. Draper, (15 N. Y. 543) 18, 

89 
People V. Drolin, (33 N. Y. 269) 79 
People V. Duane, (55 Hun, 315) 75 



CXXVUl 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



People V. Duane, (121 N. Y. 367) 86 
People 15. Dulany, (96 111. 203) 360 
People V. Dunlap, (66 N. T. 162) 87 
People V. Dui-stor, (3 N. Y. Sup. 522) 

71 
People V. Dutchess etc. Co., (58 N. 

Y. 152) 306, 369 
People V. Bast Sag., (33 Mich. 164) 

87 
People V. Eddy, (43 Cal. 333) 270 
People V. Edmonds, (15 Barb. 529) 

359, 360 
People V. El Dorado, (11 Cal. 170) 

177 
People ». Erwin, (4 Den. 129) 122 
People V. Evans, (18 111. 361) 102 
People D. Everett, (1 Cal. N. Y. 8) 

369 
People V. Fairbury, (51 111. 149) 371, 

87 
People V. Farnhara, (35 111. 562) 31, 

32 53 
People V. Field, (58 N. Y. 491) 9, 11 
People V. Fire Com'rs, (49 N. Y. Su- 
per. 369) 87 
People V. Fire Com'rs, (73 N. Y. 437) 

83 
People V. Fire Com'rs, (77 IST. Y. 15.3) 

84 
People ». Fitzsimmons, (68 N. Y. 

514) 76 
People V. Flagg, (16 Barb. 503) 87 
People V. Flagg, (17 N. Y. 584) 172 
People V. Flagg, (46 N. Y. 401) 15 
People V. Fletcher, (55 N. y. 525) 383 
People V. Fleming, (10 Colo. 553) 15 
People V. Flynn, (62 ]Sr. Y. 375) 83 
People ». Ft. Wayne etc. Co., (92 

Mich. 522) 302 
People V. Fort Street etc. Co., (41 

Mich. 413) 306 
People V. French, (51 N. Y. 345) 71 
People D. French, (32 Hun, 112, 60 

How. Pr. 377) 83 
People V. French, (63 Hun, 633) 83 
People V. French, (13 N. Y. S. E. 

584) 111 
People V. French, (12 Abb. N. Cas. 

156) 365 
People V. French, (24 Hun, 263) 55, 

371 
People ». Fowler, (63 Hun, 627) 300 
People V. Fulda, (52 Hun, 65) 123 
People V. Gartlaud, (42 K. W. R. 687) 

385 
People V. Gates, (43 N. Y. 40) 258 
People V. Gilbert, (18 Johns. 227)312 
People V. Gilmore, (5 Gilra. 242) 359 
People V. Gilon, (24 N. E. R. 944) 279 
People?). Gilroy, (22 N. Y. S. 271, 

67 Hun, 323) 295 



People V. Goetling, (133 N. Y. 569) 

361 
People V. Gold Run D. Min. Co., (56 

Am. Kep. 80) 121 
People V. Gray, (23 Cal. 125) 179 
People V. Green, (58 N^. Y. 295) 86 
People V. Green, (5 Daly, 254, 58 N. 

Y. 295) 86 
People V. Greene Co., (12 Barb. 222) 

368 
People V. Griswold, (2 N. Y. Super. 

Ct. 351) 311 
People V. Hagadorn, (10 X. E. E. 891, 

104 N. Y. 516) 263 
People V. Hall, (80 ST. Y. 117) 105, 381 
People V. Hammill, (22 Am. & Eng. 

Cor. Cas. 39) 189 a 
People V. Hanifan, (96 HI. 420) 86 
People V. Hanrahan, (75 Mich. 611) 

122 
People V. Hannan, (56 Hun, 469) 84 
People V. ^arper, (91 111. 357) 127 
People V. Harper, (18 N. Y. S. 896) 

365 
People V. Harris, (4 Cal. 9) 141 
People V. Hartwell, (12 Mich. 508) 

380 
People V. Harvey, (58 Cal. 337) 65 
People V. Haws, (34 Barb. 69) 79 
People !). Hayden, (10 N. Y. Supp. 

794) 83 
People V. Hayden, (6 Hill, 359) 247 
People V. Hayden, (133 N. Y. 198) 

83 
People V. Hayt, (66 N. Y. 607) 368 
People V. Head, (25 111. 287) 371 
People V. Henshaw, (61 Barb. 409) 

189 
People V. Henshaw, (18 Pac. R. 413) 

34 
People V. Herbel, (96 111. 384) 218 
People V. Higgius, (15 111. 110) 83 
People V. Higgins, (3 Mich. 233) 65 
People V. Highland Park, (50 N. W. 

R. 660, 88 Mich. 653) 18, 86 
People V. Hill, (7 Cal. 79) 15, 83 
People V. Hilliard, (29 111. 413) 368, 

371 
People V. Hills, (35 N. Y. 449) 28 
People V. Hillsdale, (2 Johns. 190) 

384 
People V. Holden, (28 Cal. 123) 381 
People V. Holihan, (29 Mich. 116) 55 
People V. Holmes, (2 Wend. 281) 72 
People V. Hopson, (1 Denio, 574) 88 
People V. Horn Sil. Nl. Co., (11 N. E. 

R. 155) 259 
People V. Hurlbut, (24 Mich. 44) 9, 

255 
People V. Hyde Park, (117 111. 462) 

376 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CXXIX 



References are to Sections. 



People V. Ingei-soll, (58 jST. Y. 1) 9, 

11, 12 
People V. Inspectors, (4 Mich. 187) 

359, 363 
People V. Irwin, (4 Den. 129) 122 
People V. Jackson, (92 111. 444) 376 
People V. Jackson, (8 Midi. 110) 117 
People V. Jackson, (7 Mich. 432) 222, 

300 
People V. Jaehne, (103 N. Y. 182) 34 
People V. James, (16 Hun, 426) 299 
People V. Jobs, (7 Colo. 589) 67 
People V. Johnson, (39 Am. Rep. 63) 

177, 375 
People V. Johnson, (6 Cal. 499) 189 a 
People V. Jones, (6 Mich. 176) 215, 

223 
People V. Jordan, (90 N. Y. 53) 83 
People V. Judge, (40 Mich. 64) 278 
People B. Judges, (4 Cow. 73) 368 
People V. Justices, (74 N. Y. 406) 104 
People V. Keeling, (4 Col. 129) 65 
People V. Kelly, (5 Ab. X. C. 383) 15 
People V. Kelsey, (34 Cal. 470) 255 
People V. Kerr, (27 N". Y. 188) 303 
People V. Kilduff, (55 111. 402) 361 
People V. Kildufi:, (15 HI- 492) 381 
People 13. Kimball, (4 Mich. 95) 245 
People B. Kingston etc., (23 Wend. 

193) 320 
People V. Klumpke, (41 Gal. 263) 221 
People B. Kniskern, (54 N. Y. 52) 241 
People V. Lacorabe, (99 N. Y. 43) 96 
People V. Lacombe, (34 Hun, 409) 82 
People B. Lamblier, (5 Denio, 9, 19) 

221 
People B. Langdon, (40 Mich. 673) 67 
People B. Langham, (20 Barb. 302) 

371 
People B. La Salle, (84 111. 303) 362 
People B. Lathrop, (24 Mich. 235) 170 
Peoples. Launtz, (113 111. 137) 76 
People V. Law, (34 Barb. 494) 303 
People ». Lawrence, (6 Hill, 244) 115 
People B. Leonard, (73 Cal. 230) 74 
People B. Lewis, (7 Johns. 73) 91 
People B. Lippincott, (67 111. 333) 79 
People B. Logan Co., (63 111. 374) 368 
People B. Logan Co., (45 111. 162) 186 
People B. Loomis, (8 Wend. 396) 65 
People B. Lord, (9 Mich. 227) 81 
People V. Lowber, (7 Abb. Pr. 158) 

394 
People B. Lowell, (9 Met. 144) 377 
People B. Lowndes, (130 N. Y. 455) 

258 
People B. Love, (19 Cal. 676) 47, 49 
People B. Lynch, (51 Cal. 15) 16, 17, 

18,259 a 
Peo. V. Maher, (19 N. Y. Sup. 759) 

368 

ix 



People B. Mahoney (13 Mich. 481) 18 
People B. Mallory, (46 How. Pr. 281) 

133 
Peo. V. Man. Gas Co., (45 Barb. 136) 

363 
People B. Manhattan Ey. Co., (22 

Abb. N. C. 393) 377 
Peo. !). Manistee, (40 Mich. 585) 79 
People B. Martin, (5 N. Y. 27) 95, 97 
People B. Martin, (131 N. Y. 196) 362 
People B. Mathewson, (47 Cal. 442) 

65 
People B. Matteson, (17 111. 167) 65, 

361 
People B. Mauran, (5 Denio, 389) 202 
People B. May, (9 Col. 404, 411) 189 a 
People B. Maynard, (15 Mich. 463, 

470) 29, 31 
People V. Mavor, (2 Hill, 9) 105 
Peo. B. Mayor etc. (19 Hun, 441) 84 
People B. Mayor, (82 N. Y. 491) 83 
People B. Mayor etc., (4 Comst. 419) 

16 
People B. Mayor etc., (7 How. Pr. E. 

81) 158 
People B. Mayor etc. of Brooklyn, (4 

N. Y. 419) 259 a 
Peo. V. McCall, (65 How. Pr. 442) 56 
People B. McClare, (25 N. E. E. 1047, 

123 ISr. Y. 512) 84 
People B. McClintock, (45 Cal. 11) 

119 
People B. McCreery, (34 Cal. 432) 270 
People B. McDonald, (69 N. Y. 362) 

280 
People o. McKinney, (52 N. Y. 374) 

18 
Peo. B. McKinney, (10 Mich. 54) 67 
People B. McLean, (16 N. Y. S. 401) 

362 
People B. McLean, (62 Hun, 42) 86 
People B. McLean, (57 Hun, 587, 141, 

58 Hun, 603, 59 Hun, 623, 58 Hun, 

604) 83 
People B. McLean, (21 K. Y. Sup. 

625) 83 
People V. MoEoberts, (62 111. 38) 245 
People B. Mead, (24 N. Y. 124) 191 6 
People V. Metro. Pol. Brd. (26 N. Y. 

216) 368 
People B. Miller, (24 Mich. 458) 85 
Peo. B. Mich. Univ. Eeg., (4 Mich. 98) 

363 
Peo. V. Miller, (24 Mich. 458) 85 
People B. Minck, (21 N. Y. 639) 107 
People B. Mitchell, (35 N. Y. 551) 187 a 
People B. Moline, (14 N. E. E. 32) 271 
Peo. B. Molineaux, (53 Barb. 9) 76 
People B. Moore, (50 Hun, 356) 217 
People B. Morgan, (90 111. 558) 18 
People B. Morgan, (55 N. Y. 587) 185 



exxx 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



References are to Sections. 



People V. Morris, (13 Wend. 325) 2, 

18, 23, 32 
People V. Morse, (43 Cal. 534) 14 
People V. Mott, (1 How. Pr. K. 247) 

106 
People V. MulhoUand, (19 Hun, 548, 

82 N. T. 324) 118, 123 
People V. Murray, (73 ST. Y. 535) 42, 

86 
Peo. V. Murray, (70 N. Y. 521) 67, 76 
Peo. V. Murray, (57 Mich. 396) 107, 

148 
People V. Mut. Gaslight Co., (38 

Mich. 154) 384 
People V. Myers, (32 N. E. R. 241) 279 
People V. Nearing, (27 N. Y. 306) 234 
People V. Nevada, (6 Col. 14.3) 53 
People V. Newton, (112 N. Y. 396) 

302, 360 
People V. N. & S. etc., (86 N. Y. 1) 

317 
People V. N. Y. Pol. Board, (107 N. 

Y. 235) 360 
People ». New York, (3 Johns. Cas. 

79) 371 
People V. New York, (1 Hill, 362) 167 
People V. New York, (9 Abb. Pr. 253) 

394 
People V. New York, (82 N. Y. 491) 

83 
People ». N. Y. Gas L. Co., (64 Barb. 

55) 120 
People V. N. Y. Sup., (32 N. Y. 473) 

360 
People V. N. Y. Tax Com'rs, (82 N. 

Y. 462) 274 
People V. N. Y. Tax Com'rs, (95 N. 

Y. 554) 270 
People V. Nichols, (68 N. C. 429) 67 
People D. Nicliols, (79 N. Y. 582) 84 
People V. Nichols, (58 How. Pr. 200) 

84 
People V. Nolan, (102 N. Y. 539) 85 
People V. No. Ch. Ey. Co., (88 111. 

537) 380 
People V. North, (72 N. Y. 124) 65, 

381 
People V. Nostrand, (46 N. Y. 375) 

67, 86, 88 
People V. Nyland, (41 Cal. 129) 102 
People V. Oakland, (92 Cal. 611) 385 
People V. O'Brien, (111 N. Y. 1) 10, 

11, 37, 302 
People ». Ogdensburgh, (48 N. Y. 

390) 272, 275 
People V. Ohio Grove, (51 111. 192) 186 
People ». O'Keefe, (21 Pao. E. 539, 

79 Cal. 171) 221 
People V. O'Neil, (109 N. Y. 251) 33 
People V. Paoheco, (27 Cal. 175) 189 a 
People ». Page, (23 Pac, E. 761) 33 



People V. Palmer, (52 N. Y. 83) 99 
People i). Parker, (3 Neb. 409) 86 
People V. Parks, (58 Cal. 624) 188 
People V. Pearson, (3 Scam. 274) 368 
People V. Phillips, (1 Denio, 388) 66 
People V. Pinckney, (32 N. Y. 377) 

67, 75 
People V. Pol. Com'rs,( 98 N. Y. 332) 

84 
People V. Pol. Com'rs, (31 Hun, 209) 

84 
•People V. Pol. Justice, (7 Mich. 458) 

105 
People V. Porter, (87 N. Y. 68) 18 
People V. Porter, (6 Cal. 26) 86 
People V. Potter, (35 Cal. 110) 30 
People V. Power, (25 111. 187) 12 
People B. Piatt, (115 N. Y. 159) 69 
People V. Pratt, (50 Cal. 561) 12 
People V. President, (9 Wend. 351) 

24,31 
People V. Provines, (34 Cal. 520) 102 
People V. Pueblo Co., (2 Colo. 360) 

186 
People V. Purviance, (12 111. Ap. 216) 

371 
People V. Kailroad, (12 Mich. 389) 110 
People V. Ransom, (2 N. Y. 490) 368 
People V. Eansom, (56 Barb. 514) 87 
People ». Eeed, (22 Pac. E. 474, 81 

Cal. 70) 221 
People V. Eeed, (20 Pac. R. 708) 219 
People V. Eeed, (19 N. Y. S. 528) 273 
People V. Reirt, (11 Colo. 138) 76, 81 
People V. Registrar, (20 N. E. R. 611) 

371 
People B. Rensselaer etc., (15 Wend. 

113) 314 
People B. Reynolds, (10 HI. 1) 24 
People V. Eich. Co. Sup., (28 N. Y. 

112) 369 
People V. Richardson, (4 Cow. 101, 

122, 133) 378 
People V. Eiordan, (41 N. W. R. 482) 

361, 378 
People V. Riverside, (11 Pac. 759, 70 

Cal. 461) 24 
People B. Eobb, (27 N. E. E. 267) 83 
People V. Eobb, (6 N. Y. S. 831) 84 
People B. Rochester, (21 Barb. 656) 

278 
People V. Eochester, (45 Hun, 102) 

127 
People V. Eochester, (5 Lans. 142) 

280 
People V. Eontey, (21 N. Y. St. Eep. 

173, 4 N. Y. Supp. 235) 123 
People V. Rosenberg, (138 N. Y. 410) 

301 
People V. Runkel, (9 John. 147) 49, 

81,88 



TABI-E OF CASES CITED. 



CXXXI 



Beferences are to Sections. 



People ». Ryan, (27 N. E. E. 1095) 

270 
People V. Salem, (20 Mich. 477) 244 

253 
People V. Salmon, (51 111. 17) 15, 271 
People 1). Salmon, (38 Miss. «52) 24 
People V. Salomon, (46 111. 415) 359, 

371 
People V. Salomon, (51 111. 37) 255 
People V. San F. Sups., (27 Gal. 655) 

191 
People V. San Francisco, (36 Cal. 594) 

363 
People V. San Luis, etc., (56 Cal. 561) 

377 
People V. Sara. R. R. Co., (15 Wend. 

130) 314 
People V. Sargent, (8 Cow. 139) 122 
People V. Sassovich, (29 Cal. 480) 88 
People V. Sawyer, (52 N. Y. 296) 189 
People V. Schermerhorn, (19 Barb. 

540, 555) 206 
People V. Seaman, (5 Denio, 409) 65 
People V. Sen. Com. Pleas, (2 Wend. 

264) 365 
People V. Shearer, (30 Cal. 645) 271 
People V. Sheffield, (47 Hun, 481) 69 
People V. Shepherd, (36 N. T. 285) 

18 
People ». Slaughter, (2 .Doug. 834) 

104 
People V. Smith, (77 N. Y. 347) 364 
People «. Smith, (21 TST. Y. 595) 23, 

232, 240 
People V. Solomon, (51 lU. 37) 28 
People V. Spring Valley, (129 111. 169) 

385 
People V. Squire, (145 U. S. 175) 16 
People V. Squire, (107 N. Y. 593) 297, 

319 
People V. Stacks, (33 Hun, 384) 84 
People V. State, (19 Mich. 392) 363 
People v. Herman, (10 N. Y. S. 787) 

249 
Peoples V. Stephens, (71 N. Y. 557) 

173 
People V. Stephens, (62 Cal. 209) 295 
People V. Stevens, (5 Hill, 616) 65, 88 

360 
People V. Stevens, (51 How. Pr. 103) 

75 
People V. St. Louis & S. F. Ey., (47 

Hun, 543) 369 
People V. Stout, (23 Barb. 349) 24 
People V. Stowell, (9 Abb. N. C. 456) 

76 
People V. Stratton, (28 Cal. 382) 67 
People V. Stuart, (97 111. 123) 245 
People V. Sturtevant, (9 N. Y. 263) 

10 
People V. Super's, (12 Wend. 257) 79 



People V. Super's El Dorado Co., (11 

Cal. 175) 190 a 
People V. Supervisors, (27 Cal. 655) 

165 
People V. Super's, (47 Cal. 205) 371 
People V. Supervisors, (38 Mich. 421) 

375 
People V. Supervisors of Saginaw, 

(26 Mich. 22) 254 
People V. Supervisor, (1 Hill, 362) 79 
People V. Supervisors, (4 Barb. 64) 

377 
People V. Supervisors, (70 N. Y. 228) 

16 
People V. Supervisoi's, (11 Abb. Pr. 

R. 114) 349 
People V. Swift, (31 Cal. 26) 170 
People V. Taylor, (45 Barb. 129) 371 
People ex rel., etc. v. Tazewell Coun- 
ty, (22 111. 151) 192 6 
People V. Thacher, (55 N. Y. 525) 

361 
People V. Therrien, (80 Mich. 187) 

84 
People V, Thompson, (16 Wendell, 

655) 378, 382 
People «. Thompson, (94 N. Y. 451) 84 
People V. Throop, (12 Wend. 183) 150 
People D. Tieman, (30 Barb. 193) 85 
People V. Town of Oran, (121 111. 

650) 67 
People V. Tracy, (1 Denio, 617) 363 
People V. Troy etc., (37 How. Pr. 

437) 359 

People V. Trustees, (7 N. Sup. 125) 

371 
People V. Trustees of Schools, (86 

111. 613) 59, 360 
People V. Vail, (20 Wend. 12) 361 
People V. Van Cleve, (1 Mich. 362) 

371 
People V. Vanderbilt, (26 N. Y. 287) 

11, 300, 301, 396 
People V. Van Flyck, (4 Cow. 297) 

361 
People V. Van Home, (18 Wend. 518) 

82 
People 1). Van Nort, (64 Barb. 205) 

172 
People V. Vantassel, (40 N. W. R. 

847) 375 
People V. Wagner, (49 N. W. 609, 86 

Mich. 594) 123, 146 
People V. Waite, (70 111. 25) 378, 380 
People V. Walker, (23 Barb. 304) 99 
People V. Walker, (9 Mich. 328) 106 
People V. Wajlace, (4 N. Y. Supr. Ct. 

438) 279 
People ». Warfleld, (20 111. 163) 24 
People V. Warren, (14 HI. Ap. 

176 



cxxxu 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



People V. Waterford etc. Co., (3 Abb. 

580) 328 
People V. Waterford etc. Co., (2 

Keyes, 327) 328 
People V. Waynesville, (88 111. 469) 

186 
People V. Weber, (89 111. 347) 75, 165, 

281 
People V. Weissenbach, (60 N. Y. 

385) 126 
People V. Wemple, (129 N. T. 558) 

273 
People V. Wemple, (30 ST. E. R. 1002, 

133 N. Y. 607) 326 a 
People V. Wharf Co., (31 Gal. 34) 133 
People V. Whitcomb, (55 lU. 172) 381, 

391 
People V. White, (24 Wend. 520, 540) 

88, 96 
People V. Wliite, (59 Barb. 666) 106 
People V. Whitlock, (92 N. Y. 191) 83 
People V. Whitman, (10 Cal. 38) 75 
People B. Whittemore, (4 Mich. 27) 

365 
People V. Whyler, (41 Cal. 351) 270 
People V. Wiaut, (48 111. 263) 24, 189 
People V. Wilber, (15 N. Y. S. 435) 28 
People V. Willsea, (60 N. Y. 507) 28 
People V. Wilson, (15 HI. 389) 102 
People V. Wilson, (62 Hun, 618) 300 
People B. Wilson, (72 N. C. 155) 82 
People V. Witherell, (14 Mich. 48) 82, 

105 
People V. Wood, (7 Cal. 579) 14 
People B. Wood, (35 Barb. 653) 360 
People B. Wood, (71 N. Y. 371) 178 
People V. Woodruff, (32 N. Y. 355) 76 
People V. Works, (7 Wend. 486) 153 
People B. Worth, (58 Hun, 455) 124 
People V. Wren, (4 Scam. 275) 2, 8, 

24,37 
People V. United States, (93 HI. 30, 

34 Am. Kep. 155) 258 
People V. Yates Co., (40 HI. 126) 368 
People B. Young, (38 HI. 490) 68 
People's Gaslight Co. v. Jersey City. 

(40 N. J. L. 297) 144 
People ex rel. v. City of Butte, (4 

Mont. 174) 22, 23 
People ex rel. Com'rs v. Detroit, (28 

Mich. 228) 15 
People ex rel. McLean v. Hagg, (46 

N. Y. 401) 259 a 
People ex rel. Mills v. Jones, (7 Col. 

475) 33 
People Jfat. Bk. v. Pomona, (28 P. 

1089, 48 Kan. 55) 188, 189 
People E. K. b. Memphis E. R, (10 

Wall. 38) 113, 165, .302 
Peoria v. Johnson, (56 111. 52) 310. 

391 



Peoria v. Kidder, (26 lU. 351) 248, 

259 a 
Peoria B. Ass'n v. Loomis, (20 111. 

235) 352 a 
Pepper, In re, (11 Pa. Co. Ct. E. 257) 

49 
Pepper v. City, (114 Pa St. 96) 342 
Pequinot v. Detroit, (16 Fed. E. 211) 

346 
Perdue^. Chinquaconsy, (25 Up. Can. 

Q. B. 61) 355 
Perdue v. Ellis, (18 Ga. 586) 125, 280 
Perin v. Carey, (24 How. 465) 200 
Ferine v. Forbush, (32 Pac. 226) 281 
Perkins b. Corbin, (45 Ala. 103) 79 
Perkins b. Fayette, (68 Me. 152) 351 
Perkins v. Inhabitants, (68 Me. 152) 

346 
Perkins v. Eailroad, (44 K H. 223) 

107 
Perkins v. Slack, (86 Pa. St. 283) 16 
Perkins v. Washington Ins. Co., (4 

Cow. 645) 51 
Perkins v. Weston, (3 Gush. 540) 373 
Perkinson v. St. Louis, (4 Mo. App. 

322) 165 
Perley b. Georgetown, (7 Gray, 464) 

338 
Perot V. Mann, (12 Phila. 353) 79 
Perrin b. N. Y. etc., (36 N. Y. 120) 

221, 286 
Perrine v. Farr, (22 N. J. L. 356) 278 
Perrine v. Twp., (48 Mich. 641) 377 
Perry b. Cheboygan, (55 Mich. 250) 

79,87 
Perry v. Little Book, (32 Ark. 31) 

259 a 
PeiTy V. New Orleans etc. Co., (55 

Ala. 413) 220, 224, 301, 302 
Perry v. Ontario, (23 U. C. Q. B. 391) 

164 
Perry v. Superior City, (23 Wis. 64) 

169 
Perry v. Wilson, (7 Mass. 395) 232 
Perry v. Washburn, (20 Cal. 318) 282 
Perry b. Worcester, (6 Gray, 544) 92, 

353, 354 
Perry Co. v. Conway Co., (12 S. W. 

Eep. 887) 60 
Ferryman b. Greenville, (51 Ala. 510) 

32 
Peru B. Bearss, (55 Ind. 576) 61 
Peru V. French, (55 HI. 818) 352 a 
Peru V. Gleason, (91 Ind. 566) 113, 

327 
Peru & I. E. E. Co. v. Hanna, (68 Ind. 

562) 259 
Peru Iron Co., In re, (7 Cow. 540, 

552) 200 
Pesterfleld v. Vickers, (3 Golden, 205) 

150, 337 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



CXXXIU 



Peter v. Blue, (40 Kan. 727) 380 
Peters v. Fergus Falls, (35 Minn. 549) 

355 
Peters v. Lindsborg, (40 Kan. 654, 

20 Pac. 490) 92, 324 
Peters v. London, (2 Up. Can. Q. B. 

543) 154 
Peters v. Lynchburg, (76 Va. 927) 

256 
Peters v. Mayor, (8 Hun, 405) 92 
Peters v. State, (9 Ga. 109) 325 
Petersburg v. Metzger, (21 111. 205) 

110, 154 
Petersburgh v. Applegrath, (28 Gratt. 

321) 325, 336 a 
Petersburg!! v. Mappin, (14 111. 193) 

142 
Petersiler v. Stone, (119 Mass. 465) 88 
Peterson ». Mayor etc. of N. Y., (17 

N. Y. 449) 51, 128, 144, 164, 165 
Petition of Concord, (50 N". H. 530) 

311 
Petition of Mt. Washington Road Co., 

(35 N. H. 134) 233, 245 
Pettengill v. Yonkers, (22 N. E. R. 

1095, 116 N. Y. 558) 324 
Pettigrew i\ Evansville, (25 Wis. 223) 

238, 239, 354, 3o4 a 
Pettis V. Johnson, (56 Ind. 139) 120 
Petty V. Tooker, (21 N. Y. 267) 66 
Petz V. Detroit, (54 N. W. 644) 327 
Peyser v. Metro. El. R. R., (13 Daly, 

122) 305 
Peyser ». New York, (70 N. Y. 497) 

326, 327 
Pfan ». Reynolds, (53 111. 212) 350 
Pfeffevlee v. Lyon, (39 Kan. 432) 329 
Pfister 13. State, (82 Ind. 382) 362 
Phelan v. New York, (119 N. Y. 86) 

174 
Phelps e. Hawley, (3 Lans. 164) 315 
Phelps B. Lewiston, (15 Blatchf. 131) 

195 
Phelps V. Mankato, (23 Minn. 276) 

346 
Phelps V. New York, (112 N. Y. 216) 

172, 263, 326 a 
Philbrick v. P14,oe, (55 N. W. R. 345) 

300 
Philadelphia v. Ball, (10 Pa. Co. Ct. 

R. 92) 292 
Philadelphia v. Coulston, (13 Phila. 

182) 131 
Philadelphia Cit. Pass. Ry. Co., (10 

Pa. Co. Ct. 16) 302 
Philadelpliia v. Dibeler, (147 Pa. St. 

243, 23 Atl. R. 567) 292 
Philadelphia v. Dyer, (41 Pa. St. 463) 

243 
Philadelphia v. Eastwick, (35 Pa. St. 

75) 259 a 



Philadelphia v. Ehret, (153 Pa. St. 1) 

292 
Philadelphia ». Elliott, (3 Rawle, 170) 

203 
Philadelphia v. Flanigan, (47 Pa. St. 

21) 169 
Philadelphia ». Fox, (64 Pa. St. 169) 

206 
Philadelphia v. Freid, (58 Pa. St. 320) 

2,8 
Philadelpliia b. Germantown Pass. 

R. Co., (10 Phila. 165) 234 
Phila. V. Given, (60 Pa. St. 136) 85 
Philada. v. Greble, (38 Pa. St. 339) 

283 
Philadelphia v. Jewell, (21 Atl. R. 

239, 140 Pa. St. 9) 169 
Philadelphia v. Lombard etc. Co., (3 

Grant, 403) 302 
Philadelphia v. Miller. (49 Pa. St. 

440) 279 
Philadelphia ». Mon. Co., (147 Pa. 

St. 243, 23 Atl. R. 400) 292 
Philadelphia v. Penu. Hospital, (22 

Atl. R. 744, 143 Pa. St. 367) 270 
Phila. V. Phila. etc., (58 Pa. St. 253) 

208, 312 
Philada. v. Randolph, (4 W. & S. 514) 

292, 329, 354 
Philadelphia v. Ry. Co., (28 W. N. C. 

106) 28 
Philadelphia ». Ridge Av. etc. Co., 

(143 Pa. St. 444) 302 
Philadelphia v. Phila., W. & B. R. R. 

Co., (.33 Pa. St. 41) 259 o 
Philadelphia v. Rule, (93 Pa. St. 15) 

259 a 
Philadelphia v. Smith, (23 W. N. C. 
, 242)350 6 
Philadelphia v. Thomas, (25 Atl. R. 

888) 279 
Philada. v. Tryon, (35 Pa. St. 401) 

259 a, 277, 283 
Philadelphia v. Wistar, (35 Pa. St. 

427) 278, 283 
Philadelphia etc. Co., Appeal of, (15 

Atl. R. 476) 317 
Philada. etc. Co. v. Bowers, (4Houst. 

506) 136 
Philadelphia etc. Co. v. Hummell, 

(44 Pa. St. 375) 337 
Philada. et<!. Co. v. Philadelphia, (47 

Pa. St. 325) 303 
Philada. etc. Co. v. Philadelphia, (11 

Pa. 358) 306 
Phila. & Tren. R. R. Case, (6 Whart. 

25) 301 
Phila. <fe W. R. R. Co. v. Maryland, 

(10 How. 393) 270 ' 
Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. v. Ship- 
ley, (19 Atl. R. 1) 279 



L-XXXIV 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

Beferences are to Sections. 



Phila., W. & B. R. E. Co. ». Tax 

Gt. of Bait., (50 Md. 397) 273 
Philip Street, In re, (10 La. An. 313) 

240 
Philles V. Hiles, (42 Wis. 527) 259 
Phillips, In re, (60 N. T. 16) 148, 291 
Phillips V. Albany, (28 Wis. 340) 184 
Phillips V. Allen, (41 Pa. St. 481) 127, 

130 
Phillips?). Bloomington, (1 G. Greene, 

498) 134 
Phillips V. Coffee, (17 111. 154) 51 
Phillips V. Huntington, (14 S. E. K. 

17, 35 W. Va. 406) 290 
Phillips 1). South Park Com'rs, (119 

111. 626) 247 
Phillips V. Teoumseh, (5 Neb. 305) 

125 
Phillips V. Wiekam, (1 Paige Ch. 590) 

38, 150 
Phillips V. Willow, (70 Wis. 6) 350 b 
Phillips Exeter Acad. Trs. b. Exeter, 

(58 N. H. 306) 270 
Phoenixville, Re, (109 Pa. St. 44) 28 
Phoenixville u. Phoenix Iron Co., (45 

Pa. St. 135) 313 
Physicians v. Salmon, (3 Salk. 102) 

47, 48, 49 
Pickering v. Shotwell, (10 Pa. 27) 

203 
Pickett V. Hastings, (47 Cal. 269) 229 
Pickles V. Dry Dock Co., (64 Pa. St. 

169) 2 
Pierce v. Bartram, (Cowp. 269) 152 
Pierce ». Boston, (3 Met. 520) 282 
Pierce v. Cambridge, (2 Cush. 611) 

270 
Pierce v. Carpenter, (10 Vt. 480) 53 
Pierce v. Chamberlain, (82 Mo. 618) 

219 
Pierce v. Eddy, (152 Mass. 594) 272 
Pierce v. Kimball, (9 Me. 54) 127 
Pierce v. New Bedford, (129 Mass. 

534) 331 
Pierce v. Roberts, (17 Atl. E. 275, 57 

Conn. 31) 215 
Pierce v. Smith, (29 Pac. 565) 29, 

395 
Pierce v. Somerworth, (ION. H. 369) 

47 
Pieri v. Shieldsboro, (42 Miss. 493) 

120, 396 
Pierpoint v. Harrisville, (9 W. Va. 

215) 217 
Pierson ». Reynolds, (49 Mich. 224) 

59 
Pigeon V. Recorder's Ct, (17 Can. S. 

0. R. 495) 123 
Piggott V. Lilly, (27 N. W. Rep. 3) 

321 
Pike V. Magoun, (44 Mo. 491) 147 



Pike V. Middletown, (12 N. H. 278) 

115, 176 
Pike Co. Com'rs v. State, (11 111. 202) 

363 
Pilie V. New Orleans, (19 La. An. 

274) 79 
Pillsbury v. Augusta, (79 Me. 71) 308 
Pillsbury v. Springfield, (16 N. H. 

565) 242 
Pim. V. Mun. Cor. of Ontario, Ont. 

Rep. (9 C. P. D. 304) 164, 171 
Pimental c. San Francisco, (21 Cal. 

351) 99 
Pine City v. Munich, (44 N. W. R. 

197, 42 Minn. 342) 120, 301 
PioUet v. Simmers, (106 Pa. St. 95) 

342 
Piper V. Chappell, (14 M. & W. 624) 

154, 156, 158 
Piper V. Moultou, (72 Me. 155) 203 
Piper 1). Singer, (4 Serg. & R. 354) 

271 
Pisca. B. Co. V. New Hampshire, (7 

N. H. 59) 238, 313 
Pitts V. Opelika, (79 Ala. 527) 148 
Pittsburgh's Appeal, (118 Pa. St. 458) 

56 
Pittsburgh's App., (123 Pa. St. 374) 

14 
Pittsburgh v. Clarksville, (58 N. H. 

291) 316 
Pittsburgh v. Cluley, (74 Pa. St. 262) 

108 
Pittsburgh v. Craft, (1 Pitts. 158) 49 
Pittsburgh v. Grier, (22 Pa. St. 54) 

132, 314, 336 a 
Pittsburgh d. Hart, (89 Pa. St. 389) 

343 
Pittsburgh v. Scott, (1 Pa. St. 309) 

301 
Pittsburgh v. Trimble, (46 Mo. App. 

459) 117 
Pittsburgh v. Walter, (69 Pa. St. 365) 

278 
Pittsburgh v. Woods, (44 Pa. St. 113) 

259 a 
Pittsburgh etc. Co. v. All. V. R. Co., 

(23 Atl. 313, 29 W. N. C. 227) 238 
Pittsburgh etc. Co. v. Birmingham 

Bor., (51 Pa. St. 41) 302 
Pittsburgh etc. Co. v. Gilleland, (56 

Pa. St. 445) 353 
Pittsburgh etc. Co. v. Oliver, (19 Atl. 

R. 47, 131 Pa. St. 408) 244, 
Pittsburgh etc. v. Pittsburgh, (80 Pa. 

St. 72) 201 
Pittsburgh R. E. ?;. Cheevers, (44 

111. App. 118) 301 
Placerville v. Wilcox, (35 Cal. 21) 265 
Plainfield v. Plainfield, (30 N. W. R. 

672) 256 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CXXXV 



Beferences are to Sections. 



Plank Road Co. v. Thomas, (8 Harris, 

91) 317 
Planters' Assn. v. Avigno, (28 La. 

An. 552) 195 6 
Planters etc. v. Hanes, (52 Miss. 469) 

87 
Plantation No. 9 ». Bean, (40 Me. 218) 

53 
Pleasant v. Kost, (29 111. 490) 54 
Piatt V. Chicago etc., (31 IST. W. R. 

883) 289 
Piatt V. Rice, (10 Watts, 352) 270 
Piatt V. R. R. Co., (31 jST. W. K. 883) 

308, 327 
Platte etc. Co. v. Donell, (30 Pac. R. 

68)8 
Platter v. Seymour, (86 Ind. 323) 329, 

338 
Platter v. Elkhart Co., (103 Ind. 300) 

149 
Platteville etc. Co. v. Galena, (43 

Wis. 493) 186 
Plattsburgh v. Eiley, (42 Mo. App. 

18) 56 ■ 
Plattsburgh v. Trimble, (46 Mo. Ap. 

459) 117 
Plattsmouth o. Fitzgerald, (10 Neb. 

401) 198 
Plattsmouth ». Mitchell, (20 Neb. 

228)346, 350 (. 
Platz V. Cohoes, (89 N. Y. 219) 352 
Pleuler v. State, (11 Neb. 547) 123 
Plimpton V. Somerset, (33 Vt. 283) 

104, 156 
Plitt ». Cox, (43 Pa. 486) 239 
Plum V. Kansas City, (101 Mo. 525) 

248 
Plum V. Mor. Cen. & B. Co., (10 N. 

J. Eq. 256) 292, 329 
Plumb V. Grand Rapids, (45 N. W. 

R. 1024) 226 
Plymouth ». Jackson, (15 Pa. St. 44) 

8,67 
Plymouth o. Pettijohn, (4 Dev. 591) 

153, 258 
Pocopson Road, (16 Pa. St. 15) 234 a 
Poillon V. Brooklyn, (101 N. Y. 432) 

110 
Polack V. Trustees, (48 Cal. 490) 309, 

311 
Police Com'rs c. Louisville, (3 Bush, 

597) 18, 89 
Police Jury tj. Britton, (15 Wall. 572) 

177, 183 
Police Jury ». McCormack, (32 La. 

An. 624) 229 
Police Jury o. Shreveport, (5 La. An. 

661) 12 
Polinsky v. People, (73 N. Y. 35) 118 
Polk Co. Savings Bk. b. State, (69 

Iowa, 24) 164 



Pollard V. Hagan, (3 How. 212) 133 
Pollard V. Woburn, (104 Mass. 84) 

352 
Pollock ». Lawrence, (P. L. J. 373) 368 
Pollock's Adm. v. Louisville, (13 

Bush, 221) 92, 333, 338 a 
Pomeroy «. Mills, (3 Vt. 279) 226 
Pomeroy Salt Co. v. Davis, Treas., 

(21 Ohio St. 555) 272 
Pomfret v. Sicroft, (1 Saunders, 323) 

346 
Pomfrey v. Village of Saratoga 

Springs, (104 N. Y. 459) 256, 344, 

.350 6 
Pompton V. Cooper Union, (101 U. 

S. 196) 17, 187 
Ponca c. Crawford, (23 Neb. 662) 342, 

352 
Pond V. Metro. El. R. R. Co., (42 

Hun, 567) 305 
Pond V. Negus, (3 Mass. 230) 98 
Pond V. Parrott, (42 Conn. 1:5) 359 
Pontiac v. Oxford, (29 Mich. (i9) 106 
Poutiao V. Carter, (32 Mich. 164) 113, 

329 
Pool V. Boston, (5 Cush. 219) 140 
Pool V. Trexler, (76 N. C. 297) 294 
Poole V. Bentley, (12 East, 108) 210 
Pooler B. Reed, (73 Me. 129) 86 
Pope V. Com'rs, (12 Rich. Law, 407) 

288 
Pope V. Headon, (5 Ala. 433) 282 
Pope B. Union, (18 N. J. Eq. 282) 221, 

223 
Poppen V. Holmes, (44 111. 362) 155 
Porter v. Androscoggin etc. E. Co., 

(37 Me. 349) 51 
Porter v. Blakely, (1 Root, 440) 50 
Porter ». City of Janes ville, (3 Fed, 

Rep. 619) 191 6 
Porter v. Midi. etc. Co., (25 N. E. R. 

536, 125 Ind. 476) 247 
Porter v. Pillsbury, (11 How. Pr. 

240) 67 
Porter v. Railroad Co., (37 Me. 349) 

51 
Porter b. State, (78 Tex. 591) 359 
Port Gibson b. Moore, (13 Sm. & 

Marsh, 157) 43 
Port Huron b. Chadwick, (52 Mich. 

320) 194 
Port Huron etc. Co. v. Callinan, (61 

Mich. 12) 245 
Portland v. Kamm, (10 Oreg. 383) 

248 
Portland b. Lee Sam, (7 Oreg. 397) 

248 
Portland v. O'Neill, (1 Oreg. 218) 

124, 261 
Portland b. Schmidt, (13 Oreg. 17) 

110 



CXXXVl 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



References are to Sections. 



Portland v. Smith, (13 Oreg. 17) 125 
Portland v. White, (3 Oreg. 126) 226 
Portland etc. Co. v. Boston etc. Co., 

(65 Me. 122)302 
' Portland etc. Co. v. Hartford, (58 

Me. 23) 195 a 
Portland etc. Co. v. Horsford, (58 

Me. 23) 186 
Portland etc. K. R. v. Portland, (14 

Oreg. 188) 2, 11, 13, 308 
Portland L. etc. Co. v. East Portland, 

(22 Pac. Rep. 536) 163 
Portland Sav. Bk. v. EvansvUle, (25 

Fed. Rep. 389) 197 
Portsmouth Bk. v. Springfield, (4 

Fed. Rep. 276) 196 
Portsmouth etc. Co. v. Watson, (10 

Mass. 91) 30 
Port Townsend v. Sheehan, (33 Pac. 

R. 429) 256 
Pt. Wardens v. Ship, (14 La. An. 289) 

133 
Portwood V. Baskett, (1 So. Rep. 

105) 123 
Poi-twood !). Montgomery, (52 Miss. 

523) 360 
Posey V. Mobile Co., (50 Ala. 6) 79 
Post V. Boston, (141 Mass. 189) 351 
Post V. Pearsall, (22 Wend. 425) 217 
Postal etc. Co. v. Ala. etc. Co., (9 So. 

555) 245 
Potomac S. Co. v. Upper Pot. etc. 

Co., (109 U. S. 672) 132, 225 
Pottawatomie Co. Com'rs v. Sulli- 
van, (17 Kan. 58) 194 
Potter V. Castleton, (53 Vt. 435) 352 
Potter 1). Douglas, (87 Mo. 239) 189 a 
Potter V. Greenwich, (26 Hun, 326) 

192 
Potts V. Quaker City El. Ry. Co., (12 

Pa. Co. Ct. R. 593, 2 Pa. Dis. Ct. 

R. 200) 396 
Poughkeepsie v. Wilksie, (36 Hun, 

270) 79 
Poulters Co. v. Phillips, (6 Bing. N. 

C. 314) 158 
Poultney v. Lafayette, (12 Peters, 

472) 363 
Poultney v. Wells, (1 Ark. 180) 13 
Pound V. Chippewa Co. Sup., (43 

Wis. 65) 265 
Pound V. Turck, (95 U. S. 450) 314 
Powell V. Gilman, (38 III. App. 611) 

215 
Powell V. Madison, (107 lud. 106) 

189 a 
Powell V. Parkersburg, (28 W. Va. 

698) 33, 56 
Powell V. St. Joseph, (31 Mo. 347) 

291 
Powell V. Suprs., (14 S. E. R. 543) 29 



Powell !). Wilson, (16 Tex. 59) 75 
Powers, In re, (25 Vt. 261) 104 
Powers V. Council Bluffs, (50 Iowa, 

197) 338 a, 350 6 
Powers V. Sanford, (39 Me. 18.3) 326 a 
Powers V. Sup. Ct., (23 Ga. 65) 184 
Powers V. Wood Co., (8 Ohio St. 286) 

56 
Powers V. Tonkers, (114 N. T. 145) 

174 
Powschiek v. Ross, (9 Iowa, 511) 108 
Powsheik d. Duraut, (9 Wall. 736) 

368 
Prather v. Lexington, (13 B. Mon. 

559) 333 
Pratt V. Amherst, (140 Mass. 167) 342 
Pratt B. Brown, (3 Wis. 603) 233 
Pratt V. Hillman, (4 B. & C. 269) 131 
Pratt V. Litchfield, (25 Atl. R. 461, 

62 Conn. 112) 146 
Pratt V. People, (29 111. 54) 65 
Pratt V. Roseland, (24 Atl. R. 1037) 

396 
Pratt V. Short, (53 How. Pr. 506) 

169 
Pratt V. Stratford, (14 Ont. 260) 329 
Pratt i). Swanton, (15 Vt. 147) 170 
Pratt B. Weymouth, (147 Mass. 245) 

338 a 
Pray v. Jersey City, (32 N. J. L. 394) 

339 
Pray v. Northern Liberties, (31 Pa. 

St. 69) 270 
Preacher's Aid Society v. Rich, (45 

Me. 552) 49 
Preble v. Portland, (45 Me. 241) 98, 

249 
Prell B. McDonald, (7 Kan. 426) 31, 70 
Prentiss ». Davis, (22 Atl. R. 246, 33 

Me. 364) 24 
Prescott V. Duquesne Bor., (48 Pa. 

St. 118) 132, 359 
Prescott V. Gonser, (34 Iowa, 175)51, 

365 
Prescott V. Waterloo, (26 Fed. Rep. 

592) 327 
President b. Dusouchett, (2 lud. 587) 

352 
President etc. v. Indianapolis, (12 

Ind. 620) 212, 227 
President v. Thomas, (20 111. 197) 38 
Pressel b. Bice, (21 Atl. R. 813) 90 
Preston ». Bacon, (4 Conn. 471) 79 
Preston b. Boston, (12 Pick. 7) 326, 

326 a 
Preston b. Hull, (23 Gratt. 613) 191 6 
Preston v. Roberts, (12 Bush, 570) 

259 a 
Preston v. Rudd, (84 Ky. 150) 259 o 
Preston v. U. S., (37 Fed. Rep. 417) 

86 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 
References are to Sections. 



cxxxvu 



Prettyman o. Tazewell County, (19 

111. 406) 192 6 
Price V. Breckenridge, (92 Mo. 378) 

219, 224 
Price V. Hunter, (34 Fed. R. 355) 

259 
Price V. Meth. E. Church, (4 Ohio, 

514) 228 
Price V. Plainfleld, (40 N. J. L. 608) 

226 
Price V. Railroad Co., (13 Ind. 58) 

99 
Price V. Riverside Co., (56 Cal. 431) 

363 
Price V. Thompson, (38 Mo. 363) 216, 

226, 228, 229 
Prideaux v. Mineral Pt., (43 Wis. 

513) 337 
Priestly ». Foulds, (2 Scott, N. R. 205, 

225) 37 
Priet V. Reis, (28 Pao. Rep. 798, 93 

Cal. 85) 178 
Prieto V. Duncan, (22 111. 26) 66 
Prime, In re, (18 N. T. S. 603) 272 
Prime v. 23d St. Ry. Co., (1 Abb. N. 

C. 63, 71) 306 
Primm o. Belleville, (59 111. 142) 254, 

265 
Prince v. City of Boston, (19 N. E. 

R. 218, 148 Mass. 370) 18 
Prince v. Lynn, (149 Mass. 193) 92 
Prince v. Quincy, (105 111. 138) 189 a 
Prince v. Quincy, (128 111. 443) 192 
Prince V. Skillen, (71 Me. 361) 67, 79 
Prince George's Co. Comm'rs v. Bla- 

densburg, (51 Md. 465) 55 
Princeton v. Vireling, (40 Ind. 340) 

326 a 
Princeville v. Auten, (77 111. 325) 108, 

219 226 
Prindle v. Fletcher, (39 Vt. 257) 350 o 
Pritchard v. Atchinson, (3 N. H. 335) 

279 
Pritchard v. Keeper, (53 111. 117) 92 
Pritchard ». Stevens, (6 Dum. & E. 

522) 129 
Pritchett v. Board, (61 Ind. 210) 341 
Pritchett v. Peo., (1 Gilm. 529) 88 
Pritz, In re, (9 Iowa, 30) 26 
Proctor V. Andover, (42 N. H. 348) 

235 
Proprietors v. Horton, (6 Hill. 501) 

24,31 
Proprietors ». Ipswich, (26 N. E. R. 

239) 200, 211 
Proprietors v. Slack, (7 Cush. 226) 

106, 373 
Proprietors «. Taylor, (6 N. H. 499) 

320 
Proprietors etc. v. Hoboken L. I. Co., 

(13 K. J. Eq. 503) 325 



Proprietors etc. ». Nashua & Lowell 

R. R. Co., (10 Cush. 388) 238, 239, 

354 
Prosser v. Ottumwa, (47 Iowa, 509) 

352 a 
Protestant etc. Sch., In re, (58 Barb. 

161, 40 How. Pr. 19) 173 
Prot. Epis. Church v. Anamosa, (76 

Iowa, 538) 329 
Protzmanc. ludianopolis etc. Co., (9 

Ind. 467, 13 Ind. 353, 9 Ind. 557) 303 
Providence v. Clapp, (17 How. 161) 

324, 342, 344 
Providence u. Miller, (11 R. I. 272) 

167 
Providence Bank v. Billings, (4 Pet. 

514) 270 
Providence etc. Co. v. Worcester, (29 

N. E. R. 56) 246 
Prov. & Wor. R. R. Co. v. Wright, (2 

R. I. 459) 274 
Providence Gas Co. v. Thurber, (2 R. 

I. 15) 274 
Prov. Inst. V. Jersey City, (113 U. S. 

506) 283 
Prov. Inst, for Sav. v. Allen, (37 N. 

J. Eq. 36) 259 a 
Prowell V. Powkes, (5 Baxt. 649) 83 
Pruden v. Grant Co., (12 Ore. 308) 324 
Pruyn v. Milwaukee, (18 Wis. 367) 

177 
Public School Trustees v. Taylor, (30 

N. J. Eq. 618) 33 
Pub. Schools V. St. Louis, (26 Mo. 

468) 270 
Pueblo V. Robinson, (21 Pac. R. 899, 

12 Colo. 593) 283 
Pueblo etc. Co. v. Rudd, (5 Col. 273) 

106 
Puffer 1). Orange, (122 Mass. 389) 343 
Pulaski Co. v. Reeve, (42 Ark. 55) 3 
Pulaski V. Gilmore, (21 Fed. Rep. 

870) 188 
Pullman v. Mayor, (54 Barb. 169) 163 
Pullman etc. Co. v. Com., (141 TJ. S. 

18) 259 
Pumpelly v. Green Bay, (13 Wall. 

166) 329, 355 
Pumphrey v. Mayor, (47 Md. 145) 377 
Purcell V. Bear Creek, (38 111. App. 

499) 263 
Purdeman v. St. Charles, (19 G. W. 

R. 733) 315. 353 
Purdy V. People, (4 Hill, 384) 2, 8, 28 
Purdy V. Lansing, (128 U. S. 557, 20 

Blatchf. 278, 286) 185 
Purple V. Greenfield, (138 Mass. 1) 

350 6 
Pursley v. Hays, (17 Iowa, 310) 250 
Pusey V. Allegheny, (98 Pa. St. 522) 

330 



CXXXVIU 



TABLE or OASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



Putnam v. Fife Lake, (45 Mich. 125) 

282 
Putnam ». Grand Eapids, (58 Mich. 

417) 144 a 
Putnam v. Johnson, (10 Mass. 488) 

66 
Putnam ». Langley, (133 Mass. 204) 

371 
Putnam b. Payne, (13 Johns. 312) 

129 
Putnam Co. v. Allen, (1 Ohio St. 322) 

375 
Pye V. Petersen, (45 Tex. 812) 110, 

120, 130 
Pym V. Gt. Northern Ry. Co., (15 

Up. Can. Q. B. 631) 352 a 

Q- 

Queen v. Barrett, (1 Salk. 383) 156 
Queen v. Cridland, (7 E. & B. 853) 

156 
Queen ». Epsom Union Guard, (8 L. 

T. K. N. S. 383) 340 
Queen v. Fitzgerald, (39 Up. Can.- Q. 

B. 297) 346 

Queen v. Gas Co., (2 Ellis & L. 651) 

302 
Queen v. Haldimond etc., (7 Up. Can. 

L. J. 266) 363 
Queen v. Jarvis, (3 F. & P. 108) 127 
Queen v. Justices, (8 Ad. & El. 173) 

65 
Queen v. Oldham Bor., (L. K. 3 Q. B. 

C. 474) 270 

Queen v. Osier, (32 Up. Can. Q. B. 

324) 145 
Queen v. Plunkett, (21 Up. Can. Q. 

B. 536) 224 
Queen v. U. K. Tel. Co., (3 F. & F. 

74) 346 
Queen v. Wallesey etc., (L. R. 4 Q. 

B. 351) 330 
Queensburg v. Culver, (19 Wall. 82) 

184, 194 a, 198 
Quick !). River Forrest, (22 N. E. R. 

816, 130 111. 323) 279 
Quin V. Moore, (15 N". T. 432) 353 
Quincy «. Barker, (81 III. 300) 344 
Quinoy v. Bull, (106 111. 337) 295 
Quincy v. Cooke, (107 U. S. 549) 

187 a ' 

Quincy v. G. B. & Q. R. R., (92 111. 

21) 312 
Quincy v. Jackson, (113 U. S. 332) 

194 a, 266 
Quincy v. Janes, (76 111. 231) 113 
Quincy v. Jones, (76 111. 231, 244) 286, 

312 ' / . 

Quincy v. O'Brien, (24 111. App. 591^ 
8, 129 ' 

Quincy v. Warfleld, (25 111. 317) 177 



Quinette v. St. Louis, (76 Mo. 402) 

146 
Quinn v. Com., (20Gratt. 31) 88 
Quinn v. Paterson, (27 N". J. L. 35) 

92, 319, 329 
Quinton v. Burton, (61 Iowa, 471) 

316 
Quoug Wo, In re, (7 Sawyer, 526) 121 

R. 

Raab v. Maryland, (7 Md. 483) 54 
Rabassa v. New Orleans, (3 Martin, 

O. S. 218) 268 
Rackham v. Bluck, (9 Q. B. 691) 104 
Radolift' V. Mayor, (53 Am. Dec. 366) 

292 
RadclifE's Ex. v. Brooklyn, (4 N. T. 

195) 239, 329 
Rader v. District, (36 N. J. L. 273) 2 
Radich v. Hutcbins, (95 U. S. 210) 

326 a 
Radway c. Brjggs, (37 N. Y. 256) 

132,336 a 
Rafferty, In re, (1 Wash. St. 882) 28 
Rafter c. Tagliabue, (29 Abb. N. C. 

1) 396 
Ragan v. McCoy, (29 Mo. 356) 217 
Ragatz V. Dubuque, (4 Iowa, 343) 

245 
Railway v. Carter, (26 Atl. R. 96) 324 
Railway Com'rs v. Rahway, (49 N. 

J. L. 384) 364 
Railroad Co. v. Alexandria, (17 Gratt 

176) 33 
R. E. Co. V. Athens, (11 S. E. R. 663) 

165 
Railroad Co. v. Chenoa, (43 111. 200) 

31,32 
Railway v. Cleneay, (13 Ind. 161) 190 
Railroad Co. v. Combs, (10 Bush, 

382) 302 
Railroad J). Davidson Co., (1 Sneed, 

692) 24 
Railroad Co. v. Decatur, (18 N. E. R. 

315, 126 111. 92) 270 
Railroad Co. v. Ellerman, (105 U. S. 

166) 12 
R. R. Co. ■!;. Engle, (76 111. 317) 148 
R. R. V. Evansville, (15 Ind. 395) 183 
Railroad Co. v. Gregory, (15 111. 21) 

28 
R. R. Co. V. HoUoren, (53 Texas, 46) 

317 
Railway Co. v. Minnesota, (134 U. S. 

418) 150 
Railroad Co. v. Morgan County, (14 

111. 163) 273 
Railroad Co. ». Otoe Co., (1 Dill. 338) 

196 
Railroad Co. v. Plumas County, (37 

Cal. r,o4) 32 



TABLE OK CASES CITED. 



CXXXIX 



Keferences are to Sections. 



Kailroad Co. v. Eenwiok, (102 U. S. 

180) 132, 239 
Railway Co. v. Railway Co., (9 Exoh. 

55)52 
R. R. Co. V. Quinoy, (28 N. E. R. 

1069) 294 
E. E. Co. V. Schurmeier, (1 Wall. 

272) 132 
Railroad Co. v. Spearman, (12 Iowa, 

112) 55 
Railroad Co. v. Winthrop, (5 La. An. 

36) 133 
Eailway Co. v. Sprague, (103 U. S. 

762) 191 
Raisoh v. Board, (22 Pao. R. 890) 375 
Rakowsky v. Dulutli, (44 Minn. 188) 

292, 329 
Raleigh v. Peace, (110 N. C. 32) 259 a 
Ealeigh v. Sorrell, (1 Jones Law, 49) 

96, 127 
Ealeigli etc. R. R. Co. v. Davis, (2 

Dev. & Bat. 451) 283 
Ramnay, In re, (83 Eng. C. L. 174) 

85 
Ramsay ». Church, (45 Minn. 229) 270 
Ramsey v. Clerk, (52 Mich. 344) 371 
Ramsey v. Rushville, (81 Ind. 394) 

352 
Rand v. Dovey, (83 Pa. St. 280) 165 
Rand v. Wilder, (11 Cush. 294) 95 
Randall v. State, (16 Wis. 340) 83 
Randall v. Van Vechter, (19 Johns. 

60) 51, 164 
Randolph v. Gawley, (47 Cal. 458) 263 
Randolph v. Pope Co., (19 111. App. 

100) 83 
Randolph v. Post, (93 U. S. 502) 186, 

188, 191 6 
Randolph v. Yellowstone Kit, (3 So. 

E. 706) 258 
Eankin v. Baird, (Breese, 123) 12 
Eankin v. Great Western Ry. Co., (4 

Up. Can. C. P. 463) 243, 247 
Eankin ». Henderson, (7 S. W. E. 174) 

255, 261 
Ranney v. Baeder, (50 Mo. 600) 189 
Eansom v. Boal, (29 Iowa, 68) 208, 

229 
Ransom v. Kitner, (31 III. App. 241) 

129 
Eansom v. Mayor, (24 Barb. 226) 176 
Raphe v. Moore, (68 Pa. St. 404) 350 a, 

353 
Rastrick v. Gt. Western Ry. Co., (27 

Up. Can. Q. B. 396) 352 
Rathbun ». Acker, (18 Barb. 393), 256, 

265 
RatljfE V. County Co., (10 S. E. E. 28) 

325 
Eatterman v. Exp. Co., (32 N. E. E. 

754, 49 Ohio St. 698) 326 



Eatterman v. W. U. T. Co., (8 S. Ct. 

1127) 258 
Eauch V. City, (22 Pa. Rep. 22) 326 
Raulett V. Lowell, (126 Mass. 431) 355 
Rausen v. New York, (1 Fisher Pat. 

Cases, 254) 338 
Ravenna v. Penn. Co., (45 Ohio St. 

118) 110 
Ravenswood v. Flemings, (22 W. Va. 

52) 133 
Ray V. Manchester, (46 N. H. 59) 340 
Ray V. Wilson, (10 So. E. 613) 368 
Ray Co. v. Vansycle, (96 U. S. 675) 

186, 188 
Raymond ». Kiseberg, (54 N. W. R. 

612) 300 
Raymond v. Lowell, (6 Cush. 52) 340, 

346, 352 a 
Raymond u. Madison Co., (5 Mont. 

103) 79 
Raymond v. Sheboygan, (70 Wis. 318) 

348 
Rayner v. State, (52 Md. 568) 399 
Eea V. Smith, (2 Handy, 193) 79 
Eead v. Belfast, (20 Me. 246) 352 a 
Eead v. Camden, (24 Atl. E. 549) 150, 

308, 398 
Eead v. Cambridge, (126 Mass. 427) 

120 
Read v. Pen-ett, (L. R. 1 Ex. Div. 

349) 301 
Reading v. Com., (11 Pa. St. 196) 9, 

11, 301, 377 
Reading v. Keppleman, (61 Pa. St. 

233) 32, 113, 329 
Reading v. Savage, (126 Pa. St. 198) 

25 
Ready v. Tuskaloosa, (6 Ala. 327) 92, 

333 
Rector v. State, (6 Ark. 187) 104 
Eeddall v. Bryan, (14 Md. 444) 234 
Eeddiok v. Amelia, (1 Mo. 5) ^2 
Eedlick v. Doll, (54 N. Y. 236) 191 6 
Eedmond v. Tarboro, (10 S. E. 845) 

268 
Eed Star Steamship Co. v. Jersey 

City, (45 N. J. L. 246) 152 
Eeed v. Bainbridge, (1 Southard, 351) 

111 
Eeed v. Belfast, (20 Me. 248) 340 
Eeed v. Deerfield, (8 Allen, 522) 352 
Eeed v. New York, (97 N. Y. 620) 

3506 
Re'ed v. Northfleld, (13 Pick. 94) 342, 

350 6 
Reedie v. London etc. Co., (4 Exch. 

244) 347 
Rees V. Chicago, (38 111. 322) 219, 250 
Rees V. Watertown, (19 Wall. 481) 359 
Reeves v. Toronto, (21 Up. Can. Q. 

B. 160) 355 



cxl 



TABLE or CASES CITED. 

Keferences are to Sections. 



Eeeves v. Wood County Treasurer, 

(8 Ohio St 333, 345) 104, 234, 236 
Regent's Canal Iron Works Co., In 

re, (3 Ch. Div. 43) 190 
Regents ». Detroit, (12 Mich. 138) 

167 
Regents of University v. Williams, 

(9 Gill & Johns. 365) 15, 37 
Regiua v. Berraingham, (9 Car. & P. 

469) 400 
Regina v. Bewdley, (1 P. Wras. 207) 

37 43 
Reg.' V. Bridgewater, (2 P. & D. 558) 

115 
Reg. V. Charlesworth, (16 Q. B. 1012) 

295 
Reg. V. Chorley, (12 Q. B. 515) 120 
Reg. V. Davis, (24 Up. Can. C. P. 575) 

300 
Reg. V. Derbyshire, (2 Q. B. 745) 313 
Regina v. E. & W. Dock, (22 Eng. L. 

& E. 113) 318 
Reg. V. Gloucestershire, (1 Car. & M. 

506) 313 
Regina v. Great etc. Ry. Co., (9 Q. B. 

315) 400 
Reg. V. Howard, (4 Ont. 377) 131 
Regina v. Inhabitants, (14 Eng. L. & 

E. 116) 353 
Reg. 0. Inhabitants, (6 Mod. 307) 313, 

815 
Reg. 1). Leeds, (4 Q. B. 796) 115 
Reg. V. Lincoln, (8 Ad. & E. 65) 313 
Reg. I). Litchfield, (4 Q. B. 893) 182 
Reg. B. Longton G. Co., (29 L. J. M. 

C. 118) 295 
Reg. V. Matters, (10 Cox, 6) 120 
Regina b. Nott, (4 Q. B. 773) 400 
Reg. V. Paramore, (10 Ad. & El. 286) 

100 
Regina v. Roberts, (36 Law Times 

Rep. 690) 77 
Reg. V. Rogers, (2 Ld. Raym. (778 

101 
Reg. V. Rogers, (2 Ld. Raym. (778 

101 
Reg. V. Sheffield etc. (22 Eng. L. & 

Eq. 518) 295 
Regina ». Stevenson, (3 F. & F. 106) 

127 
Reg. V. Train, (9 Cox Cr. Cas. 180) 

295, 302 
Reg. V. Turwesten, (1 Eng. L. & Eq. 

317) 400 
Reg. 1). Toronto etc. Co., (24 Q. B. 

454) 306 
Reg. V. U. K. El. Tel. Co., (9 Cox Cr. 

Cas. 174) 297 
Regina v. Watts, (1 Salk. 357) 300 
Reg. V. Wyoomber, L. R. (2 Q. B. 310) 

317 



Reg. V. York, (2 Queens B. 850) 100 
Reginald v. Pike, ( 1 Ontario, 43) 299 
Rehberg v. Mayor, (91 N. Y. 137) 331 

350 6 
Reich V. State, (53 Ga. 73) 117 
Reid, In re, (50 Ala. 439) 361 
Reid V. Atlanta, (73 Ga. 523) 355 
Reid V. Edina Bd. of Ed., (73 Mo. 

295) 221 
Reif V. Paige, (55 Wis. 496) 79 
Reilly v. Mayor, (111 N. Y. 473) 173 
Reilly u. Philadelphia, (60 Pa. St. 467) 

165, 278, 347 
Reilly v. Racine, (51 Wis. 526) 218, 

223 310 
Reimer's App., (100 Pa. St. 182) 131 
Reining v. Buffalo, (102 N. Y. 308) 

350 a 
Reinhard v. New York, (2 Daly, 243) 

350 6 
Reitenbaagh ». Chester Valley R. E. 

Co., (21 Pa. St. 100) 2.32, 241 
Remington v. Harrison Co. Ct., (12 

Bush, 148) 142 
Remy v. New Orleans, (15 La. An. 

657) 120 
Remy v. Municipality, (11 La. An. 

148) 200 
Rensselaer etc. R. R. Co. c. Davis, 

(43 N. Y. 137) 200 
Renthrop v. Bourg, (4 Martin, 97) 229 
Renwick v. Hall, (84 111. 162) 385 
Reock V. Newark, (33 N. J. L. 129) 

327, 330 
Republican V. etc. Co. v. Chase Co., 

(51 N. W. R. 132) 272 
Requa v. Rochester, (45 N. Y. 129) 

233, 350 a, 352 
Respublioa o. Duquet, (2 Yeates, 493) 

130 
Respublica v. Sparhawk, (1 Dallas, 

237) 335 
Revenue Law, In re, (48 N. W. R. 

813) 270 
Rex V. Abingdon, (1 Lord Raymond, 

560) 368 
Rex V. Amery, (2 Bro. P. C. 336) 62 
Rex V. Amory, (2 Term R. 515) 37 
Rex V. Atkyns, (3 Mod. 23) 100 
Rex V. Axbridge, (Cowper, 523) 372 
Rex V. Barker, (3 Burr. 1265) 359 
Rex V. Bellringer, (4 Term R. 823) 

100 
Rex V. Bristol, (1 D. & R. 389) 372 
Rex V. Carlisle, (6 Carr. & P. 636) 

300 
Rex V. Chalke, (6 Comb. 397) 83 
Rex V. Chester, (1 M. & S. 101) 114 
Rex V. Com'rs, (1 B. & A. 232) 115 
Rex V. Com'rs, (2 Kee. 43) 105 
Rex ». Cross, (3 Campb. 226) 300 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



cxl) 



Keferences are to Sections. 



Rex V. Debenham, (2 B. & Aid. 187) 

107 
Rex V. Desjardlns Canal, (27 Q. B. 

Ontario, 374) 313 
Rex V. Devonshire, (1 B. & C. 609) 

100 
Rex V. Doncaster, (1 Str. 738) 97 
Rex !). Dorcaster, (2 Ld. Baym. 1566) 

84 
Rex V. Gabarian, (11 East, 87) 100 
Rex ». Grant, (1 B. & A. Ill) 114 
Kex V. Great Broughton, (5 Burr, 

2700) 339 
Rex V. Greet, (8 B. & C. 363) 100 
Rex V. Grimes, (5 Burr, 2601) 84, 95 
Rex K. Grosvenor, (7 Mod. 199) 37 
Rex V. Hardwick, (11 East, 578) 107 
Rex V. Harris, (1 B. & Ad. 936, 20 E. 

C. L. 509) 86 
Rex B. Havering, (5 B. & Aid. 291) 

101 
Rex 0. Headlev, (7 B. & C. 496) 100 
Hex V. Hill, (4 B. & C. 441) 95 
Rex V. Hughes, (5 B. & C. 886, 12 E. 

C. L. 399) 86 
Rex V. Ingram, (1 W. Bl. 50) 106 
Rex V. Ipswich, (2 Ld. Raym. 1240) 

84 
Rex V. Inhabitants, (2 East, 342) 313 
Rex B. Inhabitants, (14 East, 319) 317 
Rex 1). Inhabitants, (12 East, 192) 315 
Rex V. Jones, (6 East, 230) 300 
Rex V. Jones, (12 Ad. & E. 684) 309 
Rex V. Justices, (23 L. M. J. 113) 309 
Rex V. Kent, (2 M. & S. 513) 313,315 
Rex V. Kent, (13 East, 220) 37 
Rex ». Kerrison, (3 M. & S. 526) 317 
Rex V. Kingston, (8 Mod. 210) 365 
Rex V. Lancashire, (2 B. & Ad. 813) 

313 
Rex V. Lane, (2 Ld. Raym. 1304) 86 
Rex V. Langhorne, (4 Ad. & El. 538) 

95 
Rex V. Liverpool, (2 Burr, 734) 95 
Rex V. Liverpool, (2 Burr, 735) 97 
Jiex V. Lloyd, (4 Esp. 200) 120 
Rex B. London, (2 D. & E. T. R. 181) 

372 
Rex 11. Maidstone, (3 Burr. 1837) 149 
Rex V. May, (4 B. & C. 843) 100 
Rex V. Mayor etc. Hastings, (5 B. & 

Aid. 692) 101 
Rex V. Mayor etc. Wells, (4 Dowl. 

P. C. 562) 101 
Rex V. Mayor, (2 Cowp. 523) 85 
Rex B . Mayor of Hastings, (5 B. & 

Aid. 692) 100 
Rex B. Mayor of Chester, (1 M. & 8. 

101) 111 
Rex B. Miller, (6 TermR. 277) 37, 100 
Rex V. Mitchell, (10 East, 611) 106 



Rex B. Merely, (2 Burr, 1040) 105 
Rex 1-. Morris, (4 East. 26) 100 
Rex !). Mothersell, (1 Stra. 93) 156 
Rex B. Neil, (2 C. & P. 485) 120 
Rex B. Nicholson, (1 Str. 299) 37 
Rex V. No. Curry, (4 B. & C. 961) 

106 
Rex B. Osborne, (4 East, 326) 37 
Rex B. Oxfordshire, (1 Barn. & Ad. 

300) 313 
Rex V. Oxfordshire, (16 East, 223) 

400 
Rex B. Passmore, (3 Term R. 247) 40, 

62 
Rex V. Patterson, (4 B. & Ad. 9, 24 

E. C. L. 11) 86 
Rex V. Ponsonby, (1 Vesey, 1) 382 
Rex V. Richardson, (8 T. R. 634) 287 
Rex B. Richardson, (1 Burr, 517) 83 
Rex B. Richmond, (6 T. B. 560) 106 
Rex B. Russell, (6 Barn. & C. 566) 300 
Rex B. Sal way, (9 B. & C. 424) 114 
Rex V. Sargent, (5 T. R. 466) 106 
Rex B. Saunders, (3 East, 119) 37, 40 
Rex B. Shelly, (3 T. R. 142) 106 
Rex B. Smart, (4 Burr, 2143) 100 
Rex B. Smart, (Cowp. 59) 100 
Rex B. Southampton, (14 Eng. L. 

Eq. 116) 313 
Rex V. Staffordshire, (16 East, 223) 

400 
Rex B. St. George, (3 Campb. 222) 339 
Rex B. Surrey, (2 Campb. 455) 315 
Rex B. Tizzard, (9 B. & C. 418, 17 E. 

C. L. 411) 86 
Rex B. Theodorick, (8 East, 545) 95 
Rex B. Tregony, (8 Mod. 129) 37 
Rex B. Ward, (4 Ad. & E. 405) 300 
Rex V. Wells, (4 Burr, 1999) 83 
Rex B. West Love, (3 B. & C. 685) 368 
Rex B. W. Riding, (5 Burr, 2594) 315 
Rex B. West Riding, (2 East, 342) 813, 

353 
Rex B. Westwood, (4 B. & A. 786) 114 
Rex B. White, (5 Burr, 333) 120 
Rex B. Williams, (1 Burr, 402) 9B 
Rexford b. Knight, (11 N. Y. 308) 239, 

243 
Reynolds b. Albany, (8 Barb. 597) 141 
Reynolds b. Baldwin, (1 La. An. 162) 

379 
Reynolds b. Harris, (27 Weekly Law 

Bui. 229) 130 
Reynolds v. Los Angeles, (64 Cal. 

372) 399 
Reynolds v. New Salem, (6 Met. 340) 

95 
Reynolds v. Shreveport, (13 La. An. 

426) 291, 329 
Reynolds i>. Stark Co., (5 Ohio, 204) 



cxlii 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



References are to Sections. 



Reynold's Heirs u. Stark County 

Oom'rs etc., (6 Ohio, 204) 200, 208, 

226 
Rhea v. Newport etc. Co., (50 Fed. 

16) 314 a 
Rhine ». McKinney, (53 Tex. 354) 240, 

245 
Ehineheck E. R, In re, (67 N. Y. 242) 

242 
Rhines v. Clark, (51 Pa. St. 96) 104 
Ribordy v. Pellachond, (28 111. App. 

303) 354 a 
Eice V. Des Moines, (40 Iowa, 638) 

189 a, 350 a, 352 
Rice V. Evansvjlle, (108 Ind. 7) 354, 

355 
Eice V. Foster, (4 Harring. 479) 161 
Eice V. Montpelier, (19 Vt. 470) 342, 

352 
Eice V. Newport etc. Co., (32 W. Va. 

164)48 
Rice V. Smith, (9 Iowa, 570) 371 
Eice V. State, (3 Kan. 141) 104, 117 
Rice V. Wellman, (5 Ohio Cir. Ct. 

E. 334) 236 
Eice B. & F. Co. v. Worcester, (130 

Mass. 575) 363 
Rice etc. v. Worcester, (130 Mass. 

575) 377 
Eich V. Errol, (51 N. H. 350) 190 a 
Eich V. Mentz Tp., (134 U. S. 632, 18 

Fed. Eep. 52) 189 
Eich V. Minneapolis, (35 N. W. R. 2) 

293 
Richards v. Clarksburg, (30 W. Va. 

491) 100, 110 
Richards v. Com'rs, (120 Mass. 401) 

377 
Richards v. Daggett, (4 Mass. 539) 

59, 67 
Richards v. Oshkosh, (51 N. W. 256) 

344 
Richards ». Supervisors, (69 Iowa, 

612) 190 
Eichardson b. Com'rs, (9 So. E. 351) 

234 
Eichai-dson v. Heydenfeldt, (46 Cal. 

68) 263 
Richardson v. Eoyalton & W. T. -Co., 

(6 Vt. 496) 353 
Richardson v. Scott etc. Co., (22 Cal. 

150) 167 
Eichardson v. Vermont Central R. 

E. Co., (25 Vt. 465) 239 
Richland Co. v. Lawrence Co., (12 

111. 8) 2, 8, 59, 67 
Richmau v. Muscatine Co., (77 Iowa, 

513) 26, 278 
Richmond v. Courtney, (32 Gratt. 

792) 352 a 
Richmond v. Daniel, (14 Gratt. 387)256 



Richmond v. Davis, (103 Ind. 449) 395 
Richmond v. Dudley, (129 Ind. 112) 

121, 130, 146 
Richmond v. Henrico, (83 Va. 204) 

119 
Richmond u. Long, (17 Gratt. 375) 9, 

92, 324, 336 a 
Richmond v. McGirr, (78 Ind. 192) 110 
Richmond v. Mulholland, (116 Ind. 

173) 352 
Richmond v. Munic, (8 Up. Can. Q. 

B. 567) 169 
Richmond v. Richmond R. Co., (21 

Gratt. 604) 2, 8, 270 
Richmond etc. Co. v. Middletown, 

(59 jST. Y. 228) 113, 295, 296 
Richmond etc. Co. v. Richmond, (96 

U. S. 521) 136, 302, 303 
Richmond etc. Co. v. Reidsville, (101 

N. C. 404) 261, 326 a 
Richmond R. R. Co. v. Louisa. R. E. 

Co., (13 How. 71) 238, 302 
Richmond & A. R. R. Co. v. Lvncli- 

burg, (81 Va. 473) 259 a 
Ricket V. Metrop. Ey. C. L. R., (2 H. 

L. 175) 307, 330 
Ricketts v. Mayor, (67 How. Pr. 320)67 
Ricketts v. Spraker, (77 Ind. 371) 379 
Riddle v. Bedf. Co., (7 S. & E. 386) 

73, 79, 85, 88 
Riddle v. Locks and Canals, (7 Mass. 

169) 37 
Riddle v. Merrimac etc. Prop., (7 

Mass. 169) 325, 339 
Rideout b. Sch. Dist., (1 Allen, 232) 

95 
Eidgeway ». West, (60 Ind. 371) 120 
Ridley v. Dougherty, (42 N. W. E. 78) 

371 
Ridley b. Lamb, (10 Up. Can. Q. B. 

254) 300 
Riggs V. Brewer, (64 Ala. 282) 79 
Riggs V. Detroit Bd. of Ed., (27 Mich. 

262) 226, 308 
Riggs V. Johnson City, (6 Wall. 166) 

369 
Riker b. Leo, (115 N. Y. 93) 49 
Riley v. Kansas City, (31 Mo. App. 

439) 79, 85 
Riley v. Rochester, (9 N. Y. 64) 201 
Rindge b. Colrain, (11 Gray, 157) 352 
Ring !). Cohoes, (77 N. Y. 83)325,342 
Eiug V. Johnson County, (6 Iowa, 

265) 51, 192 6 
Ringling b. Kohn, (4 Mo. App. 63) 

191 
Ripley B. Gelston, (9 Johns. 201) 326 a 
Ripon B. Bittel, (30 Wis. 614) 350 !>, 

352 a 
Ripon V. Joint Sch.Dis., (17 Wis. 83) 

327 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



cxliii 



Risley v. St. Louis, (34 Mo. 404) 279 
Rison V. Farr, (24 Ark. 161) 184 
Ititcliie V. Boynton, (114 Mass. 431) 

127 
Ritchie v. Franklin Co., (22 Wall. 6'() 

187 
Rittenhouse v. Mayor etc., (25 M. & 

C. 336) 174 
River Rendering Co. v. Behr, (77 Mo. 

91) 120, 150 
Rivers v. Augusta, (67 Ga. 376, 23 Alb. 

L. J. 17) 331 
Rives V. Wood, (15 S. W. R. 131) 320 
Road Case, (17 Pa. St. 71, 75) 98 
Road in Bethlehem Twp., In re, (10 

Atl. R. 122) 399 
Road in Milton, (40 Pa. St. 400) 288 
Roake v. Am. Tel. & T. Co., (41 N. 

J. Eq. 35) 297 
Roanoke City v. Berkowitz, (80 Va. 

616) 245 
Roanoke G-. Co. v. Roanoke, (14 S. E. 

R. 665) 292, 296, 328 
Roaring Brook, In re, (21 Atl. R. 412, 

28 W. N. C. 141) 249 
Robb V. Indianapolis, (38 lud. 49) 152 
Kobbins v. Chicago, (4 Wall. 657) 348 
Kobbins v. Johns, (15 C. B. N. S. 221, 

243) 348 
Robbins v. Milw. & H. R. R. Co., (6 

Wis. 636) 245 
Robert v. Saddler, (104 N. Y. 229, 58 

Am. Rep. 498) 293 
Roberts, Ex parte, (11 S. W. R. 782) 

288 
Roberts v. BoUes, (101 U. S. 123) 191 b 
Roberts ». Brown Co. Com'rs, (21 

Kan. 247) 245 
Roberts v. Chicago, (26 411. 249) 113, 

239, 329 
Roberts v. Easton, (19 Ohio St. 78) 

302 
Roberts v. Davidson, (83 Ky. 279) 

371 
Roberts ». Rivers, (27 III. 242) 371 
Roberts v. Williams, (13 Ark. 555) 

279, 398 
Robertson b. Breedlove, (61 Tex. 316) 

395 
Robertson v. Campbell, (13 F. C. 61) 

120 
Robertson v. Grove, (4 Oreg. 8) 87 
Robertson v. Lambertville, (38 N. J. 

L. 69) 158 
Robertson ». Wabash etc. Co., (84 

Mo. 119) 306 
Robie V. Sedgwick, (35 Barb. 319) 

31 
Robinson's Case, (131 Mass. 376) 69- 
Robinson, Ex parte, (12 Nev. 263) 

259 



Robinson, Ex parte, (17 S. W. R. 

1057) 120 
Robinson v. Benton Co., (49 Ark. 49) 

90, 102 
Robinson v. Burlington, (50 Iowa, 

240) 327 
Robinson v. Butte Co. Sup., (43 Cal. 

353) 362 
Robinson v. Chamberlain, (34 N. Y. 

389) 325 
Robinson v. Dodge, (18 Johns. 351) 

263 
Robinson v. Dunn, (77 Cal. 473) 79 
Robinson v. Evansville, (87 Ind. 334) 

92 
Robinson v. Greenville, (42 Ohio St. 

625) 331 a 
Robinson v. Jones, (14 Fla. 256) 379 
Robinson v. Lane, (19 Ga. 337) 42 
Robinson u. Leavitt, (7 N. H. 100) 

190 a 
Robinson v. Mayor, (1 Humph. 156) 

125 
Robinson v. Rohr, (73 Wis. 436) 92, 

328 
Robinson v. St. Louis, (28 Mo. 488) 

130, 163 
Robinson v. Shanks, (20 N. B. R. 713, 

118 Ind. 125) 354 
Robinson v. Swope, (12 Bush, 21) 

234 a 
Robinson v. White, (26 Ark. 139) 79 
Roby V. Chicago, (64 111. 447) 160 
Rochdale Can. Co. v. Radcliffe, (18 

Q. B. 287) 312 
Rochefort v. Attleboro, (27 N. E. R. 

1013)3506 
Rochester v. Collins, (12 Barb. 559) 

118 
Rochester v. Erickson (46 Barb. 92) 

396 
Rochester v. Lee, (15 Sim. 376) 47 
Rochester u. Montgomery, (72 N. Y. 

65) 348 
Rochester v. Randall, (105 Mass. 295) 

72 
Rochester v. Rush, (80 N. Y. 302) 271 
Rochester Water Co., In re, (66 N. 

Y. 413) 144 a, 238 a 
Rochester W. Lead Co. v. Rochester, 

(3N. Y. 462) 325, 336 a, 355 
Rock Creek v. Strong, (96 U. S. 271) 

196 
Rockford v. Tripp, (83 111. 247) 342, 

343 
Rockford v. Hilderbrand, (61 111. 155) 

346 
Rockford d. Russell, (9 111. App. 229) 

342 
Rockingham Sav. Bk. v. Portsmouth, 

(52 N. H. 17) 397 



cxliv 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

Eeferences are to Sections. 



Rock Island etc. c. U. S., (4 Wall. 

435) 349, 382, 3?4 
Rock Island ». Cuinely, (26 111. App. 

173) 29 
Rockwell V. Nearing-, (33 N. T. 302) 

129 
Rodemaoher v. Milw. etc. Co., (41 

Iowa, 297) 302 
Roe V. City, (100 Mo. 190, 13 S. W. 

R. 404) 346 
Roffignac Street, In re, (4 Rob. 357) 

242 
Rogers, In re, (7 Cow. 526) 97, 99, 

369 
Rogers Ave., In re, (22 N. Y. S. 27, 

29 A. N. C. 361) 259 a 
Rogers v. JJuffalo, (123 N. Y. 173) 71 
Rogers v. Burlington, (3 Wall. 362) 

184 
Rogers v. Greenbush, (58 Me. 390) 

326 
Rogers v. Jacobs, (11 S. W. R. 513) 

65 
Rogers v. Jones, (1 Wend. 227) 127 
Rogers v. Lee Co., (1 Dillon, 529) 177 
Rogers v. People, (68 111. 154) 375 
Rogers v. People, (9 Col. 450) 117 
Rogers v. Shirley, (74 Me. 144) 350 6 
Rohmeiser v. Bannon, (22 S. W. R. 

27)308, 311 
Rolfs, In re, (30 Kan. 758) 104 
Roll V. Augusta, (32 Ga. 328) 113, 329 
Roll V. Indianapolis, (52 Ind. 547) 328 
Rome V. Addison, (34 N. H. 306) 239 
Rome B. Anderson, (89 Tenn. 259) 53 
Rome B. Cabot, (28 Ga. 50) 119 
Rome V. Jenkins, (30 Ga. 154) 218, 

243, 247 
Rome V. McWilliams, (67 Ga. 106) 

261, 266 
Rome V. Omberg, (28 Ga. 46) 292, 

329 
Romeo v. Cbapman, (2 Mich. 179) 50 
Roodhouse c. Jennings, (29 111. Ap. 

50) 165, 177 
Rooney v. Randolph, (128 Mass. 580) 

344, 350 6 
Roosevelt v. Goddard, (52 Barb. 533) 

133 
Roosevelt Hosp. v. New York, (84 

N. Y. 108) 270 
Root ». Shields, (Woolw. C. 0. 340) 

25 
Roper V. McWhorter, (77 Va. 214) 

134, 208, 393 
Ropin V. Laurinburg, (90 N. C. 427) 

Rosborough v. Boardman, (67 Cal. 

116) 82 
Rose V. Bostyer, (22 Pac. Rep. 393) 

310 ' 



Rose V. City of Bridgeport, (17 Conn. 

243) 190 
Rose V. Hardee, (98 N. C. 44) 32 
Rose V. St. Charles, (49 Mo. 509) 103 
Rose V. Turnpike Co., (3 Watts, 46) 

38 
Rosenbaum, In re, (6 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 

184) 281 
Rosenbaum v. Bauer, (120 U. S. 461) 

359 
Ross V. Georgia etc. Co., (12 S. E. E. 

101) 247 
Ross V. Lane, (3 S. & M. 695) 360 
Ross V. Madison, (1 Ind. 281) 108 
Ross V. Phila., (115 Pa. St. 222) 92 
Ross B. Stackhouse, (114 Ind. 200) 

173 
Ross V. Thompson, (78 Ind. 90, 96) 

396 
Rothermel v. Meyerle, (136 Pa. St. 

250, 26 W. N. C. 422) 259 
Rothschild b. Carney, (9 B. C. 391) 

191 
Rothschild b. Darien, (69 Ga. 503) 

146 
Rouede b. Jersey City, (18 Fed. Rep. 

719) 195 d 
Rounds B. Mumford, (2 R. I. 154) 

292, 329 
Rounds B. Stratford, (26 Up. Can. C. 

B. 11) 342 
Rounds B. Stetson, (45 Me. 596) 129 
Rountree b. Galveston, (42 Tex. 613) 

259 
Rowans Exr. b. Portland, (8 B. Mon. 

253) 133, 225 
Rowe B. Kern, (72 Cal. 353) 79 
Rowe B. Portsmouth, (56 N. H. 291) 

325, 355 * 
Rowell B. Williams, (29 Iowa, 210) 

338 a 
Rowland b. Gallatin, (75 Mo. 184) 92, 

338 
Rowland b. Kalamazoo, (49 Mich. 

553) 336 a 
Rowland ». Mayor etc., (83 N. Y. 372) 

67 
Rdwley v. London etc. Co., (L. K. 8 

Ex. 221) 352 a 
Rowlsby B. Speer, (31 K. J. L. 351) 

354 a 
Royal St., In re, (16 La. An. 393) 

278 
Royster b. Granville, (98 N. C. 148) 

177 
Roxbury v. Boston etc. Co., (6 Gush. 

424) 302 
Rozell B. Anderson, (91 Ind. 591) 

355 
Rozell B. Andrews, (103 N. Y. 150) 

220 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 

Keferences are to Sections. 



cxlv 



Rubey v. Shain, (54 Mo. 207) 185, 

397 
Eucker v. Supervisor, (7 W. Va. 661) 

79 
Rudolphe v. New Orleans, (11 La. 

An. 242) 332 
Eudsill V. State, (40 Ind. 485) 377 
KufE V. Phillips, (50 Ga. 130) 120 
Ruggles V. Collier, (43 Mo. 359) 113 
Ruggles V. Fond du Lao, (53 Wis. 

436) 326 a 
Ruggles V. Nantucket, (11 Cush. 433) 

239, 335 
Ruggles V. Nevada, (63 Iowa, 185) 

350 6 
Ruhlman v. Commonwealth, (5 Binn. 

26) 249 
Ruland v. South Newmarket, (59 N. 

H. 291) 220 
Rule V. Tait, (38 Kan. 765) 79 
Ruraball v. Metropolitan Bank, (2 Q. 

B. Div. 194) 191 
Rumsey v. Campton, (16 N. H. 567) 

66, 69 
Rundle ». Baltimore, (28 Md. 356) 399 
Bundle v. Del. etc. Can. Co., (1 Wall. 

Jr. 275) 2 
Rung V. Thoneber, (2 Watts, 23) 312 
Runnels v. State, (Walk. 146) 83 
Runyan 13. Coster's Lessee, (14 Pet. 

122) 201 
Runyon v. Bordine, (2 J. S. Green, 

472) 300 
Ruohs o. Athens, (18 S. W. R. 400)8 
Rushtown V. Burke, (43 N. W. R. 

815) 326 
Riishville ». Adams, (107 Ind. 124) 

342 
Rushville v. Town, (32 111. App. 320) 

33 
Rushville G. Co. v. Rushville, (23 N. 

E. R. 72, 121 Ind. 206) 99, 123 
Russ V. Mayor etc., (12 N. Y. Leg. 

Obs. 38) 152 
Russell V. Canastota, (98 N. Y. 496) 

346 
Russell V. Chicago, (22 111. 182) 76 
Russell V. Columbia, (74 Mo. 480) 

331 a, 349, 350 
Russell V. Mayor etc. of N. Y., (2 

Denio, 461) 239 
Russell V. Muldraugh, (13 Bush, 307) 

320 
Russell V. New Haven, (51 Conn. 

259) 268 
Russell V. New York, (2 Denio, 461) 

335, 338 a 
Russell V. Tate, (13 S. W. R. 130, 52 

Ark. 541) 393 
Russell V. Wellington, (31 N. E. R. 
630) 65 



Russellville, Ex parte, (11 So. Rep. 

18) 125 
Rutherford's Case, (72 Pa. St. 82, 13 

Am. Rep. 655) 236 
Rutherford v. Halley, (105 N. Y. 

632) 355 
Rutherford v. Hamilton, (97 Mo. 543) 

97, 259 a 
Rutherford v. Taylor, (38 Mo. 315) 

216, 229 
Rutland v. Dayton, (60 111. 58) 306 
Rutland E. L. Co. v. Marble, (26 Atl. 

R. 635) 297 
Ruttle V. Covington, (10 S. W. Rep. 

644) 306 
Rust V. Lowe, (6 Mass. 90) 238 
Ryan v. Coldwater, (26 Pac. R. 675) 

164 
Rvan V. Copes, (11 Rich. 217) 120 
Ryan v. Curi-an, (64 Ind. 345) 347 
Ryan v. Hoffman, (26 Ohio St. 109) 

377 
Ryan v. Reynolds, (53 111. 212) 348 
Ryan v. Wilson, (87 N. Y. 471) 348 
Ryce V. Osage, (55 N. W. R. 532) 165, 

169 
Ryohlicke v. St. Louis, (11 S. W. R. 

1001) 355 
Ryohlicke v. St. Louis, (98 Mo. 491) 

354 a 
Ryder «. Railroad Co., (13111.523) 31 
Ryerson v. Brown, (35 Mich. 333) 

232 

S. 
Saak 1). Philadelphia, (1 Pa. Leg. Gaz. 

Rep. 259) 98 
Sackett, etc. Streets, In re, (74 N. Y. 

95) 259 a, 301 
Sackett v. New Albany, (88 Ind. 473) 

175, 395 
Sacramento v. Crocker, (16 Cal. 119) 

261 
Sacramento v. Kirk, (7 Cal. 449) 165 
Sadler, In re, (21 Atl. 978) 56 
Sadler ». Evans, (4 Burr, 1984) 85 
Sadler!). Laugham, (34 Ala. 311) 234 a 
Sage V. Brooklyn, (89 N. Y. 189) 247 
Saginaw Gasl. Co. v. Saginaw, (28 

Fed. Rep. 529) 144, 144 a 
St. Charles v. Meyer, (58 Mo. 86) 117 
St. Charles v. Nolle, (51 Mo. 122) 152, 

300 
St. Charles v. O'Malley, (18 111. 407) 

148 
St. Charles v. Stewart, (49 Mo. 132) 

87 , 
St. Clair Co. etc. v. Illinois, (96 U. S. 

63) 318 
St. Edward's Col. v. Morrison, (82 

Tex. 1) 270 



cxlvi 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Keferences are to Sections. 



St. Helena v. Burton, (35 La. An. 

521) 72 
St. John 15. Mayor, (6 Duer, 315) 128 
St. Jobnt). MoFarlan, (33 Mich. 72)130 
St John !). New York, (3 Bosw. 483) 

129, 300 
St. Johnsbnry ». Thompson, (59 Vt. 

300) 110, 124 
St. Joseph V. O'Donoghue, (31 Mo. 

345) 259 a 
St. Joseph V. Owen, (19 S. "W. E. 713) 

259 d 2*77 
St. Joseph V. Rogers, (16 Wall. 666) 

184, 187 a 
St. Joseph etc. Co. v. Buchanan Co., 

(39 Mo. 485) 186 
St. Joseph etc. E. E. Co. v. Callender, 

(18 Kan. 496) 232 
St. Joseph etc. Co. v. Cudmore, (15 

S. W. R. 535) 245 
St. Joseph etc. Co. v. Sliambaugh, 

(106 Mo. 557) 241, 245 
St. Joseph Township v. Eogers, (16 

Wall. 644) 24 
St. Louis V. Alexander, (23 Mo. 483) 

24, 32, 148, 254 
St. Louis V. Allen, (13 Mo. 400) 53, 55, 

56, 276 
St. Louis V. Armstrong, (56 Mo. 298) 

170 
St. Louis V. Bank, (49 Mo. 574) 147 
St. Louis V. Bentz, (11 Mo. 61) 117 
St. Louis V. Boffinger, (19 Mo. 13, 15) 

147 
St. Louis V. Brewing Co., (9 S. W. E. 

910, 96 Mo. 497) 397 
St. Louis V. Cafferata, (24 Mo. 94) 117, 

134 
St. Louis V. Clemens, (36 Mo. 467) 

113, 278, 281 
St. Louis V. Consolidation Coal Co., 

(20 S. W. E. 699) 259 
St. Louis V. Davidson, (102 Mo. 149) 

126 
St. Louis V. Fitz, (53 Mo. 582) 158 
St. Louis V. Foster, (52 Mo. 513) 148 
St. Louis V. Franks, (78 Mo. 41) 243 
St. Louis D. Gas Co., (5 Mo. App. 484) 

164 
St. Louis V. Green, (7 Mo. App. 468) 

368 
St. Louis J). Grove, (46 Mo. 574) 124 
St. Louis V. Gurno, (12 Mo. 414) 292 
St. Louis V. Jackson, (25 Mo. 37) 128 
Salamanca v. Wilson, (109 U. S. 671) 
370 ' 

Salem v. East. E. Co., (98 Mass. 431) 
. 120 

Salem v. GoUer, (76 Ind. 291) 352 
Ssfliim Lyceum v. Salem, (27 N. E. E. 
67a) 270 



Salem M. Soc. v. Salem, (29 N. E. R 

584) 270 
Salem W. Co. v. Salem, (5 Oreg. 30) 

189 a 
Salina v. Prosper, (27 Kan. 544) 350 
Saline Co. v. Anderson, (20 Kan. 298) 

79, 85 
Saline v. Wilson, (61 Mo. 237) 177 
Salisbury v. Hercbenroder,(106 Mass. 

548) 300, 345 
Salisbury v. Philada., (44 Pa. St. .303) 

164 
Sailer v. Brown, (67 Mich. 422) 398 
Salmon v. Haynes, (50 N. J. L. 97) 98 
Salter v. Beed, (15 Pa. St. 260) 283 
Salt Lake City v. Hollister, (118 U. 

S. 256) 169, 338 
Salt Lake City v. Wagner, (2 Utah, 

400) 125 
Saltenstall v. Baulker, (8 Gray, 195) 

120 
Salvin v. No. Brance. C. Co., (L. R. 8 

Ch. Ap. 467) 120 
Sammelson v. Cleveland etc. Co., (49 

Mich. 164) 347 
Sammis v. King, (40 Conn. 298) 79, 

85 
Sammons v. Holloway, (21 Mich. 162) 

258 
Sampson v. Justice, (5 Gratt. 241) 223 
Sams 1). Toronto, (9 U. C. Q. B. 181) 

49 
Samuel v. Nashville, (3 Sneed, 298) 

226 
San Antonio v. Lewis, (15 Tex. 388) 

108, 165, 229 
San Antonio v. Meharty, (96 U. S. 

315) 191 6, 196 
San Antonio v. Stumburg, (7 S. W. 

E. 754) 226 
San Benito Co. v. E. E. Co., (19 Pac. 

E. 827, 77 Cal. 518) 268 
Sanborn v. Minneapolis, (35 Minn. 

314) 217 
Sanborn v. Scb. Dist., (12 Minn. 17) 

310 
Sanbomton v. Tilton, (55 IST. H. 603) 

67 
Sanders v. Eeiske, (1 Dak. 151) 348, 

352 
Sanders v. Provisional Municipality, 

(24 Pla. 226) 55 
Sanderson v. Balston, (20 La. Ann. 

312) 66 
Sandford v. Boyd, (2 Cranoh, 79) 67 
San Diego v. Granniss, (77 Cal. 510) 

53 
Sands v. Edmunds, (116 U. S. 58S) 

373 
Sands v. Eichmond, (31 Gratt. 571) 

259 a 



TABI.K OF CASES CITED. 



cxlvii 



References are to Sections. 



Sandford v. Augusta, (32 Kan. 536) 

340, 352 a 
Sandford v. Prentice, (28 Mo. 358) 

189 
Sandwich v. Dolan, (24 N. E. R. 526) 

352 
San Francisco ». Calderwood, (31 Cal. 

585) 200, 218 
San Francisco v. Canavan, (42 Cal. 

541) 220 
San Francisco v. Certain Real Estate, 

(42 Cal. 517) 17 
San Francisco v. Hazen, (5 Cal. 169) 

99 
San Francisco v. HoUiday, (76 Cal. 

18) 219 
San Francisco v. Itzell, (80 Cal. 57) 

308 
San Francisco v. McGinn, (67 Cal. 

110) 268 
San Francisco etc. v. Oakland, (43 

Cal. 502) 172 
San Fran. Gas Co. b. San Francisco, 

(9 Cal. 452) 170 
Sangamon County v. Springfield, (63 

111. 66) 8, 67, 164 
Sanger ». Kennebec Co., (25 Me. 291) 

363 
Sanger v. Rice, (43 Kan. 580) 282 
San Jose v. Reed, (65 Cal. 241) 246 
San Jose v. San J. & S. C. R. R. Co., 

(53 Cal. 476) 261 
San Jose etc. Co. ». Mayne, (83 Cal. 

563, 23 Pac. R. 522) 246 
San Leandro v. Le Breton, (72 Cal. 

170) 226 
San Luis Obispo v. Haskin, (91 Cal. 

549) 189 
San Luis Obispo v. Pettit, (87 Cal. 

499) 255 
San Mateo Co. ■». So. Pac. etc., (8 

Sawyer, 238) 279 
Sansom ». Mercer, (68 Tex. 488) 362 
Santa Cruz ». Enright, (30 Pac. R. 

197) 232 
Santa Rosa v. Coulter, (50 Cal. 537) 

56 
Santee ». Allegheny, (10 Pitts. Leg. 

J. 241) 194 a 
Santo B. State, (2 Iowa, 165) 161 
Sappington v. Scott, (14 Md. 40) 82 
Sargent u. Cornish, (54 X. H. 18) 202 
Sargent 0. Lynn, (138 Mass. 599) 350 b 
Satterlee v. Matthewson, (2 Pet. 380) 

187 
Satterlee v. San Francisco, (23 Cal. 

214) 211 
Sauerhering ». Iron Ridge etc. Co., 

(25 Wis. 447) 189 
gaulet V. New Orleans, (10 La. An. 

81) 217, 22X 



Saulsburg v. Ithaca, (94 N. Y. 27) 327, 

346 
Sault St. Marie Co. v. Dusen, (40 

Mich. 429) 170 
Saunders ». Lawrence, (141 Mass. 

380) 75 
Saunders v. McLin, (1 Ired. L. 572) 

267 
Saunders v. Municipality, ( 24 Fla. 

226) 15 
Saunders v. Owen, (2 Salkeld, 247) 

76 
Sauter v. N. T. Cent. etc. Co., (66 N. 

Y. 50) 352 a 
Savage v. Bangor, (40 Me. 176) 344 
Savage v. Gulliver, (4 Mass. 178) 398 
Savage M. Pickard, (514 Lea, 46) 79, 85 
Savannah v. Charton, (36 Ga. 460) 

123 
Savannah ti. Cullens, (38 Ga. 334) 

336 a 
Savannah v. Dickey, (33 Mo. App. 

522) 29 
Savannah v. Donnelly, (71 Ga. 258) 

331 o, 350 
Savannah v. Feeley, (66 Ga. 31) 326 a 
Savannah v. Hartridge, (8 Ga. 23) 122 
Savannah v. Hussey, (21 Ga. 80) 102 

107 
Savannah D. Jesup, (106 U. S. 563) 

267 
Savannah v. Spears, (66 Ga. 304) 355 
Savannah b. State, (4 Ga. 26) 314 
Savannah b. Steamboat Co. of Ga., (R. 

M. Charlt. R. 242) 217 
Savannah b. Waldner, (49 Ga. 324) 

345 
Savannah etc. Co. b. Shields, (33 Ga. 

601) 302 

Savannah etc. b. Savannah, (45 Ga. 

602) 302, 304, 306 

Savannah & Memphis R. R. Co. v. 

Lancaster, (62 Ala. 563) 191 
Savings Ass. B. Topeka, (3 Dillon C. 

C. R. 376) 27 
Savings Bank b. Davis, (8 Conn. 191) 

165 
Savings Fd. So. v. Philadelphia, (31 

Pa. St. 175) 2, 8 
Sawmill Run Bridge, (85 Pa. St. 247) 

259 a 
Sawyer, In re, (124 U. S. 300) 96, 361, 

393 
Sawyer b. Alton, (4 111. 130) 260 
Sawyer b. Concordia, (12 Fed. Rep. 

754) 14, 187 
Sawyer b. Davis, (136 Mass. 239) 301 
Sawyer b. Corse, (17 Gratt. 230): 67, 

92 
Sawyers. Northfield, (7 Cush, 490) 

315, 400 



cxlviii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



Saxton B. Beach, (50 Mo. 488) 28 
Saxton V. St. Joseph, (60 Mo. 153) 

96, 164,336 a 
Sayles v. Davis, (22 Wis. 225) 258 
Saylor v. Harrisburg, (87 Pa. St. 216) 

338 a 
Sayre ». Phillips, (24 Atl. Kep. 76) 

121, 256 
Scammou v. Chicago, (25 111. 424) 

256, 279, 347 
Scammon v. Scammon, (28 N. H. 429) 

106 
Scanlon v. New York, (12 Daly, 81) 

350 6 
Scarborough, Ex parte, (12 S. E. K. 

666) 361 
SohaefBer v. Sandusky, (33 Ohio St. 

246) 344 
SohafEer v. Cadwallader, (36 Pa. St. 

126) 375 
Schaidt v. Bland, (66 Md. 141) 396 
Schattner v. Sanderf ur, ( j3 Mo. 162) 

327 
Schehr v. Board, (83 Mich. 367) 361 
Scheimer v. Price, (65 Mich. 638) 217 
Schell V. L. M. Rurasey M. Co., (39 

Mo. App. 264) 165 
Schell V. Plumb, (55 N. T. 592) 352 a 
Schell City v. Rumsey, (39 Mo. Ap. 

264) 165 
Sohenck v. Play, (1 Woolw. 175) 99 
Schenectady v. Furman, (15 N. T. 

S. 724, 61 Hun, 171) 354 
Schenectady B. Ti-ustees, (21 N. T. S. 

147, 66 Hun, 179) 259 a, 292 
Schenley v. Commonwealth, (36 Pa. 

St. 29) 17 
Schlass V. Hewlett, (81 Ala. 266) 79 
Sohlieder v. Dielman, (10 So. R. 934) 

10,40 
Schlomberg, Ex parte, (11 So. E. 721) 

24 
Schmidt, Ex parte, (24 S. C. 367) 104 
Schmidt v. Steans, (34 Minn. 112) 

170 
Schneider v. City, (40 N. W. R. 329) 

329 
Schneider v. Jacob, 5 South West. 

Rep. 350) 221 
Schneider v. Miss. Pac. Ry. Co., (29 

Mo. App. 68) 354 a 
Sohnitzins v. Bailey, (22 Atl. E. 409) 

354 
Schomer v. Rochester, (15 Abb. K. 

C. 57) 353 
School Com. V. Dean, (2 Stew. & 

Port. 190) 25 
School Dist., In re, (10 Pa. Co. Ct., 

588)3 
k Sch. Dist. V. Atherton, (12 Met. 105) 

81, 95, 106 



School Dist. V. Blakeslee, (13 Conn. 

227) 48, 95, 106 
School Dist. 15. Fogleman, (76111. 189) 

177 
School Dist. V. Ins. Co., (103 U. S. 

707) 27 
School Dist. B. Lord, (44 Me. 374) 106 
School Dist. V. Richardson, (23 Pick. 

62) 67 
School Dist. V. Stough, (4 Neb. 357) 

177 
School Dist. etc. v. Tapley, 1 Allen, 

49) 288 
School Dist. B. Williams, (38 Ark. 

454) 92 
School Dist. B. Xenia Bank, (19 Neb. 

89) 190 a 
School Dist. No. 4 b. Gage, (39 Mich. 

484) 80 
Schooliield v. Lynchburg, (78 Va. 

366) 256 
School I. of Monticello b. Kendall, 

(72 Ind. 208) 167 
School Trs. r,. People, (63 111.299)255 
Schoonraaker b. Ref. Prot. Dutch 

Church, (5 How. 265) 2 
Sohonholii b. Jackson, (97 Mo. 151, 

IDS. W.-R. 618)352 
Schrever v. Livingston, (9 Mo. 196) 

365 
Schriber b. Langdale, (66 Wis. 616) 

38, 67 
Schuchards v. People, (99 HI. 501) 69 
Schuchardt n. New York, (53 N. Y. 

202) 248 
Sohultes B. Eberley, (2 So. R. 345) 255 
Schultze B. Milwaukee, (49 Wis. 2bi) 

331 
Schumacher u. Taberman, (56 Cal. 

.508) 17, 18 
Schumm v. Seymour, (24 N. J. Eq. 

143) 100, 173, 397 
Schurmeier v. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., 

(10 Minn. 82) 215, 302 
Schuster b. State, (48 Ala. 199) 117 
Schuylkill Co. b. City Gas Co., (23 

Atl. 1055) 273 
Schwartz b. Flatboats, (14 La. An. 

243) 263 
Schwartz u. Oshkosh, (55 Wis. 490) 

148 
Schwarz b. Barry, (51 N. W. R. 279) 

86 
Schweitzer b. Liberty, (82 Mo. 309) 

125 
Scioto etc. B. Lawrence, (38 Ohio St. 

41) 302, 396 
Scofield B. Lansing, (17 Mich. 437) 

263 
Scott V. Alexander, (23 S. C. 120) 395 
Scott B. Chicago, (1 Biss. 510) 353 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



cxlix 



Scott V. Davenport, (34 Iowa, 208) 

189 a 
Scott V. Firth, (4 P. & F. 349) 120 
Scott !). Hansheer, (94 Ind. 1) 186 
Scott V. Manchester, (2 H. & N. 204) 

336 
Scott V. Mayor, (37 Eng. L. & E. 495) 

324 
Scott V. Mayor, (1 H. & W. 59) 92 
Scott V. Montgomery, (95 Pa. St. 444) 

343 
Scott B. People, (33 N. E. R. 180) 279 
Scott ». Phila., (81 Pa. St. 80) 279 
Scott V. Shreveport, (20 Fed. Rep. 

714) 110 
Scotland Co. v. Hill, (132 V. S. 107)' 

186, 195 c 
Scott Tp. V. Montgomery, (95 Pa. St. 

444) 352 a 
Scovill V. Cleveland, (1 Ohio St. 126, 

135) 32, 69, 248, 259 a 
Scovill V. Geddings, (7 Ohio, part 2, 

211, 329 
Scranton etc.. In re, (113 Pa. St. 176) 

18 
Scranton v. Catterson, (94 Pa. St. 

202) 336 a 
Scranton v. Hills, (102 Pa. St. 378) 

348 
Scranton r>. Patterson, (94 Pa. St. 202) 

3506 
Scranton v. Steele Co., (154 Pa. St. 

171) 396 
Scudderi). Hinshaw, (33 N. E. R. 791) 

300 
Scudderi). Trenton Del. Falls Co., (1 

Saxt. 694) 232, 240 
Scully and O'Leary, In re, (11 Chi. 

Leg. News, 27) 104 
Seagraves v. Alton, (13 111. 366) 164 
Seale v. Mitchell, (5 Cal. 403) 102 
Searles ». Chattaheochee Co., (41 Ga. 

225) 325 
Seaman v. New York, (80 N. Y. 239) 

328, 336 a 
Seaman v. Patten, (2 Gaines, 312) 9 
Seamen's Hospital v. Liverpool, (4 

Ex. 180) 156 
Searcy v. Yarnell, (1 S. W. R. 319, 47 

Ark. 269) 164 
Searles v. Abraham, (73 Iowa, 507) 

395 
Sears t). West, (1 Murph. 291) 123, 

261 
Seattle v. Buzby, (2 Wash. Ter. 25) 

347 
Seattle v. Doran, (32 Pac. R. 105) 282 
Seattle v. Yerter, (1 Wash. Ter. 576) 

282 
Seattle etc. Co. v. State, (5 Wash. St. 

807) 398 



Sebert ». Alpena, (43 N. W. R. 1098) 

324 
Second Av. M. E. Church, In re, (66 

N. Y. 395) 270 
Second Nat. B/k. v. Lansing, (1 Mich. 

181) 177 
Secord v. Gt. Western Ry. Co. (15 U. 

C. Q. B. 631) 352 a 
Secretary of the Int. v. McGarraham, 

(9 Wall. 298, 313) 370 
Sedgwick Co. v. Bunker, (16 Kan. 

498) 60, 67 
Sedgwick Co. v. Dailey, (11 Kan. 

631) 15, 28, 67 
Seebold v. Shitler, (34 Pa. St. 133) 

201 
Seele v. Deering, (79 Me. 343) 338 
Seeley ». Litchfield, (49 Conn. 134) 

344, 346 
Seely ». Pittsburgh, (82 Pa. St. 360, 

22 Am. Rep. 760) 56 
Seers et. al. v. West, (1 Murphy, 291) 

123 
Seibert v. Lewis, (122 U. S. 284) 14, 

369 
Seifert v. Brooklyn, (101 N. Y. 136) 

328, 355 
Seiple V. Elyobeth, (27 N. J. L. 407) 

111 
Selby V. Portland, (14 Oreg. 243) 79 
Selden v. Jacksonville, (10 So. 457, 

28 Fla. 558) 292, 329 
Selleck v. Com. Council, (40 Conn. 

359) 105, 381 
Seller u. Phillips, (37 111. App. 74) 

261 
Sellers v. Corwallis, (5 Oreg. 237) 90 
Selliman v. Railroad Co., (27 Gratt. 

119) 191 b 
Selma etc., Ex parte, (45 Ala. 696) 

194 a, 377 
Salma v. Perkins, (68 Ala. 145) 32, 

339 
Selma v. Selma Press & W. Co., (67 

Ala. 430) 268 
Semmes v. Columbus, (19 Ga. 471) 

163 
Semple v. Mayor etc., (62 Miss. 63) 

92, 355 
Seneca Falls v. Zalinski, (8 Hun, 571) 

348 
Seneca R. Co. v. Auburn etc., (5 Hill, 

170) 318 
Serrill v. Philadelphia, (32 Pa. St. 

355) 56, 259, 276 
Serrot v. Omaha, (1 Dil. C. C. li. 312) 

350 a 
Sessions v. Boyken, (78 Ala. 328) 360 
Sessions v. Crunkleton, (20 Ohio St. 

349) 259 a 
Severin v. Eddy, (52 111. 189) 348 



cl 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



References are to Sections. 



Sewall V. Sewall, (122 Mass. 156) 66 
Sewall ». St. Paul, (20 Minn. 511) 92, 

256, 259 a, 279, 326, 338, 347 
Sewer Street, (8 Pa. Co. Ct. B. 22 i) 

290 
Sewickley Bor. v. Sholes, (118 Pa. St. 

165) 271 
Sexton 1). Chicago, (107 111. 323) 173 
Sexton V. St. Joseph, (60 Mo. 153) 

92 
Sexton V. Zett, (44 N. T. 430) 348 
Seybel ». Kat. Currency Bank, (54 N. 

Y. 288) 191 
Seybert ». Pittsburgh, (1 Wall. 372) 

183, 254 
Seymour i>. Cummins, (119 Ind. 148) 

354, 355 
Seymour v. Tacoma, (32 Pac. K. 1077) 

150 
Shackford v. Newington, (46 ST. H. 

415) 139 
Shauklin v. Madison Co., (21 Ohio 

St. 575) 142 
Shadier v. Blair, (136 Pa. St. 488) 15 
Shaffer «. Welch, (34 Kans. 595) 279 
Shaffner v. St. Louis, (31 Mo. 264) 

240 
Shanley v. Brooklyn, (30 Hun, 396) 

67 
Shannon v. Bruner. (36 Fed. Rep. 

147) 80 
Shannon v. O'Boyle (51 Ind. 565) 208 
Sharp, In re, (56 N. Y. 257) 278 
Sharp V. Duuavau, (17 B. Mon. 223) 

56, 276 
Sharp B. Johnson, (4 Hill, 92) 270, 

278, 282 
Sharp V. Mayor, (40 Barb. 256) 78, 92 
Sharp V. Spier, (4 Hill, 76) 241, 256 
Sharpless v. West Chester, (1 Grant, 

Cas. 257) 245 
Sharpless v. Mayor, (21 Pa. St. 147) 

184 
Sharon Iron Company b. Erie, (41 Pa. 

St. 341) 208 
Sharrett's Road, (8 Pa. St. 92) 286 
Shartle v. Minneapolis, (17 Minn. 308) 

223, 352 a 
Shattuck 1). Woods, (1 Pick. 175) 79 
Shaubut V. St. Paul etc., (21 Minn. 

502) 301 
Shaver ». Starrett, (4 Ohio St. 494) 

245 
Shaw V. Allegheny, (7 Atl. 770) 326 a 
Shaw t>. Charlestown, (3 Allen, 538) 

247 
Shaw V. Crocker, (42 Cal. 435) 329 
Shaw V. Kennedy, (Term R. 158) 155 
Shaw V. Mayor etc., (21 Ga. 280, 25 

Ga. 590) 372 
Shaw V. Mayor, (19 Ga. 468) 85 



Shaw V. Norfolk etc. Co., (5 Giay, 

180) 187 
Shaw 1). Pickett, (26 Vt. 486) 282 
Shaw V. Pima Co., (18 Pac. E. 272) 

79 
Shaw V. Sun Prairie, (74 Wis. 105) 

350 6 
Shaw V. Trenton, (49 N. J. L. 339) 

172 
Shaw V. Waterbury, (46 Conn. 263) 

350 6 
Shawangunk Kill Br., In re, (100 N. 

Y. 642) 220 
Shawnee Co. v. Carter, (2 Kan. 115) 

177 
Shawnee Co. v. Topeka, (.39 Kan. 197. 

18 Pac. 161) 314, 315, 353 
Shawueetown v. Mason, (82 HI. 337) 

330 
Shay, In re, (15 N. Y. 488) 365 
Shea i). Lowell, (8 Allen, 136) 344 
Shea V. Milford, (145 Mass. 528) 99 
Shea V. Ottumwa, (67 Iowa, 39) 220 
Shea V. Potrero, (44 Cal. 414) 302, 321 
Sheboygan v. Parker, (3 Wall. 93)67 
Shed V. Hawthorne, (3 Neb. 179) 

396 
Sheehan v. Edgar, (58 N. Y. 631) 352 a 
Sheehan v. Gleasou, (46 Mo. 100) 263 
Sheehan J). Good Sam. Hosp., (50 Mo. 

155) 270 
Sheehy ». Jersey City, (78 Mo. 107) 

330 
Sheehy v. Kan. City etc. Co., (94 Mo. 

574) 330 
Sheel I'. Appleton, (49 Wis. 125) 330 a 
Sheffield ». Andress, (56 Ind. 157) 

182 
Sheffield v. Watson, (3 Caines, 60) 

169 
Sheffield Sell. Townsp. v. Andress, 

(56 Ind. 157) 165 
Shehau v. Gleason, (46 Mo. 100) 113 
Shelby ». Daggett, (22 N. E. R. 497) 

350 6 
Shelby Co. v. Deprez, (87 Ind. 509) 

92, 360 
Shelby Co. v. Cumberland & C. K. 

R. Co., (8 Bush, 299) 12 
Sheldon v. Kalamazoo, (24 Mich. 

383) 92, 338 
Sheldon v. W. U. T. Co., (51 Hun, 

091) 352 
Sheley J). Detroit, (45 Mich. 431) 264 
Shell house v. State, (110 Ind. 509, 

513) 219 
Shelly V. St. Charles Co., (30 Fed. 

Rep. 603) 375 
Shelton v. Birmingham, (62 Conn. 

456) 330 
Shelton D. Mobile, (30 Ala. 540) 290 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

Beferences are to Sections. 



cli 



Sliepard ». People, (40 Mich. 487) 

120 
Shepardsou v. Colerain, (13 Met. 55) 

346 
Sheperdson v. Gillett, (31 N. E. R. 

788) 397 
Shephard v. Lawrence, (141 Mass. 

479) 79 
Sherbourne v. Fisk, (8 Cusli. 264) 91 
Sherbourne ». Tuba Co., (21 Cal. 113) 

92, 325, 332 
Sheridan v. Fitchburg, (131 Mass. 

523) 281 
Sherlock jj. Bainbridge, (41 Ind. 35) 

132 
Sherlock u. Winuetka, (59 111. 389) 

87, 395 
Sherman v. Brick, (32 Cal. 241) 234 a 
Sherman c. Carr, (8 li. I. 431) 115 
Sherman v. Clark, (4 Nev. 138) 359 
Sherman u. Kane, (86 N. Y. 57) 220 
Sherman v. Cartright, (52 Barb. 567) 

342 
Sherman v. Langham, (30 Ara.<S; Eng. 

Cor. Cas. 539) 120 
Sherman v. Langham, (13 S. W. K. 

1042) 336 a 
Sherman v. McKeon, (38 N. Y. 266) 

224 
Sherman v. Seaman, (2 Bosw. 127) 131 
Sherman v. Williams, (19 S. W. R. 

606) 212 
Sherman v. Williams, (14 S. W. E. 

130) 346 
Sherrard v. Lafayette Co., (3 Dillon, 

236) 196 
Sherry v. Gilmore, (58 Wis. 324) 61 
Sherwin v. Bugbee, (16 Vt. 439) 31, 

114 
Sherwood ». District, (3 Mackey, 276) 

342, 350 & 
Sherwood v. Hamilton, (37 U. C. Q. 

B. 410) 337, 342, 351 
S)ierwood ». Judd, (3 Bradf. 167) 60 
Sherwood v. Judge, (41 N. W. 234, 

40 Minn. 22) 354 
Shields v. Justices, (2 Colo. 60) 279 
Shillito V. Thompson, (L. K. 1 Q. B. 

Dw. 12) 127 
Shinkle v. Covington, (1 Buch. 617) 

336 a, 396 
Shipman v. Fifty Asso., (106 Mass. 

194) 348 
Shipman v. Forbes, (32 Pac. R. 599) 

283 
Shiras ». OUinger, (50 Iowa, 571) 120 
Shirk V. Pulaski, (4 Dill. 209) 177 
Shirley v. Lunenberg, (11 Mass. 379) 

104 
Shirts ». Noblesville, (24 N. E. E. 169, 

122 Ind. 580) 177 



Shoalwater v. Armstrong, (9 Humph. 

217) 267 
Shoemaker ». Egerton, (18 L. Times, 

N. S. 389) 317 
Shoemaker v. Goshen, (14 Ohio St. 

569) 195, 196 
Shoemaker b. Grant Co., (36 Ind. 175) 

326 a 
Short, In re, (47 Kan. 250) 29 
Short V. Roch. etc. Co., (8 Atl. R. 596) 

246 
Shotwell ». Moore, (45 Ohio St. 632, 

16 N. E. R. 470) 258, 261 
Shrader, In re, (33 Cal. 279) 118 
Shreveport ». Dremie, (6 So. R. 656) 

218, 219, 220 
Shreveport v. Koos, (35 La. An. 1010) 

122 
Shreveport ». Walpole, (22 La. An. 

526) 312 
Shrewsbury v. Brown, (25 Vt. 197) 

164 
Shrewsbury v. Smith, (12 Cush. 177) 

353 
Shroder v>. City Council, (2 Const. R. 

726) 102, 104 
Shuman v. City of Ft. Wayne, (26 ]Sr. 

E. Rep. 560, 124 
ShurtlefE v. Wisoasset, (74 Me. 130) 

196 
Shuter v. Philadelphia, (3 Phila. 228) 

336 a 
Sic, In re, (73 Cal. 142) 104, 117 
Sidener v. Norristown etc. Co., (23 

Ind. 623) 396 
Sidway v. Com'rs, (120 111. 456) 79 
Siebert v. Boston, (31 N. E. 734, 139 

Mass. 313) 344 
Siebert v. Lewis, (122 U. S. 284) 194 
Siefert v. Brooklyn, (101 N. Y. 136) 

329 
Siez-ra ». Dona Ana, (21 Pac. R. 83) 

60 
Sikes V. Hatfield, (13 Gray, 347) 167 
Sikes V. Ransom, (6 Johnson, 279) 

359 
Sill V. Corning, (15 N. Y. 297) 59, 67 
Silliman v. Hudson Riv. B Co., (4 

Blatchf. 74) 391 
Silliman v. Wing, (7 Hill, 159) 326 a 
Silsby V. Dunville, (8 Ont. App. 524) 

164 
Silsby Mfg. Co. v. AUentown, (26 

Atl. R. 646) 171 
Silver v. Tobin, (28 Fed. 545) 133 
Silver Lake Bk. v. North, (4 Johns. 

Ch. 373) 161 
Silverthorne v. Warren R. R., (33 N. 

J. L. 372) 360 
Simeon Leland in Bankruptcy, (6 

Ben. 175) 190 



clii 



TABLE OF .CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



Simmer v. St. Paul, (23 Minn. 408) 

325, 349 
Simmons v. Camden, (26 Ark. 276) 

292 
Simmons v. Cornell, (1 K. I. 519) 312 
Simmons v. Gardner, (6 K. I. 255) 

279 
Simmons v. State, (12 Mo. 268) 123, 

261 
Simmons v. Toledo, (5 OMo Cir. Ct. 

E. 124) 395 
Simmons u. Winters, (26 Pao. K. 7) 

354 
Simmonds, Ex parte, (16 Q. B. Div. 
' 308)327 
Simmonds ». Holmes, (23 Atl. Kep. 

702) 129 
Simons v. Camden, (26 Ark. 276) 329 
Simploti). Chicago etc., (16Fed. Kep. 

350) 303, 312 
Simpson v. Kansas City, (20 S. W. 

R. 38) 232 
Simpson ». Mecklinburg Co., (84 N. 

C. 158) 189 
Simpson v. Savings Rank, (56 N. H. 

466) 194 
Sims V. Butler Co., (49 Ala. 110) 339 
Sims V. Estate Co., (14 L. T. N. S. 
• 55) 131 

Sims V. Frankfort, (79 Ind. 446) 312 
Singer, Appeal of, (18 Atl. Rep. 931) 

53 
Singer Mfg. Co. v. Elizabeth, (42 N. 

J. L. 249) 192 
Singer M. Co. v. Wright, (33 Fed. R. 

121) 259 
Singleton v. East. Counties R. R., (7 

C. B. N. S. 287) 337 
Singleton v. School District, (10 S. 

W. E. 793) 217 
Sinnott ». Ry. Co., (50 N. W. R. 1097) 

302 
Sinton 13. Ashbury, (41 Cal. 525) 240, 

301 
Sinton v. Carter Co., (23 Fed. Rep. 

535) 2 
Sioux C. & R. R. R. Co. v. Stout, (17 

Wall. 657) 352 
Sioux City R. R. Co. v. Sioux City, 

(43 N. W. 224) 12 
Sioux Co. V. Osceola Co., (45 Iowa, 

168) 190 
Sipe V. Murphy, (31 N. E. R. 884) 

150 
Sirocco V. Geary, (3 Cal. 69) 239 
Sisto Li Protti, Ex parte, (68 Cal. 

635) 124 
Sixthar R. R. Co. v. Kerr, (72 N. Y. 

330) 10 
Skate V. Harris, (89 Ind. 363) 338 
Skeen v. Lynch, (1 Rob. 186) 217 



Skinner v. Harrison, (18 Jf. E. K. 

529) 203 
Skinner v. Hartford Bridge Co., (2!» 

Conn. 523) 239, 292 
Skinner v. Henderson, (7 So. R. 464) 

315 
Skinner v. Hutton, (33 Mo. 347) 62, 

260 
Skjeggerud v. Minn. etc. Co., (33 

Minn. 56) 352 
Slack V. Lawrence, (19 Atl. R. 663) 

355 
Slack V. W. R. R. Co., (13 B. Mon. 

13) 184 
Slackhouse v. Lafayette, (26 Ind. 17) 

342 
Slater v. Wood, (9 Bosw. 1) 87 
Slatten v. Des Moines etc. Co., (29 

Iowa, 148) 302 
Slattery, In re, (3 Ark. 484) 102 
Slaughter's Case, (13 Gratt. 767) 258 
Slaughter v. People, (2 Doug. 334)- 

102 
Slee V. Bloom, (5 Johns. Ch. 366) 81 
Sleeper v. BuUen, (6 Kans. 300) 397 
Slessraau v. Crozier, (80 Ind. 487) 155 
Sloan V. Beebe, (24 Kan. 343) 281 
Sloan V. Pac. R. R. Co., (61 Mo. 24) 

136 
Sloan V. State, (8 Blackf. 361) 2, 32 
Sloane v. McConahy, (4 Ohio, 157) 

204 
Sloane v. Peo. El. Ry. Co., (7 Ohio 

Cir. Ct. R. 84) 303 
Snell, In re, (30 N. C. Q. B. 81) 127, 

154 
Snell V. Belleville, (30 U. C. Q. B. 81) 

299 
Snell V. Insurance Co., (98 U. S. 85) 

327 
Snider v. St. Paul, (53 N. W. R. 763) 

324 
Snook V. Georgia Co., (9 S. E. K. 

1104) 2 
Snow V. Adams, (1 Cush. 443) 342 
Snow V. Fitchburg, (136 Mass. 183) 

277 
SnowB. Housatonic R. R. Co., (8 Al- 
len, 441) 352 
Snyder v. Cabell, (29 W. Va. 48) 120 
Snyder v Crossan, (50 IS". W. 678) 258 
Snyder v. Foster, (77 Iowa, 638) 314 
Snyder v. North Lawrence, (8 Kans. 

82) 124, 144 
Snyder v. Pa. R. R. Co., (55 Pa. St. 

340) 303 
Snyder v. President, (6 Ind. 237) 292 
Snyder v. Rockport, (6 Ind. 237) 133, 

329 
Snyder v. St. Paul, (53 N. W. R.763) 

324 



tABLE OF CASES CITED. 



eliii 



References are to Sections. 



Small !). Danville, (51 Me. 359) 9, 

338 a 
Smalley v. Blackburn Ry. Co., (2 II. 

& N. 158) 243 
Smalley v. Burlington, (63 Vt. 443) 

270, 273 
Smalley v. Yates, (36 Kan. 519) 360 
Sniallyt). Appleton, (43 N. W. R. 826) 

350 b 
Smeltzer v. White, (92 U. S. 390) 51, 

179 
Smith, In re, (52 N. T. 526) 148, 264 
Smith V. Aberdeen, (25 Miss. 458) 

248, 254, 259 a 
Smith I). Adrian, (1 Mich. 495) 67 
Smith V. Albany, (61 N. T. 444) 166 
Smith V. Alexandria, (33 Gratt. 208) 

329 
Smith V. Atlanta, (75 Ga. 110) 355 
Smith V. Barrett, (1 Siderf. 162) 208 
Smith V. Board of Carlton Co., (46 
• Fed. 340) 325 
Smith V. Bourbon Co., (127 U. S. 105) 

359 
Smith V. Brown, (59 Cal. 672) 83 
Smith 1). Gen. etc. T. Co., (2 Ohio 

Giro. Ct. 259) 297 
Smith V. Cheshire, (13 Gray, 308) 114, 

177 
Smith V. Clark Co., (.54 Mo. 58) 189, 

196, 254 
Smith V. Croukhite, (8 Ind. 134) 72 
Smith 0. Dedham, (144 Mass. 177) 

189 a 
Smith V. Deweese, (41 Tex. 594) 87 
Smith V. Dyer, (1 Cull. 562) 86 
Smith B. Dygert, (12 Barb. 613) 321 
Smith B. Elliott, (9 Pa. St. 345) 120 
Smith B. Engle, (44 la. 265) 279 
Smith B. Flora, (64 111. 93) 217 
Smith V. Floyd Co., (85 6a. 420) 246 
Smith V. Gardner, (12 Oreg. 221) 220 
Smith B. Gates, (21 Pick. 55) 129 
Smith B. Gould, (61 Wis. 31) 355 
Smith V. Heath, (102 111. 130) 218 
Smith B. Helmer, (7 Barb. 416) 28 
Smith V. Heuston, (6 Ohio, 101) 226 
Smith 1). Huntington, (3 N. H. 76) 

129 
Smith B. Inge, (80 Ala. 283) 220 
Smith V. Kernochen, (7 How. 198) 34 
Smith B. Knoxville, (3 Head, 245) 

150 
Smith 0. Labare, (15 Pac. E. 577, 37 

Kan. 480) 246 
Smith B. Law, (21 N. Y. 296) 97 
Smith V. Lawrence, (12 Mich. 431) 

108, 310 
Smith V. Lawrence, (49 N. W. 7) 360 
Smith I). Leavenworth, (15 Kan. 81) 

336 a 



Smith V. Leavenworth, (15 Kan. 81) 

350 6 
Smith B. Lock, (18 Mich. 56) 221 
Smith V. Madison, (7 Ind. 86) 124 
Smith V. Magourich, (44 Ga. 163) 395 
Smith V. Margrave, (2 App. Cases, 

781, 43 L. J. Ex. 70) 353 
Smith B. Mayor, (88 Tenn. 464) 144 a 
Smith B. Mayor, (66 N. Y. 295) 336 a 
Smith B. Mayor, (67 Barb. 223) 67 
Smith V. Mayor, (21 How. Pr. 1) 172 
Smith V. Mayor, (10 IST. Y. 504) 173 
Smith V. Mayor, (13 Cal. 531) 176 
Smith V. Mayor etc. of Saginaw, (45 

N". W. Rep. 964) 55, 56, 58, 61 
Smith B. Metro, etc. Co., (12 How. 

Pr. 187) 295 
Smith V. McCarthy, (56 Pa. St. 359) 

24, 55 
Smith B. McNair, (19 Kan. 330) 191 6 
Smith V. Milwaukee, (18 Wis. 63) 

265, 354 a 
Smith c. Moore, (90 Ind. 294) 67, 78 
Smith B. Morse, (2 Cal. 524) 113 
Smith B. Navasota, (72 Tex. 422) 217, 

220. 396 
Smith V. New York, (4 N. Y. S. 449) 

283 
Smith V. New York, (37 N. Y. 518) 

67, 79, 85 
Smith I). New York, (66 N. Y. 295) 

850 a, 354, 354 a 
Smith V. Newbern, (70 N. C. 14) 110 
Smith V. Newburgh, (77 N. Y. 130) 

77, 1.65 
Smith V. Oconomowoc, (49 Wis. 694) 

391 
Smith V. People, (29 N. E. E. 676) 8 
Smith V. Philadelphia, (13 Phila. 177) 

142 
Smith V. Philadelphia, (81 Pa. St. 38) 

336 a 
Smith B. Phillips, (8 Phila. 10) 120 
Smith V. Portland, (30 Fed. Rep. 734) 

221 
Smith V. Rah way, (33 N. J. L. Ill) 

361 
Smith V. Railroad, (67 III. 191) 360 
Smith V. Readiield, (27 Me. 145) 326 a 
Smith B. Rochester, (76 N. Y. 506) 92, 

335, 338 
Smith V. Rome, (19 Ga. 89) 293 
Smith B. Ryan, (8 N. Y. S. 853) 348 
Smith 0. San Antonio, (17 Tex. 643) 

104 
Smith B. Seeley, (12 Wall. 35) 207 
Smith u. Sherrv, (54 Wis. 114) 56, 61 
Smith ». Sherwood, (62 Mich. 159) 

.3506 
Smith V. Short, (40 Ala. 385) 258 
Smith B. Skagit Co., (45 Fed. R. 725) 54 



cliv 



TABLE OF CASKS CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



Smith B. Smith, (3 Desaus. 557) 37 
Smith V. Smith (2 Pick. 621) 352 
Smith V. Smith, (1 Bailey, 70) 79 
Smith 1-. St. Joseph, (42 Mo. App. 

392) 350 6 
Smith V. State, (23 N. J. L. 712) 219, 

220, 300 
Smith V. Stephan, (66 Md. 381) 163 
Smith V. Tallahassee Bi-anch of Cen- 
tral Planks Koad Co., (30 Ala. 650) 

47, 48, 49 
Smith V. Tallapoosa Co., (2 Woods, 

574) 195 
Smith V. Tecumseh JSTat. Bk., (17 

Mich. 479) 326 
Smith u. Toledo, (24 Ohio St. 126) 326 
Smith V. Warden, (19 Pa. St. 426) 250 
Smith V. Washington (20 How. 135) 

113, 239 
Smith V. Wencell, (7 Cush. 498) 346 
Smith V. Wheeler, (58 Iowa, 659) 327 
Smith V. Wildes, (143 Mass. 556) 352 
Smith V. Wilmington, (98 N. C. 343) 

189 
Smith V. Whitney, (116 U. S. 167) 401 
Smoot V. Wetumpka, (24 Ala. 121) 32 
Smyth i;. Bangor, (72 Me. 249) 344 
Society v. Diers, (10 Abb. Pr. K. S. 

216) 124 
Society v. Van Dyke, (2 Whart. 309) 

84 
Society etc. v. Com., (52 Pa. St. 125) 

368 
Society etc. v. Town of Pawlet, (4 

Pet. 480) 25, 31, 32 
Society etc. v. Young, (2 N. fi. 310) 

48 
Society for Sav. v. New London, (29 

Conn. 174) 189, 193, 196 
Society of Savings o. Conite, (6 Wall. 

594) 258 
Boilers v. Sollers, (26 Atl. 188) 312 
Solomon, Ex parte, (91 Cal. 440) 150 
Solomon v. Fleming, (51 N. W. K. 

304) 395 
Solomon v. Hughes, (24 Kan. 211) 

32,98 
Solomon v. Osceola, (43 N. W. K. 

990, 77 Mich. 365) 325 
Solon J). Williamsburg Sav. Bk., (112 

N". T. 122) 192 b 
Solon V. Williamsburg Bk., (114 N. 

T. 122) 51 
Somerville v. Dickerman, (127 Mass. 

272) 245 
Somerville & E. R. R. Co. v. Dough- 
ty, (22 N. J. L. 495) 246 
Sommers v. Johnson, (4 Vt. .278, 24 

Am. Dec. 604) 194 
Soon Hing v. Crowley, (118 U. S. 

703) 121 



Soper V. Henry Co., (26 Iowa, 264) 

325, 339, 349 
Soulard v. St. Louis, (36 Mo. 546) 338 
Soule V. N. Y. & N. H. R. R. Co., (24 

Conn. 575) 352 a 
Soule V. Gr. Tr. Ry. Co., (21 Up. Can. 

C. P. 308) 342 
South Bend v. Gushing, (24 N. E. R, 

114) 267 
South Bend v. Notre Dame Univ., 

69 Ind. 344) 270 
So. Brooklyn R. R. & T. Co., In re, 

(50 Hun, 405) 305 
So. Car. R. R. Co. v. Steiner, (44 Ga. 

546) 302 
So. Cov. etc. Ry. Co. v. Berry, (18 S. 

W. Rep. 1026) 136 
Southerland v. Goldsborough, (96 N. 

C. 49) 189 
Southern etc. Co. v. Towner, (26 Am. 

& Eng. Corp. Cas. 667) 185 
Southgate v. Covington, (15 B. Men. 

491) 276 
Southampton v. Mecox Co., (116 N. 

Y. 1) 11 
Southampton etc. Co. v. Local Board, 

(8 El. & Bl. 812) 324 
South Hampton v. Fowler, (52 N. H. 

225) 67 
Southingtou First Cong. Soc. v. At- 

water, (23 Conn. 34) 204 
South Wash. etc. Co. v. Morrow, (11 

S. W. R. 348) 274 
South Newmarket Methodist Semi- 
nary Trustees v. Peaslee, (15 N. H. 

317) 204 
South Pac. etc. Co. v. Reed, (41 Cal. 

256) 302 
South Park Com'rs v. Williams, (51 

111. 57) 234 
South wark etc. v. Phila., (47 Pa. St. 

314) 301 
Soutliwell V. Detroit, (42 N. W. 118) 

349 
Southwestern R. R. Co. v. Southern 

etc. T. Co., (46 Ga. 43, 12 Am. Rep. 

585) 297 
Southworth v. Railroad Co., (2 Mich. 

287) 28 
South Yorkshire Ry. Co. v. Great 

Northern Ry. Co., (9 Ex. 55) 51 
Soutler V. Madison, (15 Wis. 30) 14 
Sower V. Philadelphia, (35 Pa. St. 

231) 243 
Sowles V. Soule, (59 Vt. 131) 326 a 
Spaight V. McGovern, (16 R. I. 658) 

129 
Spain, In re, (47 Fed. R. 208) 258 
Spalding ». Hill, (7 S. W. R. 27) 261 
Spalding v. Lowell, (23 Pick. 71) HO, 

169 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



clv 



References are to Sections. 



Spangler «. Jacoby, (14 111. 297) 98 
Spanish Fork City v. Mortensen, (24 

Pao. E. 620) 123 
Sparhawk d. Salem, (1 Mass. 30) 343 
Spaulding v. Andover, (54 N. H. 38) 

12 
Spaulding v. Peabody, (26 N. E. Rep. 

144 a 
Spears v. Mayor, ("72 N. Y. 442) 111 
Specht V. Detroit, (20 Mich. 168) 241 
Speed V. Cooke, (57 Ala. 209) 365 
Speed V. Crawford, (3 Met. 207) 18 
Speer v. School Directors of Blaii'- 

ville, (50 Pa. St. 150) 138, 254" 
Speers v. Athens, (85 Ga. 49) 255, 

259 a 
Spencer v. Hartford etc. Co., (10 R. 

I. 14) 353 
Spencer v. Merchant, (125 U. S. 345) 

279 
Spencer v. People, (68 111. 510) 254 
Spengler v. Trowbridge, (62 Mass. 

46) 110 
Sperry v. AUina, (17 Or. 481) 393 
Sperry v. Harr, (32 Iowa, 184) 139 
Spiceland v. Allier, (98 Ind. 467) 350 
Spicer v. Chicago etc. Co., (29 Wis. 

580) 352 a 
Spicer v. County Com'rs, (126 Ind. 

369) 325 
Spiegel u. Gausberg, (44 Ind. 418) 287, 

309 
Spier, In re, (115 N. T. 380) 315 
Spier, In re, (3 N. T. S. 438) 54 
Spilman v. Parkersburg, (14 S. E. E. 

279, 35 W. Va. 605) 192 
Spirit Aph. v. Randolph, (58 Vt. 192) 

360 
Spitler 1). Young, (63 Mo. 42) 155 
Spitzer v. Blanchard, (46 K W. R. 

400, 82 Mich. 234) 165 
Spokane Ry. Co. v. City of Spokane, 

(5 Wash. St. 634) 290, 294 
Spoouer v. Holmes, (102 Mass. 503) 

190, 191 
Sprague v. Norway, (31 Cal. 173) 65 
Sprague v. Worcester, (13 Gray, 193) 

239, 329, 354 
Spray v. Thompson, (9 Iowa, 40) 249 
Spring V. Hyde Park, (137 Mass. 554) 

92 
Spring V. Russell, (3 Watts, 294) 232, 

254 
Springer v. Bowdoinham, (7 Me. 442) 

342, 350 i 
Springer v. Clay Co., (35 Iowa, 243) 

51 
Springfield v. Com'rs, (10 Pick. 59) 

868 
Springfield v. Conn. River R. R. Co., 

(4 Cush. 71) 302, 314 



Springfield v. Edwards, (84 111. 626) 

189 a 
Springfield v. Fullmer, (27 Pac. Rep. 

577) 119,144 a 
Springfield v. Green, (120 111. 269) 

259 a, 287 
Springfield v. Hampden, (10 Pick. 

59) 368 
Springfield v. Le Claire, (49 111. 47) 

3506 
Springfield v. Spence, (40 Ohio St. 

665) 354 a 
Springfield v. Walker, (42 Ohio St. 

543) 142 
Springfield etc. v. Hall, (98 111. 371) 87 
Spring, etc. Co. v. Drinkhouse, (92 

Cal. 528) 232 
Springfield Co. v. Lane Co., (5 Oreg. 

265) 170 
Springport v. Teutonia Sav. Bk., (84 

N. Y. 403) 189 
Spr. Val. etc. v. Ashbury, (52 Cal. 

126) 87 
Spring Val. etc. Co. v. Drinkhouse, 

(28 Pac. R. 681, 92 Cal. 528) 238 
Spring Valley Water Works v. San 

Mateo Water Works, (64 Cal. 123) 

234 
Springwells v. Wayne Co. Treasurer, 

(58 Mich. 240) 57 
Sproul V. Lawrence, (33 Ala. 674) 72 
Squire v. Cartwright, (22 N. Y. S. 

899) 171 
Squires v. Chillicothe, (89 Mo. 226) 

350 a, 350 f) 
Staates v. Washington, (45 N. J. L. 

318) 97 
Stacy V. Vt. Cent. R. R. Co., (27 Vt. 

39) 232 
Stadler v. Detroit, (13 Mich. 346) 85 
Stadler v. Roth, (59 Mo. 400) 106 
Stafford v. Albany, (7 Johns. 541) 242 
Stafford v. Osftaloosa, (64 Iowa, 251) 

352 a 
Stafford v. Providence, (10 R. I. 567) 

246 
Staffordsliire v. Prop'rs etc. Law 

Rep., (1 E. & I. Appeals, 254) 312 
Stahl V. Brown, (84 Ky. 324) 394 
Stainton v. Metro. Board of Works, 

(23 Beav. 225) 355 
Stanchfield v. Newton, (142 Mass. 

110)354, 354 a 
Staudiford, In re, (5 Mackey, 549) 148 
Stanfield v. State, (18 S. W. R. 577) 

18,79 
Stanford v. Worn, (27 Cal. 171) 232 
Stanley v. Davenport, (54 Iowa, 463) 

304, 338, 342 
Stanton v. A. & C. R. R. Co., (2 

Woods C. C. 523) 190 



clvi 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



Stanton v. Camp, (4 Barb. 274) 167 
Stanton v. Springfield, (12 Allen, 566) 

344 351 
Staple V. Spring, (10 Mass. 72) 248 
Starin v. Genoa, (23 N. T. 454) 183 
Stark V. Portsmouth, (52 N. H. 221) 

343 
Starkey v. Minneapolis, (19 Minn. 

203) 104 
Starr v. Burlington, (45 Iowa, 87) 

147, 265 
Starr v. Camden & Atlantic R. E. Co., 

(24 N. Y. 592) 302 
Starr v. Trustees, (6 "Wend. 564) 105 
Starr D.Wilm. Counc, (3Har. 294) 90 
State V. Adams, (19 Nev. 370) 365 
State V. Adams, (90 Tenn. 722) 18 
State V. Addison, (2 S. C. 499) 270 
State V. Adkins, (42 Kan. 203) 216, 

219 
State V. 2Etna L. Ins. Co., (117 Ind. 

251) 283 
State V. Allen, (21 Ind. 516) 86 
State V. Alt. (26 Mo. App. 673) 83 
State V. Anderson, (8 Baxt. 249) 364 
State V. Anderson, (18 Atl. K. 584) 

375 
State V. Anderson, (45 Ohio St. 196) 

67, 378, 380 
SUie 13. Andr., (36 Mo. 70) 371 
State V. Anwerda, (40 Iowa, 151) 120 
State V. Appleby, (25 S. C. 100) 365 
State V. Archibald, (43 Mmn. 328) 363 
State V. Atkinson, (107 K C. 317) 2 
State V. Atkinson, (24 Vt. 448) 203, 

300 
State B. Atlantic City, (5 N. J. L. 99) 

319 
State D. Atlantic C. C, (34 N. J. L. 

99) 113, 148, 259 a, 302 
State V. Auditor, (36 Mo. 70) 371 
State V. Axtell, (41 K. J. L. 117) 270 
State V. Babcock, (19 Neb. 230) 184, 

1916 
State V. Babcock, (31 K. W. R. 8, 20 

Neb. 522) 190 
State 1). Babcock, (22 Neb. 614) 182 
State V. Babcock, (24 Neb. 640) 189 a 
State V. Babcock, (25 Neb. 709) 8, 24 
State V. Babcock, (41 N. W. R. 654, 

25 Neb. 709) 24 
State 1). Bacon, (6 Neb. 286) 373 
State V. Baily, (7 Iowa, 390) 363, 365, 

368, 371 
State V. Baird, (15 S. W. R. 98, 79 

Tex. 63) 56 
State V. Baker, (10 So. R. 405) 158 
State V. Ball, (59 Mo. 321) 120 
State V. Bank, (2 Houst. 99) 270 
State V. Barbour, (53 Conn. 76) 65, 

75. 95 



State V. Barksdale, (5 Humph. 154) 

400 
State V. Barlow, (48 Mo. 17) 172 
State V. Barnes, (33 Pac. R. 621) 72 
State V. Barton, (36 Minn. 145) 311 
State V. Baton Rouge, (34 La. An. 

1197) 362 
State V. Bayonne, (35 N. J. L. 335) 

145 
State V. Bavonne, (22 Atl. R. 1006) 63 
State ». Bayonne, (26 Atl. R. 81) 139 
State V. Bean, (91 N. C. 554) 121 
State B. Beaufort, (17 S. E. E. 355) 

254 
State V. Becker, (31 N. W. R. 1018) 18 
State V. Bell, (5 Port. 365) 120 
State V. Bell, (45 N. W. R. 615, 43 

Minn. 344) 270 
State V. Bell, (34 Ohio St. 194) 113 
State V. Benedict, (15 Minn. 198) 18 
State V. Berdetta,' (73 Ind. 185, 193) 

300 
State V. Bergen, (33 N. J. L. 39) 148 
State V. Berry, (12 Iowa, 58) 278 
State V. Bill, (13 Ired. L. 373) 400 
State ». Binder, (38 Mo. 350) 9a, 146 
State V. Blanchard, (6 La. Ann. 572) 

69 
State 1). Bloxham, (7 So. Rep. 873) 79 
State V. Board, (20 Atl. R. 755) 364 
State V. Board, (18 Atl. Rep. 571) 371) 
State V. Board, (80 Ind. 478) 313 
State 13. Board, (51 N. J. L. 240) 67 
State 13. Board etc., (26 Ohio St. 24) 83 
State 13. Board etc., (27 Ohio St. 96) 

375 
State 13. Board, (42 Ohio St. 374) 173 
State 13. Board, (25 Pac. R. 440) 359 
State V. Board, (Heirs 13. Newark) (6 

Atl. R. 659, 49 N. J. L. 170) 84 
State 13. Board etc. of Atchison Co., 

(24 Pac. Rep. 87) 57 
State 13. Board of Canvassers, (13 Fla. 

55) 368 
State 13. Boden, (16 Atl. Rep. 58) 371 
State 1). Bogard, (27 IJ. E. R. 1113) 18 
State V. Boise, (2 Fairf. 474) 167 
State 13. Bonnell, (21 N. E. Rep. 1101) 

155 
State 13. Botkin, (71 Iowa, 87) 122 
State V. Boyd. (19 Nev. 356) 79 
State 13. Bradbury, (40 Me. 154) 223 
State 13. Bramwell, (18 Pac. R. 952) 

316 
State 13. Brandt, (41 Iowa, 493) 67 
State 13. Branin, (3 Zabr. 484) 2, 33 
State 13. Brewer, (59 Ala. 130) 79 
State 13. Briggs, (15 R. I. 425, 7 Atl. 

404) 263 
St. Louis etc. v. BeUville, (122 III 

376) 287 



TABLE OF CASKS CITED. 



clvii 



Eeferences are to Sections. 



State V. Bright, (38 La. An. 1) 154 
State V. Brinkerhoff, (66 Tex. 45) 86 
State V. Britain, (89 N. C. 574) 117, 

150 
State V. Brown, (109 N. C. 802) 299, 

300 
State V. Brown, (53 N. J. L. 162, 20 

Atl. 772) 276 
State J). Brown, (31 N. J. L. 356) 385 
State V. Brown, (27 N. J. L. 18) 200 
State V. Bi-own, (5 K. I. 1) 86 
State V. Bryoe, (7 Ohio, pt. 2, 82) 83, 

84, 361 
State V. Bryson, (44 Ohio St. 457) 75 
State !). BuHalo, (6 Neb. 455) 375 
State V. Burbank, (22 La. An. 318) 

375 
State V. Burlington, (36 Vt. 521) 400 
State V. Burlington, (45 Iowa, 87) 278 
State V. Butler, (8 S. W. K. 586) 270 
State !). Butz, (9 S. C. 156) 86 
State V. Cahaba Co., (30 Ala. 66) 384 
State V. Cainan, (94 N. C. 880) 158 
State V. Camden, (35 N. J. L. 217) 378 
State V. Camden, (19 Atl. Rep. 539) 

158 
State V. Campton, (2 N. H. 513) 315, 

353 
State V. Canavan, (30 Pac. K. 1079, 

17 Nev. 422) 18 
State V. Canterbury, (12 Ark. 321) 23 
State V. Canterbury, (8 Fost. 195) 

54, 313, 316 
State V. Cantieny, (34 Minn. 1) 154 
State V. Cape Girardeau Co. (19 S. 

W. E. 23) 860 
State w. Carbondale, (29 Iowa, 254) 

385 
State V. Cardoza, (5 C. 297) 365 
State ». Carney, (3 Kan. 88) 371 
State V. Carpenter, (22 Atl. K. 497, 

60 Conn. 97) 104, 158 
State V. Carr, (28 N. E. R. 88) 79 
State V. Carroll, (38 Conn. 471) 79, 

85 
State ». Carroll, (24 Atl. R. 106) 65 
State V. Carson, (33 Pao. R. 428) 267 
State V. Carver, (S Strob. 217) 223 
State i). Cassidy, (22 Minn. 312) 123, 

258 
State V. Catlin, (3 Vt. 530) 217, 219 
State V. Central Pac. R. R. Co., (9 

Nev. 79) 269 
State V. Central Pac. R. E. Co., (10 

Nev. 47) 269 
State V. Chamberlain, (24 Atl. E. 479) 

270 
State V. Chamber of Com., (20 Wis. 

63)91 
State V. Chapman, (44 Conn. 495) 76, 



State V. Charles, (16 Minn. 474) 117 
State V. Charleston, (12 Rich. 702) 

293 
State V. Charleston, (2SpeersL. 719) 

261, 267, 272 
State V. Charleston Com., (1 Mill, 

Const. R. 36) 385 
State 1). Charleston Coun. , (10 Rich. 

L. 240) 258 
State V. Charleston Council, (5 Rich. 

L. 501) 267 
State V. Chatburn, (63 Iowa, 659) 83 
State V. Christ Ch. P. R. Com'rs, (1 

Mill, Const. 55) 401 
State V. Cincinnati, (20 Ohio St. 18) 27 
State V. Cin. G. & G. Co., (18 Ohio 

St. 262) 144, 149, 295, 296, 300, 305 
State ». Cities, (26 N. E. E. 1052) 365 
State !). City, (22 Atl. R. 1052) 243 
State V. City Clerk, (7 Ohio St. 355) 

161 
State V. City Council, (4 Rich. Law, 

286) 133 
State !). City of Elizabeth, (24 Atl. 

495) 308 
State V. Clark, (1 Dutch. 54) 33, 117 
State V. Clark, (3 Kev. 566) 86 
State 0. Clark, (28 IST. H. 176) 153 
State V. Clarke, (54 Mo. 17) 117, 158 
State V. Clay Co., (46 Mo. 231) 375 
State 0. Clayton, (34 Mo. App. 563) 

373 
State V. Clegg, (27 Conn. 593) 104 
State V. Cleveland, (3 R. I. 117) 154 
State V. Clinton, (8 Atl. 296) 271 
State V. Clinton Comrs., (6 Ohio St. 

280, 287,) 364 
State V. Cobb, (64 Ala. 127) 195 d 
State V. Cockrell, (2 Rich. 6) 249, 398 
State V. Collins, (17 Atl. Rep. 131) 300 
State V. Columbia, (16 S. C. 412) 401 
State V, Commissioners, (37 Ohio St. 

526) 195 d 
State V. Com'rs, (13 Neb. 57) 173 
State V. Com'rs, (6 Ohio St. 280) 364 
State V. Com'rs of Duval Co., (23 

Pla. 483) 28, 288 
State V. Common Council, (6 Atl. R. 

578, 49 N. J. L. 177) 83 
State V. Com. Council, (55 N. W. R. 

118) 84 
State V. Compton, (2 N. H. 513) 313 
State V. Conlin, (27 Vt. 318) 104 
State V. Cook, (57 111. 205) 79 
State V. Cooke, (54 Tex. 482) 82 
State V. Cooper, (101 N. C. 684) 47, 

48 
State V. Copeland, (3 R. I. 33) 263 
State V. Cornwall, (27 Ind. 62) 129 
State V. Con-igan etc. Co., (85 Mo- 

263) 144, 302 



ijlviii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Keferences are to Sections. 



State ». County Court, (50 Mo. 317) 

26 
State V. County Co., (11 S. E. R. 72, 

33 W. Va. 589) 316 
State V. County Jud., (5 Iowa, 380) 

360 
State V. Co. Jud., (7 Iowa, 186) 371 
State V. Covington, (29 Ohio St. 102) 

18 
State V. Cowan, (29 Mo. 330) 117, 118 
State V. Crawford, (36 N. J. L. 394) 

265 
Smith V. Croom, (7 Fla. 81) 66 
State V. Crow, (20 Ark. 209) 18 
State V. Crummey, (17 Minn. 72) 117 
State V. Culver, (65 Mo. 607) 310 
State V. Cummings, (17 Neb. 311) 371 
State V. Curry, (33 K. E. R. 685) 76 
State 13. Cutes, (26 N.~E. R. 1052) 364 
State ». Davenport, (12 Iowa, 335) 

364 
State V. Daviess Co., (64 Mo. 30) 186 
State V. Davis, (48 N. J. L. 112) 399 
State V. Davis, (44 Mo. 129) 67 
State V. Davis Co., (64 Mo. 30) 185 
State V. Dayton etc., (10 Nev. 155) 

318 
State V. Debar, (58 Mo. 395) 117 
State V. Debnam, (98 N. C. 712) 134 
State v.. Debuclet, (23 La. An. 267) 

177 
State V. Decasinova, (1 Tex. 401) 66 
State V. De Gress, (53 Tex. 387) 74, 

86 
State V. Delesdenier, (7 Tex. 76) 5 
State B. Deliesseline, (1 McCord, 52) 

99, 378 
State V. Demaree, (80 lud. 519) 313, 

353, 362, 377 
State V. Denny, (29 Pac. R. 991) 2, 18 
State V. Derbes, (11 La. An. 50) 75 
State V. Dillon, (125 Ind. 65) 75 
State B. Directors etc., (5 Ohio St. 

234) 173 
State B. District Court, (41 Minn. 42) 

398 
State V. Dodge Co., (56 Wis. 70) 399 
State V. Doherty, (25 La. An. 119) 83 
State B. Doherty, (29 Pac. Rep. 855) 

125 
State v. Donnelly, (20 Nev. 214) 260 a 
State B. Douglas, (10 Oreg. 185) 79, 320 
State B. Dover, (10 N. H. 394) 400 
State V. Dowling, (50 Mo. 134) 398 
State B. Draper, (45 Mo. 355) 86 
State B. Duff, (49 N. W. R. 23) 318 
State V. Dugan, (19 S. W. R. 195) 24 
State B. Earle, (42 N. J. L. 94) 375 
State B. Earnhart, (107 N. C. 789 )120 
State V. Eastman, (109 N. C. 785) 300 
State V. E. St. Louis, (85 111. 377) 301 



State B. Eau Claire, (40 Wis. 533) 314 
State B. Eddy, (25 Pac. R. 1032) 359, 

363 
State B. Elizabeth, (17 Atl. R. 91) 279 
State B. Elizabeth, (26 Atl. R. 939) 

290 
State V. Elizabeth, (30 N. J. L. 365) 

291 
State B. Elizabeth, (37 K. J. 432) 143, 

221 
State V. Elizabeth, (50 N. J. L. 347) 

398 
State B. Elizabeth, Treas., (42 N. J. 

L. 79, 42 N. J. L. 94) 375 
State B. Elkington, (30 jST. J. L. 335) 

368, 370 
State B. EUwood, (11 Wis. 17) 368 
State V. Elvins, (32 N. J. L. 362) 28 
State B. Endom, (23 La. An. 663) 259 
State B. Engelman, (106 Mo. 628) 243 
State B. Engle, (26 N. E. R. 1077) 359, 

363 
State B. Essex Co., (23 N. J. L. 214) 

362, 377 
State B. Estabrook, (6 Ala. 653) 125, 

255 

State B. Evans, (33 S. C. 184) 5 
State B. Fagan, (42 Conn. 32) 81 
State B. Falconer, (44 Ala. 696) 363 
State V. Faribald, (11 So. R. 36) 113 
State B. Farr, (47 N. J. L. 208) 96 
State B. Feibleman, (28 Ark. 424) 86 
State B. Ferguson, (31 N. J. L. 120) 

77, 78, 86 
State V. Field, (17 Mo. 529) 18 
State B. Field, (37 Mo. App. 83) 369, 

373 
State B. Findlay, (10 Ohio, 51) 72 
State B. Finn, (98 Mo. 532) 72 
State B. Fiske, (9 R. L 94) 113 
State B. Fitts, (49 Ala. 402) 86 
State ». Fitzgerald, (44 Mo. 425) 105, 

381 
state B. Flannagan, (67 Ind. 140) 318 
State B. Flood, (26 Mo. Ap. 500) 171 
State B. Fond du Lac, (42 Wis. 298) 

241 
State B. Forest Co., (43 N". W. R. 551) 

8 
State B. Forest Co., (74 Wis. 610)55 
State B. Foster, (2 Hulst. 101) 98 
State B. Fournet, (13 So. R. 185) 401 
State B. Francis, (95 Mo. 44) 362 
State B. Franklin, (40 Kan. 410) 62 
State B. Frazier, (98 Mo. 426) 361, 379 
State B. Freeman, (38 N. H. 426) 122, 

134 
State B. Freeport, (43 Me. 198) 314 
State B. French, (14 S. E. R. 383, 109 

N. C. 722) 258 
State B. Frost, (4 Harring. 558) 06 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



clix 



Kelerences are to Sections. 



State V. Fuller, (34 N. J. 227) 21, 

259 a, 319 
State V. Fuller, (9 S. W. K. 583) 29, 

31 
State V. Fulmer, (27 Pac. R. 577) 201 
State V. Funk, (17 Iowa, 365) 105 
State V. Gaffney, (34 N. J. L. 133) 

271 
State V. Grail. Co. Commissioners, (1 

111. 25) 372 
State V. Gardner, (43 Ala. 234) 67 
State V. Garlock, (14 Iowa, 444) 125 
State V. Garroutte, (67 Mo. 455) 186 
State V. Gaslight Co., (25 Mo. App. 

44)361 
State V. Gates, (35 Minn. 385) 79, 105, 

368 381 
State '». Gayhart, (51 N. W. R. 746) 

365 
State V. George, (23 Fla. 585) 69 
State V. Georgia Co., (17 S. E. R. 10) 

282 
State V. Gilmanton, (14 N. H. 467) 

54 
State V. Gleason, (12 Fla. 190) 383 
State V. Gloucester, (40 N. J. Law. 

30i) 313 
State «. Goff, (15 R. I. 505) 86 
State V. Goldstucker, (40 Wis. 124) 

18 
State?). Gorham, (37 Me. 451) 813, 

400 
State V. Gorton, (33 Min. 345) 69 
State V. Gouldey, (18 Atl. R. 695) 18 
State V. Governor, (1 Dutch. 331) 381 
State D. Graham, (26 La. An. 568) 86 
State V. Graves, (19 Md. 351) 113, 

161, 359 
State V. Gray, (22 Atl. Rep. 675) 125 
State V. Gray, (23 Keb. 365) 96 
State V. Green, (14 N. E. R. 352) 258 
State V. Greeu, (37 Ohio St. 227) 99 
State V. Greeu Co., (54 Mo. 540) 186 
State I). Griffey, (5 Neb. 161) 65 
State V. Grimes, (52 N. W. E. 42) 

117, 118 
State B. Gummersall, (24 N. J. L. 529) 

380 
State V. Guttenberg Council, (39 N. 

J. L. 600) 256, 259 a, 360, 375 
State V. H. & St. J. E. E. Co., 75 Mo. 

208 
State V. Haben, (22 Wis. 660) 368 
State V. Hadiey, (64 N. H. 473) 82 
State V. Haight, (30 N. J. Law, 448) 

31,78 
State V. Haines, (80 Me. 65) 120 
State V. Halifax Com'rs, (4 Dev. L. 

345) 260, 349 
State V. Hammonton, (38 N. J. L. 430) 

116 



State V. Hampton, (2 N. H. 22) 318 
State V. Hand, (31 N. J. L. 547) 278 
State V. Ilannon, (38 Kan. 593) 364 
State 11. Hardey, (18 Pac. Rep. 942) 

60, 189 
State V. Harlam, (25 Neb. 33) 371 
State V. Harris, (23 Eng. & Am. Cor. 

Gas. 43, 47) 189 
State V. Harris, (52 N. W. Rep. 387) 

125 
State V. Harris, (10 Iowa, 441) 125 
State V. Harris, (89 Ind. 363) 338 
State V. Harrison, (113 Ind. 440) 81, 

82 
State V. Harrison, (116 Ind. 300) 74 
State V. Harrub, (10 So. R. 752) 29 
State V. Harsh, (6 Black. 346) 400 
State V. Harshaw, (73 Wis. 211, 40 N. 

W. R. 641) 59 
State B. Hart, (34 Me. 36) 120 
State V. Hartford & N. H. R. R. Co., 

(29 Conn. 538) 363 
State V. Hastings, (15 Wis. 78) 80 
State V. Hauser, (63 Ind. 555) 108, 113 
State V. Hawkius, (44 Ohio St. 98) 

83 
State J). Haworth, (23 N. E. R. 946) 

338, 374 
State V. Hay, (29 Me. 547) 122 
State V. Hayes, (61 N. H. 314) 153 
State V. Hayne, (4 S. C. 403) 122 
State V. Haynes, (30 Me. 65) 120 
State V: Haynes, (72 Mo. 377) 100 
State V. Heath, (20 La. An. 172, 96 

Am. Dec. 390) 176 
State w. Hedlund, (16 Neb. 566) 32 
State B. Heege, (40 Mo. App. 650) 

359, 360 
State B. Heidenhain, (7 So. R. ) 159 
State B. Helfrid, (2 N. & McC. 233) 

162 
State B. Henderson, (38 Ohio St. 644) 

148 
State B. Hennepin Co., (33 Minn. 235) 

98, 255 
State V. Henry Co., (31 Ohio St. 211) 

377 
State V. Henshaw, (76 Cal. 436) 102 
State B. Heppenheimer, (23 Atl. R. 

664) 241, 243, 245 
State B. Herndon, (23 Fla. 287) 380 
State V. Herod, (29 Iowa, 128) 124, 

144, 274, 302 
State B. Hersey, (56 Iowa, 404) 72 
State B. Hibbard, (3 Ohio, 32) 123 
State V. Hill, (10 Ind. 219) 215 
State V. Hill, (32 Minn. 275) 360 
State V. Hine, (59 Conn. 50) 18 
State B. Hixon, (41 Mo. 210) 83 
State B. Hoagland, (16 Atl. R. 166) 

18, 287 



clx 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

Keferences are to Sections. 



State ». Hoblitzelle, (85 Me. 620) 373 
State V. Hoboken, (.SO N. J. L. 225) 

319 
State V. Hoboken, (33 N. J. L. 205) 

802 
State V. Hoboken, (36 N. J. L. 291) 

259 a 
State D. Hoboken, (41 N. J. L. 71) 

123 
State V. Hoboken, (9 Vroom, 110) 148 
State V. Hodgdon,i(41 Tt. 139) 258 
State V. Holden, (19 Neb. 249)371 
State V. Holman, (40 Minn. 369) 311 
State V. Hopkins, (10 Ohio St. 509) 81 
State i;. Howe, (28 Neb. 618) 33, 371 
State V. Howe, (28 Ohio St. 588) 81, 82 
State V. Hoyt, (2 Oregon, 246) 86, 98 
State V. Hudson (29 N". J. L. 104) 75, 

278 
State V. Hudson, (30 N. J. L. 137) 400 
State V. Hudson, (34 N. J. L. 531) 

278 
State J). Hudson City, (27 N. J. L. 

214) 241, 400 
State V. Huggins, (Harper, 94) 99, 

100 
State V. Huggins, (47 Ind. 586) 308 
State V. Hull, (17 Minn. 429) 365 
State V. Humphries, (74 Tex. 466) 83 
State V. Hundelhausen, (26 Wis. 432) 

2,8 
State 0. Hunt, (54 N. H. 431) 82 
State 1). Hunter, (38 Kan. 578) 18 
State V. Hutt, (2 Ark. 282) 86 
State V. Hyde, (12 Ind. 20) 18 
State V. HI. etc. Co., (33 Fed. K. 730) 

201 
State V. Jackson, (33 N. J. 450) 258 
State V. Jackson Co., (19 Fla. 17) 375 
State V. Jackson (;o., (102 Mo. 531)28 
State V. Jacksonville, (10 So. 590) 302, 

300 
State V. Jacksonville, (22 Fla. 21) 375 
State V. Jacobs, (17 Ohio, 143) 88, 380 
State V. Jefferson, (22 La. An. 611) 

362 
State V. Jenkins, (46 Wis. 616) 380 
State V. Jennings, (27 Ark. 419) 2 
State V. Jennings, (56 Wis. 113) 359 
State V. Jennings, (48 Wis. 549) 365 
State V. Jersey City, (1 Dutch. 536) 

85, 132 
State V. Jersey City, (3 Dutch. 493) 

98, 99, 145 
State V. Jersey City, (5 Dutch. 170) 33 
State V. Jersey City, (25 Atl. E. 272) 

278 
State V. Jersey City, (35 N. J. Eq. 

404) 100 
State V. Jersey City, (24 N. J. L. 662) 

241, 265 



State V. Jersey City, (25 N. J. L. 309) 

241, 265 
State V. Jersey City, (25 N. J. L. 536) 

83 
State V. Jersey City, (26 N. J. L. 444) 

245, 319 
State ». Jersey City, (28 N. J. L.500) 

291 
State V. Jersey City, (30 N. J. L. 93) 

148 
State V. Jersey City, (30 N. J. L. 148) 

145 
State V. Jersey City, (34 N. J. L. 31) 

133 
State V. Jersey City, (40 N. J. L. 483) 

220,259 a 
State 1). Jersey City, (41 K J. L. 135) 

142 
State V. Jersey City, (47 N. J. L. 449) 

170 
State V. John, (81 Mo. 13) 371 
States V. Johns, (3 Oreg. 533) 82 
States V. Jolinson, (1 Kan. 178) 26 
State V. Johnson Co., (12 Iowa, 237) 

308 
States V. Jones, (19 Ind. 356) 65, 82, 

86 
State V. Jones, (1 Ired. 129) 368, 369 
State V. Jones, (18 Tex. 874) 288 
State V. Judge Cir. Ct., (13 Ala. 805) 

371 
State B. Judges, (53 K W. R. 800) 

259 a, 292 
State V. Kansas City, (89 Mo. 34) 

249, 399 
State V. Kantler, (33 Minn. 69) 97 
State V. Kaster, (35 Iowa, 221) 120 
State V. Kaufman, (45 Mo. App. 656) 

125 
State V. Kearney, (25 Neb. 262) 130, 

363 
State V. Keenan, (57 Conn. 286) 
State V. Kelly, (34 N. J. L. 75) 32 
State V. Kelly, (5 Vroom, 75) 32 
State V. Kelsey, (44 N. J. L. 1) 79 
State V. Kempff, (69 Wis. 470) 105 
State B. Kenny, (45 N. J. L. 251) 76 
State V. Keokuk, (9 Iowa, 438) 377 
State V. Kiiclili, (54 N. W. E. 1069) 83 
State v. Kilroy, (86 Ind. 118) 69 
State V. King, (29 Kan. 607) 368 
State 0. Kirk, (44 Ind. 401) 67, 74, 75, 



State V. 
State V. 
State V. 
State V. 
State V. 
State V. 
18,26 
State V. Kramer, (96 Mo. 75) 362 



Kirk, (53 Ark. 337) 33 
Kirkland, (29 Md. 85) 360 
Kirkley, (20 Md. 85) 373 
Kirkwood, (29 Md. 85) 359 
Kirly, (29 Md. 85) 338 
Kolsem, (29 N. E. R. 595) 2 



TABLE or CASES CITED. 



clxi 



Beferences are to Sections. 



State V. Krollman, (38 N. J. L. 323) 

270 
State B. Lafferty, (5 Harring. 491) 155 
State V. Lake, (8 Nev. 276) 318 
State V. Lake City, (25 Minn. 404) 59, 

07 
State V. Lamoureux, (30 Pac. Rep. 

243)9 
State V. Lane, (18 R. I. 620) 88 
State V. Langsten, (88 N. C. 692) 134 
State V. La Vaque, (49 N. W. R. 525, 

47 Minn. 106) 29 
State V. Laverack, (34 K. J. 201) 238 
State M. Lawrence Bdg. Co., (22 Kan. 

438) 318 
State D. Leatherman, (38 Ark. 81) 29 
State V. Leary, (21 La. An. 538) 18 
State V. Ledford, (3 Mo. 102) 117 
State V. Lee, (4 Crim. Law Mag. 79) 

331 
State V. Lee, (29 Minn. 445) 104 
State V. Leffingwell, (54 Mo. 458) 234 
State V. Lehre, (7 Rich. 234, 322) 365 
State V. Leigliton, (22 Atl. R. 380, 83 

Me. 419) 314 a 
State V. Lemay, (13 Ark. 405) 400 
State V. Lewis, (10 Ohio St. 46) 362 
State V. Liberty, (22 Ohio St. 144) 177 
State V. Lieber, (11 Iowa, 407) 128 
State V. Lindsay, (34 Ark. 372) 117 
State V. Liverpool L. & G. Co., (4 

So. R. 504) 259 
State V. Lockwood, (43 "Wis. 463) 104 
State V. Logue, (73 Wis. 598) 215 
State V. Luce, (6 Cent. R. 862) 120 
State V. Ludwig, (21 Minn. 202) 117 
State 13. Lusk, (48 Mo. 242) 82, 86 
State V. Lyle, (100 N. C. 497) 247 
State V. Lyon, (32 N. J. L. 360) 270 
State V. Lyons, (31 Iowa, 432) 384 
State V. Macon Co., (68 Mo. 29) 376 
State V. Madison, (7 Wis. 688) 182, 

183, 200 
State V. Maine, (27 Conn. 641) 318 
State V. Manitowoc, (52 Wis. 432) 359 
State V. Mansfield, (41 Mo. 470) 104 
State V. Mansfield Com'rs, (23 If. J. 

L. 510) 200 
State V. Marble, (4 Ired. L. 318) 217 
State B. Marion Co., (21 Kan. 413) 165 
State V. Marlow, (15 Ohio St. 114) 

105, 381 
State V. Marshall Co., (7 Iowa, 186) 

363 
State v. Marston, (6 Kan. 524) 371 
State V. Martin, (43 N. W. R. 244) 

142 
State V. Mass., (2 Jones Law, 66) 104 
State V. Matheney, (7 Kan. 327) 82 
State p. Mayberry, (3 Strob. 144) 77 
State V. Maynard, (14 111. 419) 102 
xi 



state r. Mayo, (8 So. R. 52, 42 La. An. 

637) 359 
State V. Mayor, (24 Ala. 701) 32 
State B. Mayor etc., (R. M. Charlt. 

250) 2 
State B. Mayor, (11 Humph. 217) 30 
State V. Mayor, (15 Lea, 697) 79, 120 
State V. Mayor, (29 Md. 85, 111) 169 
State B. Mayor, (37 Mo. 272) 189 
State V. Mayor, (43 N. J. L. 542) 371 
State V. Mayor, (4 Neb. 260) 86 
State B. Mayor, (5 Port. 279) 110 
State V. Mayor Charleston, (12 Rich. 

Law, 480) 102 
State V. Mayor of Lincoln, (4 Neb. 

260) 86 
State V. Mayor of St. Joseph, (37 Mo. 

270) 189 
State V. Maysville, (12 S. C. 76) 256 
State V. McArthur, (13 Wis. 383) 104 
State V. McCabe, (43 N. W. R. 322, 

74 Wis. 481) 219 
State V. :5d:cCauley, (15 Cal. 430) 189 a 
State B. McCrillin, (4 Kan. 250) 194 a, 

359 
State V. McCuUough, (3 Nev. 202) 371 
State V. MoGarry, (21 Wis. 496) '83 
State V. McGowan, (89 Mo. 156) 360 
State V. McNeely, (24 La. Ann! 19) 

76,82 
State V. McReynolds, (61 Mo. 203) 55, 

276, 385 
State V. Meadows, (1 Kan. 90) 371 
State V. Meehan, (45 N. J. L. 189) 82 
State ». Mellor, (67 Mo. 604) 12 
State V. Merrill, (37 Me. 329) 134 
State V. Merritt, (35 Conn. 314) 300 
State V. Merry, (3 Mo. 278) 32 
State V. Michellon, (2 N. J. L. 405) 

76 
State V. Miller, (41 La. An. 53) 159 
State V. Milwaukee, (20 Wis. 87) 212, 

364 
State V. Milwaukee, (22 Wis. 397) 363, 

368 
State V. Milwaukee, (25 Wis. 122) 14, 

194 
State 0. Milwaukee, (29 Wis. 454) 296 
State V. Milwaukee, (45 Wis. 579) 378 
State V. Milwaukee Co., 21 Wis. 433) 

86 
Stat« V. Milwaukee Council, (20 Wis. 

87) 375 
State V. Milwaukee Gas Co., (29 Wis. 

454, 9 Am. Rep. 598) 144, 296 
State V. Minneapolis, (32 Minn. 501) 

232 
State V. Minn. etc. Ry. Co., (39 N. 

W. R. 153, 38 Minn. 246) 317 
State V. Mobile, (5 Porter, 279) 120, 

226, 300 



clxii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Beferences are to Sections. 



State V. MofEatt, (5 Ohio, 358, 362) 

371 
State ». Moniteau Co. Ct., (45 Mo. 

App. 387) 125, 398 
State V. Montgomery, (25 La. An. 

138) 67, 75 
State ». Moore, (16 S. W. K. 937) 24 
State V. Morgan, (48 N. W. 814) 259 
State V. Moriarity, (74 Ind. 104) 286 
State V. Morris, (43 Iowa, 192) 377 
State V. Morris Com. Pleas, (36 N. J. 

L. 72) 24 
State V. Morris etc. Co., (23 N. J. L. 

360) 300 
State V. Morristown, (33 N. J. L. 57) 

33, 146, 288, 290 
State V. Morse, (50 N. H. 9) 278 
State ». Mortland, (52 N. J. E. 521) 

28 
State V. Mott, (61 Md. 297) 120 
State V. Moultrieville, (Rice, Law, 

158) 154 
State V. Mount, (21 La. An. 755) 360, 

375 
State V. Mt. Pleasant, (16 Wis. 613) 

267, 362 
State V. Mullica, (17 Atl. K. 941) 27 
State V. Munic. Ct. etc., (32 Minn. 

329) 146 
State V. Mungenraaier, (24 Iowa, 87) 

120 
State V. Murfreesboro, (11 Humph. 

217) 400 
State V. Nashville, (15 Lea, 697) 146 
State V. Nashville Univ., (4 Hump. 

157) 200 
State V. Natal, (39 La. An. 439) 42 
State V. Natal, (6 So. E. 722) 110, 201 
State V. Natl. Dock Co., (26 Atl. E. 

145) 290 
State V. Neidt, (19 Atl. E. 318) 120 
State V. Newark, (3 Dutch. 491) 111 
State V. Newark, (25 N. J. L. 399) 

391 
State V. Newark, (27 N. J. L. 185) 270 
State V. Newark, (27 N. J. L. 198) 86 
State 1). Newark, (34 N. J. L. 236) 28 
State V. Newark, (36 N. J. L. 478) 

270 
State V. Newark, (37 N. J. L.) 415 

259 a, 277 
State V. Newark, (40 N. J. L. 358) 27 
State V. Newark, (11 Atl. It. 147, 49 

N. J. L. 344) 257 
State V. Newark, (23 Atl. E. 129) 234 
State u. Newberry Council, (12 Kicli. 

L. 339) 270 
State V. New Boston, (11 N. H. 413) 

223 
State V. New Brunswick, (1 N. J. L. 

395) 319 



State V. New Brunswick, (30 N. J. L. 

395) 259 a, 286 
State V. Newman, (91 Mo. 445) 360, 

371 
State V. New Orleans, (15 La. An. 

354) 259 
State B. New Orleans, (30 La. An. 

129) 362, 375 
State V. New Orleans, (35 La. 68) 368 
State V. N. O. C. & L. E. Co., (7 So. 

E. 606, 42 La. 550) 306 
State V. Newport etc. Co., (18 Atl. E, 

161) 302 
State V. New Wbatrom, (3 Wash. St. 

7)29 
State V. Nichols, (79 N. T. 182) 83 
State V. Noble, (118 Ind. 350) 18 
State V. Norwalk Co., (10 Conn. 157) 

320 
State V. Noyes, (30 N. H. 279) 120, 

255 
State V. Ocean, (48 N. J. L. 70) 364 
State V. O'Conner, (22 Atl. 1091) 18 
State V. Old Town Bridge Corp., (85 

Me. 17) 314 
State V. Omaha, (14 Neb. 265) 300, 

360 
State V. Orange, (31 N. J. L. 131) 362 
State V. Orange, (32 N. J. L. 49) 278 
State B. Orange, (50 N. J. L. 347) 398 
State V. Osawkee, (14 Kan. 418) 183, 

188, 254 
State V. Osborne, (24 Mo. App. 309) 

374 
State V. Otoe, (6 Neb. 129) 278 
State V. Pacific, (61 Mo. 155) 177, 363 
State V. Palmer, (10 Neb. 203) 361 
State V. Palmer, (18 Neb. 644) 371 
State V. Palmer, (4 N. W. Eep. 966) 

32 
State V. Paris Ey. Co., (55 Tex. 76) 

159 
State V. Parker, (25 Minn. 215) 38a 
State V. Parker, (32 N. J. L. 426) 270 
State V. Parker, (26 Vt. 362) 263 
State V. Parkinson, (5 Nev. 17) 189 o 
State 1). Passaic, (37 N. J. L. 65, m) 

259 a 
State ». Passaic, (41 N. J. L. 90) 278 
State V. Passaic, (42 N. J. L. 524)319 
State V. Passaic Turnp., 27 N. J. L. 

217) 319 
State V. Paterson, (36 N. J. L. 159) 

279 
State V. Paterson, (37 N. J. L. 380) 

259 o 
State V. Patterson, (40 N. J. L. 186) 

176 
State V. Patterson, (20 AU. E. 828) U 
State 1). Patterson, (34 N. J. L. 163) 

113 



TABLE OF OASES CITED. 



clxiii 



Beferences are to Sections. 



■State V. Patterson, (38 N. J. L. 190) 

372 
State 1). Peele, (124 Ind. 515) 76 
State V. Peele, (124 Ind. 515) 82 
State V. Perkins, (24 N. J. L. 409) 
■ 102 
State V. Perranet, (41 La. An. 179) 

399 
State V. Perry Co., (5 Oliio St. 497, 502) 

395 
State V. Perth Amboy, (29 N. J. L. 

259) 279 
State B. Perth Araboy, (38 N. J. L. 

425) 265 
State V. Pettis, (7 Rich. Law, 390) 

312 
State V. Pidgeon, (8 Blackf. 132) 82 
State V. Pillsbury, (30 La. An. 705) 

177 
State V. Pilot, (21 La. An. 336) 371 
State V. Plaiufield, (38 N. J. L. 95) 

241, 265, 279, 280 
State V. Piatt, (4 Harr. 154) 67 
State V. Plunkett, (3 Harr. 5) 117, 123, 

125 
State ». Poland, (50 N. J. Law, 367) 

398 
State V. Pol. Com'rs, (88 Mo. 144) 83 
State V. Police Jury, (111 U. S. 716) 

194 
State V. Pollard, (6 E. I. 290) 117 
State V. Portland, (74 Me. 268) 400 
State V. Powell, (97 N. C. 417) 104 
State V. Priester, (45 IST. W. R. 712, 

43 Minn. 373) 99 
State ». Putnam, (35 Iowa, 561) 67 
State V. Quimby, (17 Atl. 952) 65 
State V. Rahway, (33 N. J. L. 110) 

363 365 371 
State 'b. Rahway, (39 N". J. L. 646) 25, 

92 
State V. Railroad Co., (3 How. 534) 

155 
State V. Raine, (47 Ohio St. 447, 25 

X. E. R. 54) 79, 359, 360 
State V. Rainey, (74 Mo. 229) 369 
State V. Ralls etc., (45 Mo. 58) 82 
State V. Ramsey Co. Dist. Ct., (33 

Minn. 295) 259 a 
State ». Raymond, (27 N. H. 388) 400 
State 0. Recorder, (12 So. R. 880) 271 
State i). Register, (59 Md. 283) 83 
State V. Reynolds, (61 Mo. 203) 56 
State V. Rice, (2 S. E. R. 180) 154 
State ». Richland, (20 Ohio St. 362) 

139 
State V. Ricker, (32 N. H. 179) 104 
State B. Rightor, (44 La. An. 298) 399, 

401 
State V. Robbins, (54 N. J. L. 566) 



State ». Roberts, (11 Gill & J. 506) 

256 
State V. Roberts, (12 N. J. L. 114) 87 
State V. Rodman, (43 Mo. 256) 361 
State V. Roggen, (22 Keb. 118) 189, 

1916 
State V. Rolle, (30 La. Ann. 991) 259, 

261 
State V. Row, (46 N. W. R. 872) 79 
State V. Rowe, (2 Atl. R. 179) 253 
State V. Saline Co., (48 Mo. 390) 186, 

394 
State V. Savage, (89 Ala. 1) 83 
State V. Schaack, (28 Minn. 358) 365 
State V. Schleramer, (42 La. An. 1166) 

118 
State B. Schlier, (3 Heisk. 281) 261 
States. Schnierle, (5 Rich. L. 299) 

380 
State B. School Directors, (74 Mo. 21) 

374 
State B. Sch. Dist., (10 Neb. 544) 186 
State B. Schuohardt, (7 So. 67) 130, 

146 
State B. Schumaker, (27 La. An. 332) 

83 
State B. Schweiokardt, (19 S. W. R. 

47) 9, 11, 226 
State B. Scott, (17 Mo. 521) 24 
State V. Scott, (15 Neb. 147) 375 
State B. Seay, (64 Mo. 89) 81, 82 
State B. Sellers, (7 Rich. Law, 368) 77 
State B. Sevarance, (55 Mo. 378) 33, 

159, 269, 282 
State V. Seymour, (35 N. J. L. 47) 

232 
State V. Shakespeare, (6 So. Rep. 592) 

371 
State B. Shakespeare, (41 La. An. 156) 

359 
State B. Shakespeare, (43 La. An. 92) 

361 
State B. Sharkey, (52 N. W. E. 24) 110 
State V. Shaw, (29 Pac. 1028) 29 
State B. Shaw, (23 La. An. 790) 363 
State B. Shelbyville, (4 Sneed, 176) 

400 
State B. Sherman, (20 Mo. 265) 123 
State B. Sherwood, (42 Mo. 179) 85 
State ». Simon, (22 Atl. 120) 26 
State B. Sims, (16 S. C. 486) 134 
State B. Skrine, (3 Brev. 516) 78 
State B. Slick, (86 Ind. 501) 365 
State B. Smith, (15 S. "W. R. 614) 361 
State V. Smith, (22 Minn. 218) 97, 148. 

371 
State B. Smith, (87 Mo. 158) 81 
State V. Smith, (52 N. W. R. 700) 18, 

84 
State B. Smith, (11 Atl. E. 321) 254 
State V. Smithson, (106 Mo. 149) 258 



clxiv 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Beferences are to Sections. 



State V. Snodgrass, (98 Ind, 546) 189, 

375 
State 1-. Society, (54 K J. L. 260) 400 
State V. Somers, (53 N. W. 146) 83 
State V. Sommers, (96 K. C. 467) 75 
State V. So. S. S. Co., (13 La. An. 

497) 282 
State V. Somnier, (33 La. An. 237) 75 
State V. Springfield, (6 Ind. 83) 13 
State V. Staley (38 Ind. 259) 362 
State V. Stanley, (14 Ind. 409) 250 
State V. Starkey, (52 N. W. K. 24) 79 
State V. Starling, (13 S. Car. 262) 364 
State V. State Board of Assessors, 

(22 Atl. E. 1085) 282 
State V. Steele, (57 Tex. 200) 66, 79 
State V. Stevens, (46 N. J. L. 344) 83 
State V. Stevenson, (109 N". C. 730) 258 
State !). Stewart, (5 Strob.) 249, 398 
State V. Story Co., (17 Nev. 96) 29 
State V. St. Johns, (47 Minn. 315) 399 
State V. St. Louis Co. Ct., (34 Mo. 

546) 8, 116, 325 
State i;. St. Louis, (62 Mo. 244) 249 
State V. St. Louis, (90 Mo. 19) 83 
State !). Supervisors, (29 Wis. 79) 360 
State V. Super's, (39 Wis. 264) 368 
State V. Super's,X41 Wis. 28) 313, 377 
State V. Super's, (67 Wis. 274) 368 
State V. Swearingen, (12 Ga. 23) 69 
State V. Swift, (1 Hill, 360) 249, 398 
State V. Swift, (11 Nev. 128) 18 
State V. Swislier, (17 Tex. 441) 263 
State V. Tappan, (29 Wis. 664) 14, 15, 

139 
State V. Taxing District of Shelby 

Co., (16 Lea, 240) 42 
State V. Taylor, (12 Ohio St. 130) 74 
State V. Taylor, (39 Md. 338) 282 
State V. Teasdale, (21 Fla. 652) 83 
State V. Ten Eyck, (18 N. J. L. 373) 

398 
State V. Tennant, (110 N. C. 609) 130 
State V. Thoraaston and Rockland, 

(74 Me. 198) 54 
State V. Thompson, (36 Mo. 70) 361 
State V. Tiedeman, (69 Mo. 306) 212 
State V. Tippecanoe Co., (30 N. E. E. 

892) 362 
State V. Titus, (47 N. J. L. 89) 360 
State V. Tolan, (33 N. J. L. 195) 378 
State V. Toledo, (26 N. E. K. 1061) 

27 32 256 
State V. Topeka, (36 Kan. 76) 104, 117 
State V. Town of Columbia, (20 S. 

W. Hep. 90) 144 a 
State V. Town of Winter Park, (25 

Fla. 371) 62 
State V. Township, (23 Atl. E. 666) 

32 
State V. Tracy, (51 N. W. E. 613) 385 



State V. Traders Bank, (6 So. E. 582 

41 La. An. 329) 259, 261 
State V. Trammel, (11 S. W. Eep 

748) 179, 254 
State V. Trask, (6 Vt. 355) 226 
State V. Trenton, (18 Atl. E. 116) 113 
State V. Trenton, (20 Atl. E. 1076) 

136, 302 
State V. Trenton, (23 Atl. "E. 281) 

398 
States. Trenton, (26 Atl. E. 83) 259a 
State V. Trenton, (7 Vroom, 198) 33, 

118, 145, 158 
State V. Trenton, (35 K. J. L. 485) 73 
State V. Trenton, (42 N. J. L. 72) 87 
State V. Trenton, (49 N. J. L. 339) 

173 
State V. Trenton, (51 N. J. L. 498) 

113 
State V. Troth, (5 Troom, 376) 32 
State V. Trustees etc., (5 Ind. 77) 37, 

40 
State V. Trustees, (61 Mo. 155) 375 
State V. Trustees, (4 Nev. 400) 363 
State V. Tryon, (39 Conn. 183) 117, 

147 
State V. Union, (33 IST. J. L. 350) 28, 

161 
State V. Union & Planters Bank, (19 

S. W. E. 758) 273 
State V. Valle, (41 Mo. 29) 18, 67, 74 
State 0. Van Buskirk, (40 N. J. L. 

463) 82 
State V. Van Home, (7 Ohio St. 327) 

185, 195, 196 
State V. Viokers, (51 N. J. L. 180,) 

379 
State V. Volkman, (20 La. An. 585) 

259 a 
State V. Van Wickle, (1 Dutch. 73) 

107 
State V. Walkely, (2 Nott & McCord, 

410) 249, 250 
State V. Wall, (47 Ohio St. 499) 2 
State V. Walters, (64 Ind. 226) 320 
State V. Walton, (62 Me. 106) 67 
State ». Ware, (13 Oreg. 380) 363 
State V. Warren, (32 N. J. L. 439)260 
State V. Washburn, (17 Wis. 658) 81, 

82 
State V. Watertown Council, (9 Wis. 

254) 372 
State V. Waxahachie, (81 Tex. 626) 

56 
State V. Weatherby, (17 Neb. 553) 78 
State 1). Weatherby, (45 Mo. 17) 385 
State V. Webster, (107 N. C. 962) 122 
State V. Welch, (36 Conn. 215) 134, 

150 
State V. Welch, (21 Minn. 22) 159 
State V. Wells, (46 Iowa, 663) 103 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



clxv 



References are to Sections. 



State V. Western etc., (9.5 N. C. 602) 

318 
State V. Weston, (4 Neb. 234) 74 
State V. Westport, (22 S. W. 888) 61 
State V. Whitingham, (7 Vt. 390) 400 
State V. Wilcox, (45 Mo. 458) 24 
State V. Wilkinson, (2 Vt. 480) 219, 

220, 226, 286 
State V. Williams, (69 Ala. 311) 359 
State V. Williams, (99 Mo. 291) 69 
State V. Williams, (11 S. C. 288) 122 
State V. Williams, (38 N. W. K. 31) 

371 
State V. Wilm. Coun., (8 Harring. 

294) 102, 363, 381 
State V. Wilson, (42 Me. 9) 223 
State B. Wilson, (29 Ohio, 347) 67 
State V. Wilson, (71 Tex. 291) 177 
State B. Wilson, (17 Wis. 087) 377 
State B. Winkelmeier, (35 Mo. 103) 24 
State 1). Wisten, (62 Mo. 592) 122 
State 1). Witlirow, (108 Mo. 1) 401 
State B. Wood, (51 Ark. 205) 72 
State V. Wood, (9 Bosw. 15) 90 
State V. Wood Co., (40 N. W. R. 381) 

315 
State V. Wood Co., (72 Mo. 629) 377 
State B. Woodruff, (37 N. J. L. 139) 

270 
State B. Woodward, (23 Vt. 92) 202, 

208, 219, 220, 300 
State B. Wright, (23 Atl. 116) 18, 364 
State B. Yopp, (97 N. C. 477)289,299, 

300 
State V. York Co., (8 Neb. 92) 365 
State B. Young, (3 Kan. 445) 102, 125 
State B. Young, (30 S. C. 399) 32, 33 
State B. Zeigler, (32 N. J. L. 262) 102, 

154, 156 
State Bank b. Knoop, (16 How. 369) 8 
State Bank b. Madison, (3 Ind. 43) 

267 
State Bk. etc. v. Heney, (40 Minn. 

145) 171 
State Brd. v. Aberdeen, (56 Miss. 

518) 51, 144 
State Board b. Cit. S. E. Co., (47 Ind. 

407) 164 
State Center b. Barenstein, (66 Iowa, 

2.59) 123 
State etc. v. Co. Judge, (2 Iowa, 280) 

28 
State etc. b. Mobile, (24 Ala. 701) 32 
St.ite ex rel. Bridge Co. b. Columbia, 

(27 S. C. 137) 42 
State ex rel. Choteau v. LefiSngwell, 

54 Mo. 458) 28 
State ex rel. Havemeyer b. Min. Pt. 

Sup., (22 Wise. 396) 368 
State ex rel. Jameson b. Denny, (118 

Ind. 382) 255 



State ex rel. Marobland b. New 

Orleans, (37 La. An, 13) 14 
State ex rel. Block b. Cobb, (64 Ala. 

158) 191 
State ex rel. Soutter b. Madison 

Council, (15 Wis. 80) 368 
State ex rel. Thorn b. New Orleans, 

(37 La. An. 528) 14 
State ex rel. Troll v. Hudson, (78 Mo. 

302) 123 
State Hist. Assoc, b. Lincoln, (14 

Neb. 336) 221 
Staton B. Norfolk & C. R. Co., (19 S. 

E. 11. 933, 109 N. C. 387) 354 a 
Steamship Co. b. Joffiffe, (2 Wall. 

450) 133 
Steamship Co. b. Pt. Wardens, (6 

Wall. 81) 133 
Stearns b. Richmond, (14 S. E. R. 

847) 292, 330 
Stearns Co. v. St. Cloud, (36 Minn. 

425) 120 
Stebbins b. Jennings, (10 Pick. 172) 

25 
Stebbins v. Keene, (60 Mich. 214) 353 
Stebbins b. Mayor, (18 Pac. Rep. 745) 

104 
Stecker b. East Saginaw, (22 Mich. 

104) 98, 106 
Stedman b. San Francisco, (63 Cal. 

193) 333, 336 
Steele b. Boston, (128 Mass. 588) 331 
Steele b. Burkhardt, (104 Mass. 59) 352 
Steele v. Davis Co., (2 G. Greene, 

469) 178, 179 
Steele b. Martin, (6 Kan. 430) 381 
Steele b. Newton, (41 Kan. 512) 55 
Steele b. Sullivan, (70 Ala. 589) 220 
Steers ». Brooklyn, (101 N. Y. 51) 225 
Stein B. Bienville W. S. Co., (34 Fed. 

Rep. 145) 144, 296 
Stein B. Burden, (24 Ala. 180) 288 
Stein B. Mobile, (24 Ala. 591) 184, 274 
Steincke b. Bentley, (34 N. E. R. 97) 

301 
Steines v. Franklin Co., (48 Mo. 167) 

111, 196, 327 
Steirsmyer v. St. Louis, (3 Mo. App. 

256) 855 
Stephani b. Brown, (40 111. 428) 348 
Stephens b. Macon, (88 Mo. 345) 331 a, 

8506 
Stephens v. Peo., (89 111. 837) 65 
Stephenson b. Chattanooga, (20 Fed. 

Rep. 586) 221, 224 
Stephenson b. Manny, (56 111. 160) 

826 a 
Stephenson Co. Sup. b. Manny, (56 

111. 100) 326 
Sterling's App., (Ill Pa. St. 35,2 Atl. 

Rep. 105) 287, 295 



clxvi 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Seferences are to Sections. 



Sterling v. Thomas, (60 111. 264) 337 
Stern v. Peo., (96 111. 475) 72 
Sterrett v. Houston, (14 Tex. 153) 

336 a 
Stetson V. Faxon, (19 Pick. 147, 158) 

354 
Stetson ». Kempton, (13 Mass. 272) 4, 

110, 139, 167, 169, 326 
Steubenville v. Gulp, (38 Ohio St. 18) 

79 
Stevens v. Rutland etc. Co., (29 Vt. 

546) 395 
Stevens v. Boxford, (10 Allen, 93) 343 
Stevens v. Bufialo & jST. Y. C. R. R. 

Co., (31 Barb. 590) 273 
Stevens v. Eden etc., (12 Vt. 688) 108 
Stevens ». Middlesex Canal, (12 Mass. 

466) 233 
Stevens v. Patterson etc. R. R. Co., 

(34 ST. J. 532) 225, 239 
Stevens v. Shannon, (6 Ohio Cir. Ct. 

R. 142) 229 
Stevens Pt. Boom Co. v. Reilly, (46 

Wis. 237) 314 
Stevenson v. Mayor etc., (20 Fed. 

Rep. 586) 308 
Stevenson v. PhoenixviUe, (1 Ches. 

Co. Rep. 113) 327 a 
Stevenson v. Sum. Towns, (35 Iowa, 

462) 364 
Steward v. Jefferson, (3 Harr. 335) 

255 
Stewart u. Baltimore, (7Md. 500) 245, 

247 
Stewart v. Benninger, (138 Pa. St. 

437) 129 
Stewart H. Cambridge (125 Mass. 102) 

165 
Stewart v. Clinton, (79 Mo. 603) 354 a 
Stewart v. Com., (10 Watts. 307) 130 
Stewart v. Council Bluffs, (58 Iowa, 

642) 110 
Stewart v. Davis, (3 Murph. 244) 270 
Stewart v. Frick, (94 N. C. 487) 220 
Stewart v. Hartman, (46 Ind. 331) 

234 a 
Stewart v. Hinds Co. B. of Police etc., 

(25 Miss. 479) 241 
Stewart v. Kalamazoo, (30 Mich. 69) 

397 
Stewart v. Lansing, (104 U. S. 505) 

193 6 
Stewart D. Lexington, (79 Mo. 603) 329 
Stewart v. Mayor, (7 Md. 501) 104, 

105 
Stewart v. New Orleans, (9 La. An. 

461) 92, 332, 333 
Stewart v. Perkins, (19 S. W. R. 789) 

215 
Stewart v. Polk Co., (30 Iowa, 9) 253 
Stewart v. Rich, (1 Gaines, 182) 320 



Stewart v. Stewart, (6 CI. & Fin. 911) ' 

326 a 
Stewart ti. Woodstock, (15 Up. Can. 

Q. B. 427) 344 
Stier V. Oskaloosa, (41 Iowa, 353) 30, 

31 352 
Stiflaer V. Delaware Co., (27 N. E. E. ' 

641) 79 
Stiles V. Curtis, (4 Day, 328) 224 
Still V. Lansinburgh, (16 Barb. 107) 

208, 211 
Stilling V. Thorpe, (54 Wis. 538) 344, 

346 
Stilts V. Indianapolis, (55 Ind. 515) 

18, 55, 61, 259, 397 
Stimson v. Gardiner, (42 Me. 248) 

340, 343 
Stirling Gas Co. ij. Higgins, (25 N. E. 

R. 660) 259 
Stock V. Boston, (149 Mass. 410) 92, 

336, 355 
Stockbridge v. West Stockbridge, (12 

Mass. 400) 31 
Stockdale v. Wayland, (47 Mich. 226) 

189 a 
Stocking V. State, (7 Ind. 326) 82 
Stockman v. Brooks, (27 Pac. R. 746) 

29, 373 
Stockton V. Chicago, (26 N. E. R. 

1095) 246 
Stocktons V. Newark, (42 N. J. Eq. 531) 

229 
Stockton V. Powell, (10 So. R. 688)51 
Stockton V. Whitmore, (50 Cal. 554) 

232 
Stockwell V. Genesee Co., (16 Mich. 

221) 79 
Stoddard v. Gilman, (22 Vt. 568) 98 
Stoddard v. Saratoga, (27 N. E. R. 

1030) 355 
Stoddard v. Winchester, (32 N. E. R. 

948)92, 350 a 
Stokes V. Corporation of N. Y., (14 

Wend. 87) 158 
Stokes V. Mayor etc. , (14 Wend. 8 /)127 
Stokes V. Tift, (64 Ga. 312) 317 
Stone V. Attleborough, (140 Mass. 

328) 346 
Stone V. Boston, (2 Met. 2 
Stone V. Brooks, (35 Cal. 489) 221 
Stone ». Gharlestown, (114 Mass. 214) 

55, 58 
Stone V. Cheshire etc. Corp., 19 N. 

H. 427) 347 
Stone V. Commercial Ry. Co., (4 M. 

& C. 122) 243 
Stone V. Godfrey, (5 De G. M. & G. 

76) 327 
Stone V. Huggins, (28 Vt. 617) 169 
Stone V. Mayor etc. of New York., 

(25 Wend. 157) 239 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



clxvii 



Keferences are to Sections. 



Stone ». Mobile, (57 Ala. 61) 256, 397 
Stone V. New York, (25 Wend. 157, 

167) 398 
Stone V. Oconomowoc, (71 Wis. 155) 

210 
Stone V. Sch. District, (8 Cush. 592) 

95 
Stone V. Small, (54 Vt. 498) 75, 373 
Stone V. Trust Co., (116 U. S. 307) 150 
Stoneburgh v. Brighton, (5 Upper 

Can. L. J. 38) 169 
Storer v. Cincinnati, (4 Oliio Cir. Ct. 

279) 278, 397 
Storer v. Washington, (Peck, 334) 85 
Stormfeltz v. Manor Turn. Co., (13 

Pa. St. 555) 301, 318 
Storrs ». Utica, (17 N. Y. 104) 347, 

350 
Stott V. Franey, (20 Or. 410) 166 
Stoutenburgh v. Hennick, (129 U. S. 

141) 289 
Stroub V. Railway Co., (59 N. Y. 

Super. Ct. 505) 396 
Stoudinger v. Newark, (28 N. J. Eq. 

74) 294 
St. Louis V. Laclede etc. Co., (9 S. W. 

R. 581) 218 
St. Louis V. Laughlin, (49 Mo. 559) 

255 
St. Louis V. Lemp, (93 Mo. 477) 201, 

225 
St. Louis V. Life Ins. Co., (17 S. W. 

R. 637) 348 
St. Louis i;. McCoy, (18 Mo. 238) 118 
St. Louis V. Meier, (77 Mo. 13) 194 
St. Louis u. Mentz, (18 S. W. R. 30) 

242 
St. Louis V. Merton, (6 Mo. 476) 210 
St. Louis V. Miss. etc. Co., (13 Mo. 

App. 524) 302 
St. Louis I). Ranken, (9 S. W. K. 910, 

96 Mo. 497) 397 
St. Louis V. Russell, (9 Mo. 507) 55, 

56, 60, 282 
St. Louis V. Shields, (52 Mo. 351) 12, 

18, 28, 29, 133 
St. Louis V. St. L. R. R. Co., (50 

Mo. 94) 274 
St. Louis 1). Shands, (20 Mo. 149) 127 
St. Louis V. Shoenbusch, (95 Mo. 618) 

134 
St. Louis V. Smith, (10 Mo. 438) 158 
St. Louis I). Sparks, (10 Mo. 118) 368 
St. Louis 13. Speiftel, (90 Mo. 587) 272 
St. Louis V. Steinberg, (4 Mo. App. 

453) 261 
St. Louis V. Sternberg, (69 Mo. 289) 

261 
St. Louis V. Vert, (84 Mo. 204) 156 
St. Louis V. Weber, (44 Mo. 547) 128, 

150, 158 



St. Louis V. W. U. T. Co., (149 U. S. 

465) 297, 301 
St. Louis V. Wiggins Ferry Co., (11 

Wall. 423, 272 
St. Louis V. Witbans, (90 Mo. 646) 95 
St. Louis V. Woodruff, (71 Mo. 92) 

124, 300 
St. Louis Br. Co. v. East St. Louis, 

(121 111. 238) 42, 272 
St, Louis Bridge Co. v. People, (123 

111. 226) 294 
St. Louis Co. Court v. Griswold, (58 

Mo. 175) 232 
St. Louis etc. Co. v. Dunn, (78 111. 

197) 136 
St. Louis etc. Co. v. Haller, (82 111. 

208) 303 
St. Louis etc. Co. v. Mathias, (50 Ind. 

65) 136 
St. Louis etc. R. R. Co. v. Teters, (68 

111. 144) 232 
St. Louis Hospital ». Williams, (19 

Mo. 609) 49 
St. Louis R. Co. V. So. Ry. Co., (15 S. 

W. R. 1013) 302 
St. Marks Church v. Brunswick, (78 

Ga. 541, 3 S. E. R. 561) 270 
St. Mary's Industrial School v. 

Brown, (45 Md. 310) 254 
St. Paul V. Bumes, (38 Minn. 176) 

118 
St. Pauls. Butler, (39 Minn. 459) 171 
St. Paul V. Colter, (12 Minn. 41) 158 
St. Paul V. Dow, (37 Minn. 20) 131 
St. Paul V. Seitz, (3 Minn. 297) 347 
St. Paul V. Smith, (27 Minn. 164) 123, 

299 
St. Paul V. Troyer, (3 Minn. 291) 125 
St. Paul V. Trueger, (25 Minn. 248) 

124 
St. Paul & Pac. R. R. Co. v. St. Paul, 

(21 Minn. 526) 259 a 
St. Paul, Minneapolis & M. Ry. Co. 

I). Minneapolis, (35 Minn. 141) 241 
St. Paul W. Co. V. Ware, (16 Wall. 

566) 347 
St. Peter v. Baur, (19 Minn. 327) 102 
St. Peter's Church v. Scott Co. 

Com'rs, (12 Minn. 395) 270 
St. Vincents etc. v. Troy, (76 N. Y. 

108) 312 
Strahl, In re, (16 Iowa, 369) 105, 381 
Strand, lu re, (21 Pac. R. 654) 8 
Strasser v. N. Y., L. & W. R. Co., 

(128 N. Y. 157, 623) 302 
Stratford etc. Co., In re, (38 Up. Can. 

Q. B. 112) 185 
Stratman, In re, (39 Cal. 517) 102 
Stratton v. Herrick, (9 Johns. 356) 

320 
Stratton v. Oulton, (28 Cal. 44) 85 



clxviii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Eeferences are to Sections. 



Straub v. Pittsburgh, (138 Pa. St. 

356) 26 
Stratton v. Staples, (59 Me. 94) 337, 

348 
Strauss v. Eagle Ins. Co., (5 Ohio St. 

59) 163 
Strauss v. Pontiac, (40 111. 301) 62, 

125 
Street v. Holyoke, (105 Mass. 82)344 
Street v. Kew Orleans, (32 La. An. 

577) 335 
Street Case, (1 La. An. 412) 97 
Street Railway v. Cumminsville, (14 

Ohio St. 523) 238, 304 
Streubel v. Milwaukee, (12 Wis. 67) 

283 
Strickland v. K. K. Co., (27 Miss. 209) 

184 
Strickler v. Midi. Ey., (125 Ind. 412, 

25 N. E. E. 455) 247 
Striken). Kelly, (3 Denio, 322) 98, 

148, 250 
Strohme v. Iowa City, (47 Iowa, 42) 

395 
Strong V. Campbell, (11 Barb. 135) 

338 
Strong V. Darling, (9 Ohio, 201) 215 
Strong V. District, (1 Maokey, 265) 

170 
Strong V. District, (4 Mackey, 242, 9 

Am. & Eng. Corp. Cases, 568) 100 
Strong V. Steven's Point, (62 Wis. 

255) 352 
Strosser v. Fort Wayne, (100 Ind. 

443, 451, 8 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 

636, 643) 53, 55, 61, 62 
Stroud V. Philada., (61 Pa. St. 255) 

248, 277 
Stroudsburg v. Brown, (11 Pa. Co. 

Ct. E. 272) 47 
Stroudsburg «. Wilkes-Barre E. E. 

Co., (12 Pa. Co. Ct. E. 395) 302 
Strouse v. Whittlesy, (41 Conn. 559) 

321, 3.37 
Struthers v. Dunkirk etc., (87 Pa. St. 

282) 302, 303 
Stuart V. Cambridge, (125 Mass. 102) 

109, 281 
Stuart V. Havens, (17 Neb. 211) 348 
Stuart V. Lansing, (104 U. S. 505) 

195 d 
Stuart V. Machiasport, (48 Me. 477) 

352 . 
Stuart V. Palmer, (74 N. Y. 183) 279 
Stuart B. Stuart, (6 01. & Fin. 968) 

327 
Stubbs V. Lee, (64 Me. 195) 86 
Studley v. Oshkosh, (45 Wis. 380) 

350 6 
Sturgeon v. Daviess Co. Com'rs, (65 

Ind. 302) 209 



Sturges V. Crowninshield, (4 Wheat. 

122) 194 
Sturtevant v. Alton, (3 McLean, 393) 

163, 169 
Stuyvesant v. Woodruff, (21 N. J. L. 

145) 219 
Suarez ». Man E. Co., (15 N. T. S. 

224) 248 
Submarine Tel. Co. v. Dickson, (15 C. 

B. N. S. 759)3506 
Succession of Teaulet, (28 La. An. 

42)55 
Succession of Vance, (2 So. E. 54) 203 
Sudbury v. Stearns, (21 Pick. 148) 

106 
SufBeld V. Hathaway, (44 Conn. .521) 

119, 287, 392 
Suffolk V. Parker, (79 Va. 660) 120, 

336 a 
Suffolk Sav. Bank v: Boston, (149 

Mass. 364) 195 c, 195 d 
Sullivan v. Gilroy, (55 Hun, 285) 71 
Sullivan v. Holyoke, (135 Mass. 92) 

324, 338 a 
Sullivan v. Leadville, (11 Colo. 483) 

98, 165 
Sullivan v. McCammou, (51 Ind. 264) 

326 a 
Sullivan v. Kew Tork, (53 N. T. 652) 

28 
Sullivan ». Phillips, (11 N. E. E. 310) 

3.55, 392, 396 
Sullivan v. Eoyer, (72 Cal. 248) 301 
Sullivan v. Sch. Dis., (39 Kan. 347) 

170 
Sullivan v. Walton, (20 Fla. 552) 197 
Summers v. Daviess Co., (103 Ind. 

262) 92, 324, 332 
Summerville v. Pressley, (11 S. E. K. 

545) 118 
Sumner v. Dorchester First Parish, 

(4 Pick. 361) 326 
Sumner v. Peebles, (22 Pac. E. 221, 

5 Wash. St. 471) 312 
Sumter v. Deschamps, (4 S. C. 297) 

127 
Sunbury etc. v. Cooper, (7 Am. Law 

Eeg. 158) 149 
Sunderland v. Martin, (112 Ind. 411) 

396 
Super's V. Bates, (17 N. Y. 242) 169 
Supervisors v. People, (110 111. 511) 

362 
Supr's V. V. S., (4 Wall. 435) 362 
Supervisors of Doddridge v. Stout, 

(9 W. Va. 703) 232 
Supervisors of Mercer County t>. 

Hubbard, (45 111. 139) 1916 
Supervisors of Portage Co. v. Wis. 

Cent. E. E. Co., (121 Mass. 467) 254 
Surrocco v. Geary, (3 Cal. 69) 335 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 

Eeterences are to Sections. 



clxix 



Susquehanna v. Simmons, (112 Pa. 

St. 884) 331 a 
Susquehanna Bk. v. Broome Co., (25 

N. Y. 312) 391 
Susquehanna De Bor. v. Simmons, 

(79 Ind. 491) 347 
Sussex ». Strader (18 N. J. L. 108) 

325, 400 
Sutton V. Clavk, (1 Marsh. 429) 328 
Sutton V. Clarke, (6 Taunton, 28) 329 
Sutton B. Cole, (3 Mass. 239) 200 
Sutton V. Wauwatosa, (29 Wis. 21, 

28) 352 
Sutton First Parish v. Cole, (3 Pick. 

232) 202 
Sutton's Heirs v. Louisville, (5 Dana, 

28) 245 
Sutton's Hosp. Case, (10 Eep. 31) 149 
Sutton V. Carroll Co. Pol. Bd., (41 

Miss. 236) 331, 333 
Suydam v. Grand St. etc. Co., (41 

Barb. 375) 321 
Swails V. State, (4 Ind. 516) 30 
Swain v. Comstock, (18 "Wis. 463) 31, 

32 
Swamp Land Dist. v. Haggin, (64 

Cal. 204) 256 
Swan V. Chi. etc. Co., (38 Mo. App. 

588) 232 
Swan ». Cumberland, (8 Gill, 150) 

249, 398 
Swan V. Gray, (44 Miss. 393) 365 
Swan V. Williams, (3 Mich. 427) 233, 

241 
Swann, Ex parte, (96 Mo. 44) 24 
Swann v. Buck, (40 Miss. 268) 79 
Swan Point Cemetery v. Tripp, (14 

R. I. 199) 270 
Swatz V. Flatboats, (14 La. An. 243). 

133 
Sweeney v. Mayor etc., (5 Daly, 274) 

67 
Sweeney v. Pt. Burwell H. Co., (17 

U. C. C. P. 574) 121 
Sweeney v. Spooner, (3 B. & S. 329) 

104 
Sweet V. Com'rs, (16 Minn. 107) 177 
Sweet V. Hulbert, (51 Barb. 312) 183, 

184 
Sweetzer v. Mead, (5 Mich. 107) 167 
Swett V. Cutts, (50 N. H. 439) 354 a 
Swift V. Mayor, (83 N". Y. 528) 172 
Swift I). Newport, (7 Bush, 37) 56, 

259, 276 
Swift V. New York, (83 N. Y. 528) 

143, 338 a 
Swift B. Topeka, (43 Kan. 671) 153 
Swift V. Wayne Co., (64 Mich. 479) 

398 
Swift V. Williamsburg, (24 Barb. 427) 

338 



Sycamore Alley, In re, (9 Pa. Co. Ct. 

E. 61) 259 a 
Sykes v. Columbus, (55 Miss. 115) 

196, 376 
Sykes v. Pawlet, (43 Vt. 446) 346 
Symonds v. Clay Co. Sup., (71 111. 

355) 325, 375 
Syracuse etc. Co. v. People, (66 Barb. 

25) 120 
Syracuse etc. Co. v. Rome etc. Co., 

(22 N. Y. S. 321) 396 
Syracuse W. Co. v. Syracuse, (2 N. 

Y. State Eep. 364) 296 
Syracuse Water Co. v. Syracuse, (116 

N. Y. 167) 144 

T. 

Taber ». Grafmiller, (109 Ind. 206) 

264, 276, 290 
Tackaberry v. Keokuk, (32 Iowa, 

155) 267 
Tacoma v. Lillis, (31 Pac. E. 321) 79 
Tacoma L. Co. v. Pierce Co., (1 

Wash. St. 482) 256 
Taft B. Pittsford, (28 Vt. 286) 169 
Taggart v. Com., (21 Pa. St. 527) 

120 
Taggart b. Detroit, (38 N. W. E. 714) 

84 
Taggart v. Newport St. E. Co., (19 

Atl. Eep. 326) 306 a 
Tainter v. Worcester, (123 Mass. 311) 

327 a 
Taintor v. Mayor, (19 N. J. Eq. 46) 

396 
Talbert v. Hudson, (16 Gray, 417) 

236, 254 
Talbot V. Dent, (9 B. Mon. 526) 24, 

184 
Talbot u. E. Machias, (76 Me. 416) 

79 
Talbot B. Iberville, (24 La. An. 135) 

189 a 
Talbot V. Queen Anne Co., (50 Md. 

245) 3 
Talbott V. Grace, (30 Ind. 389) 220 
Talbott B. King, (9 S. E. R. 48, 32 W. 

Va. 6) 220 
Talbott V. Eichmond & D. E. E. Co., 

(31 Gratt. 685, 22 Alb. L. J. 57) 

219 
Talbott B. Taunton, (140 Mass. 552) 

342 
Talby v. Freedraan's Trust Co., (1 

MacArthur, 522) 177 
Tallahassee b. Fortune, (3 Fla. 19) 

349 
Tallant v. Bermingham, (39 Iowa, 

543) 278, 326 
Tallapoosa v. Tarver, (21 Ala. 661) 

369 



clxx 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



Tallman v. Janesville, (17 Wis. 71) 

?62 
Tamis v. King, (40 Conn. 298) 106 
Tanner v. Albron, (.5 Hill, 121) 122 
Tappan v. Gray, (9 Paige, 507) 81, 

82 
Tarbush i). Norwich, (38 Conn. 225) 

92 
Tarlton, In re, (2 Ala. 35) 249 
Tarry ». Ashton, (1 Q. B. Div. 314) 300 
Tarver «. Tallapoosa Cora'rs Ct., (17 

Ala. 527) 368 
Tash V. Adams, (10 Gush. 252) 139, 

897 
Tate V. Ohio etc. E. K. Co., (7 Ind. 

479) 302, 306 
Tatem v. Wright, (3 Zabr. 429) 258 
Tatum !). Trenton, (85 Ga. 468, 11 S. 

E. K. 705) 326 
Tawney v. Lynn & Ely Ky. Co., (16 

L. J. N. S. Eq. 282) 243 
Taxpayers of Greene, In re, (38 How. 

Pr. 515) 189 
Taxpayers Assn. v. Kirkpatrick, (7- 

Atl. K. 625) 259 
Tayler v. Pine Bluff, (34 Ark. 603) 

124 
Taylor, Ex parte, (58 Miss. 473) 258 
Taylor v. Americus, (39 Ga. 59) 105 
Taylor v. Austin, (32 Minn. 247) 355 
Taylor v. Beebe, (3 Bob. 262) 132 
Taylor v. Board, (31 Pa. St. 73) 326 a 
Taylor ». Brooks, (5 Cal. 332) 177 
Taylor v. Caesar, (11 Up. Can. Q. B. 

461) 66 
Taylor v. Carondelet, (22 Mo. 105, 

112) 155 
Taylor v. Chandler, (9 Heisk. 349) 

259 a 
Taylor v. Constable, (13 N. Y. 597) 

353 
Taylor 13. Cumberland, (64 Md. 68) 

331 
Taylor v. Davis Co., (40 Iowa, 295) 

314, 315, .353 
Taylor v. Donner, (31 Cal. 480) 256 
Taylor v. Douglas, (2 Douglas, 744^ 

748) 346 
Taylor v. Port Wayne, (47 lud. 281) 

385 
Taylor v. Greenhalgh, (L. E. 9 Q. B. 

487) 350 
Taylor v. Griswold, (5 Day, 22) 121, 

146 
Taylor v. Henry, (2 Pick. 397) 95, 108 
Taylor v. Lambertville, (43 N. J. Eq. 

107) 165 
Taylor v. Lambertville, (43 N. J. Eq. 

107) 145 
Taylor v. Metro. E. Ey. Co., (55 Su- 
per Ct. 555) 305, 307 



Taylor v. Mt. Vernon, (58 Hun, 384) 

348 
Taylor v. Newberne, (2 Jones Eq. 

141) 24, 255 
Taylor v. Palmer, (31 Cal. 240) 165, 

271 326 
Taylor v. People, (66 111. 322) 326 
Taylor v. Palmer, (31 Cal. 241) 148 
Taylor v. Phillips, (35 W. Va. 554) 

215, 221 
Taylor ». Plymouth, (8 Meto. 462) 

335 
Taylor v. Porter, (4 Hill, 140) 234 a 
Taylor v. Robinson, (72 Tex. 364) 12 
Taylor v. K. E. Co., (53 N. W. E. 855, 

83 Wis. 645) 300 
Taylor v. St. Louis, (14 Mo. 20) 113, 

292, 329 
Taylor v. Taylor, (10 Minn. 112) 65, 

371 
Taylor v. Yonkers, (105 N. Y. 202, 11 

N. E. E. 642) 344 
Teall V. Syracuse, (120 N. Y. 184) 92 
Tebo V. Brooklyn, (31 N. E. E. 984) 

54 
Tecumseh ». Phillips, (5 Neb. 305) 28 
Temperance Hall Assn. v. Giles, (83 

N. J. L. 260) 343, 348 
Temple v. Sumner, (51 Miss. 13) 123 
Templin v. Iowa City, (14 Iowa, 59) 

354 a 
Ten Eyck v. Canal Co., (18 N. J. L. 

200) 354 
Tennant v. Ai-cker, (48 N. W. E. 577) 

360 
Tennant v. Crocker, (48 N. W. E. 577) 

359 
Tenn. etc. Co. v. Adams, (3 Head, 
• 596) 302 
Tenn. etc. Co. ». Moore, (36 Ala. 371) 

375 
Tenney v. East Warren Lumber Co., 

(43 N. H. 343) 51 
Tenth Nat. Bk. v. Mayor, (80 N. T. 

660) 126 
Terhune v. Mayor, (88 N. Y. 47) 92, 

130 
Terre Haute v. Beach, (96 lud. 143) 

280 
Terre Haute v. Lake, (43 Ind. 480) 

165 
Terre Haute v. Turner, (36 Ind. 522) 

265 
Terre Haute & I. E. E. Co. v. Scott, 

(74 Ind. 29) 218 
Terre Haute E. E. Co. b. Buck, (96 

Ind. .346) 352 a 
Terrell)). Dissaint, (71 Tex. 770) 189 a 
Terrett ». Taylor, (9 Cranch, 43) 205 
Terrell v. Wheeler, (123 N. Y. 76) 

259 a 



TABLE OF CASES CITED:" 



clxxi 



Beferences are to Sections. 



Ten-ill v. Blooriifield, (21 S. W. R. 

1041) 290, 312, 327 
Terrill v. Dessalnt, (9 S. W. 593) 192 
Tei-rett o. Taylor, (9 Cranch, 52) 11 
Territory v. Armstrong, (6 Dak. 226) 

385 
Territory v. B. Co., (20 Am. & Eng. 

Cor. Cases, 44) 371 
Territory v. Carson, (7 Mont. 412) 79 
Territory v. Com'rs, (8 Mont. 396) 60 
Territory ». Dakota, (2 Dak. 155) 122 
Territory v. McPherson, (50 N. W. 

R. 351, 6 Dak. 27) 125 
Territory v. Potts, (3 Mont. 354) 365 
Territory v. Woodbury, (44 JST. W. R. 

1077) 375 
Terry v. Bank, (18 Wis. 87) 14 
Terry v. Wisconsin M. & F. Ins., (18 

Wis. 87) 194 
Teshi). Comw., (4 Dana, 522) 102 
Teter v. W. V. C. & P. Ry. Co., (14 

S. E. R. 146, 35 S. W. R. 438) 238 
Texas etc. Co. v. Rosedale, (64 Tex. 

80) 304 
Tharnton v. Grant, (10 R. I. 477) 132 
Thayer v. Boston, (19 Pick. 511) 92, 

220, 338 
The Craigendoran, (31 Fed. Rep. 87) 

133 
The Francesca T., (9 Ben. 34) 133 
The Geneva, (16 Fed. Rep. 874) 133 
The King v. Croke, (Cowp. 29) 49 
The Lizzie E., (30 Fed. Rep. 876) 133 
The Modoc, (26 Fed. Rep. 718) 353 
The Queen v. Bailiffs of Ipswich, (2 

Ld. Raym. 1232) 48 
The Queen v. The Registrar of Joint 

Stock Cos., (10 Q. B. 839) 48 
The Queen v. Baruhart, (7 Up. Can. 

L. J. 126) 100 
The Queen v. Wood, (5 E. & B. 49) 

130 
The Virginia Rulon, (13 Blatchf. 519) 

133 
Theall v. Yonkers, (21 Hun, 265) 92 
Theilan v. Porter, (14 Lea, 622) 120 
Theobald v. Louisville, (40 Alb. L. J. 

335) 302 
Thicknesse v. Canal Co., (4 M. & W. 

472) 37 
Third Ave. R'y Co., In re, (24 N. E. 

Rep. 651) 306 a 
Third Ave. etc. Co. v. New Tork, 

(54 N. T. 159) 396 
Third Municipality of N. O. v. Ursu- 

line Nuns, (2 La. An. 611) 56 
Third Nat. Bk. v. Seneca Falls, (15 

Fed. Rep. 783) 196 
Tliirty-second Street, In re, (19Wend. 

128) 221 
Thomas, Ex parte, (71 Cal. 204) 258 



Thomas v. Ashland, (12 Ohio St. 124) 

104, 116 
Thomas v. Burnes, (23 Miss. 550) 76 
Thomas v. Dakin, (22 Wend. 9) 25 
Thomas v. Gain, (35 Mich. 155) 259 a, 

277 
Thomas ». Grafton, (34 W. Va. 282) 

92 
Thomas v. Hot Springs, (34 Ark. 553) 

122 
Thomas v. Leland, (24 Wend. 65) 16, 

187 
Thomas v. Morgan Co., (39 111. 490) 

1916 
Thomas v. Mt. Vernon, (9 Ohio, 290) 

102, 103, 125 
Thomas v. Owens, (4 Mo. 188) 81 
Thomas v. Richmond, (12 Wall. 349) 

146, 164 
Thomas v. West Jersey R. R. Co., 

(101 U. S. 70) 210 
Thomas v. Winchester, (57 Am. Dec. 

455) 351 
Thomason v. Ashworth, (73 Cal. 73) 

34 
Thompson v. Abbott, (61 Mo. 176)'58 
Thompson v. Allen Co., (115 U. S. 

550) 42, 359 
Thompson v. Bridgewater, (7 Pick. 

188) 352 
Thompson v. Carroll, (22 How. 422) 

146, 265 
Thompsons. Chicago etc. Co., (19 S. 

W. R. 77) 243, 244 
Thompson v. Commonwealth, (81 

Pa. St. 314) 184 
Thompson v. Floyd, (2 Jones, L. 313) 

255 
Thompson v. Gibson, (7 M. & W. 

455) 120 
Thompson v. Inliabitants, (5 Gray, 

110) 353 
Thompson v. Judge, (9 Ala. 338) 

371 
Thompson v. Mathews, (2 Edw. Ch. 

202) 318 
Thompson v. Moran, (44 Mich. 602) 

201 
Thompson v. Pacific Co., (9 Wall. 

579) 22 
Thompson v. Park Com'rs, (44 Mich. 

602) 187 
Thompson v. People, (23 Wend. 537) 

380 
Thompson v. Perrine, (103 TJ. S. 806) 

195 iZ 
Thompson v. Peru, (29 Ind. 305) 189 
Thompson v. Polk Co., (38 Minn. 

130) 328 
Thompson v. Pittston, (59 Me. 545) 

139 



clxxii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



References are to Sections. 



Thompson v. Quincy, (83 Midi. 1Y3) 

350 6 
Thompson ». Soliermerhorn, (6 !N". 

Y. 92) 110, 113 
Thompson v. Sunderland etc., (L. R. 

2 Ex. Div. 420) 295 
Thompson v. Tlie Mayor, (11 N. Y. 

115) 132 
Thompson v. U. S., (103 U. S. 480) 

86, 368 
Thompson Houston Electric Co. v. 

Newton, (42 Fed. Eep. 723) 144 a, 

189 
Tliomson v. Lee Co., (3 Wall. 320) 

110, 254 
Thomson v. Union Pac. B. R. Co., (9 

Wall. 579) 258 
Thorndike v. Boston, (1 Met. 245) 

66 
Thorpe v. Brumfitt, (L. R. 8 Ch. Ap. 

650) 300 
Thorpe v. Rutland etc. Co., (27 Vt. 

140) 302 
Threadgill v. Ansen, (99 N. C. 352) 

325, 339 
Thunder Bay etc. Co. v. Speedily, 

(31 Mich. 332) 239 
Thurston v. St. Joseph, (51 Mo. 510) 

355 
Tickno, In re, (88 Cal. 294) 146 
Tice V. Bay City, (84 Mich. 461) 326 a, 

350 6 
Tice V. Munn, (94 N. Y. 621) 352 a 
Tide Water v. Archer, (9 Gill & J. 

479) 73 
Tidewater Co. v. Costar, (18 N. J. 

Eq. 518) 232, 259 
Tie Loy, In re, (26 Fed. Eep. 611) 

121 
Tiedt V. Carstevsen, (61 Iowa, 334) 

398 
Tierney b. Brown, (65 Miss. 563) 97 
Tierney v. Dodge, (9 Minn. 166) 25, 

102, 104 
Tiffin V. McCormack, (34 Ohio St. 

638) 347 
Tift V. Towns, (53 Ga. 47) 353 
Tifet V. Buffalo, 82 N. Y. 205) 17 
Tighe J). Lowell, (119 Mass. 472) 340 
Tile V. Mayfleld, (19 S. W. R. 598) 12 
Tilford V. Olathe, (44 Kan. 721) 56 
Tillman v. People, (12 Mich. 401) 222 
Tillotsen v. East Saginaw, (54 N. W. 

R. 182) 8 
Tilson V. Newman, (23 Vt. 421) 67 
Times v. State. (26 Ala. 165) 104 
Tiudley v. Salem, (137 Mass. 171) 329, 

339 
Tinges v. Baltimore, (51 Md. 600) 221 
Tingue v. Rochester, (101 N. Y. 294) 

397 



Tinicum Fishing Co. u. Carter, (61 

Pa. St. 21) 239 
Tinker v. Russell, (14 Pick, 279) 327 
Tinkhara v. Town of Stockbridge 

(24 Atl. 761, 64 Vt. 480) 313 ' 

Tinsdale v. Norton, (8 Mete. 388) 

346 
Tinsman v. R. R. Co., (2 Dutch. 148) 

2,8 
Tippecanoe v. Cox, (6 Ind. 403) 169 
Tipping V. St. Helens Sm. Co., (11 

H. L. Cas. 642) 120 
Tipton V. Norman, (72 Mo. 380) 148 
Tipton Co. V. Rogers L. & M. Works, 

(103 U. S. 523) 254 
Titler v. Iowa Co., (48 Iowa, 90) 3.53 
Titus V. Northbridge, (97 Mass. 258) 

342 
Titusville v. Brennan, (143 Pa. St. 

642, 28 W. N. C. 534) 258 
Tobitt V. Louisville, (4 S. W. 345) 276 
Todd V. Pittsburgh, Ft. W. & C. K. 

E. Co., (19 Ohio St. 514) 227 
Todd V. Troy, (61 N. Y. 506) 344, 

350 a 
Toledo A. A. etc. Co. v. Pennsyl. 

Co., (54 Fed. 730) 396 
Toledo Com. S. E. Co. v. Toledo Elec. 

St. Ry. Co., (6 Ohio Cir. Ct. 362) 

148 
Toledo etc. Co. v. Detroit etc. Co., 

(62 Mich. 564, 578) 241 
Toledo etc. Co. v. Jacksonville, (67 

111. 37) 306 
Toledo etc. Co. w. Toledo etc. Co., 

(26 Wkly. L. Bui. 172) 241 
Toledo etc. Co. v. Toledo El. S. R. 

Co., (6 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 362) 232 
Toledo P. & W. etc. v. Chenon, (43 

111. 209) 290 
Tomlin ». Dubuque etc. R. R. Co., 

(32 Iowa, 106) 239 
Tomlin v. R. R. Co., (32 Iowa, 106) 

132 
Tomlinson v. Branch, (15 Wall. 460) 

270 
Toms V. Whitby, (35 Up. Can. Q. B. 

195) 343, 351 
Tonawanda R. R. Co. v. Munger, (5 

Denio, 255) 301 
Tone c. Columbus, (39 Ohio St. 281) 

278 
Tone V. New York, (70 N. T. 157) 

338 a 
Toomey v. London etc. Co., (3 C. B. 

N. S. 146) 351 
Topeka v. Gage, (24 Pac. 82) 397 
Topeka v. Gillett, (32 Kan. 431) 61 
Topeka v. Huntoon, (26 Pac. E. 488) 

277 
Topeka v. Sells, (29 Pac. 604) 292 



TABLE OF CASE8 CITED. 

Eeferences are to Sections. 



clxxiii 



Topsliam v. Lewiston, (74 Me. 236) 

66 
Topsham v. Blondell, (82 Me. 152) 

282 
Topsham v. Rogers, (42 Vt. 189) 170 
Torbitt V. Louisville, (4 S. W. R. 345) 

326 
Torrey v. Scranton, (19 Atl. R. 351) 

355 
Toronto v. Bowes, (4 Grant, 504) 166 
Torrey v. Milbury, (21 Pick. 64) 95 
Totterdell v. Glazby, (2 Wils. 226) 

157 
Touchard v. Toucliard, (5 Gal. 306) 9 
Tourtellot v. Rosebrook, (11 Metcf. 

460) 338 
Towanda Bridge, In re, (91 Pa. St. 

216) 144, 238, 302 
Tower v. Rutland, (56 Vt. 28) 223 
Tower v. Tower, (18 Pick. 262) 129 
Tower v. Welker, (53 N. W. R. 289) 

86 
Town V. Blaeberry, (29 111. 137) 250 
Town V. Culver, (19 Wall. 84) 190 
Town V. Williamson, (91 Ind. 541) 

279 
Town Board, In re, (7 N. Y. Supp. 

165) 362 
Town Council v. Harbors, (6 Rich. 

L. 96) 123 
Town of Cicero v. Williamson, (91 

Ind. 541) 56 
Town of Eagle v. Kohn, (83 111. 292) 

1916 
Town of Guilford v. Supervisors of 

Chenango Co., (13 N. Y. 143) 60 
Town of Mount Pleasant v. Beck- 

with, (100 tr. S. 514) 58 
Town of Monticello v. Banks, (2 S. 

W. R. 852, 48 Ark. 251) 255 
Town of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee, 

(12 Wis. 93) 57 
Town of Prairie v. Lloyd, (97 111. 179) 

196 
Town of Boxbury v. R. R. Co., (14 

Atl. 92) 317 
Town of Solon v. Williamsburg Sav. 

Bk., (35 Hun, 1) 189 
Town of Suffield jj. Town of East 

Granby, (52 Conn. 175) 53 
Town of Toledo v. Edens, (59 Iowa, 

352) 57 
Towns V. HaiTis, (13 Tex. 507) 67 
Towns B. Tallahassee, (11 Fla. 190) 

124 
Townsend v. Des Moines, (42 Iowa, 

657) 350 a 
Townsend v. Hoyle, (20 Conn. 1) 240, 

288 
Townsend v. Lamb, (14 Neb. 324) 

186 



Townsend v. Manistee, (88 Mich. 

408, 50 N. W. R. 321) 279 
Townsend v. Susquehanna T. Co., (6 

Johns. 90) 328 
Township v. Rankin, (70 Iowa, 65) 

142 
Tp. of Norway v. Clear Lake, (11 

Iowa, 506) 164 
Toyhales Case, (Cro. Car. 310) 120 
Tracey v. People, (6 Colo. 151) 98 
Trafton v. Alfred, (15 Me. 258) 91 
Train v. Boston Dis. Co., (144 Mass. 

523) 118 
Trammel v. State, (9 So. R. 815, 93 

Ala. 388) 47 
Trammell v. Russellville, (34 Ark. 

105) 92, 327, 338 
Trans, v. Skinner, (40 W. W. Rep. 

234) 377 
Trans. Co. v. Chicago, (99 U. S. 635) 

287, 301 
Transportation Co. v. Chicago, 99 U. 

S. 635) 239 
Trans. Co. v. Parkersburg, (107 U. 

S. 691) 133 
Trainer v. Lawrence, (36 111. App. 90) 

249 
Traphagen v. Jersey City, 29 N. J. 

Eq. 206) 294 
Trask v. Maguire, (18 Wall. 206) 270 
Travelers v. Oswego, (55 Fed. R. 361) 

196 
Treadway v. Schnauber, (1 Dak. Ter. 

236) 169 
Treadwell v. Com'rs, (11 Ohio St. 

190) 3, 216 
Treadwell v. New York, (1 Daly, 123) 

336 a 
Treat v. Middletown, (8 Conn. 243) 

363, 377 
Treise v. St. Paul, (36 Minn. 526) 342, 

346 
Trenton R. B. Case, (6 Whart. 225) 

308 
Trescott v. Waterloo, (26 Fed. Rep. 

592) 338 
Trester o. Mo. P. R. Co., (49 N. W. 

R. 1110) 241 
Trevin v. Lewis, (4 M. & C. 249) 393 
Troy B. Atchison etc Co., (13 Kan. 

70) 108 
Trimble B. Buoyrus, (3 Bates, 419) 

117 
Trimble B. Sterling, (12 S. W. R. 1066) 

267 
Trinity & S. R. Co. v. Lane, (79 Tex. 

643) 339, 363, 373 
Tripler b. New York, (63 Hun, 630) 

326 
Tripp V. Frazier, (4 Har. & Johns. 

446) 203 



clxxiv 



TABLE OF CASES CITED.' 



Keferences are to Sections. 



Troy 1). Mutual Bank, (20 N. Y. 387) 

267 
Trott V. Warren, (11 Me. 227) 170 
Trowbridge v. Haran, (78 N. Y. 439) 

397 
Trowbridge v. Newark, (46 N. J. L. 

140) 75 
Troxall ». Vinton, (77 Iowa, 90) 3506 
Troy V. Troy K. R. Co., (49 N. Y. 657) 

348 
Troy V. Winters, (2 Hun, 63) 130 
Troy etc. v. Com., (127 N". Y. 43) 80 
Truax v. Pool, (46 Iowa, 256) 56, 57 
Truehelus v. City Council, (1 Nott & 

McCord, 227) 17 
True V. Davis, (22 N. E. 410) 55 
True V. Melvin, (43 N. H. 503) 365 
Truesdale v. Peoria C. S. Co., (101 

111. 561) 396 
Truman v. Walgam, (2 Wils. 296) 320 
Trumbull v. White, (5 Hill, 46) 263 
Trustees v. Campbell, (16 Ohio St. 

11)50 
Trustees v. Cherry, (8 Ohio St. 564) 

24, 165 
Trustees v. Hill, (6 Cow. 23) 88 
Trustees v. Hoboken, (33 N. J. L. 13) 

216 
Trustees v. Keeting, (2 Denio, 341)125 
Trustees v. Kinner, (13 Bush, 334) 

377 
Trustees v. McCounell, (12- 111. 138) 

275 
Trustees v. Mllw. etc. Co., (45 N. W. 

R. 1086) 302 
Trustees v. Moody, (62 Ala. 389) 165 
Trustees v. Parks, (10 Me. 141) 25 
Trustees v. Peaslee, (15 N. H. 317) 48 
Trustees v. People, (121 111. 552) 374 
Trustees v. Reneau, (2 Swan,) 50 
Trustees v. School, (12 N. R. 243) 225 
Trustees u. Shotwell, (45 N. J. Eq. 

106) 283 
Trustees v. Tatman, (13 111. 30) 2 
Trustees v. Winston, (5 S. & Port. 17) 

15 
Trustees etc. v. Johnson, (2 Cart. 

219) 377 
Trustees etc. of Princeton v. Manck, 

(35 Ind. 51) 61 
Trustees of Academy v Erie, (31 Pa. 

St. 515) 32, 148 
Trustees of First Ev. Church v. 

Walsh, (57 111. 370) 217, 222 
Tubbesing v. Burlington, (68 Iowa, 

691) 276 
Tuckahoe Canal Co. b. Railroad R. 

R. Co., (11 Leigh, 42) 124, 144, 238 
Tucker u. Eldred, (6 R. I. 404) 293 
Tucker v. Fairbanks, (98 Mass. 101) 

167 



Tucker v. Justices, (13 Ire. 434) 98 

169 
Tucker v. Virginia City, (4 Nev. 20) 

118 
Tucker v. Virginia City, (4 Keb. 20) 

164 
Tuff V. Warman, (2 Q. B. N. S. 740) 

352 
Tugman v. Chicago, (78 111. 405) 152 
Tuley V. State, (1 Ind. 500) 81 
TuUytown, In re, (11 Pa. Co. Ct R. 

97) 24 
Turley v. Thomas, (8 Carr. & P. 103) 

321 
Turner, In re, (5 Ohio, 542) 359, 363 
Turner k. Althaus, (6 Neb. 54) 30 
Turner ». Cruzen, (70 Iowa, 202) 169 
Turner ». Dartmouth, (13 Allen, 291) 

354 a 
Turner v. Forsyth, (3 S. E. R. 649, 78 

Ga. 683) 401 
Turner v. Holland, (33 N. W. R. 383) 

224, 225 
Turner v. Indianapolis, (96 Ind. 51) 

350 
Turner v. Maryland, (107 U. S. 38) 

127 
Turner v. Newbergh, (109 N. Y. 301) 

347 
Turner v. Nye, (154 Mass. 579) 232 
Turnerj). People'sFerry Co., (21 Fed. 

Rep. 91) 219 
Turner v. Woodbury, (57 Iowa, 440) 

325 
Turney v. Bridgeport, (55 Com. 412) 

171 
Turnpike Co., Ex parte, (62 Ala. 93) 

399 
Turnp. Co. v. Atkinson,(l Sneed. 426) 

318 
Turnp. Co. v. Campbell, (2 Humph. 

467) 320 
Turnpike Co. v. Cincinnati, (4 Am. 

L. Reo. 325) 57 
Turnpike Com'rs v. Louisville etc. 

Co., (1 S. W. R. 671) 282 
Turnp. Co. b. McKean, (11 Johns. 

154) 107 
Turnp. Co. v. Vandusen, (10 Vt. 199) 

320 
Turpin V. Com'rs., (7 Ind. 172) 79 
Tutill V. West Ham L. Bd., (L. B. 8 

C. P. 447) 346 
Tuttle, Ex parte, (91 Cal. 589) 117 
Tuttle V. Everett, (15 Miss. 27) .326 
Tuttle V. Jackson, (6 Wend. 224) 87 
Tuttle B. Weston, (59 Wis. 151) 142 
Tyler b. Beacher, (44 Vt. 648) 188, 

234 a 
Tyler b. Columbia, (6 Ohio Cir. Ct 

R. 224) 146 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

fieferences are to Sections. 



clxxv 



Tyler v. Hudson, (147 Mass. 609) 234 
Tyler v. Sturdy, (108 Mass. 196) 194 
Tyler v. Tyler, (2 Root, 4J9) 69 
Tyng V. Boston, (133 Mass. 372) 87 
Tyrone Twp. School Directors v. 

Denkleberger, (6 Pa. 31) 203 
Tyrrell v. Wheeler, (123 N. Y. 76) 12, 

255 
Tyson v. Halifax Sell. Dls., (51 Pa. 

St. 9) 139, 254 
Twenty-ninth Street, In re, (1 Hill, 

189) 221 
Twilley v. Perkins, (26 Atl. E. 286) 

300 
Twiss V. Pt. Huron, (63 Mich. 528) 

173 

u. 

Udall V. Trustees, (19 Johns. 179) 54 
Uhl V. Taxing District, (6 Lea, 610) 

42 
Uhrig V. St. Louis, (44 Mo. 458) 259 a 
Uline V. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co., (101 

N". Y. 98, 4 N. E. E. 536) 307 
Ulman v. Baltimore, (20 Atl. R. 141) 

279 
Ulrich 13. St. Louis, (112 Mo. 138) 324 
Umatilla Ir. Co. v. Barnhart, (30Pac. 

R. 37) 238 
Underhill v. Essex, (23 Atl. Rep. 617) 

9, 14 
Underbill v. Manhattan Ry. Co., (27 

Abb. N. C. 478, 21 Civ. Pro. R.441) 

243 
Underhill v. Smith, (Chip. 81) 282 
Underhill v. Sonora, (17 Cal. 172) 199 
Underwood v. Brockman, (4 Dana, 

309) 327 
Underwood v. Green, (42 N. Y. 140) 

118, 120 
Underwood D. Stuyresant, (19 Johns. 

186) 221 
Underwood v. White, (27 Ark. 382) 

361 
Union v. Knox Co., (90 Tenn. 541) 

53 
Union Bank v. Hill, (3 Cold. 325) 258 
Union Bank of Tenn. v. State, (9 

Yerg. 490) 255 
Union Co. v. Peckham, (12 Atl. Eep. 

130) 221 
Union Coal Co. v. La Salle, (26 J^T. E. 

Rep. 506) 143 
Union College, In re, (29 N. E. R. 

460, 129 N. Y. 308) 16 
Union Depot Co. v. Brunswick, (31 

Minn. 297) 132 
Union etc. Co. v. Proctor, (12 Colo. 

194) 12 
Union etc. Co. v. Slee, (12 N. E. E. 

543, 33 N. E. R. 222) 243 



Union Nat. Bank v. New York, (51 

N. Y. 638) 326 
Union Nat. Bk. v. Matthews, (98 U. 

S. 628) 207 
Union Pac. R. R. v. Cheyenne, (113 

U. S. 516, 525) 397 
Union Pac. R. Co. i'. Com'rs, (4 Neb. 

450) 184 
Union Pac. R. Co. b. Davis Co., (6 

Kan. 256) 12, 14, 186 
Union Pac. R. R. Co. v. Dodge Co., 

(98 U. S. 541) 326(1 
Union Pao. R. R. Co. v. Hall, (91 U. 

S. 343) 314, 359, 363 
Union Pac. R. Co. v. Kansas City, 

(42 Kan. 497) 56 
Union Pao. R. Co. v. Lincoln Co., (3 

Dill. 300) 195 a, 196 
Union Pac. R. R. Co. v. Lincoln Co., 

(1 Dillon C. C. R. 314) 258 
Union Pac. R. E. Co. v. Peniston, (18 

Wall. 5) 258 
Union P. E. Co. v. Eyan, (2 Wyo. 408) 

110 
Union Pass. Ry. Co. v. Philadelphia, 

(101 U. S. 528) 274 
Uniontown v. Com., (34 Pa. St. 293, 

296) 377 
Union Township ». G-ibboney, (94 

Pa. St. 534) 3 
Union Trust Co. v. Monticello etc. 

E. E. Co., (63 N. Y. 314) 190 
United States v. Thorpe, (2 Bond, 340) 

66 
United Br. Church v. Vanducan, (37 

Wis. 54) 99 
United States, Ee, (96 N. Y. 227) 247 
United States v. Arredondo, (6 Pe- 
ters, 691) 279 
U. S. B. B. & O. E. Co., (17 Wall. 322) 

375 
United States v. B. & O., (17 Wall. 

332) 2, 9, 187 
U. S. V. Bank, (1 Cranoh. 7) 360 
United States b. Boutwell, (17 Wall. 

604) 368 
U. S. V. Bixby, (9 Fed. Rep. 78) 69 
U. S. V. Bloomgart, (2 Ben. 356) 67 
United States v. Boyoe, (2 McLean, 

352) 167 
U. S. V. Boyd, (5 How. 50) 72 
U. S. V. Brindle, (110 U. S. 688) 79 
U. S. B. Brooklyn, (8 Fed. Rep. 473)365 
United States «. Chicago, (7 How. 

185) 215, 221 
U. S. B. Cicero, (41 Fed. 8) 266 
United States b. City Bank of Col- 
umbus, (21 How. 356) 195 d 
U. S. V. Clark Co., (96 U. S. 212) 376 
United States b. Clark Co., (95 U. S. 

769) 194 tt 



clxxvi 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

Kefcrences are to Sections. 



United States v. County Court, (3 

Fed. Eep. 1) 14 
United States v. Dulutli, (1 Dillon C. 

C. 469) 133 
U. S. V. Engeman, (46 Fed. 898) 245, 

247 
United States v. Fillebrown, (7 Pet. 

28) 108 
U. S. V. Ft. Scott, (99 U. S. 152) 368 
United States b. Hall, (7 Mackey, 14) 

359, 363 
United States v. Hams, (1 Sum. 21) 

232 
U. S. V. Hartwell, (6 Wall. 358) 67 
U. S. V. Hoar, (2 Mason, 134) 312 
United States ». Holly, (3 Cranch, 

656) 117 
U. S. u. Humason, (6 Sawy. 199) 72 
U. S. V. JefEerson Co., (1 McCrary, 

356) 186 
U. S. V. Johnson Co., (5 Dill. 208) 

195 
United States v. K. & H. B. Co., (45 

Fed. Kep. 414) 314 a 
U. S. 13. Kirkpatrick, (9 Wheat. 735) 

312 
United States v. Knox Co., (2 Mc- 
Crary C. C. 625) 194 a 
U. S. Kuhn, (4 Cranch, C. C. 401) 108, 

310 
United States v. Lawrence, (3 Dall. 

42) 360 
U. S. V. LeBaron, (19 How. 73, 4 

Wall. 642) 72 
U. S. V. Lincoln, (5 Dill. C. C. 184, 

194 and cases cited) 376 
U. S. V. Linn, (15 Pet. 290) 72 
U. S. V. Maurice, (2 Brock. 103) 67 
United States v. Memphis, (97 U. S. 

292, 23 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 454) 

55, 56 
United States v. Miller Co., (4 Dill. 

2.33) 177, 376 
U. S. V. Mitchell, (109 U. S. 146) 79 
U. S. V. New Orleans, (17 Fed. Rep. 

483) 375 
r. S. I). Xew Orleans, (98 U. S. 341) 

256, 376 
U. S. i;. Oswego Twp., (28 Fed. R. .55) 

375 
U. S. 11. Ottawa, (28 Fed. E. 407) 360, 

375 
U. S. V. Pacific Railroad, (120 U. S. 

227) 335 a 
U. S. V. Reed, (56 Mo. 565) 232 
U. S. V. Ripley, (7 Pet. 18) 79 
U. S. V. Silverman, (4 Dillon C. C. 

224) 369 
U. S. V. Smith, (124U. S. 525) 67 
U. S. V. Union Pae. R. R. Co., (4 Dil- 
lon, 479, 91 U. S. 343) 183, 368 



U. S. V. Vernon Co. Court, (3 Dillon 

281) 877 
U. S. V. Windom, (137 U. S. 636) 359 
U. S. V. Wright, (l McLean, 509 86 
U. S. D. Co. V. Chicago, (112 111. 19) 

123 
U. S. Ex. Co. V. Hess, (3 N. Y. S. 777) 

393 
U. S. 111. Co. I). Grant, (55 Hun, 222) 

301 
University v. Indiana, (14 How. 268) 

22 
University v. Walden, (15 Ala. 655) 

79 
Updegraff v. Crans, (47 Pa. St. 103) 

393 
Updike V. Campbell, (4 E. D. Smith 

570) 122 
Upper Coos R. Co. v. Parsons, (19 

Atl. R. 10) 245 
Upton V. U. S., (19 Ct. of CI. 46) 79 
Urquhart v. Ogdensburg, (91 N. T. 

67) 327, 346, 355 
Utica Water Co. v. Utica, (31 Hun, 

431) 189 o 

V. 

Vac. Center St., In re, (115 Pa. St 

247) 282 
Vacation of Howard St., (28 W. N. 

C. 159) 259 a 
Vacation of Henry St., In re, (123 

Pa. St. 646) 24 
Vail V. Beach, (10 Kan. 214) 270 
Vail D. Morris etc. Co., (21 N. J. L. 

189) 279 
Vaile V. Independence, (22 S. W. K. 

695) 169 
Vale Mills v. Nashua, (63 N. H. 136) 

355 
Valentine v. St. Paul, (34 Minn. 446) 

327 
Valparaiso v. Donovan, (44 N. W. R. 

449) 346 
Valpax-aiso v. Gardner, (97 Ind. 1) 175 

395 
Valpey v. Manley, (1 C. B. 592) 326 a 
Vanaokers Case, (1 Ld. Eaym. 496) 

78 
Van Allen v. Assessors, (3 Wall. 873) 

258 
Van Antwerp, In re, (56 N. T. 261) 

28, 259 a, 280 
Vanarsdall v. State, (65 lud. 176) 209 
Van Baalen v. People, (40 Mich. 458) 

123 
Van Buren v. Wells, (14 S. W. B. 38) 

117, 134, 1.58 
Vance v. Bank, (1 Blackf. 80) 22, 30 
Vance v. Franklin, (30 N. E. K. 149) 

353 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



clxxvij 



References are to Sections. 



Vance v. Little Rock, (30 Ark. 435) 

15, 376 
Vancouver, In re, (2 Sawyer, 381) 121 
Vandalia v. Huss, (41 111. App. 517) 

324 
Vandalia v. Ropp, (39 111. App. 344) 

324, 328 
Van Daren v. New York, (9 Paige, 

388) 397 
Vanderbilt v. 4<iams, (7 Cow. 349) 

116, 130 
Vanderlip v. Q-rand Eapids, (41 N. 

W. R. 677) 329, 396 
Vanderslice v. Pliiladelphia, (103 Pa. 

St. 102) 92 
Vanderweile v. Taylor, (65 N. Y. 

341) 354 
Vaudeventer v. Long Island City, 

(10 N. Y. S. 801, 57 Hun, 590) 187 a 
Vandevere ». Kansas City, (17 S. W. 

R. 695) 249 
Vandiue, In re, (6 Pick. 187) 119, 158 
Van Dyke v. Cincinnati, (1 Disney, 

532) 120, 350 a 
Van Eppes v. Mobile, (25 Ala. 460) 

325 
Van Hastop v. Madison City, (1 Wall. 

291) 114, 189, 254 
Van Hoffman v. Quincy, (4 Wall. 535) 

283 
Van Hook v. Selma, (70 Ala. 361) 62, 

123 
Van Ness v. WasMngton, (4 Pet. 232) 

229 
Van Orsdale v. Hazard, (3 Hill, 243)86 
Vanover v. Terrell etc. Co., (27 Ga. 

354) 397 
Van Pelt u. Davenport, (42 Iowa, 

308) 288, 328, 338 a, 354 
Van Rensselaer v. Kidd, (4 Barb. 17) 

397 
Vansant v. Roberts, (3 Md. 119) 49 
Van Sicklen v. Burlington, (127 Vt. 

70) 130 
Van Swarton v. Com., (24 Pa. St. 131) 

104 
Vantilburgh v. Shann, (24 N. J. L. 

740) 279 , 
VanValkenberghv. Mayor, (43 Barb. 

109) 92 
Van Valkentourgh u. Milwaukee, (30 

Wis. 338) 221 
Van Wert Bd. of Ed. v. Edson, (18 

Ohio St. 221) 228, 229 
Varden u. Mount, (78 Ky. 86) 129 
Varick v. New York, (4 Johns. Ch. 

53, 392 
Vamer v. Martin, (21 W. Va. 534) 

235 
Vamer v. Nobleborough, (2 Me. 126) 

179 

xii 



Varney v. Manchester, (58 N. H. 430) 

340 
Varnham v. Council Bluffs, (52 Iowa, 

698) 352 a 
Vars V. Grand Trunk etc. Co., (23 

Up. Can. C. P. 143) 300 
Vason V. Augusta, (38 Ga. 542) 102, 

117 
Vassault v. Austin, (36 Cal. 691) 102 
Vaughau v. Jolmson, (77 Va. 300) SI 
Vaughn v. English, (8 Cal. 3i)) 67 
Vaun V. Pipkin, (77 N. C. 408) 67 
Vawter v. Eranklin Col. (53 Ind. 88) 

106 
Veale v. Boston, (135 Mass. 187) 346 
Veany v. Mayor, (80 N. Y. 185) 381 
Veazie v. China, (50 Me. 518) 111 
Veazie v. Penob. R. R. Co., (49 Me. 

119) 348 
Vedder v. Vedder, (1 Den. 257) 120 
Veeder v. Lima, (19 Wis. 280) 186 
Veeder v. Little Falls, (100 N. Y. 343) 

353 
Velte V. U. S., (45 N. W. E. 110) 354 
Veneman v. Jones, (118 Ind. 41) 299 
Venice u. Murdock, (92 U. S. 494) 196 
Verdery v. Summerville, (82 Ga. 138) 

259 
Vermilyea v. Adams Ex. Co., (21 

Wall. 138) 195 c 
Vernon Soc. v. Hills, (6 Cow. 23) 81 
Verplauck v. Mayor, (2 Edw. 220) 132 
Versailles v. Versailles Co., (10 S. 

W. Rep. 280) 319 
Vestal V. Little Rock, (15 S. W. 891) 

56 
Vick 0. Rochester, (46 Hun, 607) 396 
Vick V. Vicksburg, (1 How. 379) 217 
Vicksburg v. Hennessy, (54 Miss. 

392) 349, 352 
Vicksburg ». Marshall, (59 Miss. 563) 

221 
Vicksburg v. McLean, (6 So. R. 774) 

345 
Victory v. Baker, (67 N. Y. 366) 348 
Vidalat v. New Orleans, (10 So. R. 

175, 43 La. An. 1121) 128 
Village V. Brooks, (31 111. App. 62) 

350 6 
Village I). Howland, (124 111. 547) 353 
Village of Franklin v. CroU, (31 Ohio 

St. 647) 61 
Villere v. Butman, (23 La. An. 515) 66 
Viual V. Dorchester, (7 Gray, 421) 340 
Vincennes v. Richards, (23 Ind. 381) 

239, 329 
Vincennes University v. Indiana, (14 

How. 268) 37, 38, 40 
Vincent v. Nantucket, (12 Cush. 103) 

4, 110, 169 
Vincett o. Cook, (4 Hun, 318) 300 



clxxviii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Beferences are to Sections. 



Vintners ». Passey, (1 Burr, 237) 75 
Vionet ». Municipality, (4 La. An. 42) 

119 
Virginia v. Chesapeake & Oliio Canal 

Co., (32 Md. 501) 191, 192 6 
Virginia v. Hall, (96 111. 278) 282 
Virginia & Tenn. R. E. Co. v. Wash- 
ington Co., (30 Gratt. 471) 256 
Virginia City v. Mining Co., (2 Nev. 

86) 31, 32 
Virginia etc. Co. o. Lyon Co., (6Nev. 

68) 185 
Visalia v. Jacobs, (65 Cal. 434) 220 
Vogel V. Little Rock, (19 S. W. E. 13, 

55 Ark. 609) 36, 59 
Vogel V. New York, (92 N. T. 10) 327, 

347 
Vogt V. Mayor etc., (4 Am. & Eng. 

Cor. Cas., 329) 120 
Voght V. Buffalo, (133 N. T. 463) 278, 

279 
Von Hoffman ». Quincy, (4 Wall. 535) 

14, 194, 256 
Von Phul V. Hammer, (29 Iowa, 222) 

26 
Von Steen v. Beatrice, (54 N. W. E. 

677) 271, 278 
Vorrath v. Hobokon, (49If. J. L. 285) 

339 
Vosper V. New York, (49 N. T. Su- 
perior, 296) 345 
Vreeland v. Jersey City, (37 N. J. 

Eq. 574) 283 

Wabash v. Pearson, (22 N. E. R. 134) 

315, 353 
Wabash & E. Canal v. Beers, (2 Black. 

448) 283 
Wabash etc. Co. v. Spears, (16 Ind. 

441) 354 
Wabaunsee Co. v. Muhlenbaoker, (18 

Kan. 129) 126 
Wabaunsee Co. Com'rs ». Walker, (8 

Kan. 431) 326 a 
Waco V. Powell, (32 Tex. 258) 129 
Waddell v. New York, (8 Barb. 95) 

329 
Waddington v. St. Louis, (14 Mo. 

190) 133 
Wade V. Brantford, (19 Up. Can. Q. 

B. 207) 338 
Wade V. Leroy, (20 How. 34) 352 a 
Wade B. Newbern, (77 N. C. 460) 165 
Wade ». Richmond, (18 Gratt. 583) 

53, 55, 395 
Wadleigh v. Oilman, (12 Me. 403) 130 
Waggoner ». Jermaine, (7 Hill, 357) 

Wager v. Troy Union etc. R. R. Co., 
(25 N. Y. 526) 224, 302, 303 



Wagner v. City of Rock Island, (.34 

N. E. R. 545) 152 
Wakefield v. Brown, (38 Minn. 361 

37 N. W. R. 788) 49 
Wakefield v. Newell, (12 E. I. 75) 329 
Wakefield v. Newport, (60 N. H. 374) 

92, 338 
Wakefield v. Pawtucket, (12 E. 1. 75) 

354 a 
Wakeman v. Wilbur, (4 N. Y. S. 9.38) 

217 
Walcott V. Mayor, (5 Mich. 249) 365 
Walcott V. People, (17 Mich. 68) 261 
Walcott D. Swampscott, (1 Allen, 101) 

92,338 a 
Walcott V. Walcott, (19 Vt. 37, 39)99 
Walden v. Dudley, (49 Mo. 421) 56, 

270 
Walduer v. Savannah, (49 6a. 316) 

347 
Waldo V. Wallace, (12 Ind. 569) 102, 

117 
Waldraven v. Memphis, (4 Cold. 431) 

79 
Waldron v. Lee, (5 Pick. 323) 67 
Waldron v. Haverhill, (10 N. E. K. 

481) 92,329,336 a, 338 
Walker v. Aurora, (29 N. E. R. 741) 

279 
Walker v. Cook, (129 Mass. 578) 79 
Walker v. Cincin., (21 Ohio, 14) 67 
Walker c. District, (12 Cent. Kep. 

408) 326 
Walker v. District, (6 Mackey, 352) 

279 
Walker v. Eastern Counties By. Co., 

(6 Hare, 544) 243 
Walker v. Ferrill, (58 Ga. 512) 81 
Walker v. Kansas City, (99 Mo. 647) 

316 
Walker v. Mad River & L. R. E. Co., 

(8 Ohio, 38) 249 
Walker ». St. Louis, (15 Mo. 574) 326a 
Walker 0. Springfield, (94 111. 364)258 
Walker v. Wasco Co., (19 Pac. E. 81) 

324 
Walker v. Whitehead, (16 Wall. 314) 

283 
Walkleyi). Muscatine, (6 Wall. 481) 

364 
Wall, In re, (48 Cal. 279) 153 
Wall V. Monroe, (103 U. S. 74) 177 
Wall V. Highland, (72 Wis. 435)3506 
Wallace v. Ames, (10 Phila. 356) 120 
Wallace v. Fee, (50 N. Y. 694) 228 
Wallace v. Peeley, (88 N. Y. 646) 111 
Wallace v. Loomis, (97 U. S. 147) 1926 
Wallace v. Mayor etc., (29 Cal. 180) 

176 
Wallace v. Menaoha, (48 Wis. 79) 92, 

333 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



clxxix 



Wallace v. Muscatine, (4 Greene, 373) 

Wallace v. San Jose, (29 Oal. 180) 169, 

189 a 
Wallace e. Shelton, (14 La. An. 498) 

248 
Wallace v. Trustees, (84 N. C. 164) 

32 
Wallaok v. Society etc., (67 N. T. 23) 

124 
Waller v. Dubuque, (69 Iowa, 541) 92 
Walling V. Mayor etc., (5 La. An. 660) 

92 
Walling V. Shreveport, (5 La. An. 

660) 338 
Wain V. Philadelphia, (99 Pa. St. 330) 

148 
Walnut Str., In re, (10 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 

173) 256, 259 a 
Walnut Township b. Jordan, (38 Kan. 

562) 48, 55 
Walnut V. Wade, (103 U. S. 695) 191, 

193 
Walsford v. Weiden, (23 Kan. 601) 

362 
Walsh V. Mathews, (29 Cal. 123) 283 
Walsh V. Mayor, (113 N". Y. 143) 173 
Walsh V. Mayor, (41 Hun, 299) 92 
Walsh V. New York, (107 N. Y. 220) 

338 CL 
Walter v. Caywood, (31 N. Y. 51) 318 
Walter v. Columbia City, (61 Ind. 24) 

125 
Walter v. Seefe, (15 Jur. 416) 120 
Walters v. Duke, (31 La. Ann. 668) 

259 
Waltham v. Kemper, (55 111. 346) 325 
Walton V. Develing, (61 111. 201) 379 
Walworth Bank v. F. L. & I. Co., 

(16 Wis. 629) 99 
Walwyn v. St. Quentin, (1 Bos. & P. 

652) 177 
Wamesit Power Co. c. Allen, (120 

Mass. 352) 232 
Wamesit P. Co. v. Lowell etc. Co., 

(139 Mass. 173) 243 
Wammaok v. Halloway, (2 Ala. 31) 

381 
Wapella v. Davis, (39 111. App. 592) 

260 
Wapello V. Bigham, (10 Iowa, 39) 81 
Ward, In re, (52 N. Y. 395) 259 o 
Ward V. Andrews, (3 Mo. App. 275) 

337 
Ward V. Chum, (18 Gratt. 801) 190 a 
Ward ti. Great West etc. Co., (13 Q. 

B. 315) 353 
Ward ». Hartf. Co., (12 Conn. 404) 

80, 325 
Ward V. Jefferson City, (24 Wis. 342) 

340, 350 a 



Ward V. Little Rook, (41 Ark. 526) 

120 
Ward V. Maryland, (12 Wall. [U. S.] 

418) 258 
Ward V. Morris, (4 H. & McH. 340) 

258 
Ward V. North Haven, (43 Conn. 148) 

342 343 
Ward' V. Peck, {49 N. J. L. 42) 236, 

329 
Warden v. Fond du Lac, (14 Wis. 

618) 397 
Ware v. Miller, (9 S. C. 13) 194 
Waring v. Mobile, (24 Ala. 701) 67 
Warner v. Holyoke, (112 Mass. 362) 

310, 348 
Warner u. Knox, (50 Wis. 429) 291 
Warner v. Mower, (11 Vt. 385) 97 
Warner v. Myers, (3 Oreg. 218) 361, 

371 
Warner B. New York etc. Co., (4 N. 

Y. 465) 352 
Warner b. People, (7 Hill, 81) 79 
Warner b. Trenton, (24 N. J. L. 764) 

79 
Warnocki). Lafayette, (4 La. An. 419) 

99 
Warren v. Charlestown, (2 Gray, 104) 

24 55 56 
Warren 'b. Chicago, (118 111. 329) 175 
Warren b. Henly, (31 Iowa, 31) 259 a, 

291 
Warren v. Grand Haven, (30 Mich. 

24) 277 
Warren u. Holyoke, (112 Mass. 362) 

343 
Warren v. Lyons City, (22 Iowa, 351) 

228, 229, 301, 308 
Warren v. Paul, (22 Ind. 276) 258 
Warren v. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., (18 

Minn. 384) 233 
Warren v. Wisconsin etc. R. R. Co., 

(6 Biss. C. C. 425) 231 
Warren Bor. v. Geer, (117 Pa. St. 207) 

258 
Warren Co. v. Kern, (51 Miss. 807) 

177 
Warren Co. ». Marcy, (97 U. S. 96) 

195 c?, 197 
Warren Co. v. State, (15 Ind. 250) 

373 
Warren Co. Sup. v. Patterson, (56 lU. 

Ill) 208 
Warrensburg v. Miller, (77 Mo. 56) 

265 
Warsaw v. Dunlap, (112 Ind. 576) 

331a 
Warson v. Hastings, (22 Minn. 437) 

65 
Wartman, In re, (2 N. Y. Supp. 324, 

22 Abb. N. C. 137) 71 



clxxx 



Wartman v. Philadelphia, 

202, 210) 129 
Warwick v. Mayo, (15 Gratt. 528) 90, 

105, 250 
Washburn v. City of Bloomington, 

(32 111. App. 245) 138 
Washburn v. Lyons, 32 Pac. R. 310) 

148, 281 
Washburn ». Oshkosh, (60 Wish. 453) 

276 
Washburn v. Oshkosh, (60 Wis. 453) 

53,55 
AVashburn College v. Shawnee Co. 

Com'rs, (8 Kan. 344) 270 
Washburn etc. Co. v. Worcester, (116 

Mass. 458) 121 
Washer v. BuUett Co., (110 U. S. 558) 

313, 315 
Washington v. Hammond, (76 X. C. 

33) 117 
Washington v. Nashville, (1 Swan, 

177) 299 
Washington «. State, (13 Ark. 752) 

255 
Washington Avenue, (69 Pa. St. 353, 

8 Ara. Kep. 255) 56, 248, 254 
Wash. Bridge Co. v. State, (18 Conn. 

58) 314 
Washn. Co. Sup. v. Durant, (9 Wall. 

415) 364, 369 
Washington & G. Ey. Co. ■». Glad- 

mon, (15 Wall. 401) 352 a 
Washington Univ. ». Green, (1 Md. 

Ch. 97) 359 
Wasson v. Com'rs, (27 Wkly. L. Bui. 

134) 188, 254 
Water v. Veteran, (6 N. Y. S. 607) 

352 
Waterbury v. Laredo, (60 Tex. 510) 

134, 392 
Waterbury Sav. Bk. v. Lawler, (46 

Conn. 242) 397 
Water Co. v. San Diego, (59 Cal. 517) 

170 
Waterloo v. Union Mill, (72 Iowa, 

437) 312 
Waters v. Leech, (3 Ark. 110) 150 
Watei-town v. Cowen, (4 Paige Ch. 

510) 226, 305 
Watertown v. Mayo, (109 Mass. 315) 

118 
Watkins v. County Co., (30 W. Va. 

657) 379 
Watkins ». Lynch, (71 Cal. 21, 11 

Pac. K. 808) 224, 310 
Watkins v. Milwaukee, (52 Wis. 98) 

259 a 
Watkins v. Preston Co., (30 W. Va. 

657) 325 
Watkins v. Walker Co., (18 Tex. 585) 

238 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 

Pa. St. 



Watkins v. Zwietusch, (47 Wis. 315) 

259 a 
Watson V. Bennett, (12 Barb. 196) 165 
Watson V. Farrell, (34 W. Va. 406) 390 
Watson V. Kingston, (43 Hun, 367) 

328 
Watson V. Kingston, (114 K. T. 88) 

355 
Watson V. N. Y. Central K. R. Co. 

(47 N. Y. 157) 194, 283 
Watson B. Pamlico Co. Com'rs, (82 

N. Car. 17) 58 
Watson V. Proprietors, (14 Me. 201) 

313, 353 
Watson V. R. R. Co., (48 N. W. E. 

1129) 247 
Watson V. South Kingston, (5 K. I. 

562) 232, 240 
Watson V. Sutherland, (5 Wall. 74) 

391 
Watson V. Turnbull, (34 La. An. 856) 

132 
Watterson v. Allegheny etc. Co., (74 

Pa. St. 208) 354 
Wattles V. Lapeer, (40 Mich. 624)266, 

326 
Watts V. Scott, (1 Dev. 291) 158 
Waugh V. Leech, (28 111. 488) 217,288 
Waukesha ». Village, (53 N. W. R. 

675) 290 
Waukesha etc. Co. v. Waukesha, (83 

Wis. 475) 161, 300, 396 
Waupun V. Moore, (34 Wis. 450) 130 
Wauslead etc. v. Hill, (13 C. B. 479) 

120 
Waverly Borough, In re, (12 Pa. Co. 

Ct. R. 669) 315 
Waverly Waterworks Co., In re, (16 

Hun, 57) 242 
Waxahachie v. Brown, (67 Tex. 519) 

189 a 
Wayde ». Carr, (2 Dow. & Ry. 255) 

321 
Wayland v. Middlesex Co. Com'rs, (4 

Gray, 500) 234 
Wayne v. Bosworth, (91 Ind. 210) 320 
Wayne Co. v. Benoit, (20 Mich. 176) 

79, 85 
Wayne Co. v. Detroit, (17 Mich. 390) 

156, 164 
Wa-yne Co. etc. v. Berry, (5 Ind. 286) 

317 
Wayrass v. Youmans, (85 Ga. 708)86 
Weaver v. Defendorf, (3 Denio, 117) 

147, 398 
Weaver v. Sells, (10 Kan. 609) 283 
Weber v. Lee Co., (6 Wall. 210) 369 
Weber v. San Francisco, (1 Cal. 455) 

327 397 
Webb 1). Demopolis, (13 So. R. 289) 

297, 299, 312 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



clxxxi 



Beferences are to Sections. 



Webb B. Mayor etc., (64 How. Pr. K. 

10) 11 
Webb V. Moler, (8 Ohio, 5.52) 228 
Webb V. Neal, (5 Allen, 575) 203 
Webb V. Pt. Bruce Harb. Co., (19 U. 

C. Q. B. 626) 121 
Weber v. Harbor Com'rs, (18 Wall. 

57) 133 
Weber v. Johnson, (37 Mo. App. 601) 

146 
Weber u. Traubel, (95 111. 427) 266 
AVeber v. Zimmerman, (23 Md. 45) 

369 
Webster ». Harwinton, (32 Conn. 131) 

4, 395 
Webster v. Kansas City, (64 Mo. 493) 

85 
AVebster Co. ». Taylor, (19 Iowa, 117) 

180 
Weed ». Ballston Spa, (76 N. T. 329) 

3.506 
Weed V. Beach (50 How. Pr. 470) 173 
AVeekler v. Chicago, (01 111. 142) 248 
Weeks v. Forraan, (16 jST. J. L. 237) 

87 
Weeks ». Milwaukee, (10 Wis. 242) 

259, 264, 269, 270 
Weeks v. Shirley, (33 Me. 271) 352 a 
Weeks v. Texarkaner, (50 Ark. 81) 79 
Wehn B. Gage Co., (5 STeb. 494) 3, 325 
Weick I). Lander, (75 111. 93) 351 
Weightman v. Washington, (1 Black, 

39) 9, 324, 328 
Weiuickie v. R. K. Co., (61 Hun, 619) 

279, 308 
AVeir ». St. Paul S. & T. F. E. R. Co., 

(18 Minn. 155) 245 
Weisbod v. Railroad Co., (18 Wis. 43) 

217, 220, 228 
Weisner v. Douglas, (64 N. T. 91) 184, 

188, 254- 
Weisenberg v. Appleton, (26 Wis. 56) 

3506 
Weisenberg v. Winnecoune, (56 Wis. 

667) 339 
Weiss V. Bethlehem, (136 Pa. St. 294) 

247 
AVeith V. City of Wilmington, (68 K. 

C, 341) 191 
AVelch V. Boston, (126 Mass. 442) 116 
Welch 0. Bowen, (108 Ind. 552) 161 
Welch V. Hotchkiss, (39 Conn. 140) 

123 130 131 
Welch V. Rutland, (56 Vt. 228) 92 
Welch V. St. Genevieve, (1 Dillon, 

C. C. 180) 37, 39, 96 
Welch V. Wetzel Co., (1 S. E. Rep. 

337) 398 
Weld V. Bosfon, (126 Mass. 166) 66 
Welker ». Potter, (18 Ohio St. 85) 

265 



Well V. Record, (24 N. J. Eq. 169) 110, 

118 
Wellaud v. Buffalo & L. H. Ry. Co., 

(30 Up. Can. Q. B. 147, 31 Up. Can. 

Q. B. 539) 243, 247 
Wellcome v. Leeds, (51 Me. 818) 306 
Weller v. McCormick, (47 N. J. L. 

397) 346, 348 
Weller v. St. Paul, (42 N. W. R. 392) 

339 
Welles V. Battelle, (11 Mass. 477) 106 
Wellington v. Gregson, (31 Kan. 90) 

346 
Wellington v. Wellington, (26 Pac. 

Rep. 415) 9 
•AVellington v. Wilson, (14 Up. Can. 

C. P. 304) 339 
Wellman v. Board, (47 N. W. R. 1099, 

84 Mich. 558) 83 
Wellman v. Detroit Police Board, (51 

N. W. R. 1070) 84 
Well^v. Atlanta, (43 Ga. 67) 163, 174 
Wells V. Burbank, (17 N. H. 393) 25 
Wells V. Burnham, (20 Wis. 112) 278 
Wells V. Mason, (23 W. Va. 456) 360 
Wells B. McLaughlin, (17 Ohio, 99) 

288 
Wells B. Pototoe Co. Sup., (102 U. S. 

625) 184 
Wells B. Somerset etc. E. R. Co., (47 

Me. 345) 238 
Wells Co. Road, In re, (7 Ohio St. 

16, 343) 245 
Welsford b. Weidlein, (23 Kan. 601) 

125 278 
Welsh B. Rutland, (56 Vt."228) 828 
Welsh V. St. Louis, (72 Mo. 71) 847, 

349 
Welsh B. St. Paul etc. R. R. Co., (25 

Minn. 320) 192 6 
Welsh B. Wilson, (101 N. Y. 254) 300 
Welter b. St. Paul, (40 Minn. 460, 42 

N. W. 392) 92 
Welton B. Missouri, (91 U. S. 275) 258 
Wendell v. Pratt, (12 Allen, 464) 353 
Wendell b. Mayor, (4 Keyes, 261) 355 
Wendell b. Troy, (39 Barb. 329) 336 a, 

349 
Wentworth b. Hamilton, (34 U. C. Q. 

B. 585) 104 
Worth B. Springfield, (78 111. 107) 830 
Wertheimer v. Boonville, (29 Mo. 254) 

105 
Wessman b. Brooklyn, (16 N. T. S. 

97) 328 
West B. Bancroft, (82 Vt. 367) 294 
West B. Blake, (4 Blackf. 234) 30, 24C 
West V. Brockport, (16 N. T. 161) 9 
West V. Greenville, (39 Ala. 69) 120 
West V. Samson, (44 Ga.) 184 
West B. Taylor, (16 Ore. 165) 354 



clxxxii 



TABLE OJF CASES CITED. 

Keferences are to Sections. 



West Boylston v. Sterling, (17 Pick. 

126) 60 
Westbrook v. Bearing, (63 Me. 231) 

136 
West Carroll Parish v. Gaddis, (34 

La. An. 928) 59, 229 
West Clii. Park Com'rs v McMuUen, 

(25 N. E. R. 676) 200 
Westchester u. Appee, (35 Pa. St. 

284) 347 
West Chester Gas Co. v. Chester 

County, (30 Pa. St. 232) 274 
Westerhaven v. Clive, (5 Ohio St. 

136) 108 
Western Col. v. Cleveland, (12 Ohio 

St. 375) 9, 335, 349 
West Cov. V. Freking, (8 Bush, 121) 

221 
Western Md. R. R. Co. v. Owings, (15 

Md. 199) 249 
Western Pav. & Sup. Co. v. Citizen 

Ry. Co., (26 N. E. R. 188) 306 
Western Ry. v. Ala. G. T. R. Co., (11 

So. 483) 396 
Western R. Co. Young, (7 S. B. R. 

912) 30, 158 
Western Sav. Soc. w. Philadelphia, 

(31 Pa. St. 175) 14, 163, 336 a 
Western Un. Co. v. Locke, (107 Ind. 

9) 399 
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Mass. 

Atty. Gen., (125 U. S..530) 258 
Western Union Tel. Co. v. New York, 

(38 Fed.) 297 
Western Union Tel. Co. o. Philadel- 
phia, (12 Atl. Rep. 144) 123, 306 a 
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Rich, (19 

Kan. 517) 297 
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Scircle, (102 

m. 227) 320 
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Texas, 

(105 U. S. 460) 258 
Westfall V. Hunter, (8 Ind. 174) 219 
Westaeld v. Mayo, (122 Mass. 100) 

348 
Westlake v. St. Louis, (77 Mo. 47) 

326 a 
Weston V. Charleston, (2 Pet. 449) 

258 
Weston V. Foster, (7 Met. 297) 238 
Weston V. Syracuse, (17 N. Y. 110) 

189 a 
West Orange v. Field, (37 N. J. E. 

600) 329, 355 
West Phila. etc. Co. v. City of Phila- 
delphia, (10 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 70) 306 
West River Bridge v. Dix, (6 How. 

507) 144, 240, 235, 238 
Wetherell v. Devine, (116 111. 631) 255 
Wetmore B. B'kjyn Gas Co., (42 N. 

Y. 384) 132 



Wetmore v. Institution, (3 N. Y. S. 

179) 49 
Wetumpka v. Winter, (29 Ala. 660) 

184 
Wetumpka v. Wetumpka Wharf Co., 

(63 Ala. 611) 32 
Wewell V. Cincin., (45 Ohio St. 407) 

277 
Weyauwega v. Ayling, (99 U. S. 112) 

190 a 
Weymau v. Jefferson, (61 Mo. 55) 

113, 329 
Weymouth etc. Fire Dis. v. Com'rs, 

(108 Mass. 142) 18 
Whalen v. La Crosse, (16 Wis. 270) 

265 
Whalen v. Macomb, (76 111. 49) 37 
Wharf Case, (3 Bland Ch. 383) 133 
Wheadon v. Olds, (20 Wend. 174) 327 
Wheatley v. Covington, (11 Bush, 18) 

79, 110 
Wlieaton v. Hadley, (23 K. E. E.422) 

350 6 
Wheeler v. Chicago, (57 HI. 415) 265 
Wheeler ». Cincinnati, (19 Ohio St 

19) 92, 335 
Wheeler v. Philadelphia, (77 Pa. St 

338) 197 
Wheeler v. Plymouth, (116 Ind. 158) 

331 
Wheeler v. Rochester & S. E. K. Co.. 

(12 Barb. 227) 273 
Wheeler v. Troy, (20 K H. 77) 325 
Wheeler v. Westport, (30 Wis. 392) 

252 
Wheeler v. Worcester, (10 Allen, 591) 

355 
Wheeling v. Black, (25 W. Va. 266) 

81, 158, 103 
Wheeling v. Campbell, (12 W. Va.36) 

312 
Wheeling P. & C. Transp. Co. v. 

Wheeling, (99 U. S. 270) 272 
Wheeloek, In re, (3 N. Y. S. 890) 32 
Wheelock v. Noonan, (198 N. T. 179) 

307 
Wheelock d. Peo., (84 111. 551) 79 
Wheelock v. Young, (4 Wend. 647) 

238 
Whelan v. ST. Y. etc. R. K. Co., (38 

Fed. Rep. 15) 331 
Whelan v. N. Y. etc. Co., (38 Fed. 

Rep. 15) 352 a 
Whelen's App., (108 Pa. St. 162) 198 
Whetton v. (;layton, (111 Ind. 360) 

310 
Whicher v. Somerville, (138 Mass. 

454) 313 
Whipple V. Fair Haven, (21 Atl. 533) 

355 
Whistont). Frankhn, (34 Ind. 392) 158 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



clxxxiii 



References are to Sections. 



Whitaker v. West Boylston, (97 Mass. 

273) 352 
Whitbeok v. Merc. Bank, (8 S. Ct. 

1121, 127 U. S. 193) 258 
Whitbeck ». Minch, (48 Ohio St. 210, 

31]Sr. E. K. 743) 326 a 
Whitby V. Harrison, (18 Up. Can. Q. 

B. 603) 49 
White, Ex parte, (67 Cal. 102) 131 
White V. Baily, (10 Mich. 155) 309 
White V. Bayoune, (49 N. J. L. 311) 

150 
White V. Bond Co., (58 111. 297) 325, 

339, 349 
White V. Charleston, (2 Hill, 571) 325, 

335 
White ». Chowan Co., (90 K. C. 437) 

325 353 
White 1). Conley, (52 Am. Rep. 154, 

157) 351 
White V. Cower, (4 Paige, 510) 221 
White V. Flannigan, (1 Md. 525) 221 
White B. Fuller, (39 Vt. 193) 13, 15 
White V. Godfrey, (97 Mass. 472) 

224 
White ». Hindley etc., (L. E. 10 Q. 

B. 219) 336 a 
White V. Kent, (11 Ohio St. 550) 116, 

128, 290 
White V. Lang, (128 Mass. 598) 352 
White V. Levant, (78 Me. 568) 79 
White V. Lincoln, (5 Neb. 505) 28 
White B. Mayor etc., (2 Swan. 364) 

113, 150, 152 
AVhite V. Mayor of New York, (4 E. 

D. Smith, 563) 85 
White V. McKeesport, (101 Pa. St. 

394) 330 
White B. N. O., (15 La. An. 667) 87, 

281 
White V. People, (94 111. 604) 259 a 
White B. Phillipston, (10 Metcf. 108) 

338 
White V. Polk Co., (9 Kan. 307) 79 
White B. Quincy, (97 Mass. 430) 313, 

317 
White V. State, (44 Ala. 409) 67 
White V. Stevens, (34 N. W. R. 255) 

268, 326 
White V. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co., 

(44 Mo. App. 540) 136 
White 13. Tallman, (2 Dutch. 67) 129, 

loo 
White V. Vermont etc. R. R., (21 

How. 575) 183, 191, 191 6 
White V. Williamson, (17 S. B. R. 604) 

396 
White B. Yazoo City, (27 Miss. 357) 

113,327,329,331a 
Whitefieldi). Longest, (6 Ire. L. § 268) 

129 



Whitehead b. Jessup, (53 Fed. 707) 

314 
WhitehouscB. Fellowes, (IOC. B. 779 

329 
White Ld. Works b. Rochester, (3 N. 

Y. 467) 92 
WhitelyB. Lansing, (27 Mich. 131) 28C 
Whiteman's Ex'rs v. Wilmington etc. 

R. R. Co., (2 Harr. 514) 233 
White River Turnpike b. Central R. 

R. Co., (21 Vt. 590) 233, 238 
Whiteside v. People, (26 Wend. 634) 

99 
Whitfield V. Meridian, (6 So. R. 244) 

346 
Whitfield B. Paris, (19 S. W. R. 566) 

92 
Whitford b. Laidler, (94 N. Y. 145) 

165 
Whithorn b. Thomas, (7 M. & Ct. 1) 

106 
Whiting V. Boston, (106 Mass. 89) 242, 

392 
Whiting B. Quackenbush, (54 Cal. 

306) 259 a 
Whiting B. West Point, (14 S. E. R. 

698) 270 
Whitlock B. West, (26 Conn. 406) 15S 
Whitman v. Groveland, (131 Mass. 

553) 344 
WhitmorcB. Tarrytowu, (16 N. Y. S. 

740, 62 Hun, 619) 330 
Whitney, In re, (3 N. Y. S. 838) 363 
Whitney v. Boston, (106 Mass. 89) 397 
Whitney b. Clifford, (46 Wis. 138) 347 
Whitney b. Lowell, (24 N. E. R. 47) 

350 a 
Whitney b. Milwaukee, (57 Wis. 639) 

346 
Whitney b. New Haven, (20 Atl. R. 

666) 327 
Whitney b. Port Huron, (88 Mich. 

268) 148, 326 a 
Whitney b. Town of Ticonderoga, 

(27 N. E. R. 403) 325 
Whitsett B. Union Depot etc., (10 

Colo. 243) 308 
Whitson B. Franklin, (34 Ind. 392) 

136, 290 
Whittaker b. Hartford etc. R. R. Co., 

(8 R. I. 47) 192 
Whittier b. Portland etc. Co., (38 

Me. 26) 329 
Whittier b. Varney, (10 N. H. 291) 

106 
Whittingham v. Bowen, (22 Vt. 317) 

234 a 
Whitworth v. Puchett, (2 Gratt. 527) 

279 
Wickliffe v. Lexington, (11 B. Mon. 

155) 221 



elxxxiv 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



References are to Sections. 



Wickliffe vi Magunder, (13 S. W. R. 

523) 221 
Wicks V. Dewitt, (54 Iowa, 130) 828, 

355 
Wickwire v. Angola, (30 N. E. E. 

917) 348 
Wider o. East St. Louis, (55 111. 133) 

255 
Wier V. Bush, (4 Litt. 433) 81 
Wiesman v. Brigham, (83 Wis. 550, 

53 N. W. 911) 326 
Wiggins V. Chicago, (63 HI. 372) 123 
Wiggins V. McCleary, (49 N. Y. 346) 

221 
Wilbrand v. Eighth Ave. R. R. Co., 

(3 Bosw. 314) 302 
Wilcocks, In re, (7 Cow. 402) 99, 100 
Wilcox V. Chicago, (107 111. 334) 92 
Wilcox V. Deer Lodge Co., (2 Mont. 

T. 574) 184 
Wilcox V. Hemming, (58 Wis. 144) 

129, 155 
Wilcox V. Smith, (5 Wend. 231) 88 
Wild V. Deig, (43 Ind. 455) 108, 234 a, 

235 
Wild V. Paterson, (47 N. J. L. 406) 

92, 339 
Wilde V. New Orleans, (12 La. An. 

15) 93, 338 
Wilder v. Be Core, (26 Minn. 10) 390 
Wiles V. Hoss, (114 Ind. 371) 165, 254 
Wiley V. Allegheny, (118 Pa. St. 490) 

132 
Wiley V. BlufEton, (111 Ind. 152) 33, 

53 
Wiley V. Elwood, (25 N. E. E. 570) 120 
Wiley V. Flournoy, (30 Ark. 609) 397 
Wiley u. Owens, (39 Ind. 429) 123, 

261 
Wiley V. Parmer, (14 Ala. 627) 258 
Wilhelm u. Cedar Co., (50 Iowa, 254) 

170 
Wilkes-Barre v. Burgunder, (7 Kulp. 

63) 300 
Wilkes-Barre D. & S. Banks. Wilkes- 
Barre, (24 Atl. E. Ill) 273 
Wilkin V. Houston, (30 Pac. 23) 327 
Wilkin V. St. Paul <fe Pac. E. E. Co., 

(16 Minn. 271) 241 
Wilkins v. Detroit, (46 Mich. 120) 

172, 264 
Wilkins v. Eutland, (25 Am. & Eng. 

Corp. Cases, 49) 336 a 
Wilkinsburgh v. Home, (131 Pa. St. 

109, 18 Atl. E. 937) 253 
Wilkinson v. Albany, (28 N. H. 9) 

118 
Wilkinson v. Detroit etc. Co., (41 N". 

W. R. 490) 348 
Wilkinson v. Prov. Bk., (3 R. I. 22) 

359 



Wilkinson v. Van Orman, (70 Iowa 

230) 189 a 
Willard v. Anisteck, (58 Wis. 5a5) 

395 
Willard v. Presbuiy, (14 Wall. 676) 

259 a 
Willard v. Killingworth, (8 Conn 

247) 95, 110, 121 
Willard v. Pike, (59 Vt. 202) 271 
Willard v. Newbury, (22 Vt. 458) 99, 

110, 342 
Will Co. Sup. V. People, (110 111. 511) 

254 
Willett V. Belville, (11 Lea, 1) 53 
Willey V. Allegheny, (118 Pa. St. 

490) 336 a 
Willflange v. McCoUum, (83 Ky. 361) 

373 
William and Anthony Streets, In re, 

(19 Wend. 678) 246 
Williams v. Augusta, (4 Ga. 509) 104 
Williams v. Beardsley, (2 Ind. 59) 

314 
Williams v. Boughner, (0 Coldw. 

486) 83 
Williams v. Cammack, (27 Miss. 209, 

224) 259 a 
Williams v. City R'y Co., (29 N. E. 
• Eep. 408, 41 Fed. Eep. 556) 306 a 
Williams v. Clayton, (21 Pa. Kep. 

398) 79 
Williams v. Clayton, (21 Pac. Eep. 

398) 85 
Williams v. Clinton, (28 Conn. 264) 

343 
Williams v. Com'rs, (35 Me. 345) 36C 
Williams v. Davidson, (43 Tex. 33) 

110 
Williams v. Detroit, (2 Mich. 565) 248 

253, 256, 259 a, 261 
Williams v. Duanesburg, (66 N. T. 

129) 254 
Williams v. Dunkirk, (3 Lan. 44) 92. 
Williams v. First Presb. Soc. in Cine , 

(1 Ohio St. 478) 215, 228 
Williams v. Hynes, (55 N. Y. Super. 

Ct. 86) 301 
Williams v. Gloucester, (19 N. E. K. 

348, 148 Mass. 256) 83 
Williams v. Grand Rapids, (59 Mich. 

51) 327 
Williams v. Grand Rapids, (33 Alb. 

L. J. 237) 342 
Williams v. Louisiana, (103 U. S. 637) 

189 a 
Williams v. Lunenberg, (21 Pick. 75) 

95, 270 
Williams v. Mayor, (105 N. Y. 419) 

132 
Williams v. Nashville, (15 S. W. K, 

364) 57 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



clxxxv 



References are to Sections. 



Williams v. New Orleans M. & T. E. 

R. Co., (60 Miss. 689) 247 
Williams v. N. Y. Can. etc. Co., (16 

N. T. 97) 302, 303 
Williams v. N. T. & N. H. K. R. Co., 

(39 Conn. 509) 218 
Williams v. Newport, (12 Bush, 438) 

79 
Williams v. People, (132 111. 574) 187 a 
Williams v. Peyton's Lessee, (4 

Wheat. 77) 169 
Williams v. Roberts, (88 111. 11) 196 
Williams v. SafEord, (7 Barb. 309) 346 
Williams v. Sch. Dist., (21 Pick. 75) 

88, 106, 234 
Williams v. Smith, (22 Wis. 600) 396 
Williams v. Stern, (38 Ind. 39) 66 
Williams v. Wilcox, (3 N. & P. 606) 

121 
Williamson v. Cass County, (84 111. 

361) 245 
Williamson v. Com., (4 B. Mon. 146) 

102, 156 
Williamson v. Keokuk, (44 Iowa, 88) 

28, 195 d, 376 
Williamsons N. J. So. R.R. Co., (29 

N. J. Eq. 311) 273 
Williamson v. New Albany etc. R. R. 

Co.,( 9 Am. Ry. Times, 37, U. S. 

C. C.) 192 b 
Williamsport v. Com., (84 Pa. St. 

487) 163, 183, 277 
Williamsport v. Com., (90 Pa. St. 

498) 360 
Williamsport s. Com., (74 Pa. St. 488) 

182 
Williamsport v. Kent, (14 Ind. 306) 

265 
Williamsport v. Richter, (81 Pa. St. 

508) 89 
Williamsport Co. v. P. & E. R. Co., 

(27 W. N. C. 576, 21 Atl. 645) 242 
Willimantic Society u.Scliool Society, 

(14 Conn. 457) 67 
WilMs V. Legris, (45 111. 289) 155 
Willis !). Legris, (45 111. 280) 129 
Willoughby v. Jenks, (20 Wend. 96) 

221, 224 
Willy V. Mulledy, (78 N. Y. 310) 131 
Wilmington B. Rody, (Sired. L. 250) 

255 
Wilmington v. Yopp, (71 N. Y. C. 

76) 259 a 
Wilmington etc. Co. v. Alsbrook, 

(110 N. C. 137) 272 
Wilmington S. S. Co. v. Haas, (25 

Atl. C. 85, 151 Pa. St. 131, 31 W. 

N. 79) 399 
Wilmot V. Barber, (15 Ch. D. 96) 327 
Wilson, In re, (32 Minn, 145> 125 
Wilson, In re, (19 D. C.) 341 258 



Wilson V. Allegheny, (79 Pa. St. 272) 

286 
Wilson V. Berkstresser, (45 Mo. 283) 

377 
Wilson V. Burks, (51 Ga. 862) 399 
Wilson V. Charlestown, (8 Allen, 177) 

372 
Wilson B. City of Trenton, (53 N. J. 

L. 645) 278, 279 
Wilson V. Dullam, (53 Mich. 392) 

83 
Wilson V. Duncan, (38 N. W. 371) 

354 a 
Wilson V. Granby, (47 Conn. 59) 352 
Wilson V. Hardesby, (1 Md. Ch. 66) 

187 
Wilson V. Inloes, (11 Gill & J. 351) 

133 
Wilson V. King, (3 Litt. 457) 86 
Wilson V. Marsh, (34 Vt. 352) 349 
Wilson 1). New York, (1 Denio, 595) 

327, 328, 329, 354 o 
Wilson I). People, (90 111. 186) 83 
Wilson V. Poole, (33 Ind. 443) 281 
Wilson V. Rockland etc. Co., (2 Harr. 

67) 321 
Wilson V. Sanitary Dist., (27 N. E. R. 

203) 27 
Wilson V. Sch. Dist., (32 N. H. 118) 

170 
Wilson J). Seattle, (2 Wash. St. 543, 

27 Pac. R. 474) 279, 398 
Wilson !3. Sexton, (27 Iowa, 15) 219 
Wilson V. Shreveport, (29 La. An. 673) 

87 
Wilson u. Susquehanna T. Co., (21 

Barb. 68) 328 
Wilson V. Wheeling, (19 W. Va. 324) 

347, 352 a 
Wilson Co.-D. First Nat. Bank, (103 

IJ. S. 770) 185 
Winamac v. Huddleston, (31 N. E. R. 

561) 190 
Winbiger v. Los Angeles, (45 Cal. 36) 

325 
Winch V. Conservators, (L. R. 7 C. P. 

471) 121 
Winchester v. Capron, (63 N. H. 605) 

308 
Winckler v. Gt. Western Ry. Co., (18 

Up. Can. C. P. 250) 352 
Windham v. Commissioners, (26 Me. 

406) 279 
Windsor v. Field, (1 Conn. 279) 279 
Windman v. Vinoennes, (58 Ind. 480) 

61 
Winkler v. Halsted, (36 Mo. App. 25) 

395 
Winn V. Lowell, (1 Allen, 177) 352 
Winn V. Macon, (21 Ga. 275) 17 
Winn B. Rutland, (52 Vt. 481) 355 



clxxxvi 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



Winn D.Shaw, (25 Pac. R. 244, 968; 

87 Oal. 631) 395 
Winne v. Albany, (61 Hun, 620) 344 
Winnebago etc. Co. v. E. K. Co., (51 

N". W. K. 576) 241 
Winnegar v. Eowe, (1 Cow. 258) 78 
Winnepiseagee Co. v. Gilford, (10 

Atl. 849, 64 N. H. 337) 268 
Winnetka b. Trouty, (107 111. 218) 217 
Winnsboro v. Smart, (11 Ricb. L. 551) 

128 
Winona v. Huff, (11 Minn. 119) 215 
Winona v. St. Peter Ey. Co., (31 

Minn. 472) 96 
Winona & St. P. E. Co. v. Water- 
town, (44 N. W. E. 1072) 267 
Winooki v. Gokey, (48 Vt. 282) 110 
Winpenny v. Philadelphia, (65 Pa. 

St. 135) 132 
Winship v. Enfield, (42 N. H. 197) 

342, 352 
Winslow ». Mason, (113 Mass. 411) 

396 
Winslow V. Perquimas Co., (64 N. C. 

218) 212, 364 
Winston v. Tenn. R. Co., (IBaxt. 60) 

185 
Winston u. Westfeldt, (23 Ala. 760) 

195 (Z 
Winter c. Montgomery, (65 Ala. 404) 

269, 270, 290, 326, 396 
Wintergreen Alley, In re, (11 Pa. Co. 

Ct. R. 126) 24 
Wintz V. Board, (28 W. Va. 227) 362 
Winzer v. Burlington, (68 Iowa, 279) 

56 
Wisby ». Bonte, (19 Ohio St. 238) 215 
Wisconsin v. Duluth, (2 Dillon C. C. 

406)5 
Wisconsin etc. v. Manson, (43 Wis. 

255) 814 
Wise. etc. V. Taylor Co., (52 Wis. 37) 

189 a 
Wiser v. Blackly, (1 John. Ch. 607) 

192 6 
Wistar v. Philadelpliia, (111 Pa. St. 

604) 264 
Wiswall V. Hall, (3 Paige Ch. 313) 133 
Witham v. Osburn, (4 Ore. 318, 18 

Am. Rep. 287) 234a 
Withan v. Portland, (72 Me. 539) 343 
Witheril v. Mosher, (9 Hun, 412) 130 
Witlierley v. Regents Canal Co., (12 

C. B. X S. 2) 352 
Withers v. Korth Kent, (3 H. & N. 

969) 353 
Witt V. Armstrong, (6 S. W. R. 226) 

271 
Witt V. Mayor, (5 Robt. 248) 92 
Woflenden v. Board, (1 Ariz. 237, 25 

Pac. R. 647) 359 



Wolf, Ex parte, (14 Neb. 24) 97, 161 
Wolf V. Beard, (123 HI. 585) 327 
Wolf V. Brass, (72 Tex. 133) 221 
Wolf V. Keokuk, (48 Iowa, 129) 87, 

259 a 
Wolf V. Lansing, (53 Mich. 367) 125 
Wolf V. McHargue, (10 S. W. R. 809) 

259 a 
Wolf V. Philada., (105 Pa. St. 25)282 
Wolfe V. Gov. & Lex. R. R. Co., (15 

B. Mon. 404) 302, 303 
Wolfe V. Erie R. T. Co., (33 Fed. Rep. 

320) 306 a 
Wolfe V. Sullivan, (32 N. E. R. 1017) 

311 312 
Wolff V. New Orleans, (103 U. S. 358) 

14, 258 
Wong V. Astoria, (13 Oreg. 538) 122 
Wood V. Andes, (11 Hun, 543) 352 
Wood V. Bank, (9 Cow. 194) 24, 31 
Wood V. Bangs, (46 N. W. E. 586, 1 

Dak. 179) 395 
Wood V. Board of Election, (58 Cal. 

561) 32 
Wood V. Hammond, (17 Atl. E. 324) 

49 
Wood 1-. Jefferson Co. Bk., (9 Cow. 

205) 107 
Wood II. Lenawee, (84 Mich. 521, 47 

X. W. R. 1103) 363 
Wood V. Lynn, (1 Allen, 108) 169 
Wood V. Louisiana, (102 U. S. 294, 

see § 193 a) 192 
Wood V. Mitchell, (44 Iowa, 27) 347 
Wood V. National Water Works Co., 

(33 Kan. 590) 215 
Wood V. Nicolson, (43 Kan. 461) 283 
Wood V. Oxford, (97 N. C. 227) 2 
Wood V. State, (47 Ark. 488) 32 
Wood V. Tipton, (7 Baxt. 112) 325 
Wood V. Ward, (3 Exch. 748) 354 
Wood V. Waterville, (5 Mass. 294) 164 
Woodbridge v. Deti-oit, (8 Mich. 274) 

261 
Woodbridge v. Hall, (47 N. J. L. 

388) 169 
Woodbury v. Grimes, (1 Colo. 100) 

194 
Woodcock V. Calcio, (66 Me. 234) 92 
WoodfiU V. Town of Greensburgh, 

(18 Ind. 203) 61 
Woodfolk V. Nashville & C. B. K. 

Co., (2 Swan, 422) 245 
Woodruff V. Douglas Co., (17 Ore. 

314) 215 
Woodruff V. Eureka, (19 S. W. R. 15, 

55 Ark. 618) 56, 61 
Woodruff t. Imperial etc. (90 N. Y. 

521) 79 
Woodruff V. Neal, (28 Conn. 167)301, 

354 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



clxxxvii 



References are to Sections. 



Woodruff V. N. Y. & N. E. R. E., (20 

Atl. E. 17) 368 
Woodrufe V. Okalona, (57 Miss. 806) 

192 b, 196 
WoodrufE ». Parham, (8 Wall. 139) 

258 
Woodruff ». E. E. Co., (20 Atl. E. 17) 

303 
Woodrufi V. State, (3 Ark. 285) 79 
Woodruff V. Trapwall, (10 How. 

206) 14 
Woods B. Armstrong, (34 Ala. 160) 

127 
Woods V. Colfax Co., (10 Neb. 552) 

325 
Woods V. Henry, (55 Mo. 560) 55 
Woods V. Lawrence Co., (1 Black, 

360) 185, 191 6, 198 
Woods V. Pineville, (23 Pac. Eep. 

880) 158 
Woods V. Tipton, (27 N. E. E. 611) 

352 
Woods V. Varnum, (83 Cal. 46) 83, 

84,85 
Woodson V. Skinner, (22 Mo. 13) 

229 301 • 
Woodstock V. Gallup, (28 Vt. 587) 

535 
Woodward v. Calhoun Co., (2 Cent. 

Law Jour. 396) 189, 191 5 
Woodward v. Com., (7 S. W. E. 613) 

259 
Woodward v. Eeynolds, (19 Atl. 511) 

190 
Woodworth v. St. Paul etc. R. E. Co., 

(18 Fed. Rep. 282) 66 
Woodyer v. Hadden, (5 Taunt. 126) 

220 
Wookey v. Pole, (4 B. & Aid. 1) 191 
Wookler v. Chicago, (61 111. 142) 241 
Wooley V. Watkins, (22 Pac. R. 102) 

34 
Wooldridge v. Mayor, (49 How. Pr. 

67) 130 
Woolrich ». Forrest, (1 Pa. 115) 47 
Woolsey, In re, (95 N. Y. 135) 18 
WoolseyB. Trustees, (01 Hun, 136) 

344 
Woonsocket etc. Co. v. Sherman, (8 

R. I. 564) 185 
Worcester v. Canal Props., (16 Pick. 

541) 3.50 a 
Worcester v. Eaton, (13 Mass. 371, 

378) 202 
Worcester Co. v. Worcester, (116 

Mass. 193, 17 Am. Rep. 159) 271 
Worden v. New Bedford, (131 Mass. 

23, 41 Am. Rep. 185) 92, 336 a 
Work V. State, (2 Ohio St. 296) 104 
Workman v. Mifflin, (30 Pa. St. 362) 

244 



Works V. Junction R. Co., (5 McLean, 

425) 120 
Worley v. Columbia, (88 Mo. 106) 92, 

333, 338 
Worly V. Harris, (82 Ind. 493) 31 
Wormwood v. Waltham, (144 Mass. 

184)3506 
Worrell v. Munn, (1 Seld. 229) 167 
Worth V. Fayetteville Comm'rs, 

(Winst. Eq. 70) 261, 275 
Worthen v. Grayson Co. Ct., (13 Bush, 

53) 79 
Worthley v. Steen, (43 N. J. L. 542) 

32, 361, 378 
Worthington v. Boston, (41 Fed. Eep. 

23) 172 
Worthington v. Covington, (82 Ky. 

265) 165 
Wragg V. Penn. Tp., (94 111. 11) 219 
Wray v. Ellis, (1 E, & E. 276) 156 
Wray v. Toke, (12 Q. B. 492) 154 
Wreford ». People, (14 Mich. 41) 118 
Wreu V. Indianapolis, (96 Ind. 206) 

368 
Wren ». Luzerne Co., (9 Pa. Co. Ct. 

22) 79 
Wright, In re, (29 Hun, 357) 300 
Wright V. Bishop, (88 111. 302) 395 
Wriglit !). Boston, (9 Cush. 233) 259 a, 

277 
Wright V. Chanahan, (51 Hun, 262) 

396 
Wright V. Chicago, (27 111. App. 200) 

146 
Wright V. Defrees, (8 Ind. 398) 149 
Wright V. Holbrook, (52 N. H. 120) 

336 a, 347 
Wright V. Linn, (9 Pa. 433) 203 
Wright V. M. E. Church, (1 Hoff. Ch. 

225) 202 
Wright V. Noell, (16 Kan. 601) 69 
Wright V. Saunders, (65 Barb. 214) 

300 
Wright V. Tacoma. (3 Wash. Ter. 410) 

397 
Wright V. Templeton, (132 Mass. 49) 

352 
Wright V. Victoria, (4 Tex. 375) 218 
Wright V. Wilmington, (52 N. C. 156) 

327, 355 
Wrinn v. Jones, (111 Mass. 350) 821 
Wrought Iron Bridge Co. v. tltica, 

J17 Fed. Eep. 316) 243 
Wyandotte v. C'arrigau, (35 Kan. 21) 

302 
Wyandotte v. Seitz, (21 Kan. 649) 339 
Wyandotte v. White, (13 Kan. 191) 

350 6 
Wyandotte v. Zeitz, (21 Kan. 649) 163 
Wyandotte & K. C. Co. v. Wyan. Co. 

Comm'rs, (10 Kan. 331) 363 



clxxxviii TABLE or cases cited 

References are to Sections. 

Wood, (5 Kan 



Wyandotte City 

603) 27 
Wyandotte Co. Com'rs v. First Presb. 

Ch., (30 Kan. 620) 219 
Wyatt V. Harrison, (3 B. &. A. 871) 

329 
WycJcoff V. Scofield, (53 TST. Y. Super. 

Ct. 237) 131 
Wyer v. Lorocque, (33 Pac. 547) 282 
Wylie V. Wausin, (48 Wis. 506) 352 a 
Wyman v. New York, (11 Wend. 487) 

221, 305 
Wynne-?). Wright, (IDev. &B. L. 19) 

122, 258 

X. 

Xiques v. Bujac, (7 La. An. 498) 221 



Yale V. Hampden, (18 Pick. 357) 350 a 
Yanish v. St. Paul, (52 N. W. R. 925) 

327 
Yards Case, (10 Pa. Ct. C. R. 41) 87 
Yarmoutli v. Eaton, (3 Burr, 1402) 

320 
Yarmouth v. Ko.' Yarmouth, (.34 Me. 

411)2 
Yarnell v. Los Angeles, (87 Cal. 603, 

25 Pac. 767) 395 
Yarnold v. Lawrence, (15 Kan. 126) 

172, 281 
Yatemau v. Crandall, (11 La. An. 220) 

259 a 
Yates V. Judd, (18 Wis. 118) 221, 225, 

286 
Yates V. Milwaukee, (10 Wall. 497) 

120 
Yates B. Warrentown, (84 Va. 337) 

300 
Yeager v. Tippecanoe, (81 Ind. 46) 

353 
Yearance v. S. L. City, (24 Pac. E. 

254) 346 
Yeaw V. Williams, (15 R. I. 20) 342 
Yesler v. Seattle, (1 Wash. St. 308) 

189 
Yick Wo V. Hopkins, (118 TJ. S. 356) 

121 
Yocum V. Hotel, (18 Abb. N. C. 340) 

120 
Yolo V. Barney, (79 Cal. 375) 218 
Yonkey v. State, (27 Ind. 36) 66 
Yorrty v. Marshall Co., (53 N. E. R. 

298) 317 
York V. Forseht, (23 Pa. St. 391) 117, 

140 
York V. Spellman, (19 Neb. 357) 350 
York County ». Small, (1 W. & S. 

315) 81 
Yost's Report, (17 Pa. St. 524) 250 
Young V. Bank, (4 Cranch, 384) 30 



Young V. Buckingham, (5 Ohio, 489) 

100 
Young V. Camden Co., (19 Mo. 309) 

177 
Young V. Charleston, (20 S. C. 116) 

339 
Young V. City, (27 Mo. App. 201) 

355 
Young ». Clarendon, (132 TJ. S. 340) 

190 
Young V. Clarendon Tp., (26 Fed. 

Rep. 895) 199 
Young V. Clarendon, (132 TJ. S. 340) 

375 
Young V. Com'rs, (25 N. E. R. 689) 

355 
Young c. Com'rs, (2 N. & McC. 537) 

325 
Young V. Be Putron, (37 Fed. K. 46) 

211 
Young V. Edgefield, (2 Nott & McC. 

537) 325 
Young V. Kansas, (27 Mo. App. 101) 

355 
Young V. Leedom, (67 Pa. St. 351) 

354 a 
Young V. MoKenzie, (3 Ga. 31) 234 a 
Young V. New Haven, (39 Conn. 435) 

842 
Young V. Thomas, (17 Fla. 169) 123 
Young V. Yarmouth, (9 Gray, 386) 

297 
Youngs V. Hall, (9 Nev- 212) 12 
YoungbloodB. Sexton, (132 Mich. 406) 

123 
Young Twp. V. Sutter, (18 Atl. K. 

610) 342 

z. 

Zabel V. Louisville Bap. Orp. Home, 

(17 S. W. R. 212) 270 
Zabriskie v. Jersey City, (13 N. J. 

Eq. 314) 120 
Zabriskie v. Railroad Co., (23 How. 

381) 24, 254 
Zanesville ii. Richai-ds, (5 Ohio St.) 

256 
Zanone v. Mound City, (103 111. 552| 

125 
Zeigler v. Hopkins, (117 TJ. S. 683) 

278 
Zernes v. Chosen Freeholders, (52 X 

J. L. 553) 825 
Zetther v. Atlanta, (66 Ga. 195) 343, 

352 
Ziegler v. Chapin, (27 N. E. R. 471) 

169 
Ziggler V. Menges, (22 N. E. Eep. 

722) 293 
Zimmerman c. Conemaugh Tp., (2 

Cent. Rep. 861, 5 Atl. Rep. 45) 353 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 

References are to Sections. 



clxxxix 



Zimmerman ». Kearney, (50 N. W. 

1126) 247, 249 
Zine Co. ». La Salle, (117 111. 411) 215 
Zollicofer v. Havemeyer, (4 Thomp. 

& C. 478) 92 



Zwietusoh v. Milwaukee, (55 Wis. 

369) 259 a 
Zylstra v. Charleston, (1 Bay, 382) 

102, 154 



MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 



CHAPTER I. 



COEPOKATIONS DEFINED, CLASSIFIED AND DISTINGUISHED. 



Section. 

1 — Corporations defined. 

2 — Public and private corporar 
tions distinguished. 

3 — ^Public and municipal corpora- 
tions distinguished. 



Section. 
4 — The New England town. 
5 — The state and federal govern- 
ment as a quasi corpora- 
tion. 



§ 1. Corporation defined. — A corporation is, according to 
most authorities, defined to be a legal personalit}'', created by 
law into a body corporate for the purpose of carrying on some 
joint effort, which but for such creation of the legal personal- 
ity could not be attained with the same facility by the ordinary 
co-operation of individuals. The general element of distinction 
between co-operations, in' the nature of partnership and joint 
stock companies, on the one hand, and corporations on the 
other, is the fact that a legal personality stands between the 
co-operators and parties dealing with them, as the possessor of 
the joint rights and the obligor of the joint liabilities in which 
they are mutually interested. This legal personality, thus cre- 
ated, remains unchanged and immutable throughout the entire 
period of time during which it was intended to exist, unaffect- 
ed by the constant change of the individuals, who composed 
the stockholders, and who are recognized in the corporation. 
This element of stability in the corporation itself is the chief 
value of incorporation. 

Chief Justice Marshall's description of a corporation has 
been frequently cited and quoted, and .the happiness of his 
language makes it alwa3'^s of value in this connection. He 
describes a corporation as follows : — " A corporation is an ar- 
tificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in con- 
templation of law. Being the mere creature of the law, it 
1 1 



MUNICIPAIi COEPOEATIONS. 



[CH. I. 



possesses only those properties which the charter of its crea- 
tion confers upon it, either expressly or as incidental to its very 
existence. These are such as are supposed to be best calcu- 
lated to effect the object for which it is created. Among the 
most important are immortality (in the legal sense that it may 
be made capable of indefinite duration), and, if the expression 
may be allowed, individuality, — properties by which a perpet- 
ual succession of many persons are considered as the same, and 
may act as a single, individual. They enable a corporation to 
mianage its own affairs, and to hold property without the per- 
plexing intricacy, the hazardous and endless necessity, of per- 
petual convej^ances for the purpose of transmitting it from hand 
tp hand. It is chiefly for the purpose of clothing bodies of 
men, in succession, with these qualities and capacities that cor- 
porations were invented and are in use. By these means a per- 
petual succession of individuals are capable of acting for the 
promotion of the particular object like one immortal being." ^ 
The ordinarj' description of a corporation, as in Chief Justice 
Marshall's definition, as a legal person has been more than once 
criticised as chimerical and unfounded ; ^ but it seems to me that 
the objection to such a description of a corporation will be alto- 
gether removed, if instead of legal person we read legal person- 
ality. For while no person has been created by the act of 
incorporation, distinct and separate from the incorporators, yet 
there can be no doubt that the persons who compose the cor- 
poration have by the act of incorporation had given to their 
union a distinct legal personality, which the law does recognize 
as having a legal existence, separate and apart from the legal 
status of the members of such corporation. 
§ 2. Pulblic and private corporations distinguished — The 



' iBartmoutli College v. Woodward, 
4W]ieat 636; 4 Black. Com. 37; 7 
"Vin. Abr. 358, 368. Blackstone de- 
scribes the peculiar feature of incor- 
poration as the ability to continue 
rinchang.ed by the kaleidoscopic 
changes in th« persons composing 
the corporation. "All of the indi- 
vidual members," present and fu- 
ture, " are but one person in law, — 
a 'person that never dies, in like man- 

' .-. 2 



ner as the river Thames is still the 
same river, though the parts which 
compose it are changing every in- 
stant." 1 Black. Com. 468; Broprie- 
tors, etc. V. Inhabitants of Ipswich, 
(Mass. 91) 26 N. E. K. 239; see also 
Heller V. Stremmel, 52 Mo. 309; State 
V. Leffingwell, 54 Mo. 458, 471; Down- 
ing v. Board, 129 Ind. 43; Mills v. 
Williams, 11 Ired. L. 558. 
2 Morawetz Private Corp. § 1, 227. 



CH. I.J COllPORATIONS CLASSIFIED AND DISTINGUISHED. § 2 

fundamental division of corporations is into public and private. 
Before distinguishing the two, it may be well to observe, that 
the terms public and private are used in the comparative sense, 
in describing the character of the interest created by the act of 
incorporation in the parties composing such corporation, and 
also the character of the parties who do compose it. In one 
sense, it may be said that all corporations are public, inasmuch 
as no actual incorporation is ever made without presumptively 
considering the incidental promotion of the public welfare or 
the public good. The very act of incorporation, even of a 
strictly private corporation, is alleged to rest for its justification 
upon the public good, which is promoted in the creation of it, 
it matters not how strictly private the interests in such corpo- 
ration may be. But this is not tlie sense in which the terms 
public and private are employed in this connection. Here, as 
already stated, they distinguish corporations from each other, 
in the first instance, by the difference in the character of the 
persons who compose the corporation and the nature of the 
rights created by such incorporation.^ A private corporation 
is one which is created for the purpose of enabling private per- 
sons in their private capacity to attain some end which cannot 
be conveniently attained without incorporation, and for their 
own benefit ; although in connection with such private benefit 
there may be, and usually is likewise some public benefit flow- 
ing from the proposed incorporation. In the case of private 
corporations, the consent of the incorporators is necessary to 
its creation, but when assented to, according to the decision of 
the Supreme Court of the United States in the Dartmouth 
College case, a contract is created between the legislature rep- 
resenting the government, and the incorporators, which is pro- 
tected by the provisions of the constitution of the United 
States, which declares that " no state shall pass any law impair- 
ing the obligation of a contract ; " and that therefore such con- 
tract can in no wise be interfered with or repealed by subsequent 
legislation, unless the power to so interfere with the franchise 
thus created is expressly reserved, except in the exercise of the 
right of eminent domain.^ 



1 Guest V. Water Co., (Pa. 91) 21 
Atl. K. 1001; Downing v. Board, 129 
Ind. 443. 



2 Dartmouth Col. v. Woodward, 4 
Wheat. 518. See Tiedeman, Privata 
Corporations. 

3 



§2 



MTTSaCIPAL CORPORATIONS. 



[CH. I. 



Public corporations, on the other hand, include municipal 
corporations, and are not the result of any contract between 
the incorporators and the state, and are not created for the 
purpose of vesting in the incorporators, as private individuals, 
any peculiar rights or privileges. The object is invariably 
and solely the provision for the satisfaction of some pecuhar 
want, and the rendition of some peculiar service to the commu- 
nity, which is included within the so called public corporation. 
The public corporation is created for the purpose of receiving 
a share in the management or conduct of the local government, 
or in the undertaking of measures that are needed for the pro- 
motion of the public welfare or the satisfaction of public wants. 
And while the state may, and in the case of municipal cor- 
porations usually does, obtain the consent of the community, 
which is to be included within the proposed public corporation, 
yet such consent is not necessary, and the corporation may be 
imposed upon such people against their will. There is no 
compact or contract between the incorporators and the govern- 
ment, which "falls within the protection of the constitutional 
provisions, prohibiting the passing of laws by the State impair- 
ing the obligation of a contract. On the contrary, the charters 
of public corporations are subject in very large measure to the 
almost unrestricted control of the legislature, and may be mod- 
ified, enlarged or diminished, as to powers and extent of terri- 
tory, according to the pleasure of the legislature.^ This, of 



1 Columbus V. Columbus, (Wis. 92) 
52 ]Sr. W. K. 425; Peuobscot B. Cor. 
V. Lawson, 16 Me. 224; Yarmoutli v. 
North Yarmouth, 34 lb. 411; State v. 
Kolsen, (Ind. 92) 29 N. E. R. 595; 
Mei ri wether V. Garrett, 102 U. S. 472; 
Berlin v. Gorham, 34 N. H. 266; 
Philadelphia v. Field, 58 Pa. St. 320; 
Savings Society v. Philadelphia, 31 
lb. 175, 185;Sintouv. Carter, 23 Fed. 
E. 535; Philadelphia v. Fox, 64 Pa. 
St. 169; State v. Atkinson, 107 IST. C. 
317 ; State v. Denny, (Wash. 92)£9 Pac. 
K. 991 ; North Yarmouth v. Skillings, 
45 Me. 133; Pickles v. Dry Dock Co., 
38 La. An. 412; Grogan v. San Fran- 
cisco, 18 Cal. 590; Girard v. Philadel- 
phia, 7 Wall. 1 ; Richmond v. Rich- 
4 



mond etc. Co., 21 Gratt. (Va.) 604; 
United States v. Railroad Co., 17 
Wall. 322; Darlington v. Mayor, 31 
N. Y. 164; In re MillvilleBor.,10Pa. 
Co. Ct. R. 321; Philadelphia v. Fox, 
64 Pa. St. 169; Cheaney v. Hooser, 
9 B. Mon. 330; Mobile v. Watson, 
116 U. S. 289; Patterson v. Society 
etc., 24 N. J. L. 385; Jersey City 
V. Railroad Co., 24 N. J. Eq. 360; 
Allen V. McKean, 1 Sumner, 276; 
Dartmouth Col. v. Woodward, 4 
Wheat. 518; Erie v. Flint, 8 Pa. Co. 
Ct. R. 482; State v. Wall, 47 Ohio St. 
499; Board v. Davises, 1 Wash. St. 
290; In re Malone's Estate, 21 S. C. 
435 ; Morris v. State, 62 Tex. 728, 174; 
Blanding v. Burr, 13 Cal. 343; Dayid 



CH. I.] COKPORATIONS CLASSIFIED AND DISTINGUISHED. § 3 



course, is only a general statement in regard to the legislative 
control of public corporations, which will be more fully and 
more explicitly explained in the next chapter.^ 

§ 3. Public and municipal corporations distinguished. — 

The term public corporation is used here and properly as a term 
of generic signification, and may be classed as synonymous with 



V. Portland Water Comm'rs, 14 0reg. 
98; Portland & W. Y. R. R. Co. v. 
Portland, 14 Oreg. 188; Nicliol v. 
Mayor, etc., 9 Humph. 252; CTrelgli- 
ton V. San Francisco, 42 Cal. 446; 
Lutz V. Crawfordsville, 109 Ind. 466; 
Wood V. Oxford, 97 N. C. 227; Lucas 
V.Tippecanoe Co., 44 Ind. 524; Snook 
V. Georgia Co., (Ga. 88) 9 S. E. R. 
1104; Demarest v. New York, 74 N. 
T. 161; Cornell V. People, 107 III. .372; 
Burns v. Clarion County, 62 Pa. St. 
351 ; Durach's Appeal, 62 Pa. St. 491 ; 
Clinton v. Railroad Co., 24 Iowa, 455 ; 
San Francisco v. Canavan, 42 Cal. 
541 ; New Orleans v. Hoyle, 23 La. 
An. 740; Amite City v. Clements, 24 
La. An. 27; 21 Am. Law Review, 14; 
Jersey City v. Railroad Co., 20 N. J. 
Eq. 360; State v. Fuller, 5 Vroom (34 
N. J. L.) 227; Patterson v. Society, 
etc., 4 Zabr. (24 N. J. L.) 385; Mont- 
clair V. Railroad Co., 18 Atl. R. 242; 
45 N. J. E. 436; Lloyd v. Mayor etc. 
of New York, 5 N. Y. (1 Seld.) 369; 
Lowber v. Same, 7 Abb. Pr. R. 248; 
Green v. Same, 5 Abb. Pr. R. 503; 
Rundle v. Del. etc. Canal Co., 1 Wall. 
Jr. 275; s. c, 14 How. 80; Tinsman 
V. Railroad Co., 2 Dutch. (N. J.) 148; 
Brooks v. Fisher, 21 Pac. R. 652; 79 
Cal. 173; Aurora v. West, 9 Ind. 74; 
Plymouth v. Jackson, 15 Pa. St. 44; 
Louisville v. Commonwealth, 1 Du- 
vall (Ky.) 295; People v. Morris, 13 
Wend. 325; Armstrong v. Coram., 4 
Blackf. (Ind.) 208; Murphy v. Louis- 
ville, 9 Bush (Ky.) 189; O'Hara v. 
Portland, 3 Oreg. 425; Purdyv. Peo- 
ple, 4 Hill (N. Y.) 385; Morey v. New- 
fane, 8 Barb. 645 ; State, etc. v. St. 
Louis Co. Ct., 34 Mo. 546; Gray v. 

6 



Brooklyn, 10 Abb. (N. Y.) Pr. Rep., 
N. s. 186; State v. Hundelhausen, 26 
Wis. 432; Sangamon Co. v. Spring- 
field, 63 111. 66; State v. Mayor, R. M. 
Charlt. (Ga.) 250; Richmond County 
V. Lawrence, 12 111. 8; Tinsman v. 
Railroad Company, 2 Dutch. (N. J.) 
148; Marietta v. Fearing, 4 Ohio, 427; 
School Dist., In re, 10 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 
588 (92 Pa.) ; see, also. People v. Wren, 
4 Scam. (111.) 273 ; Martin v. Dix, 52 
Miss. 53; Bush v. Shipman, 4 Scam. 
(5 111.) 190; Holliday v. People, 5 Gilm. 
(10 111.) 216; State v. Brannin, 3 Zabr. 
(23 N. J. L.) 485 ; Rader v. Road Dist., 
7 Vroom (36 N. J. L.) 273; Coles v. 
Madison County, Breese (111.) 120; 
C. & A. R. R. Co. V. Adler, 56 111. 
.344; People v. Detroit, 28 Mich. 228; 
s. c, 15 Am. Rep. 202; New Orleans, 
etc. Co. V. New Orleans, 26 La. An. 
517; Laramie County v. Albany 
County, 92 TJ. S. 307; State Bank v. 
Knoop, 16 How. (U. S.) 369; Duns- 
more' s Appeal, 52 Pa. St. 374; Peo- 
ple V. Hill, 7 Cal. 97; United States 
V. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 
17 Wall. 322; State v. St. Louis Coun- 
ty Court, 34 Mo. 540; Hagerstown v. 
Schuer, 37 Md. 180; Barnes v. Dis- 
trict of Columbia, 91 U. S. 540; State 
V. Jennings, 27 Ark. 419; People v. 
Tweed, 63 N. Y. 202; Langworthy 
V. Dubuque, 16 Iowa, 271; Blessing 
V. Galveston, 42 Tex. 641. Notwith- 
standing this lengthy list of cita- 
tions^itis not exhaustive ; this prop- 
osition of constitutional law has 
been confirmed by every court in 
the country, and needs no further 
corroboration. 
^ See post, chap. ii. 



§ 3 MUNICIPAL COEPOKATIONS. [CH. I. 

civil corporation. It is also, however improperly, used as 
synonymous with municipal corporations.^ But there is uiit 
questionably a just ground for distinguishing between munici- 
pal corporations on the one hand, and other public corporations 
on the other. The municipal corporation is, as its name implies, 
an incorporation, or body politic, created by the act of .law as 
an instrument of government over a particular community, and 
over the people located there. A municipal corporation is, in 
the first instance, charged with the exercise of all the powers 
and the performance of all the duties which are strictly local or 
municipal in their nature, and which are of peculiar interest to 
the local community. They are incorporated for the purpose 
of giving to such a community the peculiar facilities, for carry- 
ing 'on or conducting its local affairs, which a private corpora- 
tion acquires by incorporation over the voluntary union or 
combination of individuals.^ We may, therefore, define a mu- 
nicipal corporation, in its historical and strict sense, to be the 
incorporation, by the authority of the government, of the inhabi- 
tants of a particular place or district, and authorizing them in 
their corporate capacity to exercise subordinate specified powers 
of legislation and regulation, with respect to their local and 
internal concerns. This power of local government is the dis- 
tinctive purpose and the distinguishing feature of a municipal 
corporation proper.^ As thus defined, the municipal corporation 
is to be distinguished from other public corporations, like coun- 
ties on the one hand, and school districts on the other. The mu- 
nicipal corporation is to be distinguished from counties and other 
subdivisions of the state, in that the county is not a legal person- 
alit)' in whose hands is intrusted a share of the administration 
of the government, but simply a territorial subdivision of the 
state government and subject to the essential control of such 
state government, in the administration of all of its affairs. 
Thus, for example, a court will declare that a county is not lia- 
ble, independentlj' of modern statutory modifications, in dam- 
ages to one who has suffered an injury from the wrongful official 
conduct of the county officers. Even independently of any 



1 Curry v. District Township, 62 
Iowa. 102; Dowlan v. County of Sib- 
ley, 36 Minn. 430; Downing V. Board, 
129 Ind. 443. 
6 



2 2 Bouv. Diet. 21 ; People v. Mor- 
ris, 13 Wend. 325. 

" Dillon's Commentaries on the 
Law of Municipal Corporations, §20, 



CH. I.] CORPORATIONS CLASSIFIED AHD DISTIKGTTISHED. § 3 

special statutory provision, the municipal corporation is held 
liable.^ In one case, a distinction has been made between coun- 
ties and other subdivisions of the state government, and the 
municipal corporation strictly so called, on the ground that 
the municipal corporation proper rests upon the consent of the 
incorporators : " Municipal corporations proper are called into 
existence either at the direct solicitation or by the free consent 
of the persons composing them, for the promotion of their own 
local and private advantage and convenience." On the other 
hand, " Counties are at most but local organizations, which, for 
the purposes of civil administration, are invested with a few 
functions characteristic of a corporate existence. They are 
local subdivisions of the state, created by the sovereign power 
of the state, of its own sovereign -wiU, without the particular 
solicitation, consent, or concurrent action of the people who 
inhabit them. The former (municipal) organization is asked 
for, or at least assented to, by the people it embraces ; the lat- 
ter organization (counties) is superimposed by a sovereign and 
paramount authority." ^ But, as has already been explained, the 
municipal corporation does not always rest upon such consent ; 
and may be created in the face of the opposition of the people 
occupying the territory, which is included within its limits^ 
Unquestionably, it is the fact, that, ordinarily, municipal cor- 
porations are formed, only when the people living in the com- 
munity desire such incorporation. And this is particularly the 
case, where cities and towns secure incorporation under general 
laws, instead of by special charter. But the main distinction, 
and the only reliable one, between public corporations, like 
counties, and municipal corporations proper, is the absence in 
the one case of an incorporation and its presence in the other. 
Indeed, counties are not properly denominated corporations. 
They are at the most only quasi coi'porations, with considerable 
emphasis on the prefix. 



I Flora V. Naney, 31 111. App. 493; 
Ilamllton v. Mlghels, 7 Ohio St. 109; 
Pulaski Co. v. Reeve, 42 Ark. 55; 
Wehn V. Gage Co., 5 Neb. 494; Mo- 
Donald V. Ashland, (Wis. 92) 47 N. 
W. E. 434; Tread well v. Com'rs, 11 
Ohio St. 190; Soper Co. v. Henry Co., 



26 Iowa, 264; Haniford v. Kansas 
City, 103 Mo. 172; Askew v. Hale Co., 
54 Ala. 139; State v. Leffingwell, 54 
Mo. 458; see post, §§314, 315. 

2 Hamilton Co. v. Mighels, 7 Ohio 
St. 109; See also Tolbot v. Queeti 
Anne Co.,50Md. 245. 

7 



§ 3 MtTNICIPAL COEPOKATIONS. [CH. I. 

On the other hand, municipal corporations may be distinguish- 
ed from school districts and other like corporations, in the fact 
that the act of incorporation, in the latter cases, only involves 
the creation of corporations with limited powers. The school 
district in most of the states is incorporated, and is given some 
of the powers and characteristics of corporations in general; 
but inasmuch as the ordinary powers of a corporation are not 
given to such incorporations, they are called quasi corporations, 
for the purpose of indicating the limited character of the body 
corporate. School districts have only the public powers which 
are expressly granted to them in the statutes under which they 
are created. On account of the limited character of the poji^ers 
of these so-called quasi corporations, it is necessary to distin- 
guish them from municipal corporations. It is also for this 
reason that, as a general rule, school districts are not included 
within the provisions of statutes, which provide for the control 
of municipal corporations.^ 

There is still another distinction between municipal corpora- 
tions and these quasi corporations, in regard to their Hability 
to persons injured by the negligence of the officers. Thus, a 
school district is held to be free from liability for the trespass 
committed by its officers.^ But in the case of a municipal cor- 
poration, the courts have held that the individuals, who com- 
pose the community within the jurisdiction of the municipal 
corporation, enter into and become parties to all the acts of the 
municipal government, or of the officers of such municipal cor- 
poration, and are liable to all parties who may be injured or 
wronged by the wrongful acts of these officers. The same ele- 
ment is found to enter into the characterization of the private 
corporation.^ Indeed, in respect to more than one feature of 
the municipal corporation, it may be declared to have both a 
public and a private character ; and in respect to some rights 
and some privileges, such corporation does have the protection 
against legislative interference, as in the case of rights of prop- 



1 In re School District, 10 Pa. Co. 
Ct. R. 588 (Pa. 92); School District v. 
Williams, 38 Ark. 454; Norton v. 
Peck, 3 Wis. 714; Eaton v. Mani- 
towoc, 44 Wis. 489. 

2 Bank v. Brainerd, (Minn. 92)51 
K. W. K. 814; Enfield v. Jordan, 119 

8 



U. S. 680; Martin v. People, 87 111. 
524. 

3 Union Township v. Gibboney, 94 
Pa. St. 534; Heller v. Stremmel, 52 
Mo. 309; Hannon v. St. Louis County, 
62 Mo. 313, 316; State v. Leffingwell, 
54 lb. 458, 471. 



CH. I.] CORPORATIONS CLASSiAeD AND DISTINGUISHED. § 4 

erty, which the private corporation fully enjoys.^ In con(!lu- 
sion, it may be stated that the distinctions, which have just 
been made between counties and other subdivisions of the 
state, and municipal corporations on the one hand, and be- 
tween quasi corporations, like school districts, and municipal 
corporations, on the other, generally remain in force, unaffected 
by statutory modification ; but tliey may be, and in fact are 
often materially changed by the provisions of state statutes. 
Thus, for example, in determining whether a county is liable 
in damages for the wrongful acts of its officials, the general 
rule is abolished in some of the states, and the counter rule 
established by statute, as in the state of Pennsylvania. But 
in so much as these characteristics of the municipal corpora- 
tion are given by statute to counties and other territorial 
subdivisions of a state, these subdivisions of the state are essen- 
tially converted by such legislation into municipal corporations, 
and would therefore fall strictly within the provisions of this 
book. It is really a confusion of ideas and principles to give 
the name of corporation to a county or other territorial sub- 
division of the state, which is not in any sense a municipal 
corporation. 

§ 4. The New England town. — In this connection a special 
reference should be made, for the purpose of distinguishing 
them from municipal corporations in general, to the New Eng- 
land town, which is a peculiar institution of government, pai-- 
taking somewhat of the characteristics of counties and other 
subdivisions of the state government, and, at the same time, 
having some of the charactei'istics of the municipal corporation. 
As it originally obtained, the New England town differs very 
little in its legal character from the county. But in the course 
of the development of public affairs in New England, statutes 
have been passed, regulating the character of the New England 
town, and giving to such town certain powers and duties, ap- 
proximating in many ways to the character of an incorporated 
city. But, still, the New England towns are not strictly mu- 
nicipal corporations even under the regulating statutes ; thej' 
are more like the school districts, resembling them in the fact 
that their powers are limited, and that they do not possess all 

1 People V. Detroit, 28 Mich. 228; s. c, 15 Am. Eep. 202, ch. ii. sees. 11-15. 

9 



§ 4 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. [ch. I. 

the powers which are generally vested in a municipal corpora- 
tion, or incorporated cities.^ 

Of course, there are peculiar characteristics of the New 
England town, such as the town meeting, which distinguish 
such a town from municipal corporations in general, but that 
feature is not a legal distinction, and therefore no attempt is 
made here to give an explanation of it. In concluding this 
reference to the New England town, a quotation will be added 
from an opinion of Chief Justice Perley of the Supreme Court 
of New Hampshire : " It is to be observed that municipal cor- 
porations in England are broadly distinguished in many impor- 
tant respects from towns in this and the other New England 
states. There is no uniformity in the powers and duties of 
English municipal corporations. They were not created and 
established under any general public law, but the powers and 
duties of each municipality depended upon its own individ- 
ual grant or prescription. Their corporate franchises were 
held of the crown by the tenure of performing the conditions 
upon which they had been granted, and were liable to forfeit- 
ure for breaches of the condition. They indeed answered cer- 
tain public purposes, as private corporations do which have 
public duties to perform, and some of them exercised politi- 
cal rights. But they are not like towns (with us), general 
political and territorial divisions of the county, with uniform 
powers and duties, defined and varied, from time to time, by 
general legislation. Towns (in New England) do not hold 
their powers ordinarily under any grant from the government 
to the individual corporation ; or by virtue of any contract 
with the government, or upon any condition express or implied. 
They give assent in their corporate capacity to the laws which 



1 " Towns in Connecticut, as in tlie 
other New England states, difEer 
from trading companies, and even 
from municipal corporations else- 
where. They are teri-itorial corpo- 
rations, into which the state is di- 
vided by the legislature, from time 
to time, at its discretion, for po- 
litical purposes and the convenient 
administration of government; they 
have those powers only which have 
10 



been expressly conferred upon them 
by statute, or which are necessai'y 
for conducting municipal affairs; 
and all the Inhabitants of the town 
are members of the quasi corpora- 
tion." Per Gray, J., Bloomfield v. 
Charter Oak Bank, 121 U. S. 121; 
citing 1 Swift's System, 116, 117; 
Granby v. Thurston, 23 Conn. 4)6^ 
Webster v. Harwinton, 32 Conn. 131; 
Dillon, Mun. Corp., sees. 28-30. 



CH. I.] COEPOEATIONS CLASStFIED AND DISTINGUISHED. § 5 



impose their public duties or fix their territorial limits." And 
referring to the case then before the court, the chief justice 
added : " In all that is material to the present inquiry, munici- 
pal corporations in England bear much less resemblance to 
towns in this country than to private corporations which are 
charged with the performance of public duties ; and for these 
reasons, the English authorities on the subject are but remotely 
applicable to the present case." ^ 

§ 5. The state and federal goyernment as a quasi corpora- 
tion. — ^It is undeniable that the government of a state is a body 
politic, inasmuch as it constitutes the representative of an oi-- 
ganic body or community. It has some of the characteristics 
of a corporation, such as the right to make contracts, but under 
the provision of the eleventh amendment of the constitution of 
the United States, a state cannot be sued without its consent ; ^ 
and although it is becoming a very common custom for states, 
as well as the United States, to provide for suits against them- 
selves often in a specially constituted court ; yet the permission, 
thus granted to others to institute suits against such a state, 
may itself be withdrawn at the pleasure of the state.*^ But the 
state is, however, so far treated by the courts as a body politic 
or quasi corporation, as that such state may sue as plaintiff in 
all courts, both state and federal.* So, also, may suits be in- 
stituted between states ; but in that case the Supreme Court of 
the United States has alone original jurisdiction.^ In this same 
limited sense, the governor may be treated as a quasi corpora- 



I Eastman v. Meredith, 36 N. H. 
284, 290; see Hill v. Boston, 122 
Mass. 344; Dill v. Warebam, 3 Met. 
438; Norton v. Mansfield, 16 Mass. 
48; Stetson v. Kempton, 13 lb. 272; 
Miuot V. West Eoxbury, 112 lb. 1; 
17 Am. Rep. 52; Vincent v. Nan- 
tucket, 12 Cush. 105 ; Parsons v. Go- 
shen, 11 Pick. 396; Anthony v. 
Adams, .1 Met. 284; Granby v. Thurs- 
ton, 23 Conn. 416; Bloomfield v. 
Bank, 121 U. S. 121. 

2Galbes v. Girard, 46 Fed. R. 500; 
People V. Garner, 59 Hun, 299; Pen- 
neyer v. McCounaughey, 140 IT. S. 
1; Briscoe v. Bank, 11 Pet. 257, 321; 



see article by A. H. Wintersteen in 
30 Am. L. Reg. (N. S.) 1. 

« People V. Garner, 59 Hun, 299; 
Beers v. ArkansaSj 20 How. 527; Ken- 
tucky V. Dennison, 24 lb. 66; State v. 
Trustees, 5 Ind. 77; Dodd v. Miller, 
14 lb. 433; Wisconsin v. Duluth, 2 
Dillon 0. C. 406. 

*Murdock v. Com., 152 Mass. 28; 
State V. Evans, 33 S. C. 184; Indiana 
V. Woram, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 33; People 
V. Assessors, 1 Hill (N. T.) 620; State 
V. Delesdenier, 7 Tex. 76. 

' Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 
66; Wisconsin v. Duluth, 2 Dillon 
C. C. 406. 

11 



§ 5 MU2SriCIPAL COEPOEATIONS. [cH. I. 

tion sole, and become party as such to contracts made with 
him in his official capacity, for the benefit of others, as where 
bonds have been made payable to him for the benefit of other 
parties.^ 

1 Governor v. Allen, 8 Humph. 176; Governor v. Plummer, 2 Humph 500 
12 



CHAPTER II. 



LEGISLATIVE CONTROL OVEE MUNICIPAL COEPOEATIONS, 
HOW FAR LIMITED. 



Section. 

8 — General statement as to legisla- 
tive power. 

9 — Legislative power not unlimit- 
ed, public and private char- 
acter of municipal corpora- 
tions distinguished. 

10 — ^Effect of repeal or dissolution. 

11 — Legislative power over prop- 
erty of municipal corpora- 
tions. 

12 — Legislative power over reve- 
nues, including penalties and 
franchises. 



Section. 

13 — ^Legislative power over prop- 
erty held in trust. 

14 — Legislative power over munic- 
ipal contracts. 

15 — Compulsory contracts. 

16— Compulsory satisfaction of 
non-legal claims against 
cities. 

IT — Ratifying void local assess- 
ments. 

18 — Legislative control of offices 
and officers in municipal cor- 
porations. 



§ 8. General statement as to legislative power — In a pre- 
vious paragraph, it has been explained, as one of the principal 
distinctions between public and private corporations, that the 
charter of a private corporation constitutes a contract between 
the state and the incorporators, which is protected by the consti- 
tutional provision which prohibits the passing of laws by states 
impairing the obligation of a contract.^ Where, as in the case 
of a public or municipal corporation, the charter or act of in- 
corporation is not such a contract between the state and the 
community which has thus been created, as that it would fall 
within the protection of this constitutional provision, such char- 
ter and charter rights remain still subject to the unlimited con- 
trol of the state government ; and may be repealed, enlarged, or 
diminished, as to the scope of its powers and its rights, or of 
its territory^ without the consent of the parties who compose 
the community .2 And the extent of this legislative control over 



1 See ante, sec. 2. 

2 New Orleans v. New Orleans W. 
W. Co., 142 U. S. 79; State v. Kolsem, 
29 N. E. 595; Smith v. People, 29 N. 
E. 676; In re Strand, 21 Pac. K. 654; 
State v. Babcock, 25 Neb. 709 ; Quin- 
cy V. O'Brien, 24 111. App. 591 ; Essex 



Pub. Road v. Skinkle, 140 U. S. 334; 
Maddrey v. Cox, 73 Tex. 538; In re 
Canal St., (R. I. 93) 25 Atl. R. 975; 
Richmond v. Ry. Co., 21 Gratt. 604; 
Muskegon v. Dow, (Mich. 93) 54 N. W. 
R. 170; Com. v. MaoFerron, (Pa. 93) 
25 Atl. R. 556; Tillotson v. East Sagi- 
13 



§9 



MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 



[CH. n. 



public or municipal corporations is in no wise affected by the 
fact, that the charter of the municipal corporation is created by 
the same legislative act which creates a private corporation.^ 

§ 9. Legislative power not xinliinited — Public and private 
character of municipal corporations distinguished.— Not- 
withstanding the general proposition, and popular belief, that a 
municipal corporation is subject to the uncontrolled and unhm- 
ited exercise of power by the state, that is not the case. A 
municipal corporation certainly occupies a very different posi- 
tion from the private corporation, in respect to the power of the 
legislative control over such corporation, at least in regard to a 
large part of its powers. But in order to determine how far 
the state government may interfere with the municipal corpora- 
tion, either as to its existence as a body corporate, or as to its 



naw, 54 N. W. R. 162; Murphy v. Lou- 
isville, 9 Bush. 189; Lloyd v. Mayor, 
etc. of New York, 5 N. T. 369; People 
V. Detroit, 28 Mich. 228; State Bank 
V. Knoop, 16 How. (0. S.) 369; State 
V. Mayor, 24 Ala. TOl; State v. Mayor, 
E. M. Charlt. (Ga.) 250; Duusmore's 
Appeal, 52 Pa. St. 374; Sangamon 
Co. V. Springfield, 63111. 66; Darling- 
ton V. Mayor etc. of New York, 31 
N. Y. 164; Savings Fund Society v. 
Philadelphia, 31 Pa. St. ITS, 185; 
Philadelphia v. Fox, 64 VA. St. 169; 
Lowber v. N. Y., 7 Abb. Pr. E. 248; 
Green v. N. Y., 5 Abb. Pr. E. 503; 
Gleason v. Cleveland, (Ohio 93) 31 
N. E. 802; Buford v. State, 72 Tex. 
182; In re House Bill, 12 Colo. 289; 
Aurora v. West, 9 Ind. 74; Plymouth 
V. Jackson, 15 Pa. St. 44; Louisville 
V. Com., 1 Duvall (Ky.) 295; Empo- 
ria V. Smith, 22 Pac. E. 616 (Kan. 
88) ; Davies v. Los Angeles, 86 Cal. 
37; Greensburg v. Laird, 8 Pa. Co. 
Gt. 608; O'Hara v. Portland, 3 Greg. 
525; Gray v. Brooklyn, 10 Abb. (N. 
Y.) Pr. Eep., sr. s. 186; Nalle v. Aus- 
tin, (Tex. 93) 21 S. W. E. 375; Platte 
Co. V. Do well, 30 Pac. E. 68; Jack- 
sou V. Walsh, (Md. 92) 23 Atl. E. 
778; Morey v. Newfane, 8 Barb. 645; j 
14 



Philadelphia v. Field, 58 Pa. St. 320; 
Erie v. Canal, 59 Pa. St. 174; Smith 
v. People, 29 N. E. E. 676; New Or- 
leans V. Hoyle, 23 La. An. 740; Amite 
City V. Clements, 24 La. An. 27; State 
V. Forrest Co., 43 N. W. E. 551; Com. 
V. Brenham, 22 N. E. E. 628; Tins- 
man V. Eailroad Company, 2 Dutch. 
(N. J.) 148; Atty. Gen. v. Hatch, 60 
Mich. 229; Ruohs v. Athens, (Tenn. 
92) 18 S. W. E. 400; Downing v, 
Indiana etc. Co., 129 Ind. 443; C. 
& A. E. E. Co. V. Adler, 56 111. 344; 
Eichland Co. v. Lawrence, 12 111. 8; 
State etc. v. St. Louis County Court, 
34 Mo. 546; Purdy v. People, 4 Hill 
(N. Y.) 385; Creighton v. San Fran- 
cisco, 42 Cal. 446; Lucas v. Tippe^ 
canoe Co., 44 Ind. 524; Burns v. 
Clarion County, 62 Pa. St. 351; see 
also Martin v. Dix, 52 Miss. 58; Peo- 
ple V. Wren, 4 Scam. (111.) 273; New 
Orleans etc. Co. v. NeMr Orleans, 26 
La. An. 517; People v. Detroit, 28 
Mich. 228; Coles v. Madison, Breese 
(HI.) 120. 

^Patterson v. Society etc., 24 N. 
J. L. 885 ; see Baltimore v. Board of 
Police, 15 Md. 376; Luehrman v. 
Taxing District, 2 Lea (Tenn.) 425. 



CH. IT.] 



LEGISLATIVE CONTROL. 



§9 



lights, a closer investigation is required into the actual condi- 
tion of things which lead up to the incorporation of a munici- 
pality. What the legislator does in the way of the creation of 
a body corporate, is certainly subject to change and modifica- 
tion by the same power which creates it. But what the legis- 
lator does not create by such act of incorporation, and which 
exists independently of the legislative action, is something 
which the legislator by no act can dispose of or destroy. The 
legislator does not create the community which is incorporated 
by the legislative act, he simply gives to a community already 
existent a legal personality, which it cannot have independently 
of such legislative act. This legal personality is the sole crea- 
tion of the legislator. Under the decisions of the courts hereto- 
fbre cited, there can be no question that this act of incorporation 
of a city or town may at anjj^ time be repealed, or the corpora- 
tion dissolved. But wliat is the effect of a repeal of a munici- 
pal charter upon the substantial possession and rights of the 
municipality or community is an altogether different question. 
Subject to some criticism and objection on the part of a few 
authorities,^ a limitation upon the legislative power of control 
has been adopted by the current decisions, which is made to 
rest upon the recognized dual character of a municipal corpo- 
ration. If a municipal corporation had in every particular tlie 
same public character, which belongs to the township or county, 
and it constituted simply a subdivision of the state government, 
as such counties and townships do, no distinction would be 
possible between these classes of governmental organizations 
and the municipal corporation. But the existence of a munic- 
ipal corporation is called forth by the peculiar needs of a com- 
pactly settled community, and the development, under the 
peculiar conditions of such community, of local rights and in- 



1 Darlington v. Mayor, etc., 31 K. 
T. 164 (1865); Philadelphia v. Fox, 
64 Pa. St. 160, 180, 181, per Shars- 
wood, J., who giving the judgment 
of the court says: "A municipal 
corporation is merely an agency of 
government fully subject to the con- 
trol of the legislature, who may en- 
large or diminish its territorial ex- 
tent, or its functions, may change 



or modify its internal arrangement, 
or destroy its very existence, with 
the mere breath of arbitrai'y discre- 
tion. . . The sovereign may con- 
tinue its (the city's) corporate exist- 
ence, and yet assume and resume 
the appointments of all of its offi- 
cers and agents into its own hands; 
for the power which can create and 
destroy can modify and change." 

15 



§ 9 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. [CH. II. 

terests, in which the state at large has no special concern, and 
which are of strictly local value.^ On the other hand, the mu- 
nicipality is likewise vested with the right, and the duty is im- 
posed upon it, of carrying on the local administration of public 
powers, which otherwise would be intrusted to the county or 
town organization. Its public duties can be performed quite as 
readily bj' a local organization which is not incorporated; and 
tlie powers are conferred upon the municipal corporation simply 
as a matter of public convenience, and not as one of necessity. 
In fact, the incorporation of a city or town is called forth by the 
local needs of the community, and its existence depends upon 
such incorporation to satisfy such local wants. " The propo- 
sition which asserts the amplitude of legislative control over 
municipal corporations, when confined, as it should be, to such 
corporations as agencies of the state iu its government, is entirely 
sound. They are not created exclusively for that purpose, but 
have other objects and purposes peculiarly local, and in which 
the state at large, except in conferring the power and regulat- 
ing its exercise, is legally no more concerned than it is in the 
individual and private concerns of its several citizens. Indeed, 
it would be easy to show that it is not from the standpoint of 
state interest, but from that of local interest, that the necessity of 
incorporating cities and villages most distinctly appears. State 
duties of a local nature can for the most part be very well per- 
formed through the usual township and count)' organizations. 
It is because, where an urban population is collected, many 
things are necessary for their comfort and protection which are 
not needed in the country, that the state is then called upon to 
confer large powers and to make the localitj' a subordinate com- 
monwealth." ^ In regard to the powers and property which are 
vested in a municipal corporation in its public character, as a 
branch of the state government, there can be no limit to the 
control of such corporation by the state. But where the muni- 
cipal corporation, as it always does, by virtue of its existence 
as a legal personality, acquires the rights of property of a pri- 
vate character for the benefit of the community which has been 



1 For example Public Parks : State 
V. Sohweickardt, 19 S. W. E. 47. 

2 Opinion of Judge Cooley in Peo- 
ple V. Detroit, 28 Mich. 228. See al- 

16 



so Underbill v. Essex, (Vt.) 23 Afl. 
Rep. 617; State v. Lainoureux, 30 
Pac. Rep. 243. 



CH. n.] 



LEGISLATIVE CONTROL. 



§10 



incorporatedj and in the enjoyment of which the state at large 
is not concerned, these propriety rights constitute in the con- 
stitutional sense vested rights, if not of the municipal corpora- 
tion itself, yet of the communit}' which has been incorporated, 
which cannot be diverted or taken away by legislative action. 
In respect to these semi-private rights the legislative control 
is not unlimited.^ 

§ 10. Effect of repeal or dissolution. — In order to properly 
appreciate the difficulty and importance of this distinction be- 
tween the public and private character of a municipal corpora- 
tion, reference should be made to the effect of a repeal or 
dissolution of the charter of a municipal corporation. That the 
state may repeal or otherwise materially change the charter of 
the municipal corporation, there can be no question. Not only 
is it possible for the state or law-making power to simply mod- 
ify or change the charter by enlargement or diminution of the 
powers or the territory of the corporation ; but it may also 
destroy the corporation altogether, substitute another in its 
place, or provide for the government of the community in 
some other way than by a municipal corporation. The United 



1 Downing v. Indianapolis, etc., 
Co., 151 Mass. 364; Gary Library v. 
Bliss,- 151 Mass. 364; Wellington v. 
Wellington, 26 Pac. Rep. 415 ; Louis- 
ville V. Commonwealtli, 1 Duvall 
(Ky.) 295; Weigbtman v. Wasbing- 
ton, 1 Black. (U. S.) 39; Franklin Co. 
Gram. Scb. v. Bailey, 62 Vt. 467; 
Reading v. Commonwealth, 11 Pa. 
St. 196; People v. Briggs, 50 N. Y. 
553, 560; People v. Field, 58 N. Y. 
491; People v. Ingersoll, 58 K Y. 1; 
Nichol V. Nashville, 9 Humph. 252 ; 
Small T. Danville, 51 Me. 359; West 
Sav. Fund Soc. v. Philadelphia, 31 
Pa. St. 1*75; lb. 185; Bailey v. Mayor, 
etc., of New York, 3 Hill, 531; Rich- 
mond V. Long's Admr., 17 Gratt. 
(Va.) 375; De Voss v. Richmond, 18 
Gratt. 338; s. c, 7 Am. Law Reg., 
N. s. 589; People v. Hurlbut, 24 Mich. 
44; 8. c, 9 Am. Rep. 103; People v. 
Detroit, 28 Mich. 228; s. c, 15 Am. 
2 



Rep. 202; Martin v. Mayor, etc., 1 
Hill, 545; Buttrick v. Lowell, 1 Al- 
len, 172; Oliver v. Worcester, 102 
Mass. 489; Askwetb v. Hale Co., 54 
Ala. 639; Detroit v. Corey, 9 Mich. 
165, 184; New Orleans, etc., R. R. 
Co. V. New Orleans, 26 La. An. 478, 
517; Jones v. New Haven, 34 Conn. 
1 ; United States v. Baltimore & Ohio 
Railroad Company, 17 Wall. 332; In 
re Malone's Estate, 21 S. C. 435; Niles. 
Water Works v. Niles, 59 Mich. 311; 
Western College v. Cleveland, 12 Ohio 
St. 375 ; State v. Scbweeokart, 19 S. 
W. R. 47; Weet v. Brockport, 16 N. 
Y. 161; Louisville v. University of 
Louisville, 15 B. Mon. 642; Toucbard 
V. Touohard, 5 Cal. 306; Gas Co. v. 
San Francisco, 9 Cal. 453; Commis- 
sioners V. Duckett, 20 Md. 468; Cum- 
mings V. City of St. Louis, 2 S. W. R. 
130; 90 Mo. 259; Scranton v. White, 
23 Atl. R. 1043; 30 W. N. C. 74. 
17 



10 



MUNICIPAL CORPOEATIONS. 



[CH. n. 



States government has exercised this power for many years 
past in regard to the city of Washington, the capital of the 
country. But, as just stated, the legislature, or law-making 
power simply creates this legal personality which we call the 
municipal corporation ; but it neither creates nor can destroy 
the community which goes to make up the city or town, and 
which continues to exist independently of all legislative ac- 
tion whatever. The legislature of New York has done nothing 
by enactment to create the metropolis which occupies the Island 
of Manhattan ; and, on the other hand, it can do nothing to de- 
stroy such a community, even though the present government 
may be taken away altogether. Now, in order to appreciate 
the effect of a repeal or dissolution of a municipal charter, ref- 
erence by analogy should be made to the effect of a repeal or 
dissolution of a private corporation, where the power to repeal 
such charter or dissolve the corporation has been reserved by 
special provision in the chartej', or by the general laws under 
vvrhich private corpoi-ations are made. The doctrine is well es- 
tablished in regard to private corporations, that when the power 
to repeal the private charter has been reserved, the power of 
the legislature over such private corporation- thus reserved is 
nevertheless not unlimited. While the corporation, as a legal 
entity, depends for its continued existence upon the legislative 
discretion ; yet where the power of dissolution of such corpora- 
tion is exercised by the state legislature, the dissolution of such 
corporation cannot in any way affect or impair the property or 
rights of property which the incorporators have created under 
their charter, or the rights of its creditors.^ And the same rule 
has been applied to the rights of property of private corpora- 
tions, which have been cieated through valid municipal grants.^ 
The explanation of these cases is, that the individuals who com- 



1 Downing v. Indiana etc. Co., 129 
Ind. 443; Mumma v. Potomac, 8 Pet. 
285; People v. O'Brien Rec, 111 N. 
Y. 1 ; Schlieder v. Dielman, 10 So. E. 
934; Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Crancli, 135; 
Detroit v. Plank Eoad, 43 Mich. 140; 
Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U. S. 700; 
Greenwood v. Freight Co., 105 lb. 
13. 

"In re Brooklyn El. Ky. Co., 11 N. 
18 



T. S. 161; 57 Hun, 590; Sixth etc. 
Co. V. Kerr, 72 N. Y. 330; R. E. Co. 
V. Delaware, 114 U. S. 501; People 
V. O'Brien, supra ; Langdon v. Mayor, 
93 N. Y. 129; Davis v. Mayor, 14 lb. 
506; Mayor v. Second Ave. E. E. Co., 
32 lb. 261; Milhau v. Sharp, 327 lb. 
611; Western Pas. Co. v. E. E. Co., 
26 N. E. R. 188; Gary Libr. v. Bliss, 
151 Mass. 364. 



CH. 11.] LEGISLATIVE CONTROL. § 11 

pose the private corporation became the successors to all the 
rights, which the private corporation acquires upon the dissolu- 
tion of such corporation. And no other theory can be properly 
applied to the rights of a municipal corporation, upon the dis- 
solution of such municipal corporation. ^ 

§ 11. Legislative power over property of municipal corpo- 
rations. — In application of the distinction, heretofore made, be- 
tween the public and private character of a municipal corporation, 
and the corresponding rights of the same, one is prepared to 
meet witli the statement, that the legislature, as the trustee or 
representative of the public in general, has, or may assume, 
full control over the public property and the public rights of a 
municipal corporation. But without qualification, that state- 
ment cannot be taken without some possibility of error. It has, 
thus, for example, been held that the state may authorize a 
railroad company to occupy the street of a city, without the 
consent of such city, or without payment of any compensation 
to the city .2 But such power is only one of control and regu- 
lation of the uses of such property, and the state cannot by any 
act divest the city of the use of its pi'operty or transfer such 
property to some nonmunicipal use.^ But, in view of the dis- 
tinction between public and private rights of municipal corpora- 
tions, nothing can be done in the way of taking the private 
property of the citj'-, for public use, without payment of com- 
pensation.* And, except in the case of the appropriation of 
private propei'ty of the said municipal corporation to public 



' Brooklyn R. K. Co. v. Brooklyn 
City R R. Co., .32 Barb. 264; Mayor 
etc. V. Second Ave. R. K. Co., 32 N. 
Y. 261; New Orleans W. W. Co. v. 
Rivers, 115 U. S. 674. 

^Post, §302. 

8 State V. Schweickart, 19 S. W. R. 
41; State v. Wallace, 52 N. W. R. 
213; Darlington v. Mayor, 31 N. Y. 
164, 193, 205 ; People v. Ingersoll, 58 
N. Y. 1; People v. O'Brien, 111 lb. 
1; N. O. "W. W. Co. V. Rivers, 115 U. 
S. 674; Sinking Fund Cases, lb. 700; 
Detroit v. Howell P. R. Co., 43 Mich. 
140. 

* Southampton v. Mecox Co., 116 
N. Y. 1; Mayor etc. v. Hopkins, 



13 La. An. 326; New Orleans etc. 
Co. v. New Orleans, 26 lb. 517; lb. 
478; Mercer v. Railroad Co., 36 Pa. 
St. 99; People v. Kerr, 27 N. Y. 
188; Louisville v. University of Lou- 
isville, 15 B. Mon. 642; Portland etc. 
Co. V. Portland, 14 Oreg. 188; Dar- 
lington v. Mayor, 31 N. Y. 164; Clin- 
ton V. R. R. Co., 24 Iowa, 455; Rey- 
nolds V. Stark Co., 5 Ohio, 204; 5 Ohio 
St. 113; Wellington v. Township, 
(Kan. 90) 26 Pao. R. 415; Reading v. 
Commonwealth, 11 Pa. St. 196; Cum- 
mings V. City of St. Louis, 2 S. W. 
R. 180; 90 Mo. 250; Mount Hope 
Cemetery v. Boston, (Mass. 93) 33 
N. E. R. 695. 

19 



§12 



MUXICIPAL COKPORATrONS. 



[oh. [I. 



use, ill the exercise of the right of eminent domain, there can 
never be any application or appropriation of such property to 
any other but a municipal use. Thus, for example, lands 
which have been acquired by a municipal corporation, by gift 
or purchase, are not subject to legislative appropriation. ^ And 
even in the regulation of the use of the property, the power of 
the legislator is not unlimited. Thus, it has been held in New- 
York, that real estate which the city of New York owns in fee 
simple, is no more subject to legislative control than similar 
property rights of private individuals. And that an act of the 
legislature, which orders the destruction of a leservoir of the 
city, and the conversion of the ground upon which the reservoir 
is located into a park, without the consent of the city thereto, 
is an unlawful exercise of legislative authority, and cannot be 
pecmitted, except in accordance with the right of eminent 
domain ; and, therefore, full compensation must be made to the 
city for such an appropriation of its property.^ 

§ 12. Legislative power over revenues, including penal- 
ties and franchises. — But a distinction is to be made between 
the property rights of a municipal corporation, either public or 
private, and the provisions made by state laws for the collec- 
tion of revenue by the corporation. While the propert}', 
which a municipal corporation acquires in the exercise of its 



I State V. Patterson, (IST. J. 90) 20 
Atl. R. 828; State V. Suhweickert, 19 
S. W. K. 47; People v. Vanderbilt, 26 
N. Y. 324; Richmond Co. v. Law- 
rence, 12 111. 1; Bass v. Fontleroy, 
11 Tex. 698-708; Hampshire v. 
Franklin, 16 Mass. 76; Gary v. Bliss, 
151 Mass. 564. 

^ Webb V. Mayor etc. of 'Sev York, 
64 How. Pr. Rep. 10. "I perceive," 
said Macomber, J., "no difiference 
between the tenure of property thus 
held by the city and the proprietary 
rights of natural persons or private 
corporations. The privilege, how- 
ever, is peculiar in this state to the 
city of New York. Nor is this prop- 
erty, with other real estate owned by 
the city, held in trustfor any person; 
nor is it stamped with any mere po- 

20 



litical trust of which the city may be 
deprived, and thus its claim to the 
right to the possession, of the prop- 
erty destroyed. The title to the land 
rests somewhere, and, as has been 
shown above, so far as the records 
extend, no one claims it except the 
city itself." The com-t did not hold 
that the protection here conceded to 
municipal property in New York city 
was not granted elsewhere. See also 
Dartmouth College Case, 4 Wheat. 
694; Terret v. Taylor, 9 Cranch, 52; 
People V. Detroit, 28 Mich. 228; Peo- 
ple V. Fields, 58 N. Y. 591; Bailey v. 
Mayor, 3 Hill, 531; People v. Inger- 
soll, 58 N. Y. 1; Cincinnati S. & C. 
R. Co. V. Village of Belle Centre, 
(Ohio, 9) 27 N. E. Rep. 464. 



CH. II.] 



LEGISLATIVE CONTROL. 



§12 



corporate powers, is protected from legislative iaterference as 
vested rights ; yet in provisions of the law for the revenue of 
the city, in vk^hatever form such provision may take, the city 
has no vested rights ; and the legislature may at any time, as 
far as the municipal corporation itself is concerned,- change and 
modify, or altogether take away the particular source of reve- 
nue.^ The legislature's power over the revenue of the city is 
in no wise affected by the fact, that a particular purpose is 
mentioned for which the revenue in question has to be appro- 
priated. Thus, for example, the legislature may repeal the 
power it gives to cities to grant licenses for the sale of intoxi- 
cating liquors, notwithstanding the fact that the money, col- 
lected from such licenses, is to be donated to the support of 
the paupers of the town.^ So, also, may the legislature 'repeal 
a law, which gives to a municipal corporation the power to 
levy and collect wharfage from the private wharfs within its 
territorial limits, although there is no power in the legislature 
to divert or remit the proceeds accruing to the city from any 
wharf, which it may have created in the exercise of a franchise 
granted to it for the establishment of wharfs.'. On the other 
hand, a franchise granted to a town to establish a ferry or a 
wharf, as long as it has not been exercised in the establishment 
or creation of either of them, does not constitute a vested right 
which will come within the protection of the constitutional pro- 
vision. Such executory rights or franchises may be repealed 



1 Taylor v. Robinson, 72 Tex. 364; 
Anderson v. Mayfield, 19 S. W. Rep. 
598; Tile v. Mayfield, 19 lb. 598; Mo- 
Gee V. Salem, 149 Mass. 238; Board 
V. Com'rs, 107 N". C. 110; Northamp- 
ton Co. T. Eastern etc. Ry. Co., 23 
Atl. Rep. 895; Lucas v. Board, etc., 
44 Ind. 524; Indianapolis v. Indian- 
apolis, etc., 59 Ind. 215; Tyrrell v. 
Wheeler, 123 K. Y. 76; Toungs v. 
Hall, 9 Nev. 212; People v. IngersoU, 
58 ISr. T. 1; Darst v. Griffin, (Neb. 90) 
48 N. "W. R. 819 ; Essex Board v. Skin- 
kle, 140 U. S. 334; Caroudelet Co. v. 
New Orleans, 10 So. R. 871; County 
V. State, 11 111. 202; County v. Coun- 
ty, 12 111. 1 ; People v. Pratt, 129 N. 
Y. 68; Love v. Schenck, 12 Ired. 



Law, 304; People v. Melds, 58 N. Y. 
491; Home Ins. Co. v. City Council, 
93 U. S. 116. 

2 People V. Meyer, 5 N. Y. S. 69; 
Mendocino Co. v. Bank, 24 Pac. R. 
1002; 86 Cal.-255; People v. Super- 
visors, 50 Cal. 361; Grantham v. 
State, 14 S. E. Rep. 892; Richland 
Co. V. Lawrence Co., 12 111. 1; Peo- 
ple V. Power, 25 111. 187; Richmond 
V. Richmond, etc., Railroad Co., 21 
Gratt. (Va.) 604; Spaulding v. Ando- 
ver, 54 N. H. 38; Home Ins. Co. v. 
City Council, 93 U. S. 116; Sangamon 
Co. V. Springfield, 63 111. 71; Gutz- 
weller v. People, 14 111. 142. 

= St. Louis V. Shields, 52 Mo. 351. 

21 



§12 



MUNICIPAL COBPOBATJONS. 



[CH. n. 



by the legislature.^ So, also, where a legislative grant directs a 
donation of lands to a city for certain public purpose, as long as 
such grant has not been performed or acted upon by the munic- 
ipal corporation, it is not a contract which is inviolable; but it 
is an unexecuted donation, which may at any time be repealed 
by the legislature, prior to the actual purchase or transfer of 
such land to the city.^ So, likewise, an authority, which is giv- 
en to a municipal corporation, or to a county, to take the stock 
of railroad corporations and issue bonds thei'fefor, upon the as- 
sent of the majority of the voters, does not constitute such a 
binding contract that the legislature cannot repeal such a law 
and prevent such a subscription of stock and issue of bonds, 
before an affirmative vote has been taken by the people of the 
county or town, or the subscription has been agreed to be 
made.^ 

It has also been held that laws, providing for the acquisition 
by a municipal corporation or county of penalties for the vio- 
lation of law or the breach of a contract, do not constitute 
in any way a vested right in such county or town, which 
cannot be repealed or taken away, before the enforcement 
of such penalties, by legislative action. Thus, for example, 
in Maryland, a railroad company agreed to locate its road 
through three towns named, subject to a pi'ovision, that if it 
failed to perform that obligation it should forfeit '$1,000,000 to 
the state of Maryland for the use of Washington county. It 
was held that a legislative act, which repealed that portion of 
the charter which imposed this penalty in favor of Washington 
county, took away from Washington county its right to enforce 
such penalty, and released the railroad company from its per- 



' East Hartford v. Hartford Bridge 
Co., 10 How. 511; s. c, 16 Conn. 149; 
17 Conn. 79; Sioux City R. R. Co. v. 
Sioux City, 43 N. W. R. 224; New 
Orleans v. Wolmot, 31 La. An. 65; 
EUerman v. McNains, 30 La. An. 65 ; 
Darlington v. Mayor, 31 N. Y. 164, 
202; Railroad Co. v. Ellerman, 105 
U. S. 166; Trustees v. Tatman, 13 111. 
30; Police Jury v. Shreveport, 5 La. 
An. 661. 

2 Richland Co. v. Lawrence Co., 12 
111. 1; People v. Vanderbilt, 26 N. Y. 
22 



287; Hampshire v. Franklin, 16 Mass. 
76; Bass v. Fontleroy, 26 N. Y. 287. 
8 State V. Meller, 67 Mo. 604; Shelby 
Co. V. Cumberland & C. R. R. Co., 8 
Bush (Ky.) 299; People v. Coon, 25 
Cal. 635 ; Union Pacific Railroad Co. 
V. Davis County, 6 Kan. 256; C. 0. 
R. R. Co. V. Barren Co., 10 Bush (Ky.) 
604; Concord v. Portsmouth Bank, 
92 U. S. 625 ; Aspinwall v. County of 
Jo Daviess, 22 How. 364; Baltimore 
& D. P. Railroad Co. v. Pumphrey, 
(Md. 1891) 21 Atl. Rep. 559. 



CH. II.] 



LEGISLATIVE CONTROL. 



§13 



formance. The general rule is, that fines and penalties which 
are directed to be paid to public corporations in general are not 
vested rights of such corporation ; but the law may at any time 
be repealed, or the fines and penalties released by the legislature, 
without the consent of the municipal corporation.^ It has also 
been held that the same result is attained, where the executive 
officer exercises his power and releases the fines or penalties, 
■ which have been imposed by the courts for the commission of 
some crime.^ 

§ 13. Legislative power over property held in trust. — The 
fact, that a municipal corporation is charged with the adminis- 
tration of a trust for a public charity, or one involving private 
interests and rights, will not of itself be any obstacle in the 
way of any limitation or abolition of a municipal corporation, 
if such administration by the corporation is deemed to be for 
the public benefit. When the corporation has been dissolved, 
the Court of'Chancery will assume the execution of the public 
trust,-and appoijnt new trustees, to take charge of such property 
and carry the trust into effect. This is not only the case, where 
a corporation has been destroyed, or its municipal character 
materially modified ; but, also, whenever there is any fear of mal- 
administration of the trust, or whenever the interest of the trust 
and its beneficiaries requires a change of trustees.^ Not only 
has the Court of Chancery this extraordinary power in cases of 
great danger of loss, and for the protection of the interests of 
the beneficiaries ; but even in other cases it has been held that 
the legislature has the power to divest a municipal corporation 
of its control of a public charity or trust, and to place it in a 
different body of trustees. This was done in a case of great 
public interest, where the legislature of Pennsylvania under- 



' State V. Railroad Company, 12 
Gill & Johns. (Md.) 399; 3 How. (U. 
S.) 534; Union etc. Co. v. Proctor, 12 
Colo. 194; Ex parte Christensen, 24 
Pac. R. 747; 85 Cal. 208; Rankin v. 
Baird, Breeze (111.) 123; C. & A. R. 
R. Co. V. Adler, 56 111. 344; Conner 
V. Bent, 1 Mo. 235; Coles v. Madison 
County, Breese (111.) 115; HoUiday 
V. People, 5 Gilm. (10 111.) 216. 

2 Portland W. V. R. Co. v. Portland, 



12 Pac. R. 265; 14 Greg. 188: HoUi- 
day V. People, 5 Gilm. (10 111.) 216. 

s Meriwether v. Garrett, 102 U. S. 
472, 528; Montpelier v. East Mont- 
pelier, 29 Vt. 12; EUerman v. Mc- 
Mains, 30 La. An. 190; Girard v. 
Phila., 7 "Wall. 1; Philadelphia v. 
Pox, 64 Pa. St. 169; Cincinnati v. 
Cameron, 33 Ohio St. 336; Luchrman 
V. Tax Dist., 2 Lea, Teuu. 425. 

23 



§ 13 MUNICIPAL COKPOKATIONS. [CH. n. 

took to deprive the city of Philadelphia, of the right to adminis- 
ter the charitable trust which was confided to its care under the 
will of Girard and others, and to transfer the administration of 
these trusts to a corporate body, called the " Directors of City 
Trusts," who were to be appointed by certain state judges. It 
was held that this was a lawful exercise of legislative author- 
ity .^ But this power of the legislature has been denied in one 
case, in the Supreme Court of Maine, where certain lands were 
held as the property of a town, and the legislature authorized 
the sale of such lands and the investment of the proceeds of 
sale, as a fund in the hands of certain trustees to devote to 
buildings for the use of the public schools. A subsequent act 
of the legislature authorized the town to selecft a new board of 
trustees, and directed the original board to deliver over to the 
new board all the trust property held by it. The legislature 
held that, in accordance with the principle laid down in the 
Dartmouth College Case, such interference with the trust prop- 
erty was unconstitutional and void.^ The distinction is made 
in the Pennsylvania case between private trustees being charg- 
ed with the performance of a charitable trust, and the adminis- 
tration of such a trust being vested in the municipal corporation. 
In the first case, the legislature has no power of interference, 
except to prevent maladministration of the trust; but in the 
second case, the interference bj' the legislature is subject to no 
limitation in respect to the change of administrators.^ 

But the legislature did not in this case attempt to divert the 
trust funds and apply them to purposes foreign to the provisions 
of the trust ; and it is extremely doubtful whether the legisla- 
ture would in any case have the power to make such a diversion 
of trust funds. Such a power has been denied to the legisla- 
ture in two cases.* In the New Hampshire case, the trust fund 
for the support of public schools was given to the town of M., 



1 Philadelphia v. Fox, 94 Pa. St. 
169; Penn. Const. 1874, art. 3, §20. 

2 Trustees v. Bradbury, 11 Me. 118; 
see also to same effect, Gary v. Bliss, 
151 Mass. 384; 25 N. E. R. 92; Yar- 
mouth V. N. Yarm., 34 Me. 411 ; Nor- 
ris V. Academy, 79 Johns. (Md.) 7; 
Louisville v. University, 15 B. Mon. 
24 



642; Bass v. Pontleroy, 11 Tex. 698. 

*This power of control over city 
trusts has since been taken avpay 
from the legislature by a subsequent 
constitutional provision. Const. Pa. 
1874, art. 3, sec. 20. 

* State V. Springfield, 6 Ind. 83; 
Greenville v. Mason, 53 N. H. 515. 



CH. n.] 



LEGISLATIVE CONTEOL. 



§14 



on the express condition that the fund should be applied solely 
to the support of the public schools in the town of M. At a 
subsequent period, the town of G. was created by the legisla- 
ture out of a part of the territory and inhabitants of M. ; and the 
statute which created this new corporation provided, that this 
trust fund should be divided between the original town of M. 
and the new town of G. in the proportion of seven to M. and 
thirteen to G. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire held 
that the legislature had no power to direct the appropriation 
of the trust fund in question to any other purpose than that 
which was prescribed by the donor. And, in the exercise of the 
legislative power of cutting down the territory of the town of 
M., it had no power to transfer any proportionate share of the 
trust fund to the new corporation, which had been formed out 
of a part of the territory' of M. It has, however, been held in 
Maine, that where a public corporation holds property in trust 
for the use of its inhabitants, the legislature can, upon the di- 
vision of such corporation into two or more towns, provide 
that the original town shall continue to hold such property in 
trust for the inhabitants of both towns.^ Certainly, the munic- 
ipal corporation has no power, in the absence of legislative 
authority', to make any other use of the trust fund, but for the 
purpose provided for in the trust.'^ 

" § 14. Legislative power over municipal contracts. — The 
contract of a municipal corporation certainly constitutes a 
species of private property of such corporation, and would, 
therefore, under the general rule of discrimination between the 
public and private character of a municipal corporation, be pro- 
tected from legislative interference. And a contract between 
two municipal corporations would apparently be as much pro- 
tected from legislative interference or abridgment, as contracts 
made by the municipal corporation with a private person or a 



1 Nortli Yarmoutli v. Skillings, 45 
Me. 133. 

2 Aberdeen v. Sanderson, 8 Sm. & 
M. 670; Gary v. Bliss, 151 Mass. 364; 
White V. Fuller, 39 Vt. 193; Mont- 
pelier v. East Montpelier, 27 Vt. 704; 
29 Vt. 12; Chambers v. St. Louis, 29 
Mo. 543; Holland v. San Francisco, 
7 Cal. 301; Daniel v. Memphis, 11 



Humph. (Tenn.) 582; Trustees of 
Academy v. Aberdeen, 13 Sm. & M. 
645; Kingman V. Brockton, (Mass. 90) 
26 K E. K. 968; Bonham v. Taylor, 
(Tex. 90) 16 S. W. R. 555; East St. 
Louis V. Flannigan, 34 111. App. 596; 
Poultney v. Wells, 1 Ark. (Vt.) 180; 
Trustees v. Bradbury, 2 Fairf. (Me.) 
118; Harrison v. Bridgewater, 16 

25 



§ 14 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. [CH. II. 

private corporatioa. There has not been any adjudication on 
this particular question, but there can be very little doubt that 
those courts will deny to the legislature the power to abridge 
or impair contracts made between two municipal corporations, 
which deny to the legislature the power of interference with the 
private property of such a corporation. And there is certainly 
no doubt that a contract, made by the municipal corporation 
with private individuals, should come within the constitutional 
prohibition, of the enactment of laws impairing the obligation of 
a contract. Whatever the legislature may do in respect to the 
continued existence of the municipal corporation as a body 
politic, it can do nothing that would in any way impair the ob- 
ligation of the municipal corporation or its contract to third 
persons.-^ Not only can there be no direct abolition of the con- 
tract or destruction of the contractual rights of the municipal 
creditors ; but even indirectly is it impossible for the legislative 
act to impair such a contract. Thus, for example, where at the 
date of execution of the contract in question, the power of the 
municipal corporation to levy taxes was subject to a particular 
limitation, the scope and extent of the power of taxation of the 
municipal corporation constitutes a part of the contract, wliich 
the corporation has made with third persons, and the legislature 
cannot by subsequent enactments further curtail or limit the 
power of taxation, to the detriment of the creditors. This is 
true, in whatever way the subsequent legislation curtails the 
power of taxation, either by reducing the rate or amount of 
taxation ;2 or by a repeal of a provision of the law for com- 

Binghamtou v. E. R. Co., 61 Hue, 
479; Western Savings Fund Society 
V. Philadelphia, 31 Pa. St. 175, 185; 
San Francisco v. Canavan, 42 Cal. 
541 ; Lee County v. Rogers, 7 Wall. 
185 ; contra. New Orleans v. N. 0. W. 
Co., 142 U. S. 79. 

2 United States v. Mobile, 12 Fed. 
R. 768; Mobile v. Watson, 116 U. S. 
768; State v. New Orleans, 37 La. 
An. 528; Stewart v. Police Jury, 34 
La. An. 673 ; State ex rel. Carriers v. 
New Orleans, .36 lb. 687: Morris v. 
State, 62 Tex. 728; State ex rel 
Marchand v. New Orleans, 37 La. 
An. 13. 

26 



Mass. 16; Plymouth v. Jackson, 15 
Pa. 44. 

iKoonce v. Russel, 103 N. C. 179; 
Lansing v. County Treasurer, 1 Dil- 
lon Cir. C. R. 522; Meriwether v. 
Garrett, 102 U. S. 472; Furman v. 
Nichol, 8 Wall. 44; Underhill v. Es- 
sex, 23 Atl. R. 617; State v. Milwau- 
kee, 25 Wis. 122; Brooklyn Park 
Comm'rs V. Armstrong, 45 N. Y. 234; 
Wolfe V. New Orleans, 103 U. S. 
358; Galena v. Amy, 5 Wall. 705; 
Goodale v. Feunell, 27 Ohio St. 426; 
s. c, 22 Am. Rep. 321 ; Von Hoffman 
V. Quincy, 4 Wall. 535; Houston v. 
R. R. Co., (Tex. 92) 19 O. W. R. 127; 
Woodruff V. Trapnall, 10 How. 206; 



CH. II.J 



LEGISLATIVE CONTKOL. 



§14 



pulsory taxation ; ^ or by any provision, which operates as a re- 
duction or limitation of the present power of the corporation to 
provide by taxation for the payment of its debts.^ 

But, on the other hand, the power of the legislature to mod- 
ify the lules of taxation, as applied to municipal corporations, is 
not completely taken away bj- the existence of corporate debts, 
provided the modification or other change in the mode of taxa- 
tion produces no matei'ial impairment of the rights of the cred- 
itors. Thus, for example, it is possible for a state to provide 
by law for the release of certain property from taxation by a 
municipal corporation. ^ For the limited amount of such prop- 
erty, which is thus exempted, makes it impossible that the 
change in the law of taxation of such corporation should oper- 
ate as a material impairment of the rights of the city's credit- 
•ors.* And so, also, may the legislature repeal a statutory 
authority to the city or county, to subscribe for the stock of a 
railroad corporation and issue bonds therefor, as long as the 
subscription, or the binding contract for it, has not been made 
with the railroad corporation.^ The act of the legislature, 
which provides for the creation of a sinking fund for the pay- 
ment of the debts of a municipal corporation, cannot be re- 
pealed by a subsequent legislature, or such sinking fund be 
devoted to a different purpose, or the rights of the parties in 
and to such sinking fund in any other way interfered with." 
So, also, where the legislature authorizes a city to fund its 



1 Sawyer v. Concordia, 12 Fed. Rep. 
754. 

sSeibert v. Lewis, 122 U. S. 284; 
Nelson v. St. Martin's Parish, 111 TJ. 
S. 710; Louisiana v. Pillsbury, 103 
U. S. 278. 

* House of Refuge v. Smith, (Pa. 
90) 21 Atl. R. 353; State /. Univer- 
sity, (Minn. -90) 48 N". W. R. 1119; 
Roaring Creek Co. v. Girton, (Pa. 90) 
21 Atl. 780; Northampton Co. v. La- 
fayette College, 18 Atl. Rep. 516; 
Detroit Home v. Detroit, 76 Mich. 
521; Bannon v. Byrnes, 39 Fed. Rep. 
892; People v. Assessors, 111 N. Y. 
505. 

* Muscatine v. Railroad Co., 1 Dil- 
lon, C. C. 536; Gilman v. Sheboygan, 



2 Black, 510; Seibert v. Lewis, 122 
U. S. 284; Goodale v. Fennell, 27 
Ohio St. 426; 22 Am. Rep. 321. 

^Binghamton v. Railroad Co., 61 
Hun, 479; People v. Coon, 25 Cal. 
635 ; Aspinwall v. County of Jo Da- 
viess, 22 How. 364; Shelby Co. v. 
Cumberland & C. R. R. Co., 8 Bush. 
(Ky.) 299; State v. Meller, 67 Mo. 
604; Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. 
Davis County, 6 Kan. 256; People v, 
Morse, 43 Cal. 534; C. & O. R. R. Co. 
v. Barren Co., 10 Bush. (Ky.) 604; 
Town of Concord v. Portsmoutli Sav. 
Bank, 92 U. S. 625. 

Terry v. Banks, 18 Wis. 87; Liqui- 
dators V. Municipality, 6 La. An. 21 ; 
Smith V. Morse, 2 Cal. 524. 
27 



§15 



MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 



[CH. n. 



floating debt ; and in reliance upon that act, the creditors sur- 
render their claims, and receive new obligations, this final 
transaction operates as a pledge of the city's revenues and prop- 
erty, vphich could not be materially altered by subsequent leg- 
islation, without the consent of the creditors.^ It has also been 
held that, where the legislature, in authorizing a municipal cor- 
poration to issue bonds to a specific amount in settlement of 
its indebtedness, makes provision against the further increase 
of the municipal debt, which was evidently intended to influ- 
ence the negotiation of the bonds thus authorized to be issued, 
the city would not thereafter be permitted to issue further 
bonds, except in payment of its bonded debt. That provision 
was held to constitute a contract with the creditors, which 
could not be repealed or impaired by subsequent legislation, 
authorizing a further issue of bonds by such corporation. ^ 

§ 15. Compulsory contracts. — Another difficult question, in 
determining the legislative power of control over municipal 
corporations, is the extent to which the legislature can, without 
the consent of a municipal corporation, compel such corpor^,- 
tion to assume contractual obligations. The general propo- 
sition has been maintained by the authorities that, while a 
legislature may authorize corporations to make contracts, it is 
impossible for the legislature to make contracts for the corpora- 
tion without its consent. This has been the rule of the great 
majority of the courts in this country.^ In Michigan an act of 



• ' Bi-ooklyn Park Comrs. v. Arm- 
strong, 45 N. y. 234; People v. Bond, 
10 Cal. 563; People v. Wood, 7 lb. 
579. 

2 Atkins V. Randolph, 31 Vt. 226; 
Darlington v. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 
31 N. T. 164, 205; Hasbrouck v. Mil- 
waukee, 13 Wis. 37; Mills v. Charlton, 
29 Wis. 400; Philadelphia v. Meld, 
58 Pa. St. 320; State v. Tappan, 29 
Wis. 664; s. c, 9 Am. Bep. 662. See 
further, as to rights of creditors, post, 
chapters on Contracts and Manda- 
mus. 

3 Darlington v. Mayor, 31 N. Y. 
164, 205 ; Cairo & St. Louis R. R. Co. 
V. City of Sparta, 77 111. 505; Atkius 
V. Randolph, 31 Vt. 22(>; White v. 

28 



Fuller, 31 lb. 226; People v. Chicago, 
(Lincoln Pk. case,) 51 111. 17; People 
V. Salman, 51 lb. 37; Harard v. 
Drainage Co., 51 lb. 130; In re Union 
Col., 29 N. E. R. 460; 129 IST. Y. 308; 
Brunswick v. Litchfield, 2 Me. (2 
Greenl.) 28, 32; Louisville v. The 
University, 15 B. Mon. 642; Western 
Sav. Fund Soc. v. Philadelphia, 30 
Pa. St. 175, 185; Regents of Univer- 
sity V. Williams, 9 Gill & Johns. 365 ; 
Montpelier v. East Montpelier, 29 
Vt. 12; Norris v. Trustees Abingdon 
Academy, 7 Gill & Johns. (Md.) 7; 
Trustees v. Winston, 5 Stew. & Port. 
(Ala.) 17; Winn v. Comrs., (Ky. 00) 
14 I. W. R. 421; Philadelphia v. Field, 
58 Pa. St. 30; State v. Tappen, 29 



CH. n.] 



LEGISLATIVE CONTROL. 



§15 



the legislature directed a board of park commissioners to be 
created, and such board were authorized to acquire sufficient 
lands by purchase for the establishment of a public park in the 
city of Detroit, and directed the city council, to whom was 
given no control whatever over the commissioners or the pur- 
chase of the land, or tlie establishment of the park, to provide 
the necessary funds by the issue and sale of city bonds. The 
Supreme Court of Micliigan lield that a municipal corporation 
cannot be compelled by legislative act to contract debts for 
purely local purposes, and declared that, in this particular 
case, a park was purely a matter of local concern, in which 
the state at large had no interest ; and the legislative act, 
which undertook to compel the establishment of such a park, 
against or without the consent of the municipal corporation, 
was unconstitutional.^ 

But if the purpose for which the debt is to be contracted is 
of a strictly public character, it would then seem that the 



Wis. 664; Hasbrouck v. Milwaukee, 
13 lb. 37; Mills v. Charlton, 29 Wis. 
400; Cf. contra, West Chicago Com'rs 
V. McMuUen, (111. 90) 25 N. E. R. 676. 
' People ex rel. Park Commis- 
sioners V. Common Council of De- 
troit, 28 Mich. 228; s. c, 15 Am. 
Rep. 202. "It is a fundamental 
principle in this state, recognized 
and perpetuated by express provision 
of the constitution, that the people 
of every hamlet, town, ^nd city of 
the state, are entitled to the benefits 
of local self-government. But au- 
thority in the legislature, to deter- 
mine what shall be the extent of the 
capacity in the city to acquire and 
hold property, is not equivalent to, 
and does not contain within itself, 
authority to deprive the city of 
property actually acquired by legis- 
lative permission. As to property 
it thus holds for its own private pur- 
poses, a city is to be regarded as a 
constituent of the state government, 
and is entitled to the like protection 
in its property rights as any natural 



person vfho is also a constituent. 
The right of the state is a right of 
regulation, not of appropriation. It 
cannot be deprived of such property 
without due process of law. And 
when a local convenience or need is 
to be supplied in which the people 
of the state at large, or any portion 
thereof outside the city limits, are 
not concerned, the state can no more 
by process of taxation take from the 
individual citizens the money to pur- 
chase it, than they could, if it had 
been pi'ocured, appropriate it to the 
state use. From the very dawn of 
our liberties the principle most un- 
questionable of all has been this: 
that the people shall vote the taxes 
they are to pay, or be permitted to 
choose representatives for the pur- 
pose." It has on the same ground 
been held that city gas works Is a 
matter, private and distinct from 
pviblic concerns. Western Sav. 
Fund Soc. V. Philaidelphia, 31 Pa. 
St. 183. 

29 



§ 15 



MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 



[CH. U. 



legislature has the power to compel the creation of the indebt- 
edness, against or without the consent of the municipal corpo- 
T'ation. Thus, it has been held to be competent for tlie legisla- 
ture to compel a municipal corporation to build a bridge over 
a navigable stream within its limits. Or, in case it is deemed 
expedient, the state may appoint its own agents for the con- 
struction of such a bridge, and even authorize such commis- 
sioners to provide for the payment of the cost of the bridge, 
by negotiating a loan on the credit of the corporation. ^ So, 
also, may municipal corporations, in their character as local in- 
struments of government, be required by the legislature to 
keep the streets and highways and bridges, connected with 
such corporation, in repair.^ But corporations cannot be com- 
pelled by state statute to create a debt in aid of the construc- 
tion of a railway.^ In the case of the Brooklyn and New York 
bridge, the court of appeals decided that the erection of the 
bridge between the two cities was a purpose for which an in- 
debtedness may be incurred by these cities, and did not come 
in conflict with the constitutional provision, which declares 
that no city, county, or town shall give money, or loan its 
credit to any individual or corporation, or become an owner 
of corporate stock or bonds. It is held that, in that particular 
case, the contract was clearl}' within the authority of the two 
cities.* 

It is also possible for a legislature to provide, in its acts for 
incorporation of one city out of two or more, that the debts of 
the two cities should become one indebtedness upon both, or 
to provide for a separate maintenance of the two debts, and 



iPac. Bridge Co. v. Clackamas, 4 
Fed. E. 217; Carter v. Bridge Pro- 
prietors, 104 Mass. 236; Haverhill v. 
G-roveland, (Mass.) 25 N. E. R. 976; 
Erie v. Canal, 59 Pa. St. 174; Kirk- 
wood V. Newbviry, 125 N. Y. 571; 
Guilder v. Otsego, 20 Minn. 74; Unit- 
ed States V. B. & O. R. E. Co., 17 
Wall. 322. 

-See post, §§.315, 316; County v. 
People, 5 Neb. 136; Sliadler v. Blair, 
136 Pa. St. 488; Fountain v. Warren, 
Co., (Ind. 90) 27 N. E. E. 125. By a 
constitutional amendment of 1874 
30 



in New York state, it is provided 
that tha legialatiiTe may ctnnpel a 
municipal corporation to improve 
its highways and keep them in re- 
pair, but the power must, before its 
exercise, be delegated to the local 
authority under general laws. Peo- 
ple V. Supervisors, 112 N. Y. 585. 

3 People V. Batcheller, 53 N. Y. 
128; 13 Am. R. 480; Cf. Berlin Bridge 
Co. V. Wagner, (N. Y. 90) 57 Hun, 
346. 

* People V. Kelly, 5 Abbott's New 
Cases (N. Y.) 383; 76 N. Y. 475. 



CH. II.] 



LEGISLATIVE CONTKOL. 



§15 



impose the liability in respect to each debt upon that part of 
the new corporation, which constituted the original debtor. 
All provisions of that sort are purely questions of government- 
al policy, and neither the existing creditors, nor the people of 
the new municipal corporation, can object to any such subse- 
quent change in its affairs by the legislature, as long as the 
original obligation is not impaired. ^ Thus, for example, by 
act of the legislature the city of Lafayette was added to and 
incorporated with the city of "New Orleans, and a provision 
was inserted in the act, that the added district, whose indebt- 
edness was proportionately less than the old city of New Or- 
leans, should be charged only with the payment of its own 
debts. . A subsequent act of the legislature required that taxes 
should be levied uniformly throughout the entire city, the ef- 
fect of which was to increase the burden of taxation of the 
addition to the city. But it was held that this subsequent leg- 
islation did not interfere with the vested rights, either of the 
citizens of the added district, or of their creditors.^ But it is 
not lawful for a legislature to impose in whole or in part upon 
one independent municipal corporation the obligation to pay 
the debt contracted by another corporation ; as where the leg- 
islature undertook to assess lands in the town of Flatbush to 
pay debts previously incurred by the adjoining city of Brook- 
lyn, in the establishment of a park, notwithstanding that a 
portion of the land in the park was taken from the limits of 
the town of Flatbush. This case is to be distinguished from 
the case, where the indebtedness of one town is made the com- 
mon indebtedness of a new corporation, formed by the consoli- 
dation of two or more.** 



1 Columbus V. Town, (Wis. 92) 52 
N. W. R. 425 ; Maddrey v. Cox, 73 
Tex. 538; Saunders v. Municipality, 
24 Fla. 226. 

2 Eschenliurg v. Com'rs, 28 N. E. R. 
865, (lud. 92); Maltby v. Tantges, 
(Minn. 92) 52 N. W. R. 858; Little v. 
Union Township Com., 40 N. J. L. 
397; Layton v. New Orleans, 12 La. 
An. 515; Brown v. Memphis, 97 U. 
S. 800; People v. Hill, 7 Cal. 97; 
Vance v. Little Rock, 30 Ark. 435, 



439; State v. Flanders, 24 La. An. 
57; Hawkins v. Jonesboro, 63 Ga. 
527; San Francisco v. Canavan, 42 
Cal. 541; Sedgwick v. Bark, 11 Kan. 
031 ; New Orleans v. Clark, 95 U. S. 
644. 

3 Town of Flatbush, In re, 60 N. 
Y. 398. In rendering this opinion, 
the court through Judge Miller says : 
" But such is not this case. . .There 
is no principle that I am aware of 
which sanctions the doctrine that it 
31 



§16 



MUNICIPAL COEPORATIONS. 



[CH. II. 



In regard to the general proposition that the city corporation 
cannot be compelled by the legislature to incur debts for the 
attainment of a strictly local interest, there is but one really 
dissenting opinion, and that comes from Pennsylvania. It was 
held by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania that the legisla- 
ture has the power to provide for the erection of a city hall, 
and thereby to provide for the accommodation of the courts 
for municipal purposes within the city of Philadelphia, and 
to determine the extent of the indebtedness thus incurred, and 
to compel such city to pay the debt.^ In consequence of the 
public feeling created by this extraordinary act of the legisla- 
ture, and the great burden imposed upon the city thereby, an 
amendment was made to the constitution of 1874, which de- 
clared " That the general assembly shall not delegate to any 
special commission, private corporation or association, any 
power to make, supervise, or interfere with any municipal im- 
provement, money, property, or effects, whether held in trust 
or otherwise ; or to levy taxes, or to perform any municipal 
function whatever." ^ Directly contrary to this Pennsylvania 
case, the Supreme Court of Michigan held, that the legislature 
cannot compel an incorporated city to erect a court house in 
the count}^, in which the town or city is situated.^ 

§ 16. Compulsory satiRf action of non-legal claims against 
cities. — In a great variety of cases, the legislatures of the dif- 
ferent states have assumed the right to compel the municipal 
corporation to recognize as a legal obligation, and to perform, 
all such obligations which have no binding force in law, but 



is withiu the taxing power of tlie 
legislature to compel one town, city, 
or locality to contribute to the pay- 
ment of the debts of another. The 
government has no such authority, 
and this case is entirely without a 
precedent. If such assessments were 
authorized they might not be limited 
to adjoining towns, cities, or villages, 
but applied to those located at great 
distances from each other. Such 
legislation would be unjust, mis- 
chievous, and oppressive, and cannot 
be tolerated." But see, contra, Car- 
32 



ter V. Bridge Proprietors, 104 Mass. 
236. 

1 Perkins v. Slack, 86 Pa. St. 283; 
1 Hale's Am. Const. Law, 630. 

2 Art. .S, sec. 20, Constitution of 
1874. A further provision was add- 
ed that "no debt shall be contracted 
or liability incurred by any munici- 
pal commission, except in pursuance 
of appropriations previously made 
by the municipal government." Art. 
15, sec. 2, Constitution of 1874. 

8 Callam v. Saginaw, 50 Mich. 7. 



CH. II.J 



LEGISLATIVE CONTROL. 



17 



which have a moral claim for satisfaction. And it has been 
held that the legislature, in thus recognizing a moral claim 
against a city, and in compelling such city to pay such a claim, 
is not exceeding its power of control over such corporation.^ 
It is held, however, that the legislature cannot undertake to 
compel a municipal corporation to pay every debt or claim, 
which is not a legal obligation. Thus, the legislature is not 
authorized to provide by legislation for the payment of a debt, 
which is unconstitutional, because it exceeded the limit of mu- 
nicipal indebtedness, which is fixed by the constitution.^ But 
whenever the limitations or conditions, which are imposed up- 
on the contractual power of the corporation, are found in state 
statutes, the same authority, which imposed the limitation or 
conditions, may waive such conditions, and ratify or validate 
the debt of a corporation, which otherwise would be invalid.^ 

§ 17. Ratifying void local assessments. — For the same 
reason, and on the same general principle, as laid down in the 
previous paragraph, it has been frequently held to be within 
the power of the legislature to ratify an assessment, made by a 
municipal corporation for local improvements in front of abut- 
ting property, and compel the abutting owner to pay such 
assessments, notwitlistanding the original invalidity of the as- 



' People V. Squire, 145 U. S. 175; 
In re CuUen, 53 Hun, 534; People v. 
Dayton, 55 N. Y. 367; Shelby Co. v. 
Railroad Co., 5 Bush. (Ky.) 225; 
Smith V. Morse, 2 Cal. 524; Grogan 
V. San Francisco, 18 Cal. 590; Brew- 
ster V. Syracuse, 19 N. Y. 116; Devers 
V. York, 150 Pa. St. 208; 30 W. 'S.C. 
390; Xew Orleans v. Clark, 95 U. S. 
644; People v. Lynch, 51 Cal. 15; 
United States v. Baltimore & Ohio 
Railroad Co., 17 Wall. 322; Creighton 
V. San Francisco, 42 Cal. 446; People 
V. Supervisors, 70 N. Y. 228; Baker 
V. Seattle, 2 Wash. St. 576; New Or- 
leans V. Clark, 95 U. S. 654; Guilford 
V. Supervisors, etc., 13 N. Y. 143; 
Philadelphia V. Field, 53 Pa. St. 320; 
Lycoming V. Union, 15 Pa. St. 166; 
Blanding v. Burr, 13 Cal. 343; North 
Mo. R. R. Co. V. Maguire, 49 Mo. 

3 



490, 500; Nevada v. Hampton, 13 
Nev. 441; Mayor, etc., of New York 
V. Tenth National Bank, 111 N. Y. 
440; People v. Mayor, etc., of Brook- 
lyn, 4 Comst. (N. Y.) 419; Thomas 
v. Leland, 24 Wend. 65 ; but see con- 
tra, State V. Tappan, 29 Wis. 664; 
s. c, 9 Am. Rep. 622; Hoagland v. 
Sacramento, 52 Cal. 142; corap. also 
Waupaca County v. Town of Matte- 
son, (Wis. 91) 48 N. W. R. 213; Bouk- 
night V. Davis, 33 S. C. 410; 12 S. E. 
R. 96. 

2 J)i re Flower, 29 N. E. R. 463; In 
re Union College, 29 lb. 460; 129 N. 
Y. 308; Mosher v. Sch. District, 44 
Iowa, 122. 

8 Creighton v. San Francisco, 42 
Cal. 440; New Orleans v. Clark, 95 
U. S. 644; Sinton V. Ashbury, 41 Cal. 
525. 

33 



§17 



MUNICIPAL COKPOKATIONS. 



[CH. II. 



sessment.^ In these cases, it is simply a failure on the part of 
the corporation to comply with some special requirement of 
the state statutes ; and the substantial obligations of the abut- 
ting owners have not been materially affected thereby. It is a 
general rule of construction of legislative authority, that what- 
ever the legislature could have permitted to be done, it may 
subsequently ratify and give it legal effect.^ And the fact, that 
such legislative acts of ratification have a retrospective opera- 
tion, does not constitute any serious objection to such legisla- 
tion, as long as the retrospective operation of the act does not 
effect an impairment of vested rights.^ But where the invalidity 
of the assessment, or other municipal act, was due to a failure 
to observe a constitutional provision, the illegality of the as- 
sessment or other municipal act is beyond the curative effect 
of a legislative enactment. Thus, for example, where a con- 
stitution requires that all taxation should be uniform and im- 
posed equally upon the taxpayers, and the assessment provides 
for the payment of a local improvement by the abutting own- 
ers, with the exception of one lot which was equally benefited 
by such improvement ; a subsequent act of the legislature, rat- 
ifying such assessment law, would be inoperative as long as 
the omission and exception of the lot in question was retained ; 

1 Baltimore v. Horn, 26 Md. 194; 
Great Falls Ice Co. v. Bistiict of Co- 
lumbia, 19 D. C. 327; Lennon v. N. 
Y., 55 N. T. 361. 

2 Marion Co. v. Louisville Co., (Ky. 
92) 15 S. W. R. 1061; Lockhart v. 
*rroy, 48 Ala. 579; McMillenv. Boyles, 
6 Iowa, 304; lb. 391; Emporia v. Nor- 
ton, 13 Kan. 560; Mason v. Spencer, 
35 Kan. 512; Otoe County v. Bald- 
win, 111 U. S. 1; Grenada Co. v. 
Brogden, 112 U. S. 261, 262; In re 
East Ave. Bap. Church, 11 N. Y. S. 
113; Anderson V. Santa Anna, 116 U. 
S. 364; Belles v. Bromfleld, 120 S. U. 
759; San Francisco v. Certain Real 
Estate, 42 Cal. 517; Marshall v. Silli- 
raan, 61 111. 218; In re Byrnes, 57 
Hun, 590; Katzenberger v. Aberdeen, 
121 U. S. 172; Atchison, etc., K. E. 
Co. V. Maquillon, 12 Kan. 301 ; Citi- 
zens' Water Co. v. Bridgeport Hy- 

34 



draulic Co., 55 Conn. 1; Tifftv. Buf- 
falo, 82 ISr. Y. 205 ; Atchison v. Butch- 
er, 3 Kan. 104 ; Frederick v. Augusta, 
5 Ga. 561 ; Great Falls Ice Co. v. Dis- 
trict, 19 D. C. 327; Winn v. Macon, 
21 Ga. 275; Mattenly v. District of 
Col., 97 U. S. 687; New Orleans v. 
Poutz, 14 La. An. 853; Allison v. K. 
W. Co., 9 Bush. (Ky.) 247; Truchelut 
V. City Council, 1 Nott& McCord (S. 
C.) 227. 

8 Cromwell v. McLean, 123 N. Y. 
474; Municipality v. Theater Co., 2 
Eob. (La.) 209; Danlellyv. Cabaniss, 
52 Ga. 211 ; New Orleans v. Clark, 95 
U. S. 644; Pompton v. Cooper Union, 
101 lb. 196; Bridgeport V. R. R., 15 
Conn. 475, 497; see also, Pardridge 
V. Village of Hyde Park, 131 111. 537; 
23 N. E. K. 345 ; State v. Village of 
South Orange, 6 Alt. 312; 49 N. J. 
L. 104. 



CH. II.] 



LEGISLATIVE CONTROL. 



§18 



the ground being, that such omission and exemption was in 
violation of the provisions of the constitution.^ 

§ 18. Legislative control of offices and officers in munici- 
pal corporations. — The power of a legislature over municipal 
offices and officers has always been the subject of discussion. 
And here, as elsewhere, in determining the limitations of the 
legislative control, the distinction is to be made between those 
officers of the municipal corporation, who are charged with the 
performance of duties of a strictly public character and in which 
the state at large has a concern, — such as judges, and all par- 
ties who are engaged in the administration of justice, or the 
preservation of the public peace ; — and on the other hand, the 
strictly municipal officers, whose duties are of strictly municipal 
concern, such as the establisliment and management of gas 
works, water works, sewers, and the like. It is held that the 
state has the authority to regulate, if it desires, the appoint- 
ment of public officers as just described, but it cannot interfere 
with the control of matters of local concern, or direct the ap- 
pointment of the officers who are charged with their manage- 
ment.^ 

While an extensive and very comprehensive discretion is 
vested in the legislative power of the state, in shaping the gen- 
eral features and outlines of local municipal government, subject 



' In re Flower, 29 N. E. K. 463; In 
re Union College, 29 lb. 460; 129 N. 
T. 308; People v. Lynch, 51 Cal. 15; 
Schumacher v. Toberman, 56 lb. 
508. 

2 Lloyd V. Silver B. Co., (Mont. 92) 
28 Pac. E. 453 ; Greene v. Fresno, 
(Cal. 92) 30 Pac. K. 544; State v- 
Canavan, 30 Pac. Rep. 1079; 17 Nev. 
422; State v. 0' Conner, (JST. J. 92) 22 
Atl. R. 1091; State v. Adams, 90 
Tenn. 722; Chicago v. Wright, 69 111. 
326; Buroh v. Hardwick, 30 Gratt. 
24; U. S. V. Memphis, 97 U. S. 284; 
State V. Hine, 59 Conn. 50; State v. 
Stanfleld, (Tex. 92) 18 S. W. R. 577; 
State V. Hunter, 38 Kan. 578; Hath- 
away v. New Baltimore, 48 Mich. 251 ; 
State V. George, 23 Fla. 585; State v. 



Bogard, (Ind. 92) 27 W. E. E. 252; 
Evansville v. State, 118 Ind. 426; 
Davies v. Saginaw Co., 89 Mich. 295; 
Britton v. Steber, 62 Mo. 370; People 
V. Mahaney, 13 Mich. 481; People v. 
Shepherd, 36 N. Y. 285; Speed v. 
Crawford, 3 Met. (Ky.) 207;-Police 
Commissioners v. Louisville, 3 Bush 
(Ky.) 597 ; People v. Bull, 46 N. Y. 57; 
People V. McKinney, 52 lb. 374; Peo- 
ple V. Lynch, 51 Cal. 15;. People v. 
Curley, 5 Col. 412; People v. Clute, 
50 N. Y. 451; Richmond Mayoralty 
Case, 19 Gratt. (Va.) 673; People v. 
Batchellor, 22 N. Y. 128; People v. 
Palmer, 52 N. Y. 83; People v. Al- 
bertson, 55 N. Y. 50; State v. Denny, 
118 Ind. 382; s. C, 21 N. E. R. 252, 
274. 

36 



§18 



MUNICIPAL COKPORATIONS. 



[CH. 11. 



onlj' to the existing constitutional limitations and restraiiits,iit 
is, nevertheless, a deeply rooted principle of American and Eng- 
lish law that the ultimate control of purely local affairs must 
be vested in the local governments of towns, cities and counties, 
and should be administered by ofBcers chosen by their inhabi- 
tants.^ And so, also, while the legislature has no power to 
appoint, it has the power to prescribe how the act of appoint- 
ment shall be performed^ and, generally, to create new offices, 
abolish those alread}' existing and regulate by re-distribution 
that portion of the sovereign power which is administered by 
executive public officials ; * and, in exchanging an old .system 
of administration for a new one, or in creating a system of 
local government, the legislature may make provisional appoint- 
ments.® Where the officers are charged with the performance 
of duties of a strictly public character, which are transferred to 
the municipal corporation, as a legal franchise from the state 
government ; the state legislature may, in the absence of ex- 
press constitutional limitations, exercise an unlimited power 
of control, and determine how the office shall be filled, and 
take away from municipal corporations the power of appoint- 
ing such officers. It has thus become a common practice, in a 
great many of the states to provide for the establishment of 
what is known as a metro[)olitan police, controlled by the state 
government, through appointment of police commissioners by 
the governor or legislature of the state ; to take away from 



1 Atty. Gen. v. Detroit, 29 Mich. 
108; People v. Huiibut, 24 lb. 44; 
People V. Draper, 15 N. T. 532. 

2 State V. Goiildey, (N. J. 88) 18 
Atl. R. 69.5 ; Atty. Gen. v. Twombley, 
89 Mich. 50; 50 N. W. R. 744; People 
V. Morgan, 90 111. 558; People v. May- 
or, 91 lb. 17; State v. Swift, 11 Nev. 
128; People v. Albertson, 55 N. Y. 
50; Kaumanu v. Board, (Mich. 88) 
41 N. W. R. 267; Evansville v. State, 
118 Ind. 426; People v. Highland Pk., 
88 Mich. 653; State v. Wright, (N". J. 
92) 23 Atl. 116; Taylor v. Palmer, 31 
Cal. 252; In re Scranton, 113 Pa. St. 
176; Atkins v. Randolph, 31 Vt. 226; 
Com. V. Denworth, 145 Pa. St. 172; 
22 Atl. R. 820. 

36 



3 State V. Hoagland, (N. J.) 16 Atl. 
R. 166; Brady v. "West, 50 Miss. 68; 
People V. Draper, 15 N. Y. 532; State 
V. Covington, 29 Ohio St. 102; Bridges 
V. Shallcross, 6 W. Va. 562; People 
v. Board, (N". Y. 93) 20 N. Y. S. 51; 
MoCormick v. People, (92 111.) 28 Jf. 
E. R. 1106. 

* State V. Smith, (Neb. 92) 52 K W. 
R. 700; State v. Becker, (S. D. 92) 51 
lb. 1018; Dougherty v. Austin, 94 
Cal. 601 ; Board v. Hiester, 87 N. Y. 
661; State v. Field, 17 Mo. 529; Peo- 
ple V. Porter, 90 N. Y. 68. 

6 Mayor v. State, 15 Md. 376; State 
V. Benedict, 15 Minn. 198; State v. 
Swift, 11 Nev. 128; Sabin v. Curtis, 
(Idaho 93) 32 Pac. 1130. 



CH. II.] 



LEGISLATIVE CONTEOL. 



§18 



the municipal corporation the charge of the police force, and 
intrust it to the board of commissioners ; and, in pursuance of 
this transfer of control, to turn over to the commissioners the 
use of the station houses, the wagons, books, police telegraph, 
and other property of the city, which are used for police pur- 
poses.i But in Indiana, it has been lately held, that the act for 
the establishment of a metropolitan police and fire board for 
the larger cities is unconstitutional, as being an unwarrantable 
interference with the constitutional principle of local self gov- 
ernment.* 

It is not always easy, however, to determine what offices are 
of a public character and involve the performance of duties of 
general public concern, and distinguish them from those in 
which the duties involve niatters of local concern, and which 
should for that reason be administered by appointees of the 
municipal corporation. As alreadj- stated, with one exception, 
that of Indiana, police boards are deemed to be public or state 
offices, and therefore fall within the legislative control. And 
while, on the other hand, the general rule is that other officials, 
such as park commissioners and water commissioners are city 
officials, yet it is not always the case ; and there are authorities 
which hold that even water commissioners, and park commis- 
sioners, and highway commissioners, are state officials, who 
may be subjected to legislative control.^ Wherever the legis- 
lature has the right to assume control of a municipal office, 
it has likewise the right to compel the city to provide for de- 
fraying the expenses of such an office.* And not only is that 

"Hudson etc. Co. v. Seymour, 6 
Vroom, 35 N. J. L. 47; County v. 
Griswold, 58 Mo. 175 ; People v. Dra- 
per, 15 N. Y. 532; Daily v. St. Paul, 
7 Minn. 390; State v. Valle, 41 Mo. 
29; State v. St. Louis County Court, 
34 Mo. 546; People v. Detroit, 28 
Mich. 228; Payne v. Washington Co., 
(Fla. 90) 6 So. K. 881. 

* Railroad Co. v. Adler, 56 HI. 844; 
Durach's App., 62 Pa. St. 491; Peo- 
ple V. Commissioners of Police, 8 N. 
T. S. 725; Gadsden v. Greene, 22 
Fla. 102. 

37 



^Mclnerneyv. Denver, (Col. 92)29 
Pac. 516; Com. v. Plaisted, 148 Mass. 
375; 19 N. E. E. 224; Pruice v. Bos- 
ton, 148 Mass. 370; 19 N. E. E. 218; 
People V. McDonald, 69 N. Y. 382; 
People V. Detroit, 28 Mich. 228; 
Francis v. Blair, 96 Mo. 515; People 
V. Chicago, 51 111. 17; Burch v. Hard- 
wick, 30 Gratt. 24 ; Columbus v. Town, 
(Wis. 92) 52 N. W. R. 425; Comm'rs 
V. Louisville, 3 Bush, 597; Diamond 
V. Cain, 21 La. .An. 309; State v. 
Hunter, 38 Kan. 578 ; State v. Kolsem, 
(Ind. 92) 29 N. E. E. 595. 

iiEvansville v. State, 118 Ind. 426. 



§18 



MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 



[CH. n. 



the case, but the legislature may likewise provide that, where 
a county, adjoining a city, or in which a city is located, receives 
the benefits of the presence of a police force, such county shall 
be called upon to defray in part the expenses of such police 
force. ^ 



1 Sangamon v. Springfield, 63 111. 
66; St. Louis v. Shields, 52 Mo. 351; 
Weymoutli etc. Fire Dis. v. County 
Com'rs, 108 Mass. 142 ; State ex rel. 
St. Louis Police Com'rs v. St. Louis 
38 



Co. Ct., 34 Mo. 546; People v. Morris, 
13 Wend. 325 ; Stitz v. Indianapolis, 
55 Ind. 515; contra, Mayor v. Tows, 
5 Sneed, 186. 



CHAPTER III. 



THE INCORPORATION OP MUNICIPALITIES. 



Section. 

21 — Modes of creating muuicipal 
corporations in England. 

22 — Creation of muuicipal corpo- 
rations in the United States. 

23 — ^Who composes the corpora^ 
tion. 

24 — Acceptance of municipal cor- 
porations, when necessary. 

25 — How far precise forms of words 
are required for incorporation, 
— Creation by implication. 

26 — Creation by special act, when 
permitted. 

27 — Creation by general laws, 
when required. 



Section. 
28 — Only one object which sliall 

be expressed in the title. 
29 — Corporate existence not open 

to collateral attack. 
30 — Judicial notice of charters and 

of acts of municipal corpora- 
tions. 
31 — Proof of corporate existence. 
82 — Power to repeal and amend 

city charter, effect of exercise 

of such power. 
33 — Special power when repealed 

by general laws. 
34 — Implied repeal of general laws 

by special laws. 



§ 21. Modes of creating municipal corporations in Eng- 
land. — Under the early English law there were strictly but two 
ways of creating municipal corporations; viz., first, by the king's 
charter ; secondly, b3'-act of parliament. But, in addition there- 
to, there were a great many corporations, whose existence and 
power were derived from immemorial usage, or which had ex- 
isted for so long a time, that the claim could be made, under 
the doctrine of prescription, of an original incorporation. The 
result was, that municipal corporations in England were very 
irregular, not only as to the mode of their creation, but also as 
to the extent of their power. This condition continued up to 
1836, when parliament passed the " Municipal Corporation Act " 
of that year, which was designed, not only to provide for the 
creation of municipal corporations in the future by act of par- 
liament, but also to give a uniform character to the powers and 
nature of all the existing municipal corporations. And the act 
with its amendments was finally incorporated in the Municipal' 
Corporation Act of 1882. Under these acts, the English mu- 
nicipal corporation has a uniform character, and its power and 
mode of administration are regulated by the general law so 

39 



§ 22 MUNICIPAL COKPORATIONS. [CH. UI. 

enacted. A great many abuses have, by this municipal corpora- 
tion act, been abolished. 

§ 22. Creation of municipal corporations in the United 
States. — In the United States, a municipal corporation can only 
be created by a legislative act. Although, as will be seen in a 
subsequent connection,^ it is possible for the municipal corpora- 
tion to claim by prescription the right to corporate powers, in 
the absence of positive proof of the legislative act of incorpora- 
tion, resulting from a long enjoyment of the corporate powers ; 
yet the instances of prescriptive incorporation are very rare; 
so much so that no general account of the mode of creating 
corporations by prescription need be considered. 

The legislative branch of the government, under the consti- 
tutional laws of this country, can alone exercise the power of 
creating a corporation. In consequence of confining the exer- 
cise of this power to the legislative department, and the greater 
demand of American civilization for the creation of corporations, 
acts of incorporation by the legislature have increased to great 
proportions, far beyond what has ever been known in the history 
of jurisprudence. As a general rule, corporations, both munici- 
pal and private, within the territorial limits of the states, can 
only be created by acts of the state legislature ; and while Con- 
gress has been held by the courts to have the power of creating 
all sorts of corporations, both public and private, whenever such 
acts of incorporation become necessary or appropriate to the 
effectual exercise of any of the constitutional powers of the 
United States Government ; or whenever such acts of incor- 
poration are in any way an aid to the exercise of the jurisdic- 
tion over the States and Territories ; ^ yet, in the creation of 
municipal corporations within state limits, the United States 
Govei-nment or Congress cannot interfere. Municipal corpora- 
tions, within the states can alone be created, or their powers modi- 
fied, enlarged or restricted, by the legislative action of the State. 
But Congress has the power, outside of state boundaries, not 
onl}' of creating municipal corporations by direct legislative act ; 
but it may likewise pass, and it is in the habit of passing, acts 

'See post, §25, 31. v. Hill, (Wash. 92) 27 lb. 922; see 

2MoCunoughv.Mai-yland,4Wlieat. Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U. S. 145; 

316; Osborne v. Bank, 9 lb. 738; Tiedeman on Private Corporations 

Thompson V. E. R., 9 Wall. 579; Guth- § 20, Morawetz, § 9. 
rie V. Territory, 31 Pao. E. 190; Alger 
40 



CH. in.J THE INCOKPOEATION OP MUNICIPAIilTIBS. § 23 

vesting in the territorial governments the power of creating 
both public and private corporations in the respective territories. 
Objection was at first made to this grant of power to the terri- 
torial government, on the ground that the act conferring such 
power was a delegation of authority by the sovereign power to 
a subordinate political organization. But this objection has 
been overruled and the general rule laid down, that a territorial 
legislature, which is vested with general legislative power by 
grant from Congress, acquires by such general grant, and inde- 
pendently of any special grant, the power to create both public 
and private corporations.^ 

§ 23. Who composes the corporation Under the early 

municipal corporation law of England, the corporation is not 
confined to territorial limits ; nor could one determine, by a 
reference to such territorial limits, who composed the munici- 
pality. The ancient municipal corporation was not the town 
or place, at which such corporation was located, nor was it 
composed of all the people who inhabited such town or place ; 
it was rather a grant by the crown generally, and sometimes by 
the parliament, to certain persons or classes of persons, living 
within such town or place, and sometimes residing elsewhere, 
[as in the case of many of the American colonies,] vesting in 
such persons the franchise of governmental control of the place 
or community. The corporation, therefore, was not the people 
who composed the community ; but consisted generally of three 
distinct classes or parties : First, the mayor ; secondly, the al- 
dermen ; thirdly, the commonalty, who consisted of the free- 
men who fell within the desciiption of the persons entitled to 
participate in the management of the corporation, and whose 
rights were from time to time curtailed or enlarged. Under 
the English municipal corporation act of 1835 and the subse- 
quent amendments thereto, as well as generally in the United 
States, the municipal corporation is not composed of the city 
council or the mayor, but of the people who constitute the com- 

Central, 1 Col. 323; Myers v. Bank, 
20 Ohio, 283; State v. Young, 3 Kan. 
445; Keddlck v. Amelia, 1 Mo. 5; 
People V. Butte, 4 Mont. 174; Act of 
Mar. 2, 1867; 14 Stats, at Large, 426, 
§1; Rev. S. of U. S. §1889. 
41 



> Alger V. Hill, 27 Pao. E. 922; 2 
Wash. 344; Board v. Da vies, 24 Pac. 
R. 540; Elk Point v. Vaughan, 1 Dak. 
113; 46 N. W. R. 577; Seattle v. Ty- 
ler, Wash. Terr'y, 1877; Yanoe v. 
Bank, 1 Blackf. 80; Deitz v. City of 



§24 



MUNICIPAL COEPOEATIONS. 



[CH. III. 



munity, which has by the act of incorporation been created into 
a legal personality. The mayor and the councils, instead of 
being the corporation itself, are not even a constituent part 
of such corporation ; they are nothing more than the servants 
or agents of the incorporators, who are the inhabitants of the 
community in general.^ 

§ 24. Acceptance of municipal corporations, when neces- 
sary. — It seems that under the early English law, in respect to 
municipal corporations, where the crown undertook to confer a 
charter upon a community, the assent on the part of the com- 
munity was necessary to the creation of a corporation, or to the 
modification of the powers of the existing corporation, if there 
be one. But where the parliament undertook to control or limit 
the powers of the existing municipal corporation, or to create 
a municipal corporation, where one had not theretofore existed, 
the assent of the incorporators, or of the community, was not 
necessary; parliament having this power, without the consent 
or co-operation of the people of the communitj'. But in the 
United States, where all acts of incorporation are legislative 
acts, the acceptance of a charter by a community is not neces- 
sary to the creation of a municipal corporation. And, unless 
the act of incorporation is made by the legislature conditional 
upon such acceptance,^ it is binding upon all who live within 
the limits of the incorporated district, and nothing can prevent 
the taking effect of the act of incorporation. The public or 
municipal corporation comes into existence, as soon as the leg- 
islature passes the act of incorporation.^ 

But while the legislature is not bound to obtain the consent 



^ Ante, §21; Lowber v. Mayor, 5 
Ab. Pr. E. 325; Baumgartner v. 
Hasty, 100 Ind. 575. 

2 Clarke v. Rogers, 81 Ky. 43; State 
V. Lamoureux, 30 Pac. K. 24'?. 

3 State V. Babcock, 41 N. "W. E. 654; 
23 Neb. 709 ; People v. Butte, 4 Mont. 
174; Bristol v. New Chester, 3 N. H. 
524, 532; State v. Canterbury, 28 N. 
H. 218; Buford v. State, 72 Tex. 182; 
Smith V. Crutoher, (Ky. 92) 18 S. W. 
R. 521; State v. Curran, (12 Ark. 

42 



321; Fire Department v. Kip, 10 
Wend. 267; People v. Morris, 13 
Wend. 325; Millville Bor., In re, 10 
Pa. Co. Ct. R. 321; Brouwer v. Ap- 
pleby, 1 Sandf. 158; Gorham v. 
Springfield, 21 Maine, 58; People T. 
Stout, 23 Barb. 349 ; Warren v. 
Charlestown, 2 Gray, 104; Mills v. 
Williams, 11 Ire. 558; Berlin v. Gor- 
ham, 34 N. H. 266; People v. Wren, 
4 Scam. (5 111.) 269; People v. Oak- 
land, 92 Cal. 611. 



CH. ni.J THE INCOEPORATION OF MUNICIPALITIES. 



§^^ 



of the community which it is proposed to incorporate, before a 
municipal corporation can be set up ; yet it is possible for the 
legislature, instead of providing for the unconditional incorpora- 
tion of the municipality, to make the creation of such a corpora- 
tion dependent upon the consent of the community to the act of 
incorporation.! Where no particular mode is prescribed for pro- 
curing an expression of assent, on the part of the people, such 
expression may be implied from circumstances, and from the 
conduct of the people, as in the case of private corporations.^ 
So, also, is it possible for the legislature to provide, that the 
continued existence of an existing township should be deter- 
mined by a vote of the qualified electors.* So, also, may the 
question be submitted to the people, whether a portion of an 
adjoining county shall be annexed ; or whether certain improve- 
ments should be made ; or whether certain liabilities should be 
incurred.* The power of a legislature to provide for the local 
regulation of the sale of intoxicating liquors by the so called 
local option laws has been disputed. These acts have been de- 



^ Ex parte Schlomberg, (Miss. 93) 
11 So. K. 721 ; In re Vacation of Henry 
St.,123Pa. St. 646; In re Edgewood, 
18 Atl. E. 646; Ford v. Des Moines, 45 
N. W. E. 1031; People v. City of 
Butte, 4 Mont. 174; Lafayette, etc., 
E. E. Co. V. Geiger, 34 Ind. 185; 
Bank v. Brown, 26 N. Y. 467; Call v. 
Chadbourne, 46 Maine, 206; People 
V. Riverside, 70 CaL 461 ; 11 Pac. E. 
759; Gueble v. Epply, (Col. 92) 28 
Pac. E. 89; Patterson v. Society, 
etc., 4 Zabr. 385; Smith v. McCar- 
thy, 56 Pa. St. 359; People v. Sal- 
mon, 51 111. 53; Alcorn v. Horner, 38 
Miss. 652; In re TuUytown, 11 Pa. 
Co. Ct. E. 97; Lum v. Bowie, (Tex. 
92) 18 S. W. E. 142; State v. Scott, 
17 Mo. 521 ; Hudson Co. v. State, 4 
Zabr. (24 N. J. L.) 718; Bull v. Eead, 
13 Gratt. (Va.) 18; In re Wintergreen 
Alley, 11 Pa. Co. Ct. E. 126; State v. 
Wilcox, 45 Mo. 458. 

2 Taylor v. Newberne, 2 Jones Eq. 



N. C. 141 ; see Zabriskie v. Eailroad 
Co., 23 How. U. S. 381, 397. 

8 Lum V. Bowie, (Tex. 92) 18 S. W. 
E. 142; People v. Wiant, 48 111. 263; 
Eailroad v. Davidson County, 1 Sneed 
(Tenn.) 692; Talbot v. Dent, 9 B. Mon. 
526; State v.Winkelmeier, 35 Mo. 103 ; 
Smith V. McCarthy, 56 Pa. St. 359; 
St. Joseph V. Eogers, 16 Wall. 644; 
People V. Warfield, 20 111. 103. 

* State v.Waxahachie. 81 Tex. 628; 
Lum v. Bowie, supra ; North Spring 
field V. Springfield, (111. 92) 29 N. E. 
E. 849; Bank of Eome v. Rome, 18 
N. Y. 38; Trustees v. Cherry, 8 Ohio 
St. 564; Eailroad Co. v. Com., lOhio 
St. 77; Foote v. Cincinnati, 11 Ohio, 
408; Bank v. Brow, 26 N. Y. 467; 
Hammond v. Haines, 25 Md. 541; 
Bai-to V. Himrod, 8 N. Y. 483; Clarke 
V. Eochester, 28 N. Y. 605 ; St. Louis 
V. Alexander, 23 Mo. 483; Blanding 
V. Burr, 13 Cal. 343; Burnes v. Atch- 
ison, 2 Kan. 454. 

43 



§25 



MUNICIPAL COEPORATIONS. 



[CH. III. 



clared to be constitutional by some of the cases,^ although their 
invalidity has been likewise denied.^ 

§ 25. How far precise forms of words are required for in- 
corporation — Creation by implication. — In the creation of a 
municipal corporation it has been generally held, whenever the 
question has been raised, that no particular form of words is 
required to be used, in the act of incorporation of a munici- 
palitj'. While formal expressions are generally employed, the 
absence of them will in no case interfere with the creation of 
a municipal corporation, provided sufficient words are employed 
to indicate the intention to create a municipal corporation. 
Hence, where the intention to create a body politic or corporate 
is manifest in the words employed in the legislative act, the 
failure to insert, in such charter or act, words conferring the 
necessary powers of a corporation, such as that the organiza- 
tion shall have the power to plead and be impleaded, or to have 
a seal, or to make contracts and by-laws, and the like ;' if the 
intention to create a corporation was clearly manifested, its 
necessary powers would be implied.^ And so, also, would it 
not be absolutely defective, if the name of the corporation 
were omitted, provided such name could be ascertained indi- 
rectly from the terms of the act, or from the nature of the 



1 State V. Morris, 36 N. J. L. 72; 
State V. Dugan, (Mo. 92) 19 I. W. E. 
195 ; Friesner v. Charlotte, (Mich. 92) 
52 K. W. E. 18; State v. Moore, (Mo.) 
16 S. W. E. 937; Ex parte Swann, 96 
Mo. 44; Lemon v. Peyton, 64 Miss. 
161; see also Howe v. Plainfield, 37 
N. J. L. 146; Donovan v. County, 60 
Conn. 339; Hudson Co. v. State, 24 
"N". J. L. 718; State v. Pond, 6 S. W. 
E. 469; 93 Mo. 617; State v. Watts, 
20 S. W. E. 237; 111 Mo. 553. 

2 Prentiss v. Davis, 22 Atl. E. 246; 
33 Me. 365; Locke's Appeal, 72 Pa. 
St. 491; Gloversville v. Howell, 70 
N". Y. 287; State v. Wilcox, 42 Conn. 
364; 19 Am. Eep. 536. 

3 Duncan v. State, (Fla. 92) 10 So. 
E. 815 ; Wells v. Burbank, 17 N. H. 
393; Society, etc., v. Pawlet, 4 Pet. 

44 



(U. S.) 480, 502; Newport Trustees, 
In re, 16 Sim. 346; Thomas v. Dakin, 
22 Wend. 9, 84; Stebbinsv. Jennings, 
10 Pick. 172; Medical Institute v. 
Patterson, 1 Denio, 61 ; Lewis v. Co- 
manche Co., 35 Fed. E. 343; Inhabi- 
tants, etc., V. Wood, 13 Mass. 193; 
Lord V. Bigelow, 6 Vt. 465; Bow v. 
Allentown, 34 N. H. 351, 372; Ben- 
ton V. Jackson, 2 Johns. Ch. 325, 326; 
Jeffreys & Gurr, 2 B. & Adol. 841; 
Mahoney v. The Bank of the State, 
4 Ark. 620; Myers v. Irwin, 2 Serg. 
& Eawle, 368; Conservators v. Ash, 
10 Barn. & Cress. 349 (12 Eq. C. L. 
97) ; Overseers v. Sears, 22 Pick. 122, 
130; Cf. People v. Harvey, (111. 93) 
32 ISr. E. E. 295; Freligh v. Sauger- 
ties Village, 24 N. Y. S. 182. 



CH. in.] THE INCORPORATION OP MUNICIPALITIES. 



§26 



powers granted.! But where the charter or act, which is pre- 
sumed to operate as an incorporation of the municipality, ex- 
pressly denies to the organization, which is presumed to have 
been incorporated, powers which are necessary to its existence 
as a corporation, it would be plain in such a case that there 
had not been an effective incorporation of the community .^ 

§ 26. Creation by special act, when permitted. — In the ab- 
sence of constitutional limitations, the common, in fact the 
only, method of creating a municipal corporation is by a spe- 
cial act of the legislature, calling into being the particular cor- 
poration in question. But in consequence of constitutional 
provisions, looking to the incorporation of both public and 
private corporations under general laws, instead of by special 
acts, the power to create corporations by special act has in some 
cases been expressly reserved ; as for example, in New York, 
Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Louisiana, Nevada. 
And in Missouri it was provided that no municipal corporation 
shall be created by special act, except in cities of at least 5,000 
inhabitants, and in that case the special act is to be provided 
by the vote of the inhabitants on the matter.^ In some of 
the states, it is also provided by the constitution, that in all 
cases where a general law can be made applicable, no special 
law shall be permitted. And the question is raised under that 
constitutional provision, whether it is a legislative or judicial 
question, whether in the particular case under inquiry a gen- 
eral law can or cannot be made applicable. It has finally been 
determined that it is a question for the legislature, and not 
for the courts.* 



1 School Com. V. Dean, 2 Stew. & 
P. (Ala.) 190; Trustees v. Parks, 10 
Me. 141. 

2 1 Dillon Mun. Corp. § 42. 

s Const. 1865 of Mo., art. viii, sec. 
5; New York Const. 1846, art. viii, 
sec. 1; names of tlie states which ap- 
pear in this connection are not in- 
tended to be ii complete enumera- 
tion of the states in which this con- 
stitutional provision has been adopt- 
ed. It is very probable that the 
same provision will be found else- 
where. Tierney v. Dodge, 9 Minn. 



171; Virginia City v. Mining Co., 2 
Nev. 86; State v. Simon, 22 Atl. R. 
120; Straub v. Pittsburgh, 138 Pa. St. 
356; Com. v. Reynolds, 137 lb. 389; 
Nev. Sch. Dist. v. Shoecraft, 88 Cal. 
372. 

* Edmonds V. Herbrandson, (JT. D. 
92) 50 N. W. R. 970; State v. Kolsem, 
(Ind. 92) 29 N. E. R. 495 ; MoCormiok 
V. West Duluth, 50 N. W. R. 128; 47 
Minn. 272; Richman v. Muscatine 
Co., 77 Iowa, 513; Hughes v. Mulli- 
gan, ( Kan. 88) 22 Pac. R. 313; Fel- 
lows v. Walkers, 39 Fed. R. 651; Gen- 
45 



§27 



MUNICIPAL COEPOKATIOXS. 



[CH. nr. 



§ 27. Creation by general laws required. — In many of the 
states, however, it is expressly required that all corporations, 
both public and private, should be created under general laws, 
and special acts of incorporation are prohibited to all. Such is 
the rule in Iowa, Florida, Nebraska, and under the new constitu- 
tion of Illinois, Wisconsin, Kansas, Ohio. In Missouri and New 
York, provision is made for general incorporation acts, as well 
as special. The object of these constitutional provisions, in re- 
quiring the exercise of the legislative power in the creation of 
corporations by general act, instead of by special, is to avoid and 
prevent, as far as possible, any interference by the legislature in 
tlie affairs of a local community, and the further concentration 
in the community, of the principle of local civil government. 
As already stated, in some of these constitutional provisions 
there is an express requirement that the legislature shall not 
pass any special act of incorporation, either of public or pri- 
vate corporations. But in some of them, as for example in 
Kansas and Ohio, the constitution only provides that the legis- 
lature shall pass no special act, conferring corporate powers. 
In these states, the Supreme Courts have held that the provis- 
ions applied to municipal, as well as to private, corporations.' 
In New York where there is a constitutional provision that two 



tile V. State, 29 Ind. 409; Murdock v. 
Woodson, 2 Dillon C. C. 188; Board 
V. Shields, 62 Mo. 247; Evans v. Job, 
8 Nev. 322; contra. In re House Bill, 
48 X. W. R. 275; Ayer's App., 122 Pa. 
St. 366; Von Pliul v. Hammer, 29 
Iowa, 222; Pritz, Jji re, Iowa, 30. 

1 State V. Toledo, (Ohio, 90) 26 K. 
E. K. 1061; Cook v. Portland, 20 Or. 
580; Sch. Dist. v. Ins. Co., 103 U. S. 
707; State v. Cincinnati, 20 Ohio St. 
18; Atkinson V. Railroad Co., 15 Ohio 
St. 21; Savings Assoc, v. Topeka, 3 
Dillon, 376; Atchison v. Bartholow, 
4 Kan. 124; State v. Pugh, 43 Oliio 
St. 98; Butz v. Muscatine, 8 Wall. 
o74; Olcott V. Supervisors, 16 Wall. 
678 ; 20 Wall. 655 ; Logan v. Western, 
87 Ga. 533; Merrill v. Toledo, 6 Ohio 
Cir. Ct. 430; Lodi v. State, 18 Atl. 
R. 749; State v. Mullica, 17 lb. 941 
46 



(N. J. 88); Zra re Denver, (Colo. 93) 
32 Pac. R. 615; Metcalf v. State, 49 
Ohio St. 586; 31 N. E. K. 1076; see 
post, chap. X., on Conti-acts, and 
chap. XVI., on Streets. In New 
Jersey, it has been held to apply 
exclusively to private corporations; 
State V. Newark, 40 N. J. L. 550, 
558; so in Tennessee; Williams v. 
Nashville, 15 S. W. R. 364. A simi- 
lar provision is likewise found in 
Nebraska, and perhaps in many 
other states. Clegg v. Richardson 
Co., 8 Neb. 178; Dundy v. Richard- 
son Co., 8 Neb. 508. But it has been 
lield in Kansas that, while the pro- 
vision of the constitution referred to 
includes municipal corporations 
proper, it does not include quasi cor- 
porations, such as school districts. 
Beach v. Leahy, 11 Kan. 23. 



CH. III.J THE INCORPOKATION OF MXJNICIPALITIES. 



§28 



thirds of the general assembly shall be requisite to every bill 
creating, continuing, altering, or renewing any body politic or 
corporate, such provision was held by the court of appeals to 
extend to public and municipal, as well as to private, corpora- 
tions.^ The constitutions of some of the states also contain a 
provision, that corporations shall not be created by special acts, 
except for municipal purposes. And in determining the scope 
of this provision, it is necessary to ascertain what is a munici- 
pal purpose. It has been held, for example, that a board of 
commissioners, charged with filling in certain slough ponds in 
the city of St. Louis, was an incorporation for municipal pur- 
poses whicli could be created by special act, without violating 
the constitutional provision against special legislation.^ It has 
likewise been held to be the creation of a municipal corpora- 
tion, where a board of park commissioners has been created with 
corporate authority.*^ So, also, a board of school commission- 
ers.* But it is questionable, whether this is a strictly proper 
use of the word " municipal." ^ 

§ 28. Only one object, which shall be expressed in the 
title. — Many of the state constitutions contain a provision, re- 
quiring that any legislative act shall not contain more than one 
object, which shall be expressed in the title, and thus prohibit- 
ing the inclusion, in the one act, of more than one object. The 
purpose of this constitutional prohibition is plainly to prevent 
what is known as log-rolling legislation, whereby members of a 
legislature may combine in securing the passage of one act con- 
taining the individual desires of each other, not upon the con- 
sideration of the merits of each proposed bill, but by way of 
combination of their forces. The requirement that the object 
of the bill should be expressed in the title, is to prevent the 
practice of deception upon the legislator, and to furnish him 
with the means of determining, upon reading the title of the 



'Smith V. Helmer, 7 Barb. 416; 
Norris v. People, 3 Denio, 331; South- 
worth V. Railroad Co., 2 Mioh. 287; 
Purdy V. People, 4 Hill (N. Y.) 384, 
reversing 2 Hill, 31; Corning v. 
Green, 23 Barb. 33. 

2 St. Louis V. Shields, 62 Mo. 257; 
State ex rel. Choteau v. Lefflngwell, 
54 Mo. 458; Cook v. Portland, 20 



Or. 580; San Francisco v. S. V. W. 
W., 48 Cal. 493. 

3 People V. Solomon, 51 111. 37. 

* Horton v. Mobile School Com'rs, 
43 Ala. .=)96. 

5 St. Louis V. Shields, 62 Mo. 251; 
Cf. "Wilson V. Sanitary Dist., (111. 90) 
27 N. E. R. 203. 

47 



§ 28 



MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 



[CH. in. 



bill, what is its object and the scope of its operation.^ The fact, 
that a bill contains more than one object, will only invalidate 
the bill, so far as it incorporates objects not expressed in the 
title ; and if a bill contains more than one object in the operat- 
ing clause, but only one object is expressed in the title, the bill 
will be valid as to the subject expressed in the title, although 
invalid as to any subject not so expressed.^ In some of the state 
constitutions, this prohibition against inserting in one bill more 
than one object, and requiring one object to be expressed in the 
title, is limited to local and private acts. But in a great many 
of the states, however, no limitation is imposed, and the pro- 
hibition is declared to have a general application. And the 
general ruling of the courts is that, in the absence of an ex- 
press limitation on the operation of the constitutional prohibi- 
tion in question, it applies to acts of the legislature, whic'h are 
designed to create or regulate municipal corporations, as well 
as to acts applying to private individuals. 

But it is not required that all of the details of a bill should 
he set foi'th in the title ; as for example, where the act pur- 
ports to incorporate a city or town, it i-s not necessary to pro- 
ceed to the enumeration in the title of the bill, of all the powers 
which are intended to be conferred upon such a corporation. 
In determining, whether a law be in conflict with these provis- 
ions or not, the unity of the object, which appears to be the 
scope of the act of legislation, is alone to be stated in the title, 
and the details will be included by implication, within the gen- 
eral object so expressed.^ But where a statute is described in 



' Com. v. Reynolds, 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 
R. 568; People v. Wliitlock, 92 N. T. 
191; Matter of Knaust, 101 N. Y. 
188; Glenn v. Lynn, 89 Ala. 608; 
People V. Wilber, 15 ST. T. S. 435; 
Matter of Department of Public 
Parks, 86 N. Y. 439; Jonesboro v. 
Cairo R. R. Co., 110 U. S. 192; Audi- 
tor V. Stiles, 83 Mich. 460; Mahomet 
V. Quackenbush, 117 U. S. 509; Astor 
V. Railway Co., 113 N. Y. 93; Phila- 
delphia V. Ry. Co., 28 W. N. C. 106; 
Carter County v. Sinton, 120 U. S. 
517; Montclair v. Remsdell, 107 U. 
S. 147; State v. Jackson Co., 102 Mo. 



531; In re Rafferty, 1 Wash. St. 382; 
Ackley School Dist. v. Hall, 113 U. 
S. 136; lie Phoenlxville, 109 Pa. St. 
44; Be Airy Street, 113 Pa. St. 281. 

2 Ex parte Covert, (Ala. 90) 9 So. 
R. 225 ; Van Antwerp, In re, 56 N. 
Y. 261, 267; MoGee's Appeal, 114 
Pa. St. 470, 478; Dewhurst v. Alle- 
gheny City, 95 Pa. St. 437. 

estate V. Mortlaud, 52 N. J. E. 
521; Auditor y. Stile, 83 Mich. 460; 
Lockhart v. Troy, 48 Ala. 581; St. 
Paul V. Coulter, 12 Minn. 41, 50; 
Powell V. Suprs., (Va. 92) 14 S. E. 
R. 543; State v. New Whatcom, 3 



CH. III.] THE INCORPORATION OF MUNICIPALITIES. 



§28 



the title to be an amendment to a city charter, and it embraces 
objects which are foreign to the charter ; so far as these for- 
eign objects are concerned, the act is in conflict with the con- 
stitution of the state, and for that reason is void.^ It has also 
been held that the object of the act has not been specially ex- 
pressed, where it is entitled, " An act to legalize and authorize 
the assessments of street improvements and assessments," be- 
cause the city or locality, to which the act is to be applied, 
has not been expressed in the title.^ It seems that here, as 
well as elsewhere, all doubts in respect to the conditions of the 
legislative acts, because of these provisions of the constitution, 
should be solved ultimately in favor of the constitutionality of 
the act, in the absence of overwhelming conviction, as to its 
violation of the constitutional provision.^ 



Wash. St. 7; Holtin v. State, 28 Fla. 
303; Hubert v. People, 49 N. Y. 132; 
State V. Union, 33 N. J. L. 350 (4 
Vroom) ; Annapolis v. State, 30 Md. 
212; Kathmau v. New Orleans, 11 
La. An. 145; People v. Mellen, 32 111. 
181 ; Stockman v. Brooks, (Col. 92) 
29 Pao. 746; Sullivan v. New York, 
53 N. Y. 652; Airy Street, 113 Pa. 
St. 281; Re Phoeuixville, 109 Pa. St. 
44; Pierce v. Smith, (Kan. 92) 29 
Pac. K. 565 ; Ottawa v. People, 48 111. 
233; Miles v. Charleton, 29 Wis. 400; 
Astor, In re, 50 N. Y. 363; Columbus 
Co. V. Wright, (Ga. 92) 15 S. E. K. 
293; Murdock v. Woodson, 2 Dillon 
C. C. E. 188; Ex parte Liddell, 29 
Pac. K. 251; 93 Cal. 633; Atty. Gen. 
V. Bradley, 36 Mich. 447; People v. 
Hurlbut, 24 Mich. 44; s. c, 9 Am. 
Kep. 103; People v. Mahaney, 13 
Mich. 481 ; White v. Lincoln, 5 Neb. 
505 ; People v. Briggs, 50 N. Y. 553 ; 
Butler V. State, 15 S. E. E. 768; 89 
Oa. 821; State v. Lewelling, (Kan. 
tW) 33 Pac. 423 ; State v. Blaokstone, 
(Mo. 93) 22 S. W. E. 370; Kelly v. 
Township of Mayberry, 26 Atl. 595 ; 
154 Pa. St. 440; 32 W. N. C. 224; Fox 
V. McDonald, (Ala. 93) 13 So. 416; 
Stale V. Orange, (N. J. 93) 26 Atl. 790. 
' Williamson v. Keokuk, 44 Iowa, 



88 (1876). 

2 Durkee v. Janesville, 26 Wis. 697. 

' Mr. Justice Harlan, in Mt. Clair 
V. Eemsdell, 107 U. S. 147, says : " The 
objections should be grave, and the 
conflict between the statute and the 
constitution palpable, before the ju 
diciary should disregard a legislative 
enactment upon the sole ground that 
it embraces more than one object, 
or if but one object, that it was not 
sufficiently expressed by the title." 
State V. Story Co., 17 Nev. 96; La- 
Plume V. Gardner, (Pa. 92) 23 Atl. E. 
899; State v. Harrub, (Ala. 92) 10 
So. K. 752; State v. Shaw, (Or. 92) 29 
Pac. E. 1028; State v. Burlington, 88 
Mich. 438; State v. La Vague, 49 N. 
W. E. 525; 47 Minn. 106; State v. 
Elvino, 32 N. J. L. 362; State v. 
Newark, 34 lb. 236; Dows v. Elm- 
wood, 34 Fed. E. 114; E. E. Co. v. 
JefEerson, 29 lb. 305 ; Marion v. Har- 
vey Co., 26 Kan. 181; People v. Wil- 
sea, 60 N. Y. 507; Devlin v. New 
York, 63 lb. 8; State v. Bronson, 
(Mo. 93) 21 S. W. E. 1125; Board v. 
Aspen M. & S. Co., (Col. 93) 32 Pac. 
717; Blair v. State, (Ga. 93) 17 S. E. 
E. 96; Walters v. Richardson, (Ky. 
93) 20 S. W. E. 279; hi re Comrs. 
Johnson Co., (Wyo. 93) 32 Pac. 850. 
■ 49 



§80 



MTJNICrPAL COEPOEATIONS. 



[CH. ur. 



It has also been held, that this constitutional provision is 
limited in its application to state legislation, and does not ap- 
ply to the ordinances of municipal corporations.^ 

§ 29. Corporate existence not open to collateral attack.— 
Where a municipal corporation is exercising the powers of a 
body politic, and its existence as a municipal corporation is not 
questioned by the state, the legality of its corporate existence 
cannot be inquired into collaterally by private parties, in suits 
brought against them, in which the municipal corporation is a 
party. And this is the rule, even where the constitution of 
the state prescribes a particular mode of incorporation .^ Thus, 
for example, in an action by a municipal court to recover pen- 
alties imposed by its ordinances, it is not a good defence to set 
up, that the plaintiff is not a corporation. 

§ 30. Judiclalnotice of charters and acts of mnnicipal cor- 
porations. — The courts will take judicial notice of the legisla- 
tive act of incorporation of a municipality, without such act 
being specially pleaded, it matters not whether such act is de- 
clared to be a public statute, as long as it is in fact an act of 
creation of a municipal corporation.^ And so, also, will the act 
of the legislature, supplementing and amending a city charter, 
be likewise judicially noticed.* But it has beeu held that, 
where the city is incorporated under a general act, the fact of 
its corporate character must be averred and proved.^ But in 
Indiana, it is held to be sufficient, if a city has been incorpo- 
rated under a general law, to be called a corporation in the 



1 Humboldt v. McCoy, 23 Kan. 249; 
Green v. Indianapolis, 52 Ind. 490. 

2 St. Louis V. Shields, 62 Mo. 247; 
In re Sliort, 47 Kan. 250; State v. 
Leatherman, 38 Ark. 81 ; Henderson 
V. Davis, 106 IST. C. 88; Meudenball v. 
Burton, (Kan. 89) 22 Pac. R. 558; 
State V. Fuller, 9 S. W. R. 583; see 
post, ch. XVIII. 

" Savannab v. Dickey, 33 Mo. App. 
522; Rock Island v. Crinely, 26 HI. 
App. 173; Wetumpka v. Wetumpka 
Wharf Co., 63 Ala. 611; Potwin v. 
Johnson, 108 111. 70; Dwyer v. Bren- 
ham, 65 Tex. 526; Ellsworth v. Nel- 
son, (Iowa, 90) 46 N. "W. R. 740; Ber- 
fenning v. Chi. etc. Co., (Minn. 90) 
48 N. W. R. 444; Solomon v. Hughes, 



24 Kan. 211 ; State v. Tosney,.26 Minn. 
262; Durch v. Chippewa Co., 60 Wis. 
227; Smith v. Janesville, 52 Wis. 680; 
Pejryman v. Greenville, 51 Ala. 510. 

^Railroad Co. v. Plumas, 37 Cal. 
354; Arapahoe v. Albee, (Neb. 88) 
38 N. W. R. 737; Jameson v. People, 
16 111. 257; Swain v. Corastock, 18 
Wis. 463 ; Virginia City v. Mining Co., 
2 Nev. 86; Newark Bank v. Assess- 
ors, 30 N. J. L. 22; State v. Bergen, 
34 N. J. L. 439; New Jersey v. Yard, 
95 U. S. 112; Society, etc., v. Pawlet, 
4 Pet. 480; Railroad Co. v. Cbenoa, 
43 111. 209; People v. Farnham, 35 111. 
562; Bow v. AUentown, 34 N. H. 351. 

single V. Jones, 43 Iowa, 286; Mor- 
gan V. Atlanta, 77 Ga. 662. 



CH. III.] THE INCOEPOEATION OF MUNICIPALITIES. § 31 

pleadings of the suit ; and from that fact the presumption in 
favor of its proper incorporation will arise.^ But the acts and 
ordinances of a municipal corporation are not held to he public 
laws, and hence must be both pleaded and proved, unless other- 
wise provided by statute.^ 

§ 31. Proof of corporate existence. — Of course, the primary 
evidence of a special charter or act of incorporation would, in 
this country, be the original or an authenticated copy of the 
act ; and under statutor}' provisions in some states, a printed 
copy, which is published by the authority of the state. But 
where such primary evidence cannot be had, because it has 
been lost, parol or secondary evidence of the existence of the 
municipal corporation would be admissible.^ Thus, where a 
public corporation had existed for a long space of time, and the 
original act of incorporation cannot be found or a copy thereof, 
the court will permit the introduction of evidence to show by 
general reputation, that the community had been incorporated, 
and what its corporate privileges were.* It is competent to go 
to the jury on circumstantial evidence, showing a long user of 
corporate powers by the community, in support of the averment 
of the existence-of the corporation, and to claim from this cir- 
cumstantial evidence the presumption of a charter from the 
legislature,^ or the establishment and existence of a corporation 



' Clark V. No. Muskegon, SON. W. 
R. 254 ; 88 Mich. 308 ; House v. Greens- 
burg, 93 Ind. 533; Smith v. Warrior, 
(Ala. 93) 10 So. K. 418. 

2 Moundsville v. Velton, (W. Va. 
89) IS S. E. E. 373; Prell v. McDon- 
ald, 7 Kan. 426; 7 Am. Kep. 423; 
Vance v. Bank, 1 Black! (Ind.) 80, 
and note (2); Young v. Bank, etc., 
4 Cranch, 384; Garland v. Denver, 
19Pac. R. 460; Anderson v. Donnell, 
7 S. E. R. 523; Beatty v. Knowles, 4 
Pet. (U. S.) 152, 157; Stierv. Oska- 
loosa, 41 Iowa, 353; Ingle v. Jones, 
43 Iowa, 286; Clarke v. Bank, (10 
Ark.) 516; State v. Mayor, 11 Humph. 
(Tenn.) 217;WesternR. Co. v. Young, 
(Ga. 92) 7 S. E. E. 912 ; Portsmouth, 
etc., Co. V. Watson, 10 Mass. 91; 
Clapp v. Hartford, 35 Conn. 66; 



Briggs V. Whipple,? Vt. 15, 18; Case 
V. Mobile, 30 Ala. 538; People v. 
Potter, 35 Cal. 110; Fauntleroy v. 
Hannibal, 1 Dillon, C. C. 118; City of 
McPherson v. Nichols, 48 Kan. 430. 

8 Stockbridge v. West Stockbridge, 
12 Mass. 400; Braintree v. Battles, 6 
Vt. 395 ; Blackstone v. White, 41 Pa. 
St. 330. 

"Sherwin v. Bugbee, 16 Vt. 439; 
Bow V. Allentown, 34 N. H. 351 ; Bas- 
sett V. Porter, 4 Cush. 487; People 
V. Maynard, 15 Md. 463; London- 
derry V. Andover, 28 Vt. 416; Jame- 
son V. People, 16 111. 257; People v. 
Farnham, 35 111. 562. 

^ New Boston v. Dumbarton, 15 N. 
H. 201 ; Mayor b. Kingston v. Horner, 
Cowp. 102; Worly v. Harris, 82 Ind. 
493. 

51 



§32 



MUNICIPAL COEPOKATIONS. 



[CH. ni. 



under some general act.^ Where the fact of incorporation 
arises as a collateral question, it is only necessary that it be 
proven, that the city is a corporation de facto? 

Proof of the existence of a quasi public corporation, such as 
school and road districts, by circumstantial evidence, is com- 
monly the only possible method, inasmuch as the officials of 
these quasi corporations are very negligent in the keeping of 
the records.^ 

Where a corporation is created or declared to exist by a di- 
rect act of the legislature, its existence as a corporation does not 
require any special proof, either as to organization or user of its 
powers.* And so also will the existence of the corporation be 
inferred from the fact that the corporation has been recognized 
by subsequent legislation.^ 

§ 32. Power to repeal and amend city charter — Effect of 
exercise of such power. — The powers and privileges, conferred 
upon a municipal corporation by act of the legislature, may at 
any time be repealed or amended by the legislature, either by a 
general law, applicable to all municipal corporations through- 
out the state ; or, in absence of constitutional limitations, by a 
special act applying to the particular corporation.^ But a char- 



' Bassett v. Porter, 4 Cush. 487; 
New Boston v. Dumbarton, 12 N. H. 
409, 412; s. c, 15 X. H. 201; Robie 
V. Sedgwick, 35 Barb. 319. 

2 Duncan v. State, (Fla. 92) 10 So. 
E. 815; Hill v. Koboka, 35 Fed. K. 32; 
Crdwder v. Sullivan, (Ind. 91) 28 IST. 
E. K. 94; State v. Fuller, 9 S. W. K. 
583; Louisville etc. Co. v. Shires, 
108 111. 617. 

2 Lathrop v. Sunderland, (Vt. 92) 
23 Atl. R. 619; Highland v. McKean, 
11 Johns. 154; Mendenhall v. Burton, 
(Kan. 89) 22 Pac. R. 558; London- 
derry V. Audover, 28 Vt. 416; Owings 
v. Spew, 5 Wheat. 420. 

*McVicker v. Cone, 21 Or. 353; 
Pasadena v. Stimson, (Col. 89) 27 
Pac. K. 604; Proprietors etc. v. Hor- 
ton, 6 Hill (ISr. Y.) 501; Wood v. 
Bank, 9 Cowen, 194; People v. Presi- 
dent, 9 Wend. 351 ; Cahill v. Insur- 
ance Co., 2 Doug. (Mich.) 124; Fire 
52 



Department v. Kip, 10 Wend. 266. 

s Arapahoe v. Albee, 38 N. W. E, 
737; Bow v. AUentown, 34 N. H. 351 
Railroad Co. v. Chenoa, 43 111. 209 
Virginia City v. Mining Co., 2 Nev. 
86; Boykin v. State, (Ala. 92) 11 So, 
E. 66; Swain v. Comstock, 18 Wis, 
463; People v. Farnham, 35 111. 562; 
Railroad Co. v. Plumas County, 37 
Cal. 354. 

^ Essex Pub. etc. Board v. Skinkle, 
140 U. S. 334; Wallace v. Trustees, 
84N. C. 164; State v. Palmer, 4 N. 
W. Rep. 986; Churchill v. Walker, 
68 Ga. 681 ; State v. Toledo, 26 N. E. 
E. 1061 ; Indianapolis v. Indianapolis 
Gas. Co., 66 Ind. 396; Crook v. Peo- 
ple, 106 111.237; Rose v. Hardee, 98 
N". C. 44; State v. Troth, 34 If. J. L. 
379; Worthley v. Steen, 43 N. J. L. 
542; People v. Morris, 13 Wend. 325; 
Daniel v. Mayor, etc., 11 Humph. 
(Tenn.) 582. 



CH. in.J THE INCOEPOBATION OF MUNICIPALITIES. 



§32 



ter may be amended, and even the name of the place and the 
governing body of such corporation changed, and its boundaries 
extended or cut down, while the corporation remains in law 
the same legal personality.^ Nor does any change in the char- 
ter, or in the territorial limits of the corporation, operate to ex- 
tinguish the indebtedness of the old corporation.^ And where 
an amended charter is granted to a corporation in the place of 
the old one, containing the same provisions as are found in the 
old charter, such legislative amendments of the old charter, or 
substitution of the new charter for the old, do not operate to 
annul the rights and powers of the corporation which were ac- 
quired by it under the former charter, and under its former 
name ; nor does such a substitution of an amended charter op- 
erate to abrogate or repeal ordinances passed by the corporation 
under its old charter, provided such ordinances are not incon- 
sistent with the provisions of the new charter. So far as such 
ordinances are in harmony with the provisions of the new 
charter they will continue to be in force, until repealed by the 
legislative power of the corporation.^ Where an original 



1 State V. Hedlund, 16 Keb. 566; 
Wood V. Board of Election, 58 Cal. 
561 ; State ea; rel. v. White, 20 Neb. 
37; Dillon Mun. Corp. §85. 

^Fluellenv. Pi'oetzel, post; Fowle 
V. Alexandria, 3 Pet. 398, 408; Mu- 
nicipality V. Commissioners, 1 Eob. 
(La.) 279; East St. Louis v. Rhein, 
139 111. 116; Olney v. Harvey, 50 111. 
453; Frank v. San Francisco, 21 Cal. 
668; Girard v. Philadelphia, 7 Wall. 
1 ; Savannah v. Steamboat Company, 
K. M. Charlt. (Ga.) 342. 

sBirford v. State, 72 Tex. 182; 
Fluellen v. Proetzel, (Tex. 90) 15 S. 
W. K. 1043; Inre House Bill, 12 Colo. 
337; Indianapolis v. Indianapolis Gas 
Co., 66 Ind. 296; Stewart v. Schoo- 
maker, 32 Pac. E. 122; 50 Kan. 560; 
Commonwealth v. Worcester, 3 Pick. 
(Mass.) 474; Broughton v. Pensacola, 
93 U. S. 266; Milner's Admx. v. Pen- 
sacola, 2 Woods, 632; Laird v. Be 
Soto, 22 Fed. Eep. 421; St. Louis v. 



Alexander, 23 Mo. 483; State etc. v. 
Mobile, 24 Ala. 701: "There is no 
doctrine better settled than that a 
change in the form of government 
of a community does not ipso facto 
abrogate pre-existing law, either 
written or unwritten. This is true 
in regard to what is strictly mu- 
nicipal law, even when the change 
is by conquest. The act of ageneral 
assembly, converting a borough into 
a city, did not, therefore, of itself, 
and in the absence of express pro- 
visions to that effect, either repeal 
the former acts of assembly relative 
to the borough, or annul existing or- 
dinances. It was solely a change in 
the organic law for the future, and 
left unaffected the existing ordi- 
nances," precisely as a change of a 
state constitution leaves undisturbed 
all prior acts of assembly.'' Mr. Jus- 
tice Strong in Trustees of Academy 
v. Erie, 31 Pa. St. 515, 517. 

63 



§ 33 MUNICIPAL COEPOEATIONS. [CH. III. 

charter of a city contains provisions, which are retained in an 
amended charter, with the omission of some (Jualifying clause 
which appears in the original charter, the general rule is laid 
down by the authorities, that the amended charter is intended 
to operate as a substitute for the old charter, and an implied re- 
peal of the provisions of the old charter so far as such provis- 
ions have not been incorporated in the amended charter.^ But 
it has been held that where the original charter of a city, in 
prescribing the qualifications of the persons who are eligible to 
the office of mayor, contains a .proviso that certain facts dis- 
qualify a person ; an amended charter, which contains the orig- 
inal act in respect to the qualification of candidates for the office 
of mayor, with the exception of the proviso referred to, does not 
by implication abrogate the excluded provisions of the original 
charter, particularly since all provisions of the old charter were 
expressed to be in force, which were not inconsistent with the 
provisions of the amended charter.^ But this is altogether a 
question of intention of the legislature ; and the conclusion in 
this particular case is no very reliable guide, except in the 
light of the peculiar circumstances of that case. And so where 
a later statute apparently undertakes a complete revision of the 
prior law, the omission of a clause or proviso of the old law 
must be presumed to be an intentional repeal.^ It has also 
been held that where the provisions of the amendatory act of 
the legislature reduce the number of councilmen and do not 
provide any special time for a new election, the amendment 
does not take effect until the regular time for holding the 
municipal election ; and until that time arrives, the existing 
council remains unaffected by the amendment.* 

§ 33. Special powers, when repealed by general laws.— 
It is a rule of very general application that statutes, having a 



1 Cartriglit v. Crow, 44 Mo. App. 
563; Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 
590, 617; Barton v. Sell. Dist, (Id. 92) 
29 Pac. E. 4.3; Goodenow v. Butter- 
ick, 7 Mass. 140, 143; Industrial 
School V. Wliitehead, 2 Beasley, N. 
J. 290; State v. Kelly, 5 Vroom (34 
X. J. h.) 75. 

2 State V. Merry, 3 Mo. 278. 

2 Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 
590; School v. Whitehead, 2 Beasley, 
64 



290; In re Wheelook, 3 N". T. S. 890 
Little V. Cogswell, 25 Pac. B. 727 
State V. Townsby, 23 Atl. E. 666 
Wood V. State, 47 Ark. 488; In re 
Primes' Est., 32 N. E. E. 1091; 136 
N. T. 347; contra, State v. Young, 30 
S. C. 399. 

* Reading v. Keppleman, 61 Pa. St. 
233; Scoville v. Cleveland, 1 Ohio St. 
126. 



CH. m.] THE INCORPORATION OF MUNICIPALITIES. § 33 



general operation, will not repeal by implication special statutes, 
or statutes which are passed for the benefit of particular munici- 
palities, unless they are absolutely antagonistic, and, therefore, 
cannot stand together. But the fact, that they are inconsist- 
ent, does not of itself cause the special law to be repealed by 
the general law ; the 'court will hold, as a general rule, that the 
legislature had no intention of interfering with the continued 
enforcement of the special law, and that the general law was 
intended to be enforced only in those parts of the state, where 
the special law did not apply .^ ■ But in all these cases, it might 
be said, it is a question of legislative intent, whether the special 
law should remain unchanged or should be repealed; and, in 
determining this question, it is necessary to read the partic- 
ular provisions of the charter in the light of all the circum- 
stances of the case, and the consequence and effect of repealing 
such special act by implication, or of leaving such laws in force, 
notwithstanding their inconsistency with the general laws of 
the state.'^ Thus, for example, where there was a charter provi- 
sion, in reference to bribery committed by a municipal officer, 
and by subsequent legislation the same act was made an of- 
fence punishable in the state courts by a greater penalty, it 
was held that the charter provision was repealed.^ So, also, 
a general railroad tax law was held to repeal by implication all 
prior special laws, conferring charter privileges upon munici- 
palities.* Where a general statute is declared to repeal all acts 
contrary to its provisions, it is held that this declaration does 

ville S. Ry. Co., 78 Ind. 261; Chicago 
D. Co. V. Garrity, 115 111. 155; Thoin- 
ason V. Ashwoi-th, 73 Cal. 73; Bab- 
cock V. Helena, 34 Ark. 499; People 
V. Page, 23 Pac. R. 761 ; Janesville v. 
Markoe, 18 Wis. 350; Powell v. Park- 
ersburg, 28 W. Va. 698; Holland v. 
Baltimore, 11 Md. 186; New Bedford 
Ry. Co. V. Aouslinet Co., 143 Mass. 
200; Moran v. Long Island City, 101 
N. T. 439. 

'People V. Jaelme, 103 N. T. 182; 
People V. O'Neil, 109 N. Y. 251. 

State V. Severance, 55 Mo. 378; 
Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Cheyenne, 
113 U. S. 516. 



1 State V. Kirk, 53 Ark. 337; State 
V. Howe, 28 Neb. 618 ; State v. Brauin, 

3 Zabr. (23 N. J. L.) 484; State v. Mor- 
ristown, 33 N. J. Law, 57; Pavey v. 
Utter, 132 111. 489; State v. Trenton, 
7 Vroom (36 N. J. L.) 198, 201; Ot- 
tawa V. County, 12 111. 339; Egypt 
Street, 2 Grant (Pa.) 455; Han-is- 
burg V. Seek, 104 Pa. St. 53; Rush- 
ville V. Town, 32 111. App. 320; God- 
dard, In re, 16 Pick. 504; Railroad 
Co. V. Alexandria, 17 Gratt. (Va.) 
176. 

2 State V. Young, 30 S. C. 399; Ca- 
nal Company v. Railroad Company, 

4 Gill & Johns. 1; Smith v. Ker- 
nochen, 7 How. 198;Bichelsv. Evans- 



55 



34 



MUNICIPAL COKPOKATIONS. 



[CH. m. 



not apply to the special laws, contained in the charter of a mu- 
nicipal corporation upon the same subject.^ But if the general 
law is declared to repeal all inconsistent local or special acts, 
the special laws would in that case be repealed by this express 
and comprehensive declaration of the statute.^ 

The adoption of a new state constitution does not repeal 
special charter powers, unless they are in conflict with some 
provision of the new constitution.* And where a new consti- 
tution expressly continues all existing charters in force, this 
special recognition of the existence of the charter of the munici- 
pal corporation does not impliedly take away from the legisla- 
ture its existing powers of amendment of the charter.* 

§ 34. Implied repeal of general laws by special laws.— 
While it is possible for a legislature to repeal general laws by 
the subsequent enactment of special laws, the presumption, in 
favor of such repeal by implication, is not recognized or in- 
dulged, as long as such presumption is not necessary to avoid 
an inconsistency of a serious nature. It is only permitted for 
such a repeal to take place by implication, when the two pro- 
visions are absolutely irreconcilable.^ Thus, for example, a 
general law, which prohibits the opening of streets through a 
cemetery, is not repealed by implication by a subsequent act, 
which extends the limits of a municipal corporation, so as to 
include the cemetery, and gives such corporation the power to 
open up and lay out streets, alleys, etc. ; for the two acts are not 
absolutely and necessarily irreconcilable. They may be recon- 
ciled by limiting the application of the general power of the 



1 State V. Bi-anin, 23 K. J. L. 484; 
Busliville V. TownsMp, 32 111. App. 
320. 

2 Adam v. Wright, 84 Ga. 720; State 
V. Miller, 30 X J. L. 368; Bank v. 
Bridges, lb. 368; Tierney v. Dodge, 
9 Minn. 166; Clintonville v. Keeting, 
4 Denio, 341. 

8 People V. Jones, 7 Col. 475; Trus- 
tees v. Taylor, 30 N. J. Eq. 618; Cliid- 
sey V. Scrantou, (Miss. 93) 12 So. 545. 

4 "Wiley V. Bluffton, 111 lud. 152. 

6 People V. Heushaw, (Cal. 88) 18 
Pao. E. 413; Com. v. Wetzel, 84 Ky. 
537; 2 S. W. K 123; Com. v. Duff, 87 
66 



Ky. 586; State v. De Bar, 58 Mo. 395; 
State V. Mills, 5 Vroom (34 N. J. L.) 
177, 180; Montezuma V. Minor, 70 Ga. 
191; St. Jolinsbury v. Thompson, 59 
Vt. 300; Eaton v. Burke, (If. H. 92) 
22 Atl. R. 452; State v. Young, 17 
Kan. 414; Wooley v. Watkins, 22 
Pac. B. 102; Givens v. Van Studdi- 
ford, 86 Mo. 149; State v. Clark, 54 
Mo. 17; State v. Clark, 1 Dutch. (N. 
J.) 54; Kern v. People, 44 111. Ap. 
181; Mersereau v. Mersereau Co., 
(N. J. 93) 26 Atl. R. 682; In re Prime's 
Est., 32 N. E. R. 1091; 136 N. Y. 347. 



CH. ni.] THE INCORPORATION OP MTTNICrPALITIES. § 36 

corporation to the new land, which is taken within its bor- 
der, outside of the cemetery .^ So, also, where a state statute 
requires auctioneers to take out a state license, and a subse- 
quent act authorized a municipal corporation to requii'c a simi- 
lar license of such persons, it was held that the two laws were 
not inconsistent with each other, and that the special law, 
granting to the corporation the power to impose the license, 
did not operate as a repeal by implication of a state law impos- 
ing a similar license ; but that both licenses might be exacted.^ 
So, likewise, where a general law prohibits a municipal corpo- 
ration from denying to its citizens the right to sell goods at 
wholesale at the city market, there is no implied repeal of the 
same by the general grant to a city of the power to pass " such 
ordinances as appear to them necessary for the security, wel- 
fare, etc., of the city." ^ 



I Egypt Street, 2 Grant (Pa.) Cas. 
455. 



2 Simpson v. Savage, 1 Mo. 359 ; Sie- 
benhauer, In re, 14 Nev. 365. 
' Haywood v. Savannah, 12 Ga. 404. 

57 



CHAPTER IV. 



DISSOLUTION OF MUNICrPAL COKPOEATIONS. 



Sectioit. 

42 — The rights of creditors where 
a second corporation has 
been established in its place. 

43 — EfEect of dissolution of corpo- 
ration in general, where no 
other corporation has been 
substituted therefor. 

44 — Eevival by a new charter. 



Sectioh. 

37 — How dissolved in England. 

38 — How dissolved in the United 
States. 

39 — Forfeiture of corporate exist- 
ence. 

40 — Effect of dissolution of corpo- 
ration. 

41 — Eights of creditors on a dis- 
solution of a municipal cor- 
poration. 

§ 37. How dissolved in England — It is said that, in Eng- 
land, a municipal corporation may be dissolved in one of four 
ways : First, by act of Parliament. Inasmuch as the powers 
of Parliament are unrestricted by constitutional limitations, 
there can be no doubt that an act of Parliament, dissolving a 
corporation, whether it be public or private, will have the ef- 
fect of destroying such corporation as a legal personality.^ The 
King may, in th-e exercise of his prerogative, create a corpora- 
tion, but he cannot destroy one already existing. He may 
grant to such corporation a variety of franchises, but he can- 
not take away or annul one, which is already vested in the cor- 
poration.2 Secondly, the municipal corporation may in England 
be dissolved by the loss of an integral part of such corporation, or 
by a loss of all, or a majority, of the members of an integral part, 
without whose co-operation it is impossible for the municipal 
corporation to transact its business. It will, however, be remem- 
bered that, in the preceding chapter, in explaining the difference 
in municipal corporations in England and in this country, it was 
stated that, prior to the Municipal Corporation Act of 1835, the 
municipal corporation in England was in the nature of a polit- 
ical franchise granted to individuals, falling within the descrip- 

dith, 36 N". H. 284; St. Louis v. Al- 



' State V. Trustees etc., 5 Ind. IT; 
Com'rs V. Cox, 6 lb. 403; 2 Kent, 
305; Co.,Litt. 176, note; Kex v. Am- 
ory, 2 T. K. 515 ; Eastman v. Mere- 

58 



len, 13 Mo. 400. 

2 Rex V. Amory, 2 T. R. 515; Uni- 
versity V. Williams, 9 Gr. & Johns. 
365, 409. 



CH. IV.] 



DISSOLUTION OF COEPOEATION. 



§37 



tion employed, separate and apart from the population and 
community in general, and not necessarily a part of the commu- 
nity itself ; that the corporation, so called, was composed of dis- 
tinct integral parts, usually described as the mayor, aldermen, 
and commonalty of the corporation. It is upon this concep- 
tion of a municipal corporation, as composed of its separate 
integral parts, instead of being in the American sense t^e in- 
corporation of the community in general, that this doctrine of 
a dissolution of the corporation by a loss of an integral part 
rests. It seems to be a definite and well established rule of 
the English law.^ 

Thirdly, a municipal corporation may in England be destroy- 
ed or dissolved by a surrender of the franchise of such corpo- 
ration to the crown, and its acceptance by the crown.^ This 
power of surrender has been very considerably limited, and it 
is now held to apply only to those corporations which receive 
their charter from the crown. It is not permitted to apply to 
corporations which have been created or coniirmed by act of 
Parliament. These corporations cannot dissolve themselves by 
any surrender of its charter or franchise, except upon the con- 
sent, or with the co-operation, of Parliament, which would 
make this case one of dissolution by act of Parliament. 

Fourthly, a municipal corporation can also be dissolved or 
aimulled in England by a foj-feiture of its charter, on account 
of negligence or abuse of the francliise ; such forfeiture result- 
ing from a judgment in a proceeding in quo warranto, or scire 
facias. This mode of dissolution of franchises is very com- 
monly applied, both in England and in this country, to private 



1 Smith's Case, 4 Mod. 53; Smith 
V. Smith, 3 Desaus. (S. C.) 657; Ban- 
bury's Case, 10 Mod. 346; Rex v. 
Tregony, 8 Mod. 129; Bacon v. Rob- 
ertson, 18 How. (U. S.) 480; "Welch 
V. Ste. Genevieve, 1 Mlon C. C. 130; 
Rol. Abr. 514; Eegina v. Bewdley, 1 
P. Wms. 207; People v. Wren, 4 
Scam. (5 111.) 275 ; Colchester v. Sea- 
ber, 3 Burr. 1870; S. C, 1 Wm. Bl. 
591. In Rex v. Passmore, 3 Term R. 
421, Lord Kenyoii said, in delivering 
tlie opinion of the court, "When an 
integral part of a corporation is gone, 



without whose existence the func- 
tions of the corporation cannot be 
exercised, and the corporation has 
no manner of supplying the integral 
part, tlie corporation is dissolved as 
to certain purposes. But the king 
may renovate, either with tlie old or 
new corpoi-ators.'' 

^Dillon Mun. Corp. §165; Rex v. 
Osborne, 4 East. 326; Rex v. Miller, 
6 Term R. 277; Willc. 332, pi. 861; 
Howard's Case, Hutt. 87; Thicknesse 
V. Canal Co., 4 M. & W. 472. 

59 



§38 



MUNICIPAL COEPOEATIONS. 



[CH. IX. 



corporations. In England, it has also been applied to munici- 
pal corporations, where misuse, or failure to exercise the rights 
of the franchise, have resulted in a judgment of forfeiture. 
And in the time of Charles II., it was held that a municipal 
corporation might forfeit its franchise, in consequence of the 
negligence or misconduct of its officers.-'^ 

§ 38. How dissolved in the United States. — As has been 
already stated in the preceding paragraph, in explanation of 
the modes of dissolution of corporations in England, the sec- 
ond mode, which is possible in England by a loss of an integral 
part of the corporation, would not be possible in this country, 
because here the municipal corporation is not a franchise, pos- 
sessed and enjoyed by a few persons of the community, but is 
an act of incorporation of the community. Each individual 
citizen of the corporation is an integral part, but the officers 
of the corporation do not in any sense of the term constitute an 
integral part of the corporation ; they are merely the agents of 
the corporation, for whose wrongful acts the corporation may 
be liable to parties injured thereby. The corporation itself 
does not depend for its existence upon the continuance or exist- 
ence of such officers. It is, of course, possible that a municipal 
corporation may practically become nonexistent, in consequence 
of the desertion of a locality by the entire people. If a com- 
munity should in one body remove from that locality, abandon 
the territor}"^ which has been assigned for the municipal corpo- 
ration, it would be impossible for such a municipal corporation 
still to exist-; but the mere neglect or failure of the community 
to elect officers to practically carry on the administration of the 



1 See Tiedeman's Private Corpora^ 
tions, chapter on Dissolution; Eex 
V. Nicholson, 1 Str. 299; People v. 
O'Brien, 111 N. Y. 1; Attorney Gen- 
eral V. Shrewsbury, 6 Beav. 220; 
Whalen v. Macomb, 76 111. 49; Mum- 
ma V. Potomac Co., 8 Pet. (U. S.) 
281; Boston Glass Manuf. v. Lang- 
don, 24 Pick. 49, 52; Rex v. Kent, 13 
East, 220; Priestly v. Foulds, 2 Scott, 
N. R. 205, 225; Commonwealth v. 
Union Ins. Co., 5 Mass. 230, 232; Rid- 
dle V. Locks and Canals, 7 Mass. 169 ; 
60 



School V. Canal, etc., Co., 9 Ohio, 203; 
Canal Co. v. Railroad Co., 4 Gill & 
Johns. 1; Vincennes University v. 
Indiana, 14 How. 268; Eex v. Saun- 
ders, 3 East, 119; Mayor, etc., of 
Lyme v. Henley, 2 CI. & F. 331; 
Smith's Case, 4 Mod. 55, 58; s. c, 12 
Mod. 17; Skin. 311; 1 Show. 278; 
Black. Com. 485; Taylors of Ipswich, 
1 Rol. 5; Rex v. Grosvenor, 7 Mod. 
199. See Butler v. Walker, (Ala. 93) 
13 So. 261; Swamp Land District No. 
170 V. Silva, (Cal. 93) 32 Pac. E. 866. 



CH. IV.] 



DISSOLUTION OF COEPOEATXON. 



§39 



municipal government would certainly not dissolve the fran- 
chise, as long as the right or capacity to elect such ofBcers, and 
to place the municipal corporation on a working basis, still 
continues.^ 

So, also, would it not be proper to consider it possible, in this 
country, to secure a dissolution of a corporation by virtue of a 
surrender of the franchise. Such a surrender would not be 
possible, except iu conjunction with an acceptance of the sur- 
render by the legislature which created the corporation ; and 
when the acceptance has been given, the entire transaction 
would be equivalent in its effect, and in its real character, to 
an act of dissolution of the municipal corporation.^ But it has 
been held by the Supreme Court of Missouri, and it is probably 
a sound conclusion of law, that, where municipal corporations 
are incorporated under a general act, which contains provisions 
for the dissolution of such a corporation, by compliance with 
this provision the town may be dissolved, without the direct 
interference of the legislature.^ 

§ 39. Forfeiture of corporate existence. — For the same 
reason, the English doctrine, that a municipal corporation may 
forfeit its existence as a corporation, in consequence of the 
neglect or abuse of its franchise, cannot find application in this 
country to municipal corporations.* If there is any neglect or 
abuse of the powers and privileges of the municipal corporation, 
appropriate remedies are provided for tlie redress of the injuries 



1 Butler V. "Walker, (Ala. 93) 13 So. 
261; Largen v. State, 13 S. W. E. 161 ; 
76 Tex. 323; State v. Dunson, (Tex. 
88) 9 S. W. E. 203; People v. Wren, 
4 Scam. (5 111.) 275; IT. S. El. LigM 
Co. V. Leiter, 19 D. C. 575; Com. v. 
Cullen, 1 Harris (Pa.) 133; President 
V. Thomas, 20 111. 197; Welch v. Ste. 
Genevieve, 1 Dillon C. C. 130; Green 
Township, 9 Watts & S. (Pa.) 22; 
Schriber v. Langdale, 66 Wis. 616; 
Vincennes University v. Indiana, 14 
How. 268; Muscatine v. Funck, 18 
Iowa, 469 ; see Lea v. Hei-naudez, 10 
Tex. 137, in which it is held that 
where a Texas town, incorporated 
prior to 1848, for three years and 
over had failed to elect ofi&cers or to 



provide any other governmental or- 
ganization, and did not even possess 
officers de facto, the failui-e of the 
community to elect officers to carry 
on the government of the town ope- 
rated as a dissolution of the corpo- 
ration. But the court reaches this 
conclusion without citing any au- 
thority in support, and without giv- 
ing any reason for its judgment. 

2 Brennan v. Bradshaw, 53 Tex. 
330; Morris v. State, 63 Tex. 53. 

s Hambleton v. Dexter, 89 Mo. 188; 
Largen v. State, sui)ra. 

* See Welch v. Ste. Genevieve, 1 
Dillon C. C. 130; Butler v. Walker, 
(Ala. 93) 13 So. 261. 

61 



f 



40 



MUNICIPAL CORPOKATIONS. 



[CH. IT. 



which may be sustained thereby by private individuals. Or, 
if public rights are suffering from a neglect of the performance 
of the duties of a municipal corporation, the court may, by 
mandamus, secure the performance of such duties. It would 
be a matter of very great surprise to a municipal community 
in the United States, to learn that its charter had been for- 
feited in a proceeding of quo warranto, because of the failure of its 
officers to perform the duties intrusted to them. The conclu- 
sion of the entire discussion is, that in this country there is but 
one way, whereby corporations may be destroyed or annulled ; 
and that is, by an act of the legislature, which has created the 
municipal corporation, iind which has the sole power of control 
over it.^ It seems that in Missouri the city of Kahoka was in 
1886 deprived of its charter by forfeiture for nonuser, in a pro- 
ceeding of quo warranto, and subsequently the community was 
reincorporated under the general laws of the state as a city of 
the fourth class. It is doubtful what was the effect of tlie ju- 
dicial proceeding in the case ; certainly, under the general laws 
of the state, the reincorporation operated as a surrender of the 
old charter."'^ 

§ 40. Effect of dissolution of corporation. — At common 
law a corporation, whether public or private, upon dissolution, 
was held to be civilly dead. Nothing remained in the character 
of a legal personality in the place of such corporation, and its 
rights of property and lands, for example, reverted to the gran- 
tor or his heirs, while the choses in action of the corporation, 
whether owned b}' them or due to it by others, became extinct. 
Leases of lands by such corporation were also terminated with 
its dissolution.^ But, in this country, if not in England, an 
entirely different view has been taken of the act of incorpora- 
tion, and the effect of dissolution. Instead of recognizing that, 



'Dillon Mun. Corp. §168; People 
V. Bancroft, 29 Pac. R. 112; (Ida. 92) ; 
Meriwether v. Garrett, 102 U. S. 472; 
Mobile V. Watson, 116 lb. 289; State 
V. Hamilton, (Kan. 87), 19 Pac. 723 ; 
State V. Board of Education, 7 Ohio 
Cir. Ct. E. 152 (Ohio 93.) 

2 Hill V. Kahoka, 35 Fed. Rep. 321; 
see also, Meyer v. Porter, 65 Cal. 67; 
Hambleton v. Town of Dexter, 89 
62 



Mo. 188. 

3 Commonwealth v. Koxbury, 9 
Gray, 510, note; Attorney General v. 
Gower, 9 Mod. 226; 1 Rol. Abr. 816; 
Rex V. Passmore, 3 Term R. 247; 
Grant Corp. 805; Colchester v. 
Brooke, 7 Queen's B. 383; Co. Litt. 
13; 1 Lev. 237; Knight v. Wells, 1 
Lut. 519; Rex v. Saunders, 3 East, 
119. 



CH. IV. J DISSOLUTION OP COKPOEATION. § 41 

in the dissolution of a corporation, a complete extinction of the 
legal personality, created by the act of incorporation, took place, 
leaving nothing in its place as the inheritor of its rights and 
obligations ; the American courts recognize in the dissolution 
only a termination of its franchises, as forfeiture of the right to 
transact business in its corporate capacity, and hold that its 
rights and duties remain intact and unaffected by the dissolu- 
tion of such a corporation. The property of the corporation, 
upon its dissolution, would be retained and taken charge of hy 
a Court of Equity or placed in the hands of trustees appointed 
for that purpose, to be administered by them for the ben- 
efit of the creditors of the defunct corporation, in the first 
place, and to secure a subsequent distribution of the remaining 
property among the incorpoi'ators. There is, therefore, no re- 
version of the lands held by a corporation in fee to the grantor 
or his heirs, or a loss or termination .of leases held by the cor- 
poration, or a termination of charitable trusts, which were vest- 
ed in the dissolved corporation. In all these cases, a Court of 
Equity will direct a distribution of the property among the in- 
corporators; or, in the case of charitable trusts, appoint other 
trustees to administer the trusts, and thus prevent their de-' 
! traction. This is certainly the rule in America, in regard to 
private corporations, and the same rule has been applied equal- 
ly to municipal corporations.^ 

§ 41. Rights of creditors on a dissolution of a municipal 
corporation.-— It is explained in a subsequent chapter, that the 
property which a corporation holds for public use, such as pub- 
lic buildings and fire engines, wharves and the like, cannot be 
subjected to execution for the paj'ment of the debts of the city.'' 
It is likewise held that, upon the dissolution of a corporation, 
such property continues to be exempt from liability for the 
debts of the corporation, and it passes into the immediate con- 
tiol of the state.** So, also, has it been decided that the private 



I In re Board, 48 Fed. R. 350; Mum- 
ma V. Potomac Co., 8 Pet. 281; Cur- 
ran V. Arkansas, 15 How. (U. S.) 312; 
Vinoennes v. Indiana, 14 How. 268; 
Owen V. Smith, 31 Barb. 641; Schlie- 
der V. Dielman, 10 So. K. 934; Coul- 
ter V. Robertson, 24 Miss. 278 ; County 
V. Cox, 6 Ind. 403; Bacon v. Robert- 



son, 18 How. (IT. S.) 480; People v. 
O'Brien, 111 N. T. 1; Com. v. Rox- 
bury, 9 Gray, 510, note; Girard v. 
Philadelpliia, 7 Wall. 1; Ewing v. 
Dallas, (Tex. 92) 19 S. W. R. 380. 

2 See post, § 212. 

3 Broughton v. Pensacola, 93 U. S. 
266, 268, 269. 

63 



§ 42 MUNICIPAL COEPOKATIONS. [CH. IV. 

property of individuals, living within the municipality, cannot 
be subjected to liability for the payment of the debts of the 
city, except through taxation ; and that the power of taxation 
can only be exercised by the corporation, under the authority 
of the Legislature.^ But, granting that these two propositions 
are sound law, it still remains an important question what reme- 
dies the creditors of a dissolved municipal corporation may em- 
ploy to secure the payment of its just debts ? There are two 
cases that require special consideration in this inquiry ; One, 
where the particular municipal corporation is dissolved, and 
a new and distinctly separate corporation is created by the 
state to take its place, and in whom are vested the ordinary 
powers of a municipal corporation ; Secondly, where the cor- 
poration is dissolved, and no other municipal corporation is 
created to take its place. These two cases will be discussed 
separately; but prior to the discussion of them, it is necessary 
to remember, that the rights of creditors aie protected by the 
provision of the Federal Constitution, which prohibits the pass- 
ing of laws which impair the- obligation of contracts ; and it 
has been decided that where a municipal corporation has agreed 
with its creditors that a special levy of taxes should be made 
for the payment of its debts, or the interest on such debts, 
such an agreement with the corporation for a special levy of 
taxes constitutes a part of the obligation of the contract with 
the creditors, which is protected by this constitutional prohibi- 
tion. ^ 

§ 42. The rights of creditors where a second corporation 
has heen established in its place. — Mere changes in the name 
of a corporation, or of its boundaries or mode of government, 
which fall short of a dissolution of the corporation, cannot have 
any effect whatever upon its rights of property, or upon its obli- 
gations to creditors. It still continues to be the same corpora- 
tion under a changed form or name, and therefore the rights of 
creditors can in no wise be thereby affected.^ So, also, would 
it be impossible to effect a dissolution of a municipal corpora- 
tion, as to its creditors, by the substitution of a new municipal 



1 Meriwether v. Garrett, 102 IT. S. 
472. 

^Seibert v. Lewis, 122 U. S. 284; 
see post, § 196. 
64 



3 People V. Bagley, 85 Cal. 343; 
Broughton v. Pensacola, 93 XT. S. 
266; Girard v. Philadelphia, 7 
Wall. 1. 



CH. IV.] DISSOLUTION OF COItPOK AT ION. § 42 

charter in the place of one, under which the corporation was 
operated, at the time when the debts were contracted ; even 
though the powers and privileges under the new charter are 
essentially different from those which were enjoyed under the 
old charter.^ And in determining the rights of creditors, the 
presumption is very strong that the same corporation continues 
to exist, notwithstanding different powers are given to the cor- 
poration, and different officers provided for the administration 
of its affairs.'^ In a number of cases, for the purpose of avoid- 
ing the liability for their debts, Legislatures have dissolved mu- 
nicipal corporations — in the vernacular of the day, legislated 
them out of existence altogether — and have established in their 
place, with some modification of their boundaries and powers, 
and with the substitution of some entirely different name, some 
other body politic or local government, which it was claimed 
could not be treated as the old municipal corporation under a 
changed form. Thus, in Tennessee, the city of Memphis, 
and other municipal corporations, were abolished by legislative 
act, and in their place a public g'Masi-corporatiou was estab- 
lished, called " taxing districts," in which were vested most of 
the original powers of the dissolved municipal corporations. 
But, at the instance of creditors, it was held that these " taxing 
districts" were municipal corporations, and as such they in- 
herited both the liabilities and the rights of property of the de- 
funct corporation, whose place they were created to take.^ So, 
also, the city of Mobile was dissolved by the act of the legisla- 
ture of Alabama, and on the same day,.Avith a diminution of 
the territory of the old corporation, the Port of Mobile was in- 
corporated ; and in that port was vested all the public property 
of the old city and most of its taxable property, while fourteen- 
fifteenths of the population of the old city were included in the 
Port. It was held by the United States Supreme Court, that 
the Port of Mobile was a municipal corporation, and as such 



1 State T. Natal, 39 La. An. 439; 
Girard v. Philadelpliia, 7 Wall. 1. 

-Walnut Townsliip v. Jordan, 38 
Kan. 502; Broughton v. Pensacola, 
93 U. S. 266; Milner's Admx. v. Pen- 
sacola, 2 Woods, 632; Barkley v. 
Levee Com'rs, 93X1. S. 238. 

'Lea V. State, 10 Lea (Tenn.) 478; 



Luehrman v. Taxing District, 2 Lea 
(Tenn.) 425; Devereaux v. City of 
Brownsville, 29 Fed. Rep. 742; O'Con- 
nor V. Memphis, 6 Lea (Tenn.) 730; 
Uhl V. Taxing District, 6 Lea (Tenn.) 
610; Meriwether v. Garrett, 102 U. 
S. 472; State v. Taxing District of 
Shelby Co., 10, Lea (Tenn.) 240. 



5 Qb 



§42 



MUNICIPAL CORPOEATIONS. 



[CH. IV. 



was the successor of the old city, and became liable as such for 
the debts of the old city.^ In this case the Supreme Court 
said : " When the Legislature of a state has given a local com- 
munity, living within designated boundaries, a municipal or- 
ganization, and by a subsequent act, or series of acts, repeals its 
charter and dissolves the corporation, and incorporates substan- 
tially the same people as a municipal body under a new name 
for the same general purpose, and the. general mass of the taxa- 
ble property of the old corporation is included within the limits 
of the new, and the property of the old corporation used for 
public purposes is transferred without consideration to the new 
corporation for the same public uses, the latter, notwithstand- 
ing a great reduction of its corporate limits, is the successor in 
law of the former, and liable for its debts ; and if any part of 
the creditors of the old corporation are left without provision 
for the payment of their claims, they can enforce satisfaction 
out of the new." Similar judgments have been rendered in 
cases of the same sort in other states.^ It has also been held, 
that if, in the change from the old corporation to the new, the 
powers of the new corporation have been restricted to a greater 
degree than the powers of the old corporation, any such new 
limitation of the corporate powers, so far as the rights of exist- 
ing creditors are thereby affected, is in violation of the constitu- 
tional provision, which protects the obligation of contracts from 
impairment by subsequent legislation.^ 



1 Mobile V. Watson, 116 U. S. 289. 

^Broughtou V. Pensacola, 93 U. 
S. 266; Devereaux v. City of Browns- 
ville, 29 Fed. Rep. 742; Laird v. De 
Soto, 22 Fed. Kep. 421; People v. 
Murray, 73 N. Y. 535. 

8 Owen V. Smith, 31 Barb. 641; 
Welsh V. Ste. Genevieve, 1 Dillon C. 
C. 130; Beckwith v. Racine, 7 Biss. 
142; Mount Pleasant v. Beckwith, 
100 U. S. 514; Meriwether v. Gar- 
rett, 102 U. S. 472; Brooklyn v. 
Smith, 104 111. 429; Memphis v. 
Bethel, 17 S. W. R. 191; Louisville 
Bridge Co. v. Louisville, 81 Ky. 189; 
Barkley v. Levee Commissioners, 93 
U. S. 266; Robinson v. Lane, 19 Ga. 
337; Muscatine Turnverein v. Funck, 
66 



18 Iowa, 469; Thompson v. Allen 
County, 115 U. S. 550; Amy v. Water- 
town, 130 IT. S. 301; Hopkins v. 
Whitesides, 1 Head (Tenn.) 31; Bank 
V. Lockwood, 2 Harring. (Del.) 8; 
Thompson v. Abbott, 61 Mo. 176; St. 
Louis Bridge Co. v. East St. Louis, 
121 111. 238; State txre. Bridge Co. 
V. Columbia, 27 S. 0. 137. There ap- 
pears to be one case in contradiction 
with this line of authorities, an old 
case in Mississippi, in which it was 
held that the repeal of the charter of 
a municipal corporation extinguish- 
ed the debts due it from such cor- 
poration. Port Gibson v. Moore, 13 
Sra. & Marsh, 157. 



CH. IV.] DISSOLUTION OP CORPORATION. § 43 

§ 43. Effect of dissolution of corporation, where no other 
corporation has been substituted therefor. — If the Legisla- 
ture repeals the charter of a municipal corporation, while it is in 
debt, and makes no provision for the payment of its debts, and 
does not create any other corporation to take its place, and to 
exercise the powers of local government, and the administra- 
tion of the public affairs of the community is assumed by the 
state government itself, so far as the adjudications up to the 
present time carry one to any conclusion, it would seem that 
the courts are practically powerless to protect creditors of the 
defunct corporation against a total loss of their claims, as long 
as they find it impossible to secure relief at the hands of the 
Legislature, which has dissolved the corporation. That is, since 
the corporation has been extinguished, and in view of the fact, 
that the creditors of the corporation can only look to the exer- 
cise, by the municipal corporation or its successors, of the power 
of taxation for payment of its debts ; and have no claim of satis- 
faction against the public property of such corporation, or 
against the private property of its citizens, either before or after 
dissolution of the corporation ; the assumption of the powers of 
the local government by the state, in consequence of the disso- 
lution of the corporation, would seem to bring the exercise of 
such powers necessarily within the discretion of the state Legis- 
lature ; and the state government is protected from judicial 
interference by another provision of the United States Consti- 
tution.i For this reason, it would seem that there is no judi- 
cial remedy open to the creditors under these extraordinary 
circumstances.^ But Judge Dillon ventures the suggestion, 
that the true solution of these difficulties may possibly be found 
in the consideration that the power of a municipality to levy 
taxes to pay its debts, as the power existed at the time when 
the debts were created, is in its essence not the grant of a power 
to the incorporated bodj', but to the inhabitants of the incorpo- 
rated territory, which cannot be taken away by subsequent leg- 



' Art. XI. araendment to the Con- 
stitution. 

" Barkley v. Levee Com'rs, 93 U. 
S. 258; Heine v. Levee Com'rs, 19 
Wall. 655; Thompson v. Allen Co., 



115 IT. S. 550; Rees v. Watertown, 19 
Wall. 107; Amy v. Watertown, 130 
U. S. 301; Meriwether v. Garrett, 
102 U. S. 472. 

67 



§ 44 MTTNICIPAL COEPOBATIONS. [CH. IV. 

islation, as against existing creditors.^ This suggestion of the 
distinguished author is strictly in line with the fundamental 
conception of the character and origin of a municipal corpora- 
tion, viz., that such corporation does not rest for its fundamen- 
tal existence upon the act of incorporation, but upon its natural 
existence as a community ; and that the act of incorporation 
was simply a legislative investment of the community with the 
franchise of acting as a legal personality and of exercising the 
powers of local government. It is believed that the adoption 
of this theory would certainly work no harm to the true inter- 
ests of the community which has been incorporated, while at 
the same time it would furnish the means of escaping from the 
outrageous consequence of a mere technicality of the law. It 
is, however, so seldom the case that a municipal corporation 
can be legislated out of existence, without some sort of public 
corporation being created by the Legislature to take its place, 
tliat it is not likely that the case can become a common one, 

§ 44. Kevival by a new charter. — It was a rule of the Eng- 
lish law that, where the charters of an old corporation have 
been suspended or even dissolved by its loss of members or the 
loss of an integral part, such dissolved or defunct corporation 
may be revived by a new charter, and the rights and obligations 
of the old corporation transferred to a new corporation thus 
created ; so that, in effect, the new corporation would be noth- 
ing more than a continuation of the old corporation.^ 

Inasmuch as the existence of a municipal corporation in this 
country can only be interfered with by a dissolution of the 
corporation, the doctrine of revival by the new charter can 
only be applied here to municipal corporations, in a modified 
form, in the case where there has been a dissolution of the 
old corporation and the creation of a new corporation to take 
its place, which has been already explained in a preceding par- 
agraph. Certainly, under these circumstances the new corpo- 
ration is properly described as being no more than a changed 
form of the old corporation.*^ 

' Dillon Muu. Corp. § 173. 141; Eex v. Passmore, 3 Term K. 

''Bellows v. Bank, etc., 2 Mason C. 119, 24*7; Eegina v. Bewdley, 1 P- 

C. 43; Hoffman V. Van Nostrand, 42 Wms. 207; Colchester v. Brooke, 7 

Barb. 174; Girard v. Philadelphia, 7 Queen's Bench, 383; Colchester v. 

Wall. 1 ; Olney v. Harvey, 50 111. Seaber, 3 Burr. 1866. 

453 ; Neely v. Torkville, 10 S. C. ^ gee ante, § 42. 
68 



CHAPTER V. 



CORPORATE NAJIE, SEAL AND BOUNDARIES. 



Section. 

47 — Corporate name, how ob- 
tained. 

48 — Change of corporate name — 
Name acquired by reputation. 

49 — ^Effect of misnomer in general. 

50 — Use of corporate name in suits. 

51 — Requirement of a corporate 
seal. 

52 — Seal, how proved. 

53 — Boundaries, how defined. 

54 — Corporate boundaries by refer- 
ence to streams and high- 
ways. 

55 — ^Enlargement of boundaries — 
Annexation of territory. 

56 — What territory may be annex- 
ed — Farm lands. 



Section. 
57 — Effect of extension of city 

boundaries. 
58 — E ff e c t of annexation of one 

town to another. 
59 — Effect of division of one town 

into two. 
60 — Legislative power to apportion 

property and debts in cases 

of annexation and division. 
61 — Procedure in cases of annexar 

tiou. When annexation legal. 
62 — Exercise of power beyond city 

limits, only one corporation 

over same area. 
63 — Division of municipal territory 

into wards. 



§ 47. Corporate name, how obtained — Inasmuch as a cor- 
poration is an intangible personality, a creature of the law, it, 
probably more than the natural person, requires a name. With- 
out a name, the corporation could hardly identify itself, or give 
any form whatever to its legal personality.^ Ordinarily, the 
power which creates a corporation gives its name, and where it 
is created by special charter, the charter contains or prescribes 
the name. Under the English Municipal Corporation Act of 
1838, it is provided that the names of all municipal coiporations 
in England shall assume a common form, the proper corporate 
name for boroughs being " mayor, aldermen and burgesses of 
," and for cities " mavor, aldermen and citizens of - 



"2 



1 Smith V. Tallahassee Branch of 
Central Planks Road Co., 30 Ala. 65; 
Atty. Gen. v. Worcester, 2 Phillips, 
3; Lancaster Co. v. Rush, 52 N. W. 
R. 837; Middlesex H. & M. Soc. v. 
Davis, 8 Mete. (Mass.) 138; Knight 
V. Wells, 1 Lord Raym. (Eng.) 80; 
Physicians v. Salmon, 3 Salk. (Eng.) 



102; No. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Walker, 47 
Fed. R. 681; Dutchess Mfg. Co. v. 
Davis, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 238; 7 Am. 
Dec. 459; Gostin v. State, (Ga. 92) 15 
S. E. R. 361 ; Trustees v. Peaslee, 15 
N. H. 317. 

2 Atty. Gen. v. Worcester, 2 Phil. 
3; Rochester v. Lee, 15 Sim. 376. 
69 



§48 



MUNICIPAL COEPOEATIONS. 



[CH. V. 



In this country, where municipal corporations are very often 
created under general acts, provision is made under these cor- 
poration acts for the adoption by the municipality itself of a 
name; but all are required, as in the English corporation act, 

to conform to the general form, as the city or tovim of . The 

form prescribed by these general acts is noted to be different 
from the English form, in that it is the city or town which is 
incorporated, and not the mayor, aldermen and citizens, form- 
ing integral parts of the corporation ; the community is incor- 
porated, and not any particular individuals of that community. 
The corporate name of a city, which appears in a special act 
or charter, will with the charter itself be judicially noticed by 
the courts, and special proof of the same would not be required 
in any suit, where that fact was required to be established. 
But where the city is organized under a general act, and the 
name is selected by the community, it would have to be ex- 
pressly proven ; for the court would not take judicial notice of 
the selection of a name by the community.^ 

§ 48. Change of corporate name — Name acquired by rep- 
utation. — While it is unquestionably the rule of law, notwith- 
standing the popular or general impression to the contrary ,2 that 
a natural person has the right at anytime, without the consent 
or ratification of the Legislature, to adopt any name he pleases, 
and to be known by such name, instead of by the baptismal 
name, as long as the change of name has not been made for 
fraudulent or illegal purposes ; ^ it seems that the same princi- 



1 Douglas V. Bank, 19 Ala. 659; 
Stroudsbuig v. Brown, (Pa. 92) 11 
Pa. Co. Ct. 272; Linck v. Litchfield, 
31 N. E. E. 123 ( Mass. 92 ) ; Johnson 
V. Indianapolis, 16 Ind. 227; Kansas 
etc. Co. V. Burge, 40 Kan. 736; Marx 
V. Croison, 17 Or. 393; Pittsburgh v. 
Craft, 1 Pitts. (Pa.) 158; Pendleton 
V. Bank of Kentucky, 1 Mon. 177; 
Med way v. Adams, 10 Mass. 360; 
Trammell v. State, 93 Ala. 388; Bow- 
er V. State Bank, .5 Ark. 234; Pierce 
V. Somerworth, 10 N". H. 369; Neely 
V. Yorkville, 10 S. C. 141; State v. 
Cooper, 101 N. C. 684; Kentucky 
Seminary v. Wallace, 15 B. Mon. 35 ; 
70 



People v. Love, 19 Cal. 676; African 
Society v. Varick, 13 Johns. 38. 

2 Even Judge Dillon appears to en- 
tertain the contrary impression, as 
is manifest by the following quota- 
tion: " If a particular name be given 
to a corporation in its charter, the 
corporation can no more change it 
at its pleasure than a man can at 
pleasure change his baptismal 
name." Dillon Mun. Corp., vol. 1, 
sec. 175. 

8 England v. New York Publishing 
Co., 8 Daly ( N. T.) 375; Hygeia W. 
I. Co. v. N. T. Hyg. I. Co., 19 N. Y. 
602 ; Bell v. Sun Printing Co., 42 N. Y. 



CH. v.] 



CORPOBATE NAME. 



§48 



pie cannot be applied to municipal corporations, if it is possible 
to apply it to any kind of corporation. From the fact that a cor- 
poration is a creature of a legislative act, and has no tangible ex- 
istence as a legal personality, outside of the act of incorporation, 
the legal name acquired by the act of the Legislature is deemed 
to be beyond the power of change by the municipal corpora- 
tion without legislative action.^ And even where the Legisla- 
ture, in a subsequent act, applies a second or different name to 
the corporation, it is held that there is necessarily a repeal of 
the first name given to it by the Legislature ; it is said that a 
corporation cannot have two legal names.^ But, notwithstand- 
ing this general doctrine, it has been held, that where quasi 
'public corporations are created by legislative act, without any 
provision for giving to the particular corporation a distinct or 
formal name, such corporation may acquire a name by reputa- 
tion, as in the case of natural persons, and sue and be sued by 
such name.^ 



Super. Ct. 567; Snook, 2 Hilt. (K Y.) 
566. In Doe v. Yates, 5 Barn. & 
Aid. 544, Abbott, C. J., said: " A 
name assumed by the voluntary act 
of a young man at his outset in life, 
adopted by all who know him, and 
by which he is constantly called, be- 
comes, for all the purposes that 
occur to my friend, as much and 
effectually his name as if he had ob- 
tained an act of Parliament to con- 
fer it on him." " No person is bound 
to accept his patronymic as a sur- 
name, nor his Christian name as a 
given name, though the custom to 
do so is almost univers.al among 
English speaking people, who have 
inherited the common law.'' Biddle, 
J., in Scofield v. Jennings, 68 Ind. 
233. 

iJn re Mer. Eep. Co., 115 X. Y. 
176; Episcopal etc. Society v. Epis- 
copal Church, 1 Pick. 372; Girard v. 
Philadelphia, 7 Wall. 1; In re. East 
Stroudsburg, 9 Pa. Co. Ct. 529. 

^Eeesv. Newport etc. Co., 32 W. 
Va. 164; Physicians v. Salmon, 3 



Salk. (Eng.) 102; Atty. Gen. v. Wor- 
cester, 2 Phillips, 25; Smith v. Tal- 
lahassee Branch, 30 Ala. 650; Manu- 
facturing Co. V. Davis, 14 Johns. 
238; Society etc. v. Young, 2 N. H. 
310; Trustees v. Peaslee; 15 N. H. 
317; Dutchess Mfg. Co. v. Davis, 14 
Johns. (N. Y.) 238; 7 Am. Dec. 450; 
Haselton B. Co. v. Hazelton T. B. 
Co., 30 N. E. R. 339; Atty. Gen. v. 
Corporation of Leicester, 9 Beav. 
(Eng.) 546; Middlesex, etc., v. Da- 
vis, 3 Met. (Mass.) 133; Trustees v. 
Peaslee, 15 N. Bt. 317; State v. Coo- 
per, 101 K. C. 684; Society of Mid- 
dlesex H. & M. Soo. V. Davis, Met. 
(Mass.) 133; All Saints Church v. 
Lovett, 1 Hall (N. Y.) 191; Knight 
v. Wells, 1 Ld. Eaym. 80. 

8 King V. Norris, 1 Ld. Kaym. 337; 
The Queen v. Bailiffs of Ipswich, 2 
Ld. Raym. 1232, 1238, 1239; School 
District v. Blakeslee, 13 Conn. 227. 
Use of names by corporations, see 
32 Am. &Eng. Corp. Cases, 22; Epis- 
copal Society v. Episcopal Church, 1 
Pick. 372. 

71 



§49 



MUNICIPAL CORPOEATIONS. 



[CH. V. 



§ 49. Effect of misnomer in general — While it has been 
generally held that a name is necessary to the existence of a 
corporation, as a means of identifying the corporation, and 
distinguishing it from other persons in the various relations of 
life ; ^ yet the identification of the corporation is the important 
element of the requirement.'-' Hence it is that, as a general rule, 
any variation from the true legal name of a corporation in grants 
and bequests to such corporation, will not have the effect of viti- 
ating or invalidating such grant or bequest, on account of the 
uncertainty of the grantee or donee, as long as the variation or 
misnomer is not so pronounced as to make it impossible to iden- 
tify the corporation.^ Thus, it has been held that, vy^here in a 



1 Middlesex H. & M. Soc. v. Davis, 
3 Mete. (Mass.) 133; Knight v. Wells, 
1 Lord Eyan. (Eng.) 80; Corp. of 
Rochester v. Lee, 15 Sim. (Eng.) 
376; Dillon, Mun. Corp., sees. 175-6; 
Dutchess Mfg. Co. v. Davis, 14 Johns. 
(N. T.) 238; 7 Am. Dec. 459; Physi- 
cians V. Salmon, 3 Salk. (Eng.) 102; 
Atty. Gen. v. Worcester, 2 Philips, 3. 

2 Wetmore v. Institution, 3 N. T. 
S. 179; Keely v. Torkville, 10 S. Car. 
141 ; Pierce v. Somerworth, 10 N. H. 
369; Atty. Gen. v. Kerr, 2 Beav.420; 
St. Louis Hospital v. Williams, 19 
Mo. 609; Andrews v. Dyer, 81 Me. 
104; Bristol v. Ontario, 60 Conn. 472; 
]n re Pepper, 11 Pa. Co. Ct. 257; Peo- 
ple V. Love, 19 Cal. 676; Kentucky 
Seminary v. Wallace, 15 B. Mon. 
(Ky.) 35; Milford etc. Co. v. Brush, 
10 Ohio, 111; 36 Am. Dec. 78; Med- 
way Mfg. Co. v. Adams, 10 Mass. 
360; Inhabitants v. String, 10 N. J. 
L. 323; Kimball V. Chapel, 27 Ab. N. 
C. 437; Faulkner v. Home, 29 N. E. 
645 (Mass. 92) ; Bellows v. Hallowell 
etc. Bank, 2 Mason (U. S.) 43; Hoff- 
man V. Van Nostrand, 42 Barb. (IST. 
Y.) 174; Whitby v. Harrison, 18 Up.' 
Can. Q. B. 603; Bruce v. Cromar, 22 
Up. Can. Q. B. 321; Douglas v. 
Branch Bank, 19 Ala. 659; Bower v. 
State Bank, 5 Ark. 234. 

8 Wakefield v. Brown, 38 Minn. 
75 



361; 37 N. W. R. 788; Morris v. 
State, 84 Ala. 446; 4 So. R. 628; 
Wood V. Hammond, (R. I. 88) 17 
Atl. E. 324; In re Look, 1 Con. Sur. 
403; Neely v. Torkville, 10 S. Car. 
141; Berks Co. Turnpike Road Co. 
V. Myers, 6 S. & R. (Pa.) 12; 9 Am. 
Dec. 402; People v. Love, 19 Cal. 
676; African Society v. Varick, 13 
Johns. 38; Chapin v. School Distiict 
in Winchester, 35 N. H. 445 ; People 
V. Runkle, 9 Johns. (N. T.) 147; Bi- 
ker V. Leo, 115 N. Y. 93; Pittsburgh 
V. Craft, 1 Pitts. (Pa.) 158; Douglass 
V. Branch Bank etc., 19 Ala. 659; 
Sutton V. Cole, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 232; 
Kew York Institute v. How, 10 N. 
Y. 84; Centenary M. E. Ch. v. Par- 
ker, 43 N. J. Bq. 307; 12 Atl. E. 142; 
Vausant v. Roberts, 3 Md. 119; Mi- 
not V. Boston Asylum, 7 Meto. (Mass.) 
416; Bodman v. American Soc, 9 
Allen (Mass.) 447; Neely v. York- 
ville, 10 S. C. 141; Kentucky Semi- 
nary V. Wallace, 15 B. Mon. 35; Pen- 
dleton v. Bank, 1 Mon. 177; Faulkner 
V. Nat. Sailors' Home, (Mass. 92) 29 
N. E. E. 645; N. Y. Conference v. 
Clarkson, 4 Halst. Ch. (N. J.) 541; 
Preacher's Aid Soc. v. Eich, 45 Me. 
552; Chappell v. Missionary Society, 
(Ind. 92) 29 N. E. E. 624; Pierce v. 
Somerworth, 10 N. H. 369; Camden 
v. Clerke, Hobart (Eng.) 32; Atty. 



CH. v.] 



CORPORATE NAME. 



§50 



devise to a town the popular name of " South Parish in Sutton " 
was used instead of the lawful name " The -first Parish in Sut- 
ton," notwithstanding the variation, the devise was valid.i And 
so, likewise, a devise was sustained, which was made to the 
" Right Worshipful Jurats and General Council of the Town 
of Rye ; " whereas its legal corporate name was " the Mayor, 
Jurats and Commonalty of the Town of Rye." ^ A devise has 
often been held to be valid, although it be made to a corpora- 
tion which is described instead of being named, as long as the 
description is sufficient to identify whicli corporation was in- 
tended to be the recipient of the gift.^ 

§ 50. Use of corporate name in siiits. — But the requirement 
of a strict conformity with the legal provision for a name is 
more strictly enforced, and the necessity for it is greater, in the 
case of suits, than where the name is employed in grants to, or 
contracts with, the corporation. A misnomer of a substantial 
character in the pleadings would be the subject for demurrer ; 
but, in these days, the opportunity for frequent amendments 
of the pleadings would deprive the misnomer in a suit of its 
important consequences. But a misnomer in a suit is fatal to 
the suit, as long as it is not corrected.* Where a corporation's 



Gen. V. Mayor of Rye, 7 Taunt. 
(Eng.) 546; St. Louis Hospital v. 
Williams, 19 Mo. 609; Kimball v. 
Chappell, 18 N. Y. S. 30; 27 A. K. 
C. 437; Crydou Hospital v. Farley, 6 
Tauat. (Eng.) 467; The King v. 
Croke, Cowp. (Eng.) 29; Goodwyn 
and Railway Co., In re, 13 U. C. C. 
P. 254; Bristol v. Ontario Orph. Asy- 
lum, 60 Conn. 472; Bower v. State 
Bank, 5 Ark. 234; Milford etc. Co. 
V. Brush, 10 Ohio, 111; 36 Am. Deo. 
78; In re Pepper's Estate, 1 Pa. Dist. 
148; Beverly v. Barlow, 10 U. C. C. 
P. 178; Mayor and Burgesses etc., 10 
Coke, 120. Chancellor Kent says: 
"The general rule to be collected 
from the cases is, that a variation 
from the precise name of the corpo- 
ration, when the true name is neces- 
sarily to be collected from the instru- 
ment, or is shown by proper aver- 
ments, will not invalidate a grant by 



or to a corporation, or a contract 
Vith it, and the modern cases show 
an increased liberality on this sub- 
ject." 2 Kent Com. 292. 

1 First Parish in Sutton v. Cole, 3 
Pick. 232. 

- Attorney General v. Mayor of Rye, 
7 Taunton, 546; 2 Eng. Com. Law, 
213. 

8 Trustees v. Peaslee, 15 IST. H. 317; 
Bodman v. American Tract Society, 

9 Allen, 447; Vansant v. Roberts, 3 
Md. 119; Preacher's Aid Society, 45 
Me. 552 ; New York Institute v. How, 

10 N. Y. (6 Seld.) 84. See Tiedeman 
on Wills, chapter xvi. 

* Seminary v. Wallace, 15 B. Mon. 
35 ; County v. Griswold, 58 Mo. 175 ; 
Romeo v. Chapman, 2 Mich. 179; 
Carder v. Com'rs, 16 Ohio St. 353; 
Insane Asylum v. Higgins, 15 111. 
185 ; Porter v. Blakely, 1 Root (Conn.) 
440; Trustees v. Campbell, 16 Ohio 

73 



§15 



MUNICIPAL COEPOKATIONS. 



[CH. U. 



name has been changed by law, without any change in the 
identity of the corporation, suits should ordinarily be institut- 
ed in the new name, although the subject-matter of the suit, 
the contract or grant, was made in the old name, provided the 
change from the old name to the new one is proven in the prop- 
er form in the suit, in order to connect the corporation suing 
or sued with the corporation named in the grant or contract.^ 
And this is likewise the rule, where, in a grant or contract, a 
different name has been employed to designate the corporation. 
The corporation would be compelled to sue in its lawful name 
on such a contract or conveyance, and would establish its 
right to maintain the suit, by proving that it was intended un- 
der the name emplo3'^ed in the contract or conveyance.^ 

§ 51. Requirement of a cprporate seal. — The charter of 
municipal corporations, and, likewise, the general corporation 
act, usually provides that the corporation shall have and use 
a common seal ; and the authority is ordinarily given to the 
corporation to select its own seal, and to change it at pleasure. 
But the express grant of the authority to have a seal is not 
necessary ; the power would be implied, in the absence of such 
an express grant. But, in any case, the corporation need not 
have a formal seal, which they must use on all occasions. Any 
seal, in the absence of a formal seal, would be a good seal for 
the corporation, which is authoritatively affixed to the instrument 
and declared to be a corporate seal, although it has not been 
formally or regularly adopted as the seal of the corporation.^ 



St. 11; Cambridge University v. 
Crofts, 10 Mod. 208; Berks Co. etc. 
V. Myers, 6 Serg. & Eawle (Pa.) 12; 
Bvittan v. Newland, 2 Dev. & Bat. 
(N. G.) 363. 

' Fort Wayne v. Jackson, 1 Blackf . 
(Ind.) 36; Colcliester v. Seaber, 3 
Burr. 1866; Kegina v. Ipswicli, 2 Ld. 
Eaym. 1232, 1238. 

-'10 Co. 12.5 6; Underbill v. Santa 
Barbara etc. Co., 93 Cal. 300; Trus- 
tees V. Reneau, 2 Swan (Tenn.); Fort 
Wayne v. Jackson, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 
36; Young v. Com'rs, 53 Fed. 895. 

Armfield v. Solon, 19 N. Y. S. 44; 
Solon V. Williamsburg Bank, 114 N. 
Y. 122; Koehler v. Black E. Falls 
74 



Iron Co., 2 Black (U. S.) 715; Stock- 
ton V. Powell, (Fla. 92) 10 So. K. 688; 
City Council v. Mooreliead, 2 Eich. 
Law, 430; Porter v. Eailroad Co., 37 
Me. 349; Ruffner v. Welton C. & S. 
Co., (W. Va. 92) 15 S. E. R. 48; Bank 
of Middlesex v. Rutland R. Co., 30 
Vt. 159; Tenney v. East Warren 
Lumber Co., 43 N. H. 343; Mill Dam 
Foundry v. Hovey, 21 Pick. 417; 
Stebbins v. Merritt, 10 Cusli. 27; Por- 
ter V. Androscoggin etc. R. Co., 37 
Me. 349; Gordon v. Diego, (Cal. 93) 
35 Pac. 885 ; Gary Lumber Co. Y. Cain, 
(Miss. 93) 13 So. 239; Tetig v. Ross- 
man, 12 Mont. 404. 



CH. V.J 



COEPOEATE SEAL. 



§51 



The common law seal required an impression to be made in 
wax upon the paper ; but it is probably true everywhere in this 
country, that corporations like private individuals are not requir- 
ed to employ the common law seals, where seals are required at 
all ; but that any impression upon the paper, either by a stamp 
or by a pen, would be a sufficient seal. Certainly, this is the 
rule in regard to private individuals ; and it is unquestionably 
the law in regard to municipal corporations, that the employ- 
ment of wax is not required, but that the impression stamped 
into the paper is sufficient corporate seal.^ But in order that 
any sealing of the instrument may be binding upon a corpora- 
tion, whether the. regular or temporary seal is employed, the 
seal must have been affixed by an officer, who is legally au- 
thorized to bind the corporation by such act.^ 

The common law rule was, that a corporation could not 
perform any legal binding act, except under seal ; and that a 
parol contract, entered into in the name of the corporation, 
would not be binding upon the corporation, but only upon 
the officers, who executed or made such a contract. The mod- 
ern rule is, however, very different from this. Instead of hold- 
ing that a parol contract is not binding upon a corporation, 
the contrary rule has been established almost everywhere, re- 
lating both to municipal, as well as private, corporations, that 
the corporation is required to make use of its seal, in the execu- 
tion of legal instruments, only where the natural person would 
likewise be required to do so. As Judge Story has said: 
"Where a corporation is acting within the scope of the legiti- 
mate purposes of its institution, all parol contracts made by its 
authorized agents are express promises of the corporation ; and 
all duties imposed on them by law, and all benefits conferred at 
their request, raise implied promises, for the enforcement of 
which an action lies."^ But it has been held in some in- 



1 Hendee v. Pinkerton, 14 Allen, 
381; comp. Solon v. Williamsburg, 
114 K Y. 122. 

2 Koehler v. Iron Co., 2 Black, 715 ; 
Bank of Ireland v. Evans, 32 Eng. 
Law & Eq. 23. SeeTiedeman's Pri- 
vate Corporations for a fuller cita^ 
tion of cases. 

2 Bank of Columbia v. Patterson 



7 Cranch, 299; Over v. Greenfield, 
107 Ind. 231 ; Bank of United States 
V. Danbridge, First N. Bk. v. Salem 
etc. Co., 39 Fed. 89; Clark v. Farm- 
ers' etc. Co., 13 Wend. 256; lb. 265; 
Cicotte V. Cburcb, 60 Mich. 532; Ber- 
nardiu v. No. Dufferni, 19 Can. S. C. 
R. 581 ; Sturtevant v. Alton,3 McLean, 
393; Davenport v. Insurance Co., 17 

75 



r,«? 



MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 



[CH. V. 



Stances, as in Iowa and Illinois, that a corporate seal is essen- 
tial to the validity of a legal instrument when executed by the 
municipal or public corporation.^ 

It has also been held that a corporation can appoint its agents 
by a parol act, and the appointment need not be made under 
seal.^ 

§ 52. Seal, how proTCd — A seal of a private corporation 
unquestionably does not prove itself ; but 'the fact, that it is 
the seal of a particular corporation, must be proven by proper 
evidence.^ In this country, this is probably the case, likewise, 
with municipal corporations, except where the laws of the state 
provide otherwise. But it seems that, in England, the corpo- 
rate seals of old cities, like London or Edinburgh, have been de- 
clared to be the subject of judicial notice of the courts, on 
account of their great antiquity.* But where a legal instru- 
ment contains what purports to be a corporate seal, and the 
corporate character of the seal and conveyance is confirmed by 
the signatures of proper officers, it is held that the presence of 



Iowa, ilG; Lesesne v. White, 1 
Spears (S. Car.) 31; State Board of 
Education v. Aberdeen, 56 Miss. 538; 
Shrewsbury v. Brown, 25 Vt. 197; 
Gassett v. Audover, 21 Vt. 342; 
Adams v. Farnsworth,15 Gray(Mass.) 
423; Mott v. Hicks, 1 Cow. (jST. T.) 
513; 13 Am. Eep. 550; Eandall v. 
Van Vechten, 19 Johns. (N. T.) 60; 
10 Am. Deo. 193; Wayne County v. 
Detroit, 1*7 Mich. 390; American Ins. 
Co. V. Oakley, 9 Paige (N. T.) 49; 
38 Am. Dec. 561 ; Canaan y. Derush, 
47 3Sr. H. 211; Lebanon v. Heath, 47 
N. H. 353 ; Magill v. KaufCman, 4 S. & 
R (Pa.) 317; 8 Am. Dec. 713; Dunn v. 
Rector etc. of St. Andi-ews Church, 
14 Johns. (N. Y.) 118; Danforth v. 
Sclioharie etc. Turnpike Co., 12 
Johns. ; Perkins v. Washington 
Ins. Co., 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 645; Sanford 
V. Tremlett, 42 Mo. 384; Legrand v. 
Sidney College, 5 Munf. (Va.) 324; 
Peterson v. Mayor etc. of N. Y., 17 
N. Y. 449; Maher v. Chicago, 38 111. 
266; Frankfort Bridge Co. v. Frank- 
76 



fort, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 41; Kenzie v. 
Chicago, 2 Scam. (111.) 188; 33 Am. 
Dec. 443 ; Bryan v. Page, 51 Tex. 532; 
32 Am. Eep. 637; Dunlap v. Water 
Com'rs of Erie, 25 Atl. E. 60; 151 Pa. 
St. 477; 31 W. N. C. 231. 

1 In the lo wa, case it is the county 
warrant; Smeltzer v. White, 92 TJ. S. 
390 ; Prescott v. Gouser, 34 Iowa, 178; 
Springer v. Clay Co., 35 Iowa, 243; 
and in Illinois it is a lease; Kinzie 
V. Chicago, 2 Scam. (111.) 188. 

^ See Tiedeman on Private Cor- 
porations for citations of authori- 
ties. 

8 Moises V. Thornton, 8 Term E. 
303; City Council v. Moorehead, 2 
Eich. (S. C.) Law, 430; Gilbert Ev. 
19; Jackson v. Pratt, 10 Johns. 381; 
Fosterv. Shaw, 7Serg. & Eawle(Pa.) 
163; Id. 318; Den v. Vreelandt, 2 
Halst. (N. J.) 352; Mann v. Pentz, 2 
Sandf. Ch. 257; Com. v. Dunlop, (Va. 
93) 16 S. E. E. 273, (state seal.) 

* Den V. Vreelandt, 2 Halst. (N. J.) 
352. 



CH. v.] 



COEPOEATE BOUNDAEIES. 



§53 



the corporate seal is thereby established by prima facie evidence, 
although it is insufficient to support the conclusion that the seal 
was lawfully placed there, and that the instrument is an act 
binding upon the corporation.^ 

§ 53. Boundaries, how defined. — It is required, in order to 
make a valid municipal corporation, that its boundaries should 
be definite and certain. Uncertainty in regard to the boundary 
has so many important consequences in its train, that there 
cannot be a valid incorporation, as long as this uncertainty has 
not been cured.'-' Thus, for example, the boundaries of a town 
were held to be uncertain and insufficient, where it was describ- 
ed in these words : " Commencing with Samuel Hall, thence 
to William Scales, also including John W. Dana, Jason and 
Warren Britt, and Thomas Lyford." ^ But where the state 
laws provide that boards of supervisors should lay out the town, 
in accord with the general description of the proposed town 
which is contained in the certificate, the subsequent establish- 
ment of the boundaries by the supervisors M'ould cure the un- 
certainty arising in the description of the town, as contained in 
the certificate.* Whenever there is a dispute in regard to bound- 
aries, a subsequent acquiescence on the part of the people of 
the community, and of the state authorities, in the adoption of 
a particular boundary as a settlement of the dispute, will be 
binding upon the parties concerned, and would operate to cure 
the original defect in the boundary.^ These boundaries are 
originally described or set out in the charter of the corporation 
in connection with some method, wliich is prescribed in the 
charter, or in the general incorporation act, for subsequently 
setting out and ascertaining such boundaries. The Legislature 
has invested in itself as a matter of course, in the first instance. 



' Fidelity etc. Co. v. Shenandoah 
etc. Co., 32 W. Va. 244; Bi-ennan v. 
Weatherford, 53 Tex. 330; 37 Am. 
Rep. 758; Levering v. Mayor, 7 
Humph. (Tenn.) 553; Mempliis v. 
Adams, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 518; Musser 
V. Johnson, 42 Mo. 74; 97 Am. Dec. 
316. 

2 Enterprize v. State, 10 So. K. 740; 
House V. Greenburg, 94 Ind. 533; 
San Diego v. Granniss, 77 Cal. 510; 
Plantation No. 9 v. Bean, 40 Me. 218 ; 



Guebelle v. Epley, 28Pac. 89; Pierce 
V. Carpenter, 10 Vt. 480; Douglas v. 
Town of Harrisville, 9 W. Va. 102. 

3 Cutting V. Stone, 7 Vt. 471. 

* People V. Carpenter, 24 jST. T. 
86. 

^ Omaha v. So. Omaha, 47 N. W. 
R. 1113; Strosser v. Ft. Wayne, 100 
Ind. 443; Hamilton v. McNeil, 13 
Gratt. 389; People v. Farnham, 35 
111.562; Milne v. Mayor, 13 La. An. 
69. 

77 



§ 53 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. [CH. V. 

the power to determine the geographical limits of a municipal 
corporation ; and in the absence of any constitutional limita- 
tions, the power of the Legislature in this regard is unlimited, 
and no objection can be made to any actual setting out of 
boundaries by the Legislature.^ The fact, that the existing 
cities and towns are mentioned by name in a constitution subse- 
quently adopted, does not give to the boundaries of such cor- 
porations such a fixity, as would deny to the Legislature the 
power to subsequently change them.^ It is a legislative ques- 
tion, and not a judicial question, where the boundaries of a 
municipal corporation should be fixed by the Legislature. Tiie 
legislative discretion can in no wise be interfered with .or con- 
trolled by the courts.^ In the general incorporation acts, pro- 
vision is made for the boundaries being set out by some one, 
other than the Legislature, and the constitutional question is 
raised whether the Legislature has the power to delegate its au- 
thoritj'- to fix the boundaries of a proposed municipal corpora- 
tion, the authorities reaching conflicting conclusions. Thus, 
it has been held that the power to fix and determine upon the 
boundaries of a municipal corporation maybe delegated to a 
court, a County Court, for example.* On the other hand, it 
has been held, that a Legislature has not the power to delegate 



' Rome V. Anderson, 89 Tenn. 259; 
Norris v. Mayor etc. of Smythville, 
1 Swan (Tenn.) 164; McCollie v. 
Mayor of Cliattanooga, 3 Head. 
(Tenn.) 317; In re Boundary (Pa. 
92), 23 Atl. R. 1041; Pool v. Brown, 
98 Mo. 675 ; Washburn v. Oshkosh, 60 
Wis. 453; SuflBeld v. Town of East 
Granby, 52 Conn. 175 ; Union v. Knox 
Co., 90 Tenn. 541; People v. Nevada, 
Col. 143; People v. Bennett, 29 
Mich. 451; 18 Am. Rep. 107; St. Louis 
V. Eussel, 9 Mo. 507 ;• Atchison etc. 
R. Co. V. Maquilkin, 12 Kan. 301; 
St. Louis V. Allen, 13 Mo. 400; Stone 
V. Flournoy, 28 La. An. 850; Little 
Rock V. Parish, 36 Ark. 166; Stilz 
V. Indianapolis, 55 Ind. 515 ; Wiley 
V. Bluffton, 111 Ind. 152; Martin v. 
Dix, 52 Miss. 53; 24 Am. Rep. 661; 
Galesburg v. Hawkinson, 75 111. 152 ; 

78 



Wade V. Richmond, 18 Gratt. (Va.) 
583. 

2 Wade V. Richmond, swpra. 

= Little Rock v. Parish, 36 Ark. 
166; Galesburg V. Hawkinson, 75 111. 
152; Wiley v. Bluffton, 111 Ind. 152. 

* State V. Pooaletto, 28 Pac. R. 
411; People V. Bennett, 29 Mich. 451; 
29 Am. Rep. 107; In re Boundary 
Line of Townships (Pa. 92), 23 Atl. 
1041; Appeal of Singer (Pa.), 18 Atl. 
Rep. 931; Burlington v. Leebrick,43 
Iowa, 252; Board of Education v. 
Board of Education, 30 W. Va. 424; 
20 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 11 (di- 
vision of school district) : Town o£ 
Suffield V. Town of East Granby, 52 
Conn. 175; 9 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 
1 ; Kayser v. Trustees etc. of Brenen, 
16 Mo. 88. 



CH. v.] 



COEPOEATE BOUNDAEIES. 



§54 



its right to afSx boundaries to any court whatever, on the 
ground that it is a legislative authority, and not a branch of 
the judicial power.^ It is clearly impossible for the Legislature 
to delegate the power of fixing boundaries to private citizens, 
or to a private board.^ But it is, on tUe other hand, very gen- 
erally held that the power of fixing and determining upon the 
boundaries of a municipal corporation may be delegated to 
local bodies or boards, representing the municipal corporation.^ 
§ 54. Corporate boundaries by reference to streams and 
highways. — Generally, where reasonable care is employed in 
the fixing of boundaries, no difficulty is experienced in their 
actual location, because the reference is made to well known 
objects or monuments, or the boundary is described by metes 
and bounds.* But where a city or town is described as being 
bounded by a river, it is often difficult to ascertain, apart from 
the actual inquiry into facts of the particular case, where the 
boundary line is ; i. e., whether it is at the center of the stream, 
or at the high-water or low-water mark, on the one side or the 
other of the stream. In all such cases, either the description 
contained in the charter, or act of incorporation, would deter- 
mine the answer in the particular case, or it is determined by 
the local usage or custom. The general rule is that, where 
towns are bounded by rivers which are not navigable, the cen- 
ter of the stream will be the boundary line.^ And the same 
rule determines the boundary line, where the town is bounded 



iWillett V. Belville, 11 Lea (Tenn.) 
1; City of Galesburg v. Hawkiuson, 
75 111. 152. 

2 Town of Suffleld v. Town of East 
Granby, 52 Conn. 175 ; Eulis v. Mc- 
Adams, 7 S. E. E. 725; People v. 
Bennett, 29 Mich. 451 ; 18 Am. Eep. 
107. 

a Ewing v. State, (Tex. 91) Ifi S. W. 
E. 872; Fisher v. San Diego, 86 Gal. 
158; 24 Pao. E. 1000; People v. Car- 
penter, 24 N. Y. 86; Osgood v. Clark, 
6 Frost (N. H.) 307; People v. Ben- 
nett, 29 Mich. 451; Blanchard v. Bis- 
sell, 11 Ohio St. 96; Borough of 
Blooming Valley, lb. 66; Kelly v. 
Meeks, 87 Mo. 396; Stilz v. Indian- 
apolis, 55 Ind. 515; Devore's Appeal, 



56 Pa. St. 163; People v. Bennett, 29 
Mich. 451. 

■■ Elmendorf v. Mayor, etc., 25 
Wend. 693 ; Hamilton v. McjSTeil, 13 
Gratt. (Va.) 389; Raab v. Maryland, 
7 Md. 483; Gray v. Sheldon, 8 Vt. 
402; Pierce v. Carpenter, 10 Vt. 480; 
Hollenbeck v. Sykes, 29 Pac. 380; 
People V. Carpenter, 24 N. Y. 86. 

5 Smith V. Skagit Co., 45 Fed. E. 
725; /re re Spier, 3 N. Y. S. 438; Cold 
Spring etc. v. Tolland, 9 Cush. 492; 
State V. Canterbury, 8 Fost. (28 N. H. ) 
195; State v. Gilmanton, 14 jST. H. 
467; Flynn v. Boston, (Mass. 92) 26 
N. E. E. 868 ; Galesburg v. Hawkin- 
son, 75 111. 156; Kelly v. Pittsburgh, 
104 U. S. 78; People v. Supervisors, 
79 



§54 



MUNICIPAL COEPOUATIONS. 



[CH. 



by a road ; the center line being the boundary .^ This is, ordi-, 
narily, the rule also, where the monument of boundary is a 
navigable stream. The boundary line would ordinarily be the 
center line of the river. But in particular cases, this general 
rule is controlled by local settlements of boundary, in opposition 
to its principle. Thus, the boundary line of the city of Brook- 
lyn extends, for police purposes, to the low-water line on its 
own side of the East river ; and the boundary line of New 
York city coveis the entire East river up to the low-water hne 
on the Long Island and Brooklyn shore.^ The boundary of 
the city of Philadelphia extends to the high-water mark on the 
New Jersey shore of the Delaware river, in accordance with 
the agreement entered into by the States of Pennsylvania and 
New Jersey.* On the other baud, the city of St. Louis is de- 
cided to have jurisdiction over the Mississippi river to the 
middle of the stream, and not merely to the western shore.* 
Generally, in Pennsylvania, it is held that, where a municipal 
corporation is bounded by a navigable stream, its jurisdiction 
will extend to the low-water mark.*' Inasmuch as the stream 
is constantly changing its channel, the boundary line of a town 
which is bounded by such stream, is necessarily shifting with 
the natural and artificial changes, which are made in the shore, 
and in the movement of such stream." But the fact that the 
jurisdiction of a town extends over navigable waters, does not 
give to the city any title to the land, which is covered by such 
water. It simply confers upon the corporation the governmen- 
tal control of such territory.^ 



17 K. E. E. 147; Hoyt v. Mayor, 9 
Weud. 602 ; Granger v. Avery, 64 Me. 
ii92; Cold water v. Tucker, 36 Mich. 
474; 24 Am. Kep. 601; Gould v. 
Eoohester, 105 N". T. 46; Bechtel v. 
Village of Edgewater, 45 Hun (N. Y.) 
245; Pleasant v. Kost, 29 111. 490; 
Neal V. Com., 17 S. & K. (Pa.) 67; 
Gouverneur v. National Ice Co., 134 
N. Y. 355. 

1 State V. Thomaston, 74 Me. 198; 
In re Flick, (Pa. 92) 6 Gulp. 329. 

2 Palmer v. Hicks, 6 Johns. 133; 
Furman Street, 17 Wend. 649, 661 ; 
Udall V. Trustees, 19 Johns. 179; 
Luke V. Brooklyn, 43 Biib. (N. Y.) 54. 

80 



"Neal V. Com., 17 S. & K. 67; 
Gould V. Rochester, 105 IST. Y. 46; 
Coldwater v. Tucker, 36 Mich. 474. 

* Jones V. Souland, 24 How. 41. 

6 Gilchrist's App., 109 Pa. St. 600. 

« Pleasant v. Kost, 29 111. 490. 

' Palmer v. Hicks, 6 Johns, 133. 
As to the statutory duty of munici- 
pal coi'porations, in the control and 
support of bridges constructed be- 
tween the towns on opposite banks 
of the stream, see Brookline v. Westr 
minster, 4 Vt. 224; Granby v. Thurs- 
ton, 23 Conn. 416, and post, §316; 
Tebo V. City of Brooklyn, 31 N. E. R. 
984; 134X. Y.341. 



CH. v.] 



COllPOBATK BOUKDARIES. 



§55 



§ 55. Enlargement of boundaries — Annexation of terri- 
tory. — ^Not only may the Legislature, in the act of incorporation, 
fix and determine upon the territorial limits of such corporation, 
but unless the power is restrained in any way through special 
constitutional limitations, the Legislature may, likewise, after a 
creation of the corporation, extend its boundaries, and thereby 
annex land contiguous to the original territory, but which prior 
tiiereto was outside of the municipal corporation.^ In some of 
the states, constitutional provisions have been adopted, looking 
towards the limitation of the power of the Legislature, and in- 
tended in most instances to avoid the arbitrary and injurious 
exercise of the power, but not in any case taking away the 
power altogether. Thus, while, independently of limitations 
or statutes requiring the same, the enlargement of the territory 
of a corporation, and the annexation of contiguous land, can be 
done, notwithstanding the remonstrance of such contiguous 
territory ; yet, in some cases, the constitution of the state re- 
quires that the consent of the inhabitants of such contiguous 
territory should first be obtained.^ The consent of the inhabit- 
ants of the contiguous territory is frequently required by stat- 
ute, as a condition precedent to the annexation of this territory.^ 
The Missouri Act of 1841, which extended the limits of the city 



1 Emporia v. Smith (Kan. 92), 22 
Pac. E. 616; Warren v. Mayor etc. of 
Charlestown, 2 Gray (Mass.) 84; 
Omaha v. So. Omaha, 47 N. W. K. 
1113; Maddrey v. Cox, 73 Tex. 538; 
Glover v. Terre Haute, 129 Ind.-593; 
State V. Waxahaohie, 81 Tex. 626; 
Smith V. McCarthy, 56 Pa. St. 359; 
Chandler v. Boston, 112 Mass. 200; 
Giboney v. Cape Girardeau Co., 58 
Mo. 141; Woods v. Henry, 55 Mo. 
560; Gunter v. Fayetteville, 19 S. W. 
E. 577; People v. Oakland, 92 Cal. 
611 ; State v. New Whatcom, 3 Wash. 
St. 7; Gottschalk v. Becher, 32 Neb. 
053; Powers v. Wood Co., 8 Ohio St. 
286; United States v. Memphis, 97 
U. S. 284; Stoner v. Flournoy, 28 La. 
An. 850; People v. Bradley, 36 Mich. 
447; Covington v. East St. Louis, 78 
111. 548; Daly v. Morgan, 69 Md. 460; 
23 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 554; Smith 

6 



V. Mayor etc. of Saginaw (Mich. 1890), 
45 N. W. Kep. 964; Blanchard v. Bis- 
sell, 11 Ohio St. 96; Succession of 
Teaulet, 28 La. An. 42; Martin v. 
Dix, 52 Miss. 53; 24 Am. Eep. 661. 

2 Hartington v. Luge, 50 N. W. R. 
957; Opinion of Justices, 6 Gush. 580; 
Wahoo V. Dickinson, 36 N. W. K. 
813; Daly v. Morgan, 69 Md. 460;, 23 
Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 454; Chand- 
ler V. Boston, 112 Mass. 200. 

8 Sum V. Bowie, (Tex. 92) 18 S. W. 
E. 142; Daly v. Morgan, 69 Md. 460; 
23 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 454; North 
Springfield v. Village (111. 92), 29 N. 
E. E. 849; Strosser v. Fort Wayne, 
100 Ind. 443; In re Sadler (Pa. 90), 
23 Atl. E. 978; Stone v. Charlestown, 
114 Mass. 214; East Dannas v. State, 
73 Tex. 371; Topeka v. Gillett, 32 
Kan. 431 ; Hyde Park v. Chicago, 16 
N. E. 222. 

81 



§65 



MUNICIPAL CORPOEATIONS. 



[CH. V. 



of St. Louis, provided that the act should become absolute, upon 
an acceptance of the same by a majority of the aitizens of the 
territory, which was included in the charter as amended. And 
it was held that this provision of the statute required that the 
majority of the people, living within the extended boundaries 
of the city, should consent to the ex-tension of the city limits ; 
and that the act would under those circumstances take effect, 
even though the parties living outside of the existing city limits 
were more or less unanimous in their opposition to the exten- 
sion of the city boundaries, and the inclosure of their territory 
within such boundaries. -"^ 

It is also a constitutional requirement, in some of the states, 
that the extension of the boundaries of the city or town, by the 
annexation of contiguous territory, should not be done, so as to 
interfere with the boundaiies of elective representative districts, 
at a time when it is impossible for a change to be made, under the 
provisions of the constitution, in the boundaries of these repre- 
sentative districts.^ 

But it has been held that the Illinois constitutional provision, 
which limits the extent of municipal indebtedness, does not make 
the union of two municipalities into one invalid, because the 
joint indebtedness of the two corporations would exceed the 
constitutional limit of indebtedness.^ And it is no constitu- 
tional objection to the exercise of the power of compulsory an- 
nexation of territory to an already existing corporation, and the 
consequent enlargement of its boundaries, that the existing cor- 
poration has a large indebtedness hanging over it, which would 
necessitate the increase of the rate of taxation upon the terri- 
tory, which has thus been added to the city limits. In the 
absence of a special constitutional provision prohibiting, or 
otherwise providing for, the exercise of this power, the discre- 
tion of the Legislature is unlimited.* 



1 St. Louis V. Kussell, 9 Mo. 507. 

2 People V. Holihan, 29 Mich. 116; 
People V. Bradley, 36 Micli. 447; 
Smith V. Saginaw (Mich. 1890), 45 N. 
W. Eep. 964; Com. v. Brenham, 22 
N. E. K. 628. 

8 True V. Davis (111. 89), 22 N". E. 
410. 
'' Blanchard v. Bissell, 11 Ohio St. 
82 



96; Powers v. Wood Co., 8 Ohio St. 
286; Smith v. McCarthy, 56 Pa. St. 
359; Indianapolis V. Patterson, UN. 
E. R. 551; St. Louis v. Allen, 13 Mo. 
400; Daly v. Morgan, 69 Md. 454; 23 
Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 462; Wade 
V. Richmond, 18 Gratt. (Va.) 583; 
Wahoo V. Dickinson, (Neb. 88) 36 
N. W. E. 813; Prince George's Co. 



CH. v.] 



CORPORATE BOUNDARIES. 



§55 



The Legislature may delegate to local boards the power of 
determining the extent to which the boundary shall be enlarged, 
and what territory shall be annexed to the city limits.^ But it 
has been held that while such acts, which confer on cities the 
power of determining the extent to which their boundaries 
shall be enlarged, are constitutional and valid, in the absence 
of constitutional provisions to the contrary, yet it is. subject 
to the constitutional limitation thai the power must be reason- 



Comra'rs v. Bladensburg, 51 Md. 465; 
Chandler v. Boston, 112 Mass. 200; 
United States v. Memphis, 97 U. S. 
284; Railroad Co. v. Spearman, 12 
Iowa, 112; Norris v. Mayor etc., 1 
Swan (Tenn.) 164; Gorham v. Spring- 
field, 21 Me. 59; Girard v. Philadel- 
phia, 7 Wall. 1; Covington v. East 
St. Louis, 78 111. 548; Cheany v. 
Hooser, 9 B. Mon. 330; Elston v. 
Crawfordsville, 20Ind. 272; Edmunds 
V. Gookins, lb. 477 ; Arnoult v. New 
Orleans, 11 La. An. 54; Graham v. 
Greenville, 67 Tex. 62 ; Board etc. of 
Chickasaw Co. v. Board etc. of Sum- 
ner Co., 58 Miss. 610; Morford v. 
Unger, 8 Iowa, 82; Washburn v. 
Oshkosh, 60 Wis. 453 ; Laramie Coun- 
ty V. Albany County, 92 U. S. 307; 
Giboney v. Girardeau, 58 Mo. 141; 
Queen v. Local Governing Board, L. 
R. 8 Q. B. 227; Woods v. Henry, 55 
Mo. 560; State v. McReynolds, 61 Mo. 
203; Layton v. New Orleans, 12 La. 
An. 515. In Powers v. Wood Co., 8 
Ohio St. 286, the court said: "That 
injustice may be, and has, sometimes 
been done by the annexation of ter- 
ritory to a town, which has contracted 
an improvident debt, is, no doubt, 
true; and, sometimes, and perhaps 
more frequently, the owners of con- 
tiguous territory have had the bene- 
fit, by reflected value and conven- 
ience, of expenditures for which they 
have not contributed anything. The 
question is one beyond the reach of 
practical consideration, in the ab- 



sence of any statute; and it would 
require a very artificial and unsound 
mode of reasoning to hold that ter- 
ritory could not be annexed to a town 
which owed debts, until the owners 
of such territory were paid a com- 
pensation in money for a propor- 
tional part of such debts, on the 
ground that the property annexed 
was condemned for public use." 

1 State V. Forrest, 74 Wis. 610; 
Wahoe v. Dickinson, (Neb.) 36 N. W. 
R. 813; Graham v. Greenville, 67 
Tex. 62 ; Callen v. Junction City, 41 
Kans. 466; Collins v. New Albany, 59 
Ind. 396; State v. Picatello, (Idaho, 
92) 28 Pac. R. 411; East Dallas v. 
State, 73 Tex. 371 ; Kellog v. Meeks, 
87 Mo. 396; Dodson v. Ft. Smith, 33 
Ark. 508; Smith v. McCarthy, 56 Pa. 
St. 359; Jacksonville v. L'Engle, 20 
Fla. 344; Covington v. East St. Louis, 
78 111. 548; Murray v. Virginia, 91 111. 
558; City of Pensaoola v. Louisville 
etc. R. Co., 21 Fla. 492; Sanders v. 
Provisional Municipality, 24 Fla. 226; 
Strosser v. Fort Wayne, 100 Ind. 443; 
8 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 636; Em- 
poria v. Smith, 42 Kan. 431 ; Indian- 
apolis V. Patterson, 14 N. E. R. 451; 
Topeka v. Gillett, 32 Kan. 431; Lo- 
gansport v. La Rose, 99 Ind. 117; 
Millikin v. Bloomington, 72 Ind. 161 ; 
Hewitt's Appeal, 88 Pa. St. 55 ; Elston 
V. Board of Trustees of Crawfords- 
ville, 20 Ind. 272; Mendenhall v. Bur- 
ton, (Kan. 89) 22 Pac. 558. 

83 



§56 



MUNICIPAL COKPORATIONS. 



[CH. V. 



able and properly exercised.^ But the corporation can neyer 
exercise the power of enlarging or changing its boundaries 
without the consent of the Legislature, either given in the par- 
ticular case or under general laws.^ 

§56. What territory can be annexed — Farm lands.— 
Where the Legislature exercises the power of annexation of con- 
tiguous territorj', in the enlargement of the boundaries of a city, 
the extent to which the power is exercised, in the absence of 
constitutional limitations, cannot be limited or controlled in any 
way whatever; and it matters not how extensive the enlarge- 
ment of the boundaries may be, if done directly by the Legisla- 
ture, there is no redress, or no way in which the act of the 
Legislature may be subjected to judicial review.^ But where the 
power is delegated to a local body representing the municipal 
corporation, then it is customary to subject the exercise of the 
power to certain restrictions. Thus, for example, it is gener- 
ally required that the territory to be attached must be contiguous 
to the present territory of the city.* But where the pieces of 
property which are annexed, in the exercise of its power to en- 



1 Kellog V. Meeks, 87 Mo. 396 ; Hart- 
ington V. Luge, 50 N. W. E. 957; 
Indianapolis v. Patterson, 14 N. E. R. 
551. 

" Commissioners of Shawnee Co. v. 
Carter, 2 Kan. 115; McCallie v. 
Mayor of Cliattanooga, 3 Head. 
(Tenn.) 318; Atchison, etc. K. Co. v. 
Maquilkin, 12 Kan. 301; Norris v. 
Mayor, etc. of Smithville, 1 Swan 
(Tenn.) 164; Walnut Township v. 
Jordon, 38 Kan. 562; 20 Am. & Eng. 
Corp. Cas. 1. But see Delphi v_ 
Startzman, 104 Ind. 343; 11 Am. & 
Eng. Corp. Cas. 87, where it has 
been held that the corporate bound- 
aries may be extended, without di- 
rect limitation, or express agreement, 
operating under particular circum- 
stances as an estoppel. 

3 State V. Waxahachie, 81 Tex. 626; 
Saunder v. Pensacola, 4 So. R. 801; 
State V. Baird, 79 Tex. 63 ; Laramie 
Co. T. Albany Co., 92 U. S. 307; Smith 
V. McCarthy, 56 Pa. St. 359; Daly v. 
84 



Morgan, 69 Md. 460; 23 Am. & Eng. 
Corp. Cas. 454; Louis v. Allen, 13 
Mo. 400; Giboney Cape v. Girardeau 
Co., 58 Mo. 141; Tilford v. Olatlie, 
44 Kan. 721 ; Powers v. Wood Co., 
8 Ohio St. 286; United States v. 
Memphis, 97 U. S. 284; Woods v. 
Henry, 55 Mo. 560; Santa Eosa v. 
Coulter, 50 Cal. 537; People v. Brad- 
ley, 36 Mich. 447; Blancliard v. Bis- 
sell, 11 Ohio St. 96; Martin v. Dix, 
52 Miss, 53; 24 Am. Eep. 661; Smith 
V. Mayor etc. of Saginaw, (Mich. 
1890) 45 N. W. Eep. 964; Stonerv. 
Elournoy, 28 La. An. 850; Chandler 
V. Boston, 112 Mass. 200; Covington 
V. East St. Louis, 78 111. 548. 

*Evansville v. Page, 23 Ind. 525; 
Smith V. Sherry, 50 Wis. 210; Truax 
V. Pool, 46 Iowa, 256; Enterprize v. 
State, 10 So. E. 740; Woodruff v. 
Enverce, 55 Ark. 618; Murray v. 
Virginia, 91 111. 558; Blanchard v. 
Bissell, 11 Ohio St. 96. 



CH. V.J 



CORPOEATB BOITNDAEIES. 



56 



large the city boundaries, are contiguous to each other, the fact 
that they are not all contiguous to the city will not make the 
annexation of all of them invalid. In the constitutional sense, 
such territory would be properly considered to be adjoining the 
city.^ So, also, has it been held that land, on the opposite bank 
of a stream, will be contiguous territory in this statutory or con- 
stitutional sense, where it is proposed to annex such lands, and 
bring them within the limits of a city located on the opposite 
bank of the river .^ 

The most difficult question, in regard to the power of annex- 
ing contiguous territory, is raised in the case of the annexation 
of farm lands to the city limits, thus increasing the rate of tax- 
ation upon such lands, while at the same time the territory so 
annexed derives no special benefit from the municipal improve- 
ments, which are the occasion of the increased taxation. This 
circumstance does not generally interfere with the power of 
annexing such farm lands to the city limits, as long as the con- 
stitution or statute, under which the municipal corporation acts, 
does not prohibit it.^ But the courts have frequently held, 
even in the absence of statute, that, where the power to annex 
contiguous territory and to enlarge city boundaries is exercised 
under, and is authorized by, general incorporation acts, the con- 
sent of the people living within the territory, which is proposed 
to be aimexed to the city, must first be obtained-* In some 
states, it is also provided that the municipal corporation can- 
not exercise the power of annexing contiguous territory, unless 



1 State V. "Waxahachie, 81 Tex. 626 ; 
17 S. W. R. 348; Evansville v. Page, 
23 Ind. 525; Smith v. Sherry, 50 Wis. 
210; Hurla v. Kansas City, (Kan. 91) 
27 Pac. E. 143; In re Sadlier, 21 Atl. 
Eep. 978. 

- Vestal V. Little Rock, 15 S. W. 
R. 891; Vogel v. Little Rock, 15 lb. 
836; Blanchard v. Bissell, 11 Ohio St. 
96. 

3 In re TuUytown, 11 Pa. Co. Ct. 
E. 97; State v. Baird, 15 S. W. E. 
98; 79 Tex. 63; McClay v. Lincoln 
(Neb. 91) 49 N. W. E. 282; Ves- 
tal V. Little Eock, supra; Kelly v. 
Pittsburgh, 85 Pa. St. 170; 27 Am. 
Uep. 633; 104 TJ. S. 78; St. Louis v. 



Allen, 13 Mo. 400; St. Louis v. Eus- 
sell, 9 Mo. 507; Lee v. Thomas, 49 
Mo. 112; State V. Waxahachie, swpj-a; 
State V. Reynolds, 61 Mo. 203; Mu- 
nicipality No. 3 V. Michoud, 6 La. 
An. 605; Barker v. State, IS Ohio, 
514; Gillette v. Hartford, 31 Conn. 
351; Hewitt's Appeal, 88 Pa. St. 55; 
Eureka Springs v. Woodruff, 55 Ark. 
618; Kountze v. Omaha, 5 Dillon (C. 
C.) 443; 88 111. 154; 30 Am. Kep. 543; 
Walden v. Dudley, 49 Mo. 421. 

^ In re Lutte Meadows, 28 Pa. St. 
256; In re West Philadelphia, 5 W. 
& S. (Pa.) 281 ; People v. Bennett, 
29 Mich. 451; Inre Blooming Valley, 
56 Pa. St. 66; lb. 163. 

85 



§56 



JIUNICIPAL COKPOKATIONS. 



[CH. V. 



such land has been laid off in lots and platted, or unless the 
consent of the owner has been obtained.^ And in order that 
the platting of land, and laying out into town lots, may have 
the effect of authorizing the city to annex such territory, it 
must have been done by one having a legal title to the prop- 
erty.^ In Indiana, it is also provided by statute, that contigu- 
ous territory may be annexed to city limits, even without the 
consent of the owners of property, and without such land hav- 
ing been plotted or laid off into lots by the county commis- 
sioners, upon the petition of the common council of the city, 
praying for such annexation of territory.^ But in Kentucky 
and Iowa, it has been held, independently of statute, that, while 
the power of the corporation to extend its boundaries will not 
be interfered with or limited by the fact that the rate of tax- 
ation inside the city limits is greater than what prevails over 
the territory which is proposed to be annexed, yet, in the ex- 
ercise of such power, it is required that the city must estab- 
lish a special rate of taxation for the territory so annexed, in 
order to avoid any unjust increase of the burden of taxation, 
disproportionate to the benefits received.* Whether the Legis- 
lature has or has not substantially complied with these require- 



iTilford V. Olathe, 44 Kan.. 721; 
Pittsburgli V. Eiley, 42 Mo. Ap. 18; 
Ewing V. State, 16 S. W. R. 872; 
Vestal V. Little Kock, 15 lb. 891; 
Lum V. Bowie, 18 lb. 142; Strosser 
V. Foi-tAYayne, 100 Ind. 443; 8 Am. 
& Eng. Corp. Cas. 636; Union Pac. 
E. Co. V. Kansas City, 42 Kan. 497; 
Taylei- v. Fort Wayne, 47 Ind. 274; 
Peru V. Bearss, 55 Ind. 576; Town of 
Cicero v. Williamson, 91 Ind. 541; 
Collins V. New Albany, 59 Ind. 396; 
Logansport v. La Eose, 99 Ind. 117. 

2 Glover v. Terre Haute, 129 Ind. 
593; 29 N. E. E. 412; Indianapolis v. 
Patterson, 112 Ind. 344. 

8 Strosser v. Fort Wayne, 100 Ind. 
443 ; Glover v. Terre Haute, 129 Ind. 
593; see Pensaoola v. Louisville, 
,eto. E. Co., 21 Fla. 492; Logansport 
v. La Eose, 99 111. 117. 

4 Maltus v. Sbields, 2 Mete. (Ky.) 
553 ; Louisville Bridge Co. v. Louis- 
86 



ville, 81 Ky. 189; 3 Am. & Eng. Corp. 
Cas. 503; Covington v. Southgate, 15 
B. Mon. (Ky.) 491 ; Sharp v. Dunavan, 
17 B. Mon. (Ky.) 223; Arbegust v. 
Louisville, 2 Bush (Ky.) 271; Dei- 
man V. Fort Madison, 30 Iowa, 542; 
Lancaster v. Eush, 52 N. W. R. 837; 
Davis V. Dubuque, 20 Iowa, 458; 
Butler V. Muscatine, 11 Iowa, 433; 
Fulton V. Davenport, 17 Iowa, 404; 
Swift V. Newport, 7 Bush (Ky.) 37; 
Lum V. Bowie, 18 S. W. K. 142; 
Courtney v. Louisville, 12 Bush (Ky.) 
419; Langworthy v. Dubuque, 13 
Iowa, 86; s. c, 16 Iowa, 371; Buell 
V. Ball, 20 Iowa, 282; Hurla v. Kan- 
sas City, 46 Kan. 738; Durant v. 
KaufEman, 34 Iowa, 194; Brooks v. 
Polk Co., 52 Iowa, 460; Cheaney v. 
Hooser, 9 B. Mon. (Ky.) 330; Winzer 
V. Burlington, 68 Iowa, 279; 12 Am. 
& Eng. Corp. Cas. 505. 



CH. V.j 



COEPOKATE BOUNDARIES. 



§57 



merits, is a judicial question, although the presumption is in 
favor of the validity of the legislative or municipal act of an- 
nexation ; ^ and in the light of this distinction, it has been held 
that adjoiniug property, which is laid off in lots for town pur- 
poses, is taxable lilce any other property within the municipal- 
ity .^^ In some of the states the same result is now attained by 
statutes providing that, when lural property is brought within 
the limits of municipal corporations, a lower rate of taxation 
should be imposed upon such lands.^ The power of the Legis- 
lature to prescribe a different rate of taxation for city purposes, 
between the property included within the old boundaries of the 
city, and the rural property which becomes a part of the city 
limits by subsequent enlargement of the boundaries, cannot be 
successfully contested.* 

§ 57. Effect of extension of city boundaries. — As long 
as the identity of the corporation has not been lost or changed 
by the enlargement of the boundaries of the city, and the char- 
ter of the original corporation has not been surrendered or the 
corporation dissolved, its claim or title to property remains un- 
affected.^ On the other hand, the annexation of territory, in 
consequence of the enlargement of the boundaries, will not re- 



1 Sharp V. Dunavan, 17 B. Mon. 
(Ky.) 223. 

-Maltus V. Shields, 2 Mete. (Ky.) 
553 ; Arbegust v. liouisville, 2 Bush 
(Ky.) 271; Swift v. Kewport, 7 Bush 
(Ky.) 37. 

8 Gillette v. Hartford, 31 Conn. 351 ; 
United States v. Memphis, 97 U. S. 
284; Washington Avenue, 69 Pa. St. 
353; 8 Am. Eep. 255; Seely v. Pitts- 
burgh, 82 Pa. St. 360; 22 Am. Eep. 
760; Kaiser v. Weise, 85 Pa. St. 366; 
Craig V. Philadelphia, 89 Pa. St. 265 ; 
Keith V. Philadelphia, (Pa. 1889) 27 
Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 93; Pitts- 
burgh's Appeal, 118 Pa. St. 458. 

■* United States v. Memphis, 97 U. 
S. 292; Daly V. Morgan, 69 Md. 460; 
23 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 454; Gil- 
lette V. Hartford, 31 Conn. 357; Pow- 
ell V. Parkersburg, 28 W. Va. 698; 
Serrill v. Philadelphia, 38 Pa. St. 355 ; 
McCallie v. Mayor etc. of Chatta- 



nooga, 3 Head (Tenn.) 317; Carriger 
V. Morristown, 1 Lea (Tenn.) 116; 
Henderson v. Lambert, 8 Bush (Ky.) 
607; Benoistv. St. Louis, 19 Mo. 179. 
Cf. contra, Smith v. City of Amer- 
icus, 15 S. E. R. 752; 89 Ga. 810. 

SHeizer v. Yohu, 37 Ind. 415; 
Town of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee, 
12 Wis. 93; Springwells v. Wayne Co. 
Treasurer, 58 Mich. 240; Norris v. 
Mayor etc. of Smithville, 1 Swan 
(Tenn.) 164; Girard v. Philadelphia, 
7 Wall. (U. S.) 1; Serrill v. Philadel- 
phia, 38 Pa. St. 355 ; Kalbrier v. Leon- 
ard, 34 Ind. 497; Barker v. State, 18 
Ohio, 514; Municipality No. 3 v. 
Michoud, 6 La. An. 605 ; Third Mu- 
nicipality of N. O. V. Ursuline Nuns, 
2 La. An. 611; Carrigan v. Morris- 
town, 1 Lea (Tenn.) 116; New Or- 
leans V. Michoud, 10 La. An. 763; 
East St. Louis v. Rhein, 139 111. 116. 

87 



§ 57 MUNICIPAL COKPOKATIOKS. [CH. V. 

move such territory from the judicial jurisdiction, in which it 
was previously placed ; that is, the jurisdiction of State courts 
is never affected by changes in the boundaries of the municipal 
corporation.! With the enlargement of the corporation limits, 
however, the city assumes toward the annexed territory the same 
duties and liabilities, in respect to the streets laid out in such 
annexed district, as are imposed upon it in respect to the streets 
within the original territory.^ But if there is a turnpike road in 
the annexed district, the annexation of such territory cannot 
impair the private rights of the turnpike company.^ And 
where the general law prohibits the opening of streets through 
a cemetery, the fact, that the cemetery is brought within the 
limits of the municipal corporation by the extension of its 
boundaries, does not operate as a repeal of this prohibitive law, 
in consequence of the grant to the corporation of a general 
power to lay out streets in the teriitory thus brought within 
the city limits.* 

All laws or ordinances of the city applj"- to the added dis- 
trict after annexation, as well as to the original territory.^ But 
where two cities are consolidated, each having its own set of 
ordinances, it has been held that each set of ordinances will 
prevail over the territory of the old town which enacted them, 
until the common council of the consolidated city takes action 
for the adoption of a code of ordinances which may be applica- 
ble to the entire city as consolidated.^ It has, on the other 
hand, been held that, where a county seat is located within the 
boundaries of a municipal corporation, the boundaries of the 
county seat will not be extended with the increase of territory 
of the municipal corporation, unless that fact is expressly pro- 
vided for by statute.^ 

Where homesteads have been created in territory, outside 



1 Harrison v. Hernsheim, 28 La. 
An. 881. 

2 Ehrgott V. Mayor etc. of New- 
York, 96 N. Y. 264; 6 Am. & Eng. 
Corp. Cas. 31; 48 Am. Eep. 622. 

3 Turnpike Co. v. Cincinnati, 4 Am. 
L. Rec. (Ohio) 325. 



46 Mo. 121; Town of Toledo v. 
Edens, 59 Iowa, 352; Town of Mil- 
waukee V. Milwaukee, 12 Wis. 93; 
McCannie v. Mayor etc. of Chatta- 
nooga, 3 Head (Tenn.) 317. 

6 Camp V. Minneapolis, 33 Minn. 
461. 



* Egypt Street, 2 Grant Cas. (Pa.) , ' State v. Board etc. of Atchison 
455. j Co. (Kan. 1890), 24 Pac. Eep. 87. 

^ St. Louis G. L. Co. v. St. Louis, I 



CH. V.J 



COKPOEATE BOUNDARIES. 



§58 



of the city limits, under a homestead law which contains differ- 
ent provisions for homestead claims against country property, 
the annexation of such territory to the city limits will not have 
the effect of changing the claim of homestead, or of cutting 
down the amount of the land which may be claimed under the 
homestead law, in order to bring this particular claim of home- 
stead into conformity with the law, as a claim of homestead 
over city property.^ So, likewise, any other difference of law, 
in respect to the regulation or enjoyment of private rights, be- 
tween city and country property, will not be permitted to af- 
fect private rights, which were created in the annexed district 
under the law, which applies to country property.^ 

§ 58. Effect of annexation of one town to another. — In 
the absence of any express constitutional limitations, the legal 
existence of a municipal corporation is subject to the absolute 
will of the Legislature ; and such Legislature, as has already been 
explained,^ may legislate such corporation out of existence, and 
either annex such territory to some other corporation, or reserve 
to itself the power of administering the public affairs of the dis- 
solved corporation. Where the corporation has been extinguish- 
ed, and the community and the territory have been annexed to 
an adjoining corporation, the general rule of law is plain that, 
by such annexation, the rights of property, as well as the lia- 
bilities of the corporation which has thus been annexed, are 
acquired by the corporation to whicli it is annexed. And the 
consolidated corporation, thus formed, will enjoy the benefits 
of the property of both, and at the same time assume the lia- 
bilities and debts of both.* But, in such a case, the ordinances 
of the two corporations will continue to operate upon the ter- 
ritory, originally included within each corporation, until the 

1 State V. Waxahachie, 81 Tex. 626; 
Finley v. Districk, 12 Iowa, 516; 
Truax v. Pool, 46 Iowa, 256. 

2 Williams v. ISraslivllle, 15 S. W. E. 
364; Chilton v. Brooks, 69 Md. 584. 
Cf. Gottschalk v. Becker, 32 Neb. 
653; 49 N. W. R. 715. 

* Ante, § 11, et seq. 

*Demattos v. New Whatcom 
(Wash. 92), 29 Pac. R. 933; Watson v. 
PamUco Co. Com'rs, 82 N. Car. 17; 
Gorham v. Springfield, 21 Me. 61; 



North Yarmouth v. Skillings, 45 Me. 
133; 71 Am. Dec. 530; Winters v. 
George, 21 Oregon, 251; Town of 
Mount Pleasant v. Beckwith, 100 
U. S. 514; Neilson v. Newark, 49 N. 
J. L. 246; Thompson v. Abbott, 61 
Mo. 176; Smith v. Mayor etc. of 
Saginaw (Mich. 1890), 45 N. W. Rep. 
964; Stone V. Charlestown, 114 Mass. 
214; Donsman v. Milwaukee, 1 Pinn. 
(Wis.) 81 ; Harrison v. Bridgton, 16 
Mass. 16. 

89 



§59 



MUNICIPAL COKPORATIONS. 



[CH. V. 



common council of the consolidated corporation has adopted 
one code of ordinance for the government of all the territory 
included within the new boundaries. ^ 

§ 59. Effect of division of one town into two.— Not only 
does the Legislature have the power of consolidating two mu- 
nicipal corporations into one, but it may likewise divide an 
existing corporation, and thereby create two new corporations 
out of the territory of the old, or transfer a part of the territory 
of the old corporation, and annex the same to some other exist- 
ing and adjoining corporation. In either case, the division of 
the old corporation has a material effect upon the property 
rights of the old corporation ; and the effect will vary accord- 
ing to the presence or absence of express legislative regulation 
of the same. In the absence of such legislative regulation, as 
a general proposition, all the rights, as well as debts, of the old 
corporation will remain with that part of the old territory which 
letains its legal identity with the old corporation. This part 
of the old town or community will be able to claim all the prop- 
erty, and must answer for all the debts and liabilities, of the 
old corporation.^ But it has been held that property of a coi- 



1 North Springfield v. Springfield 
(111. 91), 29 N. E. R. 849; Vogel v. 
Little Rock, 55 Ark. 609; Camp v. 
Minneapolis, 33 Minn. 461. 

2 Graham v. Greenville, 67 Tex. 62; 
Cooke V. Sell. District, 21 Pao. R. 
496; 12 Colo. 453; Board of Educa- 
tion of Barlor Dist. v. Board etc. of 
Valley Dist., 30 W. Va. 424; Brewis 
V. Duluth, 3 McCrary (U. S.) 219; 
I'ierson v. Reynolds, 49 Mich. 224; 
Mobile V. Watson, 116 U. S. 289; 
Town of De Pere v. Town of Belle- 
vue, 31 Wis. 120; 11 Am. Rep. 602; 
Hartford Bridge Co. v. East Hart- 
ford, 16 Conn. 149; affirmed, 10 How. 
(U. S.) 511; Sill V. Corning, 15 N. T. 
297; Mayor etc. of Baltimore v. 
State, 15 Md. 376; North Hempstead 
V. Hempstead, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 109; 
Cobb V. Kingman, 15 Mass. 197; 
Greenville v. Mason, 53 N. H. 515; 
Chiokesaw Co. v, Sumner Co., 58 

90 



Miss. 619; West Carroll Parish v. 
Gaddis, 34 La. An. 928; Laramie Co. 
V. Albany Co., 92 U. S. 307; Morgan 
v. Beloit, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 615; Aokley 
V. Vilas, 79 Wis. 157; Knight v. 
Town of Ashland, 61 Wis. 233; Town 
of Le Pointe v. O'Malley, 47 Miss. 
332; People v. Trustees of Schools, 
86 111. 613 ; Richland Go. v. Lawrence, 
12 111. 1 ; Mount Pleasant v. Beck- 
with, 100 D". S. 532; Fendor v. Neosho 
Falls, 22 Kan. 305; State v. Lake 
City, 25 Minn. 404; Montgomery Co. 
V. Menefee (Ky. 92), 18 S. W. 102; 
Richards v. Daggett, 4 Mass. 539; 
Goodhue v. Beloit, 21 Wis. 636; But- 
ternut v. O'Malley, 50 Wis. 333; Mills 
Co. v. Brown (Tex. 92), 20 S. W. 81; 
10 How. (U.S.) 511, 541; Richland 
Co. V. Lawrence, 12 111. 1 (1850); 
74 Am. Dec. 572; Olney v. Harvey, 
50 111. 453; 99 Am. Dec. 530; Blafik- 
I stone V. Taft, 4 Gray, 250 (1855). 



CH. V.J 



CORPORATE BOUNDARIES. 



§60 



poreal nature, which is actually situated within the limits of 
the territory, which is taken away from the old corporation, to 
he formed into a new corporation or annexed to some adjoining 
corporation, will become the property of the new corporation or 
the corporation to which such territory is annexed ; and the cor- 
poration, which previously included this territory within its 
limits, can make no claim to such public property .^ But the 
contrary proposition has been maintained, that the old corpora- 
tion, upon separation of a part of its territory, retains its con- 
trol over all its public property, including that which is found 
within the limits of the other corporation, which is created out 
of the detached territory, or to which such territory has been 
annexed.^ 

§ 60. legislative power to apportion property and debts 
in cases of annexation and division. — But the power of the 
Legislature, in dividing towns or annexing other territory to 
the boundaries of such towns, and thereby diminishing or in- 
creasing the same, has invariably been held to include the power 
to apportion the common property and tlie common burdens of 
the old municipalit}', so as to make an equitable division of the 
same between the corporation which has been benefited by the 
change in the boundaries of such a corporation and the corpora- 



1 North Hempstead v. Hempstead, 
2 Wend. 109. C. J. Savage said: 
"The State to be divided iDto two 
States: without some special agree- 
ment, each would own tlie public 
property within its limits. So of 
counties: the public buildings are 
as much public property as public 
lands. So as to the plains, meadows, 
and marshes which are the subject 
of this suit. A bill filed by a new 
county for the partition of the gaol 
and courthouse, which had been 
common property, would be the 
same in principle as the bill in this 
suit. Would not such a suit be 
considered preposterous ? Suppose 
a religious corporation possessed 
of a church and parsonage; it be- 
comes expedient to erect part into a 
new corporation: would not the old 
corporation retain the property, un- 



less an agreement was made as to 
the partition of it?" See, to the 
same general effect, Laramie Co. v. 
Albany, 92 U. S. 307; West Carroll 
V. G-addis, 34 La. An. 928 ; Milwaukee 
V. Milwaukee, 12 Wis. 93; Burgess 
V. Darby, 21 Atl. R. 394; 140 Pa. St. 
250; Land etc. Co. v. Oneida Co., 53 
jS". W. R. 491; 83 Wis. 649; Demattos 
V. City of New Whatcom, 4 Wash. 
St. 127. 

2 School Dist. V. Richardson, 25 
Pick. (Mass.) 62; Winona v. School 
Dist. No. 82, 40 Minn. 13; 24 Am. & 
Eng. Corp. Cas. 121; Union Baptist 
Society v. Town of Candia, 2 N. H. 
20; Town of Milwaukee v. Milwau- 
kee, 12 Wis. 93; North Yarmouth v. 
Skillings, 45 Me. 133; 81 Am. Dec. 
530; Board of Health of Buena Vista 
V. East Saginaw, 4a Mich. 257. 

91 



§60 



MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 



[CH. V. 



tion whose territoiy has been cut down. And it is a very com- 
mon practice for the Legislature to make such an apportionment 
of the property and debts, whenever territory is taken from 
one corporation and added to another, or established as a new 
corporation.^ It has, however, been held in Maine, that, upon 
the division of a town into two corporations, and the apportion- 
ment of its debts, the old town is the agent of the new town in 
defraying such debts ; and where the old town acts in good faith 
and pays such debts, the new town is liable on a claim of con- 



1 Burgess v. Darby, 21 Atl. R. 394; 
140 Pa. St. 250; In re House Bill, 9 
Colo. 624, 639; Dunsraore's Appeal, 
52 Pa. St. 374; Barkley v. Levee 
Comm'rs, 93 U. S. 258; Lakin v. 
Ames, 10 Cusb. 198; Gorliam v. 
Springfield, 21 Me. 61; North Yar- 
mouth V. Skillings, 45 Me. 133; Har- 
rison V. Bridgton, 16 Mass. 16; lb. 
76; Hempstead v. Howard, 51 Ark. 
344; State v. Harshaw, 73 Wis. 211; 
40 N. W. R. 641 ; Broughton v. Pen- 
sacola, 93 U. S. 266; County Court v. 
County Couit, 2 Bush (Ky.) 93; 
Granby v. Thurston, 23 Conn. 416, 
419; Willimantic Society v. School 
Society, 14 Conn. 457; State v. Hor- 
dey, 41 Kan. 630; Sierra v. Dona 
Ana (N. M. 88), 21 Pac. R. 83; Ter- 
ritory V. Com'rs, 8 Mont. 396; De- 
mattos V. New Whatcom, 29 Pae. R. 
933; Pelican v. Rock Falls (Wis. 92), 
51 N. W. R. 871; Olney v. Harvey, 
50 111. 453 ; Sedgwick Co. v. Bailey, 
11 Kan. 631 ; Laramie County v. Al- 
bany County, 92 U. S. 307 ; London- 
derry V. Derry, 8 N. H. 320; Waring 
V. Mobile, 24 Ala. 701; Mayor v. 
State, 15 Md. 376; Sill v. Corning, 15 
N. Y. 297; People v. Draper, 15 N. 
Y. 532; Schriber V. Langdale, 66 Wis. 
616; Knight v. Town of Ashland, 61 
Wis. 233; Waldron v. Lee, 5 Pick. 
323; New London v. Montville, 1 
Root (Conn.) 184; Hughes v. School 
District, 72 Mo. 643; Board etc. v. 
Board etc., 30 W. Va. 424; Tileson 
92 



V. Newman, 23 Vt. 421; Richards v. 
Daggett, 4 Mass. 534; Love v. 
Schenck, 12 Ired. Law, 304; Sangar 
mon County v. Springfield, 63 111. 
66; School Dist. v. Richardson, 23 
Pick. (Mass.) 62; North Hempstead 
V. Hempstead, 2 Wend. (N. T.) 100; 
People V. Town of Gran, 121 111. 650; 
Sanbornton v. Til ton, 55 N. H. 603; 
Canovo v. State, 18 Pla. 512; State 
V. Lake City, 25 Minn. 405; Neilson 
V. Newark, 49 N. J. L. 426; Town of 
Milwaukee v. Milwaukee, 12 Wis. 93; 
Tileson v. Newman, 23 Vt. 421; 
Waldron v. Lee, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 323; 
Comm'rs of Ottawa v. Nelson, 19 
Kan. 234; Eagle v. Beard, 33 Ark. 
497; Perry Co. v. Conway Co. (Ark. 
1890), 12 S. W. Rep. 877; Craft v. Lo- 
finck, 34 Kan. 365; Hunt v. Hamil- 
ton, 25 Kan. 82; Com'rs of Marion 
Co. V. Harvey Co., 26 Kan. 181; Eicli- 
land Co. v. Lawrence Co., 12 111. 1; 
Morrow Co. v. Hendryx, 14 Greg. 
397; Chickasaw Co. v. Clay Co., 62 
Miss. 325 ; Mills v. Brown, 20 S. W. E. 
81. In Bristol v. New Chester, 3 N. 
H. 524, Richardson, C. J., said: "The 
power to divide towns is strictly 
legislative, and the power to pre- 
scribe the rule, by which a division 
of the property of the old town shall 
be made, is incident to the power 
to divide the territory, and in its 
nature purely legislative. No gen- 
eral rule can be prescribed by which 
an equal and just division in such 



CH. V.J 



CORPORATE BOUNDARIES. 



60 



tribution to the old town for its proportionate share of such 
debts, which has been apportioned to it by the Legislature.^ 

A legislative discretion, in determining the rule of apportion- 
ment, is in no wise subject to the supervisory control of the 
courts ; the judgment of the Legislature is final, and cannot be 
reviewed in any judicial proceeding.^ 

It has been held that, in order that this apportionment may 
be made, it should be contemporaneous with the partition of 
the territory of the old corporation, and a subsequent act of the 
Legislature is an unconstitutional exercise of power.^ But this 
proposition is not generally recognized ; and the better rule, 
perhaps, is that, in the absence of constitutional limitations, 
specially restricting the power of the Legislature, the Legislature 
is able after, as well as contemporaneously with, the division of 
the town, to provide by legislation for apportionment, between 
the two new towns, of the property and debts of the old town.* 
It has also been held in Kansas, that, in the apportionment of 
the debts of an old town between the two towns, which obtain a 
part of the territory of the old town, bonds cannot be included 
which have been declared void before the separation, where the 
improvements, on which the bonds were founded, were not be- 
gun until after the separation, and the benefit of it accrued 
solely to the territory retained by the old corporation.^ 



cases can be made. Such a division 
must be founded upon the circum- 
stances of each particular case." 

' Mt. Desert v. Monmouth, 72 Me. 
348. 

2 Bristol V. New Chester, 3 X. H. 
524; St. Louis v. Kussell, 9 Mo. 507; 
Sedgwick Co. v. Bunker, 16 Kan. 498; 
Board of Education of Barker Pis- 
trict V. Board of Education of Valley 
Dist., 30 W. Va. 424; Overseers of 
Norwich v. Overseers of New Berlin, 
18 Johns. (N. Y.) 382; "Walters v. 
Richardson (Ky. 93), 20 S. W. R. 279; 
Land, Log & Lumber Co. v. Oneida 
Co., 53 N. W. E. 491; 83 Wis. 649; 
Nez Perces County v. Latah Co., 31 
Pac. R. 300; 2 Idaho, 1131; Los An- 
geles Co. V. Orange Co., 32 Pac. R. 
316. 



" Bowdoinham v. Richmond, 6 
Greenl. (Me.) 112 ; Windham v. Port- 
land, 4 Mass. 390; Hampshire v. 
Franklin^ 16 Mass. 76. 

* Montgomery Co. v. Menifee (Ky. 
92), 18 S. W. R. 1021; Mills Co. v. 
Brown Co. (Tex. 92), 20 S. W. R. 81; 
Sedgwick Co. v. Bunker, 16 Kan. 
498; Greighton v. San Francisco, 42 
Cal. 446; Laramie County v. Albany 
County, 92 U. S. 307; Town of Guil- 
ford V. Supervisorsof Chenango Co., 
13 N. Y. 143; New Orleans v. Clark, 
95 U. S. 654; Lay ton v. New Orleans, 
12 La. An. 515; Lycoming v. Union, 
15 Pa. St. 166; 53 Am. Dec. 575; Perry 
Co. V. Conway Co. (Ark. 1890), 12 
S. W. Rep. 877; Dunmore's Appeal, 
52 Pa. St. 374. 

5 Craft V. Lofinck, 34 Kan. 365. 

93 



§ 61 MUNICIPAL COKPOEATIONS. [CH. V. 

§ 61. Procedure in case of annexation — When annexa- 
tion legal. — ^The proceedings for the annexation of contiguous 
territory to the limits of a municipal corporation, rest altogether 
upon statute ; and in order that such annexation may be valid, 
all the requirements of the statute, as to the method of proced- 
ure and the method of exercise of the power, must be complied 
with. Any material deviation from these requirements will 
have the effect of invalidating the annexation. ^ It is, however, 
presumed in every case that the annexation has been in compli- 
ance with the statutory requirements, and hence legal.^ 

The statute usually provides that notice of the intended an- 
nexation shall be giveh.^ But this requirement of notice is 
complied with, if there is a publication of such intention, and 
accompanying such publication an accurate description is given 
of the land, which is to be included within the addition to tlie 
town. It is not necessarj' that the notice should contain the 
names of all the persons whose property is to be brought by such 
annexation within the city limits.* 

In Tennessee, it has been held that the application for an- 
nexation cannot be made in court, where the court has the au- 
thority to grant such annexation, by private citizens, but must 
be made by the authorities of the town.^ In Pennsylvania, on 
the other hand, it is required that, before a town council may 
annex adjoining territory to the city limits, a petition therefor 
must be signed by twenty freeholders of lands, located in the 
territory which is proposed to be annexed ; and such freeholders 
must be residents of the territory .^ In Texas and Iowa the 
consent of a majority of the inhabitants of the annexed district 
seems to be required ; ^ and the wish of the majority may be 
manifested by signing the petition, instead of by a formal elec- 



1 Seward v. Cowroy, 50 IST. W. R. 
329; Woodrufe v. Eureka, 19 S. W. 
R. 15; 55 Ark. 618; Windman v. 
Vinoennes, 58 Ind. 180; Smitli v. 
Sherry, 54 Wis. 114. 

2 State v. Waxahaohie, 81 Tex. 626; 
Huff V. Lafayette, 108 Ind. 14; Muli- 
kin V. Bloomington, 72 Ind. 161 ; State 
V. Westport, (Mo. 93) 22 S. W. E. 
888. 

3 Gunter v. Payetteville, 19 S. W. 
R. 577; Stilz v. Indianapolis, 55 Ind. 

94 



515; Village of Franklin v. Oroll, 31 
Oliio St. 647. 

* Woodfil V. Town of Greensburg, 
18 lad. 203; 45 N. W. R. 1031; Elsten 
V. Crawfordsville, 18 Ind. 203. 

^ Mason v. London, 3 Baxt. (Tenn.) 
94; Stilz V. Indianapolis, 55 Ind. 515; 
Huff V. Lafayette, 108 lb. 14. 

6 Devore's App., 56 Pa. St. 163. 

' Ford V. No. Des Moines, 80 Iowa, 
626; Graham v. Greenville, 67 Tex, 
62. 



CH. v.] CORPORATE BOUNDARIES. § 61 

tion. In Indiana, where the count}' commissioners have the 
power of authorizing the annexation of adjoining territory of a 
municipal corporation, th§ proceedings are instituted by a peti- 
tion from the city council ; and two thirds of the members of 
the council are required to sign such petition.^ Where the 
county commissioners or coiinty court are authorized to make 
the annexation, while a judicial inquiry can be made into the 
legality of the proceedings, and the jurisdiction of the court or 
county commissioners or city council, yet tlie merits of the case 
cannot be again inquired into. The interference of a court can 
ouly be permitted for the purpose of correcting errors or irregu- 
larity in the proceedings, or inaccuracy in the description of 
the territory to be annexed.^ 

Where there has been an illegal annexation, it is held that tax- 
payers of the territory, which is sought to be annexed, may or- 
dinarily maintain suits for the purpose of avoiding such illegal 
annexation in their own behalf, and in behalf of the other citi- 
zens or residents of the territory.^ It has, however, been held 
that a private citizen who has no other interest but that of a 
resident and a taxpayer of the proposed addition to the town, 
cannot maintain a petition for mandamus, for the purpose of 
determining the constitutionality of an act of the Legislature 
providing for the consolidation of two cities.* 

The long continued acquiescence in an illegal annexation will 
very often preclude a subsequent avoidance of such annexation ; 
inexcusable delay, in resorting to the courts for relief, will 
operate as an estoppel against such parties, whenever the public 
interests require the application of the doctrine of estoppel.^ 
But the individual property owner is not estopped from insti- 
tuting an action for determining the validity of the annexation, 



1 Stilz V. Indianapolis, 55 Ind. 515; 
Hufe V. Lafayette, 108 Ind. 14; Mason 
V. London, 8 Baxt. (Tenn.) 94. 

2 Peru V. Bearss, 55 Ind. 576; In- 
dianapolis V. Sturm, .39 Ind. 159; 
Hulbert V. Mason, 29 Ohio St. 562; 
Windman v. Vincennes, 58 Ind. 480; 
Trustees, etc. of Princeton v. Manck, 
35 Ind. 51; Church v. Town of 
Knightstown, 35 Ind. 177; contra, 
Vestal V. Little Rock, (Ark. 90) 15 
S. W. R. 891. 



•I Delphi V. Stratzman, 104 Ind. 343; 
11 Am. & Bng. Corp. Cas. 37; Tope- 
ka V. Gillett, 32 Kan. 431 ; 5 Am. & 
Eng. Corp. Cas. 290; Morris v. Nash- 
ville, 6 Lea (Tenn.) 337. 

■1 Smith V. Saginaw, 45 N. W. R. 
964; 81 Mich. 123. 

6 Black V. Brinkley, (Ark. 90) "15 
S. W. R. 1030; Sherry v. Gilmore, 58 
Wis. 324; Logansport v. La Rosa, 99 
Ind. 117. 

95 



§62 



MUNICIPAL COKPOKATIONS. 



[CH. V. 



by his participation in the rights and duties of a citizen of the 
territory, to which the property has been illegally annexed.^ 

On the other hand, when a municipality unlawfully attempts 
to annex territory to its limits, when it has no power to do so, 
the unlawful annexation cannot be validated by a subsequent 
statute, ratifying the unlawful annexation.^ 

§ 62. Exercise of power beyond city limits — Only one 
corporation over same area. — While, ordinarily, a municipal 
corporation cannot exercise any governmental powers beyond 
the city limits, in the absence of an express authority to do so, 
there can be no claim whatever to such an authority ; and such 
authority, if it existed at all, must rest upon the express pro- 
vision of a statute.^ Yet it is not so very uncommon a thing 
for a municipal corporation to be given such a power. In a 
subsequent section, reference is made to the power to purchase 
property beyond corporate limits.* And, in the exercise of this 
power, it is held to be valid for the municipal corporation to be 
authorized to acquire lands, and confiscate them for the pur- 
pose of establishing a system of sewerage,^ or for the establish- 
ment of hospitals, or water works.^ So, also, has it been held 
to be valid for a municipal corporation to be authorized to re- 
quire a license for the sale of goods beyond city limits, in order 
that the legitimate trade of the corporation within its limits 
may be protected against the unlicensed business outside.'^ And 



1 Strosser v. Fort Wayne, 100 Ind. 
443; 8 Am. & Eng. Corp. Gas. 636; 
Buell V. Ball, 20 Iowa, 282; Lang- 
worthy V. Dubuque, 13 Iowa, 86; 
Greenoastle Township v. Black, 3 
Ind. 587. 

- Comra'rs of Shawnee Co. v. Car- 
ter, 2 Kan. 115; Atchison, etc., N. 
Co. V. Naquilkin, 12 Kan. 301. In 
the case last cited, the court said: 
" Both the annexation of said prop- 
erty and the taxing of it were void 
for the want of jurisdiction over 
the subject-matter thereof. Retro- 
spfective statutes of a remedial na- 
ture, curing the defective execution 
of some power really possessed by 
the person, tribunal, or officer at- 
tempting to exercise it, have often 
96 



been held valid. But a retrospec- 
tive statute attempting to create a 
power, or to cure a defect of juris- 
diction, we believe, has never been 
held valid." 

^Begein v. Anderson, 28 Ind. 79; 
Strauss v. Pontiac, 40 111, 301 ; State 
V. Franklin, 40 Kan. 410; Cold water 
V. Tucker, 36 Mich. 474; 24 Am. Eep. 
601. 

" See post, § 201. 

^ Neal V. Commonwealth, 17 Serg. 
& R. (Pa.) 67; Coldwater v. Tucker, 
36 Mich. 474; 24 Am. Rep. 601; Gould 
V. Rochester, 103 iST. Y. 46. 

« State V. Franklin, 40 Kan. 410. 

' Van Hook v. Selma, 70 Ala. 361; 
45 Am. Rep. 83. 



CH. v.] 



CORPORATE BOUNDARIES. 



§62 



this rule has been particularly applied to the case of the sale of 
intoxicating liquors.^ So, also, has it been held possible for the 
Legislature to authorize a city to expend money in the improve- 
ment of roads outside of the city limits, and to levy a tax there- 
for.^ But the general rule is, that there cannot be two municipal 
corporations, for the same purpose and with equal powers in- 
cluding the same territory ; the existence of one would neces- 
sarily preclude the possible legal existence of the other.* But 
where there is only one legal corporation, and the other, which 
actuall}'^ has control of the affairs of the territory, is not legal, 
simply a de facto corporation ; upon the suppression of the de 
facto corporation, the only legal corporation will at once assume 
control, the functions of the legal corporation being only tem- 
porarily suspended.* 

But while this legal axiom, that two municipal corporations 
cannot include the same territory, as a general rule, is subject 
to no serious exception ; yet it has in a comparatively late case 
been held, that two corporations may at the same time exercise 
a limited governmental control over the same territory. In 
order that the city of Chicago may successfully regulate the 
management and construction of packing houses, it was given 
the power to exercise its regulation over packing hosues located 
beyond its limits within a distance of one mile ; and the fact, 
that within this distance of one mile a different and indepen- 
dent municipal corporation, viz., the town of Lake, was located, 
did not interfere with the power of the city of Chicago to re- 
quire of the packing houses, located within this town, a license 
similar to what it was generally authorized to require of pack- 
ing houses, which were located within the distance of one mile 
from the city limits. The person, or the corporation, carrying 



iKaufle V. Delaney, 25 W. Va. 
410; Flack v. Fry, 32 lb. 364; Em- 
erich v. Indianapolis, 118 Ind. 279. 

2 Skinner v. Hutton, 33 Mo. 347. 

3 Enterprise v. State (Fla. 91), 10 
So. R. 740; Rex v. Passmore, 3 Term 
R. 243; Rex v. Amery, 2 Bro. P. C. 
336; Ashley v. Calliope, 71 Iowa, 
466; Paterson V. Society etc., 24 N. 
J. L. 385; Martin v. Aston, 60 Cal. 
65 ; Strosser v. Fort Wayne, 100 Ind. 
443; 8 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 636; 

7 



state V. Town of Winter Park, 25 
Fla. 371; Drain Commissioners v. 
Baxter, 57 Mich. 127. " The propo- 
sition that two independent govern- 
ments cannot exercise the same pow- 
er, within the same district, at the 
same time, is a self-evident one." 
Cf. Peoria & A. P. U. Ry. Co. v. 
People (111. 93), 33 N. E. R. 873. 

* Taylor v. Fort Wayne, 47 Ind. 
274, 281. 

97 



§ 63 MUNICIPAL COEPOEATIONS. [OH. V. 

on the business of packing meats, would be subject to the h- 
cense charged by both the city of Chicago and the town of 
Lake.^ 
§ 63. Division of municipal territory into wards. — For 

the purpose of convenience, in arranging for the local govern- 
ment of a city, it is customary for the territory of a municipal 
corporation to be divided into wa];ds, and to provide for a rep- 
resentatioji of each ward in the city council. In providing for 
this division of the city into wards, the Legislature is required 
to observe the constitutional limitation of the equality of rep- 
resentation, and to make the wards as nearly as possible equal, 
either in size or in population, and apportion to each ward the 
number of representatives, according to the population of each 
ward. Any violation of these principles would make the ap- 
portionment void under the constitutional provision referred 
to.^ The procedure, whereby a city may be divided into wards, 
is, of course, purely statutory, and the provisions of the statute 
must be complied with.^ It has been held, that where the au- 
thority is given by the Legislature to the city council to effect 
a division of the city into a given number of wards, it is not 
permitted of the Legislature in the exercise of its delegated 
power, to increase or diminish the number of such wards.* 



1 Cliioago Pack'g Co. v. Chicago, 
88 111. 221 ; see State v. Franklin, 40 
Kan. 410. 

•■! People V. Canoday, 73 N. C. 193; 
State V. Bayonne, 22 Atl. R. 1006. 

8 In re Gettysburg, 90 Pa. St. 355; 
98 



In re Fifteenth Ward, 11 Phila. (Pa.) 
466; see cases on alteration of wards, 
33 Amer. & Eng. Corp. Cases, 661. 

* Schroeder y. City Council of 
Charleston, 3 Brev. (S. C.) 533; Peo- 
ple V. Young, 38 111. 490. 



CHAPTER VI. 



MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AND OFPIOEES. 



Section. 

65 — Time and place of holding 
elections. 

66 — Qualifications of voters — Eesi- 
dence. 

67 — Who are municipal officers ? 

68 — Legislative control over offi- 
cers. 

69 — Qualification for municipal 
office — Women when eligi- 
ble. 

70 — Civil service examinations. 

71 — ^Preference for veterans. 

72— Official bonds. 

73 — Official oaths. 

74 — Disqualifications on account 
of prior official position. 

75 — Appointments to office. 

76 — Exercise of the appointing 
power. 

77 — Legality of appointment pre- 
sumed. 

78 — Acceptance of office. ' 

79 — Compensation. 

80 — Assignment of salary. 



Section. 

81 — Holding over after expiration 
of term of office. 

82 — Vacancies. 

83 — Removals vrhen for cause. 

84 — Proceedings to remove for 
cause. 

85 — Illegal removals — Eight to sal- 
ary. 

86 — Resignations — Incompatible 
offices — Change of residence. 

87 — General powers and duties of 
officers. 

88 — De facto officers. 

89 — Police officials — Power to ar- 
rest. 

90 — The mayor — Nature of his du- 
ties and powers. 

91 — Liability of the officer to the 
corporation. 

92 — Municipal liability for official 
acts. 

93 — Jurisdiction of courts over 
elections. 



§65. 



Time and place of holding elections — The time and 
place of holding elections in municipalities are sometimes regu- 
lated by the general statutes of the state ; but in the absence 
of any general election law, applicable to the whole state, mu- 
nicipal elections are held at such times and places, as ma}- be 
designated in the charter or in some special act passed for the 
purpose. When the law requires tlie time and place of holding 
such elections to be determined by some officer or select board, 
it is essential to the validitjr of such election that the delibera- 
tion be participated in by all those, who are empowered or di- 
I'ected to do so.^ Any determination of the time and place of 

Stephens v. Peo., 89 111. 337; Glencoe 
V. Peo., 78 lb. 382; Dickey v. Hurlbut, 
5 Cal. 343 ; Peo. v. Murray, 15 lb. 221 ; 
99 



1 Peo. V. Harvey, 58 Cal. 337; Juicer 
v. Commonwealth, 20 Pa. St. 484; 
Chadwiclc v. Kelvin, 68 Pa. St. 333; 



§65 



MUNICIPAL COEPOKATIONS. 



[CH. VI. 



election by a meeting, composed of only a part of those who 
were required by law to participate, — certainly, where only a 
part of tliem were duly summoned — would invalidate the en- 
suing election. So, also, if it be within the discretion of mu- 
nicipal officials whether an election shall be held or not, and they 
neglect to fix the time and place ; any election, which might be 
held under such circumstances, would necessarily be void.^ 
But where the time and place of the election is definitely fixed 
by law, any failure of the municipal officers to give the proper 
notice of the time and place of such election will not invalidate 
the election, which is actually held by the qualified voters of 
the city, unless the statute makes the notice a necessary condi- 
tion precedent, when it cannot be dispensed with.^ And in 
that case, mandamus will lie to compel a compliance with the 
statutory requirements on the part of the officers, whose duty 
it is to issue the notices.^ 

But elections are not to be declared invalid, because of slight 
irregularities which do not affect the result of such election.* 
The courts are disposed to sustain the will of the people as 
evinced at an election, if it is possible ; ^ and a municipal elec- 
tion will not be vitiated, because of a verbal inaccuracy in the 
ballots, whether it be a misnomer of the office or of the candi- 



State V. Carroll (11. I. 91), 24 Atl. R. 
106; Miller v. English, 21 K. J. L. 317; 
Marshall v. Cook, 38 111. 44; Force v. 
Batavia, 61 111. 99; Foster v. Scarf, 
15 Ohio St. 5.35; Clarke v. Board, 27 
111. 310; Marshall v. Kerns, 2 Swan. 
(Tenn.) 68. 

1 Opinions of Judges, 7 Mass. 525 ; 
15 lb. 537; Cook v. Mock, 40 Kan. 
472; People v. Santa Anna, 67 111. 57; 
George v. Oxford, 16 Kan. 72, 80; 
People V. Mathewson, 47 Cal. 442. 

^ State V. Carroll, supra; People v. 
Cressey, 91 N. Y. 61U; In re Narra- 
ganset (R. 1. 88), 16 Atl. R. 907 ; Queen 
V. Justices, 8 Ad. & El. 173; People 
V. Korth, 72 N. Y. 124; "Wars on v. 
Hastings, 22 Minn. 437; People v. 
Fairburg, 51 111. 149. 

3 See post, § 371. 

* Howard v. Shields, 16 Ohio St. 
184; Peo. v. Shaw, 19 N. Y. S. 302; 
100 



Kinney v. O' Conner, 26 Tex. 5; Peo. 
V. Cook, 14 Barb. 259; Com. v. Smith, 
132 Mass. 289 ; "Walker v. "W. Boylston, 
128 lb. 550; State v. Russell (Neb. 92), 
5 N. "W. R. 465; Peo. v. Higgins, 3 
Mich. 233; Dishon v. Smith, 10 Iowa, 
212; Truehcart v. Addicks, 2 Tex. 
217; Ewing v. Filley, 43 Pa. St. 384; 
Shields V. Jacobs, 88 Mich. 164; 
Sprague v. Norway, 31 Cal. 173; 
Bomiand v. Hildreth, 26 lb. 161 ; Day 
V. Kent, 1 Oreg. 123; Taylor v. Tay- 
lor, 10 Minn. 112; State v. Jones, 19 
lud. 356; Rutledge v. Crawford, 91 
Cal. 526. 

5 Rogers v. Jacobs (Ky. 88), 11 S. 
"W. R. 513; Brown v. McCollum, 70 
Iowa, 479; Fentou v. Scott, 17 Ore. 
189; Gun v. Hubbard, 97 Mo. 311; 
Russell V. Wellington (Mass.91), 31 N. 
E. R. 630; State v. Barbour, 53 Conn. 
76; State v. Quinly, 17 Atl. E. 952. 



CH. VI.] MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AND OFFICERS. 



§66 



date ; ^ or because of illegal voting, provided the illegal act or 
iiTegularity does not change the result.^ A ballot will, how- 
ever, be rejected which contains the names of more officers 
than there are offices to be filled ; as, for example, where two 
offices of the same kind are to be filled, a vote for three or more 
persons for these offices would be void, and would not be count- 
ed at all, in the absence of statutory regulation to the contrary.^ 
So, also, any departure from the requirements of the election 
law, which tends in any material way to affect the result of the 
election, will invalidate the election. Thus, an election will be 
invalidated by the closing of the polls at an earlier hour than 
what was provided by the law,* or by an adjournment of the 
election to some other time or place than what was designated 
in the notice, or what was provided for by law.^ An election 
will also be invalid at common law, where " rioting takes place 
(i. e., at or near the polls,) to such an extent that ordinary men, 
having the ordinary nerve and courage of men, are thereby pre- 
vented from recording their votes." ^ 

§ 66. Qualification of voters — Residence. — The qualifica- 
tions of voters are regulated by the state constitutions, and by 
the general election laws of the several states ; and these quali- 
fications cannot be limited or enlarged by municipal ordinances.^ 
And where the constitution of the state sets forth the qualifi- 
cations of voters in all elections within the state, without any 
restrictive clause in favor of electors of a municipality, or ex- 
press grant of power to the Legislature to establish substitu- 
tionary regulations, it is beyond the power of the Legislature 
or municipal council to require additional or different qualifl- 



1 People V. Loomis, 8 Wend. 396; 
People V. Seaman, 5 Denio, 409; State 
V. Griffey, 5 Neb. 161 ; People v. Mat- 
terson, 17 111. 167. 

"Judklns V. Hill, 50 N. H. 140; 
First Par. v. Stearns, 21 Pick. 148; 
People V. Cicotte, 16 Mich. 283; In re 
Murphy, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 153; John- 
ston v. Charleston, 1 Bay (S. C.) 441. 

8 People V. Loomis, 8 Wend. 396; 
State V. Griffey, 5 Neb. 161; Kex v. 
Mayor of Leeds, 7 Ad. E. 963; Peo- 
ple V. Seaman, 5 Denio, 409. 

< Pennsylvania Dist. Election, 2 



Par. (Pa.) 526; Clark's Case, 2 Par. 
(Pa.) 521. 

5 Commonwealth v. Commission- 
ers, 5 Rawle, 75 ; Coles Co. v. Allison, 
23 111. 437; People v. Keeling, 4 Col. 
129. 

6 Nottingham, In re, 1 O'M. & H. 
245; Drogheda, In re, 1 O'M & H. 
252. 

' Petty V. Tooker, 21 N. Y. 267; 
People V. Phillips, 1 Denio (N. Y.) 
388; Rex v. Bumstead, 2 B. & Ad. 
699. 

101 



66 



MUNICIPAL COEPOKATIONS. 



[CH. Vli^ 



cations, than those which are set forth in the constitution. 
Thus, a legislative act or charter, which requires a special 
qualification as to length of residence in the case of voters in 
a municipality, was held unconstitutional, where by the consti- 
tution another period was fixed upon by implication.^ So, also, 
when, as is now the rule in most if not all the states, laws have 
been passed the object of which is to guarantee an absolutely 
secret ballot, no law or ordinance can be of any force which 
will in tlie slightest degree impair or violate this secrecy.^ 
But where the state constitution is silent as to qualifications 
of voters, and the regulation of the matter of elections, both 
state and municipal, is left to the control and discretion of the 
Legislature, the Legislature may prescribe for municipal electors 
different qualifications from those which are required of voters 
in general state elections. And this discrimination is not un- 
common, particularly in requiring the voters in a city or town 
to be registered before they are entitled to vote. The consti- 
tutionality of such a local regulation cannot be successfully 
contested.^ But in the absence of special regulations, munici- 
pal elections are governed by the general election laws of the 
state, both as to the manner in which they should be conduct- 
ed, and as to the rules by which the results are ascertained and 
announced.* 

Residence in the municipality is almost invariably stated in 
express terms to be a necessary qualification for the voter ; but 
what will constitute a residence is a much controverted ques- 
tion.^ In ases arising out of the exercise of the elective fran- 
chise, it is safe to say that a man's residence is where his home or 
familj"- is located.^ And this general rule is a reliable guide in 
determining the location of one's domicile and place of voting, 
where one has but one residence, and actually has one perma- 



1 People V. Canaday, 73 N. C. 198. 
3 Williams v. Stern, 38 lud. 89. 
5 McMahau V. Savannah, 66 Ga. 217. 
* See C o o 1 e y Cons. Limitations, 
p. 598. 

5 Story Conf. of Laws, sec. 53, 
et seq. 

6 Topsham v. Lewiston, 74 Me. 236; 
Grant v. Dalliber, 11 Conn. 234; Nu- 
gent V. Bates, 51 Iowa, 77; Keough v. 

102 



Holyoke, (Mass. 91) 31 N. E. R. 387; 
Colburn v. Holland, 14 Rich. Eq. 176; 
Yonkey V. State, 27 Ind. 236; Gilmer 
V. Gilmer, 32 Ga. 685; Rumney v. 
Caraptown, 10 N. H. 567; Keith v. 
Letter, 25 Kans. 100; Sherwood v. 
Judd, 3 Bradf. 167; Blucher v. Mil- 
sted, 31 Tex. 621; Ames v. Dury.ea, 6 
Lans. 155; Kellogg v. Hickman, 12 
Colo. 256. 



CH. VI.] MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AND OFFICERS. 



§66 



nent residence. But where one has more than one residence, 
or has no permanent residence at all, other tests must be re- 
sorted to for the purpose of determining where one's domicile 
is.^ And it is a question of fact, on the evidence of each case, 
where one's domicile is. Where the party in question has ex- 
ercised the right of suffrage in prior elections, the place where 
he voted is presumptively his domicile, and such evidence is or- 
dinarily controlling in the determination of one's present domi- 
cile, where there has been no abandonment of the residence at 
that place.'^ And so, likewise, is the question of domicile very 
strongly controlled by the negative evidence, that one's vote had 
been offered, but refused, at a prior election, on the ground of 
want of residence.^ Among other facts, which may be proven 
for the purpose of locating one's domicile, is the place of naturali- 
zation,* payment of taxes on personal property,^ jury service,*" 



' Thorndike v. Boston, 1 Met. 
(Mass.) 245; Atty. General v. Par- 
ker, 3 Atk. 576; Cohen v. "Wigfall, 8 
Eich. Law, 237; 2 lb. 489; People v. 
Barker, 63 Hun, 630; Fry's Election, 
71 Pa. St. 302; Gildersleeve v. Alex- 
ander, 2 Speer (S. C.) 298; Mobile 
etc. Co. V. Barnhill, 19 S. "W. K. 21; 
Seay v. Hunt, 55 Tex. 545; Hinds v. 
Hinds, 1 Iowa, 36: Etberingtou v. 
AVilson, L. K. 1 Ch. Div. 160; Taylor 
V. Caesar, 11 ITpp. Can. Q. B. 461; 
Putnam v. Johnson, 10 Mass. 488. 

2 United States v. Thorpe, 2 Bond 
U. S. 340; Smith v. Groom, 7 Fla. 81; 
Woodworth v. St. Paul etc. E. E., 18 
Fed. Eep. 282; Kellogg v. Oshkosh, 
14 AVis. 678 ; Sanderson v. Ealston, 
21 La. An. 312; Shelton v. Tiffin, 6 
How. 185; Fiske v. Chicago etc. Co., 
13 Barb. 472; East Li verpool v. Farm- 
ington, 74 Me. 154; Hairsten v. Hair- 
sten, 27 Miss. 704; Brunei v. Brunei, 
L. E. 12 Eq. 298; Carey's App., 75 
Pa. St. 201; Easterly v. Goodwin, 35 
Conn. 279; FoUweiler v. Lutz, 112 
Pa. St. 107; Weld v. Boston, 126 
Mass. 166. 

8 Ilindman's Appeal, 85 Pa. St. 



466; Guier y. O'Daniel, 1 Binn. (Pa.) 
349 ; New Orleans v. Shepherd, 10 La. 
Ann. 268; Shelton v. Tiffin, 6 How. 
163; Heirs of HoUiman v. Peebles, 
1 Tex. 673. 

* Drevon v. Drevon, 34 L. J. Ch. 
129; Hood's Estate, 21 Pa. St. 106; 
Ennis v. Smith, 14 How. 400. 

^Hulett V. Hulett, 37 Vt 518; 
Weld V. Boston, 126 Mass. 166; Ton- 
key V. State, 27 Ind. 236; Harvard 
College V. Gore, 5 Pick. 370; State 
V. Steele, 33 La. Ann. 910; Carey's 
Appeal, 75 Pa. St. 201; Mitchell v. 
United States, 21 Wall. 350. The 
omission or refusal to pay taxes, is 
not a very important circumstance 
in the determination of the domi- 
cile, unless the refusal was caused 
by a denial of a domicile in the 
place where taxes were demanded. 
Hallett V. Bassett, 100 Mass. 167; 
Moar V. Harvey, 128 Mass. 219; Hind- 
man's Appeal, 85 Pa. St. 396; Guier 
V. O'Daniel, 1 Binn. (Pa.) 349. 

8 Sanderson v. Ealston, 20 La. 
Ann. 312; Villere v. Butman, 23 La. 
Ann. 515. 

103 



§67 



MUNICIPAL CORPOKATIONS. 



[CH. VI. 



t'le holding of office,^ and any other official act, which recog- 
nizes one as an inhabitant of a particular place.^ So, also, in 
the absence of positive proof of a permanent residence, evi- 
dence is admissible, as tending to prove the location of one's 
domicile, of one's presence in a place,^ the hiring of lodgings,* 
the purchase of a burying-ground,* the deposit of valuables,® 
and the absence of proof that a domicile once acquired has 
been changed^ ^ 

§ 67. Who are municipal officers ? — It sometimes becomes 
both necessary and important to ascertain what elements are 
essential to constitute a public officer, and to distinguish offi- 
cial status from that of an agent, employee or contractor.^ The 
word office implies a more or less permanent delegation of a 
portion of governmental power,^ coupled witli legally defined 
duties^" and privileges,^^ continuous in their nature ; ^^ and which 
upon the death, resignation or removal of the incumbent, de- 
volves upon his successor.^^ A person who occupies a position 

5 Miller v. Sacramento, 25 Cal. 98; 
Peo. V. Middleton, 28 lb. 603 ; Bunn v. 
Peo., 45 111. 397 ; State v. Kirk, 44 Ind. 
401 ; Olrastead v. Mayor, supra; Doyle 
V. Raleigh, 89 N". C. 133; Sheboygan 
V. Parker, 3 Wall. 93; Atty. Gen. v. 
Barstow, 4 Wis. 567. 

w Where there are no duties, there 
is no office. Com. v. Gamble, 62 Pa. 
St. 343. 

"State V. Valle, 41 Mo. 29; State v. 
Anderson, 45 Ohio St. 196; Hill v. 
Boylan, 40 Miss. 618; Peo. v. Comptr., 
20 Wend. 595 ; Moser v. Mayor, 21 
Hun, 163; Prather v. Lexington, 13 
B. Mon. 539; Ellis v. State, 4 Ind. 1; 
Bunn V. Peo., 45 111. 397; Bradf. v. 
Just, 33 Ga. 332 ; Ogdeu v. Raymond, 
22 Conn. 379. 

Instate V. Board, etc., 51 X J. L. 
240; Shelby V. Alcorn, 38 Miss. 273; 
State V. Wilson, 29 Ohio, 347. 

" Bunn V. Peo., 45 HI. 897; State v. 
Wilson, 29 Ohio, 347; U. S. v. Mau- 
rice, 2 Brook. (U. S.) 103; Peo. v. 
Jobs, 7 Colo. 589; 



1 Drevon v. Drevon, 34 L. J. Ch. 
198; Butler v. Hopper, 1 Wash. C. 
C. 449; Cole v. Cheshire, 1 Gray, 
441; Harvard College v. Gore, 5 
Pick. 370. 

2 West Boylston v. Sterling, 17 
Pick. 126. See, also, Mead v. Box- 
borough, 11 Gush. 362; Fisk v. Ches- 
ter, 9 Gray, 506; Sewall v. Sewall, 
122 Mass. 156. 

8 Bruce v. Bruce, 2 B. & P. 229; 
Stanley v. Burnes, 3 Hagg. Eccl. 
373; Bempde v. Johnstone, 3 Vesey 
Jr. 198. 

* Craige v. Lewin, 3 Curt. 435. 

° Succession of Franklyn, 7 La. 
Ann. 395; Haldane v. Eckford, L. 
E. 8 Eq. Cas. 631; In n Capdevielle, 
33 L. J. Exch. 306. 

" Curling v. Thornton, 2 Add. 219; 
Hodgson V. De Beauchesne, 12 Moore 
P. C. 285. 

' Munro v. Munro, 7 CI. & F. 842. 

8 Sawyer v. Corse, 17 Grat. 230; 
Olmstead v. Mayor, 42 N. T. Super. 
Ct. 289; Peo. v. Pinckney, 32 N. Y. 
377. 

104 



CH. VI.] MUNICIPAL ELEOTIOiSrS AND OPPICEES. 



§67 



the duties of which are not defined by law,^ or whose duties are 
contractual merely,^ and are not performed in the execution of 
any statute or standing rule of law,* is not an officer, but an em- 
ployee or agent.* The powers, rights and privileges, conferred 
upon an individual by an appointment or election to a public 
office, are not property and confer no proprietary rights in the 
office,^ but create a public trust; which it is absolutely incum- 
bent upon him to execute honestly, and to the best of his abilitj^, 
with the object of promoting the interests of the community 
within his jurisdiction.® Applying these and analogous princi- 
ples to municipalities, we find that a board, deriving their powers 
from the act creating them, are officers.'^ So, treasurers and all 
persons receiving, disbursing or acting as custodians of public 
funds are always officers,^ including collectors and assessors of 
taxes.^ It has been held that trustees, directors and other offi- 
cials of the state benevolent and penal institutions are public 
officers ; and the same rule would hold in similar institutions 



iPeo. V. Langdon, 40 Mich. 073; 
Kavanaugh v. State, 41 Ala. 399; 
Smith V. Mayor, 67 Barb. 223; U. S. v. 
Smith, 124 U. S. 525. 

2 Shelby v. Alcorn, 36 Miss. 273; 
Detroit F. P. Co. v. State, 47 Mich. 
135; Eliason v. Coleman, 86 N. C. 
235; Butler v. Regents, 32 Wis. 124; 
U. S. V. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 358; 
Vaughn v. English, 8 Cal. 39; Sand- 
ford V. Boyd, 2 Cranch. 79. 

"State V. Gardner, 43 Ala. 234; 
State V. Piatt, 4 Harr. 154; McArthur 
V. Nelson, 81 Ky. 67; Doyle v. 
Raleigh, 89 N. C. 133; Walker v. 
Cinoin., 21 Ohio, 14 

» Shelby v. Alcorn, 36 Miss. 273; 
and see cases above cited. 

" Peo. V. Stratton, 28 Cal. 382; 
Com. V. Gamble, 62 Pa. St. 343; State 
V. Dews, E. M. Charlt. (Ga.) 397; 
Beebo v. Robinson, 52 Ala. 67; Peo. 
V. Murray, 70 N. T. 521; State v. 
Douglas,26 Wis. 428; State v. Haw- 
kins, 44 Ohio St. 109; Prince v. Skil- 
lin, 71 Me. 361 ; State v. Davis, 44 Mo. 
120; Conner v. Mayor, 5 N. T. 285- 



Smith V. N. Y., 37 lb. 578; In re Cor- 
liss, 11 R. I. 638; Peo. v. Nostrand, 
46 N. Y. 375 ; see contra, King v. Hun- 
ter, 65 N. C. 203; Vaun v. Pipkin, 77 
N. C. 408; Brown v. Turner, 70 lb. 
93; Hoke v. Henderson, 4 Dev. (X. 
C.)l. 

«Peo. V. Stratton, 28 Cal. 382; 
Com. V. Gamble, 62 Pa. St. 343; Bow- 
ers V. Bowers, 26 Pa. St. 74; Atty. 
Gen. V. Barstow, 4 Wis. 567; Row- 
land V. Mayor, 83 N. Y. 372; Smith 
V. Moore, 90 Ind. 294. 

T State V. Valle, 41 Mo. 29. 

estate V. Brandt, 41 Iowa, 493; 
Peo. V. MoKinney, 10 Mich. 54; Com. 
V. Morrissey, 86 Pa. St. 416; Com. v. 
Evans, 74 lb. 124; Brown v. Turner, 
70 N. C. 93; U. S. v. Bloomgart, 2 
Ben. (JSr. J.) 356; State v. Boody, 53 
N. H. 610. 

» State V. Walton, 62 Me. lOG; 
Morse v. Lowell, 7 Met. 152 ; Peo. v. 
Bedell, 2 Hill, 199; Lorillard v. Mon- 
roe, 11 N. Y. 392; Houseman v. Com., 
100 Pa. St. 222. 

105 



§68 



MUNICIPAL COEPOKATIONS. 



[CH. VI. 



connected with a municipal corporation.^ So, likewise, are 
county commissioners ^ and school trustees.^ 

It may be laid down as a general rule that a city policeman 
is a public officer, deriving his power, not from the municipal- 
it3s but from the state, whose laws it is his duty to enforce ; J 
but it has been held in one instance that police patrolmen are 
not public officers.^ So, fireman, and officers of the fire depart- 
ment, are not public municipal officers, but agents of the mu- 
nicipality ; * aud this is also true of road supervisors,^ police 
jurymen,** bridge tenders,^ and a medical superintendent of a 
municipal insane asylum.^" On the other hand, it is now well 
settled that a court crier ^^ and court attendants in general, are 
public officers ; ^ and that a clergyman acts as a public officer, 
in solemnizing and certifying to a marriage. ^^ This ruling of 
the Connecticut court would presumably be sound, only where 
the clergyman, in connection with the act of solemnizing a 
marriage, is required by statute to do some official act, sucii as 
iin indorsement and return of the marriage license. Deputies 
of officers, who hold their positions under statutory provisions, 
and whose duties are prescribed by law, are likewise, public 
officers, and not employees. ^^ But it is otherwise, when a 
special deputj" is appointed for a particular purpose.^^ He acts 
rather in the capacity of a personal representative of the offi- 
cer, whose deputy he is. 

§ 68. Legislative control over offices In a preceding 

paragraph,^^ the limitations upon the legislative control of mu- 



' Peo. V. Nicliols, 68 N, C. 429 ; Peo. 
V. Bledsoe, 68 lb. 457; Peo. v. San- 
derson, 30 Cal. Porter V. Pillsbury, 11 
How. Pr. 240. 

-Hummells Case, 9 Watts (Pa.) 
416. 

3 Ogden V. Raymond, 22? Conn. 379. 

^Farrell v. Bridgeport, 45 Conn. 
191. 

5 Shanley v. Brooklyn, 30 Hun, 396. 

People v. Pinckuey, 32 N. T. 377. 

'' State V. Putnam, 35 Iowa, 561. 

* State V. Montg., 25 La. Am. 138. 

" State V. Board, 51 N. J. L. 240. 

"> MacDonald v. Mayor, 32 Hun, 89. 

106 



" Rioketts v. Mayor, 67 How. Pr. 
320. 

12 Moser V. Mayoret, 21 Hun, 163; 
Sweeney v. Mayor, etc., 5 Daly, 274; 
Rowland v. Mayor, etc., 83 N. T. 372. 

1^ Goshen v. Stonington, 4 Conn. 
209. 

"Dayton v. Lynes, 30 Conn. 351; 
White V. State, 44 Ala. 409; Conwell 
V. Voorhies, 13 Ohio, 523; Towns v. 
Harris, 13 Tex. 507; Eastman v. Cur- 
tis, 4 Vt. 016. 

i^Kavanaugh v. State, 41 Ala. 399; 
Armstrong v. U. S., Gilp. (U. S.) 399. 

" § 18. 



CH. TI.J MUI^IGIPAL ELECTIOXS AXD OPFICEKS. § 69 

nicipal offices and officers are fully set forth, and nothing need 
be added in the present connection. 

§ 69. Qnaliflcations for mnuicipal office — Women wlieu 
eligible. — These are usually the same as are required of can- 
didates for state offices. In general, aliens are not eligible ; 
although, if all inhabitants are declared to be eligible, they need 
not be citizens.^ 

A certain period of residence prior to election is generally 
required in express terms, to render one eligible for any munici- 
pal office of a political or executive character.^ But if there be 
no such statutory provision, nonresidents are eligible ; ^ espe- 
ciall}', if the office be one which requires professional skill, and 
does not involve the exercise of strictly governmental power.* 
Where residence within the municipal district is a prerequisite 
for holding office, a permanent removal therefrom will be treat- 
ed as an abandonment or implied resignation of the office.^ 
But a temporary change of residence, or absence, coupled with 
the intention to return, will have no such effect.*" 

It is a well nigh universal rule, founded upon the incapacity 
of minors to do any act which will be legally binding on them- 
selves, that no one under age is eligible to office ;'^ although 
exceptions have been made by the courts in respect to those 
offices, whose duties are clerical and administrative in cliar- 
acter, and do not involve the exercise of official discretion.^ 

The lack of legal recognition, which woman received at com- 
mon law, had as one of its effects the creation of a condition 
of ineligibility on her part for the holding of public office.® 
Under our constitutions, read in the light of that condition, and 
by necessary implication therefrom, women, although citizens, 
are not by that fact, in the absence of statute, vested with any 



1 State V. Kilroy, 86 Ind. 118. 

2 People V. Piatt, 115 N. T. 159; 
State T. Williams, 99 Mo. 291 ; Soo- 
ville V. Cleveland, 1 Ohio St. 126. 

'Com. V. Jones, 12 Pa. St. 365; 
State V. Swearingen, 12 Gra. 23. 

* State V. Blanchard, 6 La. Ann. 
572; State v. George, 23 Fla. 585. 

"Rumsey v. Canipton, 16 N". H. 
56Y; Giles v. Soh. Dis., 31 lb. 304; 
Barre v. Greenwich, 1 Pick. 120. 

6 People V. Met. Pol., Brd.,19 N. Y. 



201; Lyon v. Com., 3 Bibb. (Ky.) 430; 
Van Osdall v. Hazzavd, 3 Hill (jST. Y.) 
243; Hanner v. Grizzard, 89 N. C. 
115. 

' Tyler v. Tyler, 2 Root, 419; Moore 
V. Graves, 3 N. H. 308; Barrett v. 
Seward, 22 Vt. 176. 

8U. S. V. Bixby, 9 Fed. Rep. 78; 
Ex parte, Dewey, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 
263. 

"Robinson's Case, 101 Mass. 376; 
Schiichards v. People, 99 111. 501. 
107 



ro 



MUNICIPAL CORPORA'^IOKS. 



[CH. vr. 



absolute right to hold office ; ^ but the state Legislatures can 
make, and frequently have made, women eligible to certain 
subordinate official positions ; among which are those relating 
to public instruction, and the care of the sick and insane.^ 

Women have in some cases been declared eligible, where the 
constitution was silent or its language general in character ; and 
appointments of women to office are more and more meeting 
with the approval of public opinion,^ and favorable considera- 
tion from the courts. Indeed, as a question of legal right or 
qualification, the conclusion, that a woman is ineligible to of- 
fice, notwithstanding the silence of the constitution and statutes 
of the state on that subject, can justly be charged to be the 
result of sexual prejudice. The claim, that there is a funda- 
mental difference in the mental, as well as in the physical, char- 
acteristics of men and women, may be a profound philosophical 
truth; but the determination of the- question of qualification 
for holding public office is not so rigidly, answered in connec- 
tion with the candidacy of males, in order to justify, on the 
ground of personal disqualifications, the general denial of eligi- 
bleness to women on account of their sex. In the absence of 
express restrictions, women are eligible to any office, on the 
same terms and under the same conditions with men. 

Constitutional provisions have been adopted in a few of the 
Southern and Western States* forbidding the ]-equirement of 
any property qualification for office ; but in the absence of such 
provisions, reasonable property qualifications can be imposed, 
such as that the municipal or other official shall be a freeholder, 
or taxpayer." 

§ 70. Civil service examinations. — In many of the states, 
laws have been enacted, providing that applicants for appoint- 
ment to public office, municipal and state, must pass an exami- 



1 Brad well v. Illinois, 16 "Wall. 1.30; 
Kobinson's Case, 131 Mass. 376; 
Atchison v. Lucas, 83 Ky. 451; 
Wheeler V. Hall, 6 Allen, 558; Jack- 
son V. Phillips, 14 lb. 539. 

2 HufE V. Cook, 44 Iowa, 639; Atch- 
ison Co. V. Lucas, 83 Ky. 451,- State 
V. Gorton, 33 Minn. 345. As to school 
officers, see Wright v. Xoell, 16 Kan. 
601; Opinions of Judges, 115 Mass. 

108 



602 ; HoflE v. Cook, 44 Iowa, 639; State 
V. Gorton, 33 Minn. 345. 

' Jeffries v. Harington, 11 Colo. 
191 ; Sohuchardt v. People, 90 111. 501 ; 
Wright V. Noell, 16 Kan. 601; In re 
Hall, 50 Couu. 131. 

■> Stimson Am. Stat. L. 222. 

''Dari-ow v. People, 8 Colo. 417; 
People V. Sheffield, 47 Hun, 481.- 



CH. VI.] MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AND OFriCEES. § 71 

nation, with a view of ascertaining their capacity, knowledge 
and litness, both mental and physical, for the positions they seek. 
At the same time, it is provided that appointments must be 
made from the names on a list of those who have passed such 
examinations, the persons to be selected from those grades high- 
est thereon ; and, generally, also, that all promotions shall be 
made upon the same basis.^ Such laws are constitutional and 
valid ;^ and include generally, within the operation of its pro- 
visions, not only officers strictly so called, but all of the persons 
in the civil service of the government,^ except laborers or un- 
skilled workmen on the one hand ; and on the other hand, con- 
fidential subordinates, and those for whose official misconduct 
the appointing officer would be financially responsible.* 

It has been held that the civil service reform laws are so far 
derogatory of common law right, that the burden of proof is on 
him, who seeks to prevent the appointment of any one, who is 
alleged to be within a prohibited class.^ But it is clear, under 
the general rules of statutory construction, bj' which the courts 
are guided in their determinations, that the laws for the regu- 
lations of the civil service should receive such a construction 
as will carry out the legislative intention, and eflfectuate the 
dominant principle of the law relating to public officers, viz. ; 
that they are public trusts, to be administered for the common 
welfare, and not as reward for part}' and political services. 

Any appointment, made in violation of these laws, is illegal 
and void ; and no appropriation is valid, which is made to pay 
for services rendered under such an illegal appointment.^ 

§ 71. Preference to yeterans — It is sometimes provided 
that, in making appointments to office, state or municipal, pref- 
erence shall be given by the appointing power to honorably 
discharged Union soldiers and sailors ; and advanced age, loss 
of limb or other physical impairment, which does not in fact 
render them incapable, shall not disqualify them.'' This pref- 



• New York, 1883, ch. 354; 1848, oh. 
357, 410; 86, ch. 9; Massachusetts, 
1884, ch. 320; Opinion of Justices, 145 
Mass. 587; Peck v. Eochester, 3 N. 
Y. Supp. 872; Kogers v. Buffalo, 123 
N. Y. 173. 

2 Rogers v. Buffalo, 3 N. Y. Supp. 
C74; People v. Angle, 109 N. Y. 504; 



Rogers v. Buffalo, 51 Hun, 637. 
3 Peo. V. Civ. Ser. Brd., 41 Hun, 287. 
< Rogers v. Buffalo, 51 Hun, 637. 

5 Peck V. Belknap, 55 Him, 91. 

6 Rogers v. Buffalo, 2 N. Y. Supp. 
327; Peck v. Rochester, 3 lb. 852. 

' New York Laws, 1884, ch. 312, 
§1; Amended Laws, 1887, ch. 464; 
109 



72 



MTTNICIPAL COEPOEATtONS. 



[CH. VI. 



erence is to be given in the employment of oidinary laborers,^ 
and applies to veterans in office, when the statute was passed, 
as well as to those who are appointed subsequently .^ The Leg- 
islature having the constitutional power to provide for the do- 
ing of public work by such means as to it may seem proper, 
the constitutionality of laws, creating such a preference, may be 
said to be beyond reasonable doubt ; ^ but the failure of the offi- 
cer, to whom the power of appointment was given, to respect 
the preference so required to be shown to veterans, was held not 
to be a misdemeanor.* But in New York it is now provided 
by statute, that the failure to observe these provisions for the 
preference to veterans is a misdemeanor.® 

§ 72. Official bonds. — Municipal officials, intrusted with pub- 
lic money or property, are invariably required to give bonds for 
the safe custody of what is committed to their charge ; but, un- 
less the failure to furnish the proper surety promptly is expressly 
declared to vacate the office, the bond may be given after the 
officer has begun the performance of his duties.® So, too, it 
has been held that a town may lawfully require a receiving or 
disbursing officer to give bonds without having an express power 
to do so.'' Unless some precise form is prescribed by charter 
or statute and an exact compliance therewith made essential to 
their Validity, official bonds will be valid, so long as their con- 
ditions conform in a substantial manner to the general stat- 
utory requirements.^ So bonds, without seals, or without 



State V. Board of Public Works, 51 
K. J. L. 240; Sullivan v. Gilroy, 55 
Hun, 585; Peo. v. French, 51 Hun. 
.345; Peo. v. Wallace, 55 Hun, 585; 
Opinion of Justices, 145 Mass. 587. 

1 Sullivan v. Gilroy, 55 Hun, 285. 

2 People V. French, 52 Hun, 464: 
See generally State v. Boughner, (N. 
J. 93) 26 Atl. K. 808; People v. 
Com'rs, 65 Hun, 169; State v. De- 
lany, (N. J. 93) 25 Atl. R. 936; but 
held in New York nottoapply to pro- 
motions; Zn re McGuire, 50 Hun, 203. 

" Morris v. Nevpark, (S. J. 93) 26 
Atl. E. 82; In re Wardmau, 2 N. Y. 
S. 324; 22 Ab. N. C. 137; People v. 
Bardin, 7 lb. 123; People v. Wal- 
lace, 55 Hun, 149. 

. 110 



« People V. Dustin, 3 N. Y. S. 522. 

5 N. Y. Laws, 1884, ch. 312, § 312, 
as amended by Laws 1887, ch. 464, 

eCawley v. Peo., 95 111. 249; Cas- 
key V. Greensb. 78 Ind. 233; State 
V. Barnes, 33 Pac. R. 621; Launtz v. 
Peo., 113 111. 137; U. S. v. LeBaron, 
19 How. 73; s. c, 4 Wall. 642; Sproul 
V. Lawrence, 33 Ala. 674; State v. 
Findley, 10 Ohio, 51 ; Smith v. Cronk- 
hite, 8 Ind. 134. 

' Morrell v. Sylvester, 1 Greenl. 
(Me.) 248; Lynn v. Cumberland, (Md. 
93) 26 Atl. R. 1061. • 

8 People V. Benfield, 80 Mich. 265; 
State V. Barnes, (Kan. 93) 33 Pac. K. 
621; Herd v. Cist, (Ky. 89) 12 S. W. 
R. 466. 



CH. VI.] MtTNlCIPAL ELECTIONS AND OFFICEKS. 



§73 



designation of the obligee,^ are nevertheless valid. Addition- 
al duties, analogous to those already appertaining to the office, 
may be imposed upon the official, without releasing the sureties 
or affecting their liability, unless the bond contains express re- 
striction against liability for additional duties of any sort.^ 

If bonds be given voluntarily, and not in pursuance of any 
statute or ordinance requiring them, they are nevertheless 
good as common law obligations, and the municipality can 
I'ecover on them from the obligors.^ The bond being condi- 
tioned for the faithful performance of the duties of an official 
during his term of office, the obligors are not liable for mal- 
feasance or nonfeasance by the officer, which has occuri-ed dur- 
ing a term, either prior * or subsequent ^ to that for which the 
bond was executed. 

§ 73. Official oath. — It is the custom to require municipal 
officers to take an oath before entering upon the performance 
of the duties of their office ; ^ and statutes requiring such oath 
are generally mandatory in their nature. But such oath of 
office is by no means indispensable and its requisition depends 
upon usage and positive statutory direction.^ 

The oath is generally to the effect, that the official will faith- 
fully discharge the duties of his office ; and sometimes, that he 
will support the constitution of the United States and of the 
state.^ But no oath can be required which imposes any test of 



1 State V. Wood, 51 Ark. 205; Fel- 
lows V. Gilraan, 4 Wend. 414. 

2 Morrow v. Wood, 56 Ala. 1 ; Or- 
man v. Pueblo, 8 Col. 292; Board 
etc. V. Quick, 99 N. Y. 138; Mayor 
V. Kelly, 98 lb. 467; Board v. Clark, 
92 lb. 467. • 

8 Com. V. Wolbert, 6 Binn. 292; 
Supervisors v. Coffinbury, 1 Mich. 
355 ; Peo. v. John, 22 lb. 461 ; Platte- 
ville V. Hopper, 63 Wis. 381 ; Turner 
V. Clark, 67 Mo. 243; Montville v. 
Houghton, 7 Conn. 543; but see con- 
tra, State V. Hersey, 56 Iowa, 404; 
State V. Bartlett, 30 Miss. 624; U. 
S. V. Humason, 6 Sawy. 199. 

4 State V. Finn, 98 Mo. 532; Padu- 
cah V. Cully, 9 Bush (Ky.) 323; Bis- 
sell. V. Saxton, 77 N. Y. 191 ; Myers 



V. U. S., 1 McLean, 493; Overacre v. 
Garrett, 5 Lans. 156; Rochester v. 
Bandall, 105 Mass. 295; Manaska v. 
Ingalls, 16 Iowa, 81; Townsend v. 
Everett, 4 Ala. 607; Miller v. Stew- 
art, 9 Wheat. 702; Stern v. Peo., 96 
111. 475 ; Mclntire v. Sch. Trustees, 3 
111. App. 77; Austin v. French, 7 
Met. 126; Kingston I. Co. v. Decker, 
33 Barb. 196; U. S. v. Boyd, 5 How. 50. 

6 Dover v. Twombly, 42 N. H. 59; 
Chelmsford Co. v. Demarest, 7 G-ray 
(Mass.) 1; Mayor v. Horn, 2 Harr. 
(Del.) 190. 

6 State V. Stanley, 66 N. C. 59; Fox 
v. McDonald (Ala. 93), 13 So. K. 416. 

' Johnson v. Wilson, 2 N. H. 202; 
State v. Stanley, supra. 

sstimson's Am. Stat. L. §§ 224, 225. 
Ill 



§74 



MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 



[CH. VI. 



a religious nature,^ or which renders an individual ineligible 
for any previous act, which was not a crime when committed.'' 

If the taking of an official oath is by statute or usage a con- 
dition precedent to admittance into office, a person elected or 
appointed thereto cannot justify ; nor does he possess any rights, 
as such officer, before he shall have complied wj^th this require- 
ment of the law.^ But a substantial compliance with the law 
is all that is required ; * and, although when a form is prescribed 
it should be followed,* if the oath taken is equivalent in sub- 
stance to that prescribed, it has been held to be sufficient.® 

§ 74. Disqualification on account of prior ofScial posi- 
tion. — In many of tlie United States, statutes exist which pro- 
hibit the holding of more than one lucrative office ^ of any 
sort, and the appointment or election of members of the Legisla- 
ture to offices which have been created, or the compensation of 
which has been increased during their terms, or the election to 
the Legislature of a person holding a federal office.^ 

These statutes receive a strict, if not literal construction ; ' 
and appointments made in contravention of their terms are void.^** 
It has been held, however, that these statutes do not apply to 
a merely de facto incumbency, as when a coroner is authorized 



iCon. TJ. S., art. 6, §3. 

^ Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 
277. See Tiederaan's Limitations of 
Police Power, pp. 72-74. 

^ Thompson v. Nicholson, 12 Rob. 
La. 326; Peo. v. McKinney, 52 N. Y. 
374) City v. Given, 60 Pa. St. 136. 

iQlney v. Pearee, 1 R. I. 292; Rid- 
dle V. Bedford Co., 7 Serg. & Rawle, 
392; Neale v. Overseers, 5 Watts. 
588; State v. Perkins, 24 N. J. L. 
409; Davis V. Berger, 54 Mich. 692; 
Hoaglandv. Culvert, 20 N. J. L. 387," 
Tide Water v. Archer, 9 Gill & J. 
(Md.) 479. 

^Bassett v. Den, 17 N. J. L. 432; 
State V. Ayres, 15 lb. 479; Hankins 
V. Culloway, 88 111. 485; Young v. 
State, 7 GUI & J. (Md.) 253. 

« State V. Trenton, 35 N. J. L. 485. 

'' County recorder, commissioner, 
township trustee and supervisor are 
lucrative offices in the constitutional 

112 



sense. Daily v. State, 8 Blackf. 329; 
Creighton v. Piper, 14 Ind. 182; but 
not city councilman. State v. Kirk, 
44 Ind. 401. 

8 Stimson's Am. Stat. L. §220; 
Darley v. State, 8 Blackf. 329; In re 
Carlis, 11 R. I. 638; State v. Degress, 
53 Tex. 387; Davenport v. Mayor, 67 
N. Y. 456; State v. Valle, 41 Mo. 29; 
Peo. v. Leonard, 73 Cal. 230; Foltz 
V. Kerlin, 105 Ind. 221. 

3 Goal V. Townsend, 77 Tex. 404; 
Troy V. Wooten, 10 Ind. 377; State v. 
Harrison, 116 Ind. 300; Heller v. 
Stremmel, 52 Mo. 309; State v. Wes- 
ton, 4 Neb. 234; De Turk v. Com., 129 
Pa. St. 151; Carpenter v. Peo., 8 
Colo. 116; State v. McCollister, 11 
Ohio, 46. 

i» State V. Taylor, 12 Ohio St. 130; 
Brady v. Howe,. 50 Miss. 625; Shelby 
V. Alcorn, 36 lb. 273; McGregor v. 
Balch, 14 Vt. 428. 



CH. VI.] MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AND OFFICERS. 



§75 



by statute, in certain contingencies, to perform part of the du- 
ties of a sheriff ; ^ nor, if the term of the prior office has expired, 
and the incumbent be occupied only with the settlement of his 
affairs, in preparation for a surrender of the office to his suc- 



cessor 



,2 



So, also, if the provision against holding incompatible offices 
be found in the constitution, it has been held that the prohibi- 
tion is applicable only to offices ^¥hich are established or pro- 
vided for by the body of the constitution, and would not prevent 
the incumbent of such an office from holding a municipal office.* 
When the constitution forbids the holding of an office for more 
than a certain specified number of consecutive terms, any period 
of time, intervening between the terms, could prevent the attach- 
ment of such disqualification.* 

§ 75. Appointiuents to office. — At common law, every cor- 
poration lias an inherent power to appoint or elect such officers 
as may be necessary to enable it to carry out the purposes for 
which it was created.* And municipal corporations have the 
power, in the absence of statutory regulations, to appoint or 
elect officers, whose sphere of activity is limited to the exercise 
of the charter powers and the enforcement of the municipal by- 
laws.^ In this countrjs it is the universal practice for the char- 
ter or municipal constitution to provide for the creation of all 
the principal officers, in such a way as to leave very little oppor- 
tunity for the exercise of this common law power.'^ These stat- 
utory provisions must be strictly observed ; ^ and the choice of 



i Powell V. Wilson, 16 Tex. 59; 
Crawford v. Dunbar, 52 Cal. 36. 

•■'State V. Somniers, 96 N. C. 467; 
Peo. V. Duane, 55 Hun, 315. 

^Justices' Opinions, 68 Me. 594; 
Peo. V. Whitman, 10 Cal. 38; State 
V. Somnier, 33 La. An. 237; Peo. v. 
Duane, 55 Hun, 315 ; State v. Mont- 
gomery, 25 La. An. 138; State v. 
Kirk, 44 Ind. 401 ; Molian v. Jackson, 
52 Ind. 599; De Turk v. Com., 129 
Pa. St. 151. 

*Horton v. Watson, 23 Kan. 229; 
State V. Derbes, 11 La. An. 50; Grie- 
bel V. State, 111 Ind. 369; Davis v. 
Patten, 41 Kan. 480. 
8 



6 Vintners v. Passey, 1 Burr, 237; 
Dillon's Mun. Corp. §206; Lafayette 
V. State, 69 Ind. 218; Peo. v. Stevens, 
51 How. Pr. 103. 

6 Dillon's Mun. Corp. 206. 

7 People V. Bedell, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 
196; Hotiman v. Jersey City, 34 N. 
J. L. 172; Hoboken v. Harrison, 30 
lb. 73; People v. Pinokney, 32 N. Y. 
377; People v. Canly, 44 111. 33. 

» State V. Dillon, 125 Ind. 65 ; Jones 
V. Parkhurst, 22 N. E. E. 899; 150 
Mass. 243; Jacksonville v. Allen, 25 
111. Ap. 54; Bellows v. Cincjinnati, 
11 Ohio St. 544; Monroe v. Hoffman, 
29 La. An. 651. 

113 



§76 



MTJNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 



[CH. vr. 



an officer, in any way not prescribed by law, is void.^ In one 
case, however, authority to appoint was inferred from the fre- 
quent mention which was made in the charter of the officer and 
his duties.'^ 

§ 76. Exercise of the appointing power. — The appointing 
power must exercise its functions in the manner prescribed by 
law.* Thus, when a city council is empowered to elect or ap- 
point ofiScials, but the mode, in which the power is to be exer- 
cised, is not specifically pointed out, it may elect or appoint 
either by resolution or by ballot ; * and it may in certain contin- 
gencies delegate the power of appointment to a committee.^ It 
has been held that an appointment can be made by parol, only 
when such a method is sanctioned by the terms of the statute, 
from which the power is derived ; •> while it is the rule in states, 
where the mode is not prescribed, that no writing is required.'' 

Until the act of appointment is legally completed, it may be 
recalled; but when the act of appointment is consummated, it 
is irrevocable, provided the appointee cannot be removed by 
the appointing power. In such cases, the power of appoint- 
ment to that office cannot be again exercised, until the office 
becomes vacant by voluntary resignation or death of the ap- 
pointee.^ But when an appointment is illegally made, or fraud- 



' Hobokeu v. Harrison, 30 N. J. L. 
"73; Hoffman v. Jer. City, 34 lb. 172; 
State v. Michellon, 42 N. J. L. 405; 
Stone V. Small, 54 Vt. 498; Claren- 
don V. Phila., 13 Phila. 54; Baker v. 
Pt. Huron Police Com'rs, 62 Mich. 
527; State v. Hudson, 29 N. J. L. 
104; State v. Bryson, 44 Ohio St. 
457; Saunders v. Lawrence, 141 Mass. 
380. 

2Peo. V. Bedell, 2 Hill (X. Y.) 196; 
see Field v. Gir. Col., 14 Pa. St. 233. 

3 Launtz v. Peo., 113 111. 137; State 
V. Cui-ry, (93 Ind.) 33 N. E. R. 685; 
State V. Guiney, 26 Minn. 313 ; State 
v. Peele, 124 Ind. 515 ; State v. Dillon, 
125 Ind. 65; State v. Kenny, 45 N. J. 
L. 251; Peo. v. Murray, 70 N. Y. 521; 
State V. Michellon, 42 K. J. L. 405 ; 
Com. V. Crezer, (93 Pa.) 26 Atl. R. 
114 



697; Commonwealth v. Crogaoi, 26 
Atl. R. 697; 155 Pa. St. 448. 

*Low V. Commissioners, R. M. 
Charlt. (Ga.) 302. 

5 Trowbridge v. Newark, 46 N.- J. 
L. 140; Com. v. Pittsburgh, 14 Pa. 
St. 177; Peo. v. Bedell, 2 Hill (N.Y.) 
196; Com. v. Fitler, 147 Pa. St. 288. 

6 Peo. V. Murray, 70 N. Y. 521 (ex- 
cise commissioners) ; Peo. v. Murray, 
5 Hun, 42, citing Peo. v. Molineaux, 
53 Barb. 9; Peo. v. Willard, 44 Hun, 
580; Peo. v. Fitzsimmons, 68 N. Y. 
514. 

' Hoke V. Field, 10 Bush (Ky.) 144; 
Peo. V. Murray, 5 Hun, 42; Saunders 
V. Owen, 2 Salk. (Eug.) 247. 

8 Peo. V. Woodruff, 32 N. Y. 355; 
Peo. V. Stowell, 9 Abb. N. C. 456; 
State V. Wilson, 2 N. H. 456. 



CH. VE.J MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AND OmCERS. 



§78 



ulently obtained, it is void, and a subsequent appointment will 
be valid.i Failure to appoint, at a date prescribed by law, does 
not cause a forfeiture of the power ; its exercise being essential 
to the public welfare.^ But the reverse of this is the case when, 
from the nature of the appointment, the character of the office 
to be filled, or from tlie language employed by the statute con- 
ferring the power, it is evident that the requirement as to the 
specific time, at which it is to be exercised, was intended as a 
limitation or restraint upon the power.'^ 

§ 77. Legality of appointment presumed. — When a mu- 
nicipal or other public official has acted notoriously as such, 
and has been continuously recognized as such by the corpora- 
tion, a regular legal appointment will be presumed, and his au- 
thority to bind the corporation may be implied ; nor need any 
written proof of his appointment be produced.* But such pre- 
sumption may be rebutted,^ although not by the officer him- 
self ; ^ he being estopped upon general principles, in order to 
protect innocent third persons. The inquiry into the validity 
of his appointment can only be had at the instance of the pub- 
lic or of citizens, by a proceeding in quo warranto!' 

§ 78. Acceptance of office. — If no special provision of 
the law requires it, acceptance need not be couched in express 
terms; but may be, and usually is, implied from the acts of 
qualifying and entering upon the performance of official duty.* 
It has, howevei', been held that an acceptance is always neces- 



State V. Chapman, 44 Conn. 495; 
Peo. V. Keid, 11 Colo. 138; Peo. v. 
Cazneau, 20 Cal. 503; Thomas v. 
Burnes, 23 Miss. 550; State v. Mc- 
Neely, 24 La. Ann. 19. 

' Com. V. Phila. Comrs., 5 Binn. 
(Pa.) 534; Com. v. Douglas, 1 lb. 
77; Peo. v. Eeid, 11 Colo. 138. 

2 Dyei- V. Bayne, 54 Mich. 87; Peo. 
V. Allen, 6 Wend. 486; Peo. v. Wheel- 
er, 18 Hun, 540; Peo. v. Board, 46 
lb. 296. 

8 Peo. V. Allen, 6 Wend. 486; Peo. 
V. Board, 46 Hun, 296. 

* Bank etc. v. Dandridge, 12 Wheat. 
(U. S.) 64, 70; Kllley v. Forsee, 57 
Mo. 390; Johnston v. Wilson, 2 N. 
H. 202; 9 Am. Dec. 50; Jones v. 



Gibson, 1 N. H. 266; Carter v. Symp- 
son, 8 B. Mon. 155; Peo. v. Clingan, 
5 Cal. 389; State v. Ferguson, 31 N. 
J. L. 107; State V. Skrine, 3 Brev. 
(S. C.) 516; Fenwick v. Sears, 2 
Cranch. 150. 

6 Johnson v. Wilson, 2 N. H. 202; 
Regina v. Koberts, 36 Law Times 
Rep. 690; s. c, 6 Am. Law Rep. 
414. 

•i State V. Sellers, 7 Rich. Law, 
368; State v. Mayberry, 3 Strob. 144. 

' Post, § 381. 

8 Written acceptance. See Winne- 
gar V. Rowe, 1 Cow. 258 ; State v. 
Weatherby, 17 Neb. 553 ; Johnson v. 
Wilson, 2 N. H. .202; Hartford v. 
Bennett, 10 Ohio St. 441. 

115 



§ 79 



MUNICIPAL COEPORATIOKS. 



[CH. VI. 



sary, and passive acquiescence in election or appointment will 
not be permitted to take its place.-*- By the common la-w, ofiSce 
■was regarded as a burden in the nature of a public duty, and 
a citizen elected thereto, under a municipal corporation, was 
obliged to accept or render himself indictable by his refusal."'' 
Although this common law rule has almost wholly fallen into 
desuetude in America b}"- reason of the avidity -with which 
public office is sought after, it has been found necessary in some 
localities to render the holding of certain offices, which are 
more onerous than lucrative, obligatory upon those appointed 
or elected to them.* 

But an individual, holding one office, cannot be compelled 
to accept another, which is legally incompatible with the former.* 
And it has been held that no one is under the necessity of ac- 
cepting an official position, to which no compensation is at- 
tached.® This is certainly not a sound conclusion, and is not 
followed b)^ the authorities, administrative or judicial. It is 
not uncommon to require official duty of one, without providing 
adequate compensation, as in the case of duty as a juror; and 
sometimes, without any provision for personal compensation 
whatever, as in the case of military service. Such laws have 
iiever been declared to be unconstitutional.'' 

I 79. Compensation. — The transcendent authority, which 
the Legislature possesses over public officers within its jurisdic- 
tion, can be, and is ordinarily, transferred to the municipalities 
themselves ; and thus they are given complete control over 
their own officials.^ But municipal officers are created, and 
exist, wholly for the benefit of the public ; and the legislative 
power may, unless hampered by constitutional restraints, abridge 
or increase their terms, add to or diminish official duties, regu- 
late, increase or diminish official compensation in any way ; 



1 Smith V. Moore, 90 Ind. 294. 

2Edtrards v. U. S., 103 U. S. 471; 
State V. Ferguson, 31 N. J. L. 107; 
Vanackers Case, 1 Ld. Rayra. 496. 

3 London V. Headen, 76 N". C. 72; 
Edwards v. U. S., supra ; Brooklyn v. 
Soholes, 31 Hun, 110; Haywood v. 
Bleecker, 11 Johns. 432;Wmnegar v. 
Foe, supra; Bentley v. Phelps, 27 
Barb. 524; State v. Molntyre, 3 Ired. 
116 



171; Conner v. Mayor, 2 Sandf. 355; 
Hake v. Henderson, 4 Dev. (S. C.) 1. 
*Hartf. V. Bennett, 10 Ohio St. 441; 
Smith V. Moore, 90 Ind. 294; see con- 
tra, Goettman v. Mayor, 6 Hun, 132. 

5 Hinze v. People, 92 111. 406. 

6 Dillon Mun. Corp. § 228. 

'Dil. Mun. Corp., §229; State v. 
Douglas, 26 Wis. 428; Love v. Jer. 
City, 40 X. J. L. 456. 



CH. VI.] MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AND OFFICBKS. 



79 



and if the public interest demand it, abolish the ofEce alto- 
gether.-' This wide-reaching control over the duration of mu- 
nicipal officers maybe delegated to the municipal corporation ; 
and it has been held that when a department, a board of offi- 
cers, or a single oflScial, is invested with a discretionary au- 
thority to create an office, the power to abolish such office at 
pleasure follows as an incident of the creative power.^ Con- 
stitutional restrictions upon the power to increase or diminish 
official compensation will receive liberal construction and rigid 
enforcement; * and the legislative power of control is further 
qualified by the rule that subsequent legislation should not be 
permitted to affect already established rates of compensation, 
so far as incumbents are concerned, unless it is plainly intended 
to apply thereto.* 

There is no implied promise or liability on the part of munici- 
pal corporations to pay salaries to those officials, whom it is 



1 State V. Starkey, (Minn. 92) 52 N. 
W. K. 24; Stanfield v. State, (Tex. 92) 
18 S. W. K. 577; State v. Kaw, (Iowa, 
92) 46 N. W. E. 872; Swann v. 
Buck, 40 Miss. 208; Bryan v. Cattell, 
15 Iowa, 538, 553; Butler v. Penn., 10 
How. 402; Smith v. New York, 37 N. 
Y. 518; Peo. v. Mahaney, 13 Mich. 
481 ; Bouglas v. Timme, (Neb. 90) 49 
N. W. R. 266. 

2 Baldwin v. Phila., 99 Pa. St. 164; 
Cox V. Newark, 103 N. Y. 519; Ford 
V. Har. Oomrs., 81 Oal. 19; Peo. v. 
Kings Co., 105 N. Y. ; State v. Mayor, 
15 Lea. 697; Harvey v. Hush Co., 32 
Kan. 159; Bird v. Wasco, 3 lb. 282; 
Cowdin V. Huff, 10 Ind. 83; Prince 
V. Skillen, 71 Me. 361; Conner v. 
Mayor, 5 N. Y. 285; Warner v. Peo., 
7 Hill (N. Y.) 81; 2 Denio, 272; Mar- 
den V. Portsmouth, 59 N. H. 18; State 
V. Gales, 77 N. C. 283; Castle v. Win- 
tah, 2 Wyom. 126; Perkins v. Corbin, 
45 Ala. 103; Hennepin Co. v. Jones, 
18 Minn. 199; Kendall v. Canton, 53 
Miss. 526; Robinson v. White, 26 Ai-k. 
139; Augusta v. Sweeney, 44 Ga. 463; 
Riley v. Mayor, 96 N. Y. 331 ; Crawf . 
Co. V. Nash, 99 Pa. St. 253; Field v. 



Marge, 83 Va. 882; Peo. v. Lippin- 
cott, 67 111. 333; Iowa City v. Foster, 
10 Iowa, 189; Euoker v. Supervisor, 
7 W. Va. 661; U. S. v. Mitchell, 109 
IJ. S. 146; Williams v. Newport, 12 
Bush (Ky.) 438; Evans v. Populus, 
22 La. An. 121. 

8 State V. Raine, (Ohio 92) 31 N. E. 
R. 741; Lloyd v. Silver Bow Co., 
(Mont. 92) 28 Pac. R. 453; Weeks v. 
Texarkana, 50 Ark. 81; Hall v. Bever- 
idge, 81 111. 128; Green v. Fresno, 
(Cal. 92) 30 Pac. R. 544; Wheelock 
V. Peo., 84 111. 551; Apple v. Craw- 
ford Co., 105 Pa. St. 300; Doe v. 
Wash'n Co., 30 Minn. 392 ; Merri weth- 
er V. U. S., 22 Ct. of Claims, 332; 
Cherokee Co. v. Chew, 44 Kan. 162; 
Garvie v. Hartf., 54 Conn. 440; Cox 
V. Barlington, 43 Iowa, 612. 

* Council Bluffs v.Waterman, (Iowa, 
92) 53 N. W. R. 289; Tacoma v. Lil- 
lis, (Wash. 93) 31 Pac. 321; Kirk- 
wood V. De Soto, 87 Cal. 394; Wren 
V. Luzerne Co., 9 Pa. Co. Ct. 22; 
State V. Raine, supra ; Woodruff v. 
Imperial, etc., 90 N. Y. 521; State v. 
Steele, 57 Tex. 200 ; Cox v. New York, 
103 N. Y. 519. 

117 



§79 



MUNICIPAL COEPOEATIONS. 



[CH. VI. 



necessary for them to appoint ; ^ and compensation for oJBBcial 
service should be, and almost universally is, fixed, either by 
charter, general law or by ordinance, or by a special contract.^ 
Municipal officials are always considered to have accepted of- 
fice, with full knowledge on their part of all such existing pro- 
visions, referring to their own compensation or duties.^ So, 
likewise and for the same reasons, a municipal official cannot 
recover compensation for services rendered under a statute, 
which is in violation of some provision of the constitution.* 

The authorities seem to hold that an officer de facto can- 
not recover the salary of the office ; * such salary being depend- 
ent on the legal title to the office.^ And it has been held that 
the officer de jure may recover his compensation from the mu- 
nicipality, although such compensation ^has already been made 
to the officer de facto? This question is however far from be- 
ing settled.^ And, if the paj'-ment was made prior to a deter- 
mination of the legal title to the office, it is held to be a good 



1 Blackburne v. Oklahoma, 31 Pac. 
K. 782; Talbot v. E. Maohias, 76 Me. 
416; Haswell v. New York, 81 N. Y. 
255; Perry v. Cheboygan, 55 Micb. 
250; Drott V. Kiverside, 4 Ohio Clr. 
Ct. 312 ; Walker v. Cook, 129 Mass. 
578; State v. Brewer, 59 Ala. 130; 
White V. Levant, 78 Me. 568; Eowe 
V. Kern, 75 Cal. 353 ; Eiley v. Kansas 
City, 31 Mo. App. 439; Barnes v. Ba- 
kersfleld, 5 Vt. 375 ; Carlyle v. Sharp, 
51 111. 71 ; Gamier v. St. Louis, 37 
Mo. 554; Barton v. N. O., 16 La. An. 
317; Posey v. Mobile Co., 50 Ala. 6; 
Crittenden Co. v. Crump, 25 Ark. 
235; Worthen v. Grayson Co. Ct., 13 
Bush, 53. 

2 Smith V. Com., 41 Pa. St. 335; 
Devoy v. New York, 39 Barb. 169; 
Bladen V. Phila.,60 Pa. St. 464; Bos- 
worth V. New Orl., 26 La. 464. 

" Locke V. Ceu. City, 4 Col. 65. 
And he cannot claim any other com- 
pensation for services rendered, on 
any theory of an implied contract, 
or a quantum meruit. Dil. Mun. Corp. 
§ 230; Coyne v. Eennie, (Cal. 93) 32 
Pac. R. 578; Barnes v. Williams, 13 
118 



S. W. E. 845. 

* Meagher v. County, 5 Nev. 244; 
City V. Sears, 2 Col. 588; Lancaster 
V. Fulton, 24 W. N. C. 401. 

^ Sammis v. King, 40 Conn. 298; 
Bentley v. Phillips, 27 Barb. 524; 
Peo.-v. Tieman, 30 lb. 193; State v. 
Carrol, 38 Conn. 471 ; Riddle v. Bedf . 
Co., 7 S. & E. (Pa.) 386. 

6 Burke v. Edgar, 67 Cal. 182; Me 
chan V. Hudson, 46 N. J. L. 276; 
Dorsey v. Smith, 28 Cal. 21; Carroll 
V. Silbenthaler, 37 lb. 193; Meagher 
V. Co., 5 Nev. 244. 

' State V. Carr, ( Ind. 92) 28 N. E. 
E. 88; State v. Holmes, 43 La. An. 
1185; Andrews v. Portland, 79 Me. 
484; Williams v. Clayton, 21 Pa. Eep. 
398. 

8 See cases contra to text, Parrel 
V. Bridgeport, 45 Conn. 191; Bruns- 
wick V. Fahm, 60 Ga. 109; Smith v. 
New York, 37 N. Y. 518; Dolan v. 
Mayor, 68 N. Y. 279; Hadley v. May- 
or, 33 N. Y. 603; Cf. McVeany v. 
New York, 80 N. Y. 135; and sec. 85 
on Illegal Removal and cases there 
cited. See, also, § 88. 



CH. VI.] MXTNICIPAI, ELECTIONS AND OFFICERS. 



§79 



defence to an action by the officer de jure?- But in such a case 
the officer de facto is liable for the amount so received to the 
officer de jure.^ 

Where the holding of a municipal office does not create any- 
contractual relation ^ a municipality parallel with a similar au- 
thority, of the state, has, unless restrained by an express rule of 
constitutional or statute law, the power to increase or diminish 
the official compensation during the official term, or at any other 
time.* But it has been held that the employment of a person, 
in a professional or semi-private capacity ; as, for example, that 
of engineer or attorney at law, for a fixed period at a sum 
agreed on (even though under an ordinance), constitutes a 
contract, the obligation of which cannot be impaired. But in 
such cases, there must be a coincidence on both sides of all the 
elements which constitute a contract. The services should be 
of a professional, rather than of an official character ; and the 
party entitled to compensation should be precluded from with- 
drawing at his pleasure, a privilege which is almost universally 
an incident of official positions.^ These cases are, however, not 



1 Hannon v. Grizzard, 96 N. C. 293; 
Selby V. Portland, 14 Greg. 243; Lu- 
zerne Co. V. Trimmer, 95 Pa. St. 97; 
Peo. V. Brennan, 1 Abb. Pr. N. L 184; 
In re Havird (Idaho), 24 Pac. Eep. 
542; Wheatley v. Covington, 11 Busli 
18; Wayne Co. v. Benvit, 20 Mich. 
176; 4 Am. Rep. 382; Parker v. Dak. 
Co., 4 Minn. 59; Andrews v. Port- 
land, 79 Me. 484 ; MoVeany v. Mayor, 
80 N. T. 185 ; Saline v. Anderson, 20 
Kan. 298; Schlass v. Hewlett, 81 Ala. 
266; Shaw v. Pima Co. (Ariz. 1888), 
18 Pac. Rep. 272; Steubenville v. 
Gulp, 38 Ohio St. 18. 

2Mayfield v. Moore, 53 HI. 428; 
Glasscock v. Lyons, 20 Ind. 1; An- 
drews V. Portland, 79 Me. 484; Nich- 
ols V. McLean, 101 N. Y. 526; Saline 
Co. V. Anderson, 20 Kan. 298; Peo. 
V. Miller, 24 Mich. 458; Wayne Co. v. 
Benort, 20 lb. 176; Dolan v. Mayor, 
68 K. Y. ^74; Rule v. Tait, 38 Kan. 
765; Bier v. Garrell, 30 W. Va. 95; 
Hunter v. Chandler, 45 Mo. 452. 



8 Com. V. Bacon, 6 Serg. & R. 322 ; 
Baker v. Pittsburgh, 4 Pa. St. 49; 
Univ. V. Walden, 15 Ala. 655 ; Fitz- 
simmons v. B'klyn, 102 N. Y. 536. 

* Doolan v. Manitowoc, 48 Wis. 
312; Barrett v. New Oris., 38 La. 
An. 101; Devoy v. Mayor, 39 Barb. 
169; Green v. Mayor, 5 Ab. Pr. 503; 
Butcher v. Camden, 29 N. J. Eq. 
478; Mayor v. Gear, 27 N. J. L. 265; 
Crane v. Des Moines, 47 Iowa, 105 ; 
Augusta V. Sweeney, 44 Ga. 463; 
Madison v. Kelso, 32 Ind. 79; Carr 
V. St. Louis, 9 Mo. 191 ; Iowa City v. 
Foster, 10 Iowa, 189; Cox v. Bur- 
lington, 43 lb. 612; Gillespie v. 
Mayor, 6 Daly, 286; Conner v. Mayor, 
5 N. Y. 285 ; Haswell v. Mayor, 81 
N. Y. 255; lb. 425; Waldraven v. 
Memphis, 4 Coldw. 431. 

6Dil. Munc. Corp. §232; Chase v. 
Lowell, 7 Gray, 33; Caverly v. Low- 
ell, 1 Allen, 289; contra, Chicago v. 
Edwards, 58 111. 252; Hiestand v. N. 
O., 14 La. An. 330. 

119 



§79 



MUNICIPAL CORPOKATIOXS. 



[CH. VI. 



very safe guides in determining the extent of the exception to 
the general rule, if there be any well-founded exception at all. 
The qualification, that the official must not have the privilege 
of resigning his position, prior to the expiration of his term, 
is undoubtedly indispensable, but the privilege of resignation, 
seems to be rather a result, than a cause, of the governmental 
power to abolish or interfere with the duties and perquisites of 
the office. Thus, it is held that the appointment of a police 
officer for one year does not constitute a binding contract, 
which cannot be abrogated or altered by the city.^ But if, as 
is not unusual, the constitution of the state forbids any dimi- 
nution or increase of the salary of an officer during his incum- 
bency, such officer may make a contract with the government 
for a change in the terms of his service, which, if based upon 
a sufficient consideration, will be binding upon both parties.^ 
But, after official services have been fully rendered, an exe- 
cuted contract exists between the city and the official, the ob- 
ligation of which is always beyond impairment or change by 
State or municipalauthorities.^ For, at this stage of the trans- 
action, the relation of debtor and creditor is created, with an 
executed consideration on the part of the official, and the rights 
of the latter ma)' be enforced by mandamus.^ Such a judicial 
proceeding would be necessary, as a means of recovery of sal- 
ary already earned, even where the claimant, as treasurer or 
collector, has charge of the public funds. He cannot pay him- 
self out of these funds, or offset a legal demand made on him 
for such money, by his claim for compensation.® 

An official cannot claim an extra allowance of salary for the 
discharge of incidental duties, even though his compensation 
be grossly inadequate ; ^ or the duties pertaining to his office be 



1 Chicago V. Edwards, 58 111. 252. 

- Crane v. Des Moines, 47 Iowa, 
105 ; Iowa City v. Foster, 10 Iowa, 189. 

3 Fisk V. Jef. Pol. Jury, 116 U. S. 
131; Stewart v. Jef. Pol. Jury, 116 
lb. 135. 

■> See § 375. 

* New Orleans v. Fimerty, 27 La. 
Am. 681; 7ft re Clarke's Fees, 25 Hun, 
593; Del. Co. v. Griffen, 17 Iowa, 166; 
State V. Boyd, 19 Nev. 356; Cullom 
V. Dulloff, 94 111. 330. 
120 



6 Beard v. Decatur, 64 Tex. 7; 
Hobbs V. Tonkers, 32 Hun, 454; 
Beckwell v. Amador Co., 30 Cal. 237; 
Cowen V. Mayor, 3 Hun, 632; Stock- 
well V. Genesee Co., 16 Mich. 221; 
Kernion, 1 La. An. 419 ; Bartch v. 
Cutler (Utah, 1890), 24 Pac. Kep. 526; 
Nowles V. Jasper Co., 86 Ind. 179; 
Stropes V. Green Co., 84 lb. 560; In 
re Parsons, 54 N". T. Super. Ct. 451; 
Bubb V. Lycoming, 134 Pa. St. 112; 
Shephard v. Lawrence, 141 Mass. 479 ; 



CH. VI.] MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AND OFFICERS. 



§79 



materially increased after his acceptance of the office, and his 
entrance upon the performance of his duties. His only remedy 
in such a case is resignation. ^ A promise to reward an officer, 
to pay him an extra sum beyond his legal compensation, for 
a faithful performance of that which it was his official duty to 
do, is void as without consideration, and cannot be enforced by 
the ofQcial.2 

If, however, the officer be employed or compelled by law to 
render services altogether unofficial which are not merely an 
extension of his official duties and incidental thereto, and which 
could as well be performed by any other person, he may, es- 
pecially if such service entail upon him extra trouble and ex- 
pense, recover additional compensation therefor.^ 



Upton v. U. S., 19 Ct. of CI. 46; Bai-t- 
lett V. U. S., 25 Ct. CI. 389; Decatur 
V. Vermillion, 77 111. 31.5; Stiffler v. 
Delaware, (Ind. 91) 27 Jf. E. K. 641; 
Sidway v. Com'rs, 120 111. 456; Bunn 
V. People, 32 111. App. 410; Hand v. 
Tippecanoe, 26 Ind. 179; Eowe v. 
Kern, Co., 72 Cal. 353; Gilbert v. 
Marshall, 18 B. Mon. 427; Biggs v. 
Brewer, 64 Ala. 282; Gordon Co. v. 
Harris, 81 Ga. 220; Board v. Johnson, 
(Ind. 91) 26 JT. E. K. 821. 

1 Bussier v. Pray, 7 S. & E. (Pa.) 
447; Robinson v. Dunn, 77 Cal. 473; 
Wendell v. Brooklyn, 29 Barbour, 
204; Warner v. Trenton, 24 IST. J. L. 
764; Miami Co. v. Blake, 21 Ind. 32; 
Jay Co. V. Templer, 34 lb. 322; Tur? 
pen V. Tyston Co., 7 lb. 172; Palmer 
V. New York, 2 Sandf. 318; Peo. 
V. Edmonds, 19 Barb. 468; Territory 
v. Carson, 7 Mont. 412; Bay ha v. 
Webster Co., 18 Neb. 131; State v. 
Bloxham, (Fla. 1890) 7 So. Eep. 878; 
Billings V. Mayor, 68 N. Y. 413; Lane. 
Co. V. Fulton, (Pa. 89) 18 Atl. Eep. 
384; Haynes v. State, 3 Humph. 480; 
State V. Holliday, 67 Mo. 64; Wood- 
ruff V. State, 3 Ark. 285; Peo. v. 
Drolin, 33 N. Y. 269; Andrews v. 
Pratt, 44 Cal. 309; Peo. v. Calhoun 
Co., 36 Mich. 10; In re New York etc., 
7 Abb. N. C. 408; Erie Co. v. Jones, 



119 N". Y. 337; State v. Kelsey, 44 N. 
J. L. 1 ; LaGrange v. Cutler, 6 Ind. 
354. 

2 Pilie v. Kew Orleans, 19 La. An. 
274; Decatur v. Vermillion, 77 111. 
315; Gilmore v. Lewis, 12 Ohio, 281; 
Pool V. Boston, 5 Cush. 519; Davies 
V. Burns, 5 Allen, 349; Palmer v. 
Mayor, 2 Sandf. 318; Callahan v. 
Hallett, 1 Caines, 104; Eea v. Smith, 
2 Handy (Ohio) 193; Eobinson v. 
Dunn, 77 Cal. 473; Smith v. Smith, 
1 Bailey (S. C.) 70; Debolt v. Cincin- 
nati, 7 Ohio St. 237; Heslep v. Sacra- 
mento, 2 Cal. 580; Hatch v. Mann, 
15 Wend. 44; Preston v. Bacon, 4 
Conn. 471; Shattuck v. Woods, 1 
Pick. 175. 

3 United States v. Eipley, 7 Pet. 18; 
United States v. Brindle, 110 U. S. 
688; Evans V. Trenton, 24 N. J. L. 764; 
Burroughs v. Norton Co., 29 Kan. 
196; Love v. Baehr, 47 Cal. 364; Lang 
V. Board, (Ind. 89) 22 K. E. E. 667; Mc- 
Bride v. Gr. Rap. , 47 Mich. 236 ; Mayor 
V. Muzzy, 33 Mich. 61; Collier v. U. 
S., 22 Ct. of CI. 125; Long v. U. S., 8 
lb. 398; Peo. v. Haws, 34 Barb. 69; 
Peo. V. Super's, 12 Wend. 257; Bright 
V. Supei-'s, 18 Johns. 242; Mallory v. 
Super's, 2 Cowen, 531; Detroitv. Eed- 
field, 19 Mich. 376; McBride v. De- 

121 



§ 81 



MUNICIPAL COEPOEATCONS. 



[CH. VI. 



§ 80. Assignment of salary. — For the purpose of protect- 
ing the interests of the public service and increasing its effi- 
ciency, by securing to those engaged therein the full benefit of 
all such compensation, which they may be by law entitled to 
receive, it has become a universally accepted principle of law 
and of public policy, that the salary of an official is not assign- 
able.^ Money, due to officials, and remaining in the hands of 
the municipality or its disbursing agents, upon the same prin- 
ciple, is not subject to attachment or garnishment at the instance 
of creditors of the officials.^ 

§ 81. Holding over after expiration of term of ofSce. — 
It is an almost universal rule in the United States that munici- 
pal officers, particularly those of a high grade, as the mayor and 
the officers or commissioners, who are placed at the head of the 
various municipal departments, shall be elected or appointed 
for a certain fixed and definite term. But, in the absence of 
any express constitutional or statutory prohibition, it is never- 
theless the law, that all public officers, whose terms are fixed 
as to duration by law, are entitled to continue in office until a 
successor is legally chosen and qualified.^ To prevent unavoida- 



troit, 47 lb. 236; Huffman v. Green- 
wood, 23 Kan. 281; White v. Polk 
Co., 9 Kan. 307; Eeif v. Paige, 55 
Wis. 496. 

1 Bliss V. Lawrence, 58 N. T. 442; 
Bangs V. Dunn, 66 Cal. 72; Schlass v. 
Hewlett, 81 Ala. 266; King v. Hawk- 
ins, Arizona (1888), 16 Pac. Rep. 
434; Field V. Chipley, 79 Ky. 260;Beal 
V. McVicker, 8 Mo. App. 202; Billings 
^. O'Brien, 45 How. Pr. 392; Shannon 
V. Bruner, 36 Fed. Rep. 147; Brackett 
V. Blake, 7 Met. 335 ; Conway v. Cut- 
ting, 51 N. H. 407; State v. Hastings, 
15 Wis. 78; Mulhall v. Quinn, 1 Gray, 
105; Macomber v. Duane, 2 Allen, 
541. 

2Ladd V. Sale, 57 N. H. 210; Bulk- 
ley V. Eckert, 3 Pa. St. 368; Memphis 
V. Laski, 9Heisk, 511; Bank v. Dib- 
rell, 3 Sneed, 379; Dewey v. Garvey, 
130 Mass. 89; Troy, etc. v. Com., 127 
lb. 43; Hawthorn v. St. Louis, 11 
Mo. 59; Sch. Dis. No. 4 v. Gage, 39 
122 



Mich. 434; Tracy v. Hombuckle, 8 
Bush. 336; Merrell v. Campbell, 49 
Wis. 535 ; Buchanan v. Alexander, 4 
How. 20; Hodgson v. Dexter, 1 
Cranoh, 345; Mayor etc. v. Root, 8 
Md. 95 ; Mayor etc. v. Rowland, 26 
Ala. 498; Clark v. Mobile Com'rs, 36 
lb. 621; McMeekin v. State, 9 Ark. 
563 ; Ward v. Hartf. Co., 12 Conn. 404; 
Merwin v. Chicago, 45 111. 133; Trie- 
bel V. Colburn, 64 111. 370; Hightower 
V. Slaton, 54 Ga. 108 ; Caiaker v. Math- 
ews, 25 Ga. 571 ; Divine v. Harvey, 7 
B. Mon. 439. 

^ Chandler v. Bradish, 23 Vt. 416; 
Sob. Dis. V. Atherton, 12 Met. 105; 
Dow V. Bullock, 13 Gray, 136; Peo. 
V. Fairbury, 51 111. 149; State v. Pa- 
gan, 42 Conn. 32 ; Wier v. Bush, 4 
Litt. 433; Stratton v. Oulton, 28 Cal. 
44; Central v. Sears, 2 Colo. 588; 
Walker v. Ferrill, 58 Ga. 512; State 
V. Harrison, 113 Ind. 440; Thomas v. 
Owens, 4 Mo. 188; Robb v. Carter, 63 



CH. VI.] MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AND OFFICEKS. 



§81 



ble lapses, and to give certainty and permanence to this rea- 
sonable rule of the American common law, it has in most of 
the States been incorporated into a statute.^ An official's right 
to hold over, which terminates with the election and qualifica- 
tion of a successor, is not revived by the death or disability of 
the successor, where such death or disability occurs after quali- 
fication, although it may happen before the successor has be- 
gun to serve. This, at least, is the conclusion of the cases 
cited in the note below.^ But inasmuch as the enforcement of 
this rule would bring about the same evil consequences, which 
attend any delay in the election or qualification of the successor 
after the expiration of the incumbent's term of office, and wliich 
the provision for holding over was intended to prevent, it would 
seem to be reasonable to extend the provision for holding over, 
until the successor has actually entered upon the performance 
of his official duties, and such has been the ruling in one case.* 
When a municipal corporation has been legislated out of ex- 
istence ; * or when the official has for some cause forfeited his 
office,^ the rule, enabling officei's to hold over, has no applica- 
tion whatever. Upon the principle that no one shall profit by 
his own wrong, where it is made the express duty of officials 
to give notice for and to hold an election, at which their succes- 
sor shall be chosen, and they, even though inadvertently, neg- 



Ib. 329; Overseers v. Sears, 22 Pick. 
130; People v. Ferris, 16 Hun, 219; 
Cordiell v. Frizell, 1 Nev. 130; State 
V. Wells, 8 lb. 105 ; York County v. 
Small, 1 W. & S. (Pa.) 315. 

1 Peo. V. Whitman, 10 Cal. 38; Peo. 
V. Tilton, 37 lb. 614; State v. Fagan, 
42 Conn. 32; Peo. v. Keid, 11 Cal. 
138; Bonner v. State, 7 Ga. 473; Peo. 
V. Fairbury, 51 111. 149; State v. Berg, 
50Ind. 149; Elam v. State, 75 Ind. 
518; Gosman V. State, 106 Ind. 203; 
State V. Harrison, 113 Ind. 440; Wa- 
pello V. Bigham, lOIo-wa, 39; Killion 
V. Herman, 43 Kan. 37; Marshall v. 
Harwood, 5 Md. 423; Dow v. Bul- 
lock, 13 Gray (Mass.) 156; People v. 
Lord, 9 Mich. 227; State v. Thomas, 
102 Mo. 85; State v. Smith, 87 Mo. 
158; Tappan v. Gray, 9 Paige, 507; 



State V. Howe, 28 Ohio St. 588; State 
V. Brewster, 44 lb. 589; Com. v. Han- 
ley, 9 Pa. St. 513; Macoy v. Curtis, 
14 S. C. 367; James v. Jefferson, 66 
Tex. 578; Vaughan v. Johnson, 77 
Va. 300; State v. Washburn, 17 Wis. 
658; Tuley v. State, 1 Ind. 500, 502; 
Wheeling v. Black, 25 W. Va. 266; 
Peo. V. Eunkel, 9 John. 147; Vernon 
Soc. V. Hills, 6 Cow. 23; Slee v. 
Bloom, 5 Johns. Ch. 366; Bank v. 
Petway, 3 Humph. (Tenu.) 522. 

estate V. Seay, 64 Mo. 89; State v. 
Hopkins, 10 Ohio St. 509. 

3 Com. V. Hanley, 9 Pa. St. 513. 

^BeckwitU v. Racine, 7 Biss. 142; 
State V. Bailey, 37 Ohio St. ; Barkley 
V. Levee Com'rs, 93 U. S. 258. 

5 Hyde V. State, 52 Miss. 055. 

123 



§82 



MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 



[CH. VI. 



lect to do so, thej' cannot hold over as against the public, 
although they are entitled by the charter to remain in office 
until their successors are elected and. qualified.^ 

§ 82. Vacancies. — An office may be defined to be vacant, 
in contemplation of law, when it is not occupied by one who 
is lawfully entitled to its incumbency until the happening of 
some future contingency. An office is vacant, even though 
there be an incumbent de facto, whether his title to the office 
was originally defective, or his lawful title to the same has 
since expired.^ 

An appointment, made to fill a supposed vacancj' which does 
not in fact exist, is void ab initio, and cannot be validated sub- 
sequently.* And, although an officer's resignation, tendered to 
take effect in the future, will create a vacancy in the office, 
when the time of taking effect arrives, the fact that it may be 
withdrawn prior thereto, makes it impossible for a new appoint- 
ment to be made to such an office, until the resignation has 
actually taken effect and a vacancy actually created.* It has, 
however, been held that, if there is no express prohibition of the 
law, a present exercise of tlie power of appointment, anticipa- 
tory of a future vacancy, or to fill a newly created office, is 
valid ;* but no officer, whose own term is to expire, before the 
vacancy occurs, will be allowed thereby to unjustly deprive his 
successor of his official privilege.^ And it may be stated, as a 
general rule, that a vacancy in an office already existing occurs 
only when the official term fixed by law has expired,^ or upon 
the death, resignation or removal of the de Jure incumbent,* 



' Peo. V. Bartlett, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 
422; Lynch v. Lafland, 4 Colder 
(Tenn.) 96. 

estate V. Harrison, 113 Ind. 434; 
Peo. V. Van Home, 18 Wend. 518; 
State V. Howe, 25 Ohio St. 588 ; State 
V. MeNeely, 24 La, An. 19; Com. v. 
Hanley, 9 Pa. St. 513; Peo. v. La- 
combe, 34 Hun, 409; State v. Had- 
ley, 64 N. H. 473; State v. Seay, 64 
Mo. 89; Peo. v. Whitman, 10 Cal. .38; 
Stocking V. State, 7 Ind. 326; Collins 
V. State, 8 lb. 344. 

" State V. Peele, 124 Ind. 51-5 ; see 
12i 



Lindsey v. Luckett, 20 Tex. 516; 
People V. Witherell, 14 Mich. 48. 

4 Biddle v. Willard, 10 Ind. 63. 

5 State V. Van Buskirk, 40 N. J. 
L. 463 ; Haight v. Love, 39 lb. 14. 

6 State V. Meehan, 45 N. J. L. 189; 
Haight V. Love, supra ; Ivy v. Lusk, 
11 La. An. 486. 

' State V. Harrison, 113 Ind. 434. 

' States V. Johns, 3 Oregon, 533; 
State V. Newark, 27 N. J. L. ; 
Johnston v. Wilson, 2 N. H. 202; 
Peo. V. Langdon, 8 Cal. 1; Peo. v, 
Bissell, 49 Cal. 407. 



CH. VI.] MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AND OFFICERS. 



§82 



or through the occurrence of some event, by which the duties 
cease to be legally discharged by any one.^ The insanity of 
the incumbent does not necessarily create a vacancy,^ nor will 
a judgment of ouster in a quo warranto proceeding.^ 

If an enumeration is made by statute of the events which 
will create a vacancy, all others must be presumed to be ex- 
cluded ; the law favoring the continuity of oiScial service, rather 
than its cessation or interruption.* There is nothing peculiar 
in the legal meaning of the term " vacancy," when applied to 
official positions ; and there is no reasonable ground for the 
distinction, which is sometimes made, between offices newly 
created, and those to which others had already been appointed 
or elected. An office will be vacant, in either case, where there 
is no lawful incumbent.^ No vacancy is created if, upon the 
expiration of the term of an elective officer, he holds over un- 
til his successor shall have been elected ; and there is a failure 
to fill the position by election or the duly elected successor 
dies, or neglects to qualify.® The incumbent continues to hold 
over, as officer de jure'' But the reverse of the rule, above 
given, obtains, when it is expressly declared that failure of the 
successor to qualify, on or before a certain date, shall create a 
vacancy.^ 

In the absence of any authority to hold over, the office, of 
course, becomes vacant, immediately upon a failure to elect or 
qualify.^ 



' Peo. V. Bissell, 49 Cal. 407; State 
V. Howe, 25 Ohio St. 588; States v. 
Jones, 19 Ind. 356. 

2 State V. Pidgeon, 8 Blackf . 132. 

s State V. Balls etc., 45 Mo. 58. 

* Eosborougli v. Boardman, 67 Cal. 
116; Peo. V. Whitman, 10 Cal. 38. 

5 Stocking V. State, 7 Ind. 326; 
Collins V. State, 8 Ind. 344. 

«Com. V. Hanley, 7 Pa. St. 513; 
Peo. V. Mizner, 7 Cal. 19; Cordille v. 
Frizell, 1 Nev. 130; Ex parte Law- 
thoine, 18 Gratt. 85 ; Tappan v. Gray, 
9 Paige, 507; State v. Lusk, 18 Mo. 
333; Gosman V. State, 106 Ind. 203; 
State V. Harrison, 113 Ind. 434; Stew- 
art V. State, 4 lb. 396; State v. Mc- 
MuUen, 46 lb. 307; Peo. v. Bissell, 49 



Cal. 407; People v. Tilton, 47 lb. 614. 
'Walker v. Ferrill, 58 Ga. 512; 
Elam V. State, 75 Ind. 518; Brady v. 
Howe, 50 Miss. 607; Sappington v. 
Scott, 14 Md. 40; Smoot v. Somer- 
ville, 59 lb. 88; contra, State v. 
Cooke, 54 Tex. 482. 

8 Peo. V. Crissey, 91 N. Y. 610; 
Peo. V. Wilson, 72 N. C. 155; State 
V. Washburn, 17 Wis. 658; Adv. 
Opin., 5 So. Eep. 613; Win. Co. v. 
Maynard, 44 Iowa, 15 ; State v. Matli- 
eney, 7 Kan. 327; State v. Hunt, 54 
N. H. 431. 

9 Peo. V. Curtis, 1 Idaho N. S. 753; 
Peo. V. Baine, 6 Cal. 509; King v. Mc- 
Lure, 84 N. C. 153 ; Mayoralty Case, 
19 Gratt. 673. 

125 



83 



MUNICIPAL COEPOEATIOIirS. 



[CH. VI. 



§ 83. Removals — When for canse. — Where there are no 
constitutional or statutory restraints, and where the duration of 
the official term is not fixed by law, the power of removal is an 
incident of the power to appoint ; and it may be exercised at 
the pleasure of the appointing officer.^ 

Such a power of removal at pleasure while it is discretionary, 
is not judicial, and the officer exercising it has the sole and ex- 
clusive right to pronounce upon the propriety of using it.^ And 
no notice or hearing need be accorded to the official before being 
removed.^ But such arbitrary power of removal does not exist, 
when the official tenure is fixed by law,* or when the right to 
remove can be exercised for cause only.^ So, if the officer be 
appointed to hold during the pleasure of some third officer, the 
appointing officer cannot remove him arbitrarily, nor can an offi- 
cer, holding office at the pleasure of the appointing power, be 
removed by any other person, except it be for malfeasance in 
office, by judicial decree.^ 

The power of removal for cause is strictly construed, and its 
exercise should be restrained within the limits assigned to it 



^Newsome v. Cocke, 44 Miss. 352; 
Williams v. Gloucester, 148 Mass. 
2.56; Hudson v. Denver, 12 Colo. 157; 
20Pac. R. 329; State v. Alt 26 Mo. 
App. 673; State v. Pol. Com'rs, 88 
Mo. 144; People v. Whitlock, 92 N. 
Y. 191; Peo. v. Robb, 126 lb. 180; 
Peo. V. Thompson, 94 N. Y. 451; Peo- 
ple V. Kobb, 27 X. E. R. 267 (N. Y. 
91); People v. Cain, 47 N. W. R. 484; 
84 Mich. 223; State v. Somers, (Keb. 
93) 53 N. W. K. 146; People v Pur- 
loy, 10 N. Y. Sup. 181; Avery v. Ty- 
ringham, 3 Mass. 277; Blake v. U. S., 
103 tJ. S. 227; Evans v. Jus., 3 
llayw. (Tenn.) 26; Madison v. Kelso, 
32Ind. 79; State v. Kiichli, (Minn. 
93) 54 N. W. R. 1069; Carter v. Du- 
rango, 27 Pac. R. 1057; 16 Colo. 534; 
State v. Common, 6 Atl. R. 518; 49 
N. ,T. L. 177; People v. Fire Com'rs, 
73 K. Y. 437; Peo. v. Mayor, 16 Hun, 
309; Ford v. Board etc., 81 Cal. 19; 
"Williams v. Boughner, 6 Coldw. 486; 
Com. V. Sutherland, 3 So. E. 14.j; 
126 



Houseman v. Com., 100 Pa. St. 222; 
Cincin. v. Sloane, 31 Ohio St. 1 ; State 
V. Barrow, 29 La. An. 243; Smith v. 
Brown, 59 Cal. 672; State v. St. 
Louis, 90 Mo. 672. 

2 People V. Mayor, 82 N. Y. 491. 

sField V. Com., 32 Pa. St. 478; State 
V. St. Louis, 90 Mo. 19; State v. Ste- 
vens, 46 N. J. L. 344; State v. Mc- 
Garry, 21 Wis. 496; Smithy. Brown, 
59 Cal. 672. 

*Dil. Mun. Corp. § 250 ; People v. 
Flynn, 62 N. Y. 375; People v. Hill, 
7 Cal. 79; People v. Jewett, 6 lb. 
291; State v. Chatburn, 63 Iowa, 659; 
Keenau v. Perry, 24 Tex. 253 ; Col- 
lins v. Tracy, 36 lb. 546. 

6 Foster v. Kansas, 112 U. S. 201; 
Kennard v. Louisiana, 92 lb. 480; 
People V. Hayden, 133 N. Y. 198; 
Field V. Com., 32 Pa. St. 478; Duer 
V. Board, (N. J. 93) 26 Atl. 144; Wil- 
son v. DuUam, 53 Mich. 392; Com. v. 
McReak, 20 S. W. R. 220 (Ky. 91). 

« Carr v. State, 111 Ind. 101. 



CH. YI.] MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AND OFFICEKS. 



§83 



by the enabling statute.^ Where removals are authorized for 
causes named in , the statute, removals can be made 6n\y for 
such causes, and others of a similar nature.^ The power to re- 
move subordinates, for the purpose of reducing the number of 
officials employed, cannot be exercised to create vacancies to 
be filled by the appointing power ; ^ but it should in this connec- 
tion be observed that the Legislature may confer upon a mu- 
nicipal official the authority to make removals for cause, and to 
make him the sole judge of the sufficiency of the cause.* 

The power to remove for cause is judicial in its nature ; and 
when conferred upon superior officers, it must be exercised rea- 
sonably ; not capriciously or arbitraiily, but in the spirit of 
impartiality and fairness; and must be guarded by proper pre- 
cautions against favoritism and injustice.^ For this reason, the 
exercise of the power is always subject to judicial review.® If 
the cause of removal be misconduct on tlie part of the official 
it must, in order to justify his removal, be of such a character as 
to affect his performance of official duty,' and not merely such 



iDuerr v. Board, (N. J. 93) 26 Atl. 
R. 144; People v. McLean, 21 N. T. 
Supp. 625; Cleary V. Trenton, 20 N. 
J. L. 331; Clark v. Cape May, 50 lb. 
558; Clark v. Peo., 15 111. 213; Haw- 
kins V. Kercheval, 10 Lea (Tenn.) 
535; State V. Chamber, 20 Wis. 63; 
Mead v. Dreas, 36 Mich. 416; State 
V. Lingo, 26 Mo. 496; People v. Al- 
bany M. Col., 62 How. Pr. 220; State 
V. Jer. City, 1 Dutch. (N. J.) 536; 
Mayor etc. v. Shaw, 16 Ga. 172; Com. 
V. Slifer, 25 Pa. St. 28; Crawford v. 
Township, 24 Mich. 248; McGregor 
V. Gladwine Co., 37 lb. 388. 

MVellman v. Board, 84 Mich. 558; 
47 N. W. E. 558 ; Peo. v. Higgins, 15 
111. 110; Dubrie v. Voss, 10 La. An. 
210; State v. McGarry, 21 Wis. 496; 
Com. yf. Williams, 79 Ky. 42. 

^ Lincoln v. Yeoman, (Neb. 92) 51 
N. W. R. 844; State v. Schumaker, 
27 La. An. 332. 

" Patton V. Vaughan, 39 Ark. 211 ; 
Wilson V. People, 90 111, 186; People 
V. New York, 82 N. Y. 491; Keenan 
V. Perry, 24 Tex. 253; State v. Do- 



herty, 25 La. An. 119; Nolan v. New 
Orleans, 10 lb. 106; State v. Reg- 
ister, 59 Md. 283; Peo. v. Whitlock, 
92 N. Y. 191; State v. Stevens, 46 N. 
J. L. 344; People v. Board etc., 73 
N. Y. 437; State v. Board etc., 26 
Ohio St. 24; State v. McGarry, 21 
Wis. 496. 

^Duerr V. Board, supra; Madison 
V. Korbley, 32 Ind. 74; Stadler v. 
Detroit, 33 Mich. 346; Stockwell v. 
Township, 22 Mich. 341 ; Dullam v. 
Wilson, 53 lb. 392; In re Eaves, 30 
Fed. Rep. 21; Randall v. State, 16 
Wis. 340; Larkinv. Noonan, 19 lb. 82. 

6 People v. McLean, 57 Hun, 587; 
Foster V. Kansas, 112 lb. 201; Wil- 
lard's App., 4 E. L 601 ; Field v. Com., 
32 Pa. St. 478; State v. Bryoe, 7 Ohio, 
pt.l, 282; In re Nichols, 57 How. Pr. 
395; Page v. Hardin, 8B. Mon. (Ky.) 
672; see also 58 Hun, 603; 59 lb. 623; 
58 lb. 654; 63 lb. 633. 

' Clapp v. Board of Pol., 72 N. Y. 

415; Com. v. Williams, 79 Ky. 42; 

People v. Board, 55 Hun, 445 ; Com. 

V. Chambers, 1 J. J. Marsh, 160; 

127 



§83 



MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 



[CH. vr. 



moral delinquencies, which only affect his character as an iiidi- 
vidualnnember of the community ; unless the offence be of such 
an infamous character as to render him unfit to exercise any 
public office, because it would shock the public sense of decency, 
to permit him to retain his office. Such a state of affairs would 
make it impossible for the offending ofEcial to perform the du- 
ties of the office in an acceptable manner.^ While the forego- 
ing statement is a reasonably correct statement of the existing 
law, it must, however, be remembered that a most radical 
change in public opinion on this question is taking place, par- 
ticularly in regard to the effect of unchastity on the fitness of 
a candidate for public office, which will probably effect a uioje 
or less serious modification of the existing law.^ If the offence 
be criminal^ but it does not constitute a breach of official duty, 
it. is held by many cases, in consonance with the legal princi- 
ple that every man must be presumed to be innocent until his 
guilt be proven, that the officer should not be deprived of his 
office, until his guilt has been judicially established in a court 
of competent jurisdiction.^ If the official be accused of an of- 
fence which is a breach of duty, but which is not at the same 
tiriie a crime, he is triable by the official in whom the power of 
removal is vested.* And when the offence is both a breach of 
duty and a criminal or infamous offence, the offending official 
may be tried and removed for the breach of duty, before trial for 
the public delinquency.^ When misconduct or malfeasance is 



Com. V. Barry, Hard. (Ky.) 229; Mc- 
Comas V. Krug, 81 Ind. 327; State 
V. Savage, 89 Ala. 1. 

1 Com. V. St. Patricks, 9Binn. (Pa.) 
441; Com. v. Guardians, etc., 6 S. & 
R. (Pa.) 469; Society v. Com., 52 Pa. 
St. 125; Evans v. Phila. Club, 50 lb. 
107; Peo. V. Board, etc., 72 N. Y. 
445; Com. v. Shaver, 3W. <& S. (Pa.) 
338; Breckinridge v. State, 27 Tex. 
App. 513; Peo. v. Cooper, 57 How. 
Pr. 416; Mayor v. Shaw, 16 Ga. 172. 

^ See Tiederaan's Limitations of 
Police Power, § 17 c. 

2 Com. V. Jones, 10 Bush, 725 ; State 
V. Humphries, 74 Tex. 466; Cum- 
mings V. Missouri, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 277; 
Peo. V. Board, 9 Hun, 222; 20 Hun, 

128 



333; Rex v. Richardson, 1 Burr. 517, 
538 (1758), is a leading case; Barker 
V. Peo., 3 Cow. 686; Mayor, etc., v. 
Shaw, 16 Ga. 172; In re Dorsey, 7 
Port. (Ala.) 293; Cort v. State, 28 
Ark. 417; Com. v. Chambers, 1 J. J' 
Mai-sh. (Ky.) 160; see contra, Peo. v. 
French, 32 Huu, 112; 60 How. Pr. 
377; Peo. v. Board, 11 Hun, 403; 
Oliver v. City Council, 69 Ga. 165. 

* Rex V. Richardson, 1 Burr. 517; 
Com. V. St. Patricks, etc., 2Binn.441. 

5 Rex V. Chalke, 6 Comb. 397; Don- 
ohue V. Will Co., 100 111. 94; Peo. v. 
French, 32 Hun, 112 ; 60 How. Pr. 
377; Rex v. Wells, 4 Burr. 1999; Dil. 
Mun. Corp. §251. 



CH. VI.] MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AND OFFICERS. 



§84 



named as the cause for removal, the words have reference to 
the official conduct of the officer, and .signify a vtfillful or negli- 
gent breach of his duty, or a perversion of his official authority, 
by which some one is unjustly injured.^ The elements of ille- 
gality, neglect, omission of duty or corruption must be present, 
in order to constitute official misconduct or malfeasance.^ 

§ 84. Proceedings to remove for cause. — When it is pro- 
vided that the official tenure shall continue during good be- 
havior, or when the power oE removal can only be exercised 
upon the occurrence of certain specified causes, there must be 
a notice to the accused official, a formulated charge, a hearing 
of the evidence in its support, and an opportunity granted to 
the party defendant of making a defence.^ The accused official 
is entitled to a personal notice of the charges which have been 
made against him, and of the time when the trial will take 
place.* The body, which is empowered to conduct the trial, 
should be composed of all those officials, in whom the power of 
removal is vested.^ It is not necessary that the citation should 
set out all the charges in detail ; ^ but it is a well settled rule, 
that the basis of the proceedings must be specific charges, suffi- 
cient, if proven, to furnish a cause for removal.^ It is the right 



1 Wellman v. Board, 51 N. W. E. 
1070; O'Neill v. Register, (Md. 92) 23 
Atl. 960; Peo. v. Mays, 117 III. 237; 
Peo. V. Jordan, 90 N. Y. 53; State v. 
Hixon, 41 Mo. 210; State v. Teasdale, 
21 Fla. 652; Minkler v. State, 14 Neb. 
181; Hughes v. Court, 42 N. W. K. 
984; 75 Mich. 574; Taggart v. Detroit, 
38 N. W. R. 714; State v. Hawkins, 
44 OMo St. fS; People v. Com'rs, 49 
H. T. Super. Ct. 369; Woods v. Var- 
num, 83 Cal. 46; Runnels v. State, 
Walk. (Miss.) 146; State v. Jersey 
City, 25 N. J. L. 536; Mayor v. Shaw, 
16 Ga. 172. 

2 Peo. V. Board, 55 Hun, 445; State 
V. Council, (Minn. 93) 55 N. W. R. 
118; Coit V. Lyons, 33 Conn. 109; Mil- 
liken v. Council, 54 Tex. 388; Oliver 
V. Council, 69 Ga. 163. 

a State V. Smith, 52 N. W. R. 700 
(Neb. 92) ; Duerr v. Board, 26 Atl. R. 
144 (N. J. 93); Field v. Com. 32 Pa, 

9 



St. 478; Hoboken v. Gear, 3 Dutch. 
265; Madison v. Korbley, 32 Ind. 74; 
Stadler v. Detroit, 13 Mich. 346. 

* The accused may waive notice by 
appearance and answer, or by a total 
desertion of the place; as, for ex- 
ample, where he has removed from 
his former residence, and changed his 
domicile permanently. Dil. Muu. 
Corp. §254; Rex v. Ipswich, 2 Ld. 
Ray. 1240; Rex v. Grimes, 5 Burr. 
2601. 

5 Charles v. Mayor, etc., 27 N.J. L. 
203; Jacksonville V. Allen, 25 111. Ap. 
54; Andrews V. King, 77 Me. 224; Peo. 
V. Board, 23 Hun, 351. 

I* Peo. V. Benev. Soc, 24 How. Pr. 
216; Society v. Van Dyke, 2 Whart. 
^Pa.) 309; In re Nichols, 6 Abb. New 
Cas. 474; Peo. v. Com'rs, etc., 106 N. 
T. 64. 

'Woods V. Varnura, 85 Cal. 639; 
Peo. V. Mayor, etc., 19 Hun, 441; Peo- 
129 



§85 



MUNICIPAL COEPOEATIOKS. 



[CH. VI. 



of the accused to have reasonable time and opportunity, in 
which to prepare his defence, to employ and be represented at 
the hearing by counsel, to call witnesses in his defence, and to 
cross-examine the witnesses and take exception to the testi- 
mony offered against him.^ Although the rules governing judi- 
cial procedure are substantially applicable,^ yet the proceedings 
are not required to be carried on with that degree of preciseuess, 
which is usual in common law pleading and practice.* In every 
case, the truth of the charges must if not admitted be proven.* 
If an officer refuses to surrender his office, after he has been re- 
moved by the lawful authority and in a lawful manner, he may 
be ousted by a proceeding in quo warranto.^ 

§ 85. Proceedings in case of illegal removal — Right to 
salary when wrongfully deprived of his office. — The courts 
of general jurisdiction exercise a supervisory power over re- 
movals for cause ; ^ and will grant a mandamus to restore an 
official who has been erroneously or illegally removed.'' 

An official of a municipal corporation, who has been illegally 
removed, can also recover the amount of compensation due him 
from the date of his removal to that of his reinstatement, or to 
the expiration of his term.^ But in determining, whether the 



pie V. Carroll, 42 Hun, 438;.Peo. v. 
French, 102 N. Y. 583; Peo. v. Nich- 
ols, 79 lb. 582; Peo. v. Stavks, 33 
Hun, 384; Peo. v. Therrien,80 Mich. 
187; In re Nichols, 57 How. Pr. 397; 
Peo. V. Fire Com'rs, 77 N. Y. 153. 

iDuerr v. Board, 26 Atl. 144; Peo- 
ple V. Hanuan, 56 Hun, 469; State v. 
Bryce, 7 Ohio, pt. 2, 414; Murdock 
V. Academy, 12 Pick. 244; In re Nich- 
ols, 6 Abb. N. C. 474; In re Em- 
mett, 65 How. Pr. 266; Ledbetter v. 
State, 10 Ala. 241; Peo. v. Nichols, 
79 N. Y. 582. 

2 Peo. V. Doolittle, 44 Hun, 293; 
Peo. v. Therrien, 80 Mich. 187; Peo. 
V. Starks, 33 Hun, 384. 

" People V. McClave, 123 N. Y. 512; 
25 N. E. E. 1047; McAulliffe v. New 
Bedford, (Mass. 92) 29 N. E. E. 517; 
People V. Com'rs, 98 N. Y. 332. 

« People V. Eobb, 6 N. Y. S. 831 ; 
State V. Board, 6 Atl. E. 659; 49 N. 
130 



J. L. 170; Peo. v. Cooper, 58 How. 
Pr. 358; Callahan v. State, 2 Stew. & 
P. (Ala.) 379; Com. v. Arnold, 3 Litt. 
(Ky. ) 309. 

5 Eex V. Doncaster, 2 Ld. Eaym. 
1566; Cushing v. Frankfort, 57 Me. 
541; Jay's Case, 1 Vent. 302. See 
post, §§ 381, 382. 

6 Woods V. Varnum, 83 Cal. 46; 
Mayor v. Brown, 54 Ga. 229; Peo. v. 
French, 60 How. Pr. 377; Storer v. 
Washington, Peck (Tenn.) 334. 

' People v. Campbell, 82 N. Y. 247; 
Com. V. German Soc, 15 Pa. St. 251; 
State V. Jersey City, 1 Dutch. 536; 
Donnelly v. Teasdale, 21 Fla. 632. 
See post, § 372. 

sstadler v. Detroit, 13 Mich. 346; 
Shaw V. Mayor, 19 Ga. 468; Eiley v. 
Kansas City, 31 Mo. Ap. 439; Hobo- 
ken V. Gear, 3 Dutch. (N. J.) 275; 
White V. Mayor, 4 E. D. Smith, 563. 



CH. VI.] MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AST) OFFICERS. 



§85 



removal was unlawful, the reviewing court will not be confined 
to the consideration of the grounds which were assigned for 
the removal, but may and should consider all the facts and cir- 
cumstances of the case which affect the question of legality of 
the removal, and find for the city, whenever there is sufficient 
justification for the removal, whether the authorities made the 
removal on that ground or on some other untenable ground.^ 
Where, however, there is no legal justification for the removal,, 
either assigned or not referred to, the officer may be reinstated, 
and be given a judgment for back salary, even though the au- 
thorities, who made the removal, acted in a judicial capacity, 
and in pursuance of judicial power, vested in them by law ; '■^ 
unless the statute, which vests this judicial power of removal 
in the municipal authorities, expressly declares that their judg- 
ment is final and denies the right of appeal to the courts of 
general jurisdiction ; when the latter courts in that case have no 
jurisdiction over the case.^ And so, also, where a municipal 
official is under arrest to answer a charge of crime, brought by 
the state, and he is removed and his successor appointed ; his 
acquittal from the criminal charge does not give him an action 
against the city for the salary, of which he had been deprived.* 
The incumbent of an office is, however, entitled to compensar 
tion until he receives actual notice of his removal ; ^ and, so it 
has been held, until his successor has been appointed.'' 

But whether the municipality is liable to its officer dejure for 
salary for any period, during which the officer was not actually 
in office, even though he was prevented wrongfully from occu- 
pying the position, has been decided both in the negative "^ and 



yor etc. v. Shaw's Adm'r, 25 
Ga. 590; Hex v. Mayor, 2 Cowp. 523; 
King V. Mayor, 12 T. K. 182. 

2 Shaw V. Mayor etc., 19 Ga. 468; 
Shaw V. Mayor etc., 21 6a. 280; s. c, 
Mayor etc. v. Shaw, 25 Ga. 590. 

8 Nolan V. New Orleans, 10 La. An. 
106. See Queen v. Atlanta, 59 Ga. 
318. 

4 Brunswick V. Fahn, 60 Ga. 109. 

' Jarvis v. Mayor, etc., of New 
York, 2 N. T. Leg. Obs. 396. 

' White V. Mayor of New York, 4 



E. D. Smith, 563. 

'Brunswick v. Fahn, 60 Ga. 109; 
State V. Milne, (Neb. 93) 54 N. W. E. 
521; Newtonville v. Gulp, 38 Ohio St. 
13; Farrell v. Bridgeport, 45 Conn. 
191 ; State v. Davis, 44 Mo. 131 ; Smith 
V. New York, 37 N. Y. 518; Wayne v. 
Benoit, 20 Mich. 176; Saline v. An- 
derson, 20 Kan. 298; Webster v. Kan- 
sas City, 64 Mo. 493 ; Dolan v. Mayor, 
68 N. Y. 279; Queen v. Atlanta, 59 
Ga. 318; Hadley v. Mayor, 83 N. Y. 
603. 

131 



§86 



MTJNICIPAL COKPORATIONS. 



[CH. VI. 



the afiSrmative ; ^ according to whether the courts consider the 
matter of official salary, as a question of compensation for 
services rendered, or as one of personal right, as a perquisite 
or appurtenant to one's lawful title to the office, something in 
the nature of a private franchise. And while it is generally- 
held that the officer de facto is not entitled to the salary at- 
tached to the office, although he may perform his official duties 
satisfactorily ; ^ it seems to be generally settled everywhere, 
that the courts will not ordinarily interfere to restrain the pay- 
ment of official salary, pending a contest over the possession 
of the office by the opposing claimants, unless the bill shows 
special grounds for equitable relief.^ But where the liability 
of the city for back salary to an officer, who is unlawfully kept 
out of office by an intruder, is denied, the officer dejure, upon 
establishment of his right to the office, may maintain an action 
for damages against the usurper for the salary which he had 
drawn for the time during which he had been the officer de 
facto.* And where the usurping official had received only a 
part of such salary, the balance may be recovered of the city 
by the officer de jure, upon his installation in office.^ 

§ 86. Resignations — Incompatible oflBces — Change of 
residence.^" An office must be resigned either expressly or by 



■Phila. v. Given, 60 Pa. St. 136; 
Memphis v. Woodward, 12 Heisk. 
499; People v. Miller, 24 Midi. 458; 
Savage v. Piokard, 14 Lea, 46; Fitz- 
siraons v. Brooklyn, 102 N". Y. 536; 
^V'illiams V. Clayton, 21 Pao. R. 398; 
Andrew^s v. Portland, 79 Me. 484; 
Dorsey v. Smith, 28Cal. 21; Meagher 
V. County, 5 Nev. 244; Carroll v. Sie- 
benthale, 37 Cal. 193. 

estate V. Carroll, 38 Conn. 471; 
Bentley v. Phelps, 27 Barb. 524; 
Samis v. King, 40 Conn. 298; People 
V. Tieman, 30 Barb. 193; Riddle v. 
Bedford Co., 7 Serg. & R. 386. Cf. 
contra, Behan v. Board of Com'rs, 
(Ariz. 93) 31 Pac. 521; Blackburn v. 
Oklahoma, 31 Pac. 382. 

8 Field v. Commonwealth, 32 Pa. 
St. 478; Colton v. Price, 50 Ala. 424; 
Queen v. Governors, etc., 8 Ad. & 
182 



El. 632; Bruner v. Bryan, 50 Ala. 
523; Bowerbank v. Morris, Wall. C. 
C. R. 118; In re Ramsay, 83 Eng. C. 
L. 174; Page v. Hardin, 8 B. Men. 
648; In re Henner, 13 Pet. 230; post, 
§§ 392, 393. 

' 4 Dorsey v. Smythe, 28 Cal. 21; 
Nichols V. McLean, 101 N. Y. 526; 
City V. Given, 60 Pa. St. 136; People 
V. Nolan, 102 N. Y. 539; Douglas v. 
State, Sllnd. 429;Strattonv. Sulton, 
28 Cal: 44; State v. Sherwood, 42 Mo. 
179; Allen v. McKeau, 1 STimn. 276; 
Beyter v. Dodsworth, 6 T. E. 681; 
Hunter v. Chandler, 45 Mo. 452; 10 
Am. L. Reg. 440; People v. Miller, 
24 Mich. 458; Sadler v. Evans, 4 
Burr. 1984. 

5 McVeany v. New York, 80 N. Y. 
185 ; Beuoit v. Wayne Co., 20 Mich. 
176, Cooley, J., dissenting. 



CH. VI.] MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AND OEFICBES. 



§ 



implication.^ At common law, a tender or offer of one's resig- 
nation is revocable until accepted ; and the act is not a resig- 
nation until the offer shall have been accepted by the proper 
authority.^ This English rule has been commonly followed in 
America, wherever it has not been changed by statute,^ although 
it cannot be said to be definitely settled. There are many 
American decis^ions, which hold that a resignation creates a 
vacancy, as soon as it comes to the hands of the proper authority, 
without any acceptance, express or implied.* And this is in- 
variably so, if the statute provides that the officer may resign at 
pleasure.® 

Unless prescribed by statute, no particular form of words are 
required in a resignation ; ® and the acceptance ma}-^ be implied 
as well ,as express."^ It is a well settled rule at common law, 
that the acceptance by an officer of a second office, which is 
incompatible with the first, is equivalent to and implies his 
resignation of the first, and that the first office is vacant with- 
out any other act on his part, and without a proceeding for re- 
moval or quo warranto? If the first office be one, from which 



1 Dillon's Mun. Corp. §224; Eeg. 
of University, 9 Gill & J. (Md.) 365, 
422. 

2 Rex V. Lane, 2 Ld. Raymond, 
1304. 

"Thompson v. U. S., 103 U. S.4'71; 
Edwards V. U. S., 103 lb. 471; Ore- 
gon V. Jennings, 119 U. S. 74; State 
V. Newark, 27 N. J. L. 198; State v. 
Ferguson, 31 N. J. L. 120; Greene v. 
Hudson Co., 44 N. J. L. 388; Hoke 
V.Henderson, 4 Dev. (N. C.) 1; 25 
Am. Dec. 677; London v. Headon, 76 
N. C. 72; Jones v. Jefferson, 66 Tex. 
576;Waycross v. Youmans, 80 Ga. 
708; Hetherington v. Sterry, 28 Kan. 
429; Rogers v. Slonaker, 32 lb. 193. 

■•U. S. V. Wright, 1 McLean, 509; 
Gilbert v. Luce, 11 Barb. 91 ; 01m- 
stead V. Dennis, 77 N. Y. 378; Bunt- 
ing V. Willis, 27 Gratt. 144; 21 Am. 
Rep. 338; Smith v. Dyer, 1 Cull. (Va.) 
562; Gates v. Del. Co., 12 Iowa, 405; 
State V. Mayor, 4 Neb. 260; State v. 



Clark, 3 Nev. 566; State v. Pitts, 49 
Ala. 402; People v. Porter, 6 Cal. 26. 

6 Amy v. Watertown, 130 U. S. 302; 
Reese v. Watertown, 19 Wall. 107 
(resignation to avoid mandamus), 
and Leav. Co. v. Sellew, 99 0. S. 624; 
Leav. V. Kinney, 99 U. S. 623 ; Dillon 
Mun. Corp. § 861 6. 

« Van Orsdale v. Hazard, 3 Hill (N. 
Y.) 243, 248; State v. Allen, 21 Ind. 
516; Peo. v. Pol. Board, 26 N. Y. 316; 
Edwards v. U. S., 103 U. S. 471; Peo. 
V. Brooklyn, 77 N. Y. 503. 

' Edwards v. United States, 103 U. 
S. Rep. 471; Gates v. Del. Co., 12 
Iowa, 405; Pace v. People, 50111. 432. 

8 Com. V. Hawkes, 123 Mass. 525; 
Magie v. Stoddard, 25 Conn. 565; 
Peo. V. Hanifan, 96 111. 420; Dailey 
v. State, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 329; Lucas 
V. Shepherd, 16 Ind. 368; State v. 
Butz, 9 S. C. 156; State v. Hutt, 2 
Ark. 282; Wilson v. King, 3 Litt. 
(Ky.) 457; State v. Newhouse, 29 La. 
133 



§86 



MUNICIPAL COEPOEATIONS. 



[CH. VI. 



the officer cannot resign without the concurrence of superior au- 
thority, the acceptance of an incompatible office does not work 
an absolute vacancy of the first office, unless the superior au- 
thority be privy to the incompatible appointment.^ But in this 
country, where an official can usually resign at pleasure, it has 
been held that the superior authority cannot refuse the resigna- 
tion,^ or compel the officer to retain the first office against his 
will.3 

Something more than the mere physical impossibility to per- 
form the duties of the two offices is required, to constitute this 
incompatibility. Offices may properly be said to be incompati- 
ble, when for reasons, arising out of an enlightened public pol- 
icy, it would be wrong for one person to retain both.* In every 
case, it is a question of fact for judicial determination, whether 
the public interests require the abandonment of one or the other 
of the two alleged incompatible offices ; and it is also very likely, 
that the inordinate demand for public office leads to the deter- 
mination that the offices are incompatible, when in fact there 
would be no difficulty in the acceptable performance of the du- 
ties of both offices by the same person. It is surprising to what 
extent this question has been raised before the courts, and the 
citations are very numerous. 

It has thus been held that the office of alderman, of a town or 
city, is incompatible with that of county treasurer,^ town clerk,* 
capital burgess '' and city chamberlain.^ The office of town 



An. 824; Stubbs v. Lee, 64 Me. 195; 
Ex parte Call, 2 Tex. App. 497; 
Pooler V. Eeed, 73 Me. 129; State v. 
Draper, 45 Mo. 355 ; Shell v. Cousins, 
77 Va. 328; State v. Brown, 5 K. 1. 1; 
State V. GofE, 15 K. I. 505; Peo. v. 
Nostrand, 46 N. Y. 375 ; Bieucourt v. 
Parker, 27 Tex. 558; State v. Brink- 
erhoff, 66 lb. 45 ; Davenport v. Mayor, 
67 N. T. 456; Peo. v. Carrique, 2 Hill 
(N. Y.) 93; Van Orsdell v. Hazard, 3 
lb. 248. 

iRex V. Patterson, 4 B. & A. 9; 
Gates V. Del. Co. , 12 Iowa, 405 ; con- 
tra, U. S. V. Board, 53 Fed. 739. 

• IT. S. V. Wright, 1 McLean, 509. 

= State V. Mayor of Lincoln, 4Keb. 
260. Cf. State v. Ferguson, 2 Vroom, 

134 



31 N". J. L. 107, 129; People v. Mc- 
Lean, 62 Hun, 42; Peo. v. Porter, 6 
Cal. 26; see § 78 on Acceptance; and 
see People v. Williams, (111. 93) 33 
IST. E. E. 849. 

* Preston v. U. S. , 37 Fed. Eep. 417 ; 
State V. Feibleman, 28 Ark. 424; 
State V. Briukerhofe, 66 Tex. 45; 
Stubbs V. Lee, 64 Me. 195; People v. 
Green, 5 Daly, 254; 58 N. Y. 295. 

s Eex V. Patterson, 4 B. & Ad. 9; 
24 E. C. L. 11. 

6 Eex V. Tizzard, 9 B. & C. 418; 17 
E. C. L. 411. 

' Eex V. Hughes, 5 B. & C. 886; 12 
E. C. L. 399. 

8 Throop's Public Officers, § 35. 



CH. VI.] MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AND OFFICERS. 



86 



marshal is incompatible with that of hailiff,i city councilman ; ^ 
and the city councilman with that of director of state prison,* 
although compatible with a town clerk.* The office of mayor is 
held to be incompatible with that of town clerk,^ director of state 
prison,® retired U. S. army officer;'^ although a retired army 
officer may be also an aqueduct commissioner.* The offices 
of chief supervisor of elections, and of counsel to the health de- 
partment of a city, are incompatible ; ® and so are a jury com- 
missioner and a police commissioner.^" On the other hand, it is 
held that there is no incompatibility in the case of the inspector 
of elections and an interpreter of a Municipal Court,-'-'^ deputy 
clerk of municipal court and legislator,^^ county cleik and clerk 
of Circuit Court,^^ clerk andcollector of school district.^* Other 
illustrations may be added, where the question of incompati- 
bility was raised between offices, not municipal ; but they are 
not needed for the purpose of illustrating the principle .^^ 

Resignation may be implied from other circumstances than 
the acceptance of an incompatible office, as in a case where 
residence within the municipality is a prerequisite to eligibility 
for office, permanent removal from the city would have the effect 
of resignation, on account of incidental disqualification for the 
office.!® But if the subsequent residence beyond tlie limits of 
the election district is due to a change in the boundaries of the 
district, and not to a change of residence, the officer's title to 
his office is not affected thereby, and there is no implied res- 



1 Lewis V. Wall, 70 Ga. 646. 

2 State V. Hoyt, 2 Oregon, 246. 

3 State V. Kirk, 44 Ind. 401 ; 15 Am. 
Rep. 239. 

4 Rex V. Jones, 1 B. & Ad. 677. 
s Com. Dig. 7, tit. Officer B. 6. 
^Howard v. Shoemaker, 35 Ind. 

111. 

■State V. DeGress, 53 Tex. 387. 

8 People V. Duane, 121 N. Y. 367. 

"Davenport v. Mayor, etc. of N. 
Y., 67 N. T. 456. 

'"State V. Newhouse, 29 La. An. 
824. 

" Goettman v. Mayor, etc. of N. 
7., 6 Hun, 132. 

'2 People V. Green, 58 N. T. 295, re- 



versing 5 Daly 254; 46 How. Pr. 169; 
People V. Murray, 73 N. Y. 535, re- 
versing 8 Daly, 347. 

13 State V. Lusk, 48 Mo. 242. 

1* Howland v. Luce, 16 Johns. 135. 

15 For a rather full citation of com- 
patible and incompatible officers in 
general, see 19 Am. & Eng. Euc. of 
Law, 562 w., and Throop's Public 
officers, §35, et. seq. 

16 Curry v. Stewart, 8 Bush. 560; 
State V. Graham, 26 La. Ann. 568; 
21 Am. Rep. 551 ; People v. Parker, 
3 Neb. 409; 19 Am. Rep. 634; Mc- 
Gregor V. Allen, 33 La. Am. 870; 
Yonkey V. State, 27 Ind. 236. 

135 



§87 



MUNICIPAL COEPOEATIONS. 



[CH. VI. 



ignation.^ And so, also, there is no implied resignation, where 
the absence or change of residence of the official is only tempo- 
rary. ^ 

§ 87. General powers and duties of officers. — The powers 
and duties of municipal officials are purely statutory ; ^ or in the 
absence of statute, such as may be necessarily implied for the 
proper exercise of municipal functions.* 

Statutory provisions, conferring powers upon municipal offi- 
cials, must be strictly construed and followed ; ^ and the statu- 
tory powers, with which they are invested, should by no means 
be extended beyond the limits marked out for their exercise, by 
the declarations of the legislative intention.® 



1 State V. Milwaukee, 21 "Wis. 433; 
contra, People v. Highland Park, 50 
K. W. R. 660; 88 Mich. 653. 

2 Kex V. Harris, 1 B. & Ad. 936 ; 20 
E. C. L. 509; Page v. Hardin, 8 B. 
Mon. 648; Hedley v. Franklin Co., 4 
Blackf. 116; State v. Allen, 21 Ind. 
516; 83 Am. Dec. 367. 

3 Condron v. New Orleans, 43 La. 
An. 1202; Wilson v. Shreveport, 29 
La. An. 673 ; Nelson v. Mayor, 5 Hun, 
190; Graves v. Otis, 2 Hill (IST. Y.) 
466; Smith v. Deweese, 41 Tex. 594; 
Peo. V. Ransom, 56 Barb. 514; Gage 
V. Hornellsville, 41 lb. 87; Gale v. 
Mayor, 8 Hun, 370; Jane v. Alley, 
64 Miss. 446; Greathouse v. Dunn, 
60 Cal. 311; Indianapolis v. Wasson, 
74 Ind. 133 ; Robertson v. Groves, 4 
Oreg. 210. 

* Connett v. Chicago, 29 N. E. R. 
280; 114 111.233; In re Eckstein, 24 
Atl. R. 63; 30 W. N. C. 59; Perry v. 
Cheboygan, 55 lb. 250; Mayor v. 
Sands, 105 N. T. 210; Schwarz v. 
Barry, (Mich. 92) 51 N. W. R. 279; 
Pagan v. Mayor etc., 84 N. Y. 348; 
Larned v. Briscoe, 62 Mich. 393; 
Geary v. Kansas, 61 Mo. 378 ; Labrie 
V. Manchester, 59 N. H. 120; Sher- 
lock V. Winnelka, 68 111. 530. 

^Bellaire Co. v. Pindlay, 5 Ohio 
Cir. Ct. 418; Keeler v. Milledge, 24 
N. J. L. 142; Galveston v. Devlin, 19 
136 



S. "W. R. 395; Larned v. Briscoe, 62 
Mich. 393; Logansport v. Legg, 20 
Ind. 315; Jeffersonville v. Patterson, 
32 lb. 140; Cen. Bridge v. Lowell, 
15 Gray, 106; Andrews v. King, 77 
Me. 224; Gurnee v. Chicago, 40 111. 
165; Glass v. Ashburg, 49 Cal. 571; 
Mayor etc. v. State- Bk., 8 Ark. 227; 
Dalzell etc. Co. v. Pindlay, 5 Ohio 
Cir. Ct. 4.35 ; Foster v. Findlay, 5 lb. 
455 ; Tower v. Walker, (Iowa, 93) 53 
N. W. R. 289. 

"> Advertiser etc. v. Detroit, 43 
Mich. 116; Mudge v. Williamsport, 78 
Pa. St. 158. See as to powers, duties 
and jurisdiction of municipal officers 
under particular charters, Board v. 
Glennon, 21 Hun, 244; In re Wright, 
29 lb. 357; 65 How. Pr. 119; Lyth 
V. Buffalo, 48 Hun, 175; Weeks v. 
Forman, 16 N. J. L. 237; In re 11th 
Ave., 49 How. Pr. 208; Charles v. 
Stewart, 49 Mo. 132; Campbell v. St. 
Louis, 71 lb. 106; Barber v. Sag. 
City, 34 Mich. 52; Miller v. State, 
106 Ind. 415; McGarry v. N. Y. Co., 
7 Robt. 464; Pedrick v. Baily, 12 
Gray, 161 ; Tyng v. Boston, 133 Mass. 
372; Peo. v. East Sag., 33 Mich. 164; 
State v. Heath, 20 La. 518; St. Peter 
V. Bauer, 19 Minn. 327; Planters etc. 
V. Hanes, 52 Miss. 469; Miller v. 
Mayor euc, 5 T. & C. (N. Y.) 219; 
Yard's Case, 10 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 41; 



CH. VI.] MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AND OFFICERS. 



A municipal or other public official can perform no official 
act, and exercise no function, either outside of or within the 
municipal jurisdiction, after the close of his term of office ; ^ ex- 
cept that, where an executive officer has begun an official act 
and carried its performance so far as to render himself liable 
therefor, he is authorized to consummate the performance of 
that particular official act, notwithstanding he has been removed, 
or his term has expired.''' 

§ 88. De facto officers. — An officer de facto is one who, with- 
out lawful title to the office, successfully, and against all oppo- 
sition, obtains the possession of the office under some color of 
title, and performs its duties and enjoy its privileges. He is 
to be distinguished, on the one hand, from the officer de jure, 
who has the paramount title to the office, but who is deprived of 
its enjoyment ; and on the other hand from the mere usurper, 
who has neither title nor color of title. The acts of officers de 
facto, as distinguished from mere usurpers, are universally held 
to be valid ; and this rule applies, not only to municipal execu- 
tive officials, but to the legislative or governing municipal 
council.^ 

Jackson, 6 Wend. 224; Doolittle v. 
Bryan, 14 How. (U. S.) 563. 

s Hallgreave v. Campbell, 82 Mich. 
255; Eiddeev. Bedford, 1 S. &R.(Pa.) 
386; People v. Hopson, 1 Denio, 574; 
People V. Runkle, 9 Johns. 147; Trus- 
tees V. Hill, 6 Cow. 23 ; State v. Lane, 
16 K. I. 620; Kirker v. Cincinnati, ' 
(Ohio 92) 27 N. E. K. 898; Koontz v. 
Hancock, 64 Md. 134; Pritchett v. 
Peo., 1 Gilm. 529; Williams v. School 
Dis. , 21 Pick. 75; Laver v. MoGlach- 
lin, 28 Wis. 364;.Cushing v. Frankf., 
57 Me. 541; Lockhart v. Troy, 48 
Ala. 579 ; Koontz v. Burgess, 64 Md, 
134; Hamlin V. Dingman, 5 Lans. 61; 
People V. Nostrand, 46 K. T. 375 ; 
Olmstead v. Dennis, 77 lb. 378; Peo- 
ple V. Stevens, 5 Hill. 616; State v. 
Jacobs, 17 Ohio, 143 ; People v. Bart- 
lett, 6 Wend. 422; Cochran v. Mc- 
Cleary, 22 Iowa, 75, 84; Sooville v. 
Cleveland, 1 Ohio St. 126; Deoorah 
V. BuUis, 25 Iowa, 12. 

137 



Schwartz v. Barry, 51 K W. E. 279; 
Keenan v. Goodwin, (E. I. 92) 24 Atl. 
E. 148; In re Passaic, (N. J. 92) 20 
lb. 517; Peo. v. Flagg, 16 Barb. 503; 
Mayor etc. v. Tucker, 1 Daly, 107; 
Buokwell V. Hamele, 57 lb. 490; 
Board v. Gun-in, 6 Daly, 349 ; Harris 
V. Peo., 64 N. T. 148; Peo. v. Dun- 
lap, 66 N. Y. 162; Pinney v. Brown, 
60 Conn. 164; Peoria etc. Co. v. Peo- 
ple, 31 N. E. E. 113; Twogood v. 
Mayor, 11 Daly, 167; Muller v. Mayor 
etc., 63 N. Y. 355; Hogan v. Mayor, 
68 N. Y. 17; Peo. v. Fire Com'rs, 49 
N. Y. Super. 369; Peo. v. Connally, 
4 Abb. Pr. N. S. 375; Peo. v. Civ. 
Ser. Brd., 17 Abb. N. C. 64. 

1 Page V. Staples, 13 E. I. 806; Jack- 
son V. Humphrey, 1 Johns. 498; Carr 
V. Phillips, 39 Mich. 319; Mitchell v. 
Malone, 77 Ga. 301 ; Ingerson v. Ber- 
ry, 14 Ohio St. 315 ; Guillard v. Ana- 
line, 10 Martine (La.) 479. 

2 Clark v. Pratt, 55 Me. 546; State 
V. Roberts, 12 N. J. L. 114; Tuttle v. 



MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 



[oh. VI. 



This rule should be taken with the qualification, that, as it is 
intended to protect the public interests and innocent third per- 
sons,^ it is no protection to the officer himself. His acts are 
invalid, so far as they constitute an usurpation of another's 
rights, and for the unlawful act he is liable to the officer de 
jure.^ 

It must also be borne in mind that, where there is no office, 
there can be no officer de facto? 

§ 89. Police officials — Power to arrest — The duties of 
police officials are now wholly regulated by statute ; and the 
police officers can exercise such powers only as have been ex- 
pressly conferred upon them by the Legislature, or which under 
a strict construction of the statutorj' grant may be said to have 
been created by necessary implication.* 

Although the duties executed by police officials are confined 
usually to some certain limited municipal district, the police 
officials are regarded as state, rather than as municipal, officers.^ 
Nor does it alter this view, that the property, under the charge 
of the police, such as station houses, patrol wagons, etc., is 
owned by the municipality.^ 

When the common law powers of constables are conferred 
upon police officers, and they act as public conservators of the 
peace, they are authorized to arrest upon view and without 



1 People V. Sassovioh, 29 Cal. 480; 
Hooper v. Goodwin, 48 Me. 79; Pe- 
tersiler v. Stone, 119 Mass. 465; 
State V. Carroll, 38 Conn. 440; Morton 
V. Lee, 28 Kan. 287; Qulnn v. Com., 
25 Grratt. 31; Mclnstry v. Tanner, 9 
Johns. 135; Phillips v. Payne, 92 U. 
S. 132; Hussey v. Smith, 99 lb. 24; 
Wilcox V. Smith, 5 Wend. 231 ; Bur- 
gess V. Koontz, 64 Md. 134. 

2 Patterson v. Caldwell, 1 Mete. 
(Ky.) 493; Gourley v. Hawkins, 2 
Iowa, 73 ; G-reea v. Burke, 23 Wend. 
490; Keyser v. McKissan, 2 Kawle, 
139 ; Neale v. Overseers, 5 Watts, 539 ; 
Conover v. Devlin, 15 How. Pr. 477; 
Blake v. Sturtevaut, 12 N. H. 567; 
Peo. V. Hopson, 1 Denio, 574. 

3 Winona v. St. Peter R. Co., 31 
Minn. 472; Decorah v. Bullis, 25 

138 



Iowa, 15, 18; Carleton v. Peo., 10 
Mich. 250; Norton v. Shelby Co., 118 
U. S. 425; People v. White, 24 Wend. 
520, 540. 

* Com. V. Dugan, 12 Met. 233; Peo. 
V. Police Board, 19 N. T. 188; State 
V. Blend, 23 N. E. E. 511; 121 Ind. 
514. 

'• Baltimore v. Board of Pol., 15 
Md. 376; Dillon's Mun. Corp. §§ 60, 
61 ; Farrell v. Bridgeport, 45 Conn. 
191 ; Burch v. Hardwick, 33 Gratt. 
34; Peo. v. Draper, 15 N. T. 532; 
Metro. Brd. of Health v. Heister, 37 
lb. 661; McDermott V. Met. Pol. Brd., 
5 Abb. Pr. 422; Pol. Com'rs v. Lou- 
isville, 3 Bush, 597; see ante, § 18, as 
to legislative control of the police 
department of a city. 



CH. VI.] MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AND OFFICERS. 



§89 



warrant, all disorderly persons and other violators of the law 
of the state,^ as well as of municipal ordinances,^ either im- 
mediately, or as soon as possible, after the commission of the 
offence.^ 

The general rule of constitutional law requires that a war- 
rant be obtained for the arrest of one, who is charged with a 
breach of the criminal law.* But there are eases, in which the 
requirement of a warrant is dispensed with, in order to attain 
an enforcement of the law and a due protection of persons and 
property against violence. The exceptions to the general rule 
are limited, however, to the following cases : 

1. When a felony is being committed, an arrest may be made 
without a warrant to prevent any further violation of the law.^ 

2. "When the felony has been committed, and the officer or 
private person is justified, by the facts within his knowledge, in 
believing that the person arrested has committed the crime.'' 

3. All breaches of the peace, in assaults and batteries, affrays, 
riots, etc., for the purpose of restoring order immediately.^ 

4. The arrest of all disorderly and other persons who may 
be violating the ordinary police regulations for the preservation 



1 Taylor v. Strong, 3 Wend. 384; 
Com. V. Hastings, 9 Met. 259; Prell 
V. McDonald, 7 Kan. 426; Mitchell v. 
Lemon, 34 Md. 176: Griffin v. Flock, 
llDaly (N. Y.) 274; Taylorv. Strong, 
3 Wend. 384. 

2 Bryan v. Bates, 15 111. 87; Main v. 
McCarty, 15 111. 442 ; State v. Lafferty, 
5 Harring., 491; State v. Sims, 16 S. 
C. 486. 

' Boaz V. Tate, 43 Tnd. 60. 

* Tiedeman's Limitations of Police 
Power, §§ 33, 33a. 

SRulofe V. People, 45 N. Y. 213; 
Keenan v. State, 8 Wis. 132; but see 
Somerville v. Richards, 37 Mich. 299. 

" But the belief must be a reason- 
able one. If the facts within his 
knowledge do not warrant his belief 
in the guilt of the innocent party 
whom he has arrested, he will be lia^ 
ble in an action for false imprison- 
ment. State V. Holmes, 48 N. II. 377 ; 
Ilally V. Mix, 3 Wend. 350; Renck v. 



McGregor, 32 N. J. 70; Common- 
wealth v. Deacon, 8 Berg. & R. 47; 
State V. Roane, 2 Dev. 58; Long v. 
State, 12 Ga. 233; Eames v. State, 6 
Humph. 53. Less particularity, in 
respect to the reasonableness of the 
suspicions against an individual, is 
required of an oiEcer who makes an 
arrest without warrant, than of a 
private person ; the suspicions must 
be altogether groundless, in order to 
make the officer liable for the wrong- 
ful arrest. See Marsh v. Loader, 14 
C. B. {S. S.) 535 ; Lawrence v. Hedg- 
er, 3 Taunt. 14; Rohan v. Sawin, 5 
Gush. 281; Halley v. Mix, 3 Wend. 
350; Burns v. Erben, 40 N. Y. 463; 
Drennan v. People, 10 Mich. 169. 

T Phillips v. Trull, 11 Johns. 477; 
Respublica v. Montgomery, 1 Yeates, 
419; City Council v. Payne, 2 Nottife 
McCord, 475; Vandeveer V. Mattocks, 
3 Ind. 479. 

139 



§90 



MUNICIPAL CORPOKATIONS. 



[CH. VI. 



of public Older and health, such as vagrants, gamblers, beggars, 
who are found violating the law in the public thoroughfares.^ 

5. It may be added, all similar offences against the ordinances 
of the municipality.^ 

The statutory grants of authority to police officials are very 
strictly construed, in order to prevent the abuse of the power, 
to the serious infringement of the personal liberty of the citizen, 
and the requirements of the statute must be strictly obeyed.^ 

A police officer must without unreasonable delay * take his 
prisoner before the proper tribunal and prefer a complaint 
against him, as bj' statute provided.^ But if no tribunal be in 
session, the prisoner can legally be detained, for a reasonable 
time, at the police station.^ 

§ 90. The mayor — Nature of Ms duties. — At the head of 
every municipal corporation is the mayor, whose duties are 
chiefly executive in their nature, although at times, also, both 
legislative and judicial; and for their scope and force depend- 
ing upon the charter of the corporation, and upon the ordi- 
nances and bj'-laws made in pursuance thereof.^ 

It is his duty in general to see that the municipal ordinances 
are obeyed and to pi'eside at corporate meetings.* 

As part of the executive power to enforce municipal ordi- 
nances, as well as by express statutory provisions, the mayor 



1 See Mitchell v. Lemon, 34 Mo. 
176, where it was held that one may 
be arrested without a warrant, who 
was found violating the rules pre- 
scribed by the city board of health 
for the preservation of the public 
health. 

-^ 2 White V. Kent, 11 Ohio St. 550; 
Thomas v. Ashland, 12 lb. 127. Cf. 
Pesterfleld v. Vickers, 3 Coldw. 
(Tenn.) 205. 

3Com. V. Hastings, supra; Main 
v. MeCarty, 15 111. 441 ; Pow v. Beck- 
ner, 3 Ind. 475; Roddy v. Finuegan, 
43 Md. 490; Com. v. Carey, 12 Gush. 
246; Com. v. McLaughlin, 12 lb. 615 ; 
Quinn v. Heisel, 40 Mich. 576; Rob- 
erts v. Morse, 14Mo. 138; Stage Horse 
Cases, 15 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 51; 
White V. Kent, 11 Ohio St. 550; Low 
140 



v. Evans, 16 Ind. 486; Ramsey v. Foy, 
10 Ind. 479. 

* Johnson v. Americus, 46 Ga. 80. 

6 Dillon's Mun. Corp. §§210, 211; 
Low V. Evans, 16 Ind. 486; Pow v. 
Becker, 3 lb. 475 ; Vandever v. Mat- 
tock, 3 lb. 479. 

6Boaz v. Tate, 43 Ind. 60; State v. 
Freeman, 86 K C. 683; Scircle v. 
Nevis, 47 Ind. 289. 

' State v. Jer. City, 30 K. J. L. 93; 
North V. Crary, 4 Thomp. & C. (N. 
T. ) 357 ; North Lawrence v. Hoysradt, 
6 Kan. 170; Test v. Com., 4 Dana, 
522; Hatch v. Cincinnati, 17 Ohio St. 
48; State V. Hudson, 44 lb. 137; Mor- 
ley V. Weakley, 86 Mo. 451; Barnes 
V. Gottschalk, 3 Mo. Ap. Ill; Daniel 
V. Mayor, 11 Humph. 682. 

8 Dillon Mun. Corp. § 208. 



CH. VI.J MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AND OPPICBES. 



§90 



in our larger municipalities is invested with the power of ap- 
pointing the heads of the various departments, by which such 
ordinances are enforced or put into operation. 

In addition to those executive and administrative duties, which 
properly appertain to the office, others of a judicial nature, in- 
volving the exercise of a very wide discretion, are sometimes 
imposed upon him ; and it frequently becomes his duty, under 
such circumstances, to administer and enforce, not only the mu- 
nicipal charter and ordinances, but, likewise, the general laws 
of the state.^ 

The preservation of public order being of paramount im- 
portance, and the municipality being responsible for injury to 
property by mob violence, it is within the authority of the 
mayor to suppress riots or similar manifestations of a disorderly 
character.'* As public morals should be the concern of every 
officer sworn to support the law, the mayor, it has been held, 
may arrest and fine disorderly and lewd women. ^ But when, 
as in most municipalities, the preservation of public order, and 
the protection of public morality, is committed to a police de- 
partment, established bj- statute ; particularly, when it is placed 
under the control of state commissioners, it would seem that 
these police powers of the mayor are seriously curtailed, if not 
altogether abrogated. 

Where the mayor is clothed with judicial power and while 
acting as a justice of the peace, he has the power to convict of- 
fenders summarily, such power is strictly construed ; and the 
record must show the legality of the conviction, and point out 
the offence with the utmost precision.* 

In many of the cities of the country, the mayor is, ex officio, 
a member of the city council, having the power to vote ; and, 



1 Henderson v. Davis, 106 N. C. 88; 
State V. "Wood, 9 Bosw. (N. T.) 15; 
Luehrman v. Shelby Co. etc., 2 La. 
425 ; Robinson v. Benton, 49 Ark. 49 ; 
Bain v. Mitchell, 82 Ala. 304; Pres- 
sel V. Bice, 21 Atl. R. 813; Louis- 
iana V. Hardin, 11 Mo. 551; Ex parte 
Smith, Hemp St. (U. S.) 200; Sel- 
lers V. Corvallis, 5 Oreg. 237; Mar- 
tindale v. Palmer, 52 Ind. 411; Prell 
V. McDonald, 7 Kan. 426; Starr v. 
Wilm. Counc.,3Har. (Del.)294; Com. 



V. Leight, 1 B. Mon. lOY; Cluggishv. 
Rogers, 13 Ind. 538; People v. May- 
nard, 14 111. 419; Morrison v. Mc- 
Donald, 21 Me. .^50; Warwick v. 
Mayo, 15 Gratt. 528; Maguire v. 
Hughes, 13 La. An. 281; Muscatine 
V. Stack, 7 Iowa, 505. 

2Ela V. Smith, 5 Gray, 121. 

^Shafer v. Mumma, 17 Md. 331; 
79 Am. Dec. 656. 



142. 



141 



§ 92 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. [CH. VI. 

in other municipalities, particularly in the larger ones, he is 
given the power of vetoing all legislation of the city council. 
In either case, he belongs to the legislative branch of the city 
government, and exercises legislative powers.'^ 

§ 91. Liability of the officer to the corporation.— When 
a municipal corporation sustains injury through the negligent 
act of its own officer, the officer is liable therefor ; but, in the 
absence of a special statutory rule, the recoverj' can only be had 
for damages caused by faithlessness in the performance of duty, 
or for lack of individual integrity, and not for those arising from 
an honest mistake.^ But it is now an almost universal custom 
for municipal ofBcials, occupying positions of responsibility, to 
give bonds, or furnish sureties, for the faithful performance of 
these duties ; and in such cases, the corporation can of course 
recover, if the condition of the bond be not performed.^ 

§ 92. Municipal liability for official acts — In determin- 
ing the scope of the liability of the municipality for the tor- 
tious acts of its officers, we must recur to the distinction already 
drawn* between the puhlic and semi-private character of the mu- 
nicipal corporation. So far as the official tort-feasor is charged 
with the performance of the strictly public duties of the mu- 
nicipal corporation, which are imposed upon it as a local branch 
of the state government, and the performance of which concern 
the whole state, more or less, as well as the local community, 
he is rather to be considered as the agent and servant of the 
public, than of the muuicipalitj^, even though he may be ap- 
pointed by the municipality.^ Under this rule municipal corpo- 

' See post, cliap. vii. on Munici- 
pal Councils, etc. 

^ Boutte V. Emraer, 9 So. 921; Ken- 
dall V. Stokes, 3 How. 87; Lincoln v. 
Cliapin, 132 Mass. 470; Minor v. Bank, 
1 Pet. (U. S.) 46, 69; McCrea v. Cha- 
hoen, 54 Hun, 577; Peo. v. Lewis, 7 
Jolins.73; Palmer v. Carroll, 24 IST. H. 
314; State v. Chamber of Com., 20 
Wis. 63; State v. Nevin, 19 Neb. 162; 
Seaman V. Patten, 2 Gaines, 312; Rol- 
lins V. Board, 15 Colo. 103; Wilson v. 
Mayor, 1 Dcnio, 595; Com. v. Gen- 
tber, 17 S. & R. 135; Trafton v. Al- 
fred, 15 Me. 258. 

" See ante, § 72. 
142 



5 Bates V. Rutland, 62 Vt. 178; 20 
Atl. R. 278; Bulger v. Eden, 82 Me. 
352 ; Culver v. Streator, 34 111. App. 
77; 22 N. E. R. 810; Laurel (Ind. 91)27 
N. E. K. 801; Atwater v. Canandai- 
gua, 124 N. Y. 602 ; Van Valkenbergli 
V. Mayor, 43 Barb. 109; Rogers v. 
Buffalo, 51 Hun, 637; Thompson v. 
Mayor, 52 N. Y. Super. 427; O'Leary 
V. Board, (Mich. 93) 44 N. W. R. 608; 
Terliune v. Mayor, 88 N. Y. 47; 
Larned v. Briscoe, 29 N. W. R. 22; 
62 Mich. 393; Haskell v. New Bedf., 
108 Mass. 208; Schultz v. Milwaukee, 
49 Wis. 254; Doster v. Atlanta, 72 



CH. VI.] MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AND OFFICERS. 



§92 



rations are not liable for tlie acts of the officers of their police,^ 
or fire department,^ or firemen,^ or collectors and health officers.^ 
But where the officers, agents or servants of the municipality 
are charged with carrying out the special and strictly local pur- 
poses of corporate existence, in the attainment of which the 
corporation assumes its semi-private character, and from which 
the local community receives the overwhelming, if not sole ben- 
efit, the corporation is liable to the same extent, as would any 
individual or private corporation under the same circumstances.^ 
Thus, the municipal corporation is held to be liable in dam- 
Prince V. Lynn, 149 Mass. 193 ; Mc- 
Elroy v. Albany, 65 Ga. 387; Green- 
wood V. Louisville, 13 Bush (Ky.) 221. 
' Campbell v. Montgomery, 53 Ala. 
527; Thomas v. Grafton, 34 W. Va. 
282; Attaway v. Mayor, 68 lb. 740; 
Calwell V. Boone, 51 Iowa, 687; Odell 
V. Sohroeder, 58 111. 353; Whitfield 
V. Paris, (Tex. 92) 19 S. W. R. 566; 
Corsicana v. White, 57 Tex. 382; Lit- 
tle V. Madison, 49 Wis. 605 ; Hart v. 
Bridgeport, 13 Blatohf. 289. 

2 Holler V. Mayor, 53 Mo. 159; Mc- 
Kenna v. St. Louis, 6 Mo. App. 820; 
Robinson V. Evausville, 87 Ind. 334; 
Kies V. Erie, 26 W. N. C. 112; Wilcox 
V. Chicago, 107 111. 334; Welch v. 
Rutland, 56 Vt. 228; Hayes v. Osh- 
kosh, 33 Wis. 314; Fisher v. Boston, 
104 Mass. 87; Burrill v. Augusta, 78 
Me. 118; Hafford v. New Bedf., 16 
Gray, 297. 

» Alexander v. Vicksburg, 68 Miss. 
564; Gillespie v. Lincoln, (Neb. 92) 
52 N. W. R. 811; Dodge v. Granger, 
(R. I. 92) 24 Atl. R. 100; Jewett v. 
New Haven, 38 Conn. 368; Tarbush 
V. Norwich, 38 lb. 225. 

* Dannaher v. Brooklyn, 51 Hun, 
563; Spring v. Hyde Park, 137 Mass. 
554; Ogg V. Lansing, 35 Iowa, 495; 
Dunbar v. Boston, 112 Mass. 75; Lib- 
erty V. Hurd, 74 Me. 101 ; Alger v. 
Easton, 119 Mass. 77; Bryant v. St. 
Paul, 83 Minn. 289. 

6 Stock V. Boston, 149 Mass. 410; 
Welter v. St. Paul, 40 Minn. 460; 42 
143 



Ga. 233; La Clef v. Concordia, 41 
Kan- 423; 21 Pac. R. 272; Sherbourne 
V. Yuba Co., 21 Cal. 118; Jewett v. 
New Haven, 38 Conn. 368; Bryant 
V. St. Paul, 38 Minn. 289; Forbush 
v. Norwich, 38 Conn. 225 ; Moffit v. 
Asheville, 103 N. C. 237; Gibbes v. 
Beaufort, 20 S. C. 218; Rowland v. 
Gallatin, 75 Mo. 184; Bamber v. 
Rochester, 26 Hun, 587; Barney v. 
Lowell, 98 Mass. 570; Brown's Adm. 
V. Guyandotte, 34 W. Va. 299; Peters 
V. Luudsborg, 40 Kan. 654; 20 Pac. 
R. 490; Dannaher v. Brooklyn, 51 
Hun, 563; Caspary v. Portland, 19 
Or. 496; 24 Pac. R. 1036; Tindley v. 
Salem, 137 Mass. 171 ; Fisher v. Bos- 
ton, 104 lb. 87; Bladen v. Phila., 60 
Pa. St. 464; Kies v. Erie, 26 W. N. C. 
112; Bennett v. New Orleans, 14 La. 
An. 120; Brown v. Vinalhaven, 65 Me. 
iO-J; Wild V. Paterson, 47 N. J. L. 
406; Richmond v. Long, 17 Gratt. 
375; Wallace V. Menacha, 48 Wis. 79; 
Lumber Co. v. Brooklyn, 71 N. Y. 
580; Diehm v. Cincinnati, 15 Ohio 
St. 305; Robinson v. Rolir, 73 Wis. 
436; Dargau v. Mobile, 31 Ala. 469; 
Sch. Dist. V. Williams, 38 Ark. 454; 
Waller v. Dubuque, 69 Iowa, 541; 
Wilcox V. Chicago, 107 111. 334; Free- 
man V. Phila., 13 Phila. 154; Thomas 
V. Graffton, 34W. Va. 282; Elliott v. 
Phila., 75 Pa. St. 347; Ashby v.Erie, 85 
lb. 286; Robinson v. Evansville, 87 
Ind. 334; Summers v. Dav. Co., 108 lb. 
262; Wheeler v. Cin., 18 Ohio St. 19; 



§92 



MUNICIPAL COEPOKATIONS. 



[CH. VI. 



ages for the torts of the waterworks officials, although appointed 
by the governor and state senate,^ of the highway commis- 
sioners,^ the public administrator ; ^ of its agents in laying its 
own gas pipes,* of the janitor of a municipal building, in which 
rooms are let to private persons ; ^ of the City Council, acting 
as commissioners for the improvement of a canal ; ^ and in 
every other case, where a mandatory duty of local concern is 
imposed upon the corporation, and where all discretion in re- 
spect to its performance is taken awayJ But the municipal 
corporation is not liable, where the particular duty is imposed 
upon the officer, and not in the first instance upon the corpora- 
tion.* And so, also, is the municipal corporation not liable for 



N. W. E. 392 ; Teall v. Syracuse, 120 N. 
Y. 184; Caspary V. Portland, 19 Or. 
496; 24Pac. R. 1036; Lloyd v. Mayoi-, 
etc., 5 N. Y. ; Mayor, etc., v. Las- 
scr, 9 Humph. (Terra.) 757; Sheldon 
V. Kalamazoo, 24 Mich. 383; Sharp 
V. Mayor, 40 Barb. 256; Hunt v. 
Boouville, 65 Mo. 620; Hecker v. 
Mayor, 18 Abb. Pr. 369; White Ld. 
Works V. Eochestor, 3 N". Y. 467; 
Semple v. Mayor, etc., 62 Miss. 63; 
Lewis V. Elizabeth, 25 N. J. Eq. 298; 
Masterson v. Mt. Vernon, 58 K. Y. 
391; Bailey v. Mayor, 3 Hill, 531; 
Byrnes V. Cohoes, 67]Sr. Y. 204; Day- 
ton V. Pease, 4 Oliio St. 80; Boston 
V. Simmons, 150 Mass. 461; Perry v. 
Worcester, 6 Gray, 544; Cotes v. 
Davenport, 9 Iowa, 227; Williams v. 
Dunkirk, 3 Lan. 44; Irontoa v. Kelly, 
38 Ohio St. 50; Walsh v. Mayor, 41 
Hun, 299; Vincent v. Brooklyn, 31 
lb. 122; Aldrich v. Tripp, 11 E. I. 
141; Durkee V. Kenosha, 59 Wis. 122: 
Wilde V. N"ew Orleans, 12 La. An. 15 ; 
Hool V. U. S., 1 Cranch, 98; Harris- 
burg v. Taylor, 87Pa. St. 216; Thayer 
V. Boston, 19 Pick. 511; Hildredth v. 
Lowell, 11 Gray, 345. 

1 Connolly v. Waltham, (Mass. 92) 
31 ]Sr. E. R. 202; Bailey v. Mayor, etc., 
of N. Y., 3 Hill, 531; 38 Am. Dec. 
669; Clark v. Mayor, etc., of N". Y., 
3Baib. 290; Stoddard v. Winchester, 
144 



32 1^. E. E. 948; Aldrich v. Tripp, 11 
E. L 141; 23 Am. Eep. 434. 

2 Inman v. Tripp, 11 E. I. 520; see 
§ 341, et seq. 

5 Glover v. Mayor, etc., of 'N.Y.,^ 
Hun, 232; Matthews v. Mayor, etc., 
of N. Y., 1 Sandf. 132. 

* Scott V. Mayor, 1 H. & W. 59; 
Stock V. Boston, 149 Mass. 410. 

= Worden v. New Bedford, 131 
Mass. 23; 41 Am. Eep. 185. 

^Kew York, etc., Lumber Co. T. 
Brooklyn, 71 N. Y. 580. 

' Lehn v. Brooklyn, 19 jST. Y. S. 668; 
McSherry v. Canandaigua, 129 N. T. 
612 ; Davenport v. Hannibal, 18 S. W. 
E. 1122; Frostburg v. Hitohins, (Md. 
90) 16 Atl. E. 380; Barney, etc., Co. 
v. New York, 40 Fed. 50; Mayor, 
etc., of Helena v. Thompson, 29 Ark. 
569; Clayburgh v. Chicago, 25 111. 
535; McCuUough v. Mayor, etc., of 
Brooklyn, 23 Wend. 458; Elgin v. 
Goff, 38 111. App. 362; Fitz Patrick 
V. Slocum, 89 N". Y. 358; Kankakee 
V. Linden, 38 111. App. 657 ; Sawyer 
v. Corse, 17 Gratt. 230; Walling v. 
Mayor, etc., 5 La. An. 660; Barton 
V. Syracuse, 36 N. Y. 54; Lacoui-v. 
Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 3 Duer, 406. 
McLaughlin v. Municipality No. 2, 
5 La. An. 504. 

■ 8 Maximilian v. Mayor, etc., of K. 
Y., 02 X. Y. 160; 20 Am. Eep. 196; 



CH. VI.] MTTNICIPAL ELECTIONS AND OFPICEES. 



§92 



the torts of independent contractors, employed by such corpo- 
ration,^ unless the necessary effect of the work contracted for 
would be the infliction of injury on others,^ or the city reserv- 
ed to itself a supervisory control over the work, and the power 
to dismiss persons, who were employed by the contractors ; ^ or 
unless the act of the contractor be a failure to remove an exist- 
ing nuisance, for which the city incurs a continuing liability.* 
A municipal corporation 'is not liable, however, for the acts 
of its officers, if wholly ultra vires and not within the power 
vested in the corporation by charter ; nor for any illegal acts of 
an official, unless they were previously authorized or subse- 
quently ratified by the corporation.^ The subject of municipal 
liability for tort is more fully discussed in a subsequent chapter,® 
to which the reader is referred for further information. 



Haw V. Mayor, etc., of N. T., 37 N. 
Y. Super. 456; Gray v. Brooklyn, 2 
Abb. Ap. Cas. 267. 

1 Pritcbard V. Keeper, 53 111. 117; 
Hennington v. Lansingburgh, 36 
Hun, 598; East St. Louis v. Giblin, 
o 111. App. 219; Kelly v. Mayor, etc. 
of N. Y., 11 N. Y. 432; Keed v. Al- 
legbeny, 79 Pa. St. 300; Pack v. 
Mayor, etc. of N. Y., 8 N. Y. 222; 
Painter v. Pittsburgh, 46 Pa. St. 213; 
Kelley v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., 4 E. 
D. Smith, 291; Treadwell v. Mayor, 
etc. of N. Y., 1 Daly, 123; McCarty 
V. Bauer, 3 Kan. 237; Barry v. St. 
Louis, 17 Mo. 121. See also, post, 
§ 347, for a full discussion of this 
subject. 

2 Pearson v. Zahle, 78 Ky. 170; 
Sullivan v. Holyoke, 135 Mass. 273 ; 
Logansport v. Dicle, 70 Ind. 65 ; 36 
Am. Rep. 166; Broad well v. Kansas 
City, 75 Mo. 213; 42 Am. Eep. 406; 
Sewall V. St. Paul, 20 Minn. 511. 

8 Chicago V. Joney, 60 111. 383; 
Chicago V. Deomody, 61 HI. 431 ; but 
see Erie v. Caulkins, 85 Pa. St. 24. 

*Vanderslice v. Philadelphia, 103 
Pa. St. 102. 

5 Walling V. Shreveport, 5 La. An. 
660; Horton v. Newell, (E. I. 92) 23 
Atl. R. 610; Herzo v. San Francisco, 

10 



33 Cal. 134; Browning v. Owen Co., 
44 Ind. 11; Ball v. Woodbine, 61 
Iowa, 83; Cumberland v. Willison, 
50 Md. 128; O' Dell v. Schroeder, 58 
111. 353; Barnes v. Phila., 3 Phila. 
409; Small v. Danville, 51 Me. 350|; 
Cheeuey v. Brookfield, 60 Mo. 53; 
Worley v. Columbia, 88 Mo. 106; 
McCarthy v Boston, 135 Mass. 197; 
Smith V. Rochester, 76 N. Y. 510; 
Chicago V. McGraw, 75 111. 566; 
Trammell v. Russellville, 34 Ark. 
105 ; Emmert v. DeLong, 16 La. An. 
317; Elliott V. Phila., 75 Pa. St. 347; 
Haag V. Vanderburgh Co., 60 Ind. 
511; Shelby Co. v. Deprez, 87 lb. 
509; M^yor, etc. v. Cunlife, 2 N. Y. 
165 ; Cuyler v. Rochester, 12 Wend. 
165; Wakefield v. Newport, 60 N. 
H. 374; Ross v. Phila., 115 Pa. St. 
222; Ready v. Tuskaloosa, 6 Ala. 
,327; Chicago v. Shober, etc., 6 111. 
App. 560; Hilsorp v. St. Louis, 45 
Mo. 94; Hunt v. Boonville, 65 lb. 
620; Rowland v. Gallatin, 75 lb. 134 
Manley v. Atchison, 9 Kan. 358 
Brown v. Vinalhaven, 65 Me. 402 
Woodcock V. Calcio, 66 lb. 234; Seele 
v. Peering, 79 lb. 343; Morrison v. 
Lawrence, 98 Mass. 219. See post, 
§338. 
s Chap. XVII. 

145 



§ 93 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. [CH. VI. 

§ 93. Jurisdiction of courts over electious. — The question 
of jurisdiction of courts over contested elections, as well as the 
whole matter of judicial remedies in such cases, is fully dis- 
cussed and explained in connection with an exposition of the 
extraordinary remedy, quo warranto, to which the reader is 
referred.^ 

1 Chap. XIX. § 361. 
146 



CHAPTER VII. 



MUNICIPAL COUNCILS, MEETINGS, RECORDS AND COURTS. 



Section. 

95 — Notice of corporate meetings 
— New England town meet- 
ings — Adjournment. 

96 — Town councils — Presiding offi- 
cers. 

97 — Eegular, special and adjourned 
meetings. 

98 — Methods of proceeding — Ayes 
and noes. 

99 — Quorum of the council — Joint 
bodies — Action of the ma- 
jority binding. 
100 — Municipal business must be 
transacted by the council as 
a body — Meetings. 
101 — Municipal courts at common 
law. 



Section. 

102 — Municipal courts — Power to 
establish. 

103 — Competency of corporators 
as jurors, judges and wit- 
nesses. 

104 — Summary proceedings — Jury 
trials. 

105 — Review by Superior Court — 
Jury trials. 

106 — Custody of municipal records 
— Power to amend. 

107 — Municipal records as evidence 
— Admissions. 

108 — Admissibility of parol evi- 
dence to explain municipal 
records. 



§ 95. Notice of corporate meetings — New England town 
meetings — Adjournment. — All citizens are presumed to know, 
as part of the general law, the days prescribed by the charter, 
statute, by-law or usage, for the transaction of the ordinary 
municipal affairs by the governing body ; and, ordinarily, notice 
is not required to be given. But the common law has estab- 
lished certain rules, regarding notice, which have been made 
the basis of the statutory law, and which have been followed 
by the courts in this country. 

The importance of the principles considered is evident, when 
tlie meetings called are composed of the inhabitants of the town, 
as in New England, and not of a definite and limited class of 
duly elected officials. At common law, when notice of such a 
meeting is required to be given, it may be deemed to be dis- 
pensed with or waived, from the presence of those entitled to 
the notice ; ^ but this rule of the common law is not applicable 
to the New England town meeting. 

1 Beaver Creek v. Hastings, 52 Mich. 528; Lord v. Anoka, 36 Minn. 17(5; 
State V. Smith, 22 lb. 218. 

147 



95 



MUNICIPAL COEPOEATIONS. 



[CH. vn. 



At common law the notice should give the time, and place 
of meeting if the latter is unusual. If the meeting relates to 
the ordinary corporate affairs it is not necessary that its object 
should be specified ; but when the proposed business is the 
election or removal of officials, or the passing, of ordinances, the 
fact should be stated in the call. 

In the absence of charter provisions, if all, who are present at 
a legal and valid meeting of a select body, consent to transact 
business, it may be done, although no notice, or an insufficient 
notice, was given ; but such unanimity should appear from their 
recorded declarations or acts. 

In England, the guild hall is the proper place for the meet- 
ing ; and acts done at an unusual place will be closely scruti- 
nized.i But the whole subject is now regulated by statute ;^ 
and such is also the case in New England, where it is required 
that the inhabitants are to be notified or wai'ued of town meet- 
ings. The object of the meeting, or the matters to be acted 
upon, must be stated in the notice ; and town meetings, for 
which the proper legal notice was not given, are invalid; and 
the acts done at the meeting are void.^ A tax voted at a meet- 
ing which was illegally warned, is illegal.* The object of the 
town meeting should be stated in the warning, but it is sufB- 
cient if this can fairly be understood.® Where the statute, 
as in Vermont, requires the notice "to specify the business 
to be done," a notice stating that the meeting was called " to 
do any proper business" is insufficient;'' and all contracts 



1 Dillon Mun. Cor. §264, citing Kex 
V. Hill, 4 B. & C. 441; Kex v. Liver- 
pool, 2 Burr. 734; Rex v. Doncaster, 
2 lb. 744; Rex v. May, 5 lb. 2682; 
Rex V. Grimes, 5 lb. 2601; Kynaston 
V. Shrewsbury, 2 Stra. 1051; Mus- 
grove V. Nairson, 1 lb. 584; Rex v. 
Theodorick, 8 East, 545; Rex v. 
Shrewsbury, oases temp. Hardwicke, 
147; Smyth v. Darley, 2 House of 
Lords Cases, 789. The rule as to 
necessary notice is applicable to 
both select and indeiinite bodies. 
Rex V. Langhorne, 4 Ad. & El. 538. 

2 English Municipal Act, 5 and 6 
Wm. IV. ch. 71, sec. 69. 

3 Brewster V. Hyde, 7 jST. H. 206; 

148 



Reynolds v. New Salem, 6 Met. 340; 
Cong. Society v. Sperry, 16 Conn. 
200; Haj'wardv. Sch. Dis., 2 Cush. 
419; Moor v. Newfield, 4 Greenl. 44; 
Lander v. Sch. Dis., 33 Me. 239; 
Bloomfield v. Charter Oak Bank, 121 
U, S. 129; School Dis. v. Atherton, 
12 Met. 105; Little v. Merrill, 10 
Pick. 543; Sherwin v. Bugbee, 17 Vt. 
337; Pratt v. S wanton, 15 lb. 147; 
Rand v. Wilder, 11 Cush. 294; Stone 
V. Sch. Dis., 8 lb. 592. 

4 Rideout v. Sch. Dist., 1 Allen, 232. 

6 School District v. Blakeslee, 13 
Conn. 227. 

6 Hunt V. School District, 14 Vt. 
300; Sherwin v. Bugbee, supra. 



CH. Vir.] MUNICIPAL COUNCILS, MEETINGS, ETC. 



§95 



made, or laws enacted,^ or other acts done at such a meeting, 
which are not specified in the call, are invalid ; ^ and a partici- 
pant in an illegal meeting is not estopped to deny its legality .^ 

When the statute requires the time and place to be named in 
the notice, they are material ; and there can be no legal meet- 
ing, except at the time and place named ; * and the meeting 
must be opened within a reasonable time after the hour named.^ 
So, when the place named is the schoolhouse, a gathering near 
the schoolhouse, with an adjournment to another place, is ille- 
gal.® If the subject of the town meeting is mentioned in the 
warning, it is no objection, that it is considered when the ma- 
jority of the voters have retired ; "^ and action, taken at a meet- 
ing not duly noticed, can be ratified by a subsequent legal 
meeting.^ 

Authority in the clerk, to call annual town meetings, does not 
empower him to call " special " meetings ; ^ nor does power to 
"warn" a meeting imply power to call one.^" If the town 
meeting has been validly warned and called, those who attend, 
though less than a majority of the whole, have full power to act 
for and to bind tlie whole ; and the absence of the others will be 
presumed to be equivalent to an assent to any action taken.-'^ A 
majority of the members of the town meeting have the power, in 
the absence of any statutory provision upon this point, to ad- 
journ any legal meeting to another time : and, if done in good 



'Hayden v. Noyes, 5 Conn. 391; 
Willard v. Killingworth, 8 Conn. 
247; Bloomfield v. Char. O. Bk., 12l 
U. S. 121, 130. 

2 St. Louis V. Withans, 90 Mo. 
640; Cornish v. Pease, 19 Me. 184; 
Spear v. Robinson, 29 lb. 531; Little 
V. Merrill, 10 Pick. 543; Blackburn 
V. Walpole, 9 lb. 97; Torrey v. Mil- 
bury, 21 lb. 64; Hadsell v. Hancock, 
3 Gray, 526; Jones v. Andover, 9 
Pick. 146; Kingsbury v. School Dis., 
12 Met. 99. 

'Sch. Dis. V. Atherton, 12 Met. 
105. 

*Sherwin v. Bugbee, 16 Yt. 439, 
444. 

'Sch. Dis. V. Blakeslee, 13 Conn. 
227. 



6 Chamberlain v. Dover, 13 Me. 
466; Haines v. Soh. Dis., 41 lb. 246; 
Kingsbury v. Sch. Dis., 12 Met. 99; 
compare. Brown v. Winterport, 79, 
Me. 305. 

' Bean v. Jay, 23 Me. 117. 

^ Jordan v. School District, 38 Me. 
164. 

^School District v. Atherton, 12 
Met. 105. 

i» Stone V. Sch. District, 8 Cush. 
592. 

11 Damon v. Granby, 2 Pick. 345, 
355; Com. v. Ipswich, 2 lb. 70; Wil- 
liams V. Lunenberg, 21 lb. 75 ; First 
Parish V. Stearns, 21 lb. 148; State 
V. Binder, 38 Mo. 350; Church Case, 
5 Kobt. 649. 

149 



S9S 



MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 



[CH. VK. 



faith, to another place within the corporate limits.^ But such 
a power must be exercised, only when absolutely necessary ; ^ 
and the adjournment can only be proved by the record.^ After 
an adjournment, no valid action can be taken by a town 
meeting.* 

§ 96. Town councils — Presiding officers. — Outside of New 
England, the councils of cities and towns are representative bod- 
ies, whose members are limited by law, and are elected by the 
legal voters of the incorporated place. The constitution of the 
council, its powers, its regular and special meetings, what no- 
tice is required, and how many shall constitute a quorum, are 
usually prescribed in the municipal charter. Usually, the city's 
territory is divided into districts or wards, the voters in each of 
which elect annually an alderman or councilman.^ 

When the mayor is the presiding officer of the board or 
council, he can vote only when he is also a member of the 
council ; while, in other eases, he either has no power to vote, 
or has the power only, when there is a tie vote in the coun- 
cil.^ The English rule, that the presence of the mayor at a 
corporate meeting was absolutely necessary, in the absence of 
special provisions, has no application in this country ; and the 
mayor is not a member of the council, nor has he any right to 
preside over it, if these privileges are not given him bj'' the 
law.'^ The mayor's approval may by the charter be essential 
to the validity of the proceedings of the council ; ^ and, when 
required, should be in writing, attested by the mayor's signa- 
ture.^ A writ of quo warranto wiil lie to test the right of the re- 
corder ex officio to be the presiding officer, although not a member 



^ Chamberlain v. Dover, 13 Me. 
466; Hubbard v. Windsor, 15 Mich. 
146; Kimball v. Marshall, 44 N. H. 
465; Drisko v. Columbia, 75 Me. 73; 
Goodell V. Baker, 8 Cowen, 286. 

^ People V. Martin, 5 N. Y. 27. 

3 Taylor v. Henry, 2 Pick. 397. 

* Kimball v. Lamprey, 19 N. H. 
215. 

° K. Y. Con. Act, § 29. 

« Lamb V. People, 113 111. 137; Car- 
roll V. Wall, 35 Kan. 36; Green v. 
Durham, 1 Burr. 131; Rex v. Head, 
4 lb. 2513; Carleton v. People, 10 
150 



Mich. 250; Decorah v. Bullis, 25 
Iowa,' 12; Hildreth v. Molntyi-e, 1 J. 
J. Marsh, 206; People v. White, 24 
Wend. 520; CarroUtown v. Clark, 21 
111. App. 74; State v. Gray, 23 Neb. 
365. 

'Cochran v. McOleary, 22 Iowa, 
75; In re Sawyer, 124 U. S. 200; 
Ashley's Case, 4 Abb. Pr. Rep. 35; 
Com. V. Kepner, 10 Phila. 510. 

8 Graham v. Carondolet, 33 Mo. 
262; Kepner v. Com., 40 Pa. St. 124. 

9 N. Y. etc. Co. V. Waterbury, 55 
Conn. 19. 



CH. Vn.] MUNICIPAL COUNCILS, MEETINGS, ETC. 



§96 



of a council, and to vote in case of a tie vote, such right being a 
franchise.-' When there are no charter requirements as to the 
number of votes which are necessary to elect a presiding officer, 
the votes of the majority of a quorum will suffice.^ The relation 
of the mayor, or of the presiding officer, to the council, and the 
position which he occupies, are to so great an extent the subject 
of special charter provisions,^ that few general rules can be laid 
down, which will apply in all cases.* 

The statiis of members of the city council, or of the council 
itself, is usually regulated by a court of law ; but where there 
is a conflict of authority between two boards, each claiming to 
be, and acting as, the legal board, either may obtain an injunc- 
tion to prevent the usurpation of power hj the other, to which 
it has no title ; ^ although disputes as to the title to public office 
and the validity of elections, are exclusively within the juris- 
diction of the courts of law.^ 

When, for any reason, the acting city authorities are not 
those, in whom by its charter the power of municipal legislation 
is lodged, ordinances enacted by them are invalid.^ The princi- 
ples, applicable to de facto officers, are also applied to de facto 
municipal councils ; and the acts and ordinances of such gov- 
erning bodies are valid, provided the right to elect such a coun- 
cil or governing board is vested in the city.^ 



' Reynolds v. Baldwin, 1 La. An. 
162; see also Rex v. Williams, 1 
Burr. 402; Com. v. Arrison, 15 S. & 
R. (Pa.) 130. 

2 State V. Farr, 47 N. J. L. 208. 

' As to the powers of the president 
of the board of aldermen in New 
York city, see People v. Lacomhe, 
99 N. T. 43. 

* Where it was provided in a charter 
that the intendant shall have a seat 
in the board of commissioners (the 
governing council), and shall preside; 
but if he were absent the board could 
elect a presiding officer pro tempore; 
it was held that he was a commis- 
sioner, and had the right to partici- 
pate in municipal legislation. 
Raleigh v. Sorrell, 1 Jones (N. C.) 
Law, 49. So when the power to leg- 



islate is conferred on " the mayor 
and oouncilmen," the co-ordinate 
action of both is required, in order 
to give validity to a by-law, or other 
municipal act. Saxton v. Beach, 50 
Mo. 488; Saxton v. St. Joseph, 60 lb. 
153. 

»Kerr v. Trego, 47 Pa. St. 292. 

" Zn re Sawyer, 12411. S. 212, 223; 
see post, ch. xix. § 871 et seq. 

' Decorah v. BuUis, 25 Iowa, 12. 

8 Winona v. St. Peter Ry. Co., 31 
Minn. 472; Hildreth's Heirs v. Mc- 
Intire, 1 J. J. Marsh. 206; Welch v. 
St. Genevieve, 1 Dillon C. C. 130; 
Decorah v. Bullis, 25 Iowa, 12; Peo- 
ple V. White, 24 Wend. (N. Y.) 520; 
Norton v. Sheely Co., 118 U. S. 425; 
Carleton v. Peoj)le,. lOMich. 250. 

151 



§97 



MUNICIPAL COKPORATIONS. 



[CH. VII. 



§ 97. Regular, special and adjourned meetings. — Mem- 
bers of the council are presumed to know the times, which are 
appointed in the charter for holding its stated meetings ; ^ and if 
a member fails to attend, he neglects his duty, and waives his 
right to participate therein. But he is not presumed to know 
all that is done at a regular meeting. So, if at such meeting, a 
special meeting is called to take action at some future time, the 
action taken at the subsequent meeting will be void, unless ac- 
tual notice of the special meeting is given to those membere, 
who were absent from the regular meeting.^ In a case whei'e 
the charter fails to provide, how the time for holding stated meet- 
ings shall be fixed, the council may itself on motion change or fix 
the time ; although it has previously been fixed by a formal 
resolution.^ Special meetings, properly called according to the 
rules laid down in the charter, are legal, and the proceedings 
valid, if all the members entitled to be present are properly noti- 
fied ; * but notice, it has been held, is not necessary, where every 
one entitled to it is present at the special meeting of the 
council.^ 

An adjourned meeting is simply a continuation of the original 
special or regular meeting ; and, at an adjourned meeting, not 
only may items of unfinished business be completed ; but any 
act may be performed, which could have been legally done, had 
there been no adjournment.® The courts will, when a question 
arises as to the regularity of the meeting, and of the adjourn- 
ment, presume them to have been regular.' But when an or- 
dinance must be introduced at a meeting previous to the one, 
at which it is to be acted upon, i