(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 evidence; being a consideration of the nature and general principles of evidence, the instruments of evidence and the rules governing the production, delivery and use of evidence, .."

(Jnru^U ICam ^rlynnl Hihtatjj 



Cornel) University Library 
KF 8935.E46 
V.3 
A treatise on the law of evidence; being 



3 1924 020 130 369 




Cornell University 
Library 



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

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



http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924020130369 



A TREATISE ON 



THE LAW OF EVIDENCE 



BEING A CONSIDERATION OF THE 

NATURE AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF EVIDENCE, THE INSTRUMENTS OF EVIDENCE 

AND THE RULES GOVERNING THE PRODUCTION, DELIVERY AND USE OF EVIDENCE, 

TOGETHER WITH INCIDENTAL MATTERS OF PRACTICE, INCLUDING ALSO 

UNDER AN ALPHABETICAL ARRANGEMENT THE APPLICATION OF 

THE RULES AND PRINCIPLES OF EVIDENCE TO PARTICULAR 

ACTIONS, ISSUES AND PARTIES IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL, 

EQUITY AND ADMIRALTY CASES, TOGETHER_ 

WITH EVIDENCE IN COURTS MARTIAL 



By BYRON K. ELLIOTT 



WILLIAM F. ELLIOTT 

Authors of " Roads and Streets." "Railroads." "General Practice" 
and "Appellate Procedure" 



IN FOUR volumes 

VOLUME III 

CIVIL TRIAL EVIDENCE 

PARTICULAR ACTIONS, ISSUES AND PARTIES 



INDIANAPOLIS 

THE BOBBS-MERRILL COMPANY 

190S 



Copyright igos 
The Bobbs-Merrill Company 







TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



CHAPTEE LXXV. 



ABANDONMENT. 



Sec. 

1571. Generally. 

1572. Burden of proof. 

1573. Question of law or fact. 

1574. Range of evidence. 

1575. The act. 



Sec. 

1576. The intent. 

1577. What is sufficient evidence. 

1578. What is not sufficient evidence. 

1579. Non-user and misuser. 

1580. Lapse of time. 



CHAPTEE LXXVI. 



ABATEMENT. 



Sec. 

1581. Burden of proof. 

1582. Question of law or fact. 

1583. Order of proof and hearing. 

1584. Alien enemy. 

1585. Want of legal capacity to sue. 

1586. Insufficient service. 



Sec. 

1587. Misnomer. 

1588. Non-joinder of parties. 

1589. Another action pending. 

1590. Pendency of former action. 

1591. Best and secondary evidence. 



CHAPTEE LXXVII 



ACOOKD AND SATISFACTION. 



Sec. 

1592. (Jeneraily. 

1593. Burden of proof. 

1594. Questions of law or fact. 

1595. Satisfaction as well as accord 

must be proved. 

1596. Liquidated and unliquidated 

claims or demands. 

(iii) 



Sec. 

1597. Parties. 

1598. Documentary and parol evi- 
dence. 

1599. Range and sufficiency of evi- 
dence. 



IV 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



CHAPTEE LXXVIII. 



ACCOUNTS AND ACCOUNTING. 



Sec. 

1600. Generally. 

1601. Evidence and procedure. 

1602. Accounts. 

1603. Actions on accounts. 

1604. Burden of proof and evidence. 

1605. Accounts stated — Generally. 

1606. Questions of law or fact. 

1607. Burden and manner of prov- 

ing account stated. 

1608. Presumptions in cases of ac- 

count stated. 



Sec. 

1609. Impeachment of accounts 

stated. 

1610. Accounting in equity — Before 

Interlocutory decree. 

1611. Accounting in equity — ^After 

Interlocutory decree. 

1612. Accounting in equity — Answer 

as evidence. 

1613. Accounting under the code. 



CHAPTEE LXXIX. 



ADVERSE POSSESSION. 



Sec. 

1614. Generally. 

1615. Burden of proof. 

1616. Question of law or fact. 

1617. Presumptions. 

1618. The possession. 

1619. The intent. 



Sec. 

1620. Character and extent ot pos- 

session 

1621. Declarations. 

1622. Reputation. 

1623. Evidence to rebut or defeat. 



CHAPTEE LXXX. 



Sec. 


-a.\:rjCi. 


L^ V 1 ■ 

Sec. 


1624. 


Generally — Scope of chapter. 


1634. 


1625. 


Burden of proof — Scope of evi- 






dence. 


1635. 


1626. 


Question of law or fact. 


1636. 


1627. 


Evidence of agency. 




1628, 


Authority — How proved. 


1637. 


1629. 


When corporation is principal. 


1638, 


1630. 


Authority in writing. 




1631. 


Agency inferred from relation 


1639. 




of parties. 


1640. 


1632. 


Extent of agency. 


1641. 


1633. 


Habit and course of dealing. 





Course of dealing — ^Acts ot 
agent in other transactions. 

Circumstantial evidence. 

Declarations and admissions 
of agent. 

Admissions of principal. 

Agency not provable by gen- 
eral reputation. 

Ratification. 

Parol evidence. 

Revocation and termination of 
agency. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



CHAPTBE LXXXI. 



ALIENATING AFFECTIONS. 



Sec. 

1642. Generally. 

1643. Burden of proof. 

1644. Question of law or fact. 

1645. Presumptions. 

1646. The intent. 

1647. Admissions. 

1648. Declarations and letters. 

1649. Res gestae. 



Sec. 

1650. Partial alienation. 

1651. Adultery. 

1651a. Alienation and criminal 

versa tion. 
1651b. Consent as a bar. 

1652. Damages. 

1653. Measure of damages. 



CHAPTBE LXXXII. 



ARBITRATION AND AWARD. 



Sec. 

1654. Generally. 

1655. Presumptions. 

1656. Burden of proof. 

1657. Selecting form of action. 

1658. Evidence of submission and 

authority. 

1659. Umpire. 

1660. Execution of the award. 

1661. Notice — Publication or deliv- 

ery. 



Sec. 

1662. Demand. 

1663. Performance. 

1664. Parol evidence. 

1665. Defenses. 

1666. Revocation. 

1667. Disability. 

1668. Award as evidence in other 

proceedings. 



CHAPTBE LXXXIII. 



ASSAULT AND BATTERY. 



Sec. Sec. 

1689. Generally. 1696. 

1690. Burden of proof. 

1691. Questions of law or fact. 1697. 

1692. Scope of evidence — Res gestae. 1698. 

1693. Time and place. 1699. 

1694. Character or reputation. 1700. 

1695. Declarations and admissions — 1701. 

Res gestae. 1702. 

1703. 



Opinions and conclusions of 

witnesses. 
Justification. 
Son assault demesne. 
Molliter manus imposuit 
Moderate castigavit. 
Other defenses. 
Evidence in mitigation. 
Damages — ^Aggravation. 



vi 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



CHAPTBE LXXXIV, 



ASSIGNEES. 



Sec. 

1704. 

1705. 

1706. 
1707. 
1708. 
1709. 



Scope of chapter — Generally. 

Right of assignee to sue — Bur- 
den of proof. 

Evidence of assignee's right. 

Proof of the assignment. 

Assignee of corporation. 

Assignees under general as- 
signment for creditors. 



Sec. 

1710. Delivery and acceptance. 

1711. Consideration. 

1712. Best and secondary evidence. 

1713. Parol evidence. 

1714. Other extrinsic evidence. 

1715. Declarations and admissions. 

1716. Former adjudication — Estop- 

pel. 



CHAPTEE LXXXV. 



ASSUMPSIT. 



Sec. 




Sec. 


1717. 


Generally. 


1727. 


1718. 


General assumpsit — Common 


1728. 




counts. 


1729. 


1719. 


Distinguished from other 
forms of action. 


1730. 


1720. 


Burden of proof. 


1731. 


1721. 


Presumptions. 


1732, 


1722. 


Questions of law or fact. 




1723. 


The promise. 


1733. 


1724. 


Consideration. 




1725. 


Request and demand. 


1734. 


1726. 


Non-assumpsit — Defenses. 


1735. 



Money lent. 

Money paid. 

Money had and received. 

Duress — Mistake — Failure 

consideration. 
Money received by agent. 
Goods bargained and sold, 

sold and delivered. 
Work, labor, or service — 

terial furnished. 
Board and lodging. 
Use and occupation. 



of 



Ma- 



CHAPTBR LXXXVI. 



ATTACHMENT. 



Sec. 

1736. Generally. 

1737. Burden of proof. 

1738. Presumptions. 

1739. Circumstantial evidence. 

1740. Admissions and declarations. 

1741. Affidavits. 



Sec. 

1742. Grounds of attachment. 

1743. Absconding debtors. 

1744. Fraud. 

1745. Fraudulent transfer. 

1746. Fraudulent intent to dispose of 

property. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



TU 



CHAPTER LXXXVI— Continued. 



Sec. Sec. 

1747. Removal of property with in- 1757. 

tent to defraud. 

1748. Removal and concealment of 1758. 

property. 

1749. Non-residence. 1759. 

1750. Other grounds for attachment. 

1751. Claims of third parties. 1760. 

1752. Intervening claimants have 

burden of proof. 1761. 

1753. Lien of third party. 

1754. Defense of title in another. 1762. 

1755. Actions on bond. 

1756. "Wrongful attachment— Gener- 1763. 

ally. 



Wrongful attachnieiit— Judg- 
ment as evidence. 

Wrongful attachment — ^Admis- 
sions of attaching creditors. 

Circumstantial evidence of 
wrongful attachment. 

Defenses in actions for wrong- 
ful attachment. 

Wrongful attachment — Finan- 
cial condition of debtor. 

Wrongful attachment — Dam- 
ages. 

Mitigation of damages. 



CHAPTEE LXXXVII. 



BAILMENTS. 



Sec. Sec. 

1764. Meaning of term. 1778. 

1765. Burden of proof — Generally. 

1766. Presumptions — Generally. 

1767. Question of law or fact — Gen- 1779. 

erally. 

1768. What may be introduced or 1780. 

considered — Generally. 

1769. Bailment — Sale or gift — Dis- 

tinctions. 1781. 

1770. Bailment— Sale or gift— Bur- 

den of proof. 

1771. Bailment — Sale or gift— Pre- 1782. 

sumptions. 

1772. Bailment — Sale or gift— Ques- 1783. 

tion of law or fact. 

1773. Kind or class of bailment— 1784. 

Generally. 

1774. Kind or class of bailment— 1785. 

Burden of proof. 

1775. Kind or class of bailment — 

Question of law or fact. 1786. 

1776. Kind or class of bailment — 

What may be introduced or 1787. 
considered. 

1777. Nature and elements — Dellv- 1788. 

ery and acceptance. 



Sufficiency, validity and terms 
of contract — B i ■ d e n of 
proof. 

Sufficiency, validity and terms 
of contract — Presumptions. 

Sufficiency, validity and terms 
of contract — Question of law 
or fact. 

Sufficiency, validity and terms 
of contract — ^What may be 
introduced or considered. 

Parol evidence — ^Admissibility 
to vary writing. 

Grounds of action against 
bailees. 

Breach of duty — Negligence — 
Burden of proof. 

Burden of proof as to negli- 
gence — Prevailing and cor- 
rect rule. 

Breach of duty— Presump- 
tions. 

Breach of duty — Question of 
law or fact. 

Breach of duty— What may be 
introduced or considered. 



Vlll 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER LXXXVI I— Continued. 



Sec. 

1789. Eviction. 

1790. Damages — ^Loss or destruction. 

1791. Damages — No loss or destruc- 

tion, but injury. 

1792. Damages — Actions against 

third parties. 

1793. Damages — Who may give evi- 

dence. 



Sec. 

1794. Evidence in particular classes 

— Generally. 

1795. Evidence in particular classes 

— Gratuitous bailments. 

1796. Evidence in particular classes 

— ^Warehousemen. 

1797. Evidence in particular classes 

— Innkeepers. 

1798. Pledges. 



CHAPTBE LXXXVIII. 



BANKRUPTCY. 



Sec. 




Sec. 


179S. 


Generally. 


1811. 


1800. 


Burden of proof. 


1812. 


1801. 


Presumptions. 




1802. 


Evidence of intent. 


1813. 


1803. 


Evidence of assets. 




1804. 


Examination of witnesses. 


1814. 


1805. 


Confidential relationship. 


1815. 


1806. 


Examination of bankrupt. 


1816. 


180.7. 


Criminating evidence. 


1817. 


1808. 


Requisites of order for exam- 


1818, 




ination. 


1819. 


1809. 


Depositions. 


1820. 


1810. 


Concealment and conveyances 
to defraud creditors. 


1821. 



Preferences. 

Conclusive evidence of prefer- 
ence. 

Preference through legal pro- 
ceedings. 

General assignment. 

Admissions of insolvency. 

Discharge of bankrupt. 

Revocation of discharge. 

Proof of claims. 

Compositions. 

Record evidence. 

Discharge in bankruptcy as a 
defense. 



CHAPTER LXXXIX. 



BILLS AND NOTES. 



Sec. Sec. 

1822. Generally. 1833. 

1823. Burden of proof. 1834. 

1824. Presumptions. 1835. 

1825. Execution. 1836. 

1826. Consideration. 1837. 

1827. Ownership. 1838. 

1828. Bona fide holders. 1839. 

1829. Possession. 1840. 

1830. Indorsement. 1841. 

1831. Circumstances attending exe- 1842. 

cution. 1843. 

1832. Conditions. 



Mistake. 

Fraud and duress. 

Presentment and demand. 

Waiver. 

Protest and notice. 

Notary's certificate. 

Acceptance. 

Payment. 

Usury. 

Declarations and admissions. 

Parol evideBce. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



IX 



CHAPTEE XC. 



BOUNDARIES. 


Sec. 


Sec. 


1843a. Generally. 


1853. 


1844. Burden of proof. 


1854. 


1845. Presumptions and rules of 


1855. 


law. 


1856. 


1846. Presumptions in favor of sur- 




veys. 


1857. 


1847. Presumptions as to boundaries 


1858. 


on water or highways. 


1859. 


1848. Other presumptions. 


1860. 


1849. Questions of law or fact. 


1861. 


1850. Parol evidence. 




1851. Reputation. 


1862. 


1852. Opinions. 





Best evidence. 

Intent. 

Establishing lost corners. 

Surveys, maps, reports and 
field notes. 

Agreements. 

Declarations and admissions.. 

Ancient boundaries. 

Estoppel. 

Defenses and matters admit- 
ted generally. 

Documents referred to. 



CHAPTEE XCI. 



BREACH OF PROMISE. 



Sec. Sec. 

1863. Contract — Generally. ' 1880. 

1864. Express and implied contracts. 1881. 

1865. Burden of proof. 1882. 

1866. Presumptions. 1883. 

1867. Questions of law or fact. 1884. 

1868. Direct evidence. 1885. 

1869. Circumstantial evidence. 1886. 

1870. Letters. 1887. 

1871. Secondary evidence of letters. 

1872. Declarations and admissions. 1888. 

1873. Opinions. 

1874. Acceptance. 1889. 

1875. Breach. 1890. 

1876. Request of plaintiff. 1891. 

1877. Consideration. 1892. 

1878. Statute of frauds. 1893. 

1879. Defenses — Infancy. 



Release. 

Fraud. 

Unchastity — ^Reputation. 

Married parties. 

Immoral or illegal promises. 

Impotency and ill-health. 

Damages. 

Financial condition of plain- 
tiff. 

Financial condition of defend- 
ant. 

Exemplary damages. 

Fraudulent representations. 

Seduction. 

Mental suffering. 

Mitigation of damages. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER XCII. 



CARRIERS OE PASSENGERS AND BAGGAGE. 



Sec. 




Sec. 


1894. 


Meaning of term. 


1900. 


1895. 


Pleading and evidence — Gen- 






erally. 


1901. 


1896. 


Burden of proof— Presump- 
tions. 




1897. 


Burden of proof — Status as 
passenger. 


1902. 


1898. 


Presumptions — Status as pas- 
senger. 


1903. 


1899. 


What may be considered or 
introduced — Status as pas- 


1904, 




senger. 


1905, 



Breach of contract — Burden of 
proof. 

Breach of contract — Burden of 
proof — Contributory negli- 
gence. 

Res ipsa loquitur — Presump- 
tions. 

Res ipsa loquitur — Doctrine 
applied. 

Breach of contract — ^What 
may be shown. 

Baggage — ^Loss or damage. 



CHAPTER XCIII. 



CARRIERS OF GOODS AND LIVE STOCK. 



Sec. 




Sec.' 


1906. 


Meaning of term. 


1913. 


1907. 


Actions against common car- 






riers — ^Pleading and evi- 


1914. 




dence. 




1908. 


Evidence for defense — Gener- 
ally. 


1915. 


1909. 


Whether a common carrier — 
Burden of proof and pre- 


1916. 




sumption. 


1917. 


1910. 


Whether a common carrier — 






How shown. 


1918. 


1911. 


The contract — Burden of 






proof. 


1919. 


1912. 


The contract — Presumptions. 


1920. 



The contract — ^What may be 
shown — Generally. 

The contract — What may be 
considered or introduced. 

Breach of contract — Burden of 
proof. 

Burden of proof — Liability 
limited by special contract. 

Breach of contract — Presump- 
tions. 

Breach of contract — What evi- 
dence is admissible. 

Live stock — Burden of proof. 

Rule where owner accom- 
panies stock. 



TABLE OP CONTENTS. 



XI 



CHAPTER XCIV. 



CASE. 



Sec. 

1921. Generally. 

1922. Distinguished from other ac- 

tions — Election. 

1923. Burden of proof— Plaintiff's 

case. 



Sec. 

1924. Several plaintiffs or defend- 

ants. 

1925. Negligence of agent. 

1926. E3vidence for the defendant. 

1927. Evidence generally. 



CHAPTER XCV. 



CORPORATIONS. 



Sec. Sec. 

1928. Generally. 1939. 

1929. Judicial notice. 

1930. Burden of proof as to corpo- 1940. 

rate existence. 

1931. Burden of proof as to other 1941. 

matters. 1942. 

1932. Presumptions as to corporate 1943. 

existence and acts. 

1933. Presumptions as to authority 1944. 

and acts of agents. 

1934. Proof of corporate existence. 1945. 

1935. Evidence of user. 

1936. Evidence of acceptance and of 

corporate organization. 1946. 

1937. Certificates of incorporation. 

1938. Corporate existence proved by 1947. 

reputation. ] 948. 



Proof as to foreign corpora- 
tions. 

Estoppel to question or to 
deny corporate existence. 

Best and secondary evidence. 

Records of public corporations. 

Records of private corpora- 
tions. 

Corporate books as evidence 
against corporation. 

Corporate books as evidence 
against or between stran- 
gers. 

Corporate books as evidence 
against members. 

Parol evidence. 

Admissions and declarations. 



CHAPTER XCVI. 



COVENANT. 



Sec. 

1949. Generally. 

1950. Burden of proof. 

1951. Evidence under particular 

pleas. 

1952. Actions by and against as- 



RIPTIPPR 



Sec. 

1954. When breach occurs. 

1955. Real covenants. 

1956. Covenant of seisin. 

1957. Covenant against i n c u m- 

brance. 

1PKS Pnv<aTinTi+ fnr miiot oninvTYioyif 



■xn 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



CHAPTEE XCVII. 



DAMAGES. 



Sec. 

1960. 

1961.^ 

1962.' 

1963. 

1964. 

1965. 

1966. 

1967. 

1968. 
1969. 
1970. 

1971. 

1972. 

1973. 

1974. 
1975. 
1976. 

1977. 
1978. 

1979. 

1980. 

1981. 

1982. 



1983. Special damages — Expenses of 

trial. 

1984. Earning capacity — Impair- 

ment. 

1985. Earning capacity — Special em- 

ployment. 



Scope of chapter. 

Damages generally. 

Presumption as to damages. 

Burden of proof. 

Burden of proof — Open and 
close. 

Burden of proof — Unliqui- 
dated damages. 

Burden of proof — Suther- 
land's rule. 

Presumptions against party — 
Withholding of proof. 

Prima facie case. 

Damnum absque injuria. 

Injuria sine damno — Excep- 
tions. 

Injury from proper exercise of 
lawful right. 

Infringement of legal right as 
a basis of a cause of action. 

Legal measurements for esti- 
mating damages. 

Nominal damages. 

Damages — Pleading. 

General damages particularly 
pleaded. 

Special damages. 

Special damages — Proximate 
results. 

Special damages — Pleading 
and proof. 

Special damages — Pleading in- 
sufficient to admit proof. 

Special damages — Contract 
with reference to. 

Special damages — Counsel 



Sec. 
1986. 



1987. 

1988. 
1989. 
1990. 

1991. 

1992. 

1993. 

1994. 
1995. 

1996. 

1997. 

1998. 
1999. 
2000. 
2001. 
2002. 
2003. 
2004. 
2005. 
2006. 
2007. 



Earning capacity diminished 
—Proof under general alle- 
gations. 

Injury — Proof of items of 
damages. 

Injury — Permanent. 

Injury — ^Aggravating disease. 

Plaintiff's occupation — Proof 
as affecting damages. 

Physical and mental pain and 
suffering. 

Pain and suffering — How 
proved. 

Injury to property — Earning 
capacity. 

Profits as damages. 

Wrongful death — Proof of 
damages. 

Exemplary or punitive dam- 
ages. 

Exemplary damages — Proof of 
defendant's financial stand- 
ing. 

Absence of pecuniary basis — 
Jury estimates. 

Limitations — Assessment by 
jury. 

Breach of contract — Liquidat- 
ed damages. 

Proof when a character is in 
issue. 

Proof of character as affecting 
damages. 

Proof of character — Mitiga- 
tion of damages. 

Aggravation of damages— Il- 
lustrations. 

Mitigation of damages — Illus- 
trations. 

Proof of damages — Opinions 
of witnesses. 

Proof of damages — Opinions 
of witnesses — Exceptions. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



xm 



CHAPTER XGVIII. 



DEATH. 



Sec. 

2008. Presumption of death — Evi- 

dence. 

2009. Evidence of death. 

2010. Burden of proof. 

2011. Burden of proof as to negli- 

gence and contributory neg- 
ligence. 

2012. Cause of death. 

2013. Declarations and admissions. 

2014. Threats — Defendant's fear of 

bodily harm. 



Sec. 

2015. Life expectancy of deceased 

and of beneficiaries. 

2016. Health, habits and domestic 

relations of deceased. 

2017. Pecuniary condition of bene- 

ficiaries and deceased. 

2018. Pecuniary condition of de- 

fendant. 

2019. Release — Mitigation of dam- 

ages. 



CHAPTEE XCIX. 



DEBT. 



Sec. 

2020. (Jenerally. 

2021. Presumptions and burden of 

proof. 

2022. Nil debet— Evidence under. 

2023. Debt on parol contract. 

2024. Statutes of limitations and 

frauds. 



Sec. 

2025. Debt for statutory penalty. 

2026. Debt on specialty — Breaches 

of covenant — Non est fact- 
um. 

2027. Debt on judgment. 



CHAPTER C. 



DIVORCE. 



Sec. 

2028. Meaning of term. 

2029. Burden of proof. 

2030. Presumptions. 

2031. Questions of law or fact. 

2032. Evidence in general. 

2033. Adultery. 



Sec. 

2034. Cruelty. 

2035. Desertion. 

2036. Failure to support. 

2037. Habitual drunkenness. 

2038. Defenses. 



XIV 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



CHAPTEE CI. 



EJECTMENT. 



Sec. 

2039. Title— Proof. 

2040. Proof of title— Prima facie 

case. 

2041. Recovery on strength of title 

— Meaning. 

2042. Legal title — Proof and pre- 

sumption. 

2043. Presumption of possession un- 

der legal title — Exceptions. 

2044. Burden of proof. 

2045. General issue — Proof under. 

2046. Order of proof. 

2047. Right to open and close. 

2048. Owner of legal title — Recov- 

ery. 

2049. Excepted tracts — Burden of 

proof. 

2050. Proof of title — Common 

source. 

2051. Common source of title — Prac- 

tice. 

2052. Execution sale — ^Proof of title. 

2053. Tax sale — Proof of title. 



Sec. 

2054. Trustee's title. 

2055. Title by adverse possession. 

2056. Equitable title. 

2057. Plaintiff's possessory right — 

Prima facie case. 

2058. Plaintiff's possessory right — 

Limitations. 

2059. Proof of possession — Suffi- 

ciency. 

2060. Proof of possession — Insuffi- 

ciency. 

2061. Defendant's possession. 

2062. Defendant's possession — Proof 

of ouster. 

2063. Insufficient title — Land certifi- 

cates and receipts. 

2064. Proof of deed without posses- 

sion — Effect. 

2065. Outstanding title. 

2066. Outstanding title — Burden of 

proof. 

2067. Improvements by person in 

possession — Compensation. 



CHAPTEE CII. 



ESTOPPEL. 



Sec. 

2068. Generally. 

2069. Equitable estoppel generally. 

2070. Fraudulent intention not es- 

sential. 

2071. Estoppel by conduct — Misrep- 

resentation and conceal- 
ment. 

2072. Estoppel by silence — Standing 

by. 



Sec. 

2073. Other instances of estoppel. 

2074. Persons affected — Extent of es- 

toppel — Dedication. 

2075. Pleading — When evidence is 

admissible. 

2076. Burden of proof. 

2077. Evidence to establish. 

2078. Questions of law and fact. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



XT 



CHAPTBE cm. 



EXECUTORS AND ADMIJIISTEATOES. 



Sec. 




Sec. 


2079. 


Generally. 


2090. 


2080. 


Presumptions. 


2091. 


2081. 


Burden of proof. 




2082. 


Prima facie evidence — Proof 


2092. 




of plaintiff's representative 


2093. 




character. 


2094. 


2083. 


Prima facie evidence — Evi- 






dence of representative char- 


2095. 




acter of defendant. 


2096. 


2084. 


Absentee. 


2097. 


2085. 


Parol evidence. 




2086. 


Admissions and declarations. 


2098. 


2087. 


Admissions and declarations 






of decedent. 


2099. 


2088. 


Recitals in deed. 


2100. 


2089. 


Inventory and appraisement. 





Current reports. 

Indirect purchase by executor 
or administrator. 

Executor as witness of will. 

Attorney's fees. 

Testimony of interested par- 
ties against the estate. 

State statutes. 

United States courts rule. 

Transactions after death 
decedent. 

When administrator is 
competent to testify. 

Deposition of decedent. 

Competency of co-defendant 
with administrator. 



of 



la- 



CHAPTBE CIV. 



FALSE IMPRISONMENT. 



Sec. 
2101. 

2102. 



2103. 
2104. 
2105. 
2106. 
2107. 

2108. 
2109. 
2110. 



False imprisonment — Defini- 
tion. 

False imprisonment and ma- 
licious prosecution — Distinc- 
tion. 

Burden of proof. 

Arrest. 

Restraint. 

Restraint — Illustrations. 

Abuse of process — ^Unreasona- 
ble restraint. 

Malice. 

Motive and good faith. 

Peace oflScer — Arrest without 
warrant. 



Sec. 

2111. Private person — Arrest with- 

out warrant. 

2112. Private person aiding officer- 

2113. Judicial officers — Liability. 

2114. Corporations — ^Liability. 

2115. Damages. 

2116. Justification — Burden of prooft. 

2117. Probable cause — Definition. 

2118. Probable cause — Existence. 

2119. Advice of counsel. 

2120. Arrest under warrant — Justtfit 

cation. 

2121. Warrant fair on its facei — 

Protection. 



XVI 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER CV. 



FEAUD^ FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE, AND DUEESS. 



Fraud. 
Sec. 

2122. Proof of fraud. 

2123. Pleading fraud in general 

terms. 

2124. Pleading fraud — Specific facts. 

2125. Proof need not follow plead- 

ing strictly. 

2126. Prima facie case. 

2127. No presumption of fraud. 

2128. No presumption of fraud — 

Limitation. 

2129. Inferred from proofs. 

2130. Burden of proof. 

2131. Burden of. proof to defeat 

written instrument. 

2132. Fraud as a defense — Burden. 

2133. Difficulty of making proof of 

fraud. 

2134. Latitude and scope of proof. 

2135. Latitude and scope of proof — 

Illustrations and meaning. 

2136. Proof of circumstances. 

2137. Proof must establish certain 

propositions. 

2138. Proof must show plaintiff 

damaged. 

2139. Defendant not benefited. 

2140. Fraud amounting to a crime 

— Degree of proof. 

2141. Proof of similar acts or 

frauds. 

2142. Rule denied or limited. 

2143. Massachusetts rule. 

2144. Badges of fraud. 

2145. Badges of fraud — Illustra- 

tions. 

2146. Party may testify a.S to intent. 

2147. Party may testify as to intent 

— Limitations. 

2148. Fraudulent concealment. 



Fraudulent Conveyance. 

Burden — Presumption of hon- 
esty. 

Proof must overcome pre- 
sumption of honesty. 

Burden of proof — Prima facie 
case. 

Intent — ^A question of fact. 

Intent of grantor — Knowledge 
of grantee. 

Fraud of vendor — Burden on 
vendee. 

Debtor's insolvency — Grant- 
ee's knowledge. 

Inferences of fraud — Prima 
facie proof of intent. 

Debtor's want of other prop- 
erty — Pleading and proof. 

Voluntary conveyance — Prima 
facie case. 

Voluntary conveyance — Pre- 
sumption of fraud. 

Voluntary conveyance — Grant- 
ee's knowledge of intent. 

Conveyance by insolvent to 
relatives. 

Voluntary conveyance to child 
— Proof of fraud. 

Inadequate consideration. 

Possession unchanged — Effect 
and burden of proof. 

Subsequent creditor. 

Proof of badges of fraud. 

Duress. 

2167. Definition. 

2168. Duress — Common law. 

2169. Defense is personal. 

2170. Exceptions to rule that de- 

fense Is personal. 



Sec. 
2149. 

2150. 

2151. 

2152. 
2153. 

2154. 

2155. 

2156. 

2157. 

2158. 

2159. 

2160. 

2161. 

2162. 

2163. 
2164. 

2165. 
2166. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER CV— Continued. 



Sec. 




Sec. 


2171. 


Contract avoided by duress — 
Pleading. 


2178. 


2172. 


Pleading specific facts. 


2179. 


2173. 


Burden of proof. 




2174. 


Prima facie case. 


2180. 


2175. 


Degree of restraint — Recent 






rule. 


2181. 


2176. 


Instances of menaces — Mod- 


2182. 




ern rule. 


2183. 


2177. 


Threats. 





2184. 



Violence of threats — Extent of 
fear. 

Threat of civil action or crim- 
inal prosecution. 

Threats of prosecution — Criti- 
cism. 

Duress by imprisonment. 

Lawful imprisonment. 

Threats of lawful imprison- 
ment. 

Duress of goods. 



CHAPTBE CVI. 



HEIES, DEVISEES AND LEGATEES. 



Beirs. 
Sec. 

2185. Scope of chapter. 

2186. Presumptions. 

2187. Presumptions on proof of 

death. 

2188. Burden of proof. 

2189. Burden of proof— Collateral 

kindred. 

2190. Questions of law or fact. 

2191. Prima facie proof. 

2192. Heirship— Pleading. 

2193. Heirship— Proof of facts. 

2194. Heir — Meaning. 

2195. Heirship — Declarations of an- 

cestors. 

2196. Declarations of ancestors — 

Rule stated. 

2197. Declarations of ancestors — 

Limitations. 

2198. Declarant's relation — How es- 

tablished. 

2199. Hearsay, tradition, and repu- 

tation. 

2200. Degrees of kindred — Determi- 

nation. 

2201. Degrees of kindred — Computa- 

tion. 
Vol. 3 Elliott Ev.— ii 



Sec. 

2202. Degrees of kindred — Illustra- 

tions. 

2203. Next of kin— English rule. 

2204. Next of kin — ^American rule. 

2205. Husband and wife — Heir and 

next of kin. 

2206. "Heir" construed to mean 

child. 

2207. Descendants. 

2208. Issue. 

2209. Survivor in common calamity 

— Right of heirs. 

Devisees and Legatees. 

2210. Ambiguity in name of devisee 

— Parol evidence to explain. 

2211. Latent ambiguity — Raised and 

corrected by parol. 

2212. Nature of parol evidence to 

identify devisee. 

2213. Parol evidence — Limitation. 

2214. Presumptions — Mistake in 

name of legatee. 

2215. Devisee — Designation by name 

and relationship. 

2216. Similarity of name — No proof 

of identity. 



XVlll 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER CVI — Continued. 



Sec. 
2217. 

2218. 



2219. 

2220. 

2221. 

2222. 

2223. 

2224. 
2225. 
2226. 
2227. 
2228. 

2229. 

2230. 

2231. 



Identity of devisee — Deter- 
mined from context. 

Identity of devisee — Parol 
proof of testator's declara- 
tions. 

Declarations of testator to 
identify devisee. 

Description applicable to more 

than one. 
-Two claimants — Purpose of 
parol evidence. 

Devisee — ^Palse character giv- 
en by testator. 

Misnomer of devisee — Illustra- 
tions. 

Devisee named by nickname. 

Devisee not named. 

Scope of the parol proof. 

Pretermitted children. 

Presumption — Children not 
named. 

Intention to disinherit must 
appear. 

Intention to disinherit need 
not be stated. 

Proof of intention to disin- 
herit. 



Sec. 

2232. Naming children by associa- 

tion — Illustration. 

2233. Ignorance of devisee — Duty of 

executor. 

2234. Corporations as devisees. 

2235. Municipal corporations and 

counties. 

2236. Unincorporated societies as 

legatees. 

2237. Unincorporated societies — 

Definite bodies. 

2238. Misnomer of society — Identi- 

fication. ' 

2239. Gift to charities by wrong 

names. 

2240. Parol evidence to aid in Iden- 

tification. 

2241. Two corporations — Name and 

description. 

2242. Corporations misnamed — Illus- 

trations. 

2243. Beneficiary must be definite 

and certain. 

2244. Beneficiaries sufficiently defi- 

nite — Illustrations. 

2245. Beneficiaries indefinite — Illus- 

trations. 



CHAPTEE CVII. 



HUSBAND AND WIFE. 



Sec. 




Sec. 


2246. 


Generally. 


2254. 


2247. 


Burden of proof — Agency — 






Necessaries. 


2255. 


2248. 


Burden of proof — Miscellane- 






ous. 


2256. 


2249. 


Presumptions — At common 






law. 


2257. 


2250. 


Presumptions — Intention of 


2258. 




wife to bind separate estate. 


2259. 


2251. 


Presumptions — As to wife's 


2260. 




agency. 


2261. 


2252. 


Presumptions — As to hus- 
band's agency. 


2262. 


2253. 


, Presumptions — As to coercion. 


2263. 



Presumptions — As to gifts to 

wife. 
Presumptions — As to gifts to 

husband. 
Presumptions — As to some 

joint matters. 
Presumptions — Miscellaneous. 
Questions of law or fact. 
Contracts of suretyship. 
Evidence as to necessaries. 
Evidence as to gifts. 
Evidence as to miscellaneous 

matters. 
Declarations and admissions. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



XIX 



CHAPTEE CVIII. 

INFANTS. 

Sec. Sec. 

2264. Burden of proof — In general. 2270. Question of law or fact — In 

2265. Burden of proof — As to crlml- general. 

nal capacity. 2271. Question of law or fact — Com- 

2266. Presumptions — In general. petency. 

2267. Presumptions — As to compe- 2272. Question of law or fact — Cred- 

tency. ibility. 

2268. Presumptions — As to criminal 2273. Evidence as to age. 

capacity. 2274. Admissions and testimony of 

2269. Presumptions in cases of tort. infant. 

2275. Evidence in general. 



CHAPTER CIX. 



INSANITY. 

Sec. Sec. 

2276. Presumptions. 2284. 

2277. Burden of proof. 2285. 

2278. Question of law or fact. 

2279. Inquisition and records as ev- 2286. 

idence on question of insan- 
ity. 2287. 

2280. Conduct and appearance as 

evidence of insanity. 2288. 

2281. Insanity at time in question — 

Evidence as to insanity at 2289. 
other times. 

2282. Evidence of conduct in other 2290. 

matters and at other times. 2291. 

2283. Instruments executed by par- 

ty claimed to be insane. 



Letters and diaries. 

Nature of act in question as 
evidence of insanity. 

Absence of motive as evidence 
of insanity. 

Suicide as evidence of insan- 
ity. 

Evidence of insanity of ances- 
tors. 

Reputation as evidence of in- 
sanity. 

Opinion evidence — Experts. 

Declarations. 



CHAPTER ex. 

INSUKANOE. 



General. 
Sec. 

2292. Burden of proof — Plaintiff's 

case. 

2293. Defense — Burden of proof. 

2294. Premium — Amount not fixed. 



Sec. 

2295. Premium — Payment. 

2296. Payment of premium — Prima 

facie case. 

2297. Premium — Payment required 

by policy. 



XX 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER CX— Continued. 



Sec. Sec. 

2298. Premium — Payment waived. 2329. 

2299. Waiver by general agent. 

2300. Waiver by local agent. 2330. 

2301. Warranties— Proof of perform- 

ance. 2331. 

2302. Performance of warranties — 

Surden of proof. 

2303. Policy as evidence. 2332. 

2304. Application as evidence. 

2333. 

Fire. 

2305. Burden on plaintiff. 2334. 

2306. Prima facie case. 

2307. Ownership — Prima facie case. 

2308. Insurable interest, 2335. 

2309. Insurable interest — Nature 

and proof. 2336. 

2310. Insurable interest— Burden of 2337. 

proof. 

2311. Oral contract of insurance — 2338. 

Proof. 2339. 

2312. Oral contract of insurance — 

Presumptions as to terms. 2340. 

2313. Oral contract of insurance — 

Proof in case of loss. 2341. 

2314. Agent's authority to make oral 

contract. 2342. 

2315. Loss— Damages. 

2316. Loss- Proof of value. 2343. 

2317. Proof of value — Buildings. 

2318. Value of buildings— Opinion 2344. 

evidence. 2345. 

2319. Proof of value— Goods and 

personal property. 2346. 

2320. Value of stock of goods— Opin- 

ion evidence. 2347. 

2321. Proof of value — Open policy. 2348. 

2322. Proof of value— Valued policy. 

2323. Risk — Commencement. 2349. 

2324. Notice of loss. 2350. 

2325. Notice — Immediate or forth- 

■"'itb. 2351. 

2326. Notice — Meaning of "immedi- 

ate," "forthwith." 2352. 

2327. Change of location, vacation. 2353. 

2328. Vacancy— Proof. 



Property removed — Burden on 
defendant. 

Knowledge of violated condi- 
tion — Waiver. 

Loss within terms of policy — 
Goods damaged by removal 
or theft. 

Loss within terms of policy — 
Lightning and wind. 

Loss within terms of policy — 
Explosions. 

Loss within terms of policy — 
Damage by water, smoke 
and heat. 

Prohibited use of property or 
premises. 

False swearing. 

Certificate of nearest magis- 
trate. 

Proofs of loss. 

Proofs of loss — Method of 
proving. 

Time of giving notice — Ques- 
tion of law or fact. 

Conditions requiring proofs of 
loss. 

Compliance with conditions 
requiring proofs of loss. 

Proofs of loss — Evidence for 
court. 

Proofs of loss — As admissions. 

Proofs of loss — As evidence of 
value. 

Proofs of loss — Correcting mis- 
takes in. 

Proofs of loss — Time sufficient. 

Proofs of loss — Time insuffi- 
cient. 

Waiver — Recovery on proof of. 

Waiver of proofs of loss — 
Burden. 

Waiver — Question of law or 
fact. 

Waiver — Agent's authority. 

Waiver — Implied from con- 
duct. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER CX— Continued. 



Sec. 

2354. Waiver by estoppel — Limita- 

tions. 

2355. Waiver — Denial of all liability. 

2356. Waiver — Receiving and acting 

on defective proofs. 

2357. Waiver — By silence. 

2358. Waiver — I nsurer cannot 

change grounds of objec- 
tions. 

2359. Waiver of proofs of loss— Il- 

lustrations. 

2360. Waiver — Time virithin which 

acts must be done. 

2361. Defective proofs — Duty of in- 

surer. 

2362. Total loss — Question of fact. 

2363. Total loss— Test. 

2364. Total loss— Meaning. 

2365. Total loss — Minnesota rule. 

2366. Total loss — Wisconsin rule. 

2367. Loss not total. 

Life. 

2368. Life Insurance — Nature of 

contract. 

2369. Contract of life insurance — 

When Indemnity. 

2370. Contract of life insurance — 

Not Indemnity. 

2371. Burden of proof — Plaintiff. 

2372. Burden of proof— Defendant. 

2373. Prima facie case. 

2374. Proof of warranties — Burden 

and presumptions. 

2375. Warranties and representa- 

tions — Material and imma- 
terial. 

2376. Declarations and statements 

of insured — Admissibility. 

2377. Declarations and statements 

of claimant — Admissibility. 

2378. Disease— Proof sufficient to 

avoid policy. 

2379. Insurable Interest — Necessary. 

2380. Insurable Interest — Nature. 

2381. Insurable Interest — Proof of 

relationship. 



Sec. 

2382. Insurable interest — Implied 

from relation. 

2383. Insurable interest — Continua- 

tion. 

2384. Insurance of one's life for ben- 

efit of another. 

2385. Assignment to one having no 

insurable interest. 

2386. Death of assured— Proof. 

2387. Proofs of death — Purpose and 

effect. 

2388. Proofs of death — Prima facie 

case. 

2389. Physician's certificate as evi- 

dence. 

2390. Proofs of death— Coroner's 

verdict as evidence. 

2391. Suicide — Presumptions. 

2392. Suicide— Burden of proof. 

2393. Suicide — Proof suflBcient. 

2394. Suicide — Proof insufiicient. 

2395. Suicide— Effect of insanity. 

2396. Suicide — Burden of proof as 

to insanity. 

2397. Suicide — Fraud on insurer. 

Accident and Casualty. 

2398. Accident and casualty insur- 

ance. 

2399. Accident — Meaning. 

2400. Accidental cause — Accidental 

death. 

2401. Injury or death— Presump- 

tions. 

2402. Burden of proof. 

2403. Injury within terms of policy. 

2404. Burden of proof on defendant. 

2405. Voluntary exposure to unnec- 

essary danger — Burden. 

2406. Voluntary exposure — Proof of 

intention. 

2407. Voluntary exposure — Effect of 

negligence. 

2408. Voluntary exposure — Proof 

sufficient. 

2409. Voluntary exposure — Proof in- 

sufficient. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER OX— Continued. 



Sec. 

2410. External violence — Burden of 

proof. 

2411. External signs of violence — 

Meaning. 

2412. External signs of violence — 

Proof suflScient. 

2413. External violence — Meaning. 

2414. External violence — Proof suf- 

ficient. 

2415. External violence — Proof in- 

sufficient. 

2416. Injury — Immediate disability. 

2417. Total disability— Proof. 

2418. Time of filing proofs. 

Mutual and Benefit Societies. 

2419. Mutual insurance. 

2420. Parol evidence — Admissibility. 

2421. Presumptions. 

2422. Losses — Liability of members. 

2423. Proof of membership. 

2424. Recovery of assessments — 

Proof. 

2425. Recovery of assessments — 

Burden of proof. 

2426. Recovery of assessments — 

Prima facie evidence. 

2427. Action on policy — Pleading 

and proof. 



Sec. 

2428. Action on policy — Burden of 

proof. 

Marine. 

2429. Ownership and insurable in- 

terest — Proof. 

2430. Perils insured against. 

2431. Perils of the sea — Illustra- 

tions. 

2432. Seaworthiness — Presumptions. 

2433. Seaworthiness — Presumptions 

rebutted. 

2434. Continuation of seaworthiness 

— Burden may shift. 

2435. Seaworthiness — Burden of 

proof. 

2436. Seaworthiness a warranty — 

Effect on burden. 

2437. Repairs during voyage. 

2438. Repairs during voyage — Bur- 

den and liability. 

2439. Loss — Burden of proof. 

2440. Loss — Proof of cause. 

2441. Total loss. 

2442. Deviation, 

2443. Necessity for deviation — Bur- 

den. 

2444. Justifiable deviation — Illustra- 

tions. 

2445. Stranding. 

2446. Loss — Negligence. 



CHAPTEE CXI. 



LIBEL AND SLANDER. 



Sec. 

2447. Generally. 

2448. Questions of law or fact. 

2449. Burden of proof. 

2450. Publication. 

2451. Malice. 

2452. Evidence as to malice. 

2453. Privilege. 



Sec. 

2454. Best evidence — Extrinsic evi- 

dence. 

2455. Hearsay evidence. 

2456. Justification — Truth. 

2457. Evidence to prove or rebut 

justification. 

2458. Evidence In mitigation. 

2459. Character — Damages. 



TABLE OP CONTENTS. 



XXlll 



CHAPTBE CXII. 



LIMITATIONS. 



Sec. 

2460. Generally. 

2461. Burden of proof. 

2462. Special statutes affecting the 

right. 

2463. Questions of law or fact. 

2464. Proof of foreign statutes. 

2465. Concealment. 



Sec. 

2466. New promise or acknowledg- 

ment. 

2467. Payment. 

2468. Parol evidence. 

2469. Admissions — Evidence gener- 

ally. 



CHAPTER CXIII. 



MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. 



Sec. 

2470. Generally. 

■2471. Malicious prosecution of civil 
actions. 

2472. Burden of proof. 

2473. Questions of law or fact. 

2474. Evidence of institution and 

termination of proceedings. 
.'2475. Evidence of want of probable 

cause. 
2476. Evidence of probable cause. 
■2477. Evidence of good reputation 

of plaintiff. 



Sec. 

2478. Evidence of bad reputation of 

plaintiff. 

2479. Evidence as to malice. 

2480. Advice of counsel. 

2481. Evidence of character of par- 

ties. 

2482. Evidence of financial condi- 

tion. 

2483. Damages and elements there- 

of. 



CHAPTBE CXIV. 



MARRIAGE. 



Sec. 

2484. Meaning of term. 

2485. Burden of proof. 

2486. Presumptions — In general. 

2487. Conflicting presumptions. 

2488. Presumptions — ^Rebuttal. 

2489. Questions of law or fact. 
.2490. Evidence in general — Oral tes- 
timony and witnesses. 



Sec. 

2491. Evidence in general — Written 

evidence, records, certifi- 
cates. 

2492. Evidence in general — As to 

insanity at time of mar- 
riage. 

2493. Evidence in general — What 

not admissible. 

2494. Evidence in general — Weight. 



XXIV 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



CHAPTEE CXV. 



NEGLIGENCE. 



Sec. 

2495. Generally. 

2496. Breach of duty. 

2497. Proximate cause. 
2i98. Presumptions. 

2499. Burden of proof. 

2500. Burden — Contributory negli- 

gence. 

2501. Questions of law or fact. 

2502. Circumstantial evidence. 

2503. Insufficient evidence — Sur- 

mise or conjecture. 

2504. Violation of statutes and ordi- 

nances. 

2505. Evidence of custom and prac- 

tice. 

2506. Evidence of similar accidents. 

2507. Evidence of experience and 

tests. 

2508. Evidence of repairs and pre- 

cautions after the accident. 

2509. Expert and opinion evidence. 

2510. Admissions and declarations. 



Sec. 

2511. Defects In highways — ^What 

plaintiff must show — Bur- 
den of proof. 

2512. Defects — Material circum- 

stances. 

2513. Defects — Notice. 

2514. Defects— Defenses.. 

2515. Defects — Contributory negli- 

gence. 

2516. Defects — Other accidents — 

Subsequent repairs. 

2517. Defects — Opinion evidence. 

2518. Defects — Remedy over. 

2519. Master and servant — Plain: 

tiff's evidence. 

2520. Master and servant — Evidence 

in particular cases. 

2521. Master and servant — Contrib- 

utory negligence and other 
defenses. 

2522. Railroad crossings — Plain- 

tiff's evidence. 

2523. Railroad crossings — Contrib- 

utory negligence. 



CHAPTEE CXVI. 



NUISANCE. 



Sec. 

2524. Generally. 

2525. Elements — Test — ^Use of prop- 

erty. 

2526. Public and private — Nuisance 

per se. 

2527. Legislative or municipal dec- 

laration of nuisance. 

2528. Question of law or fact. 

2529. Motive immaterial. 

2530. Abatement and injunction. 

2531. Action for damages. 

2532. Action for damages— What 

plaintiff must prove. 



Sec. 

2533. Evidence as to nuisance. 

2534. Evidence as to defendant's lia- 

bility. 

2535. Evidence as to damages. 

2536. Defenses — Generally. 

2537. Defenses — Lawful business- 

Care — Legislative authority. 

2538. Defenses— Other nuisances- 

Plaintiff coming to nui- 
sance. 

2539. Defenses — Contributory negli- 

gence. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



SJT 



CHAPTEE CXVII. 



PAKTNEES AND PARTNERSHIP. 



Sec. 

2540. Partnership — Definition. 

2541. Burden of proof. 

2542. Proof of partnership — Gener- 

ally. 

2543. Proof of partnership agree- 

ment. 

2544. Agreement — Proof by assent 
and ratification. 

2545. Proof by certificate. 

2546. Parol proof to establish part- 

nership. 

2547. Proof of acts and conduct to 

show partnership. 

2548. Admissions and declarations. 

2549. Admissions by judgment. 

2550. Proof of firm name as prima 

facie evidence of partner- 
ship. 

2551. Profit sharing as proof of 

partnership. 

2552. Proof of sharing in profits and 

losses. 

2553. Proof of sharing in profits and 

losses — Not conclusive. 

2554. Sharing in profits, or profits 

and losses — Prima facie 
case. 

2555. Liability to third persons — 

Proof. 

2556. Proof by holding out. 

2557. Proof by holding out — Nature 

and degree. 

2558. Proof by holding out — Estop- 

pel. 



Sec. 

2559. Proof by holding out — ^Acts 

constituting an estoppel. 

2560. Proof by reputation. 

2561. Partnership in individual 

name. 

2562. Partnership books and papers 

as evidence — Between part- 
ners. 

2563. Presumption of access tO' 

books — Denying correct- 
ness. 

2564. Partnership books and papers 

as evidence — ^Against part- 
ners. 

2565. Partnership books and papers 

as evidence — Against third 
persons. 

2566. Partnership books and papers ' 

as evidence — In favor of 
third persons. 

2567. Authority of partner — Pre- 

sumption. 

2568. Liability of nominal partners 

— First rule. 

2569. Liability of nominal partners 

— Second rule. 

2570. Liability of dormant partner. 

2571. Liability of dormant partner 

— Limitation. 

2572. Authority of partner after 

dissolution. 

2573. Admissions after dissolution. 

2574. Dissolution — Release from lia- 

bility. 

2575. Accounting — Burden of proof. 



CHAPTEE CXVIII. 

PAYMENT. 



Sec. 
2576. 



Burden of 
evidence. 



proof — Kinds of 



Sec. 

2577. Presumptions. 

2578. Questions of law or fact. 



XXVI 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER CXVIII— Continued. 



Sec. 

2379. Time, place and manner — 
Parol evidence. 

2580. Notes and checks. 

2581. Receipts. 

2582. Account books and other doc- 

uments. 

2583. Collateral evidence as to pay- 

ment. 



Sec. 
2584. 



Collateral evidence of pay- 
ment — Financial condition 
of parties. 

2585. Admissions and declarations. 

2586. Application of payments. 

2587. Tender. 



CHAPTEE CXIX. 



PUBLIC OFFIOEKS. 



Sec. 

2588. 

2589. 

2590. 

2591. 

2592. 



Presumptions. 
De facto oflBcers. 
Eligibility. 

Official oath and bond. 
Commission — Executive .ap- 
pointment. 

2593. Commission or certificate as 

evidence. 

2594. Entries and reports. 

2595. Return of oflBcer. 



Sec. 

2596. Evidence of vacancy. 

2597. Expulsion from office. 

2598. Estoppel. 

2599. Actions by officers. 

2600. Actions against officers and 

bondsmen. 

2601. Actions — Demand.. 

2602. Defenses of officers. 

2603. Defenses — Process fair on its 

face. 



CHAPTEE CXX. 



REPLEVIN. 



Sec. 

2604. Generally — ^Nature of the ac- 

tion. 

2605. What property may be replev- 

ied. 

2606. Common law rules. 

2607. Burden of proof. 

2608. Plaintiff's ownership and right 

to possession. 

2609. Must recover on strength of 



Sec. 

own title — Evidence of title. 

2610. Defendant's possession. 

2611. Demand. 

2612. Defendant's evidence — Proper- 

ty in third person. 

2613. Fraudulent purchases. 

2614. Damages. 

2615. Tax lists as evidence. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



XXVll 



CHAPTBK CXXI. 



SALES. 



Sec. 

2616. Generally. 

2617. Evidence of a sale. 

2618. Delivery. 

2619. Inspection. 

2620. Acceptance. 

2621. Question of law or fact. 

2622. Burden of proof. 



Sec. 

2623. 

2624. 

2625. 

2626. 

2627. 

2628. 



Presumptions. 

Intent. 

Price — Consideration. 

Documentary evidence. 

Parol evidence. 

Actions by seller. 



2629. Actions by buyer. 



CHAPTBE CXXII. 



SEDUCTION. 



Sec. 

2630. Generally. 

2631. Burden of proof. 

2632. Presumptions. 

2633. Questions of law or fact. 

2634. Admissions. 

2635. Relevant — Circumstances. 

2636. Other evidence for plaintiff. 

2637. Defenses. 

2638. Proximate cause. 



Sec. 

2639. Woman's testimony. 

2640. Promise of marriage. 

2641. Character and reputation. 

2642. Pecuniary standing. 

2643. Damages. 

2644. Mitigation of damages. 

2645. Aggravation of damages. 

2646. Exemplary damages. 



CHAPTEE CXXIII. 



TKESPASS. 



Sec. 




Sec. 


2647. 


Generally. 


2654. 


2648. 


Burden of proof. 




2649. 


Gist of the action — What 


2655. 




plaintiff must prove. 


2656. 


2650. 


Possession. 


2657. 


2651. 


Possession— Evidence of. 




2652. 


Title. 


2658. 


2653. 


Evidence generally — Rele- 


2659. 




vancy. 


2660. 



Evidence under the general 
issue. 

Liberum tenementum. 

Justification of trespass. 

Written instruments and re- 
citals. 

Declarations and admissions. 

Aggravation of damages. 

Mitigation of damages. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



CHAPTBE CXXIV. 



TEOVEK. 



Sec. 

2661. 

2662. 

2663. 

2664. 
2665. 



Generally. 

Burden of proof and presump- 
tions—Plaintiff's evidence. 

Plaintiff's title or right to 
possession — When suflSclent. 

Possession — When sufficient. 

What constitutes conversion. 



Sec. 

2666. Evidence of conversion — De- 

mand. 

2667. Defenses. 

2668. Title in third person. 

2669. Declarations and admissions. 

2670. Damages. 

2671. Evidence as to value. 

2672. Mitigation of damages. 



CHAPTEE CXXV. 



WASTE. 



Sec. 

2673. Generally. 

2674. Presumptions and burden of 

proof. 

2675. Questions of law or fact. 

2676. Plaintiff's title and what he 

must show. 



Sec. 

2677. Opinion evidence. 

2678. Parol evidence. 

2679. Defenses. 

2680. Damages. 



CHAPTBE CXXVI. 



WILLS. 

Sec. Sec. 

2681. Generally. 2692. 

2682. Admissibility of will in evi- 2693. 

dence. 

2683. Probate and contest. 2694. 

2684. Due execution — Burden of 

proof — Question of law or 2695. 
fact. 

2685. Same— Right to open and 2696. 

close — ^Practice. 

2686. Evidence of execution. 2697. 

2687. Presumption of due execution. 

2688. Execution — Declarations. 2698. 

2689. Testamentary capacity — Bur- 

den of proof. 

2690. Same — Question of law or fact 2699. 

—Presumptions. 2700. 

2691. Same — Declarations of testa- 2701. 

tor. 



Same — Evidence generally. 

Undue Influence — Burden of 
proof. 

Same — Declarations of testa- 
tor. 

Same — Declarations and ad- 
missions of others. 

Evidence of undue influence 
generally. 

Revocation — Declarations of 
testator. 

Lost wills — Burden of proof — 
Declaration and other evi- 
dence. 

Nuncupative wills. 

Alteration of wills. 

Attesting and subscribing wit- 
nesses. 



TABLE OF OASES. 



IBeferences are to Sections.'] 



Aaron v. Second Ave. R. Co. 




1991 


V. 


Southern R. Co. 




1895 


Abb V. Nortbern Pac. E. Co. 




1597 


Abbe 


V. Baton 




1914 


Abbett V. Page 




1617 


Abbey v. Dewey 




2122 


Abbott T. Abbott 




1845 


V. 


Godfrey 




2577 


V. 


Hancock 




2632 


V. 


Omaha Smelting Co. 




1935 


V. 


People 




2006 


T. 


Pearson 




2566 


T. 


'76 Land &c. Co. 




2005 


V. 


Skinner 




1665 


V. 


Wilmot 




1599 


Abel 


V. Abel 




2033 


T. 


Alexander 




1843 


Abell 


V. Harris 




1618 


Aber 


T. Bratton 




1994 


Abercombie v. ' Sheldon 


2583, 


2585 


Aberdeen v. Blackmar 




2518 


Abernathy v. Abernathy 




2033 


Abilene v. Hendricks 




2512 


V. 


Wright 




1991 


Ablard v. Fitzgerald 


2039, 


2064 


Abney v. Austin 




2025 


Aborn v. Eathbone 




1596 


Abraham t. Gray 




2124 


Abrahams v. Cooper 




2115 


V. 


Kidney 


2638, 


2643 


Abrams v. Teague 

Accident Ins. Co. v. Bennett 




1746 








2391, 


2399, 


2414 


V. 


Crandall, 2395, 2399, 


2412, 


2414 


Achey v. Stephens 




2277 


Ackei 


T. Gundy 




2473 


Ackerman v. Runyon 


2273, 


2274 


Ackman t. Third Ave. E. Co. 




1980 


Adam-Roth Grocery Co. v. Hopkins 








1760, 


2264 


Adams T. Adams 




2033 


V. 


Akerlund 




2194 


V. 


Bicknell 




2476 


V. 


Blodgett 


1851, 


1858 


V. 


Board &c. 




2039 


V. 


Cosby 




1649 


V. 


Couch 




2063 


V. 


Crenshaw 




1849 


V. 


Curtis 


2122, 


2133 


V. 


Darby 




1825 


T. 


Davis, 2588, 


2603, 


2662 


V. 


Dlvidson 




1715 


V. 


Field 




2576 


T. 


Foley 




2151 


V. 


Freeman 




1699 


V. 


Gardiner 




1590 


T. 


Gardner 




1979 


T. 


Hackett 




1826 


V. 


Hessian 




2607 


T. 


Huftmaster 




2124 


V. 


Irving Nat. Bank 2170, 


2179, 


2183 



Adams v. Kellogg 1745, 2669 

T. Kelly 2454 

V. Kenney 2141 

V. Main 1642, 1651, 1652, 1653 

V. McKenzie 2362, 2441 

V. Mangel 2589 

T. Morrison 2560 

V. Nickerson 2057 

V. Northern Pac. R. Co. 2019 

V. Olin , 2469 

V. Orange County Bank 2466 

V. Powell 1845 

V. Robinson 1962, 1972, 1974 

V. Saratoga &c. R. Co. 2053 



V. state 




2280 


V. Tapling 




1596 


V. Thornton 1762, 


2126 


2127 


V. Waggoner 1689, 


1701, 


1702 


V. Ward 




2457 


V. Wildes 




2612 


V. Wilson 




1843 


V. Wood . 




2611 


Adams, Goods of 




2700 


Adams Br. Co. v. Bratton 




1915 


V. Egbert 




1994 


V. Harris 




1932 


V. Haynes 




1916 


V. Stetteners 




1916 


Adamson, Goods of 




2700 


Adamson v. Noble 




2595 


Addington v. Allen 




2137 


V. Wilson 2280, 


2285 


2690 


Adger v. Ackerman 


2486, 


2487 


Adie V. Commonwealth 




2196 


Adkins v. Columbia &c. Ins. Co. 


2395 


Adoue V. Spencer 




2154 


Adreveno v. Mutual &c. Asso. 




2357 


Adrian v. McCaskill 




1830 


Adventure, The 




1584 


^tna F. Ins. Co. v. Tyler 




2358 


.Etna Ins. Co. v. Johnson 




2140 


V. People's Bank &c. 




2337 


V. Simmons 


2358, 


2359 


V. Stevens 




2346 


.lltna &c. Ins. Co. v. France 




2389 


V. Kaiser ■ 




2393 


V. Nexen 




2007 


V. Vandecar 




2399 


V. Ward 




2389 


AfColter v. May 




2206 


African Merchants v. British Ins. Go. 






2442 


Agawam Bank v. Strever 




1782 


Agen V. Metropolitan &c. Ins 


. Co. 






2391, 


2393 


Agens V. Agens 




2579 


Agent of State Prison v. Lathrop 


1951 


Agnew V. Bank of Gettysburg 1934, 


1939 


V. Insurance Co. 




2331 


V. Johnson 




1979 


Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Clancey 


2309 



XXIX 



XXX 



TABLE OF CASES. 



IReferenoes are- to Sections.'] 



Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Potts 


2354 


Ahem t. Collins 


2102 


2105 


Ahlbeck v. St. Paul &c. R. Co 




1905 


Aholtz V. Zellar 




2039 


Ahrens Mfg. Co. v. Hoeher 




2490 


Aiten v. Holyoke St. R. Co.. 




2505 


V. Philadelphia 


1984 


1994 


Aikin v. Buck 




3650 


Ainslie v. Wilson 




1728 


Ainsworth v. Dean 




2591 


Airey v. Kunkle 




1845 


Aitken's Estate 




2242 


Akerly v. Vilas 




1956 


Akin V. Newell 




2108 


Alabama &c. Ins. Co. v. Pettway 


2126 


Alabama Iron Works T. Hurley 


1981 


Alabama Mineral R. Co. v. Marcus 


2502 


Alabama &c. Co. v. Reynolds 




2555 


Alabama &c. R. Co. v. Bailey 




1991 


T. Brooks 




2449 


T. Burgess 




2011 


V. Burkett 




2006 


V. Davis 




1991 


V. Frazier 




1984 


V. Grabfelder 




1907 


V. Hawk 




2510 


V. Hill 




1991 


V. Nabors 




1727 


V. Summers 




2501 


T. Yarbrough 


1984, 


2517 


Alaske &c. Verein v. Wall 




2610 


Albaugh V. State 




2596 


Albert v. Albert 




2206 


V. Besel 


1753, 


2136 


V. Mutual L. Ins. Co. 


2371, 


2384 


V. State 




2468 


Albertoli v. Branham 




2124 


Albertson v. Grier 




1603 


V. Reding 




2062 


Albertz v. Albertz 


1884, 


1898 


Albin V. Presby 


1776, 


1797 


Albion V. Hetrick 




2517 


Albrecht v. Gies 


1605, 


1607 


Albright v. Albright 




1610 


Albrlttin v. Huntsville 




2513 


Alcinous V. Nigreu 




1584 


Alcorn v. Bass 




2448 


V. Mitchell 




1703 


Alden v. Caryer 




2608 


V. Pearson 




1916 


T. Thurber 




1592 


Alder v. Keighley 




1981 


V. Savill 




1665 


Alderson v. Pope 




2569 


V. Waistell 


1689, 


1699 


Aldine Mfg. Co. v. Barnard 




1732 


Aldred's Case 




2537 


Aldrich v. Boston &e. R. Co. 




1796 


V. Goodell 




1798 


V. Jessiman 




1664 


V. Palmer 




1998 


V. Steen 




2486 


V. Warren 




2141 


V. Wetmore 




2528 


Aldrldge v. Midland Blast Furnace Co. 






2510 


Aldrick v. Monroe 




2505 


V. Weeks 




2120 


Aldworth v. Lynn 




2535 


Alexander v. Bailey 




2399 


T. Campbell 




2057 


V. Cauldwell 




1933 


V. Central Lumber Co. 




2519 


V. Chamberiin 




2196 


V. Gibbon 




1617 


V. Harrison 




2480 


V. Humber 




1988 


V. Jacoby 




2006 



Alexander v. Jones 




leSCk 


V. Lively 




1856 


V. McNear 




1664- 


y. Mt. Sterling 




2517 


V. Northwestern &c. Assn 




2205- 


V. Norwood 




1589 


V. Pierce 




2182 


V. Polk 




1617 


V. Strong 




159i 


V. Swackhamer 




2667 


V. Vane 




1728 


V. Wallace 




2194 


V. Walter 




2075 


V. Wheeler 




1617 


Alexander Lumber Co. v. Johnson 






1595, 


1596 


Alexandria v. Patten 




2586 


Alford v. Baker 




2576 


V. State 




1701 


Alfred v. Marks 




2206 


Alfred Shrimpton and Son v. 


Brice 2621 


Alger V. Lowell 




2515 


Algur V. Gardner 




1841 


Allain v. Lazarus 




1835 


Allaire v. Whitney 




1962 


Allegheny County v. Gibson 




1971 


Aliegre v. Maryland Ins. Co. 




2355. 


Allen V. Addington 




2137 


V. Allen 1956, 2029, 


2140, 


2211 


V. Baker 1867, 


1885, 


1888. 


V. Bobo 




1728- 


V. Brown 


1603, 


1731 


V. Bryson 




1725- 


V. Carpenter 




2166- 


T. Codman 




2480' 


V. Crary 




2604 


V. De Groodt 




2673. 


V. Deming 




1831 


V. Bldrldge 




2257 


V. Fuget 




1745- 


V. Furbish 


1826, 


1843 


V. Gray 




2113 


V. Griffin 




2689' 


V. Henderson 




2206 


V. Holton 




1619 


V. Hooper 




2256 


V. Johnson 




2248 


V. Kellman 




2065 


V. Kingsbury 




1846 


V. Leonard 




2111 


V. Maine &c. R. Co. 




2628. 


y. Markle 




2208. 


V. Merchants' Bank 




2303. 


V. Miles 




1658 


V. Northern Pac. R. Co. 




1902^ 


V. Ormond 




2535 


V. Patterson 




1732 


V. Stout 




2006 


V. Taft 


1843a 


1862 


v. Thayer 




2650' 


y. Toner 




2670 


v. United States 




2265. 


V. Van Meter 




2212 


V. Vermont &c. Ins. Co. 




2359^ 


V. Watson 1665 


1666 


1667 


V. Weber 




1847 


V. Wheeler 


2144 


2166 


V. Willard 




2498 


T. Williamsburgh Sav. Bank 


2251 


V. Woodruff 




1974 


V. Woonsocket Co. 1605, 


1607 


1610 


V. Wright 




2111 


Allen-Bradley Co. v. Anderson &c. 


Co. 


1658 


1659- 


Allen West Co. v. Patlllo 




1609 


AUendorf. In re 




1816. 


Alliance Ins. Co. v. Swift 




2422; 


Allibone v. Fidelity &c. Co. 




2293: 



TABLE OF CASES. 



XXXI 



{References are to Sections.'i 



AUin V. Hlacock 2027 

Alline v. Le Mars 2515 

Allis V. Ninlnger 1959 

Allison V. Abendroth 1595, 1596 

V. Chandler 1994 

T. Chicago &c. R. Co. 1989 

V. Little 2653 

T. Matthieu 2141 

Allison's Estate 2687, 2693 

Almlch V. Downey 1823, 1825, 1831 

Almond t. Gairdner 2161 

Aloe V. Mutual &c. Asso. 2375 

Alpass T. Watkins 1730 

Alpaugh V. Wood 1613 

Alpern v. Churchill 2502 

Alpert V. Bright 2628 

Alpha Mills v. Watertown &c. Co. 2463 

Alrath v. Northeastern E. Co. 2472 

Alsbrook T. Hathaway 1729 

Alsever v. Minneapolis &c. R. Co. 2510 

Aitermose v. Hufsmith 2654 

Althen t. Tarbox 1590 

Altschul V. O'Neill 1617 

Alvord V. Alvord 2283 

Aman v. Mottweiler 2610 

American v. Rinpert 1598 

American &c. Asso. v. George 2304 

T. Hart, 1974 

American &c. Co. v. Berner &c. Co. 1605 



Burlack 
V. Carson 

T. Chicago &e. E. Co. 
V. Dougherty 
V. Foust 
T. Hopper 
V. Patterson 

V. Reigart 2399, 

V. Thornton 



2399, 



2026 
2400 
2040 
1991 

1987, 1988 
2058 
2109 

2413, 2414 
2259 



American Brew. Co. v. Berner-Mayer 

Co. 1607 

V, Talbot 1780, 1785, 1786 

American Bible Society v. Marshall, 2234 
V. Price 2691 

T. Wetmore 2236 

American Credit &c. Co. v. Wood, 

2301, 2302 

American Dist. Tel. Co. v. Walker 1792 

American Ex. Co. v. Patterson 

2003, 2114, 2121 

American Ins. Co. T. Bryan 2331 

T. Poster 2328 

V. Schmidt 2424 

American &c. Ins. Co. v. Brighton 
Mfg. Co. 2328 

V. Day 2371, 2376 

V. Hazen 2001, 2326 

V. Landfare 2306 

V. McCrea 2299 

V. McLanathan 2300 

T. McWhorter 2311, 2314 

V. Nor'ment 2387 

V. Patterson 2314 

V. Sisk 2298 

V. White 2306 

American L. Ins. Co. v. Green 2295 

American L. Ins. &c. Co. v. Eosen- 
agle 2199 

American Merchants' Union Ex. Co. 
V. Phillips 1906 

American &c. Society v. Pratt 2210, 2213 

American Steamship Co. v. Land- 
reth 2510 

V. Young 1730 

American Tract Soc. v. Atwater 

2236, 2244 
V. De Witt 2242 

American Trust Co. v. Boone 2279 

Ames, Matter of 2690, 2692, 2695 



Ames T. Beekley 205O 

T. Gilmore 2163 

v. Southern Pae. R. Co. 1899 

Amesbury v. Amesbury 1730 

Amicable Society v. Bolland 2397 

Amick V. Butler 2370, 2380 

Amory v. Amory 2198 

V. Hamilton 1639 

Amos V. Buck 1665 

V. Flournoy 1840 

Amoskeag &c. Co. v. Goodale 1962 

Ampel T. Seifert 2628 

Ampleman v. Citizens' Ins. Co. 

2362, 2367 
V. North British &c. Ins. Co. 236" 

Amrhein v. Clausen 2627 

Amsinck v. American Ins. Co. 2429 
2442, 2443 

Anders v. Ellis 1974 

Anderson v. Agnew 2666 

T. Anderson 1661, 2033 

V. Beck 2107 

V. Best 1604 

V. Buckton 2004 

V. Burnham 1618, 2055 

V. Cranmer 2276 

V. East 2511 

V. Fleming 2518 

V. Foresman 1795 

V. Garrett 1582 

V. Gouldberg 2608 

v.. Gray 2057, 2065 

V. Highland Tpk. Co. 1597 

V. Hooks 2153 

V. How 2479 

V. Hubble 2070, 2072 

V. Irwin 2698 

V. Jackson 1857 

V. Keller 2473 

v. Kanawha &c. Co. 1930, 1935 

V. Kerns' Draining Co. 1934 

V. Lee 1826 

V. Long 2001 

V. McCormick 2040, 2057 

V. McPike 2137 

V. Miller 1656, 1660, 1661 

V. North &c. Co. 2501 

V. Parker 2009, 2199 

V. Peterson 1855 

V. Rassmussen 1625 

V. Reid 2040, 205O 

V. Sanderson 1633 

V. Seholey 1595 

V. Scott 1947 
V. South Chicago Brewing Co. 1715 

V. Supreme Council 2390 

V. Taft 2506, 2514 

V. Wehe 2146 

V. Weston 1824 

T. Wirth 1855 

Andrews t. Appel 1957 

V. Askey 2630 

V. Baggs 1839 

V. Costican 2606 

V. Gallison 2083 

V. Huckabee Adm. 2255 

T. Keith 1779 

V. Palmer 1666 

V. Schreiber 2629 

V. Stone 1703 

V. Union &c. Ins. Co. 2332 

Andrysiak t. Satkoski 2259 

Angel V. Pennsylvania R. Co. 2538 
Angel 1 V. Hartford F. Ins. Co. 

2295, 2313, 2314 

V. Plckard 1745, 2146 
Angle T. Northwestern Mut. Life 

Ins. Co. 1628 



JXXXll 



TABLE OF CASES. 



IReferences are to Sections.'] 



Angus V. Lee ?1S§? 

V. Redford 1665 

Annan v. Baker ZOoi 

Anniston Iron & Supply Co. v. An 



niBton Rolling Mill Co. 
Anonymous 1729, 1730, 1926, 



1951, 
2038, 



V. Harrison 
Anscomb V. Shore 
Anshutz v. Miller 
Ansley t. Baker 

V. Meikle 
Anson t. Stein 

V. Wlnnesheik Ins. Co. 
Anthon v. Fisher 
Anthony &c. Briek Co. v. Ashby 
Anthony v. Anthony 



1814 
2032 
2530 
1641 
1729 
1959 

2079, 2080 
1939 

2188, 2193 
2357 
1584 
2016 
2206 



Gilbert 

V. Grand 

V. Mercantile &c. Asso. 

V. Mott 

V. Norton 

V. Savage 

T. Wilson 
Antram v. Chase 

V. Ten Bck 
Apger V. Woolston 
Appeal T. Hamill 
Apel T. Kelsey 
Appel v. Aetna &c. Ins. Co. 

V. Byers 
Appleby v. Brown 
Appersou y. Pattison 
Apple T. Lesser 
Applegate v. Baxley 

V. Moffltt 
Appleton V. Bancroft 

V. Fullerton 

V. Smith 



2004, 2654, 2660 
1694 

2404, 2407 
1840 
2631 
1607 
2026 

1657, 1658 
2081 
2475 
2255 
2039 

2399, 2415 

2218, 2214 
1600 
2461 

1835, 1837 
2585 
1635 
1725 
1962 
2551 



Appleton Iron Co. T. British &c. 



1844, 



2330 
2697 
2591 
2524 
2062 
2170 
1857 
2235 
1745 



Appling V. Eades 

Apthorp V. North 

Arbenz v. Wheeling & H. R. Co. 

Arbuckle v. Walker 

Archer v. Commonwealth 

V. Helm 

v. Salinas City 

V. Strachan 
Archibald v. New York &c. R. Co. 

1618, 1620 
Arent v. Squire 1784, 1798 

Arentz v. Long Island R. Co. 2040, 2059 
Arey v. Newton 2515 

Argall V. Insurance Co. 2347 

Argenti v. San Francisco 2163 

Arkansas &c. R. Co. t. Griffith 1897 
Armacost v. Lindley 

1720, 2255, 2620, 2666 
Armentrout v. Moranda 2447 

Armijo y. Abeytia 2399 

Armil v. Chicago &c. R. Co. 2013 

Armory v. Delmirie 

2353, 2354, 2662, 2670 
Armstrong v. Agricultural Ins. Co. 2359 

V. Ames 1756, 1763 



V. Cook 


1746 


V. Cushney 


1707 


V. Huffstutler 


2627 


V. Lear 


2080 


V. Percy 


1979 


T. Risteau 


1858 


V. State 


2276 


Aranzamendi v. Louisiana Ins. Co. 


2362 


Arents v. Long Island R. Co. 


2040 


Arnett v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 


1597 


V. Smith 


1595 


V. Welch 


1610 



Arnhorst v. National Union 




2293 


Arnold v. Alden 




2208 


V. Allen 




2260 


V. Bailey 




1709 


V. Baker 




2124 


V. Cofer 




1754 


V. Jewett 




2452 


V. Pacific &c. Ins. Co. 




2442 


V. Producer's Fruit Co 




1781 


V. Rifner 




2249 


V. St. Louis 




2511 


T. Stevens 




1579 


V. Wise 




1725 


Arnot V. Branconier 


1766, 


1786 


Arnott V. Standard Asso. 




2452 


V. Webb 




1711 


Arrants v. Crumley 




2206 


Arrington v. Arrington 




2254 


Arrowsmith v. Le Mesurier 




2105 


Arthur v. Charleston 




2514 


V. Dartch 




1605 


V. Gard 




1637 


V. Gayle 




2663 


V. St. Paul &c. 1769, 


1795, 


1918 


Artz V. Railroad Co. 




2523 


Aschraft v. Knoblock 




.1597 


Ash V. Ash, 




2203 


V. Prunier 




1643 


Ashbrook v. Commonwealth 




2538 


Ashby V. Eastern &c. 




1844 


V. Shaw 




2553 


V. White 1962, 


1970, 


1972 


Ashcraft v. De Armond 




2289 


Ashe V. De Eossett 




1981 


Asheville Nat. Bank v. Bradley 


1837 


Ashford v. Metropolitan L. Ins. Co. 


2486 


Ashley v. Williams 




2541 


Ashman v. Flint &c. R. Co. 




2501 


Ashmead v. Kellogg 




2663 


V. Wilson 


2057 


2141 


Ashmore v. Pennsylvania Steam 




Towing &c. Co. 




2510 


Ashtabula &c. R. Co. v. Smith 


1932 


Ashwell V. Lomi 




2696 


Asia V. Hiser 




2067 


Askin's Estate 




2699 


Askwith V. Allen 


1744 


1746 


Aspell V. Smith 




2450 


Aspenden's Estate 




2194 


Astley V. Reynolds 




2184 


V. Weldon 




2000 


Astor V. Union Ins. Co. 




2303 


Atchison v. MeCulloch 




1573 


V. Wills 




2498 


Atchison &c. R. Co. v. Aderhold 


2498 


V. Alsdurf 




2520 


V. Brassfleld 




2502 


V. Brewer 




1905 


V. Bryan 


1908 


1916 


y. CnnifEe 




1904 


V. Dltmars 




1908 


V. Headland 




1898 


V. Miller 




2517 


V. Morgan 




2522 


V. Parry 




2501 


V. Rice 


1979 


, 2115 


V. Rowe 




1991 


V. Wilkinson 


1603 


200G 


V. Willey 


1979 


, 1980 


Atherton v. Fowler 




20S7 


Atkins V. Banwell 




1728 


V. Barnstable Co. 




1732 


V. Cobb 




2623 


V. Gamble 




2672 


V. Gladwish 


1692 


, 1703 


V. Lewis 




2065 


V. Tregold 




2083 


V. Van Buren &c. Tp. 




1974 



TABLE OF CASES. 



ZXXlll 



[References are to Sections.'] 



Atkyns v. Horde 2039 

T. Klnnier 2000 

Atkinson v. Allen 2177 

V. Burt 1607 

T. Dance 2577 

V. Graham 2001 

V. Harran 1697 

Y. Morris 2697 

V. Phillips 2154 

V. Scott 1730 

T. Smith 1617 

V. Townley 1656 

Atlanta v. Gate City Gas L. Co. 1932 

Atlanta &c. Asso. v. Alexander 

2399, 2412, 2414 
Atlanta &c. E. Co. v. Johnson 2521 
T. Laird 1907 
V. Newton 2017 
V. Texas &c. Co. 1907, 1915 
Atlanta St. E. Co. v. Beauchamp 1984 
T. Jacobs 1991 
Atlantic Dock Co. v. New York 1597 
Atlantic Ins. Co. v. Fitzpatrick 2424 
v. Goodall 2323 
V. Manllng 2317 
V. Storrow 2431 
Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. v. Alexan- 
der 1589 
Atlantic &c. E. Co. v. Dunn 2114 
Atlas Bank v. Doyle 1824 
Atlas Engine Works v. Eandall 2519 
Atterbury v. St&tEord 2212, 2223, 2224 
Attorney-General v. Boston 2601 
T. Cambridge Consumers' Gas 

Co. 2530 

V. Chicago &c. E. Co. 1932 

T. Colney Hatch 2538 

T. Dublin 2242 

V. Eastlake 2235 

V. Garrison 2243 

V. Le Merchant 2454 

V. Merston 2589 

V. Metropolitan &c. Co. 2530 

T. Murphy 1639 

V. Old South Church 2243 

V. Parnther 2276 

V. Eye 2210 

V. Sheffield Gas Consumers Co. 2538 

T. Soule 2245 

T. Trinity Church 2244 

Attwood v. Fricot 1962 
Atwater t. Morning News Co. 

2004, 2005, 2448, 2452, 2453 

V. Woodbridge 1730 

Atwell V. McLure 2062 

V. Zeluff 2184 

Atwood T. Conrike 1622, 1847 

T. Lucas 1732 

V. Peregoy 2547 

y. Scott 2584 

Auburn v. Goodwin 1846 

Auburn &c. E. Co. V. Douglass 1969 

Audenreid v. Mercantile &c. Ins. 

Co. 2443 

Audubon v. Excelsior Ins. Co. 2295 

Augusta Factory v. Barnes 2013 

Augusta &c. Ins. Co. v. French 2425 

Augusta E. Co. v. Glover 2016 

Augusta &c. E. Co. v. Eandall 2512 
Ault V. Interstate &c. Asso. 

1606, 1607, 1608 

Aultman v. Clifford 1832 

V. Falkum 2501 

V. Forgey 2608, 2612 

V. Puller 2551 

V. Morse 2623 

V. Nilson 2620 

V. O'Dowd 2612 

Vol. 3 Elliott Ev.— iii 



Aultman v. Sloan 






1715 


Aurora v. Fox 






1941 


V. Pennington 




1944 


2513 


V. West 






1840 


Austin V. Appling 






2571 


T. Austin City Cemetery 


Asso. 


2538 


V. Barker 






2633 


V. Drew 






2332 


V. Hall 






1597 


V. Holland 






2071 


V. Moore 






1599 


V. Eicker 






1606 


V. Rodman 






1837 


V. Eutz 






2512 


V. Talk 






2124 


V. Vrooman 






2113 


V. Wilson 






1605 


Australian &c. Co. v. Bennett 


2448 


Auzerals v. Naglee 






1605 


Avera v. Tool 






2622 


V. Williams 






1620 


Averett v. Booker 






1826 


Averill v. Patterson 






1590 


Avery v. Miller 






1830 


V. Eay 




1702 


2005 


V. Tyringham 
Aveson v. Kinnaird 




1722, 


1723 




1649 


2376 


Avison V. Simpson 






2203 


Axson V. Belt 






2252 


Axtell V. Northern Pac. 


E. Co. 








1625, 


1636 


Aydlett v. Swope 






2206 


Ayer v. Ashmead 






1597 


v. Bangor 






2235 


V. Bartlett 






2663 


V. Colgrove 




2641 


2643 


Ayres v. Bensley 






1589 


V. Birtch 




1690, 


1699 


v. Covin 






2003 


V. Hartford &c. Ins. 


Co. 




2357 


v. Hubbard 






2461 


v. Kelly 






1698 


V. Methodist &c. Church 




2234 


v. Watson 

B 
Babbitt V. Dotten 






1858 






2150 


Babcock v. Fitchburg E 


Co. 




1895 


V. Granville 






1729 


V. Hawkins 






1595 



V. Montgomery &c. Ins. Co. 

2332, 2334 
V. Utter 1843a 

Bacchus V. Peters 1750 

Bacharach v. Chester Freight Line 1912 
Bachelder v. Heagan 1923 

Bachmann v. New Yorker &c. Bund 2421 
Bachmeyer v. Mutual &c. Asso. 

2346, 2387, 2394, 2396 

Backdahl v. Grand Lodge &c. 2420 

Backhouse v. Jones 2583 

Backus V. McCoy 1956 

V. Taylor 2574 

Bacon v. Bacon 2111, 2693 

V. Crandon 1666 

V. Hooker 1692 

V. Johnson 1636 

V. Michigan Cent. E. Co. 2450 

V. Parker 1732 

V. Towne 2474, 2483 

V. United States &e. Asso. 

2399, 2412, 2415 
V. Walker 2526 

Badenfeld v. Massachusetts &c. 

Asso. 2402, 2404, 2408 

Badder v. Keefer 2634, 2635, 2636, 2640 

Badger v. Badger 2493 

V. Phlnney 2604, 2607 

V. Phoenix Ins. Co. 2356, 2359 



XXXIV 



TABLE OF CASES. 



IBeferences are to Sections.'} 



Badger v. Titcomb 
Badgley v. Decker 
Badostain v. Grazide 
Baeder v. Jennings 
Baer v. Groves 

V. Martin 

T. Pfatf 
Baer &c. Co. v. Otto 
Baer's Estate, In re 
Baerncropf 
Bagby v. Harris 
Bagley v. Mason 

T. Peddle 
Bagley Elev. Co. v. American Ex. 

Co. 
Bagnell v. Broderlck 
Bahnsen v. Gilbert 
Babr v. Lombard &c. Co. 
Baler v. Ziegelbauer 
Baile v. St. Joseph &c. Ins. Co. 

2313 



1726 

2646 

1692 

2088 

1752 

2607, 2610 

1604 

1754 

2130 

1816 

1962, 1972 

1692, 1703 

2000 



1786 
2063 
1829 
2498 
2057 

2345 



Bailey v. Bailey 

1643, 1645, 1652, 2029, 2030, 2035 



T. Bensley 

V. Blrkhofer 

V. Bussing 

V. Centerville 

V. Cowles 

V. Freeman 

V. Gleason 

T. Interstate &c. Co. 

v. Interstate Casualty Co. 

T. Kalamazoo Pub. Co. 

v. Lincoln Academy 



1606 
1824, 1840 
1728 



2512 
2026 
1720 
1821 
2399 
2414 
2457 
1934 
2650 
2371 
2631 
2206 
2124 
2670 
1666 
2039 
1585, 1930 
1612 
1589, 1591 
2199 
2609, 2612 
2122 
2256, 2257 
2199 
1840 
1826 
2631 
2635, 2636, 2646 
2626, 2627 
2666 
2558 
2000 
1596 
1589, 1642, 1648, 1649 
1824, 2207, 2291, 2576 
T. Beers 2666 

V. Carter 2247 

V. Cartwrlght 1893 

V. Corey 1717 

V. Damer 1952 

V. Drake 1798, 1961 

V. Flint 2251 

T. Freeman 1628 

V. Gausin 1692, 1695, 1698, 2512 
V. German F. Ins. Co. 

2301, 2326, 2340 
1607 
Ins. Co. 2389 
1991 
2257 
1597 



V. Nejf England &c. Ins. Co. 

V. O'Bannon 

V. Patterson 

V. Eyder 

V. Shaw 

V. Stewart 

V. Tygart &c. Co. 

T. Valley Nat. Bank 
Bailie v. Bailie 
Bain V. Bain 

v. State 

V. Trixler 
Baines v. Ullmanu 
Bains v. Bullock 
Baintree v. Higham 
Baird v. Abbey 

V. Baird 

V. Bochner 

V. Boebner 

V. Hooker 

V. Howard 

V. Planque 

V. Tolliver 

T. United States 
Baker v. Baker 



V. Heard 

V. Home &c. 

V. Irisb 

V. Jordan 

V. Lovett 



Baker v. Manufacturers' Ins. Co. 

2430, 2431, 2439 

V. MeArthur 1850 

V. McDaniel 2531 

V. Nefl 1940 

V. Oakwood 1617 

T. Pearce S654 

T. Pennsylvania Co. 1991 

V. Eend 1720 

V. Seavey 2671 

V. Sherman 1852 

V. St. Louis 1847 

V. Stonebraker 2577 

V. Towry 2445 

V. Vining 2131 

V. Wambaugh 2589, 2596 

V. Westmoreland Gas Co. 2510 

V. Wheeler 2005 

V. Wood 1711, 1714 



1813, 1815 
1834 
1617 
1922 

2235, 2243 
•2543, 2553 
2595 
2298 
2576 
2552 
2450 
2178, 2180, 2183 
2076 
2627 

1951, 1953 

2132, 2689 

2005, 2672 
1857 

2588, 2598 
2060 
2519 
1623 
1981 

1760, 1982 
2106 

1895, 1985 
2145 
2689 
2331 



Baker-Eicketson Co., In re 
Balch V. Onion 

V. Smith 
Baldridge v. Allen 
Baldwin v. Baldwin 

V. Burrows 

V. Burt 

V. Chouteau Ins. Co. 

V. Clock 

V. Eddy 

V. Elphlnston 

V. Hutchison 

V. Lowe 

V. Marsh 

V. Munn 

V. Parker 

V. Porter 

V. Shannon 

V. Sbill 

V. Simpson 

V. St. Louis &c. B. Co. 

V. Temple 

V. United States T. Co. 

V. Walker 

V. Weed 

V. Western &c. R. Co. 

V. Whitcomb 
Baldwin's Estate, In re 
Balestracci v. Firemen's Ins. Co. 
Balfour Guthrie Inv. Co. v. Wood 

worth 1590 

Ball V. Cox 1857 

V. Kane 2691 

V. Keokuk &c. R. Co. 1590 

V. Liney 2672 

V. McGeoch 1593 

V. Rawles 2473, 2479 

Ball &c. Wagon Co. v. Aurora Ins. 

Co. 2298 

Ballard v. Burton 1843 

V. Campliu 2073 

V. Hill 2202 

V. Leavell 2660 

V. State 2110 

V. Turner 2576 

Ballentine v. Webb 2524, 2538 

Ballew V. Clark 2276 

Balllnger v. Stinnett 1855 

Ballon V. Farnum 1976, 1984, 1985, 1990 
Balow V. Teutonia &c. Ins. Co. 2308 
Balston v. Bensted 2536 

Balsz V. Liebenow 2063 

Baltes V. Bass Foundry &c. Works 1663 
Baltimore v. Letferman 1730 

V. Williams 2163 

Baltimore &c. v. Gould 1847 

Baltimore &c. Bank v. Boyd 1790 

Baltimore City &c. R. Co. v. Baer 1976 
Baltimore Elevator Co. v. Neal 2511 



TABLE OF OASES. 



XXXV 



{References are to Sections.^ 



2499, 2504, 
Smith 

Leonhardt 



2227, 2231, 



Baltimore & P. S. Co. v. Brown 
Baltimore &c. E. Co. v. Barger 

V. Brady 

V. Cain 2107, 2110, 

T. Campbell 

T. Canton Co. 1656, 

y. Cassell 

V. Fifth Baptist Church 

1973, 2114, 

V. Johnson 

V. Jones 

V. Kemp 1076, 

T. Landrigan 

T. Morehead 

y. Pumphrey 

T. Eathbone 

V. Eeaney 

V. Eyan 

V. Scholes 

V. Schumacher 

V. State 1901, 2015, 2501, 

V. Walborn 

V. Whitacre 

V. Wightman 

V. Wilson 

V. Young 
Baltimore &c. Soc. i 
Baltimore Tpk. Case 
Baltimore Y. T. Co. v 
Bamfleld t. Massey 
Bamford v. Pittsburg &c. Co. 

V. Turnley 
Bammessel v. Brewers' &c. Ins. Co. 
Banbury Peerage Case 
Banchor v. Cilley 
Bancroft v. Grover 

V. Heringhl 

V. lyes 
Bander v. Snyder 
Bane y. Detrick 
Banfleld y. Whipple 
Bangor v. Beal 
Bangor &e. E. Co. y. Smith 
Bangs y. Buekingfleld 

y. Hornick 
Banigan y. Nelms 

y. Woonsocket Eubber Co. 
Bank y. Allen 1609, 

y. Armstrong 

y. Baltimore Nat. Bank 

y. Busbey 

y. Curtis 

y. Dandridge 

y. De Grauw 

V. Marshall 

y. Mclntire 

y. Miller 

y. Montgomery 

y. Northrup 

y. Norton 

y. Ogden 

y. Seaboard Bank 

y. Tuck 
Bank of Albany y. Gray 
Bank of Batayia v. New York &c. E. 

Co. 
Bank of British Columbia y. Mar- 
shall 
Bank of Columbia v. Patterson 

1629, 
Bank of Commerce, In re 1934, 
Bank of Commerce y. Mudd 
Bank of Horton y. Brooks 
Bank of Mile y. Mertz 
Bank of Monroe y. Gifford 
Bank of N. Y. &c. y. American &c. Co. 
Bank of Toledo y. International 
Bank 



1914 
2005 
1916 
2111 
1899 
2137 
1989 

2537 
2006 
2495 
1989 
2501 
1907 
1981 
1720 
1989 
2011 
2130 
1915 
2503 
2501 
2500 
1988 
1907 
2522 
1983 
1660 
1903 
2003 
1991 
2537 
2359 
2198 
2553 
1664 
2141 
2232 
2577 
2183 
2510 
2235 
1932 
2424 
1800 
1654 
1590 
1936 
1731 
1626 
1607 
1595 
1634 
1595 
1798 
2461 
2162 
1798 
2151 
1634 
1847 
1731 
1823 
1861 

1632 

1798 

1732 
1935 
1587 
1843 
1840 
1932 
1848 

1934 



Bank of United States 


y. Carneal 


1835 


y. Dandridge 






1629 


y. Lyman 






1932 


Bank of Woodstock y. 


Clark 




2585 


Bank &c. y. Alden 






2567 


y. Butler 






2177 


y. Carter 






2153 


V. Culyer 






2320 


V. Dowling 






2030 


y. Guardian &c. Ins 


Co. 




2393 


V. Hadfeg 






2571 


V. Housman 






2154 


V. Jones 






2039 


V. Monteath 




2554, 


2561 


V. Outhwaite 






2553 


y. St. John 






2570 


Bankard y. Baltimore &c. E. 


Co. 


1919 


Banker y. Banker 




2279 


2486 


Bankers' &c. Asso. y. Lisco 




2387 


Banks v. Banks 






1576 


y. Johnson 




2190, 


2193 


y. McCosker 






1831 


y. Phelan 






2236 


Banner v. Schlessinger 






2666 


Banner &c. Co. y. Jenison 




2567 


Banning y. Banning 




2685, 


2698 


Bannister y. Phelps 






2161 


Banuon y. Baltimore &c. E. 


Co. 


1991 


y. Brandon 






1623 


Bansemer y. Mace 






2589 


Baptist Church y. Eobbarts 


2697 


2700 


Baptist Conyention y. 


Ladd 


's Bs- 




tate 






2239 


Barada y. Blumenthal 






1574 


Barbee y. Armstead 






1642 


y. Eeese 






1989 


Barber y. Barber 






1997 


y. Merriam 






1992 


y. People 






2486 


y. Pittsburgh &c. E 


Co. 




2208 


y. Slade 






1840 


Barbieri y. Eamelll 






1741 


Barbour y. Moore 


2686 


2691, 


2692 


y. Stephenson 


2630, 


2637, 


2648 


Barclay y. Boston 






2511 


y. Cameron 






2194 


y, Howell 






1851 


y. Smith 






2055 


Barclay's Appeal 






2467 


Barco y. Fennell 






2040 


Bard, In re 






1820 


Bardell v. Brady 






2685 


Barefoot y. Eeynolds 






1701 


Baren y. Cain 




1766, 


1786 


Barger v. Hobbs 


2057, 


2200, 


2202 


Barhight v. Tammarry 






2472 


Barholt V. Wright 


1689, 


1701, 


1702 


Barhydt v. Bonney 






1840 


Barker v. Bushnell 






2626 


y. Graham 






2116 


y. Green 




1962, 


1972 


y. Gillett 






2248 


y. Hoff 






1610 


V. Mann 






1981 


y. Marine Ina. Co. 






261& 


y. Owen 






2067 


V. Prizer 






2452 


y. Eichardson 






2536 


y. Stetson 






2111 


y. White 






2468 


y. Wood 






2245 


Barker's Estate, In re 






2227 


Barkley y. Donnelly 






2235 


y. Tapp 




2158, 


2160 


y. Wilcox 






1969 


Barkly y. Copeland 






2457 


Barksdale y. Hall 






1612 



XXXVl 



TABLE OF CASES. 



IBeferences are to Sections.'] 



Barlow v. Buckingham 




1825, 


1831 


V. Chicago &c. R. Co. 




1579 


V. Lowder 








1703, 1962, 


1972 


1974 


1991 


V. St. Nichols ISfat. 


Bank 




1957 


T. Todd 






1665 


V. Waters 






2684 


Barnebee t. Beclcley 






1611 


Barnard v. Barlow 






2212 


V. Colwell 






1729 


V. Cashing 






1832 


T. Eaton 






2124 


T. Haworth 






2660 


T. Kobbe 






1789 


T. National &c. Ins. 


Co. 




2364 


V. Poor 






1983 


V. Sherley 




1971, 


2524 


V. Shirley 






1971 


Barndollar v. Tate 






1951 


Barned v. Barned 






2577 


Barnes v. Allen 




1642 


1646 


T. Barnes 


2030, 


2687, 


2689 


^ V. Berendes 






1994 


T. Brown 1974, 


1979, 


1981, 


2578 


V. Burt 






1847 


T. Cole 






1922 


T. Gorman 






1720 


V. Hathorn 






2528 


T. Holloway 






1924 


V. Ingalls 
V. Johnson 




1733 


2517 






1729 


T. Light 


1616, 


1617, 


1619 


V. Lloyd 






1579 


V. Martin 






1703 


v. McCrea 






1769 


V. Northern Trust 


Co. 








2111 


2572 


2573 


V. Piedmont &c. Ins 


. Co. 




2297 


V. Trompowsky 






1951 


V. Viall 






2115 


Barnet v. Day 




2197 


2199 


V. Smith 




1839, 


2580 


Barnett v. Gluting 








1633, 


1635 


2247 


2252 


V. Harshbarger 






2246 


V. Minnix 






2050 


T. Van Meter 






2081 


V. Warren 






1729 


Barnewall y. Church 






2374 


V. Murrell 


2684, 


2687, 


2689 


Barney t. Dewey 






2518 


V. Fuller 






1732 


V. Oyster Bay &c. Co. 




1701 


V. Scherling 




1730, 


1754 


Barney's Will 






2691 


Barnhart v. Foley 






1741 


Barnitz v. Rice 






1709 


Barnowski v. Helson 






2498 


Barnsdall v. Barnsdall 






2034 


V. Boley 






1578 


Barnstable v. Thacher 






2650 


Barnum v. Barnum 






1611 


T. Green 






1592 


V. Landon 






1601 


V. Van Dusen 




2004, 


2659 


Barr v. Chandler 






2626 


V. Gratz 






2055 


V. Hack 






2452 


v. Post 




1694 


1697 


Barre v. Council Bluffs Ins. 


Co. 


2299, 
2312 
2672 


Barrelett v. Bellgard 






Barrick v. Austin 






1707 


Barrle v. Seidel 






1974 


Barrier t. Kelly 






2073 


Barrs v. Brace 






1617 


Barruso v. Madan 




1975 


1989 


Barrett v. Deere 






2576 



Barrett v. Franklin 




1625 


T. French 




2179 


V. Henry 




1610 


T. Hinckley 




2039 


y. Mahnken 




2177 


V. Mead 




1934 


V. Murphy 1854, 1855, 


1856, 


1858, 


1861 


1862 


1949 


V. Mt. Greenwood Cemetery 




Asso. 




2530 


V. Swann 


2541 


2550 


V. Third Ave. R. Co. 




1597 


Barron v. Barron 




1620 


V. Burrill 




1948 


V. Cobleigh 




1852 


V. Paine 




1931 


Barrow v. Bailey 




2163 


V. Bell 




2445 


Barrows v. Sweet 




1664 


Barry t. Butlin 




2693 


T. Carothers 




2027 


V. Equitable &c. Society 




2177 


T. Farmers' &c. Ins. Asso. 


2309 


V. Goodrich 




1596 


V. Lambert 




2086 


y. Ransom 




1843 


y. Sonoma Co. 




2062 


V. Terkildsen 




2536 


V. United States &c. Asso 


2399 


2400 


y. White 




1607 


Barstow y. Newman 




2059 


V. Goodwin 




2207 


Bartee v. Thompson 




2684 


Bartels v. Schell 




1726 


Bartelott v. International Bank 


2461 


Barth y. Burnham 




1749 


V. Graf 


1736, 


1742 


Bartholomew v. Bushnell 




2622 


Bartlet v. Braunsdorf 




1950 


Bartlett, In re 




2236 


Bartlett v. Bramhall 




1729 


y. Brickett 


1587, 


2614 


T. Brown 




2480 


V. Emery 




1605 


V. Hoyt 




2662 


V. King 


2236, 


2244 


V. Kochel 




2637 


y. Manor 




2460 


V. Musiiner 




2493 


v. Nye 




2236 


V. Pittsburg &c. R. Co. 




1916 


V. Tucker 




1831 


V. Woodworth &c. Co. 




1596 


Bartley y. Richtmyer 1995, 


2630, 


2631 


Barton y. Brickson 


2040, 


2050 


V. Holmes 




2454 


y. Kane 




2623 


V. Mulvane 




2612 


V. Thompson 
Bartram v. Stone 




2140 


1692 


2005 


Barwell v. Adkins 




2452 


Barwick v. Gast Lithographi 


ag Co 


2621 


V. Wood 


2050 


2065 


Bascom v. Bascom 




2032 


V. Dempsey 




2649 


Basford v. Pearson 




1723 


Bash y. Bash 




1972 


V. Christian 




1666 


Bass y. Mitchell 




1855 


V. Taylor 




2572 


V. West 




1994 


Bass Furnace Co. v. Glasscock 


2006 


Bassett y. Bassett 1642, 1649 


, 1652 


, 2485 


y. Company 




1972 


V. Orr 




2600 


V. Porter 




2116 


y. Salisbury Mfg. Co. 


1970 


2528 


y. Sanborn 




1717 



TABLE OF CASES. 



XXXVll 



[References are to Sections.'] 



Bassil V. Loffer 




2202 


Beal V. State 


2085 


2086 


Basye v. Ambrose 




2000 


Beale v. Beale 




1611 


Batchelder v. Batchelder 




2037 


V. Brown 




205O 


V. Insurance Co. &c. 


2433 


2436 


V. Hall 




1610 


V. Rand 




2585 


V. Hayes 




200O 


V. Sturgis 


1598 


1957 


Bealey v. Shaw 




253e 


Bate V. Hill 




2003 


Beall v. Cunningham 




2695 


Bates V. Bates 




2291 


V. Fox 




2236 


V. Campbell 




2057 


Beals V. Thompson 




2452 


V. Cooke 




1659 


Beam v. Bridgers 




2249^ 


T. Curtes 




1607 


Bean, In re 




1818 


V. Gillett 




2207 


Bean v. Employers' &c. Co. 




2408 


V. Holbrook 




2535 


v. Farnam 


1665 


1667 


V. Howard 




2194 


V. Herrick 




2148 


V. Lane 




1728 


V. Mayo 




1957 


v. Rockfort &c. Bank 




2252 


V. Parker 




2026 


V. Stanton 


1789 


1798 


V. Tonnele 1727, 2460, 


2583 


2584 


V. Taylor 




2236 


V. Travelers' Ins. Co. 




2417 


V. Townley 




1605 


Bear Valley Coal Co. v. Dewart 




V. Wilson 1927, 


1937 


1940 




2039 


2065 


Batlike t. Krassin 




1643 


Bearce v. Bass 


2448 


2453 


Batson t. Findley 




1608 


V. Jackson 




1956 


Battaille v. Merchants' Ins. 


Co. 


2350 


Beard v. Campbell 




2148 


Battell T. Wallace 




2457 


V. Dansby 




2087 


Batten v. Smith 




1709 


V. Kirk 




1641 


Battles V. Laudenslager 




2134 


V. Sloan 




2629 


Baubie v. JBtna Ins. Co. 




2300 


Beard & Sons v. Illinois Cent 


. R. Co. 


Bander v. Bryan 




2067 






1917 


Bauer v. Indianapolis 




2514 


Beardsley, In re 




1816 


V. State 




1706 


Beardsley v. American Home &c. So- 


Baugh T. Read 




2211 


ciety 




2242: 


Baughman v. Penn 




2149 


y. Crane 1857, 


1861 


1862: 


Baulec v. New York &c. R. Co. 


2503 


v. Chapman 




2067- 


Baum V. Reay 




2057 


v. Johnson 


1932 


1933. 


V. Tonkins 




2020 


V. Root 




1731 


Bauman v. Bean 




1702 


V. Selectmen of Bridgeport 


2235- 


V. Feist 




1816 


V. Swann 




1991 


V. Grubbs 




2055 


V. Tuttle 




2567 


Baumann, In re 




1803 


Beardstown v. Clark 




2513. 


Baumgart v. Modern Woodmen &c. 


2378 


Beasley v. Evans 




246a- 


Baumgartner v. Hasty 


2527 


2660 


T. Bray 




2153- 


Baumier -v. Antiau 




1927 


V. Howell 


1615 


1623. 


Baxley v. Baxley 




1617 


Beath v. Chapotou 




2179 


Baxter v. Abbott 


2288 


2692 


V. Rapid R. Co. 




1980 


V. Baxter 




2033 


Beatrice Gas Co. v. Thomas 




2536 


v. Card 




1833 


Beatty v. Fishel 




2132. 


V. Chelsea &c. Ins. Co. 




2419 


V. Gilmore 




2511 


V. Graves 




1835 


V. Kurtz 




2236. 


V. Hozier 




1601 


V. Lycoming Co. &c. Ins. Co. 


2347,. 


V. Nash 




1744 




2357, 


2360. 


V. Paine 




1727 


V. Trustees &c. 




2224 


V. Talbot 


1830 


1843 


Beattyvllle Bank v. Roberts 




2579' 


V. Winn 




2206 


Beaty v. Baltimore &c. R. Co 




265a 


V. Winooskl Turnpike Co. 




2531 


V. Robertson 




1845 


Bay V. Gnnn 




2264 


Beaubien v. Kellogg 


1848. 


1859 


Bay Co. v. Bradley 




2043 


Beauchamp v. Saginaw &c. Co. 


1989 


Baykey, In re 




2089 


Beaudette v. Gagne 


2635, 


2636 


Bayless y. Travelers' Ins. Co 




2415 


Beaulieu v. Ternoir 




2490 


Bayley v. Taber 




1823 


Beaumont v. Fell 2211, 2220, 


2221 


2223 


Baylis v. TraTelers' Ins. Co. 




2399 


V. Webster 




2096 


Bayllss v. Cockroft 




2146 


Beaupland v. McKeen 




2072 


Bayly v. Clare 




2170 


Beavan v. McDonnell 




2281 


Bays V. Conner 




2550 


Bechel v. Pacific Ex. Co. 




2473 


Bayse v. Adams 




2385 


Becherer v. Stock 




2456 


Beach, Matter of 




2280 


Beck V. Dowell 




1703 


Beach v. Beach 




2039 


v. Metz 




2227 


v. Brown 


1642, 


1645 


V. Sargent 




1650 


V. Fay 




1844 


V. Thompson 




1703 


V. Hotchkiss 




1600 


V. West &c. Co. 




1994 


V. Miller 




1957 


Beck &c. Co. V. Houppert 




2628 


V. Norton 




1589 


Becker v. Howard 




2039 


V. Rarltan &c. R. Co. 




2671 


V. Oliver 




2463 


V. Wheeler 


2117, 


2118 


Beckett v. Northwestern &c. Asso. 


2376, 


V. Whittlesey 




1850 




2387, 


2S91 


V. Wise 




1715 


Beckham's Succession 




1584 


Beakes v. Phoenix Ins. Co. 




2332 


Beckham v. Puckett 




2587 


Beal V. Asberry 




1851 


Beckley v. Jarvis 




2584 


V. Morton 




2592 


Beckman y. Souther 




1694 



XXXVlll 



TABLE OF CASES. 



IBeferences are to Sections.1 



Beckwith v. Philby 




2111 


Bellows Falls Bank v. 


Rutland Co 




V. Bean 




2118 


Bank 






1725 


Bedell v. Chase 




2146 


Bellville Stone Co. v. Comben 




2520 


V. Russell 




1965 


Belo 


V. Smith 






2457 


Bedford Belt E. Co. v. Burke 




2576 


Belshaw v. Bush 






1597 


Bedford v. Penny 




2146 


V. 


Chitwood 






2697 


Bee, The 




1584 


Belvidere Gaslight &c. 


Co. V 


Jack- 




Beebe v. Carter 


2626 


2627 


SOB 








2533 


V. Griffln 




2202 


Belyew v. Belyew 






2032 


V. Knapp 




2146 


Bemis v. Caldwell 






1957 


V. Moore 




1782 


V. 


Smith 






1959 


V. Robinson 




2596 


Bemus v. Beekman 






2606 


V. Smith 




1608 


Ben Franklin Ins. Co. 


V. Flynn 


2347 


Beecher v. Bush 


2071 


2553 


Benbow v. Beyer 






1574 


V. Deniston 




2670 


v. 


Cook 






1932 


V. Galvin 


1622, 


1852 


Bench v. Sheldon 






2148 


V. Parmele 




1857 


Bend 


V. Susquehanna Co. 




2627 


Beeckman v. Montgomery 




2165 


Bender v. Blessing 






2461 


Beekman t. Bonsor 


2243, 


2245 


V. 


Elnker 






1737 


Beer t. Clifton 




1824 


Benedict v. Davis 




2556, 


2558 


v. Insurance Co. 




2335 


V. 


Fond du Lac 






2517 


Beers v. Hawley 


1715, 


2087 


V. 


Gaylord 




1845, 


1850 


V. Pinney 




2518 


V. 


Potts 




1900, 


1902 


Behee v. Missouri Pac. R. Co 


2453 


2454 


Benham v. Cary 






2141 


Behr v. Conn. &c. Ins. Co. 




2346 


Beninger v. Corwin 






2622 


Behrens v. Behrens 


2697, 


2698 


Benjamin, In re 






2010 


V. Insurance Co. 




2140 


Benjamin v. Benjamin 




2247, 


2251 


Behrensmeyer v. Kreitz 




1584 


V. 


Connecticut &c. 


Asso. 




2301 


Beindorff v. Kaufman 




2170 


V. 


Covert 






2571 


Beisiegel t. New York Cent. 


R. Co. 


2501 


V. 


Northwestern Elevator 


Co. 


2585 


Belcher v. Farren 




1584 


V. 


Eogers 






1715 


Belden v. Davies 




2123 


Benje 


V. Creagh 






1780 


V. Meeker 


1708, 


2080 


Benn 


V. Prltchett 






2177 


T. Perkins 




1798 


Benne v. Miller 






1818 


Belger v. Sanchez 




1735 


Beunefleld v. Albert 






2057 


Belk v. Meagher 


1578, 


2057 


Benner v. Feige 






2668 


Belknap v. Belknap 




2530 


Bennett v. Appleton 






1688 


V. Boston &c. R. Co. 1703 


1997 


2004 


v. 


Austin 






2095 


Bell V. Atlantic City R. Co. 


2473, 


2480 


v. 


Avant 






1743 


V. Bell 




2249 


V. 


Beam 1866, 1888 


, 1892 


1893 


2642 


V. Campbell 




1840 


V. 


Bennett 1642, 


1645, 


1652, 


1653, 


V. Chapman 




1584 








2255, 


2458 


V. Chartier 




2094 


V. 


Camp 






2254 


V. Cunningham 




1639 


V. 


Connecticut F. Ins. Co 




2311 


V. Davidson 




1603 


V. 


Davis 






1604 


T. Denson 




1618 


V. 


Dean 






2077 


T. Baton 


1865, 


1882 


T. 


Filyaw 






1916 


T. Farnsworth 




2003 


V. 


Gaddis 


2040, 


2050, 


2080 


T. Greathouse 




1572 


V. 


Gibbons 






1982 


T. Gulf &c. E. Co. 




1992 


V. 


Hill 




1595, 


1597 


T. Kellar 




2259 


V. 


Horr 




2040. 


2057 


V. Kendrick 




2040 


V. 


Hyde 


1997, 


2002, 


2003 


V. Lamprey 




2124 


V. 


Justices 






1821 


V. Lycoming &c. Ins. Co. 


2356, 


2360 


V. 


Luby 






2177 


V. Martin 




1697 


V. 


Lycoming &c. Ins. Co. 


2325, 


2340 


v. McGinness 


2140, 


2456 


V. 


Meehan 




2007, 


2517 


V. MeKinney 




2113 


V. 


Morley 






2027 


V. Morrison 1695, 1997, 


2466, 


2573 


V. 


Morrison 






1616 


V. Pearcy 


2472, 


2476 


V. 


Northern Pac. E 


Co. 




1907 


V. Reynolds 




1994 


V. 


O'Brien 






1784 


V. Rice 




1725 


V. 


Pierce 




1664, 


2055 


V. Rinker 


2632, 


2641 


V. 


Sherrod 






2700 


V. Rock Tunnel &c. Co. 


1572, 


1574 


V. 


Simon 






1844 


V. Wright 




1847 


V. 


Smith 1642, 


1643, 


1046, 


1649, 


Bell County v. Alexander 


2235, 


2244 








1651b 


1652 


V. Hendrickson 


1746, 


1856 


V. 


Tlllmon 






1826 


Bell of the Sea 




2077 


V. 


Toler 






2200 


Bellah, In re 




1810 


V. 


Van Elner 






2204 


Bellamy v. Chambers 




1957 


BenninghotE v. Agricultural Ins. Co 


2359 


Bellant v. Brown 




1921 


Beusell v. Chancellor 






2291 


Bellas V. Cleaver 


1845, 


1846 


Benson v. Benson 






2161 


Beller v. Jones 




2285 


V. 


McFadden 






2273 


Bellefontalne R. Co. v. Hunter 


2.^10 


v. 


WnnkpsVin 






1974 


BSIleville Stone Co. v. Comblen 


2505 


Benson Min. &e. Co. v. 


Alta /to Cn 


2659 


Bellinger v. New York &c. R. 


Co. 


1971 


Bent 


v. Manning 






2270 


Bellows V. Copp 




2067 


V. 


Mink 






2450 


V. Murray 




1,581 


Bentaloe v. Pratt 






2444 


T. McCartee 




2067 


Bentley's Appeal 






2460 



TABLE OF CASES. 



XXXIX 



\_References are to Sections.'] 



Bentley T. Brown 2098 

V. Eobson 2170 

Benton v. Chicago &c. R. Co. 2017 

V. State 2453 

V. Toler 2578 

■Bentz V. Northwestern &c. Asso. 2389 
Berckmans t. Berckmans 2029, 2033 

Berdell v. Berdell 1649 

Berg V. Anderson 2206 

Bergen Co. T. Co. V. Demarest 1903 

Bergeron v. Peyton 2101, 2111 

Bergh v. Werner 2247, 2251, 2258 

BerghoSE v. McDonald 2610 

Berkeley v. Hardy 1628 

Berkley v. Watling 1913 

Berkner T. Dannenberg 1690, 1697 

Berks Tpk. Co. v. Myers 1951 

Berkshire Woolen Co. v. Proctor 

1786, 1797 

Berlin v. Thompson 1973 

Berliner v. Travelers' Ins. Co. 2296, 

2299, 2302 

Bernard v. German-Am. Seminary 2069 

T. Montague 2207 

V. Torrance 2560 

Bernardine v. L'Esplnasse 2189 

Berney v. Hann 2199 

V. Read 1658 

Bernhard v. Wyandotte 2588 

Bernheim v. Dibbrell 1752 

v. Dibrell 2141 

Berrenberg v. Boston 2512 

Berry v. American &c. Ins. Co. 2309 

V. Berry 1728 

V. Borden 1692 

V. Cooper 1916 

V. Hall 2281 

v. Hamill 2102 

T. Heard 2663 

V. Henderson 2258 

V. Hull 1584 

V. Safe Deposit &c. Co. 2288, 2692 

Bersch v. Sinnissipp Ins. Co. 2308 

Bertelson v. Bower 2618 

Berthold v. Goldsmith 2553 

V. Fox 2608 

V. St. Louis &c. Co. 2621 

Berthon v. Cartwrlght 1642 

Bertie t. Beaumont 2650 

Bertrand t. Elder 2158, 2162 

V. Taylor ■ 1606 

Berwind v. Greenwich Ins. Co. 2433, 

2435, 2436 

Besherer v. Swisher 2662 

Besley v. Dumas 2579 

Bessener Land Co. v. Campbell 2017 

Besson v. Richards 1845 

v. Southard 2473 

Best V. Best 2278 

V. Strong 1709 

Bestor v. Barker 2553 

V. Hickey 2171, 2179 

Bethlehem y. Perseverance Co. 1725, 2236 

Bethune v. McDonald 2076 

Betser v. Betser 1642, 1652 

Betteley v. Reed 2073 

Bettinger v. Kasten 2158 

Betts, In re 2696 

Betts V. Betts - 2032 

v. Reading 2177 

Beugnot v. Tremoulet 2071 

Beiirhaus v. Cole 2235 

T. Watertown 2235 

Sevan v. Cullen 1605 

Bevelot v. Lestrade 2685, 2688, 2694 

Bever v. North 1959, 2518 

V. Spangler 2690, 2691, 2692 



Bevin V. Connecticut &c. Ins. Co. 2308, 

2368, 2370 

Bewley v. Chapman 1849 

Beyer v. Le Pevre 2693 

Beyersdorf v. Sunp 1589 

Bice V. Rogers 2146 

Bickerdike v. State 1706, 1712 

Bicktord v. Chicago First Nat. Bank 2580 

V. Travelers' Ins. Co. 2418 

Bickle V. Irvine 2124 

Bickler v. Kendall 2163 

Bidden V. Dowse 1657, 1667 

Biddle v. Biddle 2699 

V. Bond 1789 

V. Pond 2073 

Bidinger v. Bishop 1576 

Bidwell V. Connecticut Mut. &c. Ins. 

Co. 2302 

Bierbach v. Goodyear &c. Co. 1984, 1994 
Bierer's Appeal 2131, 2150 



Bierhaus v. Western tJ. T. Co. 
Bierwith v. Pleronnet 
Bigaouette v. Paulet 
Bigelow V. Berkshire &c. Ins. Co. 

V. Bigelow 

V. Burnham 1824, 

V. Cambridge &c. Co. 

2551, 



V. 



1981 
2109 
1642 
2395 
1826 
1829 
2020 
2570 
2264 
2672 
1957 
2650 
1664 
2208 
1665 
2077 
2672 
2496 
1059 
1845 
2621 



Billot 
V. Grannis 
V. Heintze 
V. Hubbard 

V. Jones 1729, 1959, 
V. Maynard 
V. Morong 
V. Newell 
V. Woodward 
Biggins V. Goode 
Biggs V. Huntington 
Biggus V. Bradley 
Bigham v. McDowell 
Bigler v. Flickinger 
Bill V. Fourth Great Western Tpk. 

Co. 1930, 1936, 1945 

Billings V. Billings 2033 

V. Dunnaway 1942 

V. German Ins. Co. 2359 

V. Jane 1707 

Billingslea v. Moore 2212 

Billingsley v. Bates 1846, 1855 

Billingsly v. Craddock 1834 

Billmeyer v. Wagner 1994 

Binford v. Miner 1607 

v. Young 2454 

Binney v. Chanman 1729 

Binsse v. Wood 2518 

Bint, Goods of 2700 

Birbeck v. Burrow 1664 

Birchall v. Griggs 1736 

Birchard v. Booth 2005 

V. Scott 2243 

Bird V. Astock 2667 

V. Everard 1790 

V. Holbrook 2539 

V. Marklee 2234 

V. Randall 1926 

V. Smith 1956 

V. State 2273 

V. St. John's &c. Church 1720, 2000 

V. Thompson 1867 

V. Womack 2660 

Birkett v. Knickerbocker Ice Co. 1995 

Birks V. Trippet 1661 

Birmingham v. Rochester City &c. R. 

Co. 2507 

V. Tayloe 1942 

Birmingham Union R. Co. v. Hale 1903, 

2502, 2503 



xl 



TABLE OP CASES. 



IReferences are to Sections.^ 



Birmingham &c. Co. v. Pinley 1760, 
V. Mullen 


1761 1 
1692 


Blair v. Pelham 
V. Smith 






2506 
2153 


Birmingham &c. Ins. Co. v. Kroegher 

2335 


V. Snodgrass 
v. Wait 






2206 
2070 


Birmingham &c. R. Co. v. Baird 

V. Clay 1895, 
Birney t. Hann 2193, 


1697 
1923 


V. Winston 
Blaisdell v. Davis 






1749 
1728 


2199 


V. Holmes 






2279 


Birrell v. Dryer 
Birum V. Johnson 


2442 


Blake's Case 






2121 


1888 


Blake v. Albion L. Assui 


. Soc 




2452 


Bischof V. Lucas 


2625 


V. Bigelow 






1800 


Bischoff V. Theurer 


1589 


V. Blake 






2033 


Bish V. Hawkeye Ins. Co. 


2339 


V. Blackley 






2627 


Bishop V. Agricultural Ins. Co. 
v. Austin 


2352 
2546 


V. Coleman 
V. Damon 


1692, 


1825, 
1695, 


1832 
2116 


V. Baldwin 


1601 


V. Davis 






2042 


V. Bleyer 
V. Chambre 


1617 


V. Doherty 




1850, 


1854 


1606 


V. Exchange &c. Ins. 


Co. 


2073, 


2350, 


V. Georgeson 
V. Holcomb 


2543 

1714 


V. Jerome 




2358, 


2359 

1974 


V. Howard 


1735 


V. Lowell 




1944, 


2513 


V. Jones 


1584 


V. Midland E. Co. 






1995 


V. Lalouette 


2073 


V. Rourke 






2689 


V. Pentland 


2445 


V. Sawyer 






2586 


V. State 2152, 2157, 2160, 


2597 


V. Shriver 






1619 


T. Truett 


2050 


V. Stone 






2206 


Bissel V. Price 1911, 


1914 


Blakeney v. Kirkley 






2154 


Bissell v. BIssell 


2490 


Blakey v. Douglas 






2662 


V. Pearce 


2662 


V. Morris 




1619 


1621 


V. Post 


1820 


Blalock, In re 






1816 


V. Warde 2546, 2547, 2555, 


2558 


Blalock V. Newhill 






2050 


V. Wert 2006, 


2140 


V. Randall 




1922, 


2141 


Bitner v. Bitner 2280, 


2285 


Blanc V. Forgay 






1607 


Bitterling v. Deshler 


1600 


Blanchard v. Baker 




1970, 


1972 


Bittinger t. Kasten 


2154 


V. Brown 




1756, 


1757 


Bitting V. Ten Byck 2472, 2474, 


2475, 


V. Burbank 


1962, 


1970, 


2115 




2479 


V. Dow 






1933 


Bixby V. Carskaddon 2127, 


2130 


V. Ilsley 




2630 


,2631 


T. Whitney 


1655 


V. Lake Shore &c. E 


Co. 




2504 


Bizer v. Ottumwa &c. Co. 


2535 


V. Lambert 






2486 


Black, In re 


1799 


Blanchard Gunstock &c. 


Co. V. War 




Black V. Ashley 


1918 


ner 






'l982 


V. Black 2030, 2033, 2255 


2261 


Bland v. Bland 






2206 


V. Cartmell 


2194 


Blaney v. Pelton 






1824 


V. Chesser 


1602 


Blank's Will, In re 






2206 


v. Nichols 


1600 


Blanke Tea &c. Co. v. Trade 


Exhibit 


V. Richards 


2211 


Co. 




1633 


1636 


V. Sanders 


2159 


Blann v. Beal 






2588 


V. Shreve 


1946 


Blanton v. Dold 






2501 


V. Telephone Co. 


2502 


Blass V. Gregor 






2479 


V. Tennessee &c. Co. 


1617 


V. Lee 






1746 


y. Wright 


2145 


Blate V. Third Ave. R. Co. 




1994 


Black River &c. Co. v. Holway 


1948 


Blattner v. Weis 






2691 


Blackburn v. Crawford 2196 


2491 


Bledsoe v. Irvin 






1588 


V. Mann 


1866 


V. Simms 




2057 


2058 


V. Ormsby 


1595 


Bleidorn v. Oakdale &c. 


Co. 




2050 


V. Watson 


1589 


V. Pilot Mt. &c. Co. 






2065 


Blackie v. Hudson 


1957 


Bleiler v. Koons 






1865 


Blackinton v. Rumpf 


1744 


Blenon's Estate 




X 


2243 


Blackman t. State 


2589 


Bless v. Jenkins 






1639 


y. Wadsworth 


2205 


Bleveu v. Freer 






1751 


T. West Jersey &c. R. Co. 


2476 


BJevins v. Pope 






1638 


Blackstone v. Standard &c. Ins. Co 


2399 


Blewett V. Miller 






2005 


Blackwell t. Coleman 


1850 


V. Sprague 






1740 


V. Davis 


1695 


V. Wyandotte &c. R 


Co. 




2498 


V. Dibbrell 


1583 


Blln V. Campbell 






1922 


V. Goss 


1664 


Bliss V. American Bible Soc 




2236 


V. State 


2267 


V. Ellsworth 






1574 


Blade v. Chicago &c. R. Co. 


1914 


V. New York &c. R. 


Co. 




1599 


Blades v. Free 


2071 


V. Rice 






1972 


Blaeser v. Milwaukee &c. Ins. Co. 


2140 


V. Sickles 






2624 


Blagen v. Smith 


2530 


V. Thompson 
Blizzard v. Hays 






1729 


Blagg V. Sturt 2448 


, 2453 






2477 


Blagge V. Ilsley 


2643 


Bloch, In re 1800, 1801 


1803. 1811. 1812 


Blaine v. Bourne 


1827 


Block V. Block 






2227 


Blair, In re 


1800 


V. Meyers 






2119 


Blair v. Cary 


2589 


V. Milwaukee &c. E 


Co. 




1988 


V. Lynch 


2578 


Blodgett V. Blodgett 






1798 


v. Miller 


2040 


V. Cummings 






1968 



TABLE OF CASES. 



xli- 



IReferences are to Sections.'i 



Blodgett v. HItt 2067 

V. Perry 2077 

v. Stone 1962, 1970, 1972, 2531 

Blood V. Bates 1665 

T. Brie &c. Co. 1798 

V. Goodrich 1628, 1639 

V. Harrington 1585, 2662 

v. Light 2052 

Bloodgood T. Mohawk &c. E. Co. 2114 

Bloom V. Franklin &c. Ins. Co. 2403 

T. State Ins. Co. 2358 

Bloomer v. State 2105, 2106 

Bloomfield v. Smith 2023 

Bloomingdale t. Durell 1917 

Bloomington v. Chamberlain 1984, 1985 

Bloomington &c. Asso. v. Blue 2371, 2384 

Bloomington Min. Co. Y. Brooklyn 

&c. Co. 1599 

Bloomley v. Gruiton 1605 

Blossom V. Lycoming F. Ins. Co. 

2338, 2360 
Blough v. Parry 2689, 2690, 2692 

Blount V. Starkley 1728 

Blowers v. Sturtevant 2251 

Bloxam v. Sanders 2618, 2663 

Blue Wing, The, t. Buckner 2399 

Bluehill Academy y. Ellis 2469 

Blum V. Davis 1745 

T. Hartman 1597 

Blume V. Hartman 2697 

Blumenthal v. Boston &c. R. Co. 2501 
T. Brainerd 1918 

Blunk T. Atchison &c. E. Co. 2483 

Bluntzer v. Dewees 2122, 2587 

Blyth V. Birmingham Waterworks 

Co. 2495 

Blythe v. Tompkins 2115 

Boal T. King 2057 

Board v. Arrghl 2601 

V. Durnell 1593 

Board of Education v. Moore 1941, 1942 

Board of Eegents &c. v. Charlebols 2062 

Board &c. v. Dinwiddle 2235 

V. Johnson 2596 

V. Legg 1995 

v. Perry 1972 

V. Eogers 2235, 2236, 224.S 

T. Schroeder 2114 

V. State 2593, 2594 

Boardman v. Bickford 1743 

V. Holliday 2589 

T. Keeler 2570 

v. Eeed 1851 

V. Woodman 2002 

Boas V. Hetzel 1800, 1821 

Boatwright t. Stewart 1757 

Boaz V. Schneider 1738 

v. Tate 2102, 2105, 2108 

Bobbitt V. Liverpool &c. Ins. Co. 2302 

Bobo V. Eichmond 1860 

Bock V. Perkins ' 1709 

Bodine v. Exchange &c. Ins. Co 2298 

V. Morgan 2170, 2179 

Bodkin v. Merit 2124 

Bodle V. Chenango &c. Ins. Co. 2358 

Bodman v. American &c. Soc. 2238, 2240, 

2241 

Bodwell V. Bodwell 2035 

V. Osgood 2451 

Boffinger v. Tuyes 1596, 1598 

Boeger v. Langenberg 2103, 2108, 2472, 

2475 
Boehen v. Williamsburgh City Ins. 

Co. 2298 

Boehi V. Chicago &c. R. Co. 1919, 1920 
Boehm v. Kress 2687 

Boehmer v. Detroit &c. Co. 2448, 2451 
Bogart V. Cox 2469 



Boggan V. Bennett 2660, 

Boggs V. Lakeport Aa^ A'Ssoj 1943 . 

V. Merced Min. Co. 2070 . 

V. Taylor 2211 

Bohan v. Port Jervis Gas Co. 2524, , 

2525, 2526, 2537' 
Bohn V. Chicago &c. E. Co. 2498, 

Bohrer y. Drake 2551 

Bolce V. Thames &c. Ins. Co. 2294 

Boies V. Hartford &c. R. Co. 1784, 1785, 

1916 
Boisblanc v. Louisiana; &e. Ins. Co. 2301 
Boland v. Ross 1583, 

Bolen V. Crosby 1707 

Boling V. Wright 2660 . 

Bolles V. Harris 2685, 2699 . 

Boiling V. Kirby 2665 . 

V. Tate 1982 

V. Teel 2050, 2065 . 

Bolln V. Metcalf 2177 

Bolster v. Cushman, 2064 

Bolton V. Johns 2052 

Boltz V. Sullivan 1991, 2513 . 

Boman v. Boman 2228,J 2229, 2231 

Bomar v. Hagler 2462 : 

Bon Aqua Imp. Co. v. Standard iFire 

Ins. Co. 1932 

Bonaffon v. Peters 2039, 2064 

Bonard's M'ill 2280 ■ 

Bonce v. Dubuque St; R; Go>, 1901 

Bond's Appeal 2212 

Bond V. Biddeford 1944, 2513 . 

V. Brewster 2449 

V. Brig Cora 2444 

V. Douglas 2450 

V. Fay 1854, 1862 

V. Fitzpatrick 1715 

V. Hilton 1974 

V. Lockwood 2673 

V. McNlder 1599 

V. Olden 1656 , 

V. Smith 2503 

V. Ward 2666 . 

V. White 1590, 1591 

V. Wilson 2466, 2467 

Bonds V. Smith 2065 . 

Bonenfant v. America*! -.&C. • Ins. Co. 

2299 2300 > 

Bonesteel v. Bonesteeli 2105;, 2109', 2115 

Bonewits v. Wygantt 1856. 

Bongard v. Core 2258 

Bonlno v. Caledonio , 1702, 2005 

Bonneau v. Dinsmore'- 1584 

Bonnell v. Mawha, 1604 

V. Smith 2529 

Bonner v. Bean 2521 

V. Welborn 2524 

Bonney v. McLeod' 1848 

Boogher v. Life Asso. &<•,•. 2114 

Booher v. GoMfeborogfe, 2597 

T. Worrill 2154 

Boon V. Hunter 1846 

V. State Ins. Co. 2350 

Boone v. East Norwegian. ,Tp. 2511 

V. Mierow 2579 

V. Purnell 2486 

V. Eitchie 2689 

Boor V. Lowrey 2548 

Boorman v. American Ex.v Co. 1914 

V. Northwestern Belief ' Asso. 2278 

Boot V. Brewster 1572, 1576 

Boot &c. Ins. Co. V. Melrose &c. 

Soc. 2422 

Booth' V. Booth 2124, 2588 

V. Cleveland &c. Co. 2006 

V. Spuyten DuyffH&o. Co. 1979, 1981, 

1994 
V. Hoskins., 2460- 



xlii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to Sections.'] 



Booth T. Powers 


2141 


V. Small 


1618 


Boothby t. Scales 


2619 


Boots T. Canine 


1656, 1657, 1664 


V. Ristine 


2595 



Bordeaux v. Greene 2529 

Borden t. Delaware &c. R. Co. 2501 

V. Vincent 2536 

Bordentown t. Wallace 2169, 2171, 2182 

Borkenstein v. Shrack 1703 

Borland t. Barrett 1691, 1703 

V. Haven 2461 

V. Mayo 2163 

V. Mercantile &c. Ins. Co. 2436 

Born V. First Nat. Bank 2576, 2580 

Bornholdt v. Souillard 2475 

Borradaile v. Hunter 2287 

Borries v. Hutchinson 1994 

Borthwick v. Carruthers 2264 

Bory V. Knox 2865 

Bosley t. Baltimore &c. R. Co. 1915 

Boston T. Coon 2518 

V. Richardson 1847 

V. Weymouth 1942 

T. Worthington 2518 

Boston Rubber Co. v. Peerless &c. 

Co. 1596 

Boston Water Power Co. v. Gray 1665 

Boston &c. R. Co. v. Dana 1731 

T. Nashua &c. R. Co. 1609, 1666 

V. Sullivan 2628 

Bostwlck V. Stiles 2399 

V. Williams 1958 

Boswell V. Carlisle 1753 

V. State 2280 

Botsford V. Chase 2004 

Bott V. Burnell 2052 

Bottomley v. United States 2141 

Botts V. Botts 2486 

V. Williams 2118 

Boucher v. New Haven 2513 

Boudreaux v. Martinez 2570 

Bough V. Metropolitan &c. R. Co. 2005 

Boughman v. Boughman 2490 

Boughton V. Knight 2692 

V. Seamans 1664 

Bouker v. Randies 2629 

Boulden v. Mclntire 2485, 2486, 2490 

V. Pennsylvania R. Co. 2019 

V. Phoenix Ins. Co. 2293 

Boulter v. Clark 1689, 1701 

Bourdette v. Sieward 1962, 1972 

Bourdin v. Greenwood 2466 

Bourland v. Eidson 2457 

Bouslog V. Garrett 1605 

Boutin V. Rudd 1994 

Bouton V. American &c. Ins. Co. 2299 

Bouvey v. McNeal 2259 

Bowden v. Bowdeu 2129 

V. Crow 2124 

V. Lewis 2530 

Bowdoin v. Colman 1707 

Bowdon V. Robinson 1596 

Bowen v. Bowen 2007 

V. Cooper I577 

V. Gaylord 1845 

V. Guild 1618 

V. National &c. Asso. 2385 

V. Newell 1824 

V. Rutherford 2560 

V. Stewart 2080, 2081 

V. Swander 2053 

V. Tascoe 2117 

Bower v. Boulton 1571 

V. Bower 2227, 2231, 2691 

■^- Karl 1843a 

V. Hill 1972 

Bowers v. Richmond &c. R. Co. 1907 



Bowersock v. Adams 2614 

Bowersox v. Bowersox 1652 

Bowes V. Lucas 2586 

Bowie V. Baltimore &c. R. Co. 1913, 1918 

V. Maddox 2558 

Bowker v. Harris 1596 

V. Lowell 2182 

Bowler v. Braun 1843 

V. Eldredge 2120 

Bowley v. Walker 1579 

Bowman v. Agricultural &c. Ins. Co. 

2295, 2298 
V. Bowman 1865, 1882 

V. Brown 1699 

V. Hiller 2170 

V. Horsey 1782 

V. Humphrey 2533 

V. Keleman 1707 

V. Phillips 2696 
V. Western Furniture Mfg. Co. 1759 

V. Wettig 2040 

Bowring v. Blmslie 2445 

Bowser v. Caravener 2196 

Boxell V. Robinson 2666 

Boyce v. Christian 2236 

V. Graham 2050 

V. Watson 2000 

V. Wilbur Lumber Co. 2505 

V. Williams 2668 
Boyd V. Boyd 2142, 2696 . 

V. Byrd 2630 

V. Cedar Rapids Ins. Co. 2358 
V. Cross 2117, 2118, 2472 

V. De La Montaguie 2261 

V. Dodson 1639 

V. Eby 2276 

V. Ellis 2163 

V. Glucklich 1803 

V. Graves 1850 

V. Groves 1857 

V. Hitchcock 1596 

V. Labranche 1746 
V. Lemon &c. Co. 1802, 1812 

V. Magruder 1667 

V. Martin 1750 

V. Moats 1596 

V. Nasmith 2580 

V. Nebraska 1584 
V. New England Mut. L. Ins. 

Co. 2009 

V. Olvey 2580 

V. Portland &c. Elec. Co. 2498 

V. Robinson 2206 

v. Vickery 2157 

V. Webster 2586 

V. Weeks 1726 

Boyden v. Lamb 1654 

Boyer v. Berryman 2279 

Boylngton v. Squires 2651 

V. Sweeney 2621 

Boykin v. Mobile Bank 1843 

Boylan v. Meeker 2039 

V. Prudential Ins. Co. 2389 

Boyle V. Boyle 2697 

V. Columbian F. P. Co. 2017 

V. Mowry 2520 

V. Royal Ins. Co. 2387 

V. Wiseman 2454 

Boynton v. Equitable &c. Soc. 2391 

V. Kellogg 1893 

V. Life Assur. Co. 2394 

V. Tidwell 2116 

V. Veazie 2618 

Bozeman v. State Bank 1597 

Brabo, The 1725, 1733 

Bracegirdle v. Orford 2004 

Bracken v. NeiU 1982 

v. Union Pac. R. Co. 1623 



TABLE OF CASES. 



xliii 



IReferences are to Sections.1 



Brackett v. Walt 




2166 


Bracy v. Kibbe 


2639, 2641, 


2645 


Bradbury v. Benton 




1988 


Braden v. Cannon 




2206 


T. Lemmon 


2576, 


2578 


Bradfleld v. Patterson 




1603 


Bradford v. Andrews 




2683 


V. Brennan 




2461 


V. Chicago 




2184 


V. Cressey 


1843a 


1847 


V. Erwin 




2190 


V. Guthrie 




1623 


T. Manly 




1730 


V. Prescott 




1830 


V. Eoulston 




1725 



Bradford City v. Downs 2013 

Bradford &c. Co. t. New York &c. 

Co. 2579 

Bradhurst v. Field 2211 

Bradlsh v. Bliss 2140 

Bradlee v. Andrews 2206 

Bradley v. Bradley 2034, 2227, 2228, 

2231 

V. Chicago &c. E. Co. 1981 

V. Ewart 2039 

V. Farrington 1725 

V. Freed 2583, 2585 

T. Gregory 1595, 1599 

T. Hartford &c. Co. 2507 

V. Harwi 2576 

V. Iowa Cent. E. Co. 2533 

V. Irish 2170, 2181 

T. John Hancock &c. Ins. Co. 2387 

V. Missouri Pac. E. Co. 2082 

V. Mosby • 2206 

V. Mutual &c. Ins. Co. 2403 

Y. Obear 2141, 2624 

V. Palen 1595 

V. Eea 2629 

T. Eees 2210, 2219 

V. SpoflCord 2087, 2669 

T. State 2288 

V. Waterhouse 2539 

Bradlie v. Maryland Ins. Co. 2442 

Bradner v. Faulkner 2483 

Bradsly v. Wallace 2206 

Bradshaw v. Bradshaw 2223 

V. Clark 1610, 1612 

v. Davis 1595 

v. Jones 2630, 2631, 2641 

T. Mayfleld 1620, 

Bradstreet v. Huntington 1616 

Bradstreet Co. v. Gill 1626 

T. Oswald 1983 

Bradway v. Groenendyke 2576, 2583 

Bradwell v. Pittsburgh &c. E. Co. 2502 

Bradwin v. Harpur 2211 

Brady t. Doherty 2466 

V. McBride 2690 

T. Nat. Supp. Co. 1930, 1948 

V. Northwestern Ins. Co. 2334. 2362, 

2364, 2366 

V. Parker 1740 

Bragdon v. Appleton &c. Ins. Co. 2295, 

2313 

Brailsford v. Williams 1838 

Brainerd v. Arnold 2124 

T. Cowdrey 2212 

Braley v. Goddard 2553 

Braly v. Henry 1826 

Bramel v. Bramel 2684 

Brammessel v. Brewers' F. Ins. Co. 2356 

Branch v. Baker 1620 

T. Doane 1972 

V. Wiseman 2607, 2612 

Brand v. Hedwick 2610 

Brandenburg v. Malcolm 1741 

V. Seigfried 2039, 2057 



2070, 



Brandon v. Brandon 
Brandt v. Foster 
Branger v. Chevalier 
Branham v. Long 
Branigan v. Eose 
Brann v. Blzey 
Brant v. Gallup 

V. Virginia Coal Co. 
Brantley Co. v. Lee 
Branton v. Branton 
Brashear v. West 
Brashears v. Western U. Tel. Co. 
Brasington v. Hanson 
Brass v. Vandecar 
Braxton v. Eich 
Bray v. Cobb 

V. Eaymond 
Brazier v. Clap 

V. Jones 
Brazil! v. Isham 
Brearton, In re 

Breasted v. Farmers' &c. Ins. Co. 
Breck v. Barney 

V. State 
Breckenridge v. American &c. Ins. 
Co. 

V. Duncan 2210, 

Breckenridge Mercantile Co. v. 



2203 
1956 

1607 
2596 
1589 
2206 
1972 
2071 
1598 
2227 
1709 
2267 
2206 
1957 
1615 
1800, 1811, 1814 
2604 



2443 
1658 
1663 
2599 
2395 
2580 
2688 

2345 
2211 



Co. 



2595 

1605 

1639 

2022, 2024 

2399 

1917 

2276, 2279 

1576 

1846 

. Co. 2301 

1895 

2251 

1695, 1699 

2611 

2546 

1827, 1830 

2628 

2000 

2516 

1726 

1838 

1594 

1838 

1573 

2124 

2124 

2648, 2655 

2621 

1606 

2000 

Brevig v. Chicago &c. E. Co. 1895 

Brewer v. Boston &c. E. Co. 1857, 1858, 

1860, 1861, 2070, 2072 

V. Boynton 1830, 1843 

V. Chase 2457 

V. Jacobs 2474, 2480 

V. Kidd 2063 

V. Mock 1743 

V. Palmer 1735 

V. State 2490 

V. Wright 1607, 1608 

Brewing Co. v. Hermann 1732 

Brewster v. Brewster 2086 

V. Burnett 1730 

V. Edgerly 2000 

V. McCall 2220, 2225, 2226, 2236, 

2238, 2240, 2242, 2243 

Brian v. Bonvillian 2071 

Brice, In re 1816 

Brice v. Myers 2162 



Bailif 
Breckton v. Smith 
Bredig v. Dubarry 
Bredon v. Harman 
Breed v. Glasgow &c, 

V. Mitchell 

V. Pratt 
Breedlove v. Stump 
Breen v. Donnelly 
Breese v. Metropolitan L. Ins 

v. Trenton E. Co. 
Breinig v. Meitzief 
Breitenbach v. Trowbridge 
Breitenwischer v. Clough 
.Brem v. Allison 
Breneman v. Furniss 

V. Kilgore 
Brennan v. Clark 

V. St. Louis 

V. Tietsort 

V. Vogt 
Brenner v. Herr 
Brent v. Metropolis Bank 
Brentlinger v. Hutchinson 
Brereton v. Bennett 

V. Hull 
Brest V. Lever 
Bretz V. Diehle 
Erevan v. Cullen 
Brevard v. Wimberly 



xliv 



TABLE OF OASES. 



IReferences are to Sections.'] 



2248, 



1932, 
Co. 



1588, 



1830, 



Brick V. Plymouth County 
Brickham v. Lake 
Brickley v. Edwards 
Bridenbaugh v. King 
Bridge v. Eggleston 
Bridges v. Blancliard 

V. McClendon 

V. Pleasants 
Bridgeport v. Elsenman 1656, 

Bridgewater &c. Co. v. Home &c. 

Co. 
Bridgman v. Armer 

V. Hallberg 
iBriggs T. Boyd 

V. Briggs 

V. East &c. Coal Co. 

V. Guilford 

V. Holmes 

V. Mason 

V. Mitchell 

v. Morse 

T. McCabe 

V. McCullough 

T. New York &c. E. Co. 

V. North American Ins. 

V. OliTer 

V. Partridge 

V. Smith 

V. Starke 

T. Taylor 
Brigham v. Dana 

T. Carlisle 
Bright V. Boyd 

V. Carpenter 

V. Patton 

V. Wagle 
Brind v. Gregory 
Bringard v. Stellwagen 
Brink v. Black 

V. FreotE 1977, 1980, 

V. flanover &c. Ins. Co. 2353, 
2355, 2358, 

V. Merchants' &c. Ins. Co. 
Brinkerhoff v. Brinkerhoffi 
Brinkley v. State 

Brinkman v. Rueggesick 2289, 

Brinks V. Heinse 
Briniey v. National Ins. Co. 
Brisban v. Boyd 
Briscoe v. Clarke 

V. Bckley 

V. Johnson 

V. Power 
Bristol V. Ontario &c. Asylum 

v. Eensselaer &c. R. Co. 1907, 
Bristol Canal Co. v. Amos 
Bristol Mfg. Co. v. Gridley 
Bristol &c. Co. v. Boyer 
Bristor v. Bristor 

V. Burr 
Britain v. Lloyd 
British-American &c. Co. v 

ford 
British Ins. Co. v. Lambert 
Britt V. Aylett 

V. Mutual &c. Ins. Co. 
Brltton V. Britton 

V. Royal Ins. Co. 

V. Williams 
Broadhead v. McKay 
Broburg v. Des Moines 
Brock, In re 
Brock V. Brock 

V. Copeland 

V. Des Moines Ins. Co. 

V. King 

V. Stimson 
Brockett v. Sagendorph 



1974, 



Brad- 



2304, 



2685, 



2338, 
1767, 
2103, 



1599 
1745 
1940 
1707 
2151 
2536 
1852 
2237 
1664 

1981 
2448 
2625 
1730 
2032 
2510 
2515 
2578 
2656 
2249 
1957 
1829 
2368 
1981 
2333 
2502 
1640 
1665 
2086 
1767 
2553 
1994 
2067 
1843 
2110 
1798 
1620 
2672 
2141 
2005 
2354, 
2359 
2323 
2035 
2289 
2692 
2166 
2315 
2573 
2156 
1713 
1585 
1728 
2240 
1909 
1945 
1979 
2043 
2087 
1699 
1728 

2322 
2295 
2608 
2306 
2548 
2336 
1667 
2609 
2514 
2687 
1715 
2539 
2339 
2501 
2110 
2463 



Brockleman v. Brandt 2479' 

Brocklesbp v. Temperance Asso. 1633 

Brockway v. Crawford 2110, 2111 

V. Thomas 1994 

Broder v. Saillard 2533 

Brodges v. Pleasants 2245 

Brogden T. Brown 2276 

Brograve v. Winder 2686 

Brokaw v. Brokaw 1711 

Broker v. Scobey 2043 

Bromley v. Birmingham &c. E. Co. 2016 

T. Elliot 2551, 2570, 2571 

T. GofE 1724 

V. Goodrich 2672 

Bromwell v. Bromwell 2461 

Bronnenburg t. Charman 2490 

Bronson T. Chappell 2576 

V. Coffin 1957 

V. Wiman 2629 

Brook V. Bishop 1923 

T. Horton 1579 

Brooke v. Washington 2567 

Brookfleld v. Allen 2203, 2204 

Brooklyn v. City E. Co. 2518 

Brooks V. Barrett 2287 

V. Berryhill 2181 

V. Bruin ■ 2057 

V. Carter ' 1702 

V. Commonwealth 2111 

V. Dinsmore 1917 

V. Goodwin 1613 

V. Haslam 2010 

V. Jones 2479 

V. Mangan 2113 

V. Moody 1957 

V. O'Hara 2124 

V. Penn 1617 

V. Tyler 1848 

V. Walker 2080 

V. White 1596 

Brookshire v. Brookshire 1641 

Brookville Borough v. Arthurs 2518 



Brookville Ins. Co. v. 


Records 


1934 


Brophy v. Eicheson 






1843a 


Broughton v. McGrew 






2449 


Brouson v. Strouse 






2235 


Brower v. Brower 






1610 


V. 


Goodyer 2122 


2133, 


2136, 
2613 


2611, 
2624 


V. 


Hunt 






2205 


Brown v. Adams &c. Co. 




1915 


V. 


Anderson 






2055 


V. 


Baldwin 






2067 


V. 


Barnes 




1997 


2449 


V. 


Bedinger 






1854 


V. 


Bellows 






1665 


V. 


Blanchard 




1746 


2146 


V. 


Blunt, 


2131, 


2138, 


2139 


V. 


Bocquin 






1618 


V. 


Bon Homme County 




1942 



V. Bowen 2070, 2077 

V. Brackett 2061 

V. Brightman 2094, 2095 

T. Brown 1643, 1664, 2040, 2050, 

2248 
V. Burdick 2081, 2685 

V. Burr 2582 

V. Cambridge 1597 

V. Campbell 1727 

V. Cape Girardeau &g. Co. 2517 

V. Chicago &c. E. Co. 1989, 2017 

T. Chadsey 2102, 2105, 2111, 2115, 
2116, 2118 
V. Chattanooga &c. E. Co. 2019 

V. Clements 1843a 

V. Cockerell 1617, 1619 

V. Collins 1689 

V. Concord 224S 



TABLE OF CASES. 



xlv 



IBeferences are to Sections.'l 



Brown t. Cook 




2551 


V. Corbin 




1935 


V. Crandall 


2198 


2560 


V. Corydon Canal Co. 




1664 


V. Dunlap 




1908 


V. Bast 




1664 


T. Elwell 




2009 


V. Emerson 


1963 


1972 


V. Evans 1694, 1702, 


1703, 


1997, 
2002 


T. Pales 




1720 


V. Ferguson 


1824 


1837 


V. Fishel 




1854 


V. Fisher 




2693 


v. Freed 




2039 


V. Freeman 




2621 


V. Gates 




1824 


V. Gay 




2536 


V. Gilliam 




2621 


T. Goben 




2590 


T. Gooden 




2582 


V. Goodwin 




2053 


V. Gordon 




1699 


V. Gray 




2148 


V. Griffiths 




2685 


V. Hannibal &c. E. Co. 


1701 


1989 


T. Harmon 




2206 


V. Harness 




1664 


v. Hawkes 




2473 


V. Hiatt 




1579 


v. Higginbotham 


2552 


2568 


T. Hitchcock 


1782, 


1796 


T. Hobson 




1848 


T. Hodgson 




1728 


T. Howard 




1700 


V. Huger 


1847 


1853 


V. Jones 




1824 


T. Kecheloe 




1597 


V. Kelsey 


2243 


2244 


V. ■Kendall 


1689 


2399 


V. Kenyon 




2585 


T. Killabrew 




2057 


V. Kingsley 2635, 2636 


, 2644 


2645 


V. Ladd 




1596 


V. LeaTitt 




1666 


V. Leonard 




2557 


V. Lewis 




2094 


y. London &c. Co. 2325 


2338 


2348 


V. Louisburg 




1597 


V. Master 




2483 


V. May 




2660 


V. Metropolitan &c. Ins. Co. 


2378, 






2420 


V. Missouri &c. R. Co. 




1929 


V. Mitchell 2145 


2166 


2690 


V. McAllister 




2686 


V. McKay 




1617 


V. Nichols 




1830 


T. Norfolk &c. R. Co. 




2453 


V. Odill 


1873, 


1875 


V. Peck 




2176 


T. Perkins 




2531 


V. Pierce 


2176, 


2182 


V. Providence &e. R. Co. 




2006 


V. Quincy &c. Ins. Co. 




2321 


V. Rains 




2560 


V. Randall 




2474 


V. Richmond 




1972 


V. Riggln 




2276 


V. Rowles 




1609 


V. Saltonstall 




2212 


V. Sehlntz 




2580 


V. Smith 




2473 


V. Southern E. Co. 




2013 


V. Spofford 


1829, 


1843 


V. State ■ 


1945, 


2267 


T. Swineford 


1702, 


2005 


T. Tanner 




1666 



Brown v. Tayleur 




2442 


V. Texas Hedge Co. 




2151 


V. Thorndike 




2212 


V. Tucker 




2072 


V. Van Dyke 


1608 


1609 


V. Vannaman 




2448 


V. Veazie 




2053 


V. Walker 


1807 


2697 


V. Ward 




2280 


V. Ware 


2650 


, 2668 


V. Warner 2466 


2467 


2469 


V. Wheeler 




2071 


V. White 




2577 


V. Wllloughby 




2479 


V. Wright 




2053 


Brown County v. Van Stralen 


1583 


Brownback v. Frailey 




1703 


Browne v. Clay &c. Ins. Co 




2345 


v. Davis 




2067 


y. Hartford &c. Ins. Co 




2345 


V. Hickie 




2146 


V. Kennedy 




1847 


Brownell v. Briggs 




2143 


V. Freese 




1840 


V. Pacific R. Co. 




2512 


Browner v. Davis 1962 


1972 


1974 


Brownfleld v. Brownfleld 


2212, 


2686 


V. Chicago &e. R. Co. 




2519 


Browning v. Crouse 




1593 


V. Goodrich Transp. Co. 




1916 


V. Simons 


1962 


1974 


V. Skillman 




2650 


V. Stillwell 




1959 


Brownlee v. Allen 




2551 


Brownsville v. Cavazos 




1617 


Broyles v. Prlsock 




1984 


Brubaker v. Taylor 




2577 


Bruce v. Beall 




1976 


v. Bissell 


2200 


2202 


V. Bonney 




1829 


V. Bruce 




1599 


V. Cloutman 




2027 


V. Garden 




2369 


V. Holden 




2588 


V. Phoenix Ins. Co. 




2075 


V. Priest 1692, 


1695, 


2003 


Brucker v. Fromont 




1925 


Brudi V. Trentman 




2466 


Brueshaber v. Hertllng 




2451 


Bruington v. Wingate 




2479 


Bruismaid v. Mayo 




1601 


Bruker v. Covington 




2515 


V. Kelsey 




2157 


Brumagim v. Bradshaw 




2059 


V. Tillinghast 




2175 


Brumbaugh v. Richcreek 




2157 


Brummit v. Furness 




2399 


Brundage, In re 




1808 


Brundred v. Muzzy 




2551 


Brunker v. Cummins 




2006 


Bruuner v. Blalsdell 




2503 


Brunott v. McKee 




2591 


Brunswick v. Harmer 




2450 


V. Pepper 




2452 


Brunswick &c. Co. v. Nat. Bankt 


2460 


Brush V. Fisher 1654, 


1655, 


1656, 




1659. 


1667 


Brush Electric &c. Co. v. Kelley 


2498 


V. Slmonsohn 




1991 


Brushaber v. Stegemann 


2105, 


2115 


Broxson v. McDougal 




1616 


Bruyn v. Russell 




2086 


Bry V. Cook 




2575 


Bryan v. Bates 




2110 


V. Beckley 


1848, 


1855 


V. East St. Louis 




1617 


V. Jackson 




1633 


V. Jeffreys 




1659 



xlvi 



TABLE OF CASES. 



IBeferences are to 8ections.'\ 



Bryan v. Morgan 


1611 


V. New York Ins. Co. 


2441 


T. Spivey 


1615, 1618 


T. Spruill 


2124 


V. Willard 


2049 


Bryant, In re 


1800, 1816 


Bryant v. Clifford 


2663 


V. Deberry 


2206 


V. Kelton 


2163 


V. Peck 


2170 


T. Pierce 


2692 


v. Proctor 


1596 



Bryce v. Chicago &c. E. Co. 2520 

V. Joynt 2566 

T. LoriUard Ins. Co. 2327 

Bryer v. Weston 2546, 2547 

V. Willcocka 2466 

Bryson v. McCone 1994 

Brzezinski v. Tierney 1692, 1695 

Buccleucli V. Metropolitan Board 1654, 

1664 

Buck T. Chesapeake &c. Ins. Co. 2309 

V. Hurst 1607 

V. Paine 2205 

V. Pennsylvania E. Co. 1916 

V. Spofford 1665 

T. StefEey 1833 

v. Young 2608 

Buckalew v. Tenn. Coal &c. Co. 2012 

Buckbee v. Third Ave. E. Co. 1978 

Bucki V. Cone 2649 

Bucki & Son Lumber Co. v. Atlantic 

Lumber Co. 2473, 2479 

Bucki &c. Co. V. Atlantic &c. Co. 2399 

Buckingham T. Burgess 2556 

V. Tyler 1745, 1752 

Buckley v. Columbia Ins. Co. 2425, 2426 

V. Gerard 2231 

T. Knapp 1997 

V. Taggart 1617 

Bucklin V. Truell ^ 2536 

Bucknam y. Barnum 2552 

Buckstaffi V. Eussell & Co. 2622 

Buchanan v. Edwards 2551 

T. Exchange Ins. Co. 2335 

V. Matlock 2697 

v. Ocean Ins. Co. 2441 

V. Sahlein 2168, 2172, 2179 

V. State 2490 

Budd V. Brooke 1854, 1855 

Budeke v. Ratterman 2562 

Budlong, Matter of 2695 

Buell T. Cook 1735 

Buesching v. St. Louis Gas Light 

Co. 2502 

Buffalo &c. Co. V. Crump 1578 

T. Knights Templar &c. Asso. 2009, 

2389, 2390 

Buffalo &c. E. Co. t. Cary 1935 

Bufflt V. Troy &c. E. Co. 1898 

Buford V. McGetchie 2319 

Bugbee v. Lombard 1709 

Buhl V. Ball 1741 

Buhl Iron Works v. Teuton 2617 

Buist V. Melchers 1613 

Bulen T. Granger 2584 

Bulger V. Boss 2691 

Bulkeley v. House 1843 

Bulkley v. Dolbeare 2650 

V. Protection Ins. Co. 2444 

V. Eedmond 2080 

Bull V. Brockway 1607 

V. Bull, 1596, 2124, 2236, 2243 

V. Sehuberth 2542 

Bullard v. Billings 2623 

V. Boston &c. E. Co. 1904 

V. Lambert 2457 



Bullard v. Eoger Williams Ins. Co. 2432/ 

2436 

V. Shirley 2235 

Bullene v. Smith 1745 

Bullis, In re 1821 

Bullis V. Giddens 2022 

V. Montgomery 1715 

Bullet T. Worthington 2158 

Bullock, In re 2236 

Bullock V. Downes 2203 

T. Koon 2449 

T. Eouse 2059 

Bullythorpe v. Turner 2606 

Bulson T. Lohnes 1660 

Bumberger v. Gerson 1745 

Bumgardner v. Southern E. Co. 2510 

Bumstead v. Dividend &c. Ins. Co. ' 2341, 

2342, 2356, 2358 

Bunce v. McMalion 263 2 

Buncombe Tpk. Co. v. McCarson 1934, 

1936 

Bundy v. Bundy 2206 

V. Maginess 1702 

V. McKnight 2686, 2692, 2696 

V. Eidenour 1957 

Bunge V. Koop 2629 

Bunger v. Eoddy 2866 

Bunker v. Barron 1840 

Bunnell T. Evans 2206 

Bunt V. Sierra &c. Min. Co. 2012 

Bunte v> Wilson 2627 

Buntin v. Pritchett 2666- 

Burbank v. Gould 1974 

V. Haas 2556 

V. Whitney 2234 

V. Wood 2629 

Burdett v. Phillips 1750 

Burch v. Smith 1738, 2132 

Burchinell v. MosconI 1709 

Burden v. McElmoyle 1605 

Burdick v. Glass Co. 1728 

Burditt V. Howe 1843 

V. Swenson 2524 

Burford v. Steele 2124 

Burge V. Poindexter 1846 

Burgess v. Denison &c. Co. 1595- 

V. Equitable &c. Ins. Co. 2442, 2443, 

2444 

V. Merrill 158& 

V. Vreeland 1835, 1836, 1838 

V. Wilson 2065 

Burghardt v. Turner 1657, 1951 

Burgoon v. Johnson 2000 

Burgoyne v. Showier 2700 

Burk V, Brown 1584 

V. Hill 1957 

v. Walsh 2498 

Burke v. Burke 2033 

V. Cutler 2588, 2589 

V. Elliott 2589 

V. Gardner 2083 

V. Hammond 1571 

V. Melvin 1702, 2005 

V. Savage 266S 

v. Shaver 1865, 1875, 1876, 1888 

T. Turner 2073 

V. Utah Nat. Bank 1839 

V. Voyles 1664 

V. Witherbee 2507 

Burket v. Phelster 2615 

Burkett v. Lanata 1999 

Burkey v. Self 2154 

Burkhalter v. Farmer 2621 

Burkham v. Ohio &c. E. Co. 2536- 

Burhans v. Sanford 2472 

Burkhard v. Travelers' Ins. Co. 2399, 

2406, 2408, 2409- 



TABLE OF CASES. 



xlvii 



{References are to Sections.'i 



Burkhart T. Gladish 2280, 2282, 2690, 

2692 

Burkle v. Ingham Civ. Judge 2067 

Burkheiser v. Mutual &c. Asso. 2414 

Burks T. Shain 2645 

Burleigh v. Mullen 2008 

T. White 2127, 2131 

Burlingame v. Bobbins 1858 

Burlington v. Stockwell 2526, 2538 

Burlington Ins. Co. v. Lowery 2326 

Burlington &c. E. Co. v. Beebe, 2006, 

2651, 2652 

Burn v. Miller 1717 

Burnap v. Marsh 2116 

T. Wight 1972, 2111 

Burnet v. Burnet 2211 

Burnett v. Burkhead 1643 

T. Costello 2008 

T. Kensington 2441, 2445 

T. Snyder 2554 

V. Southern E. Co. 1590 

Burney t. Torrey 2692 

Burnham t. Boston &c. Ins. Co. 2303 

V. Cornwell 1863, 1868, 1869, 1872 

V. Courser 2461 

T. Grand Trunk E. Co. 1899 

T. Hitt 2039 

V. Hotchkiss 2528 

T. Interstate &c. Co. 2401, 2402, 

2412 

V. Johnson 1739 

V. Noyes 2131 

V. Sumner 2593 

Burnley v. Eice 2561 

Burn's Will, In re 2282, 2689, 2691 

Burns T. Allen 2231 

T. Ashboro &c. E. Co. 2017 

V. Burns 2030, 2038 

V. Edwards 2050, 2051 

V. Brben 2101, 2109, 2110, 



T. 



T. 



2111, 

2118 
2050 
2523 
2500 
1717 
1831 
2055 
2697 
1584 
1752 
2243 



V. Goff 

V. Louisville &c. E. Co. 
V. Metropolitan &c. E. Co. 
Miller 

Moore 1825, 

Swift 

Travis 

Burnside v. Matthews 

Burr V. Clement 1751, 

V. Smith 2055, 2236, 

V. Willson 2140 

Burrage v. Smith 1559 

Burraston v. Nephi &c. Nat. Bank 1605 

Burrell v. Kern 2079 

V. New York &c. Co. 1994 

V. Nicholson 1965 

BurriU v. Kimbell 2122 

Burris v. Adams 2124 

Burroughs v. Norwlck &c. E. Co. 1912 

Burrows v. Burrows 2287 

V. LehndorSe 1756 

V. PIxley 2531 

BurruBS v. Trant 1737 

Burt V. Bowles 2039, 2057 

V. Brewers' &c. Ins. Co. 2441 

V. Busch 1852 

V. Florida &c. E. Co. 2064 

V. Hasselman ' 2052 

V. McBain 1597 

V. Palmer 1633 

Burtis V. Thompson 1863, 1866, 1875 

Burton v. Connecticut &c. Ins. Co. 2371, 

2380 

V. Driggs 1729 

V. Griffiths 2621 

V. Hansford 1830 

V. Howard 1664 



Burton v. Knapp 




1758 


T. Loyd 




2137 


V. March 




2002 


V. Scott 


2276 


2689 


V. Severance 




2006 


V. Smith 




1761 


V. Todd 




1862 


V. Wilkinson 




1789 


Buschman v. Codd 




2137 


V. Morling 




1607 


Busenbark v. Clements 




2072 


Busey v. Hooper 




1932 


Bush V. Barker 




1699 


V. Bradford 




2622 


V. Brown 




1834 


V. Groomes 




2612 


V. Lathrop 




1714 


V. Lisle 




2696 


V. Miller 




1784 


V. Prosser 




2458 


V. Stowell 




2573 


Bushnell v. Consolidated Ice &e. Co 


2543 


V. Robeson 




2538 


V. Wood 




1715 


Busk V. Eoyal &c. Assur. Co. 




2446 


Bussey v. Earnett 




2023 


Butcher v. HoflEman 




2472 


Butchers' &e. Bank v. McDonald 


1940 


V. Pulitzer 




1932 


Butler V. Barrett 2448, 2452 


2457 


2458 


V. Davis 




2039 


V. Eschleman 




1882 


V. Gale 




1957 


V. Goreley 




1799 


V. Green 




1666 


V. Hannah 




2587 


V. Huestls 




2206 


V. Johnson 




2086 


V. Kent 




2531 


V. Manhattan R. Co. 




1995 


V. Mehrling 




2614 


V. Moore 




1994 


V. State 




2595 


V. Viele 




2124 


V. Wallbanm &c. Co. 




2000 


V. Watkins 


2184, 


2141 


Butman v. Hussey 


1962, 


1970 


Butt V. Gould 




1702 


V. Imperial Gas Co. 




2530 


Butte &e. Co. v. Wallace 




2560 


Butterfleld v. Davenport 




2172 


V. O'Neill 




1577 


V. Seed 1571, 1576, 


1579, 


2146 


V. Windle 




2025 


Buttemere v. Hayes 




2024 


Butternut &c. Co. v. Manufacturers 




&c. Ins. Co. 




2293. 


Butters v. Haughwout 




2611 


Butterweck's Est. 




2469 


Butterworth v. Soper 




2656 


V. Western Ins. Co. 


2350, 


2354 


Button V. American Tr. Soc. 


2219, 


2220, 


2225, 2226, 2240 


2242 


2243 


V. American &c. Asso. 


2399, 


2414 


V. Ely 




2235 


V. Frink 


2496, 


2499 


V. Hibbard 




1869 


V. McCauley 




1893 


Butts V. Capital Nat. Bank 




1840- 


V. Eaton Eaplds 




2512 


V. Privett 




2627 


Buzzard v. Jolly 




2560 


Buzzell V. Emerton 




2120 


V. Snell 




2576 


Byam v. Collins 




2449 


Byard v. Harkrlder 




1660 


V. Holmes 




2124 


V. Palace &c. Co. 




250T 



'xlviii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



IReferences are to Sections.} 



Bybee v. Oregon &c. E 


Co. 




2073 


Byer v. Newcastle 






1942 


iByers v. Horner 1692 


1695, 


169T 


1702 


V. McCartney 






2236 


V. Eoflabaugli 






2050 


^yerts y. Bdbinson 






1840 


Byford v. Glrton 




173T, 


1762 


Byington v. Simpson 






1640 


V. Woodward 






2541 


Byne v. Byne 






1589 


Bynum v. Preston 






2077 


Byrd v. Campbell 






1833 


T. Rautraan 






2137 


T. Tucker 






1714 


Byrket v. Monohon 


2003, 


2140, 


2459 


Byrnes v. Clark 

C 
■Caballero T- Home &c. 






1720 


Ins. Co. 


2333 


Cabanes v. Martin 






2117 


Cabe V. Ja;meson 






1598 


Cabeen v.. Mulligan 






1571 


•Cabell r. Vaughan 






1924 


-Cable V. Foley 






2177 


•Cables v- Prescott 


2200, 


2201, 


2202 


•Caddel'l v. State 






2282 


■Caddy v. Barlow 






2479 


"Cadeau v. Elliott 


1844, 


1845, 


1850 


■Cadman v. Markle 






1723 


■Cady V. Kyle 






1605 


V. Owen 






2072 


v. Rhode Island Hospital 




2242 


V. Sheldon 






1707 


V. Walker 




1658, 


1664 


■Caeman v. Van Harke 




2291, 


2697 


Cahen v. Continental &c. Ins 


. Co. 


2376 


■Cahill T. Kalamazoo Mut. Ins. Co 






1934, 


1935 


1947 


T. Layton 






1847 


■Cain &c. Co. v. Standard &c. 


Co. 


1979 


•Cairncross v. Lorimer 






2072 


'Calrnes t. Bleecker 






1639 


■Cake V. Pottsvllle Bank 




1830 


V. Shull 






2617 


•Calder v. Ramsey 






2050 


Calderone v. Kiernan 






2102 


■Caldwell v. Boyd 






2130 


V. Caldwell 






1668 


T. Center 






1843a 


T. Dickinson 






1654 


V. Davis 






2148 


V. Farrell 






1701 


V. Felton 






1914 


V. Fulton 


1850, 


1853 


1854 


T. McFarland 






2462 


V. Murphy 






1990 


T. Neely 






2065 


V. Pollak 






2151 


V. Smith 






2073 


V. St. Louis &c. Ins. Co. 




2431 


V. Williams 






1715 


Caledonia, The 




1915 


2432 


Calhoon v. Baird 






2266 


V. Neely 






1578 


Calhoun v. Hannan 






1756 


California &c. Co. v. Wright 




2000 


California Academy v. 


Fletcher 


1666 


California Ins. Co. v. Gracey 




1633 


V. Union &c. Co. 






2309 


California S. Nav. Co. 


V. Wright 


1930 


Calkins v. Calkins 






2694 


V. Hartford 






2506 


V. Isbell 






1623 


Callahan v. First Nat 


Bank 




2577 


V. Ingram 






2454 


C&Uam V. Barnes 






2621 


Gallanan v. Brown 






2672 



Callei 


ider V. Colegrove 






1611 


v. 


Howard 






1605 


V. 


Painesvllle &c. R. Co. 




1940 


Callier v. Watley 






1664 


Callls 


V. Merrieweather 




1651 


Calloway v. Middleton 






245D 


Calumet &c. Co. v. Martin 




1963 


Calvert v. Carter 






1611 


V. 


Rice 






2673 


Camac v. Francis 






1611 


Camblat v. Tupery 






2575 


Camden v. Stuart 






2576 


Camden &c. E. Co. v. 


Williams 


2013 


Came 


V. Brigham 






1934 


Came 


con V. Cameron 


2082, 


2089, 


2100 


V. 


Canada &e. Ins. 


Co. 




2348 


v. 


Tribune Asso. 






2452 


Camley v. Stanfield 






1850 


Cammack v. Lewis 


2369, 


2380, 


2385 


Camp 


V. Brown 






1965 


v. 


Camp 






2005 


v. 


First Nat. Bank 






1830 


V. 


Ingersoll 






1602 


V. 


Shaw 






2700 


V. 


Wilson 






1608 


Campbell v. Arbuckle 




1875, 


1885 


V. 


Arnold 






2649 


V. 


American F. Ins 


Co. 


2295, 
2313, 


2311, 
2355 


V. 


Brown 






2460 


V, 


Burns 






2140 


V. 


Campbell 


1611, 


2003, 


2255 


V. 


Carter 






1646 


V. 


Clark 






1845 


V. 


Carlisle 






2696 


T. 


Charter Oak &e. 


Ins. 


Co. 


2346 


V. 


Dent 






2554 


V. 


Hastings 2548, 


2556, 


2559, 


2560 


V. 


Hill 






2285 


V. 


Holt 




1614, 


2460 


V. 


Insurance Co. 






2371 


V. 


King 






2648 


V. 


Lacled? Gas Co. 






2401 


V. 


Los Angeles Tr. 


Co. 




1989 


V. 


Noble 






2206 


y. 


New England &c 


. Ins. 


Co. 


2293, 




2302, 2371, 


2374, 


2383, 


2384 


V. 


Northeastern c&c 


Ins. 


Co. 


242.S 


V. 


Pennsylvania R. 


Co. 




2510 


V. 


Quaekenbush 






2611 


V. 


Rankin 






2057 


V. 


Seaman 






2538 


V. 


Sherman 




2541, 


2603 


V. 


Silver Bow &c. 


Co. 




2058 


V. 


State- 






2006 


V. 


United States 






2081 


V. 


Upshaw 
Wallace 






1843 


V. 






1623 


V. 


Webster 






2052 


y. 


Wilson 




2264 


2536 


V. 


Woodworth 






2319 


Canada v. Canada 






1717 


Canavan v. Dugan 
Canadian Pac. B. Co. 




1850 


1856 


V. Clark 


1926 


Cand 


er V. Rossiter 






1723 


Canfleld v. Baltimore 


&c. E 


Co. 


1766, 








1786 


1916 


V. 


Fallon 






2206 


v. 


Jackson 






2512 


Cann 


V. Cann 






1725 


Canning v. Owen 






2670 


V. 


Williamstown 






1991 


Cannon v. Barry 






2675 


V. 


Brooklyn &c. R. 
Home Ins. Co. 


Co. 


1991 


1992 


V. 






2359 


V. 


Iowa City 






2006 


V. 


Jackson 






2130 



TABLE OF CASES. 



xlix 



IBeferences are to Sections.] 



Cannon v. Stockmon 

Canny v. Andrews 1571, 1577, 

Cantara v. Blackwell 

Cantey t. Piatt 

Cantling v. Hannibal &c. R. Co. 

Canton &c. Co. v. Eaton Rapids 

Cape Girardeau &c. Co. v. Kimmel 
Capehart v. Granite Mills 
Capel T. Lyons 
Capital Bank v. Rutherford 
Capitol Ins. Co. f. Bank 

T. Wallace 2326, 2347, 2348, 
Capital Lumber Co. v. Hall 
Caplis V. American &c. Ins. Co. 
Capen v. Washington Ins. Co. 

2437, 
Capuro V. Builders' Ins. Co. 
Caraher v. Royal Ins. Co. 
Garden v. Carden 
Carder v. Commissioners &c. 

V. Forehand 
Cardigan v. Page 
Cardwell v. McClelland 

V. Perry 
Careless v. Careless 
Carey v. Farmers' Ins. Co. 2326, 

V. German &c. Ins. Co. 

V. Hubbardston 

V. Sheets 2108, 

V. Williams 
Cargile t. Wood 
Carib Prince, The, 
Carl V. Gabel 

T. Granger Coal Co. 
Carleton v. Darcy 2039, 2040,, 

V. Lovejoy 

V. Taylor 2113, 

Carlisle v. Callahan 
Carlisle &c. Bank t. Graham 
•Carlson t. Oregon &c. B. Co. 
Carlton t. Coffin 

V. Henry 1689, 

T. Southern &c. Ins. Co. 
Cardwill t. Gilmore 
Carman v. Pultz 

V. Scribner 
Carmanty v. Mexican &c. B. Co. 
Carmien v. Cornell 
Carmichael, In re 
■Carmichael v. Greer 2556, 

Carmody t. Boston &c. Co. 
Carnahan v. Gustine 

V. McCord 
Carne v. Nicoll 
Carnes v. Crandall 

T. Iowa &c. Asso. 



2196, 
2391, 2399, 
2401, 2402, 
Carnwright v. Gray 
Carolina &c. R. Co. v. McCaskill 
Carolus t. New York 
Carpenter v. AUemannia F. Ins. Co 

V. Bailey 

V. Camp 2562, 

V. Carpenter 

T. Chicago &c. Co. 

V. Crane 1692, 

V. Denoon 

v. Doe 

V. Dresser 

V. First Nat. Bank 

T. Glass 2604, 

V. Holcomb 

V. Kent 

T. Lockhart 

T. Logee 

v. Miller 

V. Monks 

w. Mutual &e. Ins. Co. 

Vol. 3 Elliott Ev.— iv 



1621 
1579 
2543 
1615 
1906 
2551. 
2553 
1605 
1913 
1994 
2148 
2339 
2356 
2607 
2293 
2374, 
2442 
2124 
2318 
1749 
2235 
2641 
2591 
2148 
2250 
2215 
2348 
2330 
2515 
2472 
1946 
2485 
2432 
2689 
1974 
2057 
2249 
2120 
2004 
1766 
2017 
2560 
1691 
2419 
2614 
1953 
2617 
1895 
1583 
2280 
2559 
249S 
1741 
2153 
2669 
2199 
2400, 
2415 
1826 
2067 
2*15 
. 2361 
2454 
2563 
2276 
1595 
1698 
2687 
2052 
2672 
1994 
2608 
2618 
1609 
2000 
2651 
2245 
1859 
2295 



Carpenter v. Nickerson 

V. Sherfy 

T. Snow 

V. Stearns 

V. Supreme Council &c. 

v. Talbot 

V. United States &c. Ins. Co. 

V. Wall 

V. Willey 
Carr t. Dodge 

V. Dooley 

T. Foster 

V. London & N. W. R. Co. 

V. Pacific &c. Ins. Co. 2414, 

T. Roger Williams Ins. Co. 

V. Security Ins. Co. 

V. State 2111, 

V. West End St. R. Co. 
Carrell v. Mitchell 2040, 

Carrett v. Boeing 
Carriage Co. v. Stengel 
Carrigan t. Insurance Co. 

V. Port Crescent &c. Co. 
Carrington v. Ficklin 

V. Taylor 
Carroll v. Boston &c. Ins. Co. 

V. Carroll 2009, 

V. Caine 

T. Davis 

V. Green 

V. Girard F. Ins. Co. 

V. Missouri &c. R. Co. 

V. Paul 

V. Welch 

T. Weld 
Carroway v. Chancey 
Carruth v. Walker 
Carruthers v. Sidebotham 
Carskadden v. Poorman 
Carson'v. Cochran 

T. Dessau 

V. Dundas 2041, 

V. Earlywlne 

V. Edgeworth 

V. German &c. Ins. Co. 2295, 

V. Mills 

V. Solomon 

V. Southern R. Co 

V. Western R. Co. 
Carswell v. Hartrldge 
Carter v. Andrews 

V. Bedortha 

V. Bentall 

V. Bennett 

V. Brown 

T. Carter 2032, 

V. Clark 

V. Dorough 

V. Douglass 



V. Fishing Co. 

V. Gunnels 

V. Howe &c. Co. 

V. Johnson 

V. Jones 

V. Kansas City &c. R. Co. 

V. Kingman 

V. Montgomery 

V. Ruddy 

V. Simpson 

V. Shibles 

V. State 2271, 

V. Sutherland 2479, 

v. Union Bank 

V. Wilson 
Carthage Tpk. Co. v. Andrews 1984 
Cartlidge v. Slone 1780, 

Cartwrlght v. Cooke 

V. McFadden 



1607 
2052 
2231 
2607 
2000 
1589 
2384. 
2385 
2003 
2450 
2615 
1957 
157.S 
2071 
2415 
2328 
2441 
2275 
2523 
2050 
2079 
1814 
2335 
1933 
1795 
2529 
2429 
2082 
1979 
2090 
2590 
2359 
2019 
1609 
2517 
1830 
1857 
1838 
2445 
2196 
2073 
2111 
2050 
1605 
2478 
2358 
1845 
1745 
2501 
1971 
2124 
2449 
2660 
2207 
2668 
2067 
2448 
1620 
2629 
2560 
2196 
2127 
2114 
2654 
1965 
1923 
2663 
2197 
2063 
2648 
1664 
2281 
2483 
1824 
1599 
2007 
1788 
1595 
2059 



TABLE OF CASES. 



^References are to Sections.^ 



Cartwrlght v. McGown 






2486 


V. Vawdry 






2214 


Caruth t. Allen 






2655 


Caruthers v. Cherry 






2622 


Carvens v. Moore 






1578 


Carrer t. Ferry 






1840 


V. Harris 






1604 


Carvin t. St. Louis 






251.S 


Gary v. Bailey 






1660 


v. Daniels 




1847, 


1957 


y. Gerrish 
V. Hotalllng 






1727 






2142 


v. State 






2111 


V. Wheeler 






2071 


Caryl v, McBlrath 






1708 


Casco Bank v. Keene 






2071 


Case V. Barber 






1595 


V. Case 






2487 


V. Dexter 






1845 


V. Ednev 






2148 


V. Hartford &c. Ins 


Co. 


2331, 


2334 


V. Marks 




1997, 


2003 


V. Young 






2231 


Casey v. Gill 






1888 


V. Hulgan 






2452 


V. Inloes 






1622 


V. Kimmel 




2057, 


2065 


T. New York &c. E 


Co. 


2505, 


2512 


Cash v. Giles 






1730 


Cashau t. North Western &c. Ins. 




Co. 






2325 


Cashman v. Harrison 






1843 


Caskey v. Lewis 






2648 


Casley v. Mitchell 




2490, 


2491 


Caspar v. Prosdame 






1702 


Caspersou t. Sproule 




2472, 


2475 


Cass y. Bellows 






2053 


T. Boston E. Co. 


1784, 


1796, 


2505 


V. Higenbotam 






1798 


V. New Orleans Times 


2457, 


2458 


Cass Co. v. Green 






2145 


Cassady v. Laughlln 
T. Old Colony St. E 






2020 


Co. 




1902 


Cassel V. Western &c. 


Co. 




2608 


Cassell, In re 






1659 


Cassidy v. Angell 




2498, 


2502 


V. Brooklyn Eagle 






2452 


V. Hyland 






2626 


Cassier v. Fales 


2102, 


2120, 


2121 


Cassin v. Delany 






2253 


CassinelU t. CasslnelH 






2483 


Casteel v. Casteel 




2258, 


2268 


Castello V. Landwehr 






2502 


Castle V. Bader 






2124 


V. Bullard 




2135, 


2141 


V. Duryea 






2010 


V. Houston 






2456 


V. Elckly 






1830 


Castleman v. Trustees &e. 


1759, 


1857, 






1860, 


1861 


Castleton v. Langdon 






2235 


Caston V. Perry 






2660 


Castor V. Davis 


2276, 


2486, 


2490 


V. Jones 






2039 


Castro T. Tennent 






2194 


Caswell V. Boston &c. 


E. Co 




1899 


Catchings v. Manlove 




' 2124, 


2158 


Gates T. McKlnney 


1863, 


1872 


1874 


Catherwood v. Chabaud 




2082 


Catholic Bishop &c. v. 


Gibbon 


2062 


Catlin V. Tobias 






1732 


Gator V. Stakes 






2595 


Catterls v. Cowper 






2650 


Catterlin v. Armstrong 






1841 


T. Frankfort 






2518 


V. Mitchell 






2604 


Cattison v. Cattlson 






1649 


Cauble v. Eyman 






1722 


Cauffman v. Long 






2278 



Caujolle V. Ferrie 2196, 2486, 2489 

Cauly V. Blue 2052 

Causey v. Yates 1798 

Causler v. Wharton 2543 

Cavaness v. Boss 1596 

Cavazos v. Trevino 1856 

Cawker v. Seamans 1834 

Cawthorn t. Perry 2385 

Cayon v. Dwelling House Ins. 2356 

Gearnes t. Irving 1601 

Cedar Canyon Con. Min. Co. v. Yar- 

wood 2673 

Cedar Grove Cemetery Co., In re 1946 
Cederberg v. Eobison 1998 

Cells v. Oriol 2188 

Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Cellonite Mfg. 

Co. ■ 1611 

Center v. Spring 2472 

Central Bank v. Tayloe 1929^ 

Central Bridge Co. v. Butler 1963 

Central City &c. Bank v. Walker 2543, 

2544 
Central &c. Go. v. Smith 1638, 2549 

Central- &c. Ins. Co. v. Oates 2326 

Central &c. E. Co. v. Kelly 2006 

V. Kuhn 1987, 1988, 1991 

Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Cannon 

1897, 1900 
V. James 2073 

Central Land Co. v. Calhoun 1930 

Central R. Co. v. Bayer 1913 

V. Brewer 2110 

V. Coggin 2199 

V. De Bray 2505, 2509 

V. Freeman 1900 

V. Hetfleld 2654 

V. Kelly 2510 

V. Moore 2012 

V. Eichards 19S4 

V. Senn 2006 

V. Serfass 1991 

V. WolfC 1899, 1904 

Central E. &c. Co. v. Hasselkus 1916 

V. Smith 
Center School Tp v. State 
Central Texas &c. E. Co. v. Nycum 
Central Trust Co. v. Burton 

V. Clark 
Central Vermont E. Co. v. Soper 
Chace v. Ghace 
V. TrafEord 
Chadbourne v. Williams 
Chaddock v. Venness 
Chadsey v. Gulon 
Chadwlck v. Divol 
ChafCee v. Mackenzie 
V. Old Colony &c. E. 
V. Pease 
V. Eunkel 
Chaffee &c. v. Eentfroe 
Chaffer v. Cox 
Chaffin v. Lynch 
Chaffraix v. Lafitte 

V. Price 
Challiss V. Smith 
Challoner v. Bouck 
Chalmers v. Shackell 
Chamberlain, In re 
Chamberlain v. Abadie 
V. Bagley 
V. Chamberlain 
V. Dorrance 
V. Hazelwood 
V. Huguenot Mfg. Go. 
V. Parker 
V. Porter 
V. West 



Co. 



1745, 



2542 
2075 
2504 
1824 
1994 
1907- 
2231 
1605 
22S5 
1843 
2441 
1601 
2586 
2501 
1972 
1746 

2547, 2550 
1714 
245S 
2553 
2551 
1589 
1625 
2140 

1800, 1816 
1618 
2000 
1840, 2490, 2582 
2124 
2647 
1941 
1974 

1972, 1979, 1998, 2006 
1792 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to Sections.} 



Chamberlin v. Murphy 






2660 


V. Vance 




2452, 


2454 


Chambers v. Baptist Soe. 




2243 


T. Chambers 






2033 


V. Games 






2026 


V. Goldwin 






1609 


V. Higgins 






2237 


V. Hunt 






2608 


V. Ker 






1667 


V. Northwestern - &c 


Ins.' 


Co. 


2301 


V. St. Louis 




2235, 


2243 


V. State 






2597 


V. Watson 2211, 


2212, 


2238, 


2242 


Chamness v. Cox 






1909 


Champion v. Bostwick 






2553 


T. Doty 




1623, 


2626 


V. Vincent 






1962 


Champion Mach. Co. v 


Updyke 


1737 


Champlain v. Railway 


&c. Co. 


2407 


Champlin y. Tilley 






2562 


Chancey v. Houdlette 






2650 


Chander v. Bush 






2006 


Chandler v. Allison 






1994 


y. Barrett 




2276, 


2692 


V. Carey 






1832 


v. Davis 






2577 


V. Jost 






2693 


V. Keith 






2424 


V. Lincoln 






2607 


V. McCard 






1845 


V. Heckling 






1604 


V. Newton 






2005 


V. Roblson 






2457 


y. Sanger 




1730 


2184 


V. Van Reoder 






1616 


Chandos v. American &c. Co. 




1659 


V. Mack 




1843a 


1847 


Chapel y. Bull 




1956 


1957 


Chapell V. Schmidt 


1692. 


1699, 


1702 


Chapin y. Chicago &c. R. Co. 


1914 


1919 


V. Hunt 






1623 


V. School District 


kc. 




2234 


Chapman, In re 






.1813 


Chapman y. Barger 






2067 


y. Beard 






2585 


V. Brewer 






1820 


V. Cawrey 






2472 


V. Chapman 




2196 


2199 


v. Dood 


1998, 


2479, 


2483 


y. Hamilton 






2071 


y. Kimball 




1847 


1957 


y. Kirby 






1994 


V. Lee 






1607 


y. Lipscomb 






2551 


y. New Orleans &c. 


R. Co 




1916 


V. Ordway 






2003 


y. Polack 




1855 


1850 


V. Pole 






2336 


v. Porter 






1946 


y. Republic &c. Ins 


. Co. 




2395 


V. Seccomb 






1666 


T. Thames Mfg. Co 






1970 


V. Twitchell 




1850, 


1851 


Chappell V. Phillips 






1599 


y. State 






2659 


y. Trent 




2691, 


2693 


Charles v. Amos 






1740 


y. Carter 






2619 


Charles Riyer Bridge y 


. Warren 


1932 
2253 


Bridge 
Charleston y. Van Royen 




Charleston Ins-. Co. y. 


Neye 




2358 


Charlestown y. Tufts 






1843a 


Charlotte v. Pembroke 


Iron 


Co. 


2524, 
2530 


Charlotte &c. Co. y. Hartog 


1607, 


1608 


Charlotte Hall School y. Greenwell 


2196 



Charman v. Henshaw 2550 

V. Lake Erie &c. E. Co. 1924 

Charter Oak Life Ins. Co. y. Rodel 2278 
Charter Oak &c. Ins. Co. v. Brant 2380 
Charles H. Dodd & Co. y. Williams 

Smithson Co. 
Chase v. Allen 

V. Blodgett &c. Co. 

y. Brundage 

y. Deming 

y. Dwinal 

y. Ewing 

y. Hazelton 

y. Ingalls 

y. Long 

y. Maine Cent. R. Co. 

V. Nelson 

y. Sycamore &c. R. Co. 

y. Trafford 

y. Tuttle 

V. White 
Chases Patent Eleyator y. Boston 

&c. Co. 
Chatiield y. Wilson 
Chatham y. Brainard 

y. Niles 1605, 1607 

Chatham Nat. Bank y. GoIdsoU 
Chattanooga Nat. Bank v. Schley 
Chattanooga &c. R. Co. v. Huggins 1895 

y. Jackson 1589 

Chattanooga &c. Transit Co y. Ven 

able 
Chatsworth y. Rowe 
Chauucey v. Yeaton 
Check V. Oak Grove Lumber Co. 
Cheddick v. Marsh 
Cheek v. Tilley 
Cheely v. Clayton 
Cheeney v. Nebraska &c. 
Cheeseman v. Kyle 



2607 
2000 
2507 
2576 
2075 

1730, 2184 
2087 
2675- 
2603 
265S. 
2523 
2011 

1931, 1945 
1605 
1933 
1862, 

1930' 
1971, 2529 
223S 
1607 
1739 
1776 



Cheesman y. Exall 
Cheever v. Congdon 

y. Lamar 

v. North 
Cheeves y. Danielly 
Chellis y. Chapman 



1903. 
1985. 
1725. 
2497 
2000' 
2172, 2173 
2257 
186» 
2087 
2664 
2199' 
2562: 
2697, 2698 
1599- 
1872, 1886, 1887, 
1888- 
Chenango Bridge Co. v. Lewis 
Chenango &c. Co. v. Paige 
Cheney v. Ringgold 
y. Selman 
y. Straube 
Chenowith v. Hicks 
Cherry y. McCall 

V. State 

Chesapeake &c. Canal Co. y. Com'rs 2518 

V. Knapp 1604 

y. Radbourne 1916. 

Chesley v. King 2529- 

Chess v. Chess 2291 

Chester v. Brower 1921 

y. Dickerson 2583 

Chestnut v. Chestnut 2029' 

v. Tyson 195& 

Chew v. Keller 2206 

.v. State 2490 

Cheyenne First Nat. Bank v. Swan 1744, 

1745 
Chiatovich v. Hanchett 2448 

Chicago y. Babcock 1597, 2515 

V. Bixby 2515 

V. Crocker 1970 

V. Dalle 2512, 2513, 2516 

V. Fowler 2513 

y. Jones 1988 

V. Major 2186 

T. Moore 2501 



1946. 
1969 
1617 
2225. 
1958, 195£V 
2653 
1702 
2199- 



lii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



IBeferences are to Sections.'] 



Chicago V. McGlven 2006, 

V. McLean 

V. O'Brennan 1979, 1980, 

V. Powers 

V. Robbins 2518, 

V. Tllley 

T. Van Ingen 
Chicago City E. Co. v. Carroll 

V. Rood 
Chicago Forge &c. Co. v. Rose 
Chicago Gen. R. Co. v. Chicago &c. 

R. Co. 
Chicago Title &c. Co. t. Standard 

&c. Co. 
Chicago Union Bank v. Mead Mer- 
cantile Co. 
Chicago & Northwestern R. Co. v. 

Simon 
Chicago &c. Banls v. Kinnare 
Chicago &c. Soc. v. Dyon 
Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Abels 

V. Anderson 

V. Barnes 

T. Bayfield 2017, 

T. Becker 2013, 

V. Boggs 

V. Branyan 

T. Brown 

V. Buckstaff 

V. Burden 

T. Burridge 

V. Carpenter 

T. Cieminger 

V. Cicero 

y. Crisman 2504, 

T. Clapp 1573, 

T. Clark 

V. Clayton 

V. Cummings 

V. Donworth 

T. Driscoll 

V. Felton 1895, 

V. Fennimore 

T. First M. B. Church 

T. Geary 

V. Gunderson 

V. Hale 

V. Hardt 2050, 

T. Harrington 

V. Heerey 

V. Hinds 

v. Hoelfner 

V. Holland 

V. Holmes 

T. Howard 

V. Huston 1897, 1899, 

T. Keegan 

V. Keely 

v. Kellog 

T. Klauber 1979, 1980, 

V. Landauer 

V. Langlade 

T. Levy 

y. Loeb 2580, 2534, 

V. Manning 

V. Martin 

■y. McKean 

T. Meech 1978, 

y. Montgomery 

V. Moranda 1990, 

T. Moss 

y. Mueller 

V. Netrolieky 2506, 

y. Ostrander 

T. Peters 

T. Posten 1984, 

V. Richardson 

T. Roberts 2006, 2017, 



2517 
1976 
1985 
2506 
2519 
1717 
1848 
1895 
1902 
2473 

2530 

2501 

1745 

1912 
2568 
2380 
1919 
1091 
2503 
2018 
2512 
2501 
1995 
1597 
1596 
1993 
2501 
2505 
1987 
1974 
2522 
1574 
2505 
1905 
2006 
1992 
2019 
1900 
1992 
2537 
2519 
2017 
1981 
2051 
2521 
2521 
2498 
1907 
2510 
2017 
2510 
2522 
1623 
2011 
2519 
1985 
2501 
2589 
1963 
2537 
1916 
2019 
2502 
1985 
2519 
2509 
1916 
2006 
2522 
2501 
1657 
1988 
2504 
2522 



Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Scanlan 

T. Scheinkoenig 

y. Spilkfer 

y. SpMngfleld &c. R. Co. 

y. Taylor 

V. Tompkins 

y. Tracey 

y. Travis 

y. Wagner 

V. Warner 1992, 

V. Williams 

V. Wood 

V. Wymore 
Chicopee Bank y. Philadelphia Bank 
Chidsey v. Porter 
Child V. Child 

V. Eureka Powder Works 

V. Horden 

y. Kingsbury 

y. Morley 

V. Starr 1843a, 

y. Sun &c. Ins. Co. 2358, 

Childers v. San Jose &c. Co. 
Children's Aid Soc. y. Loyeridge 
Childress v. Mann 
Chi ids y. Bank 

V. Muckler 1643, 

y. Shower 

V. Wyman 
Chilton y. Carrington 

V. Union Pac. R. Co. 
Chilvers v. Race 
Chinnery y. United States &e. Ins. 

Co. 
Chipman y. Unfon Pac. R. Co. 
Chirac y. Reinecker 
Chisholm y. Ben 

v. Cowles 
Choctaw &c. R. Co. y. McDade 

V. Walker 
Choice V. State 
Chomley's Case, 
Choteau y. Raitt 
Choutean v. Boughton 
Chrisman y. Carney 

V. Chrisman 

V. Irwin 

V. State Ins. Co. 
Christenbury v. King 
Christenson v. Carleton 
Christian y. Bryant 

y. Hanna 

y. Niagara &e. Co. 
Christian &c. Co. y. HiU 1605, 

Christie y. Chicago &c; R. Co. 

V. Gage 
Christmas v. Mitchell 
ChristoiSerson v. Howe 
Christopherson v. Bare 
Christy v. Richolson 

V. Scott 

V. St. Louis 
Chronister v. Anderson 
Chubb V. Westley 
Chumasero v. Potts 
Church V. Chapln 

V. Crocker 

y. Drummond 

V. Fagin 

V. Howard 

y. Lafayette F. Ins. Co. 

y. Pearne 
Churchill y. Lewis 

y. Watson 
rhwatal V. Schreiner 
Cicero &fi. St. R. Co. y 
Cirkel y. Crosswell 
Cincinnati v. Brachman 



1583, 

1922, 2109, 

2278, 

2308, 2310, 
2040, 



2041, 



2452, 



2227, 
2583, 



1643, 



Priest 
2558, 



2519 
1984 
2522 
2006 
1991 
1611 
170s 
2016 
2519 
1998 
1920 
1617 
2019 
1784 
2566 
2607 
1726 
1661 
1858 
1728 
1947 
2444 
2454 
2092 
2260 
2114 
1648 
2067 
1830 
2672 
2016 
2196 

2389 
2274 
2199 
2697 
2542 
2012 
1915 
2289 
2236 
2551 
1739 
2478 
2699 
2086 
2375 
2065 
1659 
2628 
2479 
1609 
1607 
2019 
2243 
2279 
1605 
1701 
2057 
2058 
1730 
2130 
2454 
2601 
2163 
22.S2 
2001 
2584 
2086 
2298 
2113 
1652 
2004 
2208 
1992 
2559 
195T 



TABLE OF CASES. 



liii 



IBeferences are to Sections. "i 



Cincinnati T. Wliite 2039, 


2074 


Clark v. Draper 






2661 


Cincinnati &e. Co. v. Brown 


2501 


T. Dutcher 






2463 


T. Nat. Laf. Bank 2576, 


2580 


V. Elaston 


1 




2598 


Cincinnati &c. K. Co. t. Altemeier 


2017 


V. Ellis 






2683 


V. Butler 


2498 


V. Farmers' Woolen Mfe. 


Co. 


1638 


V. Cole 


1932 


V. Fisher 


1957, 


2006, 


2280 


V. Cooper 


2515 


V. Fitch 


2631, 


2636, 


2645. 


V. Duncan 2011, 


2523 


V. Fletcher 




2570, 


2571 


V. McClaln 


1895 


V. Folkers 




2473, 


247» 


V. McDougall 


2615 


V. Folscroft 






163ft 


V. McMullen 1941, 


2502 


V. Ford 






1790- 


V. Pearce 1914, 


1947 


V. Gale 






2067 


V. Eoesch 


2521 


V. Gallagher 






1860 


V. Smith 


2509 


V. Gilbert 






1717 


V. Voght 


1925 


V. Goit 






1665 


Cincinnati Cooperage Co. v. Gaul 


2624 


T. Greeley 






1732 


Clsna V. Shelbley 


2380 


V. Hammerly 






1571 


Citizens' Bank t. Costanera 


2067 


T. Hart 






1974 


T. Hine 2551, 


2555 


T. Hawkins 






1595 


Citizens' Ins. Co. v. Coit 


1666 


V. Heck ' 






2610 


V. Glasgow &c. 


2431 


V. Henne & Meyer 


1801, 


1811, 


1814 


Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Converse, 


1759, 


V. Hodges 




1869, 


1888 


1760, 


2319 


V. Hull 






2651 


V. Tliird Nat. Bank- 


2505 


V. Jones 




1932, 


2541 


Citizens' State Bank v. Baird 


1741 


V. Lake St. Clair &c. Co 




1994 


Citizens' St. R. Co. t. Burke 


1979 


T. Lamb 






2603 


V. Bobbins 


2666 


V. Lineberger 






1958 


V. Twiname 1895, 1995, 


2249 


V. Marbourg 




1607, 


1609 


Citroen v. Adam 1767, 


1774 


V. Marshall 






2146 


City &c. Asso. T. Jones 


2259 


V. Mauran 






2429. 


City Bank &c. v. Dearborn 


2549 


T. Miller 






2670. 


City Elec. St. R. Co. v. First Nat. 




V. Mullenix 






1641 


Bank 1933, 


1944 


T. Mumford 






1959. 


City F. Ins. Co. v. Coriies 2331, 


2334 


V. Munyan 




1845, 


1854 


City Nat. Bank v. Merchants' Nat. 




T. New England &c 


. Ins. 


Co. 


2354,. 


Bank 


1700 






2358, 


23.59 


City Sav. Bank v. Kensington 


1838 


T. Oregon Short Line R. 


Co. 


1586, 


Claffiey v. Ledwith 


2693 








158r 


Claflin, In re 


2687 


V. Peabody 






1839- 


Claflln v. Commonwealth Ins. Co. 


2336 


T. Pease 






2177 


T. Cottman 


■2613 


v. Pendleton 






1867 


V. Feibelman 


1742 


V. Pennsylvania R. 


Co. 


1962 


2531 


V. Foley 


2156 


V. Phoenix Ins. Co. 






2336; 


V. Meyer 


1796 


V. Reese 




1882, 


1893 


V. MeDonough 


2184 


V. Relniger 






2141 


V. Pollock 


1785 


V. Rldeout 






2663: 


V. Wilcox 


1922 


V. Sanborn 






1725 


Clancy v. Byrne 


2516 


V. Shrimski 




1784 


1793. 


Clapham t. Higham 


1666 


V. Simmons \ 






2582: 


Clapp V. Glidden 


2668 


V. Skinner 






2604 


V. Hale 


1840 


V. Smith 




1717, 


1723 


T. Massachusetts &c. Asso. 


2302, 


V. Society &c. 






2491 




2372 


V. St. Louis &c. R. 


Co. 


1907, 


1916. 


V. Minneapolis &c. R. Co. 1904, 


2010 








1920 


Clapper v. Waterford 


2510 


V. State 






2281 


Clare v. New York &c. R. Co. 


2019 


V. Tacoma &c. 






184R 


Claremont v. Carlton 1850, 


1858 


V. Taylor 






2555 


Clark V. Allen 1840, 1843, 2371, 


2383, 


y. Thias 






2154 




2385 


V. Trindle 






2050 


V. American Mfg. Co. 


1814 


V. Turnbull 






218-' 


V. Bache 


2629 


V. Turner 






2698 


V. Baird 1854, 2006, 


2007 


V. United Ins. Co. 






2444 


V. Baker 


1630 


V. United States 






1732 


V. Baldwin 


2119 


V. Van Loon 






2465 


V. Barnwell 1915 


1916 


Clark Civ. Tp. v. Brookshire 


2007, 


251T 


V. Bohms 


2456 


Clark &c. Co. v. Wright 




2521 


T. Brown 2003, 


2459 


Clarke v. American &c 


Co. 




2115 


V. Burt 


1665 


V. Clarke 






2667 


V. Callagher 


1862 


V. Davies 






2606 


V. Cassidy 2485 


2486 


V. Diggs 






2039 


V. Chicago &c. R. Co. 


2531 


V. Gary 






2595 


V. Clark 1602, 


2490 


V. Molgs 






1782 


V. Clement 


2577 


V. Morey 






1584 


V. Comford 


1590 


V. McAnulty 






195» 


V. Corey 


1875 


V. Rochester &c. R. 


Co. 


1916, 


1920 


V. Curtis 


2249 


V. Sawyer 






2276 


V. Depew 2151, 
V. Dibble 


2154 
2140 


V. Warwick Cycle Mfg. Co. 


19.33, 
1948 


T. Dlnsmore 


1597 


V. Webb 






1605 



liv 



TABLE OF CASES. 



IReferences are to Sections.'] 



Clarke v. Western TJ. Tel. Co. 


1963 


Clarkson v. Western Assur. 


Co. 


2311 


Clary t. McGlynn 






1845 


Clause T. Press Co. 






1722 


Clauser v. Euckman 






2087 


Clay V. Board 






1972 


V. Boyer 




2648 


2652 


V. Sloan 






1850 


Clay See. Ins. Co. v. Wusterhausen 


2372 


Claycomb v. Butler 






1664 


V. Hunger 






1959 


Claypool V. Wigmore 




249r 


2501 


Clayton v. Brooks 






2512 


V. Clark 






1596 


T. Drake 


2200 


2202 


2204 


V. Feig 






1850 


V. Lord Nugent 






2224 


T. Warden 






2490 


Cleaver v. Lenhart 






1725 


Clegg V. Fields 


' 




1852 


Cleland v. Applegate 






2566 


V. Clark 






2067 


Clem V. Holmes 1997, 


2630 


2642 


2643 


Clemence v. Steere 






2675 


Clement v. Brown 






1893 


V. Clement 


2393, 


2573, 


2574 


V. Comstock 




1660, 


1665 


v. Drybread 






2628 


V. Hyde 




2235, 


2243 


T. Kimball 






2493 


T. Odorless &c. Co. 






2476 


T. Packer 




1851, 


1858 


T. Rutland Bank 






1845 


V. Skinner' 






1866 


Clement, Bane & Co. v 


. Houck 


1840 


Clements y. Burlington &c. E. Co. 


1918 


V. Louisiana Electric Light Co. 


2501 


V. Lampkin 






1617 


V. Maloney 






1990 


T. Qhrly 

V. Eallway Co. 






2474 






2319 


T. Schuylkill &c. E. 


Co. 




2000 


Clementson v. Williams 




2466 


Clemmins v. Gottshall 




1573, 


1579 


Clemmons v. Clemmons 






258.3 


Cleveland v. Choate 






1850 


V. Citizens' &c. Co. 






2530 


V. Cleveland &e. E. 


Co. 




1576 


T. Malm / 






2527 


T. New Jersey &c. 


Co. 




2505 


T. Obenchain 






1850 


V. Pearl 






2623 


y. Stilwell 


1692, 


1695, 


1702 


Cleveland &c. E. Co. v. 


Ball 




2006 


V. Beard 






2422 


V. CoSEman 




2500, 


2523 


V. Erie 






1589 


V. Gray 




1984, 


1995 


V. Heath 






1015 


V. Mara 






2510 


V. Miles 






2502 


V. Miller 


2010, 


2503, 


2523 


V. Newell 1896, 


1903, 


1988, 


1991, 
2505 


V. Rowan 






2498 


V. Stephenson 




2496, 


2499 


V. Stewart 




2499, 


2501 


V. Terry 






2501 


y. Tyler 






1905 


V. Wood 






1994 


V. Wynant 




1923, 


2507 


Clevenger v. EushviUe 






1929 


Clews V. Jamieson 






2628 


Clidero v. Insurance Co. 




2400 


Cliffe, In re 






1818 


Clifford V. Burton 






1633 


V. Dam 






1985 


Clift V. Moses 






1829 


v. Schwabe 






2287 



Clift V. Stockdon 
Clifton V. Granger 

V. Hooper 1962, 

V. Howard 
Climer v. Wallace 
Cline V. Hackbarth 
Clinton v. Estes 2280, 

V. Howard 

V. Strong 
Clinton Hill &c. Co. v. Strieby 
Clinton &c. Bank v. Cummins 
Cliquot's Champagne 
Clodfelter v. Cox 
Cloon V. Gerry 
Close T. Fields 

V. Phipps 
Closson V. Hamblet 
Cloud V. Bruce 2200, 2202, 

V. Moorman 

V. Whiting 
Clough V. Holden 
Clow y. Chapman 1642, 

V. Yount 
Clowe V. Imperial Pine Product Co. 
Clufl: V. Insurance Co. 

V. Mutual &c. Ins. Co. 
Cluggish V. Koons 
Clutch V. Clutch 
Clute V. Eobison 
Clymers v. Dawking 
Coad V. Home Cattle Co. 
Coakley y. Perry 
Coal Run Coal Co. v. Jones 
Coat V. Coat 
Coates V. Bainbridge 

V. Burlington &c. R. Co. 2015, 
Coates & Sons v. Hufflne 2620, 



Coats V. Gregory 

V. Eobinson 
Cobb V. Arundell 

V. Cowdery 

V. Denton 

T. Dortch 

V. Dolphin &c. Co. 

V. Hall 

V. Lavalle 2039, 2043, 

y. Lime Eock Ins. Co. 

v. Malone 

v. Preferred &c. Asso. 

V. St. Louis &c. R. Co. 

V. Wallace 
Cobbey v. Buchanan 
Coble V. McClintock 

V. Wellborn 
Coburn v. Ames 

V. Hough 

V. Palmer 

V. Travelers' Ins. Co. 

V. Watson 
Cochran v. Amazon Ins. Co. 

v. Arnold 

v. Giuld 

v. Toher 
Cochrane v. West Duluth &c. 
Cock V. Oakley 
Cockayne v. Hodgkisson 
Cockran v. Ammon 
Cockrell v. Proctor 
Cockrill V. Calhoun 

v. Cooper 

V. Kirkpatrick 
Cocks V. Weeks 
Codd y. Cabe 
Coddington, In re 
Coddington v. Jenner 
Cody V. Adams 

V. First Nat. Bank 
Coe V. Anderson 



2044, 



1595, 
2399, 



1779, 



2307, 
1934, 



2002, 
Co. 



2697, 
1840, 



1729 
2634 
1972 
2553 
1846 
1761 
2281 
2517 
1730 
2163 
2163 
1636 
1714 
2472 
2577 
1730 
1579 
2204 
2618 
2071 
1838 
1649 
2614 
1722 
2403 
2412 
2073 
2033 
1714 
1617 
1824 
2065 
2487 
2091 
1731 
2505 
2623, 
2628 
1604 
2269 
1605 
1598 
2236 
1664 
1664 
2618 
2065 
2442 
1597 
2414 
19S7 
1780 
2270 
2099 
1958 
2531 
2576 
2073 
2293 
2672 
2329 
1937 
1957 
2473 
1727 
2154 
2447 
1703 
1958 
2489 
2460 
2587 
2466 
1701 
1816 
2698 
2114 
2502 
2577 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Iv 



IBeferences are to Sections.'] 



Coe V. Johnson 1626 

Cofer V. Schenlng 2039 

Coffee T. Williams 1605, 1607, 1613 

Coffelt T. Wise 2170 

Coffey V. Hendricljs 1852 

T. Home &c. Ins. Co. 2287, 2393 

Cotfeyville Min. &c. Co. v. Carter 2015 

Coffin v. Anderson 2661, 2666 

T. Brown 2452 

V. Coffin 1998 

V. Collins 1941, 1946 

T. Cottle 1667 

T. Newburyport &c. Ins. Co. 2442, 

2443 

V. Phenix Ins. Co. 2435 

V. Reynolds 2629 

V. State 1902 

CofCman v. Lookout Bank 2170 

Coftrin v. Cole • 1623 

Cogdell V. Cogdell 2212 

T. Yett 1690 

Coggesliall V. Pelton 2235 

Coghill T. Kennedy 2691, 2694 

Cogswell V. New York &c. E. Co. 1971 

T. Ocean Ins. Co. 2431 

Coliee T. Baer 1585 

Cohen v. Chicago &c. R. Co. 2522 

V. Cohen 2254 

v. Continental &c. Ins. Co. 2314 

V. Grimes 1744 

T. Huskisson 2111 

y. New York 2534 

Coil V. Wallace 1863 

Colt V. Comstock 2236 

V. Com'l Ins. Co. 2303 

V. Houston 1595 

Coker v. Birge 2524 

Colbourn v. Wilmington 2498 

Colburn v. Averill 1824, 1825 

V. Pomeroy 1724 

Colby V. Maw 2580, 2581 

Cole, In re 1821 

Cole V. Accident Ins. Co. 2415 

V. Andrews 2473, 2474 

V. Bryant 2619 

V. Cole 2034 

V. Curtis 2117, 2473 

V. Drew 1970 

V. Driskell 2020 

y. German Sav. &c. Soc. 2497, 2501 

T. Gray 2053 

T. Joliet &c. Co. 2124 

V. Laird 2629 

V. Manchester &c. Assur. Co. 2343, 

2345 

V. Mayne 2019 

V. McGlathry 2465 

V. Patterson 2577 

V. Putnam 2624 

V. Robins 1951 

T. Swanston 1979 

V. Varner 1727 

Coleman's Appeal 2005 

Coleman v. Allen 2118, 2482 

V. Botstord 2479 

v. Heurich 2477, 2479 

V. Lyman 1956 

V. McKinney 2124 

T. New York &c. R. Co. 1699, 1989 

T. Pearce 2070, 2075 

T. Retail &c. Ins. Asso. 2316 

V. Riches 1632 

V. Sands 2596 

V. Smith 1850 

V. United States 1725 

T. White 1649, 1651b, 1652 

Coles V. Carter 1701 

T. Marine Ins. Co. 2439, 2444 

V. Soulsby 1592 



Coles T. Trecothick 






1628 


V. Yorks 






1589 


CoUagan v. Burns 




2697, 


2698 


Colleuder v. Dinsmore 






1914 


Collett V. Foster 




2111, 


2116 


Collier v. Cross 






2549 


V. French 






1720 


V. Jenks 






1963 


V. Jones 






2083 


V. White 






1664 


Colllngwood T. Irwin 






1959 


Collins V. Bennett 




1784, 


1785 


T. Blantern 






2026 


V. Burns 






1770 


T. Busch 






2576 


V. Davidson 




1985, 


1995 


V. Dispatch Pub. Co. 




2448 


V. Dodge 






1988 


V. Dorchester 






1944 


V. Driscoll 




1824, 


1825 


T. Evans 






2604 


V. Fidelity &c. Co. 


2399, 


2408, 


2414 


V. Fisher 






2479 


V. Freas 






1653 


V. Gage 






2628 


V.' Gilbert 






1830 


V. Hayte 




2479, 


2480 


V. Insurance Co. 






2297 


T. JanesTille 




1988, 


1989 


V. Lavelle 






1994 


V. Love 






2474 


V. Lynch 






1623 


v. Nlcols 






2688 


V. Perkins 




2656, 


2660 


V. Phillips 






2206 


V. Sanger 






1709 


V. Shaw 






2628 


V. Tilton 






2090 


V. Todd 






1702 


V. Valleau 






2588 


V. Voorhees 






2486 


V. Walters 






1691 


V. Waters 






1992 


V. Westbury 






2184 


Collyer v. Coliyer 






2698 


Cologan V. London &c. 


Co. 




2441 


Colorado Coal &c. Co. 


V. Lamb 


2017 


Colorado Fuel &c. Co. 


V. Chappell 


1609 


Colquitt V. Thomas 






2127 


Colsell V. Budd 






2577 


Colston V. McVay 






2065 


Colt V. Clapp 






1729 


Colter -v. Lower 




2102, 


2108 


Colton V. Stanford 






2148 


Columbia v. Mackall 






1837 


Columbia Bank v. Hagner 




2579 


Columbia Brewing Co. 


V. Berney 


1605 


Columbia Real Estate Co., In 


re 


1820 


Columbia &c. Bridge Co. v. Geisse 


1630, 








1993 


Columbian Ins. Co. v. 


Carlett 


2444 


V. Lawrence 


2337. 


2341. 


2375 


Columbian &c. Co. v. Douglas 


2621 


Columbus V. Columbus 


&c. B 


. Co. 


1579 


V. Ogletree 






1942 


Columbus &c. V. Witherow 




1847 


Columbus &c. Co. v. Tucker 








2524 


2529 


2537 


Columbus &c. R. Co. v 


. Bradford 


2011 


V. Bridges 






2015 


V. Flournoy 






1981 


V. Kennedy 




" 


1916 


V. Powell 




1630 


1635 


V. Troesch 




2496 


2519 


Colvard v. Black 




2447 


2454 


Colvin V. Republican Land &c. Co. 


1619 


Colwill V. Reeves 






2650 


Combes v. Keyes Co. 






1932 


Combs V. Bays 




2576 


2611 



Ivi 



TABLE OF CASES. 



IReferences are to Sections.'i 



Combs V. Smith 
Comegys v. Carley 
Comer v. Knowles 

2101, 2102, 2106, 2108, 2109, 

V. Taylor 2630, 2631, 2640, 

V. Thompson 

V. Way 
Comery v. Howard * 
Comins v. Comlns 1620, 

Comley v. Dazlan 
Commercial Bank v. Burgwyn 

V. Jarvis 

V. Miller 

V. Pfeiffer 
Commercial Bank &e. v. Rochester 
Commercial Nat. Bank t. Brill 
Commercial &c. Asso. v. Fulton, 

V Springsteen 2408, 

Commercial &c. Assur. Co. v. State 
2311, 
Commercial Ins. Co. v. Hallock 

V. Huckberger 

V. Robinson 
Commercial &c. Ins. Co. v. Morris 
2294, 
Commercial Dn. Ins. Co. v. Elliott 
Comminge v. Stevenson 
Commissioners v. Dombke 

V. Hanion 
Commissioners &c. v. Withers 
Commonwealth v Blanding 

V. Blood 

V. Buecierl 

V. Caponi 

V. Carey 

T. Churchill 1589, 

V. Clap 

V. Crawley 

v. Cummins 

V. Cnrran 

V. Damon 1646, 2452, 

V. Dalzell 

V. Dill 2009, 

V. Donahue 

V. Dudley 

V. Eagan 

V. Gearhardt 

V. Green 

V. Hart 

T. Haskell 

V. Hayden 2490, 

V. Henry 

V. Hess 

Y. Jackson 

V. Kenney 

V. Littlejohn 

V. Lubinsky 

V. Massachusetts Ins. Co. 

V. Maxwell 

V. McAfee 

V. McDuffy 

V. McGrath 

V. Mechanics &c. Ins. Co. 

V. Moltz 

V. Morris 

V. Mosler 2285, 

V. Mnnsey 

T. Norcross 2009, 

T. rejepscut 1663, 

V. Perry 

V. Robinson 

V. Rogers 2277, 

V. Rooney 

V. Rourke 

V. Rush 

V. Samuel 

V. Sessions of Norfolk 

V. Snelllng 

V. Stevenson 



1592 
1849 

2115 
2643 
1063 
1607 
1663 
1621 
1641 
1828 
15S9 
2571 
1940 
2172 
1842 
2415 
2417 

2314 
2295 
2346 
2333 

2339 
1026 
2524 
2513 
2026 
1971 
2458 
2032 
2280 
2490 
2111 
1591 
2458 
1602 
1596 
2025 
2454 
1946 
2490 
1699 
1956 
2253 
2290 
2275 
2372 
2288 
2491 
2138 
2624 
2143 
2486 
2490 
2143 
2422 
2023 
1700 
2138 
2487 
2422 
1860 
2458 
2286 
2253 
2400 
1665 
2538 
2142 
2281 
2595 
2057 
1691 
2025 
1998 
2456 
2199 



Commonwealth v. Stump 
V. Sturtivant 
V. Sullivan 
V. Thoinpson 
V. Tobin ' 
V. Trefethen 
T. Valsalka 
V. White 
V. Wireback 
V. Woelper 
V. Yost 



2493 
2517 
2111 
2138 
2110 
2287, 2698 
2591 
1689 
2290 
1945 
2528 



V. Young Men's Christ. Asso. 1847 
Commonwealth Ins. Co. v. Monninger 

2375 

v. Sennett 2343, 2345, 2358 

Compagnon v. Martin 1923 

Companari v. Woodburn 1641 

Comparet v. Jernegan 1939 

Compton V. Bates 2247 

v. Bunker Hill Bank 2182 

V. Marshall 1751 

Commissioners Court v. Street 1725 

Comstock V. Brosseau 1699 

V. Crawford 2081 

V. Eastwood 1619 

V. Hadlyme &c. Soc. 2291, 2688, 

2691, 2694 

V. Rayford 2145 

V. Son 1959 

V. State 2199 

Conard v. Atlantic Ins. Co. 1582 

Conant v. Griffln 2018 

v. Johnston 1825 

V. National &c. Bank 2124 

Conaway y. Shelton 1870 

Conboy v. Railway Officials &c. Asso. 2403 

Concord v. Boscawen 2235 

Concord &c. Co. v. Alaska &c. Co. 1605 

Concord R. Co. v. Greely 2533 

Concordia Sav. &c. Asso. v. Reed 1930 



Condon v. Enger 

V. Kemper 
Conely v. McDonald 

V. Wood 
Congdon v. Morgan 

V. Winsor 
Conger v. Conger 

V. Converse 

V. Lowe 

V. Nesbitt 

V. Weaver 
Conkey v. Kingman 
Conklin v. Bush 
Conkling v. Davis 

V. Erie R. Co. 
Conlan v. Mead 
Conlon V. McGraw 
Conley, In re 
Connecticut &c. Co. 



246] 
2000 
2280, 2281 
2567 
1618 
1941 
2033 
2050 
2206 
2261 
1974 
1585 
1600 
2236 
2523 
2548 
1994 
1816 
OFallon 1665, 

.. ^ X,. 1666 

Connecticut Fire Ins. Co. v. Oldefl- 



dorCC 



1597 



Connecticut &c. Ins. Co. v. Groom 2395 



V. Ijathrop 

V. MeWhirter 

V. Schaefer 

V. Schwenk 

V. Siegel 

V. Union Trust Co. 



2393, 2395 
2391 
2389 
2346 
2346 
2378 



Connecticut River &c. Ins. Co. v. 

Way 
Connell v. Milwaukee &c. Co. 
Coupelly V. Masonic Mut. Ben. Asso 

V. O'Connor 
Conner v. Citizens' &c. R. Co. 
V. Clark 
V. Comstock 



2426 
2338 

1947 
2094 
2399 
1840 
2611 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ivii 



[References are to Sections.'] 



Conner v. Henderson 1730 

ConnersviUe v. Wadleigh 1720 

Connolly v. Davidson 2553 

V. McKealii 2577 

T. Pardon 2210, 2211, 2215, 2223 

T. Waltham 2501, 2519 

Connor v. Electric Trac. Co. 2504 

V. Johnson 1845 

V. Simpson 1667 

Conover v. Miit. Ins. Co. 1948 

V. Ruckman 1754 

Conrad Nat. Bank v. Great Northern 

R. Co. 1723 

Conrad Seipp Brewing Co. v. McKit- 

trick 1826 

Conroy v. Duane 2059 

v. Pittsburgh &c. T. Co. 2458 

V. Townsend 2474 

Consolidated &c. Co. v. Haenni 1991 

T. Lambertson 1991 

V. Mercer 2618 

Consolidated R. Co. v. Welsch 2510 

Consolidated Stone Co. v. Morgan 2010 

Consolidated Tel. &c. Co., In re 1940 

Constable v. National &c. Co. 1918 

Consumers' Brew. Co. v. Doyle's 

Adm. 2503 

Continental Ins. Co. v. Hulman 2344 

V. Jachnichen 2140 

V. Kasey 2300 

V. Pearce 2420 

Continental &c. Ins. Co. v. Rogers 2293, 

2304, 2356, 2358, 2372, 2373, 2375 

V. Volger 2371, 2380, 2381 

V. Young 2378 

Continental Nat. Bank t. Heilman 2096 

V. McGeoch 1596 

V. Nat. Bank 2070 

Contoocook Fire Precinct v. Hopkin- 

ton 1728 

Converse v. Colton 1604 

V. Scott ■ 1605 

V. Starr 2683 

V. Wales 2231 

Conville v. Shook 1609 

Conway v. Armington 1754 

V. Ellison 2124 

V. Klnsworthy 163 3 

V. Nichols 1577 

V. Nicol 2635, 2610 

V. Reed 1690, 2010 

V. State Bank 2581 

V. Vizzard 2692, 2690 

Conway Bank v. American Ex. Co. 1768 

Conwell V. Buchanan 2466, 2467 

V. Mann 2040 

Conyers v. Ford 2579, 2583 

V. Kenan 1619 

V. Portal &c. Co. 2582 

Conyngham v. Smith 1710 

Coody V. Gress Lumber Co. 2653 

Cook V. Bartlett 2643 

V. Batcbelor 1924 

V. Bertram 2039, 2040, 2057 

V. Brown 1843 

V. Cockrill 1830 

V, Cook 2207, 2279 

V. Holt 1789 

V. Insurance Co. 2390 

V. Johnson 2154, 2157 

V. Kraft 2067 

V. Lion Fire Ins. Co. 2621 

V. Martin 2541 

V. McClure 1847 

V. McCord 1574 

V. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 2500 

V. New York Cent. R. Co. 2012 

V. Patterson 2668 



Cook V. Penrhyn &c. Co. 




257 r 


V. Perry 


21'34, 


214» 


V. Southwick 


B830, 


1843; 


V. Ward 




2454. 


Cook County v. Davis 




1613: 


Cooke V. Barr 




2005- 


V. Cooke 


2149, 


2151 


V. Hughes 




2454. 


V. Munstone 1717; 


1720, 


1723: 


V. O'Malley 




2454. 


V. Turner 




2279- 


V. Wildes 




2453: 


Coole V. Brahan 




1709' 


Cooley V. Abbey 




1745> 


V. Brayton 




2050 i 


V. Broad 




2551 


V. Kinney 




1596. 


Coolidge V. Brigham 




1730- 


Coombs V. Hertig 


2040, 


2057 


Coombs &e. Co. v. Block 




1583; 


Coon V. Allen 




1666. 


V. Gurley 




1636; 


V. Moffltt 




2630 


V. Osgood 




1668- 


Cooney v. Chase 


2474, 


2479 


V. Southern &c. E. Co. 




1987 


Coonradt v. Myers 




2067 


Coons V. Coons 




1659" 


Coope V. Eyre 




2570 


Cooper V. Barber 




2536- 


V. Barton 




1765 


V. Basham 




1572 


V. Bockett 




2700 


V. Chitty 




2661 



V. Copper 1800, 1821, 2488 

V. Galbraith 2052 

V. Insurance Co. &c. 2355 

V. Johnson 1666-' 

V. Lake Shore &c. E. Co. 2017 

V. Langway 2474 

V. Massachusetts &c. Ins. Co. 2395- 
T. Morris 1618 

V. Mullins 1991 

V. McJunkin 1700- 

V. Randall 2533 

V. Smith 1749, 2062 

V. State 1700> 

V. Turrentine 2474 

V. Utterbach 2117, 2119, 2474, 2475, 

2483; 

V. Wakley 1964 

V. Young 1981, 1994 

Cooper Mfg. Co. v. De Forest 2624- 

Coosaw Min. Co. v. Carolina Min. 

Co. 1945 

Coover v. Davenport 1883 

Cope V. Arberry 2148- 

V. Humphreys 2577 

V. Pearce 2196. 

Copeland v. Boston Dairy Co. 2628 

V. Copeland I860- 

V. Merchants' Ins. Co. 1639, 1641 

V. McAdory - 1957, 1959 

V. New England &c. Ins. Co. 2432, 

2433, 2437, 2446 

V. Sauls 2065 

V. Western Assur. Co. 2293 

Copley V. Rose 2658 

Coppins V. New York Cent. &c. R. 

Co. 2501 

Corbett v. Costello 1735 

V. Lucas 1895 

V. Norcross , 2067 

V. Spring Garden Ins. Co. 2364 

V. Wren 1937 

Corbin v. Planters' Nat. Bank 1838; 

Corbit y. Smith 2276, 2285 

Corbltt V. Corbltt 2205. 



Iviii 



TABLE OP CASES. 



[References are to Sections.'i 



Corcoran v. Chesapeake &c. Co. 1715 
T. Gurney 2445 

V. Harran 1702, 2005 

Cordell t. New York &c. E. Co. 2498 

Cordwent v. Hunt 1598 

Corlies v. Howe 1826 

Corliss V. Worcester &c. E. 1987 

Corn, In re 1816 

Cornelius y. Molloy 2148 

Cornell v. Cook 2595 

Cornfield t. Order &c. 2421 

Cornhauser t. Eoberts 2558 

Corning t. Corning 1689, 1694, 1702, 
2002, 2005 
v. Gould 1579 

Cornish v. Accident Ins. Co. 2399, 2408 
T. Farm Bldgs. &c. Ins. Co. 2328 

Cornwall v. Hoyt 1735 

Cornwell t. Fraternal &c. Asso. ' 2403 
Correll v. Burlington &c. E. Co. 2504 
Correy v. Lake 1746 

Corrinne Mill &c. Co. ^. Johnson 2049 
Corser v. Paul 1831 

Corsicana v. Anderson 2074 

Corso V. New Orleans &c. E. Co. 1907 
Corson's Appeal 2380, 2383 

Corson v. Corson 2032 

Cort V, Ambergate &c. E. Co. 1732 

Cortland County t. Herkimer 

County 2510 

Coruthers v. Herbert 1838 

Corwin v. Walton 1695, 1702 

Corwith V. Culver 1947 

Cory V. Boylston Ins. Co. 2431, 2439 

v. Little 1777 

V. Silcox 2531 

Coryell v. Cain 2059 

Coryton v. Llthbye 1924 

Cosgrift T. Miller 1997 

Cosgrove v. Cosgrove 2240, 2242 

V. Fisk 2124 

Cosking V. Ward 1605 

Costar T. Davies 1726 

Costello V. Edson 1618 

Costill T, Costill 2032 

Costin V. Baxter 1610 

Cosulich v. Standard Oil Co. 2498 

Cote V. New York &c. E. Co. 1917 

Cotterel t. Griffiths 2585 

Cottrell V. Carter 2611 

T. Conklin 1728 

T. Hatheway 1737 

T. Koon 2124 

Cottingham v. Armour Packing Co. 1751 

T. Fortrille &c. Co. 2603 

V. Seward 1851, 1856 

Cottle V. Aldrich 2083 

Gotten V. Fidelity &c. Co. 2405 

V. James 1964, 1965, 2472 

V. Smithwick 2211 

V. Ulmer 2277 

V. Wood 1895, 2503 

Gotten &c. Ins. Co. v. Edwards 2346, 

2387 

CotuUa V. Kerr 2448 

Couadeau v. American &c. Ins. Co. 2391, 

2399, 2401, 2402, 2414 

Couch V. Mills 1597 

V. Watson Coal Co. 2508 

V. Woodruff 2553 

Coudy V. St. Louis &c. R. Co. 1895 

Coughlin V. Poulson 2692 

Coulam V. Doull 2231 

Cotilson V. Hartz 2469 

Coulter V. Stuart 2140 

Counselman v. Hitchcock 1807 

Countryman v. Fonda &c. R. Co. 1995 

Counts V. Kitchen 2067 



County Corns, of Hartford County 

T. Wise 2517 

Coupal T. Ward 2111 

Courcier t. Graham 1950 

Courteen v. Touse 1639 

Courtemanche v. Supreme Court &c. 2396 

Courtney v. Clinton 1987 

T. Studenmayer 1840 

V. Turner 2059 

Courvoisier t. Raymond 1698, 1997 

Couscher v. Tulam 1601 

Cousens v. Advent Church 2682 

Cousins V. Alworth 1749 

Covell V. Carpenter 1592, 1726 

Covenant &c. Asso. v. Hoffman 2205 



Cover v. Manaway 
Covert V. Gray 

V. Morrison 

V. Sebern 
Coverston v. Connecticut 

Co. 
Covington, In re 



2134 

1995 

2040, 2057 

2097, 2210 

&c. Ins. 

2393 
1820 



Covington First Nat. Bank v. Kiefer 



Milling Co. 
Cowan V. Hite 

V. Jones 

V. Lindsay 

V. Silliman 
Coward v. Clanton 

V. Baddeley 
Cowden v. Lockridge 

V. Wright 
Cowdrey v. Colt 
Cowell V. Edwards 
Cowle V. Ahrenstedt 
Cowing V. Altman 
Cowles V. Dunbar 

V. Kidder 
Cowley V. Davidson 
Cowman v. Eogers 
Cox V. Albert 

V. Beltzhoover 

V. Central V. E. Co. 

v. Chicago &c. E. Co. 

V. Cooke 

V. Cox 

y. Cox's Exrs. 

V. Crumley 

V. Delano 

V. Dove 

v. Hayes 

V. Hickman 

V. Insurance Co. 

V. Louisville &c. 

V. Matthews 

V. McDIvit 

V. Peoria Mfg. Co. 

V. Eoyal Tribe 

V. Vermont E. Co. 

V. Wall 

V. Wallace 

V. Westchester Turnpike Co. 
Coxe V. England 

V. Harden 
Coye V. Leach 
Cozzens v. Chicago &c. Brick Co. 

V. Joslin 
Crabtree v. Whlteselle 
Craddock v. Dwight 
Crafts V. Carr 

V. Hibbard 
Cragln v. Carleton 

V. Powell 1844, 1845, 1848, 

V. Tarr 
Craig, In re 
Craig V. Adair 

V. Alversou 



1750 
2196 
1609 
2010 
1958 
1610 
1689 
1982 
1995 
1959 
1728 
2547 
1823 
2111 
1962 
1974 
2010 

2611, 2666 
1843 
1912 
2016 
1699 
2035 
1823 
1692 
2551 
2656 

2576, 2580 
2553 
2321 
1847 
2200 
2067 
1715 
2304 
1911 
2586 
1840 
2512 
2005 
2663 
2209 
1930 
2202 
2050 
2578 
2270 
1855 
2549 
1850, 
1862 
2141 
1808 
2600 
2551 



2390, 



TABLE OF CASES. 



lis 



IBeferences are to Sections.'] 



Craig V. Ambrose 




2205 


Critchlow V. Beatty 


1623, 


1858 


V. Benedictine &c. Asso. 




1947 


Critz V. Pierce 




2686 


y. McHenry 




2672 


Groan v. Joyce 




1623 


V. McKinney 




1610 


Croasdale v. Bright 




2450 


V. Missouri 




172B 


Crocker v. Crocker 




1642 


T. Seerist 2235, 


2236, 


2243 


V. Crompton 




2655 


V. Smith 


1590, 


1591 


V. Hartford 




2511 


V. United States Ins. Co. 


2302, 


2374 


V. Higgins 




2124 


V. Van Bebber 


2264, 


2270 


V. Mann 




2604 


Craig Silver Co. v. Smith 




1589 


V. Muller 




1707 


Craig's Appeal 


2134, 


2135 


V. Schureman 




2505 


Craker v. Chicago &c. R. Co. 


1703, 


1999 


Crocket v. Lee 




2124 


Cram v. Dudley 




2249 


Crockett v. Crockett 


2673, 


2675 


T. Sicliel 




1639 


V. Lashbrook 




265S 


Cramer v. Burlington 




2515 


V. Morrison 




2057 


Crampton v. Prince 




1845 


Croco V. Oregon &c. R. Co. 




1976 


Crance v. Collenbaugh 




1959 


Crofoot V. Allen 




1660 


Crandal v. Accident Ins. Co. 




2399 


Croft, In re 




1814 


Crane v. Elizabeth Lib. Asso. 




1947 


Croft V. Pawlet 




2687 


V. Hirshfelder t 




2124 


Crogate's Case 




1698 


T. Horton 




1831 


Cromelin v. McCauley 




2126 


V. Larsen 




1589 


Cromie v. Louisville &c. Society 


2237, 


V. Marshall 


1621, 


1623 






2238 


V. Northfleld 




2006 


V. Louisville Orphans Home 


2242 


Crane Co. t. Tierney 




2567 


Crommelin v. Coxe 




2531 


Crane Elevator Co. v. Llppert 


1989 


Crompton v. Spencer 




1830 


Crane's Will, In re 
Cranflll v. Btayden ■ 




2235 


Cx-omwell v. Stephens 




1797 




2454 


Cronin v. Gove 


1857 


2050 


Crank v. Forty-second St. E 


Co. 


1989 


V. Sharp 




1972 


Cranson v. Gobs 




1831 


v. Verlnont &c. Ins. Co. 


2382, 


2383 


Cranston v. Kenny 




1665 


Cronkhite v. Accident Ins. Co. 


2297 


Craton v. Wright 




2067 


V. Travelers' Ins. Co. 


2293. 


2391, 


Craufurd v. Blackburn 




2196 


2401, 


2404 


2414 


Cravath v. Plympton 




1725 


Crook V. Chambers 




1654 


Cravens v. Gillilan 




1639 


V. Davis 




2559 


V. Hunter 


1972 


1974 


V. Eindskopf 




2146 


V. Moore 




1580 


Crooker v. Bragg 


1962 


1972 


T. Shippen 




1816 


Croom V. Herring 




2^05 


Crawford v. Branch Bank 




1943 


Cropp V. Cropp 




2279 


V. Bynum 




2653 


Crosby v. Delaware Canal Co. 


2621 


V. Corey 




2064 


V. Fitch 




2443 


V. Crawford 




1621 


V. Humphreys 1697, 


1702, 


1703, 


V. Hutchinson 




1608 






2005 


V. McLeod 




1604 


V. Ritchey 




1826 


V. Morrell 




1720 


Grose v. Eutledge 




1652 


V. Norris 




1611 


Gross V. Brown 




1796 


V. Rambo 


1972 


2537 


V. Garter 


1691 


2005 


V. Robie 




2094 


V. Gheshirs 




1728 


V. Stove Pipe Works 




2546 


V. Moore 




1605 


V. The William Penn 




1584 


V. Sacramento Sav. Bank 


1609 


1610 


v. Turk 




2594 


V. Tyrone 




1849 


V. Whitmore 




2039 


V. Zellerbach 




2466 


Craycraft v. Selvage 




2598 


Grossman v. Bradley 




1702 


Crease v. Barrett 




2196 


V. Grossman 




2700 


Creed v. Pennsylvania E. Co 


. 1897 


1898 


V. Universal Rubber Co. 




1590 


Cregin v. Brooklyn &c. E. Co. 


1907 


Crosswel v. Connecticut &c. 


Ind. 




Creighton v. Piper 


2597 


2599 


Asso. 


2384 


2385 


Crenshaw v. Pacific &c. Ins. 


Co. 


2345 


Grothers v. Lee 




1610 


V. Ullman 




1935 


Grotty V. Union &c. Ins. Co. 


2369, 


2371, 


Crerar v. Williams 




2235 






2387 


Cresap v. Hutson 




2039 


Crouch V. Briles 




1735 


Crescent City Co. v. Butchers Co. 


2475 


Grouse v. Chicago &c. E. Co. 


1988 


2519 


Cresinger v. Reed 




2454 


V. Holman 




2007 


Cresson's Appeal 


2235 


2243 


Grout V. De Wolf 




2071 


Cresswell Ranch &c. Co. v. 


Martin- 


Crow V. Meyersieck 




2279 


dale 




2629 


V. State 




1692 


Cribbs v. SoMe 2170, 2176, 


2177, 


2179, 


Crowe V. Lysaght 




1597 






2180 


Crowley v. Crowley 




2094 


Crim V. Hormon 




1741 


Grown v. Orr 




2519 


Crisdee v. Bolton 




2000 


Growner v. Crowner 




2033 


Crlsman v. Leonard 


2248 


2259 


Crowninshield v. Crowninshleld 


2689 


Crispell v. Dubois 




2696 


Crowson v. Growson 


2291 


2693 


Crispen v. Hannavan 




2055 


Croweil V. Bebee 


1857 


1858 


Crissey v. Morrill 




2461 


V. Gleason 




2106 


Crist V. Armour 




2629 


V. Jackson 




2148 


Cristie v. Cowell 




2449 


V, Lambert 




2599 


Criswell V. Criswell 




2463 


V. Maughs 




1857 


V. Grumbling 




2206 


V. Western &c. Bank 




2550 



TABLE OF OASES. 



[References are to Sections.'] 



Cruger t. Heyward 
Cruikshank v. Gordon 
Crumbaugh v. Kugler 2154, 

Crumlish v. Central Imp. Co. 1597, 
Crump V. United States Min Co. 
Cruse v. Axtell 2236, 

V. Cunningham 
Crutchfleld v. Richmond &c. E. Co. 
Crutsinger v. Catron 1578, 

Crymble v. Crymble 
Crystal Palace Plouring-Mills Co. 

V. Butterfleld 
Cudahy v. Powell 

Cuddy V. Brown 2196, 

Culberson t. Chicago &c. E. Co. 
Culbertson v. Cabeen 
Culley V. Walkeen 1691, 

Cully V. People 
Culver V. Culver 

V. Rhodes 

V. Third Nat. Bank 
Cumberland v. North Yarmouth 
Cumberland Tel. &c. Co. v. Poston 
Cumberland &c. Co. v. Schell 2317, 
Cumberland &c. Ins. Co. v. Giltinan 
Cumings v. Hildreth 

V. Sawyer 
Cumins v. Lawrence Co. 

V. Wood 1766, 

Cumming v. The Barracouta 
Cummings v. Friedman 2040, 

V. Lynn 

V. MacGill 

v. Martin 

V. Morris 

V. Nichols 

V. Noyes 

V. Thompson 

V. Wyman 
Cummins v. Agricultural Ins. Co. 

V. Cummins 

V. German &c. Ins. Co. 2318, 

y. Hurlbutt 
Cunard S. S. Co. v. Kelley 
Cunningham f. Baker 2611, 

V. Davis 

T. East River &c. Co. 

T. Harper 

V. Hudson River Bank 

v. Jacobs 

V. Mitchell 1635, 

V. Smith 
Cunnius v. Reading School Dlst. 

Cunyus v. Guenther 
Cupp V. Campbell 
Curd V. Lackland 

V. Miller 
Cureton v. Dargan 
Curley v. Dean 1720, 

Curling v. Curling 2235, 

Curme v. Rauh 2613, 

Curran v. Holland 

V. Louisville 

v. Rummell 
Curren v. Ampersee 1790, 171 

Currey v. Lawler 
Currle v. Fowler 
Currier v. Boston &c. E. Co. 

v. Davis 

V. Gale 2057, 

V. Richardson 

V. Silloway 

V. Swan 1691, 

Curry v. Curry 

V. Keyser 

V. Stewart 



2206 
2452 
2162 
1728 
1936 
2237 
2211 
2399 
2065 
2486 

2629 
2115 
2199 
1987 
1745 
1694 
2026 
2091 
1619 
1941 
1660 
1997 
2336 
2344 
2422 
2422 
2124 
1785 
1916 
2057 
2082 
2604 
2259 
1711 
1733 
1725 
2124 
1617 
2328, 
2346 
2032 
2343 
2131 
1914 
2666 
1840 
2102 
2050 
2517 
1736 
2252 
2009 
2082, 
2084 
1932 
2259 
2163 
2164 
1737 
1724 
2244 
2624 
1640 
1579 
1596 
1791 
1593 
2193 
2517 
1727 
2087 
2457 
2548 
1702 
1722 
2124 
2596 



Curry v. Wilson 196T 

Curtis, In re 1660 

Curtis V. Aaronson 1845, 1851 

V. Carson 1698 

V. Curtis 1714 

V. Hoxie 1744 

V. Leavitt 1708, 1727 

V. Moore 2134 

V. Murphy 1775 

V. Mussey 2457 

V. Rickards 1607 

V. Rochester &e. E. Co. 1895, 1902, 

1991 

V. Van Bergh 2000 

V. Vernon 2083 

V. Wortsman 1752 

Curtiss V. Rochester &c. R. Co. 1988, 

1991 

Gushing v. Drew • 2000 

V. Gore 1727 

V. Hidermah 2452 

V. Wells 1918 

Cushman v. Blanchard 1958 

V. Burritt 1878 

V. Illinois Starch Co. 193i{ 

V. Northwestern Ins. Co. 2321 

V. Ryan 2005 

V. United States &c. Ins. Co. 2304, 

2306, 2378, 2389 

V. Waddell 1702 

Custin V. Viroqua 2179 

Cusick V. Norwich 2533 

Cutbush V. Gilbert 1728 

Cutchogue Cong. Ch., Matter of 1930 

Cuthbert v. Newell 2576 

Cutler V. Cox 159S 

V. Thomas 2546 

V. Wadsworth 2120 

Cutter V. Powell 1717, 1723 

Cutts V. King 1845 

Cuyler v. Ferrill 1584 

V. McCartney 1715 

Czech T. General Steam Nav. Co. 2502 



D 

D'Wolf v. Rabaud 1582 

Daby v. Ericsson 1711 

Daggett V. Gray 2666 

V. McClintock 2005 

V. Tallman 2577 

Dahl V. Milwaukee &c. R. Co. 2501 

Dailey v. Coons 2556, 2559 

V. Fountain 1856 

V. Frey 2491 

V. Houston 1703, 1990, 1997 

V. State 2597 

Daily V. Daily 2033 

V. New York &c. E. Co. 2013 

Dain V. Wycoff 2641, 2642 

Daines v. Heath 19.'i3 

Dakiu V. Williams 2000 

Dalby v. India &c. Assur. Co. 2368, 2383 

Dale V. Dale 26U3 

V. Faivre 2057 

V. Gear 1S27, 1830, 1843 

V. Hall 1993 

V. Honneman 2039, 2041, 2057 

V. Roosevelt 2123 

,v. Smith 1845, 1850 

Daley v. American &c. Co. 2505 

Dallam v. Renshaw 2127 

Dallas V. Ferneau 1602 

V. Sellers I6.1O 

Dallas Nat. Bank v. Davis 1751 

Dallas &c. R. Co. v. Spicker 2500 

Dalling V. Matchett 1660 

Dalman v. Konnig 2633, 2641 



TABLE OF CASES. 



{References are to 8eotions.'\ 



Dalrymple v. Craig 
T. Wyker 




1596 


Davenport v. Hassel 




2204 




1826 


V. Labauve 




2577 


Dalton V. Beers 




1982 


V. Magoon 




2673 


V. Chicago &c. E. Co. 


2011, 


2017 


V. Peoria &c. Ins. Co. 




2323 


V. Cleveland &c. E. Co. 




2530 


V. Sargent 




2232 


V. Rust 




1845 


V. Schutt 




1611 


T. Tindolph 




2252 


Davenport E. Co. v. Davenport Gas 




Dalton City Co. v. Dalton Mfg. Co. 


2551 


Co. 




2070 


V. Hawes 




2551 


Davey v. London &c. E. Co. 




2500 


Daly V. Bernstein 




1732 


David V. David 




2034 


Dambmann v. Scliultlng 




2148 


V. Waters 




2204 


Dame v. Kenney 


2002, 


2003 


Davidson v Abbott 




2646 


Dammert t. Osborn 




2236 


V. Arledge 




1858 


Damon v. Denny 


1589, 


1501 


V. Goodall 




2640 


V. Moore 




1995 


V. Hackett 




1741 


Damron t. Koach 


2004, 


2659 


V. Southern Pac. Co. 


1984, 


1987 


Dan V. Brown 


2279, 


2291 


V. Wallingford 




2196 


Dana t. Kemble 




1730 


V. Wilson 


2541, 


2575 


T. Taylor 




1599 


Davies, Ex parte. 




1781 


V. Valentine 




2536 


Davies v. Dow 




2587 


Danbury v. Eobinson 




1714 


V. Hughes 




2091 


Dandt v. Musick 




2186 


v. .Tenkins 




1970 


Danforth v. Adams 




2970 


Dav's' Estate, In re 


2485, 


2494 


T. Cleary 




2627 


Davis V. Barrington 




1717 


Daniel v. Daniel 




2280 


V. Bartlett 


1824, 


1823 


T. Giles 




2005 


V. Bingham 




2547 


T. Lefevre 




2039 


V. Bohle 




1814 


V. Metropolitan E. Co. 


2502 


2503 


V. Burgess 




2109 


V. North 




2536 


V. Caldwell 




2258 


Daniels t. Ball 




2662 


V. Calvert 2134, 


2281, 


2696 


V. Cheshire 




1843 


V. Central E. Co. 




2006 


v. Fitzhugh 




1850 


V. Chicago &c. E. Co. 




1895 


V. Florida &c. E. Co. 




1897 


V. Clark 


2674, 


267.S 


V. Hallenbeck 




1597 


V. Crockett 




1612 


V. Hudson Elver Ins. Co 




2293 


V. Dale 




2050 


V. New York &c. E. Co. 


' 2010 


2395 


V. Davis 2206, 2337, 


2338, 


2460 


V. Newton 




1954 


V. Dunklee 




15;)1 


V. Pond 




2647 


V. Easley 




2057 


V. Tearney 




2073 


V. Fish 




2623 


Danielson v. Wilson 




2384 


V. Fogle 




2697 


Danker v. Goodwin Mfg. Co. 




2527 


V. Franke 


1697, 


1702 


Dannebroge &c. Min. Co. v. 


Ailment 


V. Freeman 




2000 




1937, 


1938 


V. Gallagher 




20.S6 


Danner v. Shissler 




2202 


V. Garrett 




1980 


V. South Carolina &e. E. 


Co. 


1967 


V. Gillett 




2000 


Danolds v. State 




1994 


V. Gillilan 




2009 


Dant v. State 1733, 


2616, 


2623 


V. Guarnieri 




2013 


Danziger v. Pittsfleld Shoe 


Co. 


2628 


V. Hamilton 


2457, 


2459 


Darby v. Lastrapes 


1607, 


1608 


V. Havard 




1654 


V. Gilligan 
Darcy v. Kelly 




1611 


V. Hare 




2576 




2236 


V. Hess 




1843 


Darden v. Lovelace 




2621 


V. Hoppock 




2668 


Darley v. Ouseley 




2451 


V. Hurt 


2661, 


2666 


Darling v. Hines 

V. Oswego Falls Mfg. Co 


2179 


2183 


V. Kansas City Belt E. Co. 


2501 




25J0 


V. Krum 




1730 


V. Westmoreland 




2506 


V. Luster 




2183 


V. Williams 




2010 


V. Lyon 




2457 


Darlington v. Mayor 




1971. 


V. Marvine 




2146 


Darnall v. Adams 




2212 


V. Marxhausen 




2457 


V. Eowland 




2124 


V. Meade 




1947 


Darrell v. Hilligoss 




1948 


v. Michigan «Sce. E. Co. 




1005 


Darston v. Earl of Oxford 




1611 


V. Miller 




2982 


Dart V. Lowe 




1774 


V. Moyles 




2637 


Daseomb v. Marston 


2235 


2236 


V. New York 




2530 


Dashback v. Dashback 




2034 


V. f)regon &c. E. Co. 




2500 


Dashiel v. Harshman 




1844 


V. Pareher &c. Co. 




2422 


Dashiell v. Attorney-General 


2235 


224.1 


V. Perley 




1576 


Dashwood v. Magniac 




2679 


V. Pierce 




2669 


Daskam v. Beemer 




1844 


V. Poland 




2573 


Daubenbiss v. White 




2059 


V. Powell 




2067 


Daubert v. Western Meat Co 




2019 


V. Eandall 




1839 


Daubigny v. Davallon 




1584 


V. Eogers 




2688 


Daugherty v. Heckard 2546, 


2548, 


2555, 


V. Eussell 


2111, 


2618 






2556 


V. Sawndes 




2196 


Daugherty Adm. v. Eogers 


2097 


2211 


V. Seeley 




2483 


Dauntless, The 




2015 


V. Selby 




2196 


Daveis v. Collins 




1623 


V. Shafer 




1947 


Davenport v. Davenport 




1611 


V. Sigourney 




2697 


V. Hanbury 




2207 


V. Spring Valley &c. Works 


2039 



Ixii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



IBeferences are to Sections.J 



Dayis V. State 




2253 


V. Stevens 1800, 


1810 


1813 


V. Strange 




2696 


v. Talbot 




1639 


V. Tierman 




1606 


V. Turner 




2164 


T. M'abash &c. R. Co. 




1916 


v. Wakelee 




2073 


V. Warfleld 




2612 


V. Wood 




2199 


V. Zimmerman 


2164 


2319 


Davis &c. Co. v. Kittanning 


Ins. Co. 






2361 


Davis, Belau & Co. v. National Sur. 


Co. 




2073 


Davis Lumber Co. v. Hartford Fire 


Ins. Co. 




1639 


Davis Mill Co. v. Bennett 




1947 


Davis & Rankin Mfg. Co. v. Vice 


1840, 






2576 


Davy V. Faw 




1665 


Daw V. Humbert 




1972 


Dawes v. North River Ins. Co. 


2337 


V. Peck 




2667 


Dawley v. Sherwin 


1709 


1745 


Dawson v. Coffman 




2673 


V. Daniel 




1573 


v. Daw.son 


1610 


2494 


V. Falls City &c. Club 




2057 


V. Moore 




2534 


V. Pogue 




25-13 


V. Smith 




2698 


V. Wombles 




2094 


Day V. Alverson 




2057 


V. Eeck Hardware Co. 




1814 


V. Caton 




1733 


V. Dages 




2465 


■ v. Day 




2034 


V. Gardner 




1596 


V. Gravel 




1981 


V. Lockwood 




1601 


V. McLea 




1596 


V. Ross 




1694 


V. Trig 




2210 



V. Woodworth 1982, 1996, 2118 

Dayton v. Hoogiand 2629 

Dayton Ins. Co. v. Kelly 
Dazey v. Mills 
De Armond v. Bohn 
De Beaumont v. Webster 
De Benedetti v. Mauchin 
De Bruler v. Ferguson 2236, 

De Cair v. Manistee &e. R. Co. 
De Camp v. New Jersey &c. Ins. 



2327 
1715 
15M9 
2006 
2510 
2243 
2521 
Co. 
23S9 

De Courcey v. Cox 2113 

De Forest v. Utica 2512 

De Frieze v. Quint 1615 

De Gogorza v. Knickerbocker &c. Ins. 

Co. 2395 

De Gottardi, In re 1804, 1807 

De Graff v. Wickham 2000 

De Haven v. Helvie 2637 

V. Landeli 1615 

De Kalb &c. Works v. White 1596 

De La Cuesta v. Ins. Co. 2170 

De Lappe v. Sullivan 1750 

De Levliiain v. Evans 2266 

De Long v. Stanton 1664 

De Luneville v. Phillips 1584 

De Martin v. Phelan 2177 

De Pauw Plate Glass Co. v. Alexan- 
dria 2072 
De Pew V. Robinson 2452 
De Peyster v. Sun &c. Ins. Co. 2441 
De Ridder v. M'Knight 2621 
De Soto V. American &c. Ins. Co. 2321 
De St. Aubln v. Laskin 2541 



De Van v. Commercial Travelers' See. 

2401, 2414 

De Vaux v. Salvador 2431 

De Votie v. McGerr 2075, 2124 

De Witt V. Barly 2006 

De Wolf V. Dearborn 2663 

Deach v. Perry 1711 

Dean v. American &c. Ins. Co. 2395- 

V. Cushman 2660 

V. Feely 2067 

V. Ford 1823 

V. Goddard 1619, 1623 

V. Lammerg 2617 

V. Mason 2124 

V. Massey 1591 

V. Morey 214* 

V. Negley 2696 

V. State 1700 

V. Toppin 2577 

Deans v. Wilcoxon 2124 

Dearborn v. Bowman 1725- 

V. Cross 1598 

V. Union Nat. Bank 1784 

Dearmon v. Blackburn . 2604 

Deblois v. Ocean Ins. Co. 2441 

Debow V. Colfax 2662 

Decatur v. Besten 2.513 

V. Niedermeyer 1845 

Decker v. Decker 1621, 2211 

V. Somerset &c. Ins. Co. 2140- 

Dederick v. Brandt 2008 

Deeds v. Strode 2493 

Deep River Nat. Bank, In re 2466 

Deer Lake Co. v. Michigan Land Co. 

1618 

Deere v. Bagley 1758, 1760' 

Deering v. Boyle 2250 

V. Creighton 1830, 1843 

Deery v. Cray 1850 

V. Williams 2628- 

Deeter v. Sellers 2611 

Deford v. Dryden 2621 

Dehority v. Nelson 1613 

V. Paxson 2618 

Deisen v. Chicago &c. R. Co. 2011 

Deitzler v. Mishler 2056- 

Delafleld v. Parish 2683, 2689 

Delaney v. Brunette 1840 

V. Canning 2076 

V. Delaney 2384 

V. Modern &c. Club 2414 

V. Salina 2235 

Delashmutt v. Parrent 2205- 

Delavergue v. Norris 1957 

Delaware &c. Co. v. Torrey 1970- 

Delaware &c. E. Co, 



V. Converse 

2501, 



Delegal v. Highley 
Delhi V. Youmans 
Delie v. Chicago &c. E. Co. 
Deloney v. Walker 
Delphi V. Lowery 

1944, 1987, 1990, 2017 
V. Startzman 
Delude v. St. Paul City E. Co. 



2523 
2476 
1971 
1976 

2202 

2506, 2513 
2075 



Delvee v. Boardman 
Demann v. Eighth Ave. 
Demarest y. Den 
Demars v. Koehler 
Demens v. Le Moyne 
Demick v. Chapman 
Deming v. Carrington 
V. Grand Trunk &c. 



DempsOT V. Hertzfleld 

V. Kipp 
Dempster v. Rosehill Cemetery Co. 
Den V, Horse 



2521 
2635, 2641 
R. Co. 1991 

2206. 
1959 
2620 
2656 
1858 
R. Co. 

1912, 1981 
1981 
1713- 
1931 
2052 



TABLE OP CASES. 



Ixiii 



IBeferenoes are to Sections.'] 



Den V. Winans 

v. Wortendike 

V. Vancleve 
Den ex Dem. Van Blarcom v. 
Deneca Falls v. Zalinski 
Denegre v. Milne 
Dengler t. Hays 
Denham t. Walker 
Denison y. Denison 

V. Hyde 
Denison &c. R. Co. v. 

Co. 
Denman v. Bayless 

V. McMaliin 
Denn v. Sinnickson 
Dennett T. Crooker 
Denning v. Eoome 
Dennis y. Holsapple 

y. Jackson 

T. Pawling ■ 

y. Ryan 
State 



2052 
2200 
2267 
Kip 1848 
2518 
1739 
1589 
2576 
2030 
2004 
St. Louis &c. 

1579 
1661 
2087 

2057, 2065, 2066 
1618 
1942 

2211, 2225, 2243 

1830, 1843 

1702 

2470 

2538 



y. Union &c. Ins. Co. 2391 

y. Weekes 2691 

Denny y. Northwestern Cliristian 

TJniy. 1931 

y. Woods 2137 

Denslow y. Van Horn 1891 

Denson v. Beazley 2285 

Dent y. Austion Mart Co. 2530 

y. Bryce 1942 

y. Dayison 1972 

y. Pickens 1882, 1888, 1889, 1801 

y. Smitli 1756 

Denton v. Ordway 1694 

V. Smith 2611 

Denyer y. Hyatt 1989 

y. Jacobson 1576 

y. Mullen 2528 

Denyer Brewing Co. y. Barets 1832 

Denyer Consolidated Blec. Co. y. 

Simpson 2498 

Denyer &c. Ins. Co. y. Crane 2293 
Denyer &c. E. Co. v. Harris 

1699, 1976, 1989 

y. Morton 2508 

y. Peterson 1775 

y. Roberts 1905 

y. Sulliyan 1507 

y. Woodward 2082 

Depriest y. McKinstry 2610 

Deputy y. Mooney 2044 

Deranleau y. Jandt 2627 

Derby y. Ailing 1571 

y. Corlett 2123 

y. Derby 2033, 2243 

Derecourt y. Corblshley 2110, 2211 

Derham y. Derham 1647, 1652 

Derisley y. Custance 1952 

Dermott y. Jones 1732 

Derrenbacher y. Lehigh Valley R. Co. 

1935 

Derwin y. Parsons 1702 

Des Plaines y. Poyer , 2528 

Des Moines Co. y. Hinkley 1843 

Deseret Nat. Bank v. Little 1737 

Desmond y. Brown 2419 

Despard y. Despard 2072 

y. Walbridge 1735 
Despatch Line &c. v. Bellamy Man. 

Co. 1639 

Desvergers y. Willis 1957 
Detroit &c. E. Co. v. Van Steinburg 2501 
Detroit Gas Co. y. Moreton Truck 

&c. Co. Vin2 

Deuchatell y. Robinson 2002 
Deyan y. Commercial &c. Asso. 2399 

Deyeaur y. Clemens 2140 

Deyelin y. Rlggabee 1880 



Deyendorf v. Beardsley 




2424, 


2425- 


y. Wert 






1974 


Devens y. Mechanics' &c 


. Ins. Co. 


2354 


Deyine y. Charles 






2067 


y. Wyman 






1850 


Deyltt y. Proyidence &c. 


Ins 


Co. 


2441 


Deylin y. Crary 






2622 


y. Mayor &c. 






1991 


y. United States 






2181 


Deyol y. Mcintosh 






2579 


Deyor y. Knauer 






1699 


Deyorse y. Snider 






2262 


Deyrles Estate v. Hawkins 




1730 


Dew y. Parsons 






1730 


y. Eeld 






2683 


Dewey v. Allgire 






2279 


y. Bordwell 






2652 


y. Burbank 






2266 


y. Dewey 






2701 


y. Goodenough 






2204 


y. Sloan 






1609 


y. Toledo 






1823 


Dewlt V. Greenfield 






200a 


Dewitt y. Buchanan 






1584 


Dexter y. Bevlns 






1732 


y. Billings 




2651, 


2652 


y. Gardner 






2236 


y. Inches 




2207, 


2208 


Dey y. Dey 






2212 


Deyo y. New York Cent 


R. 


Co. 


1900 


Dezell V. Fidelity &e. 


Ins. 


Co. 


2354, 
2358. 


y. Odell 






2077 


Dial y. Valley &c. Asso. 


2293, 


2355, 






2372. 


2376 


Diamond State Iron Co. 


y. San An 




tonio &c. R. Co. 






2628 


DIbbrell y. Georgia &c. 


Ins. 


Co. 


2349, 
2352 


Dice y. McCauley 






1849 


Dick y. Equitable &c. Ins. Co. 


2359 


y. Gilmer 






1589- 


Dicken y. Winter 






2615 


Dickerman v. Graves 






1649' 


Dickerson y. Cass Co. 






1829 


y. City 






1711 


y. Colgroye 




2039, 


2009 


V. Harris 






1843 


y. Northwestern &c. 


Ins 


Co. 


2395, 
2396 


y. Rogers 






1797 


y. Tyner 




" 


165* 


Dickey y. McDonnell 






1703 


y. Sleeper 






1667 


DIcklns y. Beal 




1835 


1837 


Dickinson y. Bales 






1618 


y. Boyle 






2004 


y. Collins 






2065 


Dickson y. Gourdin 






2577 


y. Hollister 






1989 


y. State 






2454 


Diebold Safe & L. Co. y. Houston 


2629 


Diefendort y. Oliyer 






2149 


Diehl y. Adams Co. &c. 


Ins. 


Co. 


2357 


y. Friester 




1982 


2100 


Dielmann y. Citizens' Nat. 


Bank 


2461 


Diem y. Koblitz 






2629 


Diemer y. Herber 






2476 


Diers y. Edwards 




1972 


1974 


y. Mallon 


2110, 2111 


, 2118 


Dietrich y. Mitchell 






1827 


Dletrlchs y. Schaw 


2112, 2113 


, 2121 


Dietz y. Langfitt 






2472 


y. Proyldent &c. Ins. Co. 


2420 


DIggs y. Kurtz 






1850 


DIgnan y. Nelson 






1615 


Dikes y. Miller 






1571 


Dilks y. Hammond 






1658 


Dill y. Camden Board 


&c. 


1571 


1579 



^xiv 



TABLE OF CASES. 



IBeferences are to /Sections.] 



.Dill V. Lawrence 2000 

V. South Carolina R. Co. 1905 

Dillard v. Ellington 1612 

V. Scruggs 2585 

Dilleber v. Home &c. Ins. 2376 

X)illie V. McMillan 2127 

Dillingham v. Snow 19.38 

Dillman v. Crooks 2006 

Dillon V. Anderson 1994, 2146, 2147 

V. Center • 1623 

V. Kansas City &c. R. Co. 1579 

V. State Bank 1588 

Dills V. Hubbard 2040 

Dimick v. Derringer 2062 

V. Downs 1694, 1702 

V. Metropolitan &c. Ins. Co. 2371 

Dimmick v. Dimmick 2257 

Dimock v. Van Bergen 1735 

Dingley v. McDonald 1607 

V. Oler 2629 

Dingwall v. County Com. 1572 

JDinsmore v. Abbott 1784, 1795 

T. Tidbail 2148 

'Disbrow v. Ulster Tp 2013 

Disher v. Disher 2679 

Disbno v. Reynolds 2584 

Dismukes v. Dismukes 203.S 

District of Columbia T. Armes 2506 

V. Bailey 1654 

T. Woodbury 1985, 1990, 1991, 

1995 

Ditts T. Lonsdale 2550 

Diven t. Lee 1931 

Diveny v. Eimira 2513 

Diversy v. Moor 1839 

Dix V. Akers 1947 

Dixon V. Allen 2453 

T. Clow 1970, 1974 

V. Duke 2609 

T. Hood 2548 

T. National &c. Ins. Co. 2385 

T. People 2486, 2487 

T. Pluns 2498 

V. Yates 1780, 2618 

TDoak V. State Bank 1798 

Doan V. St. Louis &c. R. Co. 1919 

Doane t. Chicago &c. R. Co. 2000 

V. Dunham 2619 

■V. Glenn 1751 

V. Millville &c. Ins. Co. 2424 

V. Wilcutt 2657 

Dobbins v. Brown 2503 

Dobbs V. Campbell 1609 

Dobie V. Armstrong 269i5 

Dobler v. Strobel 2082 

IDobson V. Chambers 2547 

T. State 2618 

V. Warner 2624 

Dockum V. Robinson 2699 

Dodd V. Brott 1714 

T. Focht 2630 

V. Gloucester &c. Ins. Co. 2372 

V. Holme 2539 

T. Kyffin 2654 

V. Norris 2003, 2640 

Dodds T. Board 2111 

V. Hakes 1664 

Dodge's Appeal 2194, 2205 

Dodge V. Beeler 2205 

V. Boston &c. Ina. Co. 2432, 2433 

V. Cole 2279 

V. Essex Ins. Co. 2442 

V. Freedman's &c. Co. 1715 

V. Kinzy 2256 

V. Knowles 2252 

v. Harden 1571, 1574 

V. Pope 2071, 2074 

V. Trust Co. 1621 

T. Walley 1845 



Dodge V. Williams 




2236 


• V. Yates 




2059 


Dodson V. Cooper 


2163, 


2672 


Doe V. Arkwright 




2669 


V. Austin 




2669 


V. Barnes 




1964 


V. Barton 




2196 


T. Campbell 




2196 


V. Clayton 




1618 


V. Doe 




2034 


V. Griffln 




2187 


V. Hildreth 




1856 


V. Horner 




1665 


V. Jones 




2669 


v. Paine 




1853 


V. Palmer 




2700 


V. Pettett 




1621 


T. Phelps 




2196 


V. Porter 


1845, 


2663 


V. Preson 




1664 


T. Pritchard 


2044, 


2050 


V. Provost 




2212 


V. Riley 




1845 


V. Roe 1642, 2061, 


2062, 


2196, 




2218, 


2489 


V. ShufEord 




1851 


V. Smart 




1964 


T. West 




2057 


T. Wright 




2655 


Doe d. Allen v. Alien 2215 


, 2218, 


2221 


Doe d. Bather v. Brayne 




2047 


Doe d. Farmer v. Eslava 


1623 


2055 


Doe d. Hiscock v. Hiscock 




2224 


Doe d. Le Chevalier v. Huthwaite 


2223 


Doe d. Mills v. Clayton 




2057 


Doe d. Plevin v. Brown 




2073 


Doering v. State 


2110, 


2111 


Dogge v. Northwestern &c. Ins. Co. 


2346 


Doggett v. Bell 




1741 


Doherty v. Gilmore 




2694 


Dohmen v. Niagara &c. Ins. 


Co. 


2140 


Dohn V. Farmers' &c. Ins. Co. 


2353 


Doke V. James 




1664 


Dolan V. Armstrong 


1737, 


1744 


V. Brooks 




1632 


V. Pagan 




1702 


V. Mayor &c. 




2593 


V. Mitchell 




1611 


V. Thompson 




2476 


Dole V. Erskine 




169S 


Dolfini V. Erie R. Co. 




2523 


Doilam V. Fitler 




2660 


Dolliver v. Parks 




2599 


V. St. Joseph Ins. Co. 




2337 


Dolloff V. Phoenix Ins. Co. 




2336 


Domestic Sew. Mach. Co. v. 


Ander 




son 




1782 


Dominy v. Miller 




2064 


Donaghue v. Gaffy 
Donahue v. Donahue 


2029 


2448 
2212 


V. Drexler 




2019 


V. Illinois &c. R, Co. 




2055 


V. Windsor Co. &e. Ins. 


Co. 


2348, 
2357 


Donahue's Estate 




2194 


Donald V. Unger 
Donaldson v. Boston 




2699 




2513 


V. Cermiehael 




1597 


Donehoo y. Johnson 1850. 1852 


, 1862 


Donelly v. Harris 




2005 


Donley v. Dougherty 




2502 


Donnell v. Columbian Ins. 


Co. 


2438 


V. Jones 




2483 


Donnelly, In re 




1611 


Donnelly v. Hufschmidt 




1987 


V. Mitchell 




17C9 


Donohae v. Whitney 


1854 


, 1856 


Donovan's Estate, In re 




2694 


Donovan v. Hartford St. R 


Co. 


2498 



TABLE OF CASES. 



kv 



{References are to Sections.'^ 



Donovan v. Haynie 1612 

V. New Orleans 1971 

Dooley v. Cheshire Glass Co. 1934, 1936, 

1941, 1947 

Doollttle V. Ferry 1830 

Doorman v. Jenkins 1795 

Dore V. Billings 2578 

Doremus v. HowariJ 1732 

V. Williams 1707 

Doren v. Lupton 2067 

Dorin v. Dorm 2214 

Dornick v. Reichenback 2276 

Dorr T. Munsell 2123 

V. Schmidt 1709 

Dorsey v. Allen 2537 

T. Armor 1840, 1843 

V. Kyle 1584 

V. Manlove 2005 

T. Racine 2511 

V. Sheppard 2699 

Dorsey Harvester Rake Co. v. 

Marsh 1937 

Dothage v. Stuart 2067 

Dothard v. Denson 2057 

V. Sheia 1982 

Dotton T. Common Council 2513 

Dotts V. Fetzer 2695 

Doty V. Bates 2541 

V. Patterson 1940 

V. Wilson 1725 

Doub V. Mason 2076 

Dpud V. Citizens' Ins. Co. 2328 

V. Hall 2280 

Dougherty v. Creary 1571 

T. Gouff " 1613 

V. Knowltpn 1603 

V. Metropolitan L. Ins. Co. 2301 

V. Pacific &c. Ins. Co. 



2293, 2390 
2404 



2006 
2092 
2242 
2111 
1749, 
1840 
2505 
1589 
2083 
1950 
2135 
2670 
2582 
1974 
2041, 2056, 2057 
2065 
1843 
2621 
1932, 1935 



V. Stewart 
Dougherty, Adm., v. Rogers 
Doughten v. Vandever 
Doughty V. State 
Douglas V. Bank of Commerce 

v. Chicago &c. R. Co. 
V. Phcenix Ins. Co. 
Douglass V. Forrest 
V. Hennessy 
V. Hill 
V. Hobe 
V. Miller 
V. Railroad Co. 
V. Ruflfin 
V. Scott 
V. Waddle 
Dousman v. Peters 
Douthitt V. Stinsoh 

Douville V. Farmers' &c. Ins. Co. 2355 

Dow V. Dempsey 2551, 2610 

v. Gould &c. Co. 1931 

V. Portland &c. Co. 1919 

V. Tuttle 1840 

Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Watson 2628 

Dowd V. Crow 2500 

Dowdall V. King 1979 

Dowden v. Wood 1826 

Dowell V. Applegate 1720 

Dowling V. Blackman 1608 

V. Crapo 2637 

V. Dowling 1727, 2584 

V. Lancashire Ins. Co. 2339 

V. Lawrence 2624, 2627 

V. Salliotte 2262 

Downer v. Porter 1799 

V. Smith 1936 

V. Tarbell 1844, 2648 

Downey v. Atchison &c. K 



T. Dillon 



Co. 



1665 
2001, 2003 



Downey v. HoJfer 
Downing v. Brown 

v. Marshall 2236, 

v. Mayes 
Downs V Finnegan 
V. Hammond 
V. Ringgold 
V. Skrymsher 
Dows V. Faneuil Hall Ins. Co. 
V. Greene 
V. Naper 

V. National Bxch. Bank 
Doyle, In re 
Doyle V. Burton 
V. Jessiip 
V. Lord 

V. Missouri &c. Co. 
V. Railroad Co. 
V. St. Paul &c. R. Co. 
V. Trinity Church 
Dozier v. Edwards 

V. Fidelity &c. Co. 2399, 

Draddy v. Ileile 

Drake v. Avanzini 1737, 

V. Barrymore 

v. Drake 2208, 

V. Happ 

V. Hudson River Co. 
V. Pell 
V. Rogers 
V. Slgerfoos 
V. State 
V. Sykes 
V. White 
Drakely v. Gregg 

Draper v. Baker 1692, 

v. Draper 
V. Moriarty 
V. Rice 

V. Shoot 1618, 

■ V. Tucker 
Drea v. Ceriveau 
Dred Gobd v. Needs 
Dreeben, In re ■ 
Dreer v. Carskadden 
Dreier v. Continental &c. Ins. Co. 
Drennan v. Douglas 
Drennen v. House 
Drescher v. Fulham 
Dressel v. North State Lumber Co. 
Drew V. Sixth Ave. R. Co. 
V. Sutton 
V. Swift 
V. Wakefield 
Drewe v. Coulton 
Drinkhorn v. Bubel 
Drinkwater v. Dinsmore 
Driscol V. Bovil 
V. Passmore 
Driscoll V. Fiske 
Drish V. Davenport 
Driver v. Driver 
Drovers' Nat. Bank v. Blue 
Drown v. Smith 

Drum V. Harrison 1962, 1972, 

Drummond v. Couse 2127, 

V. Eau Claire 
V. Stewart 
Drumright v. Philpot 
Drury v. Natick 
Druse v. Wheeler 

Du Laurans v. First Div. &c. R. Co. 
Dublin Case 

Dublin V. Chadbourn 2082, 

Dubois V. Holmes 

V. Kingston 
Duchess of Cleveland v. Dashwood 
Duchess of Kingston's Case 
Duckett V. Rountree &c. Co. 



1862: 



1698, 
1987, 



2385 

2452 

2243 

1623 

172(1 

2422 

1750 

1698 

2333 

2429 

104:5 

262G 

1816 

1661 

2641 

196!) 

2521 

2533 

2520 

2177 

1612 

2414 

1754 

1750 

2656 

2223 

2050 

2530 

2205 

2200 

2466 

2456 

1631 

17U8 

1626 

1703 

2163 

1586 

1829 

1857 

1995 

1589 

2218 

1818 

1846 

2389 

1883 

2558 

1843 

1800 

1998 

2515 

2058 

2243 

1962 

1701 

1991 

2443 

2443 

1709 

2641 

2032 

1825 

2675 

1974 

2151 

1972 

1757 

1628 

2235 

2659 

1998 

2243 

2682 

2064 

2516 

1633 

2075 

2073 



Vol. 3 Elliott Ev.— v 



Ixvi 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to Sections.'^ 



Ducktown Sulphur &e. Co. v. Barnes 

2537 

Duckwall V. Kistner 2263 

Duckworth v. Duckworth 2094 

Ducommun v. Hysinger 2027 

Dudding V. Hill 1733 

Dudley v. Polliett 3959 

V. Inhabitants 1944 

V. Kennedy 1595 

V. McCluer 2001 

V. Pigg 2074 

V. Thomas 1659, 1663 

V. Tilton 1962, 1970 

V. Wardner 2698 

Duff V. Baker 2574 

Duffey V. Rafferty 2041, 2056, 2057 

Duffield V. Robeson 2276, 2285, 2287 

Duffles V. Duffles 1642 

Duffy, In re 1816 

Duffy V. Hickey 1604 

V. Shockey 2000 

Dufresne v. Hutchinson 1597, 2667 

Dugan V. Sprague 1798 

V. St. Paul &c. R. Co. 2504 

Duggan V. Cole 2461 

Dugger V. McKesson 1852, 1856 

V. Oglesby 1951 

nuguid v. Oglivie 2577 

Duhammel v. Pickering 1725 

Duhme & Co. v. Young 2162 

Duke V. Cahawba &c. Co. 1932, 1943 

V. Duchess of Rutland 2218 

V. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 1987 

V. State 2577 

V. Taylor 1929, 1932 

V. Thompson 1707 

Duke of Brunswick v. Harmer 2454 

Duke of Leeds v. Amherst 2219 

Dukes V. Sprangler 1860 

Dulaney v. St. Louis &c. Co. 1974 

Dull V. Cleveland &c. R. Co. 2497, 2501 

Dullaghan v. Fitch 2000 

Dulles V. De Forest 2586 

Dumont v. Smith 1979 

Dunbar v. Port Royal &c. R. Co. 1907 

Dunbarton t. Franklin 2486 

Duncan, In re 1804 

Duncan v. Duncan 2044 

V. Gilbert 1831 

Y. Hartman 1625, 1627 

V. Hayes 2530 

T. Jackson 2067 

V. Keiffer 1728 

V. Landis 1802, 1813 

V. Lyons 1600 

V. Madara 1845 

v. Preferred &c. Asso. 2399, 2405, 

2408 

V. Spear, 2662, 2668 

V. Welty 2267, 2639 

DusaBas v. Lansing 2512 

Dunham v. Averill 2240 

V. Avery 2242 

V. Chatham 2089 

V. Gannett 1854 

V. Griswold 1596, 2173, 217!) 

V. Simmons 2005 

V. Townshend 2039, 2066 

Dunk V. Hunter 2606, 2607 

Dunkirk v. Wallace 1962 

Dunlap V. Griffith 1621 

V. Hawkins 2159 

V. Linton 2631 

V. New Zealand &c. Ins. Co. 2480 

V. Robinson 2693 

V. Stetson 1843 

Dunlop V. Avery 2309 

V. Ball 2577 

Dunn V. Body 1717 



Dunn V. Canton Nat. Bank 


1825. 


V. Hewitt 


1712, 2662 


V. Insurance Co, 


2134 


V. Johnson 


1613 


V. McAlpin 


1750- 



V. Miller 2057, 2058 

V. New Orleans Bldg. Co. 1933 

V. Snell 1707 

V. St. Andrew's Church 162» 

V. State 2624 

Dunnenbaum v. Schram 1746 

Dunning v. New Albany &c. R. Co. 1932 

Dunseth v. Wade 1916 

Dunton v. Keel 2065 

V. Parker 1847 

Dunworth v. Grand Trunk &c. R. 

Co. 2501, 2523 

Dupee V. Lentine 1702 

Dupont V. McAdow 1893 

V. Starring 1857 

Dupre V. Thompson 2053 

Dupuy V. Harris 1820 

Duran v. Standard &c. Ins. Co. 2403 

Durant v. Ashmore 2697, 2698 

V. Durant 2038 

V. Pratt 2074 

Durel V. Tennison 1620 

Durell V. Wendell 1597 

Dureu v. Getchell 1654, 1663 

Durfee v. Abbott 2270- 

V. MacNeil 2206 

V. Peoria &c. R. Co. 1579, 1580 

V. Seale 2580 

Durgin v. Ireland 1713 

Durham v. Durham 2492 

V. Shannon 1715, 2087, 2094 

V. Smith 2690 

Durkee v. Conklin 1839 

Durnford v. Messiter 1728 

Durr V. Howard 2181 

V. Jackson 1759, 2124 

Durrell v. Evans 1626 

Durst V. Swift 2000 

Duruty v. Musacchia 2257 

Duryea v. Rayner 262.^ 

v. Whitcomb 2551 

Dush V. Fitzhugh 1997 

Dussert v. Roe 2190 

Dutch W, India Co. v. Van Moses 1938 

Dutcher v. Hill 2279 

Dutchess County Mut. Ins. Co. v. 

Van Wagonen 1709 

Dutton V. Woodman 2549 

Duval V. Davey 2003 

V. Hunt 2015 

Duvall V. Waters 2673 
Dwelling House Ins. Co. v. Brewster 

23,58 

V. Johnson 2075 

Dwelly V. Dwelly 2032 

V. Central Vt. R. Co. 1589 

Dwight V. County Commissioners 2007 

V. Cutler 1735 

V. Germania L. Ins. Co. 2302 

Dwinal v. Smith 2124 

Dwinel V. Pottle 2565 

V. Stone 2553 

Dwinell v. Holt 2094 

Dwyer v. Dwyer 2032 

V. Insurance Co. 2322 

V. Testard 1741 

Dyer v. Britton 1959 

V. Day 2039 

V. Dyer 2282, 2686, 2690, 2692 

V. Eldridge 185T 

V. Great Northern R. Co. 1912 

V. Rosenthal 1745, 2319 

V. Sanford 1576 

V. ScalmaninI 1589, 1590 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ixvii 



IBeferences are to Sections.'i 



Dykers v. Allen 
Dyson v. Rowcroft 



1782 
2441 



¥ 



E. A. Moore Furniture Co. v. W. & 

J. Sloane 2629 

Eadie v. Summon 2170 

Eads T. Brazelton 1571, 1570 

Eagan v. iEtna F. Ins. Co. 2298 

V. Downing 2157 

Eager v. Atlas Ins. Co. 2303 

Eagle &c. Mfg. Co. t. Brunswicls 

Banlc 1618 

Eagle Works v. Cliurcliiil 1939 

Eagon V. Eagon 1643 

Eakin v. Brewer 2057 

V. Scott 2000 

Eales v. Francis 2610 

Eames v. Insurance Co. 2294, 2295, 

2311, 2312 

V. McGregor 2050 

V. Savage 1730 

Eames Vacuum Brake Co. v. Prosser 

1596, 1607 
2110, 2111 



Eanes v. State 
Earl V. Camp 

V. Croucli 

V. Spooner 
Earle, In re 
Earle v. Hale 

V. Norfolk &c. Co. 

V. Simons 
Early v. Standard &c. Ins. Co. 

Kamest v. Little Elver &c. Co. 
East End Oil Co. v. Pennsylvania 

Torpedo Co. 
East Greenwicti Sav. Inst. v. Ken- 
yon 
Fast London &c. Co. v. Bailey 
Past Omaha L^nd Co. v. Jeffries 
East St. Louis V. Millard 

V. O'Flynn 
East St. Louis R. Co. v. Allen 
East St. Louis &c. Co. v. People 
East Tennessee &c. R. Co. v. Bay- 
llss 

V. Davis 

V. Eanes 

V. Johnson 

V. Lindamood 

V. Maloy 
East Texas &c. Ins. Co. v. Dyehes 
Easter v. Easter 

V. Fleming 
Eastern Counties R. Co. v. Broom 
Eastern R. Co. v. Allen 
Bastes v. Bastes 
Eastiri V. Rucker 2039, 2043, 

V. Stockton Bank 
Eastis V. Montgomery 
Eastman v. AUard 



2120 
2505 
1763 
1808 
2073 
2170 
2053 
2414, 
2415 
2065 

2498 

2070 
1629 
1847 
2124 
2531 
2510 
2124 

2501 

1619 

2510 

1981 

250D 

2013 

2293 

2461 

2609 

2114 

163 8 

2036 

2062 

2483 

2692 

2235 

V. Clark 2551, 2553, 2558, 2570 

V. Cleaver 1843 

V. Cooper 2567 

v. Curtis 2024 

' V. Premo 2141 

Easton v. Pennsylvania &c. Co. 2000 

Eastwick v. Hugg 1729 

Eastwood v. Kennedy 2460 

V. Kenyon 1725, 2024 

Baton, In re 1816 

Eaton V. Atlas &c. Ins. Co. 2403 

V. Corson 1715 

V. Delaware &c. R. Co. 1898 

V. Baton 1589 

V. Jagues 1952 

V. Knowles 2576 



1715, 



1826, 



Baton V. Lynde 

V. Peavy 

V. Smith 

V. Walker 

V. Whitmore 
Bbel V. Pielil 
Bbersole v. Rankin 
Bbert v. Ebert 
Ebey' v. Adams 
Eby V. Bby 

V. Winters 
Ecclesiastical Coms. v. Merral 
Echerd v. Johnson 
Eckel V. Murphey 

V. Eenner 
Beker v. McAllister 
Eckerd v. Chicago &c. B. Co. 
Eckersley v. Mersey Docks &c. 
Eckert v. Trlplett 
Eckles V. Carter 
Ector V. Grant 
Eddie v. Eddie 
Eddy V. Gage 1618, 2044, 2055, 

V. Hawkeye Ins. Co. 

V. Herri n 

V. Kincaid 

V. Livingston 

V. Smith 
Eden v. Lingenfeiter 
Edgcombe v. Rodd 
Bdgell V. Francis 1642, 

Bdger v. Burke 2110, 2116, 

Bdgerly v. Emerson 1945, 

V. Farmers' Ins. Co. 
Edgerton v. McMullan 

V. New York &c. R. Co. 
Bdington v. Mutual &c. Ins. Co. 
Bdmond v. Edmond 
Edmund v. Cox 
Edmunds v. Downes 

V. Mister 
Edmundson v. Wilson 1654, 

Edson, In re 
Edson v. Hudson 

V. Merchants' Ins. Co. 

V. Weston 
Educational &c. Soc. v. Varney 
Edward v. Richards 
Edwards v. Baltimore Ins. Co. 

V. Beach 

v. Brown 

V. Buchanan 

V. Davis 

V. Edwards 1869, 

V. Entwisle 

V. Farebrother 

V. Handley 

V. Kansas City &c. Co. 

V. Knajjp 

V. Leavitt 

V. Lycoming &c. Ins. Co. 2325, 

V. Plaquemine Ice &e. Co. 

V. Smith 1850, 

V. State 

V. Tracy 2546, 2548, 2551, 

V. Warner 2142, 

V. Wessinger 

V. White Line Co. 
Edwick V. Hawkes 
Edwin V. Morrison 
Edy V. McCoy 
Eel River &c. Asso. v. Topp 
Bfner v. Shaw 
Bgan V. Grece 

V. Murray 2631, 2635, 2637, 

Egbers v. Egbers 



1662, 



266S 
1602' 
2039 
1035 
1843 
1706 
205O 
1654 
2206 
220ft 
2617 
1735 
184» 
1832 
2385 
2147 
1987 
1667 
208ft 
2625 
2201 
1609 
2057, 
2059 
2328 
2182 
2596 
1795 
1729 
2564. 
1597 
1648, 
2118, 
1947 
2345. 
1571 
1895. 
2376. 
2029. 
1668: 
2466. 
2264 
1665. 
1830, 
2621 
2347 
1789, 
1584 
2210. 
2325, 
2326. 
2004 
1951 
2551 
2689 
, 1893 
2154 
2071 
2176 
2003 
2456. 
1691 
2348 
2623 
1861 
2253 
2507 
2143 
1702 
17,89 
1699 
2432 
1734 
1934 
1664 
2088 
2643, 
2645 
2691 



Ixviii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to BecUons.l 



Rgbert v. Egbert 
• Egg V. Barnett 
Eggett V. Allen 
Egglestone v. Mason 
PJhle's Will 
Khlert t. State 
Ehrgott v. Mayor &c. 



1976, 1985, 



2153, 
1634, 



1617, 



Ehrich v. Buck! 
Eilbert t. Finkbelner 
Eicbar v. Kistler 
Eicbelberger t. Gross 
Blchenlaub v. St. Joseph 
Eiden v. Eiden 
Eidt V. Cutter 
Eller V. CruU 
Eisenberg v. Matthews 
Bisman v. Pondexter 
Elam T. Badger 
Elder v. Dyer 

V. McClaskey 

V. Morrison 
Eldrcd V. Bldred 
Eldridge v. Eldridge 

V. McDermott 

V. State 

V. Tibbetts 
Electric Co. v. Worden 
Electric Lighting Co. v. Bust 
Elfers V. Woolley 1692, 1695, 

Elgin &e. Banking Co. v. Self 
Eliot V. Eliot 

Elizabeth City Academy v. Lindsey 
I'jlizabethtown &c. E. Co. v. Pot- 

tinger 1981, 

Elkhart v. Ritter 

V. Wickwire 
Elkhart &c. Asso. v. Houghton 

2384, 
Elkins V. Susquehanna &c. Ins. Co. 
Elledge v. National City &c. R. Co. 
Eller V. Koehler 2526, 

Ellerbee v. Cleveland 
Ellery y. New England Ins. Co. 
Ellicott V. Ellicott 

V. Pearl 
Elling V. Kirkpatrlck 
Ellinger v. Crowl 2154, 

Elliot V. Stevens 
Elliott V. Allegheny &c. Light Co. 

V. Edwards 

V. Gower 

V. Gregory 

V. Moreland 

T. Russell 

v. Stock 

V. Stoddard 

V. Swartout 

V. Van Buren 



1694, 



1690, 1703, 
1991, 

Elliott &c. Co., In re 
Ellis V. Albany &c. Ins. Co. 2295, 

V. Bank 

V. Bitzer 

V. BlaCkerby 

V. Buzzell 

V. Carr 

V. Essex &c. Bridge 

V. Guggenheim 

y. Hampton 

v. Hopper 

V. Houstoun 

V. .Tameson 

V. Kenyon 

V. Prevost 

V. Valentine 1751, 

V. Watkin's Estate 

V. Welch 1958, 

y. Wlllard 



2277 
2577 
2473 
1639 
2209 
2273 
19.S9, 
1991 
2260 
1830 
2637 
2082 
1942 
1837 
2533 
2260 
1635 
2205 
2453 
2466 
1620 
2112 
2486 
2206 
2303 
2452 
2067 
1811 
2670 
1703 
1597 
2701 
1932 

1994 
1984 
2518 
2371, 
2428 
2300 
2520 
2533 
2622 
2431 
2202 
1618 
1750 
2157 
2570 
2497 
1730 
2250 
2251 
1830 
1695 
1628 
2149 
1730 
1976, 
2140 
1667 
2314 
1824 
1597 
1829 
2140 
2588 
2206 
1865 
2483 
1667 
2214 
2549 
2053 
2059 
2ir,(! 
171.') 
1!)-,;) 
191, t 



2556, 



2570, 



2422, 



Ellison V. Berstein 

V. Branstrator 

V. Bray 

V. Stuart 

V. . Weathers 
EUmaker v. Buckley 
Bllsassar v. Hunter 
Eilsler V. Brooks 
Ellsworth V. Thompson 
EUwood Mfg. Co. T. Betcher 1604, 
Elm City Club v. Howes 
Elmira &c. Co. v. Harris 
Elmsley v. Young 
Elofrson v. Lindsay 
Elsam V. Pawcett 
Elston V. Chicago 

V. Jasper 
Elton r. Brogden 
Eltringham v. Earhart 
Elwell V. Hinckley 

V. Universalist &c. Conv. 

V. Walker 
Elwick V. Butler 
Blwood V. Addison 

V. Diefendorf 

V. Lannon 2040, 

V. Saterlie 
Elwood &c. Co. V. Halting 
Elyton Co. v. Hood 
Elyton Land Co. v. M'EIrath 
Emanuel v. White 
Emberson v. McKenna 
Embree v. Shideler 
Embrey v. Owen 
Embry v. Devinney 
Emerjc v. Alvarado 
Emerson v. Bemis 

V. Blonden 

V. Cochran 

V. Detroit Steel Co. 

V. Emerson 

V. Gardiner 

V. Mills 

V. Opp 

V. Props, of Minot 

V. Thompson 

V. White 
Emery v. Boston &c. Ins. Co 

V. Fowler 

V. Gowen 

V. Harrison 

V. Hildreth 

V. Hobson 

V. Hoyt 

V. Mason 

V. Webster 
Emley v. Perrine 
Emmerson v. Heelis 
Emmett v. Lyne 

V. Norton 
Emory Man. Co. y. Rood 
Empire &c. Co. v. Bonanza &c. Co. 
Empire Trans. Co. v. Wamsutta Oil 

Co. 
Employers' &e. Co. v. Merrill 2398, 
Emry v. Raleigh &c. Co. 
Emslie v. Leavenworth 
Emulous. The 
Enders v. Beck 

V. Williams 
Eudick V. Endlck 
Endowment &c 
Endsley v. Johns 
Enesser v. Hndek 
England v. Fawbush 
Engle v. Burns 

V. Rped 
Englebert v. Troxell 



1829, 



2630, 2631, 



v. State 
2125, 2137, 



2041, 



1746 
1933 
1665 
2567 
1664 
1664 
2602 
1972 
1702 
1608 
1604 
2571 
2203 
2057 
2003 
2184 
2279 
2443 
1703 
1620 
2242 
2154 
2536 
2016 
2086 
2050 
1715 
2000 
1824 
1617 
1824 
2560 
2424 
1962 
]58(! 
269i) 
2154 
163H 
2480 
1744 
2033 
1607 
18411 
2157 
195il 
20SG 
2197 
2311 
1668 
2643 
2053 
2082 
172S 
2276 
1611 
1850 
1726 
1628 
2647 
2247 
1735 
1972 

250) 
230! I 
2501 
1604 

iriS'4 

1582 
2162 
2034 
2368 
21,3!l 
1611 
269B 
2072 
2044 
2270 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ixix 



IReferences are to flections.'] 



English V. Danville 1979 

V. Murray 2009 

Eno V. Christ 2651 

V. Crooke 1711 

Enquirer Co. v. Jonston 2434 

Ensign v. Batterson 2466 

Ensley Lumber Co. y. Lewis . 2666 

Ensminger v. Marvin 2541 

V. People 1847 

Enterprise Ins. Co. v. Parisot 2446 

Entsminger v. Jackson 2608, 2610 

Entwistle v. Peighner 2510 

V. Meikle 2689 

Episcopal Ch. Soc. v. Episcopal 

Ch. in Dedham 1639 

Eppendorf v. Brooklyn City &c. R. 

Co. 2505 

Eppens &c. Co. v. Littlejohn 2618, 2628 
Epperson v. Jones 2248 

Epping V. Mockler 1712 

Equitable Bldg. &c. Asso. v. Bidwell 1941 
Equitable Gas &c. Co. v. Baltimore 

&c. Co. 1948 

Equitable Ins. Co. v. McCrea 2298 

Equitable &c. Ins. Co. v. Osborn 2399, 

2406, 2408, 2409, 2414 

v. Patterson 23.S2 

Erd V. St. Paul 1944, 2513 

Erdall v. Atwood 2155 

Erdman v. Corse 1620 

Brhart v. Dietrich 2577, 2582 

Erfort V. Consalus 2134 

Krick V. Johnson 1639 

Brickson v. Kelly 1710 

V. Oakland First Nat. Bank 2075 

V. Sophy 2006 

Erie v. Magill 2515 

V. Schwingle 2515 

Erie Bank v. Smith 1766 

Erman v. Insurance Co. 2336 

Brmentrout v. Girard &c. Ins. Co. 2334 

Ernest M. Munn, The 2177 

Ernst V. Foster 2212 

Ernull V. Whitford 2190 

Erskine v. Hohnback 2120, 2503 

V. Whitehead 2236 

Erwin v. Commercial Bank 1741 

V. Down 2073 

V. English 2486, 2491 

V. ^Harris 2619 

V. Lowry 2460 

V. Rutherford 1597 

V. Shaffer 1830 

V. Springfield &c. Ins. Co. 2326 

Escherick v. Traver 2039 

Essex Co. V. Edmands 1843 

Esshom V. Watertown Hotel Co. 2612 

Essick V. Caple 2206 

Esson V. Tarbell 2604 

Estabrook v. Union &c. Ins. Co. 2395 

Estep V. Armstrong 2124 

Estes V. Antrobus 2451 

V. Chesney 1762, 1763 

V. Estes 2440 

V. Fry 2576 

v. Tower 1840 

Estill V. Fox 2025 

Bstlow V. Hanna 1736, 1744 

Bsty V. Clark 2204 

Etchepare v. Aguirre 2618 

Etheridge v. Binney 2550, 2570, 2571 

Etherington v. Prospect Park &c. 

R. Co. 1995 

Ettlinger v. Degnon-McLean &c. Co. 1735 
Euler V. Sullivan 2537, 2538 

Euliss V. McAdams 1850, 1856 



Eureka v. Armstrong 




1579 


Eureka Co. v. Baldwin 




2327 


V. Bass 




2501 


Eureka ITire Hose Co. v. Reynolds 


2629 


Eureka &c. Ins. Co. v. Purcell 


2432 


Eureka &c. Co. v. Way 




2059 


Eutaw &c. Church v. Shively 




2236 


Evangelical Assembly's Appeal 


2236 


Evans v. Adams Express Co. 




2501 


V. Arnold 




2689 


V. Bicknell 




2137 


V. Birch 




1601 


V. Board &c. 




2043 


V. Clapp 




1664 


V. Davis 




2595 


V. Elwood 


1695, 


1696 


V. Evans 2029, 


2032, 


2033 


V. Fitchburg R. Co. 




1920 


V. Gas Co. 




2533 


V. Green 




1852 


V. Hamilton 




2157 


V. Hooper 




2210 


V. Joplin 




1987 


V. Lee 


1932, 


1939 


V. Miller 




1857 


V. Powis 




1595 


V. Eees 




1668 


V. Stevens 




2023 


V. Stewart 




2010 


V. Southern Tpk. Co. 




1941 


V. Taylor 




1957 


V. Vaughan 




1958 


V. Walton 




2631 


v. Welch 




1615 


Evan's Estate 




2206 


Bvansville v. Miller 




2527 


Evansville &c. R. Co. v. Fitzpatrick 


2006 


V. Holcomb 




1987 


V. Keith 




1918 


V. Kevekordes 




1912 


V. Krapf 




2497 


V. Talbot 




2474 


V. Welch 




2497 


Eve V. Louis 




2153 


V. Rogers 


1883, 


1884 


Eveleth v. Blossom 




2604 


Evening Journal Asso. v. McDer- 




mott 




2452 


Evening Post Co. v. Hunter 




2452 


Bvenson v. Webster 




2039 


Everett v. Carr 




2236 


V. Hart 




1712 


V. Henderson 


2102, 


2111 


V. Tindall 




2025 


Everroad v. Flatrock Township 


2589 


Everts v. Dist. Tp. of Rose Grove 


1941 


Evertson v. Bvertson 




1714 


V. Miles 




2124 


Ewell V. State 




2197 


Rwen V. Chicago &c. R. Co. 




1990 


Ewers v. White 




2079 


Swing V. Burnet 


1617, 


1618 


V. Handley 




2067 


V. North Versailles Tp. 




2501 


V. Patterson 




2157 


V. Peck 




2578 


Exall V. Partridge 




1728 


Excelsior Fork Co. v. Lukens 




1736 


Excelsior Mfg. Co. v. Owens 




1840 


Excelsior &c. Co. v. Smith 




1972 


Exchange Bank v. Hubbard 




1640 
2070 


V. Monteath 




Extension Gold Min. &c. Co. v. Skin- 


ner 




1948 


Byre v. Dunsford 




2137 


V. Glover 




2309 



Ixx 



TA-BLE OF CASES. 



^References are to Sections.'^ 



F 



Faber v. Houghman 2629 

V. St. Paul &c. B. Co. 2504 

Fabri v. Phoenix Ins. Co. 2294 

Fadness T. Braunborg 2236 

Fagnan v. Knox 2483 

Fahey v. Grotty 1694, 2001, 2002 

Fahrney v. Holsinger 2206 

Fahy v. Brannagan 1589 

Fairbank v. Phelps 2663 

Fairbank Co. v. Nicolai 2535 
Fairbanks v. San Francisco &c. R. 

Co. 1924 

V. Sergent 1714 

V. Snow 2177 

V. Witter 1702 

Fairbury Agriculture Board v. Holly 

, 1577 

Fairchild v. Adams 1665 

T. Bascomb 2281, 251.7 

T. California Stage Co. 1991 

T. Dennison 1607 

T. North Eastern &c. Asso. 2420, 

2421 

V. Slocum 1907 
Fairfax v. New York Cent. &c. R. 

Co. 1784 

Fairfax &c. Co. v. Chambers 1604 

Fairfield Co. Tpk. Co. v. Thorp 1947 

Faison v. Alabama &c. R. Co. 1917 
Fajardo v. New York Cent. &c. R. 

Co. 2017 

Faick V. Marsh 2067 

Falconer v. Smith 1726 

Fales V. Wadsworth 1838 

Falk V. Fletcher 1798 

Falkner v. Hunt ' 2551 

Fall River Nat. Bank v. Buffinton 2071 

Falloon v. Simshauset 2055 

Fails V. Cairo 2184 

Falmouth v. Thomas 1605 

Famous Shoe Co. v. Crosswhite 1824, 

1828 
Faneuil Hall Ins. Co. v. Liverpool 

Ins. Co. 1983 

Fankboner v. Corder 2264 

Fanning v. tent 2085 

V. Russell 2154 

Fargo v. Reighard 1664 

Fargusson v. Winslow 23 75 

Farias v. De Lizardi 1731 

Faris v. Hoberg 2496, 2499, 2501 

Farley v. Farley 2687 

v. Gate City &c. Co. 2531, 2535 

V. Lincoln 2613 

Farlow V. Kemp 1724 

Farman v. Lauman 2115 

Farmer v. Calvert 2124, 2136 

V. Walter 2179 
Farmers' and Drovers' Bank v. Wil- 
liamson 1930, 1935 
Farmers' Bank v. Gallagher 1932 

V. Smith 2543 

Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Butler 2308 

V. Frick 2338, 2358 

Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co. v. Taylor 1639 

Farmers' Phosphate Co. v. Gill 2624 

Farmers' Sav. Bank V. Hansmann 1826 

Farmers' Trust Co. v. Schenult 1832 

Farmers' &c. Bank v. Bronson 2064 

V. Butchers' &c. Bank 2070 

V. Champlain Trans. Co. 1910, 1918 

V. Farmers' Bank 1639 

Farmers' &c. Ins. Co. v. Knight 2424 

V. Peterson 2293, 2306 

Parnham v. Camden &c. R. Co. 1916 

V. Famham 2034 



Farnsworth v. Briggs 2082 

Farnum v. Bryant 2227 

V. Phoenix Ins. Co. 2298, 2299, 2300 

Farr v. Flood 2204 

V. Rasco 2452 

V. State Bank 2672 

V. Woolfolk 1837 

Farrand v. Aldrich 2454 

V. Beshoar 2259 

Farrant v. Thompson 2663 

Farrar v. Ayres 2217 

V. Cooper 1571, 1579 

V. Fessenden 2057 

V. Oilman 1827 

Farrell v. iEtua Ins. Co. 2345 

V. Brennan 2277 

V. Farmers' &c. Ins. Co. 2332 

V. Richmond &c. R. Co. 2628 

Farrington v. Harrison 1610 

Farris v. Houston 2073 

Farrow v. Nashville &c. R. 2025 

Farweil v. Hanchett 2613 

Fassett v. Mulock 1714 

Faulcon v. Johnston 1620 

Faulkner v. National Sailors' Home 

2238, 2242 

Faunce v. Gray 2086 

Faust V. Hosford 2461, 2463 

Faw V. Davy 1664 

V. Whittington 1576 

Fawcett v. Osborn 2553 

V. Powell 1828 

Pay V. Gant 2624 

V. Oatley 2183 

V. Parker 1703 

V. Prentice 2535 

V. Reynolds 2140 

V. Whitman 2533 

Fayette Ins. Co. v. Fuller 2422 

Feagin v. Jones 2050 

Ifearn Will, In re 2242 

Fearnley v. Morley 1730 

Fedens v. Schumers 2577 

Feder v. Abrahams 2610 

V. Iowa &c. Asso. 2399, 2415 

Federal L. Asso. v. Smith 2373 

Fee V. Cowdry 2067 

Fehlig V. Busch 21,54 

Feiertag v. Feiertag 1722 

Feigley v. Whitaker 2573 

Fein v. Covenant &c. Asso. 2390 

Feirbaugh v. Masterson 2057 

Feize v. Thompson 1972 

Feldstein. In re 1800, 1807, 1816 

Felkner v. Scarlet 2643 

Fell V. H, Fell Poultry Co. 2577 

V. Young 21S6 

Feller v. Gates 2591 

Peltham v. Terry 1729 

Feltham's Trusts, In re 2219 

Felton V. Dickinson 1717 

Pellowes V. Hutchinson 2473 

Fellows V. Fellows 1620 

V. Hartford &c. Co. 1641 

V. Miner 2243 

V. Smith 21-58 

V. Wise 2040, 2050 

Fender v. Rogers 1735 

Fendersou v. Atlantic City S. Co. 

,;, , „ 2498, 2519 

Penelon v. Butts 1991, 1999. 

„ , ^ 2109, 2115, 2483 

Fenkhausen v. Fellows 2628 

Fenn v. Early i602 

V. Holmes 2063 

V. New Orleans &c. Ins. Co. 2309 

Fenner v. Lewis 1633 

Fenton, Matter of 2690 2692 



TABLE OP CASES. 



Ixxi 



IBeferences are to Sections.^ 



Fenwick v. Floyd 

V. Phillips 

V. Schmalz 

V. Tliornton 
Ferguson, In re 
Ferguson v. Amow 

v. Davidson 

V. Davis 

V. Davis County 

V. Day 

V. Glidewell 

V. Hill 

V. Landram 

V. Moore 

V. Stafford 



2052 
1596 
2399 
2086 
1813 
2470 

1606, 1607 
1831 
1991 

2608, 2609 
1755 
1843 
2073 
2615 

2007, 2677 



Fernandez v. Great Western Ins. Co. 

2442 
Ferrell v. Alder 1959 

V. State 2485 

Ferren v. Old Colony &c. E. Co. 2501 
Ferrer v. Oven 1657, 1658 

Ferrers v. Costello 1725 

Ferrie v. Public Administrator 2487, 

2488 

Ferris, In re 1816 

Ferris v. Brown 2654, 2656 

V. Coover 1853 

V. McQueen 2122, 2136 

Fesenmayer v. Adcock 1607 

Fessler v. Love 1981 

Fetherly v. Waggoner 1951 

Fetrow v. Wiseman 2264 

Fetter v. Beale 1701, 1703 

Fick V. MulhoUand 2150 

Fidelity &c. Co. v. Alpert 2293 

V. Chambers 2407, 2408, 2409 

V. Johnson 2399, 2414 

V. Lowenstein 2414 

V. Vitale 2421, 2426 

V. Weise 2325, 2391 

V. Weitzel 1612 

Fidelity &c. Asso. v. Ficklin 2388, 2390 

V. Jeffords 2378 

V. Miller 2378, 2391 

Fidelity Mut. L. Asso. v. Mettler 2008, 

2009 

Fider v. Mannheim 1821 

Fidler v. Hershey 2023 

V. McKinley 1872 

Field V. Adreon 1743 

V. Apple Eiver Log Driving Co. 2651, 

2652 

V. Brown 1600 

V. Campbell 2248, 2259 

V. Davis 2506 

V. Drew &c. Seminary 2236 

V. Early , 2205 

V. Insurance Co. &c. 2432, 2435, 2439 

V. Knapp 1604, 1605, 1607 

V. Munster 2005 

V. Noblett 2248, 2250 

V. Tenney 2546 

Fields V. State 2290 

V. Williams 2005, 26.60 

Fierce v. Houghton 1957 

Fifleld V. Gaston 2151 

Filber v. Dautermann 2448 

Filer, In re 1800, 1810 

Filer v. Peebles 2583 

V. Smith 2110, 2111, 2118, 2119 

Fillebrown v. Grand Trunk R. Co. 1916 

Finance Co. v. Josephson 1715 

Finch V. Alston 2648 

V. Armstrong 1741, 1744 

V. Brian 2649 

V. Finch 2452, 2457 

V. Ullman 2050 



Findlay v. Keim 

Findley v. Hill 

Flue V. St. Louis Pub. Schools 

Finegan v. Theisen 

Fink V. Fink 

Finkelstein v. Bernett 

Finken v. Elm City Brass Co. 

Finley v. Widner 

Finn v. Finn 

v. Western E. Corp. 
Pinnegan v. Noerenberg 
Finnell v. Bohannon 
Finney v. Smith 



1590 

2206 

1571 

2148 

2244 

1877 

1978 

2456, 2457 

2032 

1792 

1930, 1935 

1690, 1699 

1982 

Finwell V. Southern &c. R. Co. 2460 

Fire Asso. &c. v. Smith 2311 

Fire Ins. Asso. v. Wickham 1596, 

1598, 1599 

Firemen's Ins. Co. v. Barnsch 2303 

V. Congregation &c. 2332 

v. Holt 2327 

V. Kuessner 2295, 2311 

Firestone v. Eice 2107, 2118 

V. Werner 2148 

Firkins v. Chicago &e. E. Co. 2510 

First V. Miller 2595 

First Baptist Church v. Schenectady 

Co. 2114 

First Cong. Society v. Atwater 2235 

First Nat. Bank v. Ballou 2468, 2585 

V. Bryan 2179 

V. Carpenter 2567 

V. Clark 1839 

V. Conway 2565 

V. Dickson 26T2 

V. Dovetail &c. Co 1948 

V. Graham 1767, 1775, 1784, 

1786, 1795, 1796 

V. Hamor 2027 

V. Hughes 2609 

V. Ins. Co. &c. 2389 

V. Kidd 1937 

V. Kimberland 1592 

V. Loyhed 1937 

V. Newton 2570 

V. Eagsdale 2609 

V. Eoberts 1709 

V. Sanford 2140 

V. Smith 2158 

V. Spear 1826 

V. Swan 2158 

V. Union Nat. 1840 

V. Watkins 2184 

V. Western U. Tel. Co. 1962 

V. Wlrebach 2277 

First Parish &c. v. Smith 2057 

Firth V. Veeder 2651 

Fischer v. Eslaman 2039 

V. Fischer 2029 

V. Langbeln 2109 

Fish V. Basche 1609 

V. Blasser 2067 

v. Dodge 2006, 2537 

V. Illinois Cent. E. Co. 2013, 2017 

Fishback r. Joestlng 2206 

V. .Miller 2622 

V. Woodford 1839 

Fishblate Clothing Co., In re 1811 

Fisher v. Beckwith 1839 

V. Bishop 2179 

V. Bowles 2568 

V. Bridges 1698 

V. Cambridge 2501 

V. Conway 2659 

V. Dowling 1854, 1972 

V. Fallows 1729 

V. Fidelity &c. Ins. Co. 2387, 2390, 

2392 



Ixxii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to flections.'i 



Fisher v. Forrester 






2117 


V. George S. Jones 


Co. 


1598, 


2576, 
2672 


V. Goebel 






1981 


V. Jewett 






1588 


■V. Kaufman 






18-06 


V. Leland 






1842 


V. McGirr 




2102 


2121 


V. Patterson 






2003 


V. Pimbley 




.1665 


1666 


V. Shattuck 




2170 


2181 


V. Shelver 






2161 


T. State 






2278 


V. Sweet 






2552 


V. Willard 






1639 


Fisk T. Atkinson 






1590 


V. Briggs 






2067 


V. Gray 






2000 


V. McNeal 






1843 


Fiske T. Small 






2650 


Fitch V. American &c. 


Co. 




2378 


V. Harrington 






2558 


V. Leitch 






1607 


V. Porter 






2027 


v. Steam Mill Co. 






1629 


■ v. Waite 






1748 


V. Woodruff &c. Iron Works 


2351 


Fitchard, In re 






1816 


Fitchburg R. Co. v. Donnelly 


1978 


Fite v. Beasley 






2235 


Fitger v. Archibald Guthrie 


& Co. 


1714 


Fitts V. Cream City R. 


Co. 




2509 


Fitzgerald v. Allen 






1717 


V. Brennan 






1849 


T. Cavin 




1689 


1701 


V. First Nat. Bank 






1607 


V. Fitzgerald 






1698 


V. Weston 




2013, 


2510 


Fitzgibbon v: Brown 




2478 


2483 


Fitzhugh T. Croghan 






1956 


Fitzpatrick v. Boston &c. R. 


Co. 


1577 


V. Brigman 






2657 


V. Daily &c. Pub. Co. 




2451 


V. Harris 






1603 


v. Hartford &c. Ins. 


Co. 




2384 


Fitzwilliam v. Troy 






2266 


Fixen, In re 


1804, 


1807, 


1808 


Fkumoto V. Marsh 






2111 


Flach T. Gottschalk Co 






2279 


Flack v. Neill 






1982 


Flagg V. Roberts 






2457 


Flaherty v. Moran 






2529 


V. Northern Pac. R. 


Co. 




1903 


Flanagan y. Baltimore 


&c. R. Co. 


1988 


V. Womack 






1702 


Flanders v. Davis 






2067 


V. Tweed 






1982 


Flannery v. Hightower 






1616 


V. Sahagian 






1665 


V. Van Tassel 






1715 


Flanniken v. Lee 




2061, 


2062 


Fleece v. O'Rear 






2588 


Fleek v. Zillhaver 






2256 


Fleet V. Perrins 






2249 


Fleetford t. Barnett 






1889 


Fleischman v. Glaser 






2611 


Fleischner v. Knbli 




1606, 


1607 


Fleming v. Beck 






1981 


T. Carter 






2039 


V. Chicago &c. K. Co 






2006 


V. Dorst 






1741 


V. Emory 






2577 


V. Fleming 






2223 


V. Insurance Co. 






2439 


V. Lockhaven 






2515 


V. People 






2486 


v. Pittsburgh &c. R 


Co. 


1902, 


249S 


V. Stiefel 




1709, 


1710 


Fleming's Exr's v. McLaln 




1727 



Fleshman v. Collier 




2549 


Fletcher v. Arkansas Nat. Bank 


1838 


T. Bank of Lonoke 




1931 


V. Bealey 




2530 


V. Blodgett 




1832 


T. Brown 




2067 


V. Chicago &c. R. Co. 


1933 


2483 


V. Dyche 




2000 


V. Fuller 


1618, 


1620 


V. German-American Ins. 


Co. 


2326 


V. Holmes 


2194, 


2205 


V. Ingles 




2445 


V. Ingram 




1777 


V. Jacob Dold Packing Co 




2628 


V. Manning 




2577 


T. New York &c. Ins. Co. 


2421 


V. Perry 


2039, 


2057 


V. Pullen 2547, 2557, 


2558, 


2559 


V. Rylands 


1689, 


2537 


T. Sovereign Camp &c. 




2393 


V. Tayleur 1979, 


1981, 


1994 


V. Webster 




1655 


V. Woodmen &c. 




2390 


Fletcher's Adm. v. Sanders 


2082, 


2100 


Flewellen v. Crane 




2124 


Flickinger v. Wagner 




2472 


Flint V. Bruce 


1692, 


1701 


V. Clinton Co. 




1630 


Flint &c. Co. V. Kerr-Murray &c. 




Co. 




1940 


Flint &c. R. Co. v. Marine Ins. Co. 


2439, 






2445 


Floersheim v. Vosburgh 




2467 


Florence &c. Asso. v. Schall 


2039, 


2050 


Florey v. Florey 




2280 


Florida &c. R. Co. v. Burt, 


2039, 


2041, 




2059, 


2064 


V. Loring 


2039, 


2064 


Fiournoy v. Flournoy 




1583 


V. Lyon 




1982 


Flower v. Adam 




2539 


Flowers v. Haralson 




2197 


Floyd V. Hamilton 




1761 


V. Miller 




2572 


V. State 2104, 2106, 


2116, 


2120 


Fluke V. Martin 




1604 


Flynn v. Bourneuf 




1951 


V. Merchants' &c. Ins. Co 




2301 


v. Messenger 




2247 


V. Sparks 




1845 


V. St. Louis &c. R. Co. 




1917 


Flynt V. Chicago &c. R. Co. 


1974, 


2660 


Foakes v. Beer 




1596 


Foellinger v. Leh 




1641 


Fogg v. Blair 




2124 


Folb v. Phoenix Ins. Co. 




2293 


Foley V. Cowgill 




1843 


V. Felrath 




2621 


V. Greene 2170, 


2178, 


2183 


V. McKeegan 




2000 


Folger V. Chase 




1838 


Folks V. Folks 




2606 


Pollansbee v. Adams 




2629 


V. Parker 




1607 


Follis V. United States &c. Asso. 


2405, 


2406, 2407, 


2408, 


2409 


Folmar v. Folmar 




2034 


Folsom V. Brawn 




2140 


V. Merchants' Ins. Co. 




2444 


V. Teichner 


1737 


1741 


V. Dnderhill 




1987 


Foltier v. Schroeder 




1820 


Foltz v. Kerlin 




2597 


V. Stevens 




17S9 


V. Wert 




2266 


Folwell V. Providence &c. Co 




2003 


Folz v. Wagner 1865, 


1875 


1876 


Font V. McConnell 




2044 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ixxiii 



IBeferences are to Sections.'] 



Fontain v. Ravenel 




2245 


Foster v. Beals 






1714 


Foots V. liEwson 1654, 


1655, 


1656 


V. 


Boston 






2513 


Foot V. Card 


1642, 


1652 


V. 


Brooks 






2289 


V. Great Northern R. Co 




2019 


V. 


Chamberlain 






2662 


V. Phoenix Ins. Co. 




2389 


V. 


Clifford 




1826, 


1839 


Foote V. Burnet 




1956 


V. 


Cronkhite 






2146 


V. Malony 


1972, 


2000 


V. 


Dickerson 






2692 


V. Silsby 




1611 


V. 


Dugan 






2065 


Forbes v. American &c. Ins. 


Co. 


2381 


V. 


Elliott 


1962, 


1972, 


1974 


V. Darling 


2227, 


2231 


V. 


Evans 






2039 


V. Garfield 




2573 


V. 


Fidelity &c. Co. 


2325, 


2340 


V. McCoy 




2072 


V. 


Fifield 






2564 


V. Waller 




2146 


V. 


Foster 






1589 


T. Wheeler 




1603 


V. 


Furlong 






1843 


Forbing v. Weber 


2697, 


2698 


V. 


Goodwin 






1752: 


Ford V. Anderson 




2408 


T. 


Gordon 






2663 


V. Angelrodt 




1839 


V. 


Hall 






2151 


T. Beech 




1597 


V. 


Hanchett 




1865, 


1882 


V. Chambers 




2130 


V. 


Kansas 






2597 


V. Chicago R. Co. 




1847 


V. 


Mansfield 






1951 


V. Cunningham 




2564 


T. 


Mora 






2063 


V. Dyer 




2602 


V. 


Napier 






1589 


T. Ford 


2197, 


2235 


V. 


Newland 






2071 


V. Griffin 




2667 


V. 


Persch 






2627 


V. Jones 


1659, 


1702 


V. 


Pitts 






1748 


V. McMaster 




2602 


V. 


Pugh 






2163 


V. Simmons 




1785 


V. 


Scoffleld 






2640 


V. State 




2276 


V. 


Starkey 




2466, 


2467 


V. Teagle 




2698 


V. 


Stewart 






1725 


V. United States &c. Co. 




2403 


V. 


Tucker 






1724 


V. Van Dylse 




2026 


T. 


Walker 






2585 


V. Williams 




1640 


V. 


White Cloud &c. Co. 




1941 


T. Wilson 




1618 


Foster Woolen Co. v 


Wollman 


1709 


Fore V. Western &c. R. Co. 




2659 


Fouche v. Merchants' Nat. Bank 


1931 


Foreman v. Burnette 




1709 


Fourchy v. Bayly 






2119 


V. Presbyterian Asso. 




1847 


Fouck T. Wilson 






1627 


Forest Glen &c. Co. v. Gade 




1933 


Foulke V. Bond 






1618 


Formwalt v. Hylton 




2109 


Fountain v. Brown 






2282 


Forrow v. Arnold 




2102 


V. 


West 






2457 


Forsdick v. Colins 




2666 


Fourth Nat. Bank v 


. Altheimer 


2554 


Forse v. Supreme Lodge &c. 


2293, 


2421, 


V. 


Olney 






1944 






2423 


Fousl 


V. Ross 






2065 


Forsyth t. Clark 




2124 


Font 


v. GIraldin 






2184 


■ V. Ganson 




2087 


Fova 


V. Foval 






2033 


V. Walker 




17S7 


Fowke V. Bowie 






2586 


T. Wells 




2003 


Fowle V. Child 






2143 


Fort V. Allen 




1651 


V. 


Kirkland 






1600 


V. Battle 




1667 


V. 


Raleigh 






2623 


V. Burch 




1715 


V. 


Ward 






1798 


V. Groves 




2531 


Fowler, In re 






1805 


V. OrndofE 




2124 


Fowler v. iBtna &c. 


Ins. Co. 




2002 


V. Wells 




2667 


V. 


Austin 






1720 


Ft. Dearborn Lodge v. Klein 


2650, 


2651, 


T. 


Bebee 






2588 






2655 


T. 


Buffalo Furnace Co. 




2017 


Ft. Scott V. Hickman, 




2466 


V. 


Byrd 




1581, 


1590 


Ft. Scott Bank v. Elliott 




1830 


V. 


Coster 




1964, 


1905 


Ft. Wayne v. Coombs 




2539 


V. 


Down 




2650, 


2661 


V. Patterson 




2513 


V. 


Halbert 






2067 


Ft. Wayne &c. R. Co. v. Woodward 


1571 


V. 


Joslyn 


2463, 


2467, 


2469 


Fort Worth Pub. Co. y. Hitson 


1947 


V. 


New York &c. 


Ins. Co. 




2307 


Ft. Worth &c. B. Co. v. Greathouse 


1919 


V. 


Poling 






1958 


Forth V. Pursley 




2663 


V. 


Whiteman 






2058 


Fortune v. Jones 




1701 


Fox's 


Appeal 






2467 


V. Killebrew 




1658 


Fox' 


Case 




1943, 


1945 


Forward r. Continental Ins. 


Co. 


2298 


Fox V. Fox 




2029, 


2032 


Fosbinder v. Svitak 




1699 


V. 


Harding 




1994, 


2351 


Fosdick V. Hempstead 




2235 


V. 


Smith 






2474 


V. Van Horn 2561 


2570 


2571 


V. 


Stevens 




2634, 


2639 


Fosgate v. Harkimer &c. Co. 


2009, 


2197. 


T. 


Wabash &c. R 


Co. 




1905 






2109 


T. 


Wray 






1974 


Foshay v. Ferguson 2181, 


2182, 
2184 


2183, 


Fox 


River Mfg. Co. 


V. Reeves 


2020 




2472 


Fox Will Case 






2244 


Foss T. Hildreth 




2176 


Foy T. Blackstone 






1826 


Foss-Schneider Brewing Co. 


V. Mc- 




Foye 


V. Patch 






1591 


Laughlin i 


1633 


1635 


Fraim v. Milllson 






2090 


Foster's Appeal 
Foster v. Allanson 




2698 


Frank v. Block 






2000 


1600 


1605 


V. 


Myers 






1709 


V. Bates 




2082 


V. 


New York &c. 


K. Co. 




1932 



Ixxiv 



TABLE OP CASES. 



IBeferences are to Sections.l 



IFranklin v. Armfield 

T. Dorland 

V. Franklin 

V. McCorkle 

V. National Ins. Co. 

V. Palmer 

V. Philadelphia 

v. Twogood 
LFranklin Bank v. Cooper 
IFranklin Fire Ins. Co. v. 

V. Chicago Ice Co. 
Coats 



2235 
1853 
2206 
2630, 2640 
2293 
2039 
2235 
1710 
2148 
Bradford 1639 
2307 
2358 



IFranklin Nat. Bank v. Whitehead 2071 

Franklin Syndicate, In re 1806, 1808 

Franklin &c. Co. v. Behrens 1979, 1980 

Franklin &c. Ins. Co. t. Hazzard, 2371, 

2379, 2385 

V. Martin 2420 

V. UpdegratE 2335, 2336 

IFrankboner v. Corder 1585 

Franchot v. Leach 2123 

Francis v. Deming 1595 

V. Flurd 2179 

iFrantz v. Harrow 2205 

IFraser v. iBtna &c. Ins. Co, 2359 

V. Berkeley 1697, 1702 

V. Hext 2124 

V. Jennison 2288, 2291 

^Fraternal &c. Ins. Co. v. Applegate 2376 

•Fratini v. Caslini 1642, 1646, 1648, 

1649, 1650, 1651, 1653 



■Fratt V. Woodward 




1854 


Fraunce's Case 




1958 


Frazer v. Gregg 




1733 


Frazier v. Brown 




2529 


T. Lynch 




2062 


V. Turner 


2109 


2119 


Frear t. Evertson 




1715 


Preas v. Truitt 




1607 


Freeh v. Philadelphia 




2496 


iFredenburg v. Lyon &c. Church 


1932 


/Frederick v. Gilbert 




1690 


V. Lookup 




2025 


Fremont v. Merced Min. Co. 




1583 


Free v. Fine 




1623 


.Freedom t. Norris 1571, 


1577 


2039 


Freeland r. Cocke 




1611 


V. Heron 




1609 


V. Williams 




1821 


Freelove v. Gould 




2004 


Freeman, In re 




1596 


Freeman v. Bellegarde 




1848 


V. Bloomfield 




2543 


V. Bolzell 




1608 


V. Cooke 2069, 2070 


2071 


2075 


V. Dempsey 




1979 


V. Foster 




1957 


V. Fulton &c. Ins. Co. 




2308, 




2310 


2371 


V. Knight 




2205 


V. Leighton 




1847 


V. liOftiS 




2216 


V. Mercantile &c. Asso. 




2412, 



2414, 2415 
V. Newton 1905 

V. Parsley 2207 

T. People 2281 

V. Travelers' Ins. Co. 2293, 2372, 
2391, 2401, 2404, 2405, 2407 
Freeman's Bank v. National Tube 

Works 1827 

Freese v. Brownell 1824, 1835, 1840 

Freestone t. Butcher 1632 

Freiberg v. Mofflt 1596 

Fremont Cultivator Co. v. McCamy 2626 
Fremont Foundry &c. Co. v. Norton 1596 
French v. Bancroft 2104 

V. Barron 2558 



French v. Bent 1974 

T. Braintree &c. Co. 1579 

V. Buffalo &c. E. Co. 1916 

T. Frazier 2009 

V. Holmes 2154 

T. Hope Ins. Co. 2309 

V. Marstin 1699 

V. Mutual &c. Asso. 2378 

T. New 1664, 1665 

T. Pearce 1619 

T. Quincy 2235 

V. Richardson 1665 

T. Eyan 2141 

T. Sale 1751 

V. Shoemaker 2170, 2174 
V. Smith 2118, 2473, 2474 

V. State 2280, 2281 

V. Talbot Pav. Co. 1834 

T. Vining 2148 

V. Wade 1636 

V. Ware 1698 

V. Watson 2451 

Frenzel v. Miller 1994 

Fresh t. Cutter 2448 
Fresno Canal &c. Co. v. Warner 1937, 

1940 

Frets V. Frets 1666 

Frick V. Algeier 1594, 2578 

V. Barbour 2562, 2566 

V. Kabaker 2671 

' V. Reynolds 1715 

T. Sinon 1620 

Pried v. Eoyal Ins. Co. 2295 

Friedlander v. Pollock 1739 

V. Texas &c. E. 1632 

Friedman v. Pulitzer Pub. Co. 2457 

Friend v. Dunks 1921 

v. Estabrook . 1951 

V. Friend 1845 

V. United States 1969 

Friermuth v. McKee 1592 

Frierson v. Brenham 2429 

Frink v. Bellis 1957 

V. Coe 2512 

V. Potter 1907 

V. Roe 2050 

V. Schroyer 1988 

Frisbee v. Marshall 2650 

Frisby v. Marshall 2511 

Fritz V. Thomas 2086 

V. Western Un. Tel. Co. 2019 

Froelicher v. Oswald Iron Co. 2524 

Frost V. Angler 1850 

V. Bengough 2463 

V. Berkeley Phosphate Co. 2528, 

2532, 2536 

V. Clark 1607 

V. Holland 2475 

V. Johnson 1595 

V. Eosecrans 2146 

V. Spaulding 1845, 1850, 1855 

V. Vought 1879 

Frothingham v. Haley 1639 

Frowman v. Smith 2470, 2475 

Fruits V. Elmore 2607, 2608, 2610, 2612 

Fry V. Bennett 2454 

v. Dubuque &c. R. Co. 1991 

y. Hillan 1987, 1988 

V. Leslie 2634, 2637 

V. Stowers 1851, 1858 

v. Tllton 2625 

Fryer v. Gathereole 2454 

Fulkerson v. Eads 1974 

V. Holmes 2196, 2198 

V. Long 2582 

Fullam V. Stearns 1962, 1972 

Pullenwlder v. Roberts 2151, 2163 

Fuller V. Boston &c. R. Co. 1901 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ixxv 



IBeferences are to Sections.1 



Fuller V. Bowker 

V. Bradley 

T. Brewster 

V. Brown 

V. BrowneU 

T. Citizens' Nat. Bank 

v. Dauphin 

T. Dean 

V. Duren 

V. Fuller 

T. Green 

V. Hodgdon 

T. Hutchings 

T. Kemp 

V. Kent 

T. Linzee 

V. Naugatuck E. Co. 

V. Roberts 

V. Rounceville 

V. Sazton 

V. Worth 
FuUerton v. Fordyce 

V. Hill 

T. Warrick 
FuUman v. Stearns 
Pulmer v. Williams 
jFulsome v. Concord 
Fulton V. Andrew 

V. Fulton 

V. Staats 
Fulton Bank v. Sargent 
Fulton Ins. Co. v. Milner 
Funck v. Haskell 
Funk, In re 
Funk V. Amor 

V. Beverly 

V. Creswell 

V. Voneida 
Funkhouser v. Lay 

V. Wagner 
Furber v. Carter 
Furbush v. Goodwin 
Furenes v. Severtson 
Furlong v. Folleys 
Furman v. Van Sise 
Furnas v. Durgin 
Furnell v. St. Paul 
Furniss t. Mutual &c. Ins. 
Furr V. Speed 
Fye V. Chapin 
Fyffer v. Beers 

G 



1978 
1910 

2151, 2163 
1733 
2609 
2496 
1847 
2003 
1717 

1596, 2691 
1825 
2138 
1826 
1596 
2385 
2209 
2505 
2177 

2103, 2654 
2196 

1617, 1856 
1991 

1830, 1843 
1702 
1970 
1847 
1991 
2693 
2035 
2110 
1828 
2303 
2552 
1810 
2477 
2457 
1956 
1957 
2127 

1784, 1785 
2546 
1713 
2206 
1979 

2630, 2632 
1959 
2513 
Co. 2377 
2451 
1976 
1571 



2685, 



1658, 



■Gabe t. McGinnis 
Gable v. Ranch 
Gadbury v. Ohio &c. Co. 
Gadge, Goods of 
-Gadsden v. Desportes 
Gaertner v. Bues 
"Gaff V. Harding 
Gaffney v. Hoyt 

T. Tammany 
Gaffy V. Hartford &c. Co. 
Gage V. Chesebro 

T. Downey 

T. Eddy 

T. Gage 1628, 2057, 2227, 

2232, 
Gaidry v. Lyons 
Galley, In re 

Gaines v. Bank of Miss. 1929, 

1935, 

V. Kennedy 

V. New Orleans 

T. Patterson 

T. Union &c. Co. 



2451 
2687 
1578 
2700 
2067 
2603 
2610 
2560 
1705 
1659 
2155 
1619 
2057 
2229, 
2697 
2134 
1716 
1934, 
2075 
2067 
2196 
1715 
1916 



Gaithers v. Blowers 1698, 1702, 1990, 

1997 

Galbraith t. Arlington &c. Ins. Co. 2389 

T. Fleming 1694 

V. Lumsford 2070 

Gale V. Capern 1588 

V. Drake 1602 

V. Gale 2662 

V. Mutual Aid Asso. 2412 

Galena Ins. Co. v. Kupfer 1840 

Galena &c. R. Co. v. Fay 1901 

T. Rae 1915 

V. Yarwood 1902 

Galigher v. Jones 1798 

Gall V. Fryberger 2603 

Gallagher v. Black 1839 

Gallego V. Attorney-General 2237, 2245 

Galligan v. Groten 1746 

Gallimore v. Ammerman 2108 

Galloway v. Stewart 2476 

Gallreath v. Knoxville 2461 

Gallup V. Fox 2621 

V. Wright 2214, 2220 

Galsworthy t. Strutt 2000 

Gait, In re 1769 

Gait v. Galloway 1641 

Galveston &c. t. Hartz 1849 

Galveston Ins. Co. v. Long 2328 

Galveston &c. R. Co. y. Bonnett 2016 

v. Borsky 2005 

V. Clark 1991 

V. Conteras 2019 

V. Cooper 1984 

V. Davis 2015 

V. Evansich 2506 

V. Ford 2017, 2520 



v. Harris 

V. Long 
Galvln V. Bacon 

V. Button 

V. Palmer 
Gam V. Cordrey 
Gamble v. Accident Ins. 

V. Horr 
Gambling v. Prince 



Co. 



Gambs v. Covenant &c. Ins. Co. 



Gammell v. Ernst 
Gammon v. Howe 
Gamsby v. Ray 
Gandy v. Jolly 
Gangwere's Estate, In re 
Ganiard v. Rochester &c. R. 

Gannaway v. Tarpley 
Gannon v. Peterson 
Gano V. Aldrige 
Ganong v. Green 
Gans V. St. Paul Ins. Co. 



2017 
1895 
2611 
2259 
1862 
2662 
2338 
2040, 2057 
2656 



2380, 

2882 

2207 

2000 

1589, 1590 

1743 

2277, 2279 

Co. 1987, 

1988 

2212 

2206 

1845 

2163 

2299, 2330, 

2359 

Ganser v. Fireman's &c. Ins. Co. 2312 
Gant V. Broadway 2618 

Gantt V. Doe 2050 

Ganz V. Weisenberger 2179 

Ganzer v. Fricke 2566 

Garbaczewski v. Third Ave. B. Co. 1976 
Garber v. Doersom 2987 

Gardiner v. Cross 1694 

V. Crossdale 1923 

V. Gardiner 2696 

Gardiner-Campbell Co. v. Iroquois 

Iron Co. 1714 

Gardiner Sav. Institution v. Emer- 
son 2154 
Gardner v. Bennett 2510 
V. Brown 2610 
V. Gardner 2034, 2697 



Ixxvi 



TABLE OF CASES. 



IBeferences are to Sections.'} 



Gardner v. Heartt 1971 

v. Heyer 2238 

V. Hosmer 2595 

V. Kelso 2192 

V. Lamback 2278 

V. Lane 2616 

V. Newburgh 2530 

T. Preston 2141 

V. State 2281 

Gardner's Estate 2697 

Gardom v. Woodward 1576, 2146 

Garesche v. MacDonald 2127 

Garfield v. Paris 2620 

Garfield &c. Coal Co. v. Fitchburg 

&c. B. Co. 1732 

Garland v. Hickey 2567 

V. Jacomb 2073 
Garlick v. Mississippi &c. Ins. Co. 2297 

Garneau, In re 1800 

Garner v. Lasker 2050 

V. Marshall 2061, 2062 



V. Eels 




1613 


V. State 




2273 


¥. Wright 




2057 


Garnier t. Renner 




2577 


Garr t. Cranuey 


1734, 


1735 


V. Gomez 




1654 


Garr-Scott Co. v. Shaffer 




2609 


Garraud's Estate 


2230, 


2231 


Garretson v. Ferrall 




1715 


Garrett v. Adrain 




1617 


V. Board &c. 




1993 


V. Mannheimer 




2146 


T. Sewell 


2650, 


2659 


Garrett's Appeal 




2586 



Garrettson v. North Atchison Bank 1839 

Garrick v. Camden 2203 

Garrigue v. Loescher 1707 

Garrigues v. Harris 2134 

Garrigus v. Home &c. Soc. 1829, 2618 

Garrison v. Sandford 1957 

Garrity v. Hamburger Co. 1600, 1601 

Garrity's Estate 2186 

Garsed v. Turner 1994 

Garth v. Howard 1631 

Gartslde v. Connecticut &c. Ins. Co. 2421 

Garver v, Lynde 1711 

Garvey v. Wayson 2479 

Gashorn v. Snodgrass 2156 

Gaskell v. Patton 1827 

Gass V. Gass 2278, 2280 

V. Stinson 2586 

Gassert v. Noyes 1580 

Gaston v. Bailey 2496, 2499 

Gates T. Bllncoe 2530 

V. Bowker 2454 

V. Butler 2536 

T. Carpenter 2279 

V. Dundon 2172, 2173 

V. Gates 2604 

V. Lewis ■ 1855 

T. Lonsbury 1699 

V. Madison &c. Ins. Co. 2328 

V. Northern Pac. B. Co. 1984 

T. Steele 2124 

y. Watson 2556 

Gathercole v. Miall 2454 

Gathings v. Williams 2071 

Gatling T. Rodman 2072 

Gauch v. Milbrath 2668, 2671 

V. St. Louis &c. Ins. Co. 2194, 2205 

Gangh v. Henderso- 2266 

Gaul V. Fleming 1965 

Gault V. Sickles 2263 

Gauntlett v. Whltworth 2533 

Gauthler &c. Co. v. Ham 1941, 1948 



Gavigan v. Atlantic Beflning Co. 



2532, 
2533 



Gavin v. Annan 

V. Armstead 

V. Shuman 

V. Walker 
Gay V. Bates 

V. De WerfE 

V. Fretwell 

T. Gay 

V. Gillilan 

V. Mofflt 

V. Union &c. Ins. Co. 

V. Waltman 
Gaylord, In re 
Gaylord v. Gaylord 

V. Nebraska &c. Bank 

V. Norton 



2570, 

1774, 1777, 

1922, 

2291, 



1800, 



Gaynor v. Old Colony &c. B. Co. 
Gebhart v. Burkett 2001, 

Gee T. Culver 2473, 

V. Lancashire &c. E. Co. 



1870, 



Gehr v. Fisher 

Geib V. International Ins. Co. 2302, 

Geiger v. Kaigler 

V. Payne 1869, 

Geiges v. Greiner 
Geise v. Schultz 1891, 

Geisek v. Crescent &c. Ins. Co. 
Geiser Mfg. Co. v. Yost 
Geisojler v. De Graaf 
Gelzenleuchter v. Nlemeyer 2101, 
Gem Chemical Co. v. Youngblood 
Gemmill v. Brown 2638, 2641, 

Geneva Nat. Bank v. Bailor 1737, 
Geuevey v. Edwards 
General Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sherwood 
General &c. Hospital v. Knight 
Genesee Co. Sav. Bank v. Mich. 

Barge Co. 
Geneser v. Wissner 
Gentry v. Kelley 

V. United States 
George v. Braddock 

V. Chicago &c. B. Co. 

V. Claggett 

V. Hewlett 

V. Joy 

V. Norris 

V. Pierce 

V. Spencer 

V. Thomas 
Geoghegan v. Third Ave. R. Co. 
Georgia v. Bond 

Georgia Cent. R. Co. v. Perkerson 
Georgia Home Ins. Co. v. Kline 
Georgia Refining Co. v. Augusta Oil 
Co. 

Georgia R. &c. Co. v. Keener 1916, 
Georgia &c. Co. v. Fitzgerald 

V. Garr 
Georgia &c. B. Co. v. Berry 

V. Eskew 

v. Homer 2004, 

V. Hughart 

V. Probst 
Georgetown v. Alexandria Canal Co. 
Gerard v. Baker 
Gerber v. Monie 
Gerdes v. Cristopher &c. Co. 
Gerhardt v. Swaty 
Gerhauser v. North British Ins. Co. 
Gerke v. California &c. Co. 
Gerli V. Poidebard &c. Co. 
Germain v. Brooklyn Life Ins. Co. 

V. Sheehan 



1596 
2621 
2053 
2571 
1779 
1923 
2560 
2585 
2693 
1623 
2395 
1656 
1816 
1668 
2078 
1655 
2266 
2498 
2002 
2478 
1981 
2148 
2198 
2336 
2050 
1872 
2039 
2635- 
2334 
2628 
1955 
2121 
1606. 
2642 
1739' 
2480 
2446- 
2242 

1737 
1843; 
2146- 
2659- 
2235 
1816- 
2650- 
2612 
1782 
2627 
2672- 
2261 
1846 
1980- 
2454 
2017 
1665 

2623. 
1917 
2013 
2019 
1993 
157& 
2005 
1917 
2o20' 
2530' 
1633 
1789 
1991 
2652 
2336- 
2501 
1974^ 
2287,. 
2293 
2266. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



IXJ 



IReferences are to Sections.'i 



•German-American Ins. Co. v. 


Buek- 




staff 




1657 


V. Norris 




2337 


<3erman Ins. Co. v. Davis 




2352 


V. Eddy 




2366 


V. Everett 


2308, 


2310 


V. Grunert 




2341 


V. Orr 




2300 


German &c. Bank v. Kautter 




1749 


■German &c. Ins. Co. v. Ward 




2358 


Germania Bank v. Michaud 




1826 


Germania Ins. Co. v. Curran 




2346 


V. Davenport 




2578 


V. Eddy 




2363 


V. Fairbank 




2338 


Germania L. Ins. Co. v. Ross-Lewin 






2009, 


2390 


Germania &c. Ins. Co. v. Columbia 




&c. Co. 




2340 


V. Deckard 




2347 


V. Klewer 


2140, 


2299 


Germolus v. Sausser 




1698 


Gerner v. Yates 




1821 


Gernerd v. Gernerd 


1642, 


1643 


Gernon v. Hoyt 




2554 


Gerrish v. Brown 




2531- 


V. Gerrisli 




2231 


V. New Market &c. Co. 




1962 


Gerry v. Gerry 




1720 


Getcbell v. Foster 




2552 


Getto V. Binkert 


1840, 


1843 


Geveke v. Grand Rapids &c. E. Co. 


1984, 


1987, 


1991, 


1998 


Gholston V. Gholston 




2032 


Gibbon V. Gibbon 




2205 


Gibbons v. Pepper 




1689 


V. Robinson 




2621 


Gibbs V. Baltimore &e. Co. 




1932 


V. Chase 




2650 


V. Childs 




2607 


V. Merrill 




1588 


V. Randlett 


2109 


2115 


V. Wall 




1594 


Gibb's Estate 1930, 2540 


2543 


2551 


Giblin v. Mclntyre 




1991 


Gibson, In re 




2242 


Gibson v. Bailey 




2591 


V. Fleming 


1693 


1698 


V. Gibson 2218, 2291 


2490 


2691 


y. Herriott 




2067 


V. Humphrey 




2672 


V. McCall 


2234 


2236 


V. Oliver 




2000 


V. Patterson 




2170 


V. Poor 1846, 


1850 


1851 


V. Southwestern Laud Co 




1589 


V. Sumner 


'1605 


1607 


V. United States 




1971 


V. Williams 




2448 


Gidding v. Hadaway 




1655 


Giddings v. Giddings 




2697 


V. Iowa Sav. Bank 




2170 


V. Smith 




2682 


Gidley v. Gidley 




1661 


Giese v. Schultz 


1865 


1886 


Giffen v. Lewiston 




2514 


GltEord V. Hassam 




2479 


V. Wiggins 




2113 


Gilbert, In re 1800, 1801, 


1802, 


1811, 
1812 


Gilbert v. Bone 




2025 


V. Felton 




2658 


V. Finch 




1597 


V. Marsh 




1798 


V. Moose 2369, 


2380 


2385 


V. New Haven 




1942 


V. North American Ins. Co. 


2321 


V. Odum 




1621 



Gilbert v. Peck 2672 

V. Whidden 2548 

Gilchrist v. Bale 1642, 1649 

V. Brande 2574 

Gildas V. Crosby 2610 

Gildehaus v. Whiting 2040, 2055, 2057 

Giles V. Edwards 1717 

V. Giles 2222 

V. Ortman 2059 

Gilkey v. Hamilton 2086 

Gill V. Chicago &c. R. Co. 1574, 1580 

V. Crosby 2130 

V. Donovan 2463, 2469 

V. Ferris 2554 

V. Kuhn 2555 

V. McNamee 2319 

V. Phillips 2009 

V. Rice 2071 

V. Staylor 1604 

Gillespie v. Hauenstein 2279 

V. Jones 1617 

V. McGowan 2502 

V. Schumau 2231 

Gillet V. Mead 2640 

Giliett V. Gane 2223 

V. Maynard 1730 

V. Rippon 1728 

V. Stanley 2039 

V. Treganza 2676 

V. Wiley 2069 

Gillette V. Goodspeed 1792 

Gilliam V. Blird 2039, 2050, 2062 

V. Chancellor 2212 

Gilliford v. Windel 2479 

Gilligan v. Commercial F. Ins. Co. 2337 

V. New York &c. R. Co. 1995 

Gilliland v. Jones 2160 

Gillis V. Gillis 2686, 2701 

Gillman v. Florida &c. E. Co. 1991 

Gillrie v. Loekport 2506 

Gillson V. Price 2075 

Gillum V. Case 2050 

Oilman v. Andrus 2247 

V. Brown 2659 

V. Lowell 2452 

Gilmer v. Grand Rapids 1581 

V. Stone 2210, 2211, 2241, 2242 

Gilmore's Estate, In re < 2212 

Gilmore v. Banks 1712 

V. iBradford 2311, 2314 

V. Georgia R. &c. Co. 1590 

V. Lycoming P. Ins. Co. 2302 

V. Merritt 2570 

V. Norton 2040, 2056, 2057 

Gilpin T. Fowler 2454 

V. Temple 2560 

V. Wilson 2595 

Gingrich v. Rogers 2277 

Ginna v. Second Ave. R. Co. 1989 

Girard v. New Orleans 2235 

Girard &c. Ins. Co. v. Braden 2320 

Girdner v. Taylor 2109 

Gisborne v. Hart 1658 

Gitchell V. Ryan 1831 

Githens v. Shiflaer 1811 

Gittlngs V. Hall 1846 

Givens v. Berkley 1695 

V. Bradley 1694, 1702, 2001 

Gizler v. Witzel 1690 

Glacier Mining Co. v. Willis 2057 

Glade v. Schmidt 1664 

Glancy v. Glaney 2686 

Glasgow V. Owen 2480 

Glasgow &c. R. Co. v. Hunter 1971 

Glass y. Bennett 1642, 1649 

V. Garber 1994 

V. Gilbert 1848 

V. Glass 2673 



Ixxviii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



IReferences are to Sections. 1 



Glass T. Memphis &c. R. Co. 2523 

V. Walker 2550 

Glasscock v. Eonengrant 1605 

V. Shell 1865, 1886 

Glazar v. Hubbard 2113 

Gleason v. Allen 1595 

V. Dyke 1725 

T. Morrison 1779 

V. Smith 1717 

Gleaves v. Brick Church 1932 

Gleeson v. Virginia Midland R. Co. 1903 

Glessner v. Clark 2990 

V. Patterson 2122, 2134, 2135 

Gleiser v. McGregor 2067 

Glen Mfg. Co. v. Weston Lumber 

Co. 1850, 1857 

Glenn v. Garrison 2668 

V. Liggett 1943 

V. Orr 1943, 1946 

V. Salter 1604 

Glidden v. Pooler 1994 

Globe V. Bank 1595 

Globe Ins. Co. v. Sherlock 2441 

Glossop V. Jacob 1823 

Glover v. Cope 1951 

V. Drury Lane 2249 

V. Hembree 2562, 2563 

V. Lee 1933 

V. Stamps 2057 

V. Wright 1957 

Gluckauf V. Reed 1571 

Glymont Imp. &e. Co. v. Toler 1932 

Glynn v. George 2073 

V. Moran 2000 

Gobble V. Linder 2000 

Goble V. Grant 2276 

V. Kansas City 2506, 2516 

Goddard v. Grand Trunk R. 2114 

V. Pomeroy 2243, 2245 

V. Pratt 2560 

V. Rawson 2622 

V. Renner 2073 

V. Westcott 1882, 1893 

Goddard &c. Co. v. Berry 2554 

Godfrey t. Crisler 2576 

V. Saunders 1601 

Godell T. Gibbons 2461 

vf Taylor 2162, 2166 

Godwin, In re 1819 

Goebel v. Hough 1994 

Goetz y. Ambs 1692 

Goff v. Britton 2231 

V. Great Northern R. Co. 2114 



V. Stoughton 
Gohegan v. Leach 
Going T. Patten 
Goit V. National &c. Ins. Co, 
Gold V. Bissell 

V. Judson 

V. Sun Ins. Co. 
Golden v. Tyer 
Golder v. Bressler 

V. Lund 
Goldie T. Werner 
Golding y. Golding 

V. Williams 
Goldschmidt v. Mutual &c. 



1840 
2170 
1605 

2298, 2299 
2105 

2194, 2206 
2313 
2075 
1943 
1694 
2519 

2037, 2261 

2659 

Ins. Co. 2387, 

2390, 2392 
1697, 1702, 



Goldsmith v. Joy 1697, 1702, 2005 

V. Latz 1608 

V. Picard 1761, 2003 
Goldwater v. Liverpool &c. Ins. Co. 2314 

Golinsky v. Allison 1639 

Goltermann v. Schlermeyer 1618, 2055 

Gonder v. Miller 2040, 2057 

Gonzales v. Batts 1709 

Gonzales College v. McHugh 2517 

Gooch V. Association 2243 



Good v. French 

V. Hill 

V. Martin 
Goodale v. Hunt 

V. Mooney 

V. Tuttle 
Goodall T. Thurman 
Goodbar v. Bailey 

V. Lidikey 2691, 2692, 

Goodell V. Union Asso. &c. 
Goodfellow V. Meegan 
Goodhand v. Benton 
Goodhart v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 

1884, 1985, 1987, 
Goodhue v. Clark 2212, 2218, 

Gooding v. Kingston 

V. United States L. Ins. Co. 

Goodloe V. Godley 
Goodman v. Harvey 

V. Henderson 

V. Henry 

V. Sampliner 

V. Sayres 

V. Simonds 

V. Wineland 

V. Winter 
Goodnow V. Empire Lumber Co. 

V. Smith 
Goodrich v. Coffin 1605, 1607, 

V. Foster 

V. Goodrich 

V. Hulbert 

V. McDonald 

V. Reynolds 

V. Stanley 

V. Van Landigham 

V. Warner 2474, 

Goodson V. Brothers 

V. Goodson 
Goodspeed v. East Haddam Bank 
Goodtitle v. Cummins 
Goodwin v. Caton 

V. Cremer 

v. Davenport 

V. Goodwin 

V. Markwell 2041, 

V. Massachusetts &c. Co. 

V. Mass. &c. Ins. Co. 2353, 2354, 

V. McCabe 

V. Morris 

V. Scheerer 

V. State 2124, 2279, 2285, 2286, 

V. United States &c. Co. 
Goodwine v. State 



.. Stephens 
Gordon v. Albert 
V. Booker 
V. Bruner 
V. Burris 



2112, 



2210, 2212, 2215, 
2227, 



V. Camp 

V. Clapp 

V. Cook 

V. Gilfoil 

V. Harper 2604, 2650, 

V. Ilogan 

V. Martin 

V. Mitchell 

V. Parmelee 

V. Sizer 

V. Stockdale 

V. Tweedy 2151, 

V. United States &c. Co. 
Gordon's Will 
Gorder y. Plattsmouth Co. 
Gore V. Chadwlck 

V. Curtis 



2472- 
1951 
1830. 
2148. 
2218. 
1971 
1999. 
1748 
2696. 
2238, 
1785 
2046, 
1725, 
1991 
2242: 
1607 
2372, 
2394 
1840' 
1829 
2000. 
1749- 
2608, 
1660 
1829 
2154 
2039- 
2270' 
1597 
1609- 
2660. 
2034 
1667 
1826 
2124 
1595 
2059. 
2481 
1622 
2124 
2114 
2595 
2009- 
1597 
1830 
2098 
2057 
2580. 
2359 
2059- 
2460 
2057 
2291 
1607 
2594 
2113 
2572 
1845 
1729- 
2218, 
2684 
1729 
1756 
2658 
1589 
2663 
2110 
1717 
1664 
2149 
2050 
2666 
2163 
2417 
2688 
1630 
1703 
1702 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ixxix. 



[References are to Sections.'] 



Gores v. Graff 2503 

Gorman v. Pettus 2467 

V. Stlllman 1754 

Goshen v. Alford 1639 

Gosborn y. Smith 2498 

Gosling v. Blrnie 1781, 2073 

Gosman v. State 2596 

Gosnell v. Jones 2248, 2252, 2254 

Goss V. Stevens 1639 

Goss &c. Co. V. Jordan 2621 

Gossett V. Weatherly 2575 

Gothard t. Alabama &c. K. Co. 2504 

Gottbehuet v. Hubaehek 2448 

Gottscbalk v. Klinger 2610 

Gotwald V. St. Louis &c. Co. 2510 

Goucher v. Jamieson 1698, 1703 

Gough V. Findon 1605 

V. St. John 2001 

Gould V. Asylum 2236 

V. Chicago &c. Seminary 2687 

V. DwelUng-House Ins. Co. 2348 

V. Eastern 1847 

V. Fuller 1947 

V. Gregory 2475 

T. Insurance Co. 2361 

V. Lasbury 1588 

V. Thompson 1735 

Goulding v. Clark 2039 

V. Davidson 1725 

V. Hewitt 1974 

Goulstone t. Eoyal Ins. Co. 2336 

Gourdin v. Davis 1845 

Gouverneur v. Elmendorf 2124 

Gowan v. Gerrish 2000 

Gowdy V. Lyon 1914 

Gowing v.Knowles 2620 

V. Thomas 1595 

Govaskl V. Downey 2473 

Gove V. Watson 2672 

Grabill v. Barr 2276 

Grable v. Margrave 8630, 2642, 2643 

Grace v. Dempsey 1999, 2106, 2108, 2115 

V. Hale 2270 

V. Lynch 1840, 1843 

V. Smith 2570 

Grade v. Marine Ins. Co. 2444 

Grady v. Wilson 2086 

Graeme v. Cullen 2067 

Graff V. Callahan 2565 

V. Fitcb 1732 

V. Pittsburg &c. E. Co. 1946, 1948 

Graft V. Graft 2003, 2032 

Grafton Bank v. Moore 2560 

V. Woodward 1843 

Gragg V. Wagner 1957 

Graham, In re 1807 

Graham v. Boston R. Co. 1820 

V. Burch 2697 

V. Chubb 1605 

V. Davis 1916 

V. Graham 2029, 2231 

V. Harmon 1604 

V. Henderson 2541 

V. Houston 2040 

V. Insurance Co. 2308 

V. Marks 2170 

V. Martin 1863 

V. McReynolds 2634 

V. Mitchell 2039 

V. OTallon 2698 

V. Peat 2650 

V. Reno 1756 

V. Stanton 2466 

V. Stiles 2148 

V. Warner's Exrs. 2668 

Graham Paper Co. v. Pembroke 1610 

Grainger v. Martin 2362, 2441 

Granby Min. &c. v. Davis 1846 



Grandy v. Casey 2050" 

Grand Haven First Nat. Bank v. 

Zeims 2075. 

Grand Island Banking Co. v. Wright 

2250, 2259' 

Grand Lodge &c. Aid v. Besterfleld 2356. 

Grand Lodge &c. v. Wietlng 2282, 2287 

2290, 2390' 

Grand Prairie Seminary v. Morgan 2235, 

2236. 
Grand Rapids Ice Co. v. South Grand 

Hapids &e. 1848- 

Grand Rapids &c. Co. v. Jarvis 1993 

Grand Rapids &c. R. Co. v. Huntley 2506; 
Grand Tower &c. Co. v. Phillips 2000 
Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Ives 2501 

V. Richardson 2505- 

Grandom's Estate 2243 

Grange Mill Co. v. Western Assur. 

Co. 2306. 

Granger v. George 2025' 

V. Granger 2206; 

V. Martin 2441 

Grangers' &c. Ins. Co. v. Brown 2293,. 

2301, 2372, 2376; 



Grant, In re 


1811 


1814 


Grant v. Allison 




1573 


V. Bell 




1610' 


V. Brooklyn 




1985. 


V. Deuel 


2472 


2475. 


V. Enfleld 




2497 


V. Herald Co. 




2452; 


V. Howard Ins. Co. 




2328 


V. Masterton 




2564 


V. Miller 




2666 


V. Moseley 




2399 


V. Moser 




2111 


V. Norway 




1632 


V. Shaw 




1839 


V. Thompson 




2281 


V. Ward 




2162 


V. Willey 




1867 


V. Young 




1607 


Grantham v. Canaan 


2577 


2578- 


Grasselli v. Lowden 




2000' 


Gratiot v. Missouri Pac. E. 


Co. 


2501 


Grattan v. Metropolitan L. 


Ins. Co. 


2378, 
2420. 


Gravenor v. Woodhouse 




2606. 


Graver v. Sholl 


1962 


1970- 


Graves v. Allan 




1589- 


V. Bonham Nat. Bank 




1823. 


V. First Nat. Bank 




1581 


V. Horton 




1637 


V. Kellenberger 




2550. 


V. Merchants' &c. Ins. 


Co. 2316 


2320. 


V. Moses 




179.1 


V. Washington &c. Ins. 


Co. 


2353 


Gray's Settlement, In re 




2203 


Gray v. Anderson 




2579' 


V. Bean 




2643; 


V. Berry 




1857 


V. Blasingame 




2552- 


V. Durland 




2635 


V. Earl 




2124 


V. Elzroth 


2449, 


2459- 


V. Emmons 




2148. 


V. Gibson 


2542 


2543 


V. Green 




2572' 


V. Haig 




1967 


V. Herman 




1597 


V. McDonald 




2010. 


V. Obear 




2281 


V. Pub. Co. 




2458; 


V. Reed 




1663 


V. Standard &c. Ins. Co 




2293 


V. Walton 




1732 


Graybill v. De Young 




2457 



Ixxx 



TABLE OF CASES. 



IBeferences are to Sections.'] 



Grays v. Turnpike Co. 1936 
Grayson v. Meredith 1557 
V. Schlamm 2039 
Grazebrook v. Davis 1666 
Greasley v. Codling 1921 
Great Camp &c. v. Savage 2094 
Great Falls &c. Ins. Co. v. Harvey 2422 
Great Southern R. Co. v. Frazier 1690 
Great Western Ins. Co. v. Pogarty 2362 
Great Western Mining Co. v. Wood- 
mas 2595 
Great Western R. Co. v. McDonald 1914 
V. Redmayne 1981 
Greeley v. Foster 2519 
V. Hamman 1942 
Green, In re 1814 
Green v. Anglemire 1817 
V. Bartram 1699 
V. Batson 2629 
V. Beaver &c. Co. 2422 
v. Belltz 1922 
V. Blackwell 2235 
V. Boston &c. R. Co. 1907 
V. Burtch 1605 
V. Elmslie 2444 
V. Ford 2621 
V. Glasscock 1603 
V. Goddard 1699, 2647 
V. Green 2033, 2685 
V. Hart i707 
V. Hayes 2124 
V. Hogan 2235 
V. Holllngsworth 1767 
V. Indianapolis 1929, 1942 
V. Irving 1959 
V. Jordan 2039, 2057 
V. Lake 2530, 2531 
V. Lancaster County 1598, 1599 
V. Liverpool &c. Ins. Co. 2312 
V. Meyers 2453 
V. Miller 1660 
V. Milwaukee &c. R. Co. 1905 
V. New York &c. B. Co. 1905 
V. Pacific Lumber Co. 1903 
V. Peeso 2148 
' V. Plank 2006 
V. Rugely 2080 
V. Salas 1584 
V. Scranage 2170 
V. Smith 2070 
V. Southern Pac. Co. 2017 
V. Sperry 2251 
V. State 2281, 2282, 2288 
V. Watrous 2052 
V. Weaver 1974 
V. Witte 1714 
Green's Appeal 2213, 2214 
Green Bay &c. Co. v. Kaukauna &c. 

Co. 1962, 1975 

Green Co. v. Blodgett 1629 

Green River Deposit Bank v. Craig 1814 

Greenawalt v. McEnelley 2494 

Greenby v. Wilcocks 1956 

Greene v. Dennis 1932, 2236 

V. Pacific Ins. Co. 2444 

V. Smith 2072 

Greenfield v. Camden 194J 

V. Insurance Co. 1605 

V. Wright 2576 

Greenfield Bank v. Leavitt 267'' 

Greenleaf v. Brith 2065, 2066 

V. Brooklyn &c. R. Co. 2039, 2060 

V. Dubuque &c. R. Co. 2196 

V. Hamilton 2620, 2621 

V. Illinois Cent. R. Co. 2502 

V. St. Louis Ins. Co. 2442 

Greenough v. Greenough 2687 



Greensboro v. MeGibbony 1972, 1974 
V. Underbill 2486, 2487 
Greenthal v. Lincoln 2672 
Greenville v. Greenville Water- 
Works Co. 1940 
Greenville First Nat. Bank v. Mont- 
gomery 2670 
Greenwade v. Mills 2473 
Greenwald v. Insurance Co. 2331 
Greenwalt v. Horner 1926 
Greenwood v. Curtis 1725 
V. Misdale 1686 
Greer v. Anderson 16lg 
V. Bently 1839 
V. Caldwell 2150 
V. Canfleld 1654 
V. Lafayette County Bank 2671 
V. Louisville &c. R. Co. 1991 
V. Squire 1844, 1845, 1846, 1848, 

1862 

V. Whitfield 2479 

Gregg V. Lee 2161 

V. Wells 2072 

Gregor v. Hyde 2177 

Gregory, The D. S. 1984 

Gregory v. Bailey 1605 

V. Clabrough 1715 

•V. Clark 1755 

V. Commonwealth 2577 

V. Cowgill 2212 

V. Edgerly 1800, 1821 

V. Gregory 2484 

V. Howard 1665 

V. Gates 1577 

V. Pike 1666 

V. Thomas 2478 

Gregory &c. R. Co. v. Selleck 2662 

Greif v. Norfolk &c. Co. 1844 

Greiss v. State Inv. Co. 1657 

Grening, Matter of 1659 

Gresham v. Equitable &c. Ins. Co. 2403 

Greton v. Smith 1735 

Greve v. Coffin 2039 

Gribble v. Pioneer Press Co. 2452, 2454. 

n ■/■ . 2457 

Grider v. Apperson 1589, 1590 

Griel V. Lomax 2148 

Griener v. Ulerey 2550 

Grier v. Pennsylvania Coal Co. 184S, 

„ . 1859 

Gries V. Blackman 1745 

Griesheimer v. Taneubaum 2565 

Grieve v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. 1915 

V. New York &c. R. Co. 1780 

Griften v. Manice 2399 

V. Dlen 2206 

Griffin v. Auburn 2S01 

V. Board 1589 

V. Boston &c. R. Co. 2503 

V. Ohubb 2475 

V. Coleman 21I6 

V. Colver 1979, 1981, 1994 

V. Keeney 2479 

V. Long Island &c. R. Co. 2612 

V. Macaulay 1709 

V. Marquardt 2146 

V. New York 2515 

V. Nichols 20T2 

V. Petty 1597 

V. Ransdell 2252, 2263 

V. Sheflield 2065 

V. Stoddard 2546 

V. Western &c. Asso. 2403 

GriflJs V. Sellars 2476 

Griffith V. Bulfum 2570, 2571 

V. DiffenderflCer 2694 

V. Furry 1843 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ixxxi 



iBeferences are to Sections.'] 



Griffith V. Goodhand 

T. New York &c. Ins. Co. 

V. Willing 1600, 

v. Zipperwlck 
Griggs V. Day 2665, 

Grimes v. Butts 

V. Harmon 2211, 2236, 2237, 

v. Hilliary 
Grimison v. Russell 
Grim's Estate 

Gring v. Lerch 1865, 

Grinnell v. Taylor 
Griscom v. Evens 
Grisham v. Bodmau 
Grlssell v. Robinson 
Griasler v. Powers 
Grlssom t. Moore 
Griswold v. Bragg 

V. Haven 

V. Hicks 

V. Waddington 
Griveaud v. St. Louis &c. E. Co. 

Groat V. Pracht 1654, 

Groesbeck v. Chicago &c. R. Co. 

V. Harris 
Grofl V. Ramsay 

Grogan v. Adams Ex. Co. 1916 

Gronan v. Kukkuek 1691, 

Gronour v. Daniels 
Groom v. Parables 
Groover v. Coffee 
Grosbon v. Grant 
Gross V. Bricker 

v. Drager 

V. Milwaukee &c. Ins. Co. 2355, 

V. Zorger 
Grossman, In re 
Grossman's Estate 
Grossman v. Grossman 
Grosvenor v. Lloyd 
Grotius V. Ross 1982 

Grotton v. Glidden 1689, 1701, 

Grout V. Cottrell 
Grove v. Rentch 

V. Van Duyn 
Groves v. Gulp 

V. Marks 

V. Tallman 
Grubb V. Grubb 
Gruber v. Baker 
Grumley v. Webb 
Grumon v. Raymond 
Grundy v. Hadfield 
Grunson v. State 
Grymes v. Blofleld 
Guardian &c. Ins. Co. v. Hogan, 

2371, 2372, 2381, 2382 
Guardians of Poor v. Nathans 
Gubasko v. New York 
Gudfelder v. Pittsburgh &c. E. Co. 
Gudger v. Hensley 
Gueen v. Bedell 
Gnengerech v. Smith 
Guenther v. Amsden 
Guerand v. Dandelet 
Gueret v. Audouy 
Guernsey v. American Ins. Co. 

v. Rexford 
Guest V. Brooklyn 

V. Burlington &c. Co. 
Guetzkow V. Andrews 
Guflfey V. O'Reiley - 
Guice V. Thornton 
Guignon v. Union Trust Co. 
Guild V. Atchison &c. E. Co. 

v. Butler 

Vol. 3 Elliott Ev. — vi 



1954 
2299 
1601 
1795 
2672 
3657 
2242, 
2245 
2140 
1832 
2486 
1885 
1985 
2211 
1763 
1728 
2074 
2039 
2067 
2070 
2206 
1584 
1984, 
1994 
1663 
2523 
1959 
1628 
1917 
1703 
2656 
2491 
2040 
1597 
1605 
2627 
2360 
1665 
1816 
2699 
2700 
2571 
1983 
1702 
2473 
2124 
2113 
2211 
2039 
2543 
2050 
2148 
1599 
2113 
2062 
2611 
1597 
2304, 
2391 
2486 
2513 
2501 
2049 
1695 
1997 
1841 
2000 
1668 
2357 
1607 
2053 
2582 
1994 
2072 
2541 
1840 
1666 
1596 



Guild V. Huwer 

Guilford v. Mason 

Guillaume v. General Transp. Co. 

Guille V. Swan 

Guilmartin v. Wood 

Gulltinan v. Metropolitan L. Ins. 

Co. 
Guinn v. Ohio River &c. Co. 1974, 

T. Spillman 
Guitar v. Gordon 2227, 

Guiteau's Case 2284, 

Guldager v. Rockwell 
Guldenkirch v. United States &c. 
Asso. 2399, 2404, 

Gulerette v. McKinley 
Gulf City Ins. Co. v. Stephen 2319, 
Gulf &c. R. Co. V. Brown 

V. Chenault 

V. Cusenberry 1588, 

V. Duvall 

V. Evansich 

V, Garren 

v. Harriett 

v. Hodge 

V. Hurley 

T. John 

V. Johnson 2012, 

T. Kizziah 

V. Leatherwood 

V. Royall 

V. Scott 

v. Short 

V. Simonton 

V. Smith 

V. Warlick 

V. Williams 

V. Younger 
Gulick V. Grover 

V. Gulick 

V. New 
GuUedge v. Slayden &c. Mills 
Gulliver v. Cosens 
Gumb V. Twenty-third St. R. Co. 
Gumberts v. Adams Ex. Co. 
Gumz V. Giegling 1830, 

Gunby v. Porter 

Gunder v. Tibbits 2632, 

Gundermann v. Buschner 
Gunn V. Harris 

V. Howell 

V. McAden 

V. Scovil 
Gunter v. Geary 

V. Stuart 
Guntber v. Lee 
Gurley v. Missouri Pac. E. Co. 

V. Park 
Gurnell v. Gardner 
Gurney v. Minneapolis &c. R. Co. 

Gurno v. Janis 

GusdorfC V. Duncan 

Gustin V. Concordia &c. Ins. Co. 

Guthrie v. Hyatt 

V. Lewis 

V. Olsen 

V. Quinn 

V. Territory 
Gutridge v. Vanatta 
Gutterman v. Schroeder 
Gutzeil V. Pennie 
Gutzwiller v. Lackman 
Guy V. Blue 

V. Citizens' &c. Ins. Co. 

V. Craighead 

V. Lee 

V. Mead 
Guyer v. Flggins 



2629 
2629 
1907 
1989 
1862 

2301 
2535 
2055 
2232 
2285 
1592 

2405 
1702 
2320 
2013 
2534 
2652 
2521 
2505 
2521 
1595 
1912 
1980 
2017 
2149 
2519 
1913 
2519 
1895 
1912 
2005 
1895 
1895 
1901 
2019 
1626 
1885 
2593 
2613 
1729 
1980 
2589 
1843 
1736 
2643 
2483 
1856 
1726 
1596 
1735 
2526 
1641 
1597 
1988 
2692 
1707 
1578, 
1579 
2039 
2004 
2305 
1730 
2049 
2611 
2073 
1932 
2080 
2576 
1530 
2001 
2124 
2435 
1711 
1753 
2320 
2155 



Ixxxii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



IBeferences are 

Gwin v. Brown ?J§? 

V. Gwin 2696, 2701 

V. McLean ???« 

Gwyer v. Figgins 2159 

Gwyn Harper Mfg. Co. v. Carolina 

Cent. E. Co. 191| 

Gwynne v. Nlswanger 2048 



Haas V. Plautz 
V. Taylor 



1765, 



Haberer t. Walzer 

Haberman v. Gasser 

Hacker v. Horlemus 2040, 

V. Munroe 
Hackett v. King 2181, 

V. Moxley 

V. Stanley 
Hackley v. Headley 

T. Patrick 
Hadden v. Dandy 

V. Larned 

V. Powell 
Haden v. Sioux City &c. K. Co. 
Hadfleld Case 
Hadley v. Baxendale 1979, 

V. Bean 

V. Bordo 

V. Clinton &c. Imp. Co. 

V. Gutridge 

T. Hadley 2236, 2610, 

V. Heywdod 1642, 

Haehl v. Wabash E. Co. 
Haetsch v. Chicago &c. E. Co. 
Haffiendorfer v. Gault 
Haflfner v. Barnard 2609, 

Hagan v. Campbell 

V. Gaskill 

V. Merchants' &c. Ins. Co. 2338, 

V. Riley 

V. State 
Hager v. Cleveland 
Hagerman v. Buchanan 
Hagerstowu Tpk. Co. v. Creeger 
Haggart v. Stehlin 
Haggland v. Stuart 
Hahan v. Brown 
Hahlo V. Mayer 



2072 
1785 
2151 
1999 
2057 
2613 
2183 
1710 
2551 
2179 
2573 
2236 
2255 
2669 
1991 
2281 
1981 
2043 
1840 
2148 
2593 
2615 
1652 
2017 
2523 
1619 
2611 
1846 
1571 
2424 
1974 
2288 
1946 
2165 
1932 
2537 
1825 
2529 
2558 



Hahn v. ^ettingen 1864, 1867, 


1869, 
1874 


V. Cotton 1962, 


1972 


V. Guardians' Assur. Co. 2352, 


2355 


V. Horstman 


2000 


Hahnemannian &c. Ins. Co. v. 




Beebe 


1929 


Haigh V. De La Cour 


2336 


Haines v. Allen 


2236 


v. Ameriue 


2461 


V. Hayden 2136, 


2141 


Hair x- Barnes 


1963 


V. Edwards 


1827 


Haire v. Wilson 


2451 


Haist T. Grand Trunk E. Co. 


1593 


Halbert v. Martin 


1620 


Halbrook v. State 2032, 


2490 


Halcombe v. Cable Co. 


1932 


Hale V. Akers 


1845 


V. Brennan 2562 


2566 


T. Handy 


1717 


V. Huse 


1664 


V. Lite &c. Co. 2376, 2391, 2393 


2394 


V. Morse 


2467 


V. New Orleans 1959, 


1982 


T. Richardson 


1741 


V. Silloway 1623 


1862 


V. Skinner 


2072 


V. Smith 


2511 


T. Walker 


2124 



to Sections.'] 






Hale 


V. West Va. &c. Co. 




2124 


V. 


Wilson 




2466 


Haley 


V. Boston 




2206 


Halford v. Kymer 


2369, 


2380 


Hall 


7. Allen 


1824, 


1829 


V. 


American &c. Asso. 




2412 


V. 


Austin 




2512 


V. 


Bishop 




2589 


V. 


Brown 




2140 


T. 


Cadillac 


1976, 


1980 


V. 


Caperton 




2055 


V. 


Clagett 




2541 


V. 


Collins 




2053 


V. 


Cottingham 




1709 


V. 


Dean 




1957 


V. 


Emporia Bank 




1824 


V. 


First Nat. Bank 


1826, 


1843 


V. 


Flockton 




2578 


V. 


Fond du Lac 




1988 


V. 


Gallemore 




2057 


V. 


Galveston &c. R. Co. 


1985, 


1995, 
2017 


V. 


Gittings 


2065, 


2066 


V. 


Hall 


2208, 


2280 


V. 


Harris 




1830 


V. 


Hawkins 




2472 


V. 


Kalamazoo 




2610 


V. 


Kimball 




1824 


V. 


Lincoln 




1572 


V. 


Naylor 




2142 


T. 


Odber 




1607 


V. 


Perry 




2689 


V. 


Powell 


1849, 


2055 


V. 


Power 




1694 


V. 


Eohr 




2673 


V. 


Rose Hill &c. E. Co. 




1933 


V. 


Scottish Eite &e. Asso. 


2420, 






2426, 


2428 


V. 


State 




1577 


T. 


Stevens 




2579 


V. 


Suskind 




1589 


V. 


Suydam 


2102 


2118 


V. 


Torrens 




2067 


V. 


tJnger 




2276 


V. 


Warren 




2276 


V. 


Williams 




2027 


Y. 


Wright 




1885 


Hallack Lumber &c. Co. T. 


Gray 


1798 


Hallahan v. New York &c. 


R. Co. 


2512 


Hallenback v. Rogers 




2543 


Haller v. Willamowicz 


2562, 


2563 


Hallet T. Desbau 




2551 


Hallett V. narrower 


1585 


1941 


Halley v. Webster 


2276 


2280 


Halliburton v. Carson 




2086 


Halliday v. Bridewell 




2543 


V. 


Lesh 




2628 


V. 


McDougall 




2560 


Hallock V. Com. Ins. Co. 


2295 


2323 


Hallowell v. Guntle 


2003 


2459 


Hallowell &c. Bank v. Hamlin 


1943 


Hallstead v. Coleman 




2541 


Hallum V. Dickinson 




2027 


Halsey v. McCormick 


1843 


1847 


V 


Monteiro 




1639 


V 


Sinsebaugh 




2320 


Halstead v. Cooper 




2612 


V 


Seaman 




1665 


T 


Tyng 




1611 


Halsted t. Meeker 


2211 


, 2212 


Halton V. Poster 




2203 


Hamaker v. Schroers 




2000 


Haman v. Omaha Horse E 


Co. 


1702 


Hamar v. Alexander 




2137 


Hamblett v. Hamblett 




2274 


Hambly v. Trott 


1725 


, 1729 


Hamburg-Bremen Ins. Co. 


V. Gar 




llngton 


2363 


', 2364 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ixxxiir 



IReferences are to Sections.'] 



Hamden v. Rice 2235, 2680 

Hamer v. Johnston 2071 

V. McFarlin 2003 

Hames v. Brownlee 2006 

Hamet v. Dundass 2163 

Hamil v. American &c. Co. 2259 

T. Carr 1846 

Hamill v. Supreme Council 2420 

Hamilton v. Bishop 2130 

T. Blaclswell 2151 

V. Browning 2611 

V. Cawood 1854 

V. Coffin 2469 

V. Conine 1600 

V. Coons 1592 

V. Cutts 1959 

v. Great Falls St. B. Co. 1963, 1986, 

1991 

v. Hamilton 2279, 2280 

V. Lycoming &c. Ins. Co. 2295 

V. Overton 2000 

V. Pittsburg &c. R. Co. 2005 

T. Plainwell Water &c. Co. 1921 

V. Ross 2124 

V. Saunders 1850, 1853 

V. Sears 2072 

V. ShoafE 1956 

V. Smith 1850, 1852, 2118, 2483 

V. Third Ave. R. Co. 1991 

V. Toner 2124 

Hamilton Bank v. Dudley 2067 

Hamlin v. Jones 2249 

V. Osgood 2207 

V. Race 1726 

Hamm v. Romine 1695, 1703 

Hammacis v. White 1904 

Hamman v. Central Coal &c. Co. 2017 

v. Mink 2054 

Hammer v. Garfield Min. &c. Co. 1939 

V. Hammer 2040, 2057 

V. Pierce 1693 

V. Wilsey 2660 

Hammersmith &c. R. Co. v. Bi;and 1971 

Hammon v. Huntley 2086 

Hammond v. Crosby 1617 

T. Deehan 1664 

T. Dike 2692 

V. Hammin ■ 1639 

V. Hightower 1692, 1699 

T. Inloes 2187, 2188 

v. Ridgely 1845 

V. Solliday 1972 

T. Straus 1946 

Hamner v. Ballantyne 2120, 2603 

Hampshire v. Pierce 2223 

Hampson v. Taylor 2511 

Hampton v. Hampton 2029 

V. Jones 2483 

Hanberger v. Root 2056 

Hanchett v. Bassett 1701 

Hancock v. American &c. Ins. Co. 2010, 

2386 

V. Baker 1699 

V. Hintrager 2556 

V. Hubbell 1962, 1972, 1974, 1979 

V. Melloy 2463 

Hand v. Dexter 2124 

V. National &c. Ins. Co. 2350 

Handy v. Johnson 1691 

Handyside v. Cameron 1628 

Haney v. Breeden 1616 

Hanf V. Whittington 2124 

Hangen y. Hachemeister 2671 

Hankins t. Rockford Ins. Co. 2300 

T. Watkins 1989 

Hankinson v. Bilby 2457 

V. Lambard 1627 

Hanks v. Andrews 1738, 1746 



Hanks v. Naglee 1877, 


1884 


Hanlon v. Missouri Pac. B. Co. 


2522 


V. Union Pac. &c. B. Co. 


1850 


Hann v. National Union 


2378 


Hanna v. Barrett 


1741 


V. Connecticut &c. Ins. Co. 


2387 


V. Holton 


1798 


V. Mills 


1717 


Hannah v. Collins 


2053 


V. Henderson 


195» 


Hannen v. Edes 1698 


1699 


Hannibal &c. R. Co. v. Martin 


1899 


Hannon v. Moulton 


2211 


V. St. Louis Transit Co. 


1895 


Hannum v. Waddill 


2423 


Hanover v. Turner 


1725 


Hanover F. Ins. Co. v. Lewis 


2346 


Hanover Junction &c. R. Co. v. 




Grubb 


1931 


Hanover R. Co. v. Coyle 1984 


2510 


Hansard v. Robinson 


1823 


Hansberger v. Sedalia &c. Co. 


1991 


Hanscom v. Boston 


2513 


V. Home Ins. Co. 


2351 


Hansen, In re 


1817 


Hansen v. Flint &c. R. Co. 


1627 


V. Kirtley 


2577 


Hanson v. Edgerly 


2148 


V. European &c. R. Co. 1691 


169» 


V. Milwaukee &c. Ins. Co. 


2420 


V. Minnesota &c. Asso. 


2205- 


V. Slaven 


2629' 


V. Tompkins 


1743 


Haraden v. Larrabee 


2204. 


Harbaugh v. Costello 


1799 


Harbison v. Shook 


2140 


V. White 


2529 


Harbor v. Morgan 


1595- 


Harbour-Pitt Shoe Co. v. Dixon 


1745 


Hard v. Ashley 


2206 


Hardee v. Langford 


1746 


Harden v. Gordon 


1607 


V. Wagner 


2156 


Hardenbrook v. Harrison 


2257 


Harder v. Harder 


2680 


Hardman v. Bellhouse 


2578. 


V. Booth 


255T 


Hardwick v. Georgia &c. R. Co. 


1895, 




1900' 


V. State Ins. Co. 


2313 


Hardin v. Almand 


1656 


V. Harrison 


1697 


V. Iowa &c. Co. 


1933: 


V. Jones 


2073; 


V. Ledbetter 


1993: 


Harding v. Carter 


1633 


V. Durand 


2461 


V. Forsythe 


2065 


Hardy v. Chesapeake Bank 


1609 


V. De Leon 


1584 


V. Milwaukee &c. R. Co. 


1988 


V. Simpson 


2154 


V. Wilcox 


2206 


Hare v. Cator 


1952 


V. Marsh 1702 


1703 


V. Winterer 


1625 


Hargadine v. Pulte 


2229 


Harger v. Edmonds 


2006 


V. Worrell 


1828 


Hargis v. Louisville Trust Co. 


1824 


Hargrave v. Conroy 


1610 


Hargreaves v. Kimberly 


2535 


Harbaugh v. Tanner 


2259 


Haring v. Van Houten 


1861 


Harker v. Birkbeck 


2650 


V. Dement 


2668 


V. Hough 


1665 


Harkness v. Sears 


2311 



Ixxxiv 



TABLE OF CASES. 



{References are to Sections.l 



Harkrader v. Carroll 1571, 1577 

V. Moore 2476 

Harlan t. Brown 2666 

Harlana v. Eastman 2057, 2199 

Harle &c. Co. v. Council Blu£Es Ins. 



Co. 
Harless v. United States 
Harley v. Merrill Brick Co 
Harley Co. v. Barnefleld 
Harlock v. Ashberry 
Harlow t. Sass 

V. Thomas 

V. Tufts 
Harman y. Harman 

V. Stearns 

V. Taffenden 

V. Vaux 
Harmer y. Morris 
Harmon v. Harmon 



y. McRae 
Harn v. Smith 
Harness y. National P. 
Harnett y. Holdrege 
Harney y. Morton 
Harp y. Parr 
Harper, In re 
Harper y. Baker 

y. Harper 

y. Morse 

y. Eoss 
Harpham y. Whitiiey 
Harrelson y. Saryls 



Harrell y. Enterprise &c. 

y. Harreli 

y. Mitchell 

y. Wilmington &c. B. 
Harriman y. Boston 

V. Queen Ins. Co. 



2297 
2399 
2533 
1665 
2467 
1750 
1957 
1808 
2032 
2049 
1962 
2445 
1862 
2168, 2170, 2176, 

2179, 2182, 2183 
1582 
1850 

Ins. Co. 2305 
1830 
2065 
2684 
1813 
2612 
2038 
1616 
2627 
2479 
2055 



Bank 2057 

2248, 2254 
2154 
Co. 1912 

2513 
2355, 2362, 2363, 
2364, 2366 
y. Stowe 2512 

Harring y. Allen 2291, 2698 

Harrington y. Boehmer 1845 

y. Deane 1600 

y. New York 2172 

y. Providence 2524 

.y. Snyder 1779 

y. Stratton 2629 

Harris y. Alcock 1826 

y. Ansonia 1852, 1861 

V. Bishop of Lincoln 2218 

y. Carmody 2170, 2171, 2174 

T. Coe 1772 

T. Columbiana &c. Ins. Co. 2335 

y. Crary 2570 

y. Doe 1850 

y. Douglas 2682 

y. Eagle Ins. Co. 2315 

V. Harris 2697, 2698 

V. Hiliegass 2552 

y. Howard 1768, 2467 

y. Ingledew 2683 

y. Insurance Co. 2305 

y. Louisyille &c. R. Co. 2115 

V. Lyson 2179 

V. Mantle 1951 

y. Midland E. Co. 1919 

V. Miller 2000 

y. Minvellle 2457 

y. Mitchell 1659 

y. Northern Indiana R. Co. 1915 

V. Perry 2498 

V. Phllpot 2206 

y. Phoenix Ins. Co. 2361 

y. Sessler 2559 

V. Sneeden 1974 

y. State 1692 

y. Steyens 1701 



Harris y. Taylor 1741, 2124 

V. Zanone 2452, 2453 

Harris Photographic Supply Co. y. 

Fisher 2617 

Harrisburg, The 2460 

Harrison v. Barnby 2606 

y. Bishop 2692, 2690 

y. Castner 2067 

y. Clark 2607 

V. Close 1592 

y. Crowder 1824 

y. Des Moines &c. R. 1957 

V. Farrington 1610 

y. Portiage 2620 

y. Hancock 1733 

y, Harrison 2089, 2257 

y. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. 1666, 2352 

y. Hicks 1597 

y. Iowa &c. R. Co. 2006 

V. Jackson 1628 

V. Johnston 2586 

V. Morrison 1840 

V. Page 1862 

y. Price 2637 

V. Spencer 1616 

y. State 2265 

Harriss y. Williams 2629 

Hart y. Albany 2528 

y. Brooklyn 2513 

y. Charlotte &c. R. Co. 1987 

y. Chicago &c. R. Co. 1920 

y. Fiynn 2104 

y. Fraternal Alliance 2387, 2390, 

2393 

y. Hiatt 2552 

y. Hudson Riyer &c. Co. 2502 

y. Kelley 2551 

y. Kennedy 1659 

y. Marks 2225 

y. New Hayen 1984, 1994 

y. Tyler 1732 

V. Woodruff 2573 

V. Young 2258 

Hart, Wiggin & Co. v. Eanady 1581, 

1582 

Hartford &c. Co. y. Bonner Merc. 

Co. 1654, 1659, 1665 

Hartford .Bridge Co. yr East Hart- 



Farrish 
2420. 



2324, 

2293, 



ford 
Hartford &c. Ins. Co. v. 

y. Gray 

y. Harmer 

y. Kirkpatrick 

y. Smith 

y. Wayiand 
Hartigan y. Dickson 

y. Southern Pac. R. Co. 
Hartley y. Ferrell 

y. Keokuk &c. R. Co. 

y. Weideman 

y. Wharton 
Hartley State Bank v. McCorkell 
Hartman y. Connecticut &c. Ins. 
Co. 

y. Keystone Ins. Co. 

y. Strickler 
Hartpence y. Rogers 
Hartung t. Witte 
Hartneil y. Baker 
Hartlep y. Cole 
Hartwell y. TefCt 
Hartwig y. Chicago &c. R. 



1579 
2311 
2421 
2358 
2183 
2358 
2307 
1597 
2019 
2044 
2006 
2565 
2264 
2614 



2375, 



1644, 
1850, 



Hartz y. Owen 
Harvard v. Stiles 
Harvard College v. Gore 
Harvey v. Brydges 
v. Carroll 



2393 
2395 
2696 
1653 
I860 
2629 
2603, 2607 
2207, 2208 
Co. 2140, 
2502 
1850 
1976 
2082 
2647 
2030 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ixxxv 



[References are to 8ections.'\ 



Harvey v. DeWoody 




2531 


Hawes v. Knowles 






1695 


V. Faruie 




2484 


V. Eucker 






2039 


V. Graham 




1845 


V. State 






2491 


T. Harvey 




1823 


V. O'Eellly 






1703 


V. Henry 




2628 


Hawhe v. Chicago &c. E. Co. 


2212 


2230 


V. Ivory 




2612 


Hawk V. Harris 






2640 


V. Lord 




1589 


V. Eidgway 




2105 


2106 


V. Mitchell 




2053 


V. Thorn 






1729 


V. New York Cent. &c. E. 


Co. 


2508 


Hawkes v. Hawkey 






1924 


V. Rose 




1916 


V. Orton 






1951 


V. Tama County 




1597 


Hawkins v. Albright 






1581 


V. Thornton 




2186 


V. Alston 






2161 


V. Tyler 




1617 


V. Barney 






2049 


V. West 




2074 


V. Cooper 






2539 


Harway v. New York 




2124 


V. Garland 


2211 


2215 


2223 


Harwood v. Marshall 




2591 


V. Globe Pub. Co. 






2003 


V. Mulry 




2565 


V. Grimes 






2279 


T. Smethurst 




2604 


V. Rei chart 






2062 


Hascall v. Cox 




2205 


Hawkshaw v. Rawlings 






1597 


Haselton v. Portsmouth &e. E. Co. 


1899 


Hawksworth v. Brammall 




1654 


Hasie v. Conner 




1745 


Hawley v. Burd 






1601 


Haskell v. Haskell 




2036 


V. Butler 






2111 


V. Mitchell 




2007 


V. Harran 






1607 


Haskell Co. Bank v. Bank &c 




1982 


V. Middlebrook 






2075 


Haskins v. Dern 




1769 


Hawley's Will, In re 






2696 


V. Spiller 




2067 


Hawn V. Banghart 


2631, 


2632, 


2637, 


v. Warren 


2143 


2624 






2641, 


2643 


V. Young 
Haslam v. Adams Ex. Co. 




2104 


V. Norris 






2056 




1910 


Haws V. Victoria &c. Co. 


2057, 


2058 


Haslem v. Lockwood 1571, 


1577 


2668 


Hawse V. Burgmire 






2460 


Haslett V. Eodgers 




1748 


Hawthorne v. Siegel 




1994, 


2659 


Hass V. Plautz 




1857 


Hawyer v. Bell 






2671 


Hasselman v. Japanese &c. Co. 


1947 


Hay V. Reid 




2147, 


2448 


Hasted v. Dodge 




1596 


V. Weakley 






2475 


Hastings v. Brooklyn &c. Ins 


Co. 


2298 


Haycock v. Williams 






2543 


V. Stetson 




2452 


Haycraft v. Creasy 






2137 


Hasten v. Castner 




2152 


Haydel v. Dufresne 






1845 


Hatch V. Bayley 2127, 


2149 


2150 


Hayden v. Cretcher 






2572 


V. Coddington 




2350 


V. Davis 






1798 


V. Dwight 


1573 


1847 


V. Houghton 






2629 


V. Puller 


2635 


2643 


V. McCloskey 






203» 


V. Insurance Co. 




2403 


V. Merrill 






1601 


V. Mutual Life 




2397 


V. llullins 






1741 


V. Standard Oil Co. 




2618 


V. Sample 






1757 


V. Van Taube 




1607 


V. Shed 






2102 


Hatcher v. Bowen 




2585 


V. Souger 






2121 


V. Eocheleau 




2085 


V. Tucker 






252& 


Hatchett v. Gibson 


1781 


1796 


Hayden Saddlery Co. v 


Ramsay 


1762 


Hately v. Pike 


1830 


1843 


Haydon v. Bwing 




2210, 


2218 


Hatfield v. Lasher 




2458 


V. Wilshere 






2207 


Hathaway v. Burr 




1731 


Hayes v. Ball 






2457 


V. Evans 




1855 


V. Berwick 






2010 


V. East Tennessee E. Co. 




2501 


V. Bickerstatf 






1959 


V. Fall Elver Nat. Bank 




1798 


V. Delzell 






2148 


V. Hatchard 




1690 


V. Forty-second St. 


&c. R 


Co. 


2503 


V. Lynn 




2000 


V. Massachusetts Ins. Co. 


1596, 


2665, 


V. National &c. Ins. Co. 




2395 








2666 


V. Russell 




1601 


V. Pratt 






2236 


V. Sackett 




2235 


V. Sease 






2005 


V. Toledo &c. E. Co. 




2498 


V. Union &c. Assur. 


Co. 




2387 


Hathorne v. Stlnson 




1970 


V. Union Mercantile 


Co. 




1761 


Hatjie v. Hare 




2472 


V. Warren 






1728 


Hatter v. Greenlee 




2181 


V. West 2291, 


2686 


2696, 


2697 


Haubrick v. Johnston 




1668 


V. Williams 






2017 


Hau'ck V. Single 




1959 


Hayford v. Spokesfleld 






1577 


Hauenstein v. Lynhan 




1584 


Hayman v. Philadelphia &c. 


R. Co. 


1919 


Haug V. Haug 




2550 


Haymond v. Camden 






2067 


Haugh's Appeal 




2524 


V. Saucer 1891, 


1892, 


2003, 


2637, 


Haughton v. Bwbank 




1639 








2645 


V. Maurer 




1637 


Haymer v. Cowden 






1997 


Haun V. Wilson 




2001 


Hayne v. Irvine 






2206 


Hauser v. Griffith 




1695 


Haynes v. Brown 1936, 


1945 


1946, 


1947 


Hauxhurst v. Eitch 




2577 


V. Forskoll 






1655 


Haven v. New Hampshire Asylum 


1945 


V Haynes 




2683, 


2701 


Havens v. Germania &c. Ins. 


Zo. 


2322, 
2364 


Hillsdale 






2512 






V. Nowlln 




1642, 


1652 


Haverstiek's Appeal 




2206 


V. Railroad Co. 






1639 


Hawes v. Dingley 


2141, 


2624 


V. Rogers 






2153 



Ixxxvi 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to Sections.'] 



Hillsdale v. Rudd 

V. Sinclair 
Haynie v. Knight Templars &c. 
Hayorsft v. Creasy 
Hays Y. Covington 

V. Creary 2005, 2109, 

V. Farwell 

T. Ford 1800, 

T. Gallagher 

T. Hays 

V. Ison 

V. Montgomery 

V. Samuels 

V. Thomas 2200, 

V. Windsor 
Haytian Republic 
Hayward v. Grant 

v. Ormsbee 
Haywortb v. Worthington 1843, 
Hazard v. Griswold 

T. Illinois &c. R. Co. 

V. Irwin 

V. Loring 

T. New England Ins. Co. 

V. Treadwell 

T. Wing &c. Ins. Co. 
Hazeltine v. Vose 
Hazen v. Rounsaville 
Hazzard v. Flury 
Headley v. Coffiman 
Headrick v. Fritts 
Healey v. Babbitt 

V. Imperial F. Ins. Co. 

V. Mutual &c. Asso. 2399, 

V. O'Sullivan 1872, 

Healy v. New York 
Heap y. Parrish 214C, 

Heaps V. Dunham 
Heard v. James 

V. Lodge 
Hearn t. Kiehl 

T. New England &c. Ins. Co. 
Hearne y. De Young 

V. Edmunds 
Heartt v. Corning 

V. Walsh 
Heartz v. Klinkhammer 
Heaston v. Cincinnati &c. R. Co. 

1940, 
Heath v. Achey 

T. Bates 

V. Chilton 

V. Doyle 

V. Hewitt 

v. Slocum 2006, 2134, 

V. Williams 
Heatham v. Hatcher 
Heaton v. Hodges 1845, 

V. Manhattan F. 

V. Norton Co. &c. 
Heatwole v. Gorrell 
Heaverin v. Donuell 
Heck y. Sheuer 
Hecker v. Mahler 
Heckman v. Swartz 
Hecht V. Ohio &c. R. 
Hedden v. Hedden 
Heddles v. Chicago &c. R. Co. 
Heddleston's Estate 
Hedge v. Talbott 
Hedge's Appeal 

Hedges v. Payne 2624 

Hedley v. Board &c. 
Hedrlck y. Hughes 
Heebner v. Eagle Ins. Co. 2439 
Heermance v. James 1642 

Heermans v. Ellsworth 

T. Schmaltzs 



Ins. Co. 
Bank 



Co. 



2183 
2641 
2395 
2137 
1709 
2115 
1924 
1821 
2502 
1621 
2648 
2153 
2577 
2202 
2006 
1589 
1827 
2189 
2627 
2124 
1913 
2123 
1798 
2437 
1633 
2436 
2242 
2067 
2480 
2063 
1623 
1847 
2302 
2413 
1893 
2515 
2479 
2182 
2005 
2618 
1595 
2442 
2456 
2445 
1607 
2572 
2653 
1934, 
1946 
1343 
1589 
2079 
1605 
2206 
2255 
2648 
2701 
1855 
2298 
2170 
2000 
1840 
1726 
1843 
2182 
2019 
2033 
2522 
2243 
2584 
2543 
2627 
2596 
1850 
2441 
1651 
1714 
1617 



Hetlelflnger v. Shutz 
Heffington v. White 
HefEner v. Betz 
Hegeman v. Moon 
Hegney v. Head 



Heidelbaugh v. Cranston 
Heideman v. Sequin 
Heidenheimer t. Ellis 
Heidt V. Minor 
Heil T. St. Louis &c^ R. Co. 



1618 
1856 
2039 
1826 
2690, 2693, 2698 



2628 
1857 
1605 
1970 
1907 



Heilbron v. Fowler Switch Canal Co. 

Heilman y. Commonwealth 2265 

V. Lazarus 1968 

V. Shanklin 1965, 2458 

Hein v. Holdridge 2641 

Heinemann v. Heard 1963, 19b8 

Heinrichs v. Terrell 1862 

Heintzelman v. Druids' Relief Asso. 1943 

Heirn v. Carron 1595 

V. McCaughan 1907, 1989 

Heise v. Earth 2542 

Heisen y. Westfall 3000 . 

Heiser v. Loomis 1978 

Heiskell v. Gross 2531 

Heiss V. Murphey 2236, 2245 

Heldt V. Webster 2473, 2475 

Hellencamp v. Lafayette 2072 

Heller v. Cohen 1617 

V. Dailey 1579 

y. Peters 1617 

Helling V. United Order of Honor 

1593, 1594 
Helly V. Hender 1924 

Helm V. Wilson 1850, 1860. 1861, 2072 
Helman y. Pittsburgh &c. R. Co. 2013 

V. Withers 2610 

Helmetag v. Miller 2385 

Helms V. Green 2124 

Heltonville Mfg. Co. v. Fields 1976 

Helwig V. Beckner 2473 

V. Mutual &c. Ins. Co. 2389 

Hemingway v. Coleman 2148 

Hemingway &c. Co. v. Council Bluffs 

&c. Co. 1974 

Heminway y. Heminway 1699 

Hempstead v. Johnston 1709, 2127 

Hempton v. State 2279 

Bench v. State 2593 

Henchey v. Chicago 2019 

Henderson y. Cargill 2493 

y. Central &c. R. Co. 1579 

V. Hays 2056 

T. Henderson 2145, 2205 

y. Kissam 2056 

V. Mississippi Union Bank 

V. Moore 

y. Overton 

V. Tennessee 

V. Western &c. Ins. Co. 

Hendrick v. Employers' &c. Co. 



1934 
2585 
2072 
2065 
2446 
2399, 
2415 
1918 
2094 
1982 
1830 
2124 
1605, 2551, 2552 
1843 
1695, 17C3, 1990, 
2113, 



Co. 



Hendricks v. Boston &c. R 

V. Daniel 

V. Fowler 
Hendrie v. Berkowitz 
Hendrix v. Nunn 
Hendy v. March 
Henehan v. Hart 

Heneky v. Smith 1695, 17C3, 1990, 2510 
Henke v. McCord 2113, 2120 

Henkle v. Smith 2621 

Henline v. Reese 2603 

Henneger v. Lomas 2246 

Hennessy v. Metropolitan &c. Ins. 
Co. 2374 

V. Murdock 1572 

V. St. Paul City 1592 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ixxxvii 



IReferences are to Sections.'] 



Henning, Estate of 

Henning v. United States Ins. Co. 

Henry t. Davis 

T. Eddy 

V. Fine 

V. Grand Ave. R. Co. 2399, 

V. Heeb 

V. Henry 1618, 

V. Hilliard 

V. HuflE 

V. Hug 

V. Lowell 

V. McNealey 

V. Moberly 2449, 

V. Patrick 

V. St. Louis &c. R. Co. 1895, 
Henry C. Hart Mfg. Co. v. Mann's 

Boudoir Car Co. 
Henshaw v. Bissell 

V. Root 2541, 

Henson v. Taylor 
Hentig V. Redden 
Henwood v. State 
Hepfel V. St. Paul &c. R. Co. 
Hequembourg v. Edwards 
Herald v. Moore 
Hereford v. Pusch 
Herberger v. Herberger 
Herbert v. Berrier 2686, 

V. Hanrick 

V. Herbert 

V. Insurance Co. 

V. King 

V. Pue 
Heritage v. Dodge 
Herbst v. Hagenaers 
Herdic v. Young 
Herman v. Kneipp 

V. Stearns 
Hermann v. Littlefield 

V. Louisiana &c. Ins. Co. 

V. Orcutt 
Hermany v. Fidelity &c. L. Asso. 
Hernandez v. Cornobeli 
Herndon v. Bartlett 

v. VI ck 
Herrell v. Slzeland 
Herriman &c. Co. v. Keel 
Herrington v. Herrington 
Herrman v. Merchants' Ins. Co. 
Herrick v. Baldwin 1824, 1830, 

V. Lapbam 

V. Stover 
Herring v. Finch 

V. Jester 2641, 

V. PoUey 

V. Wilmington &c. R. Co. 
Herschfeldt v. George 
Heraey v. Benedict 

V. Chapin 

V. Merrimack &c. P. Ins. Co. 

V. Northern Asso. Co. 
Hershfield v. Lowenthal 
Hersom v. Henderson 
Herster v. Herster 
Herstine v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. 

Herzog v. Graham 2102, 2111, 

V. Weiler 
Hess V. Ferris 

V. Fockler 

V. Frankenfleld 

V. Masonic &c. Asso. 

V. Meyer 

V. Oregon Baking Co. 

V. Young 
Hess' Will, In re 2693, 2694, 



2577, 
1855, 



2266 
2311 
1973 
1798 
2280 
2497 
1639 
2127 
1665 
1844 
2005 
1690 
2486 
2453 
2621 
2501 

2621 
2070 
2546 
2657 
2067 
1581 
2501 
1947 
1579 
2666 
2033 
2690 
1616 
2399 
2327 
2039 
2657 
1700 
1665 
2005 
2609 
1615 
1733 
2561 
1595 
2375 
1700 
2377 
2279 
2039 
1577 
1974 
2328 
1835, 
1838 
2006 
1970 
1962 
2042 
1639 
2501 
2154 
2141 
2649 
2319 
1720 
1745 
2560 
2694 
1900, 
1903 
2115 
2248 
2559 
2454 
2578 
2402 
1856 
2480 
2124 
2696 



Hessong v. Pressley 2595 

Hester v. Fidelity &c. Co. 2293, 2414 

V. Hester 2245, 2692 

Hetrick v. Hetrlck 2249 

Hetterman v. Powers 2624 

Heuer v. Northwestern &c. Ins. Co. 2333 

Heuertematte v. Morris 1835 

Heuser v. Harris 2243, 2244 

Heusinveld v. St. Paul &c. Co. 1948 

Heusner v. Mutual &c. Ins. Co. 2385 

Heustis V. Kennedy 2252 

Hewes v. Crete 1571 

V. Jordan 1732 

V. Parkman 2667 

V. Platts 2622 

Hewitt V. Eisenbart 1987 

V. Morley 2448 

V. Newburger 2108, 2113 

V. Pioneer Press Co. 2458 

V. Prime 2635, 2645 

V. Story 1571, 1577 

Hewlett V. Brooklyn Heights R. Co. 1994 

V. Schenck 2467 

Hey V. Guarantors' Liability &c. Co. 2399 

Heylin v. Hastings 2463 

Heyne v. Blair , 2472, 2473 

Heysham v. Dettre 2179 

Heyward v. Mayor &c. 2235 

Heywood v. Perrin 1843 

V. Reed 1709 

V. Wild River Lumber Co. 1861 

Hiatt v. Kinkaid 2483 

V. Mutual &c. Ins. Co. 2393 

Hibbard v. Russell 1837 

V. Western D. Tel. Co. 1974 

V. Wilson 1733 

Hibernia Nat. Bank v. Lacombe 1824 

Hibler v. McCartney 1918 

Hick V. Hick 2257 

Hickenbottom v. Delaware &c. R. 

Co. 1989 

Hickey v. Deloach 2202 

Hickman v. Link 1571, 1620, 1623 

v. Missouri &c. R. Co. 1995 

V. Shimp - 2619 

V. Trout 2126, 2145, 2166 

Hiekox v. Chicago &c. Co. 1580 

Hicks V. Blakeman 2067 

V. British &c. Assur. Co. 2352, 2355 

V. Coleman 1854, 2059 

V. Cram 2559, 2560, 2569 

V. Foster 1983 

V. Hannibal &c. R. Co. 1895 

V. Keats 1727 

V. Steigleman 1572 

V. Stevens 2124 

Hiekson v. Brown 1740 

Hidden v. Cozzens 2466 

Hidy V. Murray 2472, 2473, 2479 

Hiersche v. Scott 2478 

Higdon V. Kennemer 2657 

Higgins V. Brown 2179 

V. Carlton 2285, 2689 

V. Halligan 2111 

V. Lodge 2624 

V. Mansfield 1982 

V. Minaghan 1691, 1698, 1699, 1701 

V. New York &c. R. Co. 2005 

. V. Senior 1640, 1731 

V. Spahr 2164 

V. Whitney 2660 

Hlgginson v. Mein 2577 

V. Turner 2235 

High V. Pancake 2649 

Higham v. Harris 1609 

V. Ridgeway 2196, 2199 

V. Vanosdol 1642, 1643, 1644, 1645, 

1646, 1648, 1649, 1652 



Ixxxviii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to SectionsJ 



Highland Ave. E. Co. v. Matthews 2535 

Highland Tpk. Co. v. McKean 1936, 1943 

Highmore v. Primrose 1607 

Highstone v. Burdette 1615 

Hight V. Naylor 2111 

V. Taylor 1843 

Hightower v. Williams 2050 

Highway Comrs. &c. v. Ely 1971 

Higinbotham v. Stoddard 1845 

Higman v. Camody 1765, 1766, 1777, 

1778, 1780, 1785 

Hilborn v. Bucknam 2179 

Hildebrand v. Carroll 1784, 1785 

T. McCrum 2106 

Hildebrant v. Crawford 1713 

Hileman v. Hileman 2249, 2255 

Hiles V. HanoTer &c. Ins. Co. 2345 

Hilgenberg t. Northrup 1617 

Hilhouse v. Chester 2200 

Hilker t. Hilker 2003 

Hill V. Alabama &c. E. Co. 1996, 1998 

T. Bahrns 2691 

V. Bond 1741 

V. Coal Valley &c. Co. 1619 

V. Corcoran 2163 

V. Davis 1725, 1729 

V. Day 2279 

V. Durand 1607 

V. Bldridge 2199, 2274 

V. Ely 1834 

V. Epley 2076 

V. Gayle 2577 

V. Georgia &c. E. Co. 1907 

V. Hartford &c. Ins. Co. 2399 

V. Hill 1589, 1722, 2227, 2231, 2280 

V. Levy 1800 

V. Lord 1847 

V. Manchester &c. Water Works 1946 

V. Morey 2654 

V. Nash 2278 

V. Packard 1720, 1725 

V. Pennsylvania E. Co. 2019 

V. Portland &c. E. Co. 2509 

V. Supervisors 2460 

V. Taylor 2104, 2105 

V. Walker 2086 

V. Weir 1844 

v. Wertheimer-Swarts Shoe Co. 

1596, 1745 

V. Wright 2606 

Hills V. Barnard 2208 

V. Boston &c. E. Co. 1926 

V. Goodyear 2140 

Hillard v. Dortch 2663 

Hillary v. Gay 1699 

Hilliard v. Burlington Shoe Co. 1799 

V. Kearney 2206 

Hillier v. Alleghany &c. Ins. Co. 2334 

Hillman v. Brigham 2607 

Hillock V. Traders' Ins. Co. 2346 

Hillyard v. Crabtree 2577 

Hilsen v. Libby 2124 

Hilton V. Bender 2053 

V. Briggs 2089 

V. Burley 1602 

V. Colvin 2075 

V. Scarborough 2584 

V. Vanderbilt 2572 

Hinchman v. Whetstone 2581 

Hinckley v. Germania F. Ins. Co. 2327 

V. Thatcher 2211, 2221, 2226 2242 

Hlnde v. Longworth 2158, 2162 

Hindmarch, Goods of 2700 

Hlndoustan, The 1916 

Hine v. Eailroad Co. 2533 

Hines V. Chambers 2603 

Hines' Appeal 2692 

Hlnesburgh v. Sumner 2171 



Hingham v. Sprague 2650 
Hinkle v. Minneapolis &c. E. Co. 1594 
Hinman v. Littell 2555, 2559 
Hinney v. Phillips 2255 
Hinsdale Sav. Bank v. New Hamp- 
shire &c. Co. 1946 
Hinton v. Eastern E. Co. 1918 
Hintz V. Graupner 2452, 2457 
Hipsley v. Kansas City &c. E. Co. 1904 
Hirseh, In re 1816 
Hirsch v. Buffalo 2516 
V. Manhattan E. Co. 1590 
Hlrschberg Optical Co. v. Dalton 2624 
Hirsh V. Wenger 2134 
Hiscock V. Harris 1665 
Hiscocks V. Hiscoeks 2211, 2223 
History Co. v. Dougherty 2124 
Hitchen v. Campbell 1725 
Kitchens v. Eicketts 1635 
Hitching v. Kayser 1709 
Hitchins v. Hitchins 2030 
Hitchcock V. Caruthers 2457 
V. Hitchcock 2032 
V. Libby 1850, 1857, 1861 
V. North 2478 
V. North Western Ins. Co. 2309 
V. Pratt 1994 
V. Southern Iron &c. Co. 1845 
V. Supreme Tent 1994 
Hitchcox V. Morrison 1620 
Hix V. Whittemore 2276 
Hixon, In re 1800, 1816 
Hixon V. Pixley 2574 
V. Schooley 1589 
Hoadley v. Seward &c. Co. 2533 
V. Watson 1702 
Hoag V. Hoag 2065 
V. Lake Shore &c. E. Co. 2501 
V. Wallace 2057 
V. Weston 1581 
Hoagland v. Wilcox 1736 
Hoar V. Goulding 1854 
Hoban v. Cable 2040, 2057 
Hobart v. Dodge 1843 
V. Hobart 2687, 2701 
Hobbs V. Branscomb 2111 
V. Chemical Nat. Bank 1838 
V. Greenfield 1739, 1745 
V. McLean 2096 
V. Eay 2101, 2102, 2105, 2108 
Hoboard v. Copley 2266 
Hoboken &c. Bank v. Beckman 2163 
Hobson V. Pullerton 2632 
V. Porter 2541 
V. Todd 1972 
Hochstein v. Berghauser 1833 
Hockensmith v. Slusher 2210, 2227, 2232 
Hockersmith v. Hanley 2629- 
Hockley v. Mawbey 2207 
Hockmoth v. Des Grand Champs 1848, 
„ ^ „ 1852, 1857, 1859 
Hodge V. Combs 1625 
V. Hoppock . 2586 
V. Security Ins. Co. 2298 
V. Wetzler 1642 
Hodges V. Bales 2632 
V. Coleman 2151 
V. Holder 1964 
V. King 2000 
V. State 1692 
V. Southern E. Co. 2502 
V. Winston 2073 
Hodgeden v. Hubbard 1699 
Hodgkinson v. Marsden 2026 
Hodgskin v. Queensborough 1958 
Hodgson V. Barrett 2580 
V. Hodgson 2218 
V. Mlllward 1999 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ixxxix 



[References are to Sections.'] 



Hodsdon v. Guardian &c. Ins 


Co. 


2293, 


Holley V. Burgess 




2003 






2428 


V. Hawley 




1617 


HodsoU V. Taylor 




2642 


V. Mix 2106 


2110 


2111 


Hodson V. Union Pac. K. Co. 




1715 


HoUiday v. Maddox 




1856 


Hoe V. Oxley 




1639 


V. Sterling 




2473 


Hoeffier v, Clogan 




2236 


HoIUngsworth v. Barbour 




2186 


Hoener v. Koch 




2006 


T. Warnock 




2014 


Hoester v. Sammelmanu 




2124 


HoUis V. Smith 




2079 


Hoey T. Furmau 




1856 


T. State Ins. Co. 




2299 


Hoff V. Koerper 




2256 


HoUister v. Cordero 




2009 


HofEar v. Dement 




1605 


V. Stewart 




1589 


Hoffecker v. N. &c. Co. 




2347 


V. Young 




1620 


HofEer y. Gladden 




2145 


Holloran v. Meisel 




2040 


Hoffman v. Bank of Milwaukee 


2073 


Holloway v. GrifBth 1863 


, 1866 


1875, 


V. Edison &c. Co. 




2535 






1888 


V. Eppers ■ 




1695 


V. Holloway 




158!) 


V. Henderson 


1736 


1748 


V. Jones 




2060 


V. Insurance Co. 




2140 


V. Memphis &c. R. Co. 




1929 


V. Kemerer 




2641 


V. Radcliffe 




2203 


V. McFadden 




2252 


y. Rakes 




2669 


V. Nolte 




2256 


Holly V. Boston Gas Light Co. 


2505 


V. Port Huron 1845, 


1847, 


1848, 


Holly River Coal Co. v. Howell 


2039 




1859 


2511 


Holman, In re 




1816 


V. Smith 




1707 


Holman v. Creagmiles 




1957 


T. Wheeloek 




2088 


V. Herscher 




2560 


V. Woods 




2040 


V. Riddle 


2682 


2700 


Hoffmann, In re 




1816 


V. Walden 




1587 


Hoffmann v. State 




1692 


Holman's Will 


2693 


2696 


Hogan V. Burns 




1599 


Holmes v. Bagge 




1697 


V. Cent. Pac. E. Co. 




2531 


V. Blyler 




2109 


v. Cregan 




2646 


v. Cook 




1823 


V. Dreifus 




1829 


V. DeCamp 


1605 


1829 


V. Kelly 




1636 


V. Gregg 




2620 


V. Kurtz 




1584 


V. Holmes 1642, 1652, 


1830, 


1953, 


V. Robinson 




2157 






2587 


V. Ryan 




1702 


V. Mead 


2238 


2239 


Hogarty v. Lynch 




1705 


V. Oreg6n &c. R. Co. 


1901 


1995 


Hoge V. Fisher 




2276 


V. Page 




1605 


V. Norton 




1757 


V. Phoenix Ins. Co. 




2309 


Hogendobler v. Lyon 




2572 


V. Porter 




2550 


Hogg V. Pinckney 




2473 


V. Seely 




2057 


Hoggett T. Exiey 




1965 


V. Smith 




1654 


Hoglan V. Carpenter 




2593 


V. State 




2267 


Hohn V. Inter-State &e. Co. 




2417 


Holsman v. Boiling Spring Bleach 




Hoile V. Rathbone 




1823 


ing Co. 




2531 


Hoitt V. Hoitt 




2291 


Holt V. Gage 




2466 


Hoke V. Field 




2602 


V. Hayes 




2659 


Holabird v. Atlantic &c. Ins. 


Co. 


2301 


v. Hemphill 




2053 


Holbrook v. Chamberlin 




1639 


V. Kernodle 




2551 


V. New Jersey Zinc Co. 


1707 


1931 


V. Spokane &c. E. Co. 




2017 


V. Oberne 




2551 


V. Weld 




2009 


V. Tobey 




2000 


Holt's Will, In re 




2686 


v. Utica &c. R. Co. 




1902 


Holt Ice Co. V. Arthur Jordan Co. 


1785, 


T. Wight 




2429 






1790 


Holcomb T. Noble 




2124 


Holt Live Stock Co. v. Watkins 


2628 


Holden v. Burhham 




2154 


Holten V. Lake County 


2057, 


2584 


V. Chandler 




1847 


Holter &c. Co. v. Fireman's &c. Ins. 




V. French 




2551 


Co. 


2317, 


2318 


V. Merritt 




2479 


Holton V. Noble 




1595 


T. Parker 




2576 


Holtum V. Lotum 




1964 


Holeman v. Port 




2206 


Holtz V. Dick 


1642, 


1646 


Holford T. Hatch 




1952 


Holtzman v. Douglas 1617, 


1618, 


1620 


Holgate V. Downer 




2543 


Holyday v. Oxenbridge 




169fr 


V. Killick 




1664 


Holyoke Bank v. Burnham 




1946 


Holland v. Alcock 




2234 


V. Goodman &c. Co. 




1946 


V. Barnes 




1825 


Holyoke v. Grand Trunk R. Co. 


1988 


V. Brown 




1995 


Holzman v. Hibben 




2690 


V. Duluth &c. Co. 




1946 


Homan y. Barle 


1863, 


1864 


V. Seven Hundred &c. Tons Coal 1981 


Homans v. Corning 




2491 


V. Thompson 


1846 


1860 


Homberger v. Alexander 




•2075 


V. West End St. R. Co. 




2501 


Home &c. Asso. v. Sargent 


2387, 


2388, 


Hollenback t. Ess 


2041, 


2056 


2391, 


2392, 


2396. 


V. Todd 1751, 


1752, 


2663 


Home Ins. Co. v. Adler 


2311, 


2312 


HoIIenbeck v. Cook 




2689 


V. Davis 




2347 


V. Elstine 


1606, 


1608 


V. Field 


2297, 


2299 


V. Rowley 


1847, 


2656 


V. Lindsey 


2338, 


2348 


V. Sykes 




1855 


V. Mendenhall 




2309 


Hollenberg v. Lane 




2577 


V. Stone River Nat. Bank 




2356. 



3C 



TABLE OF CASES. 



IBeferences are to Sections.'] 



IHome &c. Ins. Co. v. Bean 



2358, 



Hartman 



1865, 1869, 



T. Hammani 
Home Lumber Co. 
Homer v. Sliaw 

v. Thwing 
Hone T. Mammoth Min. Co. 
Hong Sling v. National Assur. Co. 
Hong Wah, In re 
-Hood V. Adams 

V. French 
'Hoogland v. Trask 
;Hook T. George 

T. Joyce 

V. Philbrick 
"Hooker v. Eagle Bank 

V. Newton 

r. Smith 

V. Worthington 
Hooper v. Accident &c. Asso. 

V. Armstrong 

V. Hartwell 

V. Jellison 

V. McCaffiery 

V. Robinson 

V. Scheimer 
'Hoopes' Estate 
Hoosac Min. &c. Co. v. Donat 
:Hoosier Stone Co. v. McCain 
Hooten t. Barnard 1972, 

V. Comerford 
Hooter v. Tippet 
Hoover, In re 
Hope V. Lawrence 
•V. Troy &c. E. Co. 

V. Valley City &e. Co. 
Hopkins T. Atlantic &c. E. Co. 19T6, 

T. Banks 

V. Burney 

T. Crowe 

V. Deering 

T. Dickinson 
Grimshaw 

Indianapolis &c. R. Co. 
Mathias 2633, 

T. McGilllcuddy 

T. Northwestern &c. Co. 

T. Quinn 

V. Sanford 

T. Sievert 2134, 

V. Watt 

v. Woodward 

v. Young 
Hopkinson v. McKnight 
Hopper V. Beck 

T. Hickam 

V. Smith 
Hopple V. Higbee 

T. Hippie 
Hopson V. Caswell 
Horan v. Long 
Horbach v. Marsh 
Horgan, In re 
Horn V. Baltimore &c. R. Co. 

V. Cole 

v. Volcano Water Co. 
Hornbeck v. American Bible Soc. 

Y. Westbrook 
Hornberger v. Hornberger 

V. State 
Hornbrooks v. Lucas 
Home T. Mandelbaum 

T. Sullivan 
Horner v. Horner 

V. Eeuter 
Horning v. Sweet 
Hornsby v. Davis 
Horsfall v. Paclflc &c. Ins. Co. 2412, 



"V. 



2322 
2359 
2001 
1714 
2666 
2501 
2331 
2527 
1625 
2585 
1709 
1893 
1618 
1665 
1707 
1999 
2112 
2461 
2417 
1979 
1603 
1586 
2486 
2429 
2063 
2692 
1925 
2519 
1974 
1845 
2189 
1817 
2072 
1989 
2163 
1987 
2573 
2612 
2111 
1616 
1847 
2236 
2006 
2636 
2479 
2397 
2682 
1081 
2136 
2148 
2124 
1954 
1847 
2461 
1850 
1798 
2660 
2074 
1581 
2124 
2465 
1820 
2504 
2069 
1823 
2236 
2236 
2243 
2025 
1840 
1689 
2481 
1843 
1618 
2050 
1618 
2414 



Horton v. Bassett 




1589 


V. 


Bauer 


1959, 


1974 


V. 


Bloedorn 




2173 


V. 


Davidson 




1623 


V. 


Horton 




1895 


V. 


Miller 




2561 


V. 


Weiner 




2143 


Hosford V. Johnson 




2077 


Hosier v. Hursh 


1592, 


1595 


Hoskins v. Gentry 




1584 


Hoski 


nson V. Eliot 




2567 


Hosmer v. Oldham 




2624 


V. 


True 




2000 


Hospital Trust Co. v. Thorndike ' 


2490 


Hostetter v. Gray 




2444 


V. 


Park 




2444 


V. 


Pittsburgh 




2124 


Hot Springs &c. E. Co. v. Hudgins 


1908 


Hotchin v. Kent 




2567 


Hotchkiss V. Jones 




2614 


v. 


Mc Vicar 




2663 


V. 


Porter 




2452 


Hottle V. Weaver 




2277 


Howard, In re 


1804, 


1808 


Howard v. Albany Ins. Co. 




2308 


V. 


American &c. Soc. 




2242 


V. 


City Fire Ins. Co. 




2345 


V. 


Daly 




1717 


V. 


Delaware &c. Co. 




1995 


V. 


Fessenden 




1578 


V. 


Glenn 




1946 


V. 


Great Western Ins. Co 




2303 


V. 


Howard 




1615 


V. 


Indianapolis St. E. Co 




2500 


V. 


IngersoU 




1843 


V. 


Lock 




2044 


V. 


Manderfleld 




2602 


V. 


Massengale 




2065 


V. 


Masterson 




2050 


V. 


Moot 




2689 


V. 


Patrick 


2562 


2566 


V. 


Ransom 




1735 


V. 


Sexton 




2432 


V. 


Shaw 




1735 


V. 


Shoemaker 




2597 


V. 


Stillwell &e. Mfg. Co. 




1994 


V. 


Taylor 




1963 


V. 


Thompson 




2458 


V. 


Tyler 




1922 


V. 


Upton 




1715 


V. 


Wilmington &c. E. Co. 


1962, 


li)74, 
1975 


V. 


Windom 




2466 


Howard Ins. Co. v. Hope Mut. Ins 




Co. 






1944 


Howard Oil Co. v. Davis 




1991 


Howden, In re 




1816 


Howe 


V. Howe 2277, 


2291 


2551 


v. 


Logwood 




2067 


V. 


Mackay 




1592 


V. 


Morehouse 




2627 


V. 


North 




1981 


V. 


Provident Fund Soc. 




1626 


V. 


Eeed 




2141 


V. 


Thayer 




2541 


Howell V. Baker 




2148 


V. 


Hartford Ins. Co. 




2336 


V. 


Jackson 




1701 


V. 


Knight 
Medler 




2206 


V. 




1733 


V. 


Richards 




1956 


V. 


Rodgers 




2059 


V. 


Tyler 




2206 


Howes V. Colburn 




2692 


V. 


Flsk 




2558 


Howland v. Crocker 




1622 


V. 


Cuykendall 


2424 


, 2425 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to 8ecUons.'\ 



Howland y. Edmonds 




2424 


Hudgins v. Kemp 




2156 


V. George F. Blake &c. Co 




2448 


V. Simon 




1618 


T. Howland 




2630 


Hudkins v. Haskins 


2630 


2631 


v. Marshall 




1742 


Hudson V. Archer 




1974 


V. Bench 




2586 


V. Carmou 1930, 


1941, 


1944 


T. Vincent 




1971 


V. Houser 




1995 


Bowie V. Edwards 




1843 


V. Kimbrougb 




2461 


Howth T. Franklin 




1797 


V. Mercantile Nat. Bank 




1816 


Houck V. Graham 


1830, 


1843 


V. Miller 




2648 


T. Waehter 




2531 


V. Putney 




1619 


Bough V. Beard 




1665 


V. Robinson 




1588 


V. Dickinson 1645, 


2122, 


2136 


V. Rome &c. R. Co. 




2503 


V. Evans 




2148 


V. Swift 




1730 


Houghkirk v. President &c. 




1995 


y. Trenton &c. 




1610 


Houghton V. McAuliflEe 




1708 


y. Voigt 




1982 


T. Pattee 




2000 


v. Wilkinson 




1798 


V. Wilhelmy 




1618 


Huebschmann v. McHenry 




2067 


House V. Williams 




1620 


Hueston v. Hueston 




2086 


Houser &e. t. Belton 




1849 


Huey v. Gahlenbeck 




2498 


Houston V. Culver 




2501 


v. Van Wie 




2588 


V. Thornton 




2461 


Huff V. Austin 




2498 


Houston City R. Co. v. Seiacca 


2012 


HutCar v. Dement 




1605 


Houston &e. E. Co. v. Berling 




1991 


Huffman y. Copeland 




2124 


V. Blatchler 




2005 


HufEstater v. Hayes 




1603 


V. Boehm 




1991 


Huftalin v. Misner 




2660 


V. Bradley 




2019 


Hugg V. Augusta Ins. Co. 




2364 


V. Burke 




2006 


V. Collins 


1661, 


1663 


V. Cowser 




2505 


Huggins V. Ketchum 




2062 


V. Kimbell 




1987 


V. People 




2170 


V. Lackey 




2534 


Hughes y. Beggs 




2006 


V. Leslie 




1989 


V. Cawthorn 




1845 


V. McGlosson 




1907 


y. Chadwick 




2260 


V. Randall 




1987 


y. Clark 




2206 


V. Rowell 




1987 


v. Delaware &c. Co. 




2013 


Hove V. McHenry 




2610 


V. Funston 




2125 


Hovey v. American Ins. Co. 




2347 


V. General Electric Light &c. Co 


2533 


V. Deane 




1630 


y. Great Western R. Co. 




1907 


V. Grant 




2141 


v. Green 




1589 


V. Sebring 




1829 


V. Hughes 2032, 2279, 


2283, 


2577 


Hoxie V. Home Ins. Co. 


2134 


2374 


V. Jones 




2279 


V. Pacific &c. Ins. Co. 




2432 


v. Nolte 1872, 1882, 


1890 


1892 


Hoy V. Gronoble < 




1994 


y. Smither 




1607 


V. Weiss 




1746 


y. Thorpe 




1605 


Hoyt V. Baker 




1782 


v. Walker 




2576 


V. Clarkson 




1610 


V. Woosley 




1601 


V. McLaughlin 




1609 


Hughlett V. Conner 




1856 


V. Newbold 




2008 


Huiskamp y. Moline Wagon Co. 


1753 


V. New York &c. Ins. Co. 




2383 


Huit V. Huit 




2094 


V. Thompson 




1708 


Hulett V. Carey 




2491 


V. Wilkinson 




1607 


V. Swift 




1797 


Hubbard v. Allen 




2166 


Huling y. Henderson 




2659 


V. Belden 




1717 


V. Huling 1645, 


1646, 


1649 


V. Bonesteel 




1869 


Hull y. Campbell 




2040 


V. Chappel 




1930 


Hullee v. Heightman 




1717 


V. Dusy 




1845 


Hullhorst y. Scharner 




2181 


V. Bpps 




1750 


Hulme y. Tenant 




2259 


V. Great Falls &c. Co. 




1660 


Hulse y. Tollman 




1698 


y. Harnden Ex. Co. 




1916 


Humbert v. Methodist &c. Church 


2162 


V. Hartford P. Ins. Co. 


2311, 


2312 


Humble y. Spears 




2065 


V. Kiddo 


1618, 


2059 


Hume y. Oldavre 




1923 


V. Little 


2057, 


2650 


V. Providence &c. Ins. Co. 


2429 


2442 


V. Norton 




1957 


Humes v. O'Bryan 




2555 


V. Eutledge 




2452 


V. Scruggs 
Hummel y. Cumberland &c. R 




2163 


Bubbell V. Bissell 


1660 


1665 


. Co. 


1571, 


V. Blandy 




1790 






1578 


V. Hubbell 


2094, 


2095 


v. Meyers 




1583 


V. Rochester 




2650 


Humpeler v. Hickman 




257T 


V. Russell 




1664 


Humphrey v. Hartford &c. Ins. Co. 


2314 


Hubbersty v. Ward 


1632, 


1913 


y. Humphrey 




2001 


Hubbert v. Borden 




1967 


v. Irwin 


1972 


1974 


Hubler V. Pullen 




1726 


V. Pope 




1642 


Huchberger v. Home Ins. Co. 




2336 


V. Thorp 




1589 


V. Merchants' &c. Ins. Co. 


2140, 


2336 


Humphreys v. Mead 




2479 


Huek V. Globe Ins. Co. 


2332, 


2362 


Humphries y. McCraw 




2555 


Huckestein v. Kaufman 




1664 


Hundley v. Chadick 




1757 


Hucklestein v. New York L. Ins. Co 


2473 


Huneycutt v. Brooks 




2044 


Huekman v. Fernie 




1963 


Hunn V. Michigan Cent. R. Co. 


2017 


Huckshold V. St. Louis &c. R. 


Co. 


2522 


Hunnicutt y. Higginbotham 




2083 



xeii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to SecUons.] 



Hunt 


In re 


1811, 2687 


Hunt 


v. Campbell 


2039 


V. 


Colorado &c. Co. 


2574 


V. 


Conner 


2017 


V. 


Dowman 


1962 


V. 


Goodlake 


2448 


V. 


Gordon 


1610 


V. 


Haskell 


2672 


V. 


Hunt 


2279 


V. 


Johnson 


1839, 1850 


V. 


Lucas 


1715 


V. 


McMaban 


2067 


T. 


Mewis 


1603 


V. 


Moultrie 


1771 


V. 


New York 


2513 


T. 


Poole 


2252 


T. 


Salem 


2501 


T. 


Standart 


1824 


V. 


State 


2594 


T. 


Stevens 


2079 


V. 


Stockton Lumber Co. 


1610 



1835, 1836, 1837 
2065 
1856 

1831, 2656 
2654 

2485, 2487 
1951 



V. Wadlelgb 
Hunter v. Cochran 
V. Eichel 
V. Harris 
V. Hatton 
V. Hunter 
V. McHose 

V. Starkes 2466 

V. Stewart 1895 

T. Waite 2159 

V. Welch 1731 

Huntingdon &c. E. Co. v. Decker 2510 

Huntington v. Gault 2118 

v. Havens 1709 

V. Jewett 2039 

V. Shute . 1826 

Huntington Co. L. & S. Asso. v. Cast 

2578 

Huntsman v. Nichols 1665 

Huntsville &c. R. Co. v. Corpening 1635 

Hunziker v. Supreme Lodge &c. 2395, 

2397 

Hurd V. Dunsmore 2000 

V. Fletcher 1958 

V. Tuttle 2061 

Hurdle v. Stallings 1665 

T. Stockley 2186 

Hurlburt v. Van Wormer 2009 

Hurlburt's Est., In re 2009 

Hurlbut V. McKone 2538 

Hurley v. Marsh 1693 

V. O'Sullivan 2227 

T. Street 2039 

Hurly V. Roche 1604 

Huron v. Volga Bank 2530 

Hursh V. Starr 2607 

Hurst V. Sawyer 2043, 2062 

Hurtin V. Proal 2200, 2201, 2202, 2204 

Hurtzig V. Hurtzig 2033 

Hurwitz V. Hurwltz 1969 

Husband v. Davis 1597 

HuBCombe v. Standing 2169 

Huskins v. Warren 2624 

Husky v. Maples 2583 

Hussey v. Ryan 1976 

v. Saragossa, The 1916, 1919 

v. Smith 2589 

V. Southard 2082 

Hutchcraft v. Travelers' Ins. Co. 2399 

Hutcheson v. Peck 1642, 1643, 1646 

Hutchings V. Van Bokkelen 2588 

Hutchins V. Flintge 1824 

V. Ford 2432, 2433, 2466 

V. Gernon 2576 

V. Gilchrist 2144 

V. Hebbard 2071 

Hutchinson v. Brock 1584 



Hutchinson v. Chadbourne 

V. Market Bank 1606, 

V. Poyer 

V. Pratt 

V. Supreme Tent &c. 
Hutchinson Nat. Bank v. Crow 
Hutchison v. Cullum 
Hutton V. Eyre 

V. Stoddart 
Hutts V. Shoaf 1703, 

Huy V. Brown 
Hyatt V. Clark 

V. Esmond 

V. Ingalla 

V. Wood 
Hyde v. Nelson 1739, 

V. Wabash &c. R. Co. 
Hyde Park &c. Co. v. Porter 
Hyeronimus v. Allison 
Hylton V. Hylton 
Hymes v. Estey 
Hynes v. Hickey 

V. McDermott 2485, 

V. Patterson 
Hynson v. Taylor 



2141 
1610- 
2671 
1942 
2417 
175) 
1717 
1597 
1596 
1979' 
1663. 
1639 
2424 
1590- 
1699' 
1747 
2010' 
2534 
1665- 
2688. 
1957 
1784 
2486. 
2672 
1926 



I. & G. N. R. Co. V. Klaus 

Idaho, The 1789, 1798, 

Iddings V. Piersou 

Ide V. Gray 

Idley V. Bowen 

Idzall, In re 1800, 

Illingworth v. Greenleaf 

V. Parker 
Illinois &e. Co. v. Reed 
Illinois &c. Ben. Society v. Win- 

throp 
Illinois Cent. B. Co. v. Ashline 

V. Barslow 

V. Cozby 2011, 

V. Cragin 2502, 

V. Crudup 

V. Davidson 

V. Hutchinson 

V. Johnson 

V. Kuhn 1903, 

' V. Le Blanc 

V. O'Keefe 

V. Slater 

V. Sutton 
Illinois &c. Ins. Co. v. Marseilles 

Mfg. Co. 
Illinois Land &c. Co. v. Bonner 
Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz 1617, 

V. Novak 
Illsley v. Jewett 2466 

Ilott V. Wilkes 
Ilsley V. Wilson 
I ma son v. Cope 
Imboden v. Etowah &c. Battle 

Branch Min. Co. 
Imperial F. Ins. Co. v. Dunham 
Incorporated Society v. Richards 
Independent &c. Co. v. Agnew 2331, 
Indiana Bond Co. v. Ogle 
Indiana Car Co. v. Parker 1991, 
Indiana &c. Co. v. Hale 
Indiana &c. R. Co. v. Adamson 

V. Bundy 
v. Hale 
Indianapolis v. Gaston 1984, 

V. Huffer 
V. Imberry 
V. McAvoy 



2517 ; 

2073-! 
2574, 
2124 , 
2698 1 
1816- i 
2671 
2554. 
2551 i 

2378 ;' 
2016,-! 
2504 
2519 
2019 
2515 
2017 
1978 
2515 
1908 
1915 
2671 
1897 
2502 
1992 

2321 

2190 
2064 
1697 
2468 
2539 
1959 
1699 

1947 
2304 
2234 
2334 
1935- 
2501 
2007 
1629, 
1635 
2520 
2006 
1987 
2517 
1942 
1740 



TABLE OF CASES. 



xcm 



IBeferences are to Sections.] 



Indianapolis v. Scott 2512, 2513 

Indianapolis Chair Mfg. Co. v. Swift 

1630 
Indianapolis Journal &c. Co. v. 

Pugh 1982, 1983 

Indianapolis St. R. Co. v. Darnell 1967, 

2502 
V. Taylor 2500 

Indianapolis &c. Asso. y. Grauman 2412 
Indianapolis &c. Co. y. Foreman 2519 
Indianapolis &c. Min. Co. y. Her- 
kimer 1585, 1930, 1935 
Indianapolis &c. E. Co. y. Anthony 1904, 

2114 

y. Center Tp. 2052 

y. CoUingwood 2502 

y. Forsythe 1916 

y. Hood 1580 

y. Houlihan 1925 

y. Jewett 1941, 1947 

y. Pitzer 1976, 1989, 2017 

y. Eemmy 1907 

y. Rhodes 1624, 1724 

V. Rlsley 2027 

Indianola y. Gulf &c. R. Co. 2000 

Ingalls y. Bills 1895 

Inge y. Johnston 2682 

Ingerman y. State 2601 

Ingersoll y. Baker 2621 

y. Emmerson 2608 

y. Jackson 1959 

y. Jones 2644, 2646 

y. Knights &c. 2391 

y. Martin 1826 

y. Roe 2170 

Inglebright y. Hammond 2560 

Inglis y. Sailor's Snug Harbor 2236 

y. Trustees, Sailor's &c. Harbor 2236 

Inghram y. National Union 2392, 2393 

Ingraham y. Lukens 1607 

V. Martin 2604 

y. United States 2588 

Ingram y. Hilton &c. Co. 1592 

y. Lawson 1994, 2458 

Inman y. Foster 2003 

y. Sehloss 1709 

V. South Carolina R. Co. 1916 

V. Strattan 1755 

y. Western &c. Ins. Co. • 2325, 2326, 

2328, 2348 

Inskeep y. Inskeep 2033 

Insurance Co. y. Bailey 2381 

y. Barings 2429 

V. Bennett 2391, 2401, 2403, 2411, 

2412 
V. Burroughs 2412 

y. Butler 2305, 2321, 2322 

y. Carson 2308 

y. Colt 2314 

y. Doster 2393 

V. Fogarty 2364, 2441 

V. Gridley 2396 

V. Hlgginbotham 2344, 2390, 2392 
y. Hull 2177, 2178 

V. Kepler 2392 

y. Lauderdale 2378 

y. Leslie 2322 

y. Maguire 2395 

y. Meeker 2179 

y. McCain 1641 

y. McConkey 2391 

y. Newton 2344, 2345, 2346, 2387, 
2390, 2392 
y. Norton 2298, 2359 

y. Eodel 2389, 2395 

y. Rosch 2386, 2401 

y. Rosenheim 2385 

y; Schmidt 2889, 2390 



Insurance Co. v. Tooker 


2151 


y. Tweed 


2333 


y. Wall 


2314 


/ y. Wells 


2328 


y. Wilkinson 


2420 



Insurance Co. &c. v. Bachler 2322, 2366 

y. Brim 2325, 2326, 2340 

Insurance Companies y. Boykin 2326 

International B. & L. Asso. y. Wall 1930 

International Trust Co. y. Williams 2205 

International &c. R. Co. v. Barton 1589 

y. Gray 2505 

y. Ing 1899 

y. lyes 2523 

y. Knight 2011 

y. Mills 2509 

V. Mitchell 1992 

y. Nicholson 1918 

y. Prince 1635 

y. Rhoades 1992 

y. Smith 1919 

Interstate &c. Co. y. Bird 2399 

lona Say. Bank y. Boynton 2259 

lonwell y. Mann 2044 

Iosco County Say. Bank y. Barnes 1745 

Iowa State Nat. Bank y. Taylor 2609 

Irby y. Kitchell 2073 

V. State 2265 

Ireland v. Elliott 1697, 1702, 2005 

y. Johnson 1924 

Irey y. Markey 1620 

Irion y. Hume 1752 

y. Mills 2124 

Irish y. Smith 2280, 2283, 2284 

Irlbeck y. Bierle 1982 

Iron Mts. Co. y. Bingham 1847 

Iron R. Co. y. Mowery 1903 

Iroquois, The 2444 

Iryine y. Grady 2624 

y. Hanlin 1601 

y. Iryine 2270 

y. Nashyille &c. R. Co. 2551 

Irying Nat. Bank y. Alley 2071 

Irying v. Excelsior &c. Ins. Co. 2346 

y. Manning 2441 . 

y. Motly 2141 

Irwin y. Bidwell 2551 

y. Buckaloe 1637 

y. Great So. T. Co. 1971 

y. lyers 1850 

y. Patchen 2615, 2650 

y. Porter 1702 

V. Walling 2610 

y. Williar 1800, 2567 

y. Yeager 1692, 1695, 1698 

Isaacks y. Edwards 1743 

Isaacson y. New York &c. R. Co. 1905 

Isabel y. Hannibal &c. Co. 2269 

Isbell y. Brlnkman 1633, 1635 

Iseman y. Myres 2235 

Isett y. American &c. Ins. Co. 2395 

Isherwood y. Wbitmore 2619 

Isitt y. Railway Pass. &c. Co. 2399 

Isler V. Dewey 2040 

Israel y. Brooks 2477 

lye y. Chester 2264 

lyes y. Sawyer 2065 

y. Williams 1994 

lyins's Appeal 2204, 2205 

lyory y. Deer Park 2509 

lyy Coal &c. Co. v. Long 1714 

Izard y. Bodine 1611 

Izlar y. Haitley 2050 



Jacaway y. Dula 
Jack y. Brown 
y. McLanahan 



1702 

2127, 2130 

2573 



XCIV 



TABLE OF CASES. 



IBeferences are to Sections.'i 



Jacks T. Tunno 






2154 


Jackson v. Alsop 






2206 


V. Ambler 






1665 


V. Bain 






1751 


V. Baker 






2000 


V. Bard 




1858, 


2087 


T. Bel! 






2473 


v. Blanshan 






2682 


T. Blodget 






1707 


V. Boston &c. E. Co. 






2057 


T. Brownson 




2673, 


2675 


V. Browner 




2197 


2199 


V. Bush 






2052 


V. Campbell 






1708 


T. Chapman 






2067 


V. Claw 






2486 


V. Cole 






2588 


V. Cory 






2236 


V. Cooley 




2196 


2199 


V. Crown Point Min 


. Co. 




1940 


V. Davis 




1858, 


2073 


V. Denn 




2057, 


2058 


V. Emmens 






1633 


V. Bsty 






2053 


T. Etz 






2009 


V. Graham 






2052 


V. Green 






1956 


V. Haisley 


2043 


2044 


2057 


V. Hamm 






1714 


V. Harby 




2145 


2166 


V. Harder 




2057, 


2065 


V. Hathaway 






1847 


V. Hazen 






2057 


V. Hesketh 






1964 


V. Hills 






2123 


V. Hotchkiss 






2577 


V. Hudson 






2065 


V. Huntington 






1619 


V. Hyde 






2503 


V. Jackson 2196, 


2208, 


2486, 


2489, 
2493 


V. Joy 






1616 


V. Kiel 






2535 


V. Kni£fen 






2697 


V. Knowlton 


2102 


2110 


2116 


V. Leggett 






1941 


V. Louw 






1847 


V. Love 






1829 


V. McCall 




1850, 


1851 


V. Olmstead 






1595 


V. Payne 






2211 


V. People 






2490 


V. Perrine 


1850, 


1854, 


1860 


V. Pike 






2235 


V. Pittsburgh Times 






2448 


V. Pittsburgh &c. E 


Co. 


1995, 


2010 


V. Plumbe 






1930 


V. Eeeve 






2124 


V. Eightmyre 






2057 


V. Roberts 






2424 


V. Sacramento &c. E. Co 




1784 


V. Schauber 






2065 


V. Schoonmaker 






1848 


V. Shepard 






2053 


V. Smith 






2065 


V. Sprague 






1854 


V. StanHeld 






1994 


V. State 






1929 


V. Stetson 






2452 


V. Summerville 






2127 


V. Thomas 






1617 


v. Tlmmerman 






2141 


V. Todd 






2065 


v. Town 






2154 


V. Van Dusen 


2276 


2277 


2687 


v. Van Vechten 






2218 


V. Walsh 






1943 


V. Wells 






1702 



Jackson v. Welsh 

Jackson Lumber Co. v. McCreary 

Jacksonville v. Loar 

V. Lockwood 
Jacksonville &c. E. Co. v. Warriner 

Jacob V. Woolfolk 

Jacob Tomb Inst. v. Crothers 

Jacobs V. Ballenger 

V. Cater 

V. Day 

V. Hesler 

V. Mark 

V. Miller 

V. Totty 
Jaeott's Will, In re 
Jacques v. Horton 
Jaeger v. Kelley 2127, 

Jaffray v. Davis 

V. Jennings 
Jamaica Bank v. Jefferson 
James v. Biou 

V. Browne 

V. Buzard 

V. Campbell 1689, 

V. Florida &c. E. Co. 

V. Hayes 

V. Isaac 

V. James 

V. Lyons Co. 

V. McKernon 

V. Orrell 1765, 

V. Plank 2621, 

V. Roberts 2176, 

V. Van Duyn 
Jameson v. Midland E. Co. 
Jamison v. Moseley 

V. Smith 

V. Weaver 
Jandt V. Deranleau 1756, 

Janesville v. Carpenter 
Jangraw v. Mee 1616, 

Janny v. Great Northern E. Co. 

Janouch v. Pence 
Jansen v. Acker 

V. McQueen 

V. Ostrander 2022, 

Janvier v. Vf ndever 
Jaqua v. Headington 
Jaquith v. Hudson 
Jarman v. Eea 
Jarratt v. Gwathmey 
Jarrett v. Leonard 

V. Stevens 
Jarstadt v. Morgan 
Jarvis V. Eogers 

V. Wilson 
Jay V. Almy 

V. Michael 2040, 

V. Stein 
Jaynes v. Jaynes 

V. riatt 
Jean Webre, The v. Carter 
Jeffers v. Radcliflf 
Jefferson, In re 
Jefferson v. Adams 

V. Edrington 

V. German-American &c. Asso 
Jefferson Co. Sav. Bank v. Eborn 
Jeffersonville v. McHenry 
Jeffersonville &c. E. Co. v. O'Con- 
nor 1571, 
Jeffersonville E. Co. v. Eogers 
Jeffrey v. Keokuk &c. E. Co. 

v. Walton 
JefiEreys v. Gurr 

V. Great Western E. Co. 



1932; 
2039- 
1973 
184T 
1605, 
1607 
1847 
1620 
2586 
2452 
1592 
2255 
1595 
2256 
2163 
2701 
2697 
2144 
1596 
1736 
1843 
2585 
1601 
1729 
1702 
2012 
1689 
1597 
2036 
1839 
2124 
1775 
2623 
2184 
2164 
1981 
1698 
2266 
1762 
1757 
2530 
1618 
1895, 
1897 
1735 
2603 
2164 
2023 
2027 
2000 
2000 
2454 
2603 
1709 
1623 
1847 
1798 
1839 
2115 
2050 
1620 
1642 
1755 
1915 
2009 
1805 
1702 
2067 
2293 
1761 
2516 

1580 
2114 
2505 
1782 
1728 
2662 



TABLE OF CASES. 



xev 



IReferences are to Sections.'} 



Jeffreys v. Harris 2002 

T. McNamera 2603 

Jehu, In re 1808 

Jenckes v. Probate Ct. 2276 

Jencks v. Coleman 1701 

Jeneson v. Jeneson 2072 
Jenkins v. Baltimore &c. R. Co. 2501 

v. Clement 2154 

V. Hopkins 1557, 1599 



V. Jenkins 

V. Long 

V. Mltcliell 

V. Tobin 
Jenks V. Richardson 
Jenne v. Burger 
Jenner v. JolGfe 
Jenney Electric Co. 
Jennings v. Camp 



2208, 2486, 2488 
2124 
2604 
2278, 2689 
1741 
1840 
1789 
Branham 1604 
1717, 1723 



V. Chenango Co. &c. Ins. Co. 2341 

V. Davis 2261 

V. Darflinger 1596 

V. Gorman 1623 

V. Jennings 2035 

V. Thompson 2120 

Jennison v. Hopgood 2091 

T. Stafford 1826 

Jensen v. Deep Creek &c. Co. 1654, 1655, 

1656, 1664, 2664 

V. McCorkell 1835 

Jerdee v. Cottage Grove &c. Ins. 

Co. 2309, 2330, 2359 

Jermain v. Denniston 1715, 2582 

V. Worth 1946 

Jerome v. Ortman 1949 

Jersey City First Nat. Bank v. 

Leach 2580 

Jesse V. Preston 2053 

Jessee v. Cater 1663 

Jesurun v. Kent 2666 

Jeune v. Ward 2264 

Jewell V. Jewell 2196, 2199 

v. Rock Paper Co. 1947 

V. Schroeppel 1717 

V. Walker 1823 

Jewett, In re 2559 

Jewett V. Davis 1581 

V. Graham 2022 

v. Meech 2153 

V. Pleak 2576 

V. Warren 2618 

V. Whitney 1972 

Jinkins v. Noel 2039 

Jinwright v. Nelson 1630 

Joannin v. Ogilvie 2177 

Jochem v. Robinson 2505 

John V. Brldgman 2474 

John's Will, In re 2235 

John Deere Plow Co. v. Sullivan 1T52 

John Hancock Ins. Co. v. Dick 2344, 

2387, 2388 

John Hancock &c. Ins. Co. v. Moore 

2009, 2278, 2280, 2386, 2392 

John Shillito Co. v. McClung 2074 

Johns V. Johns 2033 

V. Marsh 2117 

V. McKibben 1618 

V. Northwestern &c. Asso. 2401 

Johnson, In re 1816 

Johnson v. Alabama &c. E. Co. 1916 

V. Allen 1643, 1645, 1646, 1652, 



v. Anderson 

v. Archibald 

V. Arnold 

V. Boston &c. E. Co. 

V. Bouton 2101, 2108, 

V. Brasington 

T. Brown 



1997, 2071 
2460 



1845, 1846, 



1725, 
2109, 
2206, 



1858 
1847 
1899 
2115 
2208 
1838 



Johnson v. Caulkins 

V. Chambers 

V. Cheney 

V. Chicago &c. Co. 2650, 

V. Christian 1641, 

V. Clancy 

V. Cobb 

V. Collins 

V. Conant 

V. Concord &c. R. Co. 

V. Courts 

V. Cowdrey 

V. Crawfordsville &c. Co. 

V. Cuddington 

V. Curtis 

V. Farwell 

V. Field 

V. Fllkington 

V. Finley 

v. Gooch 

V. Gwinn 

V. Hanover Nat. Bank 1585, 

V. Heidenheimer 

V. Holliday 2631, 2635, 

V. Hudson River Co. 

V. Johnson 1608, 2057, 2236, 
2486, 2487, 2493, 2686, 



V. Kerr 

V. Kincade 

V. Knights of Honor 

V. Lawson 

V. Leggett 

V. Lines 

V. Louisville City Nat. Bank 

V. Lowry 

V. Manhattan R. Co. 

V. Martin 

V. Mason 

V. Maxey 

V. Maxon 2109, 

V. May 

V. Mayne 

V. Mercantile &c. Co. 

V. Merithew 2010, 

V. Miller 2473, 

V. Morton 

V. McKee 

V. Neale 

V. North British &c. Ins. Co. 

V. Oregon &c. R. Co. 

V. Owen 

V. Pannel 

V. Parsons 

V. Pessou 

V. Phoenix Ins. Co. 

V. Pontious 

V. Preston 

V. Ramsay 

V. Rankin 

V. Robertson 

V. Sherwin 

V. Simpson 

V. Smith 1997, 

V. Spiller 

V. Stivers 

V. Strong • 

V. Thirteen Bales &c. 

V. Thompson 

V. Tompkins 

V. Townsend 

V. Travis 1865, 1866, 1888, 

V. Union Switch &c. Co. 

V. Valido Marble Co. 

V. Von Kettler 

V. Wald 1801, 

V. Ward 

V. Watts 



1863. 
2475 
1667 
2652 
2063 
2491 
2050- 
1593 
1972 
1899- 
2004 
2491 
1947 
2656 
1607 
2660 
2153 
2623 
1942; 
2577 
2000 
1930 
1745 
2643 
2502 
2254, 
2692 
1965 
1895 
2279- 
2205 
2196 
1872 
2264 
1750 
1743 
1994 
2667 
1630 
1654 
2120- 
1749 
2236- 
1940 
2209 
2476 
2109 
1976 
2609 
2398 
2013 
2077 
1846 
1836 
2259 
2337 
2039 
1845 
1830- 
1746, 
1589 
2034 
2609 
2025 
1725 
2693 
1690 
1584 
2007 
2105 
1616 
1890 
1715 
2581 
2111 
1812 
1639 
2065. 



XCVl 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to Sections.] 



Johnson v. Weed 




2578, 


2579 


Jones v. League 


1582 


V. Wells &c. Co. 






1991 


V. Lee 


1854 


v. Wilcox 






1641 


v. Lofton 


2040 


V. Williard 






1839 


V. McCauley 


1618 


V. ■^oTings 
v. Zuschlag 






1641 


v. McCracken 


1844 






2183 


v. McLellan 


2691 


Johnson .Harvester Co. 


y. Clark 


1930 


V. M'Neil 


2658 


Johnson's Appeal 






2124 


V. McPhillips 


1589 


Johnson's Will 




2697, 


2698 


V. Martin 


1846 


Johnston v Allen 






2071 


V. Mechanics' P. Ina 


. Co. 2336, 2358 


V Barrilla 






1840 


V. Merrimack & Co. 


1571 


V. Disbrow 






2637 


V. Minneapolis &c. E. Co. 1915 


V. Fitz George 






1623 


V. Morgan 


1790 


V. Hussey* 






2463 


V. Murchy 


1967 


V. Morrison 






2449 


V. Mutual Fidelity Co. 1729 


V, Stevens 






2689 


V. New York Cent. 


&c. R. Co. 2502 


V. Sumner 






2251 


V. Niagara &c. R. Cc 


1980 


V. Warden 






2570 


V. Parker 


1847 


Johnston &c. Co. v. Cibula 




2163 


V. Pashby 1844, 


1854, 1856, 1857 


Johnstone v. Milling 






1875 


V. Peebles 


2075 


V. Scott 






2050 


V. Pelham 


1621 


Jolce T. Branson 






1703 


V. Pennsylvania E. 


Co. 1663 


Joiner v. Ocean St. Co. 






2118 


V. Perkins 


1596 


Joint Stock Co.'s Acts, 


Matter of 


1946 


V. Quattlebaum 


2212 


Joliet V. Conway 




1988, 


1990 


V. Rahilly 


1798 


V. Walker 






2513 


V. Ransom 


1597, 1598 


Joliet Steel Co. v. Shields 


2498 


2519 


V. Roberts 


2278 


Jolly V. Ohio Ins. Co. 






2442 


V. Simpson 


2149, 2150, 2154 


V. Rees 




2247 


2251 


V. Soulard 


1847 


Jonas V. Hirshburg 


1642, 


1645 


1653 


T. Spears 


2607 


Jones V. Albee 






2124 


V. Spradling 


2055 


V. Atkinson 






1639 


V. State 


2273, 2281, 2593 


V. Bank of Tenn. 






1585 


V. Swank 


1737 


V. Barnett 






2202 


V. Townsend 


2457 


V. Belt 






1991 


V. Turner 


2170 


V. Bland 






2057 


V. Underwood 


1707 


V. Bright 






2531 


V. United States &c 


. Asso. 2394, 


T. Brooklyn &c. Ins 


Co. 




2293 


2399, 2401, 2403, 


2404, 2405, 2408, 


V. Call 






2551 




2409 


V. Carter 






2067 


V. Walker 


2252 


V. easier 






2698 


V. Warner 


1959 


V. Cincinnati Type 


&c. Co 




1585 


V. Werden 


2113 


V. Clifton 






2159 


V. Whitehead 


2675 


T. Cobb 






2672 


V. Williams 


1623 


V. Cole 






2257 


V. Wilson 


1618 


V. Congregation &c. 






1948 


Jordan v. Alabama &e. 


E. Co. 2114, 2480 


T. Dove 






2682 


V. American Ex. Co 


1916 


V. Easley 






2043 


V. Dewey 


1737, 1741 


V. East Society &c. 






1715 


V. Elliott 


2177, 2180 


V. Fidelity Loan &c 






1824 


V. Eve 


1957 


V. Finch 






2475 


V. Hazard 


1907 


V. Floren«e &c. University 


1945 


V. Osgood 


2143 


V. Fuller 




1873 


1892 


V. Patterson 


1772 


v. George 






1981 


V. Roney 


1724 


v. Gilbert 






2485 


V. Seattle 


1989 


V. Givin 






1923 


V. White 


1745 


V. Gorham 






2287 


V. Wilklns 


1601 


V. Greaves 




2132 


2140 


V. Williams 


1601 


V. Greeley 






1997 


V. Wyatt 


2647 


v. Grogan 






2694 


Jordan's Est., In re 


2092 


V. Habersham 






2236 


Joseph V. Fisher 


8560 


V. Hannovan 




1962 


1972 


V. Southwark &c. Co. 2B74 


V. Hatchett 






1796 


Joseph Schlitz Brew Co 


. V. Compton 2535 


T. Hill 






1797 


Joslln V. Grand Rapids 


Ice Co. 1977, 


T. Hoar 




1725 


, 1729 




1980, 1985, 1994 


V. Holllster 


• 


2041 


, 2056 


Josselyn v. McAllister 


2105, 2115, 2119. 


V. Hopkins 






1941 




2472, 2476 


V. Howard 






2359 


Journell v. Lelghton 


2205 


V. Hoyt 






1914 


Joy v. Security P. Ins 


Co. 2319, 2322 


V. Huggins 






1862 


V. Walker 


1601 


V. Hurlhurt 






1715 


V. Winnisimmet Co 


1895 


V. Janney 






1847 


Joyce V. Williams 


1860 


V. Jennings 






2628 


Joyner v. Egremont 


IT.'iO 


T. Jones 1611, 


1703, 


1990 


1997, 


Jube V. Brooklyn P. Ins. Cn 2341 


2033, 2086, 2095 


2161 


, 2196 


, 2486 


Jucker v. Chicago &c. 


E. Co. 1989 


V. Johnson 






1798 


Judah V. Randall 


2362 2.364 


V. Layman 1866, 


1872, 


1875, 


1882, 


V. Trustees &c. 


1963 








2003 


Judson V. Lyford 


2153, 2155 



TABLE OP CASES. 



icvii 



Judson V. Malloy 1571, 1578, 1580 

Judy V. Sterrett 1870 

Jugia T. Trouttet 1608 

Julius King Optical Co. v. Treat 2625 
Junction R. Co. v. Reeve 1931 

Jurnick t. Manhattan &c. Co. 1974 

Justen V. Schaaf 1856 

Justice V. Baxter 2067 

V. E:irlin 2452, 2457 

Justuse's Succession 2205 

Juxon v. Thornhill 1661 

Juzan T. Toulmln 2148 



Kadlec t. Pavik 1584 

Kaenders v. Montagu 2694 

Kaes V. Gross 1571 

Kahl V. Memphis &c. R. Co. 2010 

Kahn v. Boltz 2564 

T. Edwards 2466 

V. Hayes 2609 

T. Tinder 2083 

V. Traders' Ins. Co. 2352 

T. Wood 2248 

KaiUen v. Northwestern Bedding 

Co. 2521 

Kain v. Gibboney 2236 

V. Larkin 2010 

V. Rinker 2137 

Kaine v. Weigley 2127, 2128, 2129 

Kaiser v. Latimer 1784 

V. Smith 1702 

Kalamazoo v. Kalamazoo &c. Co. 1940, 

1947 

Kaley v. Shed 2660 

Kalk V. Fielding 2164 
Kallman t. United States Ex. Co. 1916 



IBeferences are to Sectiotls.l 

1571, 1578, 



Kamend v. Heulblg 

Kampmann v. Heintz 

Kanawha Coal Co. v. Kanawha &c. 

Coal Co. 
Kane, In re 
Kane v. Hibernia Ins. Co. 

V. Hutehisson 

V. Paul 

V. Sanger 

V. Tooth 
Kankakee &c. B. Co. v. Alfred 
Kansas City v. McDonald 
Kansas City First Nat. Bank 

Rush 
Kansas &c. Coal Co. v. Galloway 
Kansas &c. R. Co. v. McBratney 

v. Whipple 
Kansas City &c. B. Co. v. Blaker 

V. Higdon 

V. Moles 

V. Sanders 
Kansas Pac. R. 



v. 



Co. V. Miller 1903, 



V. Montelle 

T. Reynolds 
Kansas &c. Union v. Gardner 

V. Whitt 
Kapisehkl v. Koch 
Karle t. Kansas City &c. R. Co. 
Karney v. Paisley 
Karow v. Continental Ins. Co. 

Xasten v. Interstate &c. Co. 2414. 

Kaster v. Kaster 

Kastl T. Arthur 

^athman v. General Ins. Co. 

KautEman t. Clereland &c. B. Co. 



1707 
1846 

1584 
1816 
2140 
2668 
1585 
1951 
1618 
1664 
2512 

2672 
2480 
2056 
2269 
2509 
1906 
2510 
2114 
2491, 
2502, 2508 
1905 



Raeder 
Kaufman's Estate, In re 



2618, 



1916 
2427 
2427 
1926 
2501 
1997 
2287, 
2396 
2415 
2698 
2615 
2301 
2012 
,2624 
2466 



Kaufman v. Armstrong 1761 

T. Farley Mfg. Co. 1627 

T. Fye 1890 

Kausal v. Minnesota &c. Asso. 2420 

Kavanaugh v. Brodball 2608, 2609 

T. Wausau 2629 

Kayser v. Mougham 1613 

Kealing v. Vansickle 1830, 1843 

Kean v. Hofleeker 2231 

Keane v. Beard 1730 

V. CannoTan 1578, 1574, 1578, 2053, 

2057 

V. Old Colony E. Co. 2653, 2659 

Kearney v. Loudon &e. E. Co. 2498 

Keating v. Orne 2077 

V. Price 1843 

Keck T. American &c. Co. 2399 

V. Bieber 2000 

V. Insurance Co. 1596, 1599 

V. State 2576 

Keckley v. Union Bank 2179 

Keek's Case 1717 

Kedey v. Petty 2246, 2249 

Keegan v. Geraghty 2208 

Keel V. Levy 2124 

Keeler v. Commercial Printing Co. 1826 

V. Eastman 2673, 2675 

V. Fireman's Ins. Co. 2442 

V. Salisbury 1598 

Keels V. Mutual &e. Asso. 2344, 2346, 

2389, 2390, 2391 

Keely v. Moore 2689, 2692 

Keen v. Batshore 1665 

V. Keene 2697, 2698 

Keenan v. Brooklyn &c. E. Co. 1995 

v. Missouri &c. Ins. Co. 2297 

v. Mutual Ins. Co. 2358 

V. State 1581, 1584, 2111 

Keene v. Mead 2576 

V. New England &c. Asso. 2399, 

2404, 2405, 2407, 2408, 2409, 2414 

V. Thompson 1730 

Keener v. Kauffman 1623 

Keep V. Goodrich 1658 

V. Quallman 1694 

Keerl v. Bridges 2578 

Keesy v. Dimon 2698 

Kefauver v. Philadelphia &c. R. Co. 1902 

Kehoe v. Carville 2574 

Kehr v. Smith 2159 

Keidan v. Winegar 1640 

Keighler v. Nicholson 1709 

Keirn v. Warfleld 2648 

Keiser v. Smith 2005 

V. Topping 1720 

Keith V. Amende 1914 

V. Armstrong 1745 

V. Hiner 2461 

V. Keith 2057 

V. Maflt 1728 

Keiwert v. Meyer 2618 

Kellar v. Shippee 2399 

Kelleher v. Keokuk 2517 

Kellenberger v. Sturtevant 2658 

Keller, In re 1819, 1820 

Keller v. Carr 1749 

V. Keller 1608 

v. Paine 2617 

V. Phillips 2251 

V. Robinson 2611 

V. Strong 1596 

V. Vowell 2124 

Kellett V. Robie 1880 

Kelley v. Adams 1664 

V. Bourne 2543 

V. Brennan 1875, 1876 

V. Ferjervary 2000 

V. Force 1741 



Vol. 3 Elliott Ev. — vii 



XCVlll 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to Sections.'] 



Kelley v. Greenough 1839 

V. Highfleld 1865, 1869, 1882, 1889, 

1893 

T. Kelley 1703, 2237 

V. Kennard 2235 

v. Mutual &c. Ins. Co. 2395 

V. Riley 1883 

V. Seay 2000 

T. Vlgas 2194 

T. Wallace 2124 

Kellogg, In re 2467 

Kellogg T. Aherin 2127 

V. Chicago &c. E. Co. 1989 

V. Griswold 2555 

V. Hamilton 2670 

V. Ingersoll 1957 

V. Kellogg 2057 

V. Malin 1956, 1957 

V. New York Cent. &c. R. Co. 2019 

V. Seheuerman 2474 

V. Sutherland 1591 

Kellogg &c. Co. y. Farrell 2553 

Kells V. N. W. Live Stock Ins. Co. 1829 

Kellum V. Smith 1857 

Kelly V. Alabama &c. R. Co. 1929 

V. Commonwealth Ins. Co. 2311 

V. Doody 2515 

V. Drew 2487 

V. Durham Traction Co. 2474 

V. Dutch Church o( Schenectady 

1959 

V. Fahrney 1728 

V. Ferjervary 2000 

V. Hannibal &c. E. Co. 2502 

V. Johnson 1665 

V. Karsner 2254 

V. Leachman 2450, 2466 

V. Lenihan 2127 

V. Mack 2059 

V. McGrath 2257 

V. Miller 2278 

T. Nichols • 2235 

V. Norwich F. Ins. Co. 2319 

V. Partington 2453 

V. Patchell 1781, 1789 

V. Railroad Co. 1639 

v. Renfro 1866, 1875, 1893 

V. Southern Minnesota R. Co. 2505 

V. Strong 1625 

Kelly ^c. Co. v. Central R. Co. 2501 

Kelly Nail &c. Co. v. Lawrence 1579 

Kelsey v. Hardy i 2200, 2201, 2202 



v. Harrison 




1744 


V. Klabunde 


2113 


2121 


T. Remer 




1957 


V. Universal &c. Ins. Co. 


2374, 


2375, 
2376 


Kelso V. Marshall 




2628 


T. Reid 




2000 


V. Stigar 1852 


2066 


2188 


Kelsoe v. Mayor &c. 




1571 


Kelton V. Taylor 


1768 


1796 


Kemp T. Balls 




1597 


V. Knickerbocker Ice Co. 




2000 


Kempsey v. McGlnniss 




2278 


Kemshead, Ex parte 




1666 


Kendall y. Fitts 




2144 


V. Gleason 




2194 


V. Holland &c. Co. 




241-8 


V. Kennedy 




1745 


V. London &c. E. Co. 




1919 


V. May 




1735 


T. New England &c. Co. 




1611 


T. United States 




2063 


Kendrick v. Beard 


1743 


2671 


V. MeClfary 




2646 


V. Neisz 




2264 


V. Tarbell 




1654 



2630, 2635, 
2667, 



1901, 
1872, 1962, 
1634, 



1691, 



Keniston v. Keniston 

V. Mayhew 

V. Merrimack &c. Ins. Co. 

V. Stevens 
Kennan v. Bundle 
Kennebec Purchase v. Call 1015, 
Kennebec &c. R. Co. v. Waters 
Kennedy v. Adams 

V. Bohannon 2570, 

V. Cotton 

V. Dickey 

V. HoIIaday 

V. Home Ins. Co. 

V. Kennedy 2034, 2122, 

V. Meacham 

V. New York L. Ins. Co. 

V. Roberts 

V. Eodgers 1864, 1868, 1869, 

V. Eosier 

V. Shea 

V. State 

V. Strong 

V. Townsley 

V. Ware 

V. Upshaw 

V. Yoe 
Kenney v. Norton 
Kennon v. Gilmer 
Kenny v. Collier 
Kent V. Addicks 

V. Baltimore &c. R. Co. 

V. Bentley 

V. Bornstein 

V. Cole 

V. French 

V. Marks 

V. Quicksilver Min. Co. 

V. White 
Kentucky &c. Ins. Co. v. Jenks 

V. Miller 
Kentucky Land &c. Co. v. Crabtree 
Kentucky Nat. Bank v. Carley 
Kentucky &c. R. Co. v. Quinkert 
Kentzler v. American &c. Asso. 
Kenworthy v. Williams 2280 

Kenyon v. Ashbridge 

V. People 
Keokuk v. Independent Dlst. &c. 
Kepley v. Scully 
Keplinger v. Sherrick 
Kerbough v. Vance 
Kercheval y. Ambler 
Kern v. Kern 

V. Von Phul 
Kernan v. State 
Kerns v. Hagenbuchle 
Kerr v. Jones 

v. Lauser 

V. Lunsford 

V. Nicholas 

V. Norman 

V. Shaw 

V. Simmons 

V. Steman 

V. Willetts 
Kerrains v. People 
Kersten, In re 
Kerstetter v. Raymond 
Kerwood v. Ayres 
Kessel v. Albetls 

v. Butler 
Kessinger v. Kessinger 
Ketcham v. Hill 

v. McNamara 
Ketchem v. Gulick 
Keteltas v. Keteltas 
Ketiand v. Blssett 



1574, 
2492, 



2690, 



1813, 
1720, 



2204, 



2261 
2204 
2332 
2609 
2422 
2651 
1947 
1605 
2571 
1708 
2693 
2477 
2359 
2124 
2483 
2301 
2167 
1875, 
1888 
1798 
2637 
2111 
2669 
1616 
1711 
2684 
2585 
1959 
1991 
1974 
1635 
1899 
2680 
1730 
1702 
1660 
2586 
1639 
1963 
2295 
2205. 
2655 
1816- 
1903 
2325 
2692- 
2490 
2146 
2518 
2055 
2640- 
2050- 
1576 
2697 
1838. 
1701 
1883 
2597 
2369 
2696 
2067 
19ir 
1958 
2172 
2124 
1589- 
2146. 
1815 
1732 
2667 
1707 
1985 
2696. 
2576 
1799- 
1599- 
2205 
2003 



TABLE OF CASES. 



xeix 



{References are to Sections.^ 



Kettell T. Alliance Ins. Co. 




2441 


King V. Jemison 




1664 


V. Wiggin 




2443 


V. Johnston 




2101 


Kettemann v. Metzger 




2696 


V. King 




2032 


Key V. HoUoway 




2689 


v. Miller 


2675 


2677 


Keyes v. Devlin 




1702 


V. Milsom 




1823 


V. Scanlan 




2073 


v. Mines 




2650 


V. Stone 




1717 


V. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 


2509, 


2517, 


Keyl V. Feuchter 


2684, 


2686 






2538 


Keys V. Mason 




2050 


V. Moon 




2164 


V. Norris 




2486 


V. Mullins 




2588 


Keyser v. Chicago &c. R. Co. 


1976 


2510 


V. Parker 


2236 


2237 


Keystone &c. Asso. v. Xorris 




2380 


V. Patterson 




2453 


Kid T. Mitchell 




2072 


V. Ponton 




2697 


Kidd V. Belden 




2604 


V. Ramsay 


2022 


2023 


V. Ward 




2454 


V. Richards 




2664 


Kidder v. Biddle 




2667 


V. Russell 


2144, 


2161 


V. Flagg 




1720 


V. Sassaman 




2449 


V. Kennedy 




1974 


V. Sears 




1728 


T. Knights Templar &c. Co. 


2352, 


v. Shepherd 


2431 


2439 




2354, 


2358 


V. Smith 




1707 


T. Parlihurst 




2472 


V. Sutton 




2083 


Kidder's Estate 




2124 


V. Thompson 


2157, 


2515 


Kiefer v. Klinsiclc 




2249 


V. Williams 




2167 


V. Troy School Board 




1940 


V. Woodhull 




2236 


Kiel V. Choate 


1830, 


1843 


King's Estate, In re 


2082, 


2089 


Kiene v. Euff 




2450 


King of Prance v. Morris 




1601 


Kiernan v. Dutchess Co. &c. 


Ins. Co. 


Kingdon v. Nottle 




1956 






2353 


Kingman y. Graham 


2070, 


2071 


Kiersted v. Orange &c. R. Co 




1735 


V. Hanna Wagon Co. 




2628 


Kiewert v. Rindskopf 




1729 


V. Pierce 


1633, 


1639 


Kifer v. Smyers 




2551 


V. Sievers 




2039 


KifE T. Weaver 




1829 


Kingman & Co. v. Dennison 




2628 


V. Youmans 


1969 


2005 


Kingman &c. E. Co. v. Quinn 




2124 


Kilborn v. Rewee 




2652 


Kingsbury v. Bradstreet Co. 




2448 


Kilbourn v. Thompson 




2115 


V. Tharp 


2251, 


2552 


Kile V. Tubbs 




2039 


Kingsford v. Marshall 




2445 


Killebrew v. Carlisle 




2483 


Kingsland v. Koeppe 




1830 


Killlan v. Augusta &c. R. Co. 




2517 


V. Roberts 




2577 


Killips V. Putram &c. Ins. Co 


. 2324 


2356 


Kingsley v. Bill 




1661 


Killorin v. Bacon 




2586 


V. New England Ins. Co. 


2293, 


2326 


Kilpatrick-Koch Dry Goods 


Co. V 




Kingston v. Ft. Wayne &c. R 


Co. 


2505 


Box 




1723 


V. Kincaid 




1664 


V. McPheely 




1744 


V. Phelps 


1658, 


1665 


Kilvert, In re 




2242 


Kinkead, In re 




2256 


Kimball v. Bryan 




1840 


Kinloch v. Palmer 




2276 


V. Deere 




2C28 


Kinm v. Weippert 




2259 


V. Oilman 




1667 


Kinman v. Canuefax 




1599 


V. Howard &c. Ins. Co. 




2340 


Kinna v. Smith 




1715 


V. Kimball 




2035 


Kinne v. Webb 




2257 


V. Merrick 




2027 


Kinney v. Crocker 


1884; 


1895 


V. Monarch Ins. Co. 




2328 


V. Fleming 




1577 


V. Story 




2204 


V. Hooker 


1850, 


1854 


V. Thompson 




2604 


V. Koopman 




252S 


V. Universalist Soc. 


2236, 


2243 


V. Whiton 




2074 


V. Wilson 


1576, 


1577 


Kinports v. Breon 




1994 


Kimball &c. Co., In re 




2011 


Kinscheloe v. Priest 




1784 


Kimberly v. Arms 




1611 


Kinsman v. Parkhurst 




2073 


Kimbro v. Bullitt 




2567 


Kintzing v. McEIrath 




2148 


Kimsey v. Allison 




2697 


Kip V. Berdan 




2640 


Kincaid v. Oregon &c. K. Co. 


2498, 


2519 


Kipp V. Lamoreaux 




2164 


Kincaide v. Archibald 




2466 


V. Metropolitan &c. Ins. Co. 


2389 


Kincheloe v. Priest 




1775 


Kirby v. Berguin 




1831 


Kindred v. Stitt 


2111, 


2115 


V. Jackson 




1589 


King V. Armstrong 




1664 


KirchoSE v. Voss 




1596 


V. Beck 




2206 


Kirk V. Garrett 2101, 2105 


2107, 


2110 


V. Chase 




2082 


V. Hamilton 




2072 


V. Cohorn 




2145 


V. King 




2235 


V. Colvin 




2476 


V. Stevenson 




1754 


V. Cox 




2295 


V. Williams 




2466 


V. Dorman 




1599 


Kirkendall's Estate 


2200, 


2202 


V. Faist 




2629 


Kirkland v. Trott 




1623 


V. Fitch 




2621 


Kirkman v. Farmers' Ins. Co 




2352 


V. Fleming 




1832 


V. Mays 




1618 


V. Franklin 




2666 


V. Vanlier 




1611 


V. Gilson 




1956 


Kirkpatrick v. Brownfleld 




2590 


V. Harvey 




2451 


V. Eagle Lodge 




2453 


V. Hekla &c. Ins. Co. 




2355 


V. Jenkins 


2691, 


2694 


V. Hubbell 


1745, 


2161 


V. Keota &c. Church 




1932 



TABLE OF CASES. 



{.References are to Sections.'] 



Klrkpatrick v. Puryear 1835 

V. Snyder 2006 

Kirksey v. Fike 1654 

Kirkwood v. Cheetham 2557 

Kirtland v. Montgomery 1774 

V. Snow 2144 

Kisler v. Sanders 2466 
Kissel T. Lewis 2533, 2536, 2537 

Kitclien v. Wilson 2044 

Kitchens v. Kitchens 2698 

Kitchln T. Campbell 1730 

Kitner v. Whitlock ■ 2564 
Kittanuing Ins. Co. v. O'Neill 2343, 2345 
Kitteriugham v. Sioux City &c. E. 

Co. 1989 

Klaer v. Ridgway 1845 

Klason v. Eieger 2264, 2275 

Klatt V. Milwaukee 2514 

Kleiber v. People's R. Co. 1904 

Klein T. Franklin Ins. Co. 2339 

T. Hayek 2210, 2222 

V. Horine 2124 

V. Jewett 1991 

V. Thompson 1703 

Kleine t. Catara 1665 

Kleiner v. Third Ave. H. Co. 1980 

Klewin v. Bauman 2452 

Kline v. Baker 2624, 2628 

V. Freret 1589 

T. Husted 2667 

T. McCandless 2005 

T. Nat. &c. Asso. 2295 

V. Shuler 2474 

Klinkner v. Schmidt 1622, 1851 

Klipstein v. Raschein 2140 

Klitzke V. Webb 2498 

Klock V. Stevens 2211 

Klopfer V. Bromme 2644, 2645 

Kluteman v. Page 1581 

Knapp V. Accident Asso. 2417 

T. Brooklyn 2124 

T. Fuller 2454 

T. Hyde 2179, 2182 

V. Knapp 2698 

T. McBride 2541 

T. Preferred &c. Asso. 2403 

V. Roche 2005 

V. Salsbury 2654 

V. Wing 1652 

Knapp & Spaulding Co. v. Barnard 1762 

Knapp &c. Co. T. Strand 1937, 1939 

Knard v. Hill 2558 

Kneale v. Kneale 2033 

Kneeland v. Great Western &c. Co. 2006 

V. Van Valkenburgh 1847 

Knibb v. Dixon 2124 

Knickerbocker v. Gould 1607 

Knickerbocker Ins. Co. v. Gould 2345, 

2347 
V. McGinnls 2347 
Knickerbocker &e. Ins. Co. v. Jor- 
dan 2401, 2409 
¥. Pendleton 2355 
V. Peters 2396 
Kniffen v. McConnell 1865 
Knight V. Capito 2161 
V. Coleman 1848, 1857, 1859 
T. Cooper 2519 
V. Davis Carriage Co. 1792 
V. Foster 1999 
V. Heath 2141 
V. Houghtalling 2134 
V. Hughes 1728 
V. Insurance Co. 2327 
V. Knight 1622, 2206 
V. Macomber 2577 
V. New England Worsted Co, 1726 
T. Pugh 1826, 2124 



Knight V. Smythe 

T. United States Land Asso. 

V. Wilcox 1995, 2637, 

Knights V. Piella 1765, 1772, 1785, 

V. State 
Knights of Honor v. Fletcher 2390, 
Knights of Pythias v. Cogbill 
Knights Templar &e. Co. v. Cray- 
ton 2009, 2345, 2387, 
Knights &c. v. Beck 
Knisely v. Sampson 
Knoefel v. Williams 
Knoll V. Randolph 1846, 1855, 
Knost, In re 
Knot v. Gay 
Knott V. Burwell 

Knotwell v. Blanchard 2142, 

Knower v. Cadden &c. Co. 
Kuowles V. Eastham 

V. Michel 

V. Railroad Co. 1768, 

Knowlton v. Clark 

V. Homer 

V. School City &c. 
Knox V. Clifford 

V. Fuller 

V. Hang 

V. Knox 2279, 

V. Martin 

V. Richards 

V. Smith 
Knox's Will, In re 2?82, 2291, 

Knox County v. Ninth Nat. Bank 
Knudsen v. Omanson 
Knupfle V. Knickerbocker Ice Co. 
Koch, In re 
Koch V. Dunkel 1850, 

V. Zimmerman 2010, 

Kock V. Bonitz 

Koegel V. Givens 1605, 

Koehring v. Aultman &c. Co. 

2611, 2612 
Koenigs v. Jung 
Koerner v. Leathe 

V. State 
Kofoed V. Gordon 
Kohl V. Lindley 
Kohler v. Lindenmeyr 
Kohler Mfg. Co. v. Beeshore 



Kohne v. Insurance Co. "''95 

Koile V. Ellis 

Kolka V. Jones 2470, 

Kolling V. Bennett 

Kolsti V. Minneapolis &c. R. Co. 

Koltze V. Messenbrink 

Konigsberger v. Harvey 

Konrad v. Union &c. Co. 2399, 

Kooker v. Williams 

Koonce v. Wallace 

Koons V. Western Union Tel. Co 

ICootz V. Tuvian 

Kornfeld v. Supreme Lodge &c. 

Kortz V. Carpenter 

Kostelecky v. Scherhart 

Kotz v. Belz 

Kozel V. Dearlove 

Kraemer v. Deustermann 2172 

Kraft, In re 

Kramer v. Goodlander 

V. Matthews 
Krathwohl v. Dawson 
Krause v. Means 
Kraxberger v. Roiter 
Krewson v. Purdom 
Krogg V. Atlanta &c. R. Co. 
Kromer v. Heim 
Kronenberger v. Binz 
Krug v. Herod 2607 



1694 
1833 
2646 
1786 
2277 
2393 
2378 

2390 
2391 

1714 
1584 
1856 
1811 
2111 
2458 
2143 
2151 
2020 
1605 
1795 
1731 
1659 
2666 
1831 
2618 
2279 
2692 
1728 
2699 
2124 
2691 
2588 
1857 
2504 
1808 
1862 
2011 
1607 
1607 
2609, 
2666 
1857 
1654 
2596 
2587 
2618 
2562 
1571 
2313 
2281 
2475 
2140 
2505 
2584 
1697 
2414 
2251 
2492 
2501 
2554 
2393 
1958 
2682 
269S 
1639 
2175 
1814 
1851 
2608 
2071 
2067 
1880 
2668 
2510 
1595 
1606 
2610 



TABLE OF CASES. 



IKeferences are to Sections.l 



Krug V. McGillard 2608 

V. Pitass 2452 

V. Ward 2472, 2483 

Krulder t. Ellison 1912 

Krulevitz v. Eastern E. Co. 2114 

Kruse t. Moore 2151 

V. Seeger &c. Co. 2662 

V. Seitfert &c. Co. 2146 

Kruson t. Kruson 2148 

Kuechler v. Wilson 1848 

Kueeken v. Voltz 1579 

Kiienzi v. Elyers 1824 

Kuhn V. Freund 1692, 1695, 1703 

V. Newman 2551 

Kuhns V. Gates 2611 

Kulenkamp v. Groff 1826 

Kumle V. Grand Lodge &c. 2421 

Kiimler v. Ferguson 1732 
Kummel v. Germania Sav. Bank 2501 

Kuney v. Butcher 1694 

Kunz T. Troy 2513 

Kupfer T. Augusta 1639 

Kuriger v. Joest 2072 

Kurrus v. Seibert 1974 

Kurtz V. Frank 1863, 1893 

Kurz V. Miller 1615 

Kuykendall v. McDonald 2163 

V. Ruckman 2026 

Kuzniak v. Kozminski 2529 

Kuznik v. Orient Ins. Co. 2356, 2358 

Kyle v. Buffalo &e. K. Co. 1907 



L'Amoureux v. Crosby 2279 

L. R. M. & T. R. V. Haynes 2006 

LaBelle Sav. Bank v. Taylor 1826 

La Salle &c. v. McMasters 1781 

Labbee v. Johnson 1826, 1832 

Lacey, Ex parte 2527 

Lacy T. Loftin 1839 

Lackawanna &c. E. Co. t. Doak 2502 
Laclouch V. Towie 2664 

Lacon v. Higgins 1964, 1965 

Lacon Bank v. Bensley 1839 

Lacoste v. Odam 1584 

Lacour v. Mayor &c; 1994 

La Croix v. Fairfield County 1589 

Ladd V. Blunt 2027 

V. Hildebrant 2252 

T. Pigott 2125 

V. Shattock 2648 

Ladd's Will, In re 2291 

Lady Superior &c. v. McNamara 1710 
Lafayette v. Weaver 2516 

T. Wortman 2039, 2043, 2057 

Lafayette Co. v. Neely 2124 

LaFayette Mon. Corp. v. Magoon 1840 
Lafayette &c. R. Co. v. Ehman 2510 

V. Pattison 2179 

Lafferty v. Day 1717 

V. Milligan 1957 

Laflin V. Howe 1730 

Laflin &c. Powder Co. v. Teairney 2524, 
2537 2538 
Laflin & Rand Co. v. Sinshelmer ' 1839 
Lafontain y. Hayhurst 1725 

Lafourche &e. Nav. Co. v. Collins 1776 
Lagomarcino t. Quattrochl 1751, 1752 
Lagow T. Glover 1857 

Laidlaw v. Sage 2499, 2503 

Laidley v. Land Co. 2040, 2050 

Laing v. Colder 1895, 1902, 1987 

v. Nelson 2453, 2650 

Laird v. Elchold 1786 

Lake v. Bender 2248 



1824 
1784, 



2005, 



2282, 2690, 



Lake v. Columbus Ins. Co. 

V. Hancock 
Lake Erie &c. R. Co. v. Charman 

V. Juday 

v. Mlkesell 2497, 

V. Rosenberg 

V. Stick 

V. Whitham 2050, 

V. Young 
Lake Shore &c. R. Co. v. Ellsey 

V. Foster 

v. Johnston 

V. Liidtke 

V. Eosenzweig 
Lake St. &c. E. Co. v. Shaw 
Lake Superior Bldg. Co. v. Thomp- 
son 
Lakeside Ditch Co. v. Crane 1938, 

Lakin v. Dolly 
Lallande v. Brown 
Lally V. Emery 
Lamar v. Minter 
Lamb v. Burke 

V. Camden &c. R. Co. 

V. Cedar Rapids 

V. Danforth 

V. Harbaugh 

V. Irwin 

V. Johnson 

V. Lamb 

V. Mills 
Lambell v. Lambell 
Lambert v. Atkins 

V. Griffith 

V. Haskell 

V. Robinson 

V. Sandford 
Lambie's Estate 
Lamme v. Dodson 
Lamon v. French 
Lamoreaux v. Eolfe 
Lamoreux v. Huntley 
Lamos v. Snell 2003, 

Lamotte v. Wisner 
Lampkin v. Travelers' Ins. Co. 

Lampleigh v. Braithwait 
Lampley v. Scott 
Lancaster v. Eichmond 

V. McKay 

V. Washington L. Ins. Co. 
Lancaster Co. Nat. Bank v. Moore 

Lancaster &c. Bank v. BofEenmyer 

V. Smith 
Lancaster Mills v. Merchants' Cot- 
ton Press Co. 1765, 1778, 
Lance v. Pearce 1732, 
Lanctot v. State 
Land v. Land 
Land Grant Co. v. Dawson 
Landa v. Obert 2172, 2179, 2181, 
Landauer v. Conklin 

V. Espenhain 

v. Sioux Falls Imp. Co. 

V. Vietor 
Lander v. Hall 

V. Seaver 1691, 

Landers v. Fisher 
Landes v. Perkins 
Landis v. Eoth 
Landon y. Preferred &c. Ins. Co. 

Landrum v. Brookshire 

V. Wells 
Landry v. Landry 
Lane, In re 



2445 
2064 
1924 
2006 
2522 
1912 
2523 
2051 
2629 
2604 
1777 
2522 
2501 
1989 
1992 

1938 
1943, 
1947 
2060 
1605 
2146 
2067 
1825 
1963 
2502 
1957 
2659 
1626 
2604 
2692 
2606 
2697 
2026 
2562 
1994 
2654 
1839 
2698 
2089 
1839 
2319 
1621 ■ 
2459 
2607 
2339, 
2393 
1725 
1795 
2027. 
2473 
2009 
2279, 
2289 
2558 
1795 

1785 
2618 
2486 
2486 
2039 
2182 
1709 
1744 
1825 
2124 
2673 
1700 
2601 
1573 
2467 
2401, 
2414 
1720 
2109 
2057 
1819 



en 



TABLE OF CASES. 



IBeferences are to Sections.'] 



Lane v. Applegate 1592 

V. Board &e. 2600 

T. Boston &c. E. Co. 1908 

V. Brainerd 1943 

v. Bryant 2510 

V. Concord 2532 

V. Cowper 2236 

T. Doty 2086 

T. Eaton 2236 

T. Hill 1605, 2688 

T. Ironmonger 1632 

V. Lane 2248 

V. Maine &c. Ins. Co. 2327 

T. Moore 2281, 2291 

T. Sparks 2612 

T. Taylor 2136 

V. Thompson 2650 

Langan t. Langan 1843 

Langdon v. People 2276 

V. Sberwbod 2063 

T. Templeton 1573, 1578, 1579, 1580, 

1618, 1620, 2650 

V. Thompson 1709 

Lange, In re 1815 

Lange v. Kennedy 2572 

Langford, In re 2694, 2696 

Langford v. Boston &c. B. Co. 2111 

V. Ottumwa &c. Co. 1947 

Langley v. East River Gas Co. 2473, 2479 

T. Oxford 1605 

Lang's Estate 2691 

Langsdale v. Bonton • 1941, 1947 

V. Woollen 2052 

Langsford v. Harrison 2259 

Langtry v. State 2490 

Lanier v. Huguley 2585 

V. Mcintosh 2065 

Lannay v. Wilson 2039, 2065, 2066 

Lanning v. Sisters of St. Francis 2238, 

2242 

Lanpher y. Dewell 2113 

V. Clark 2457 

Lansburgh v. Dist. of Columbia 2039 

Lansing v. Stone 2510 

T. Van Alstyne 1950 

Lantry v. Wolff 2041, 2055 

Lapham v. Philadelphia &c. E. Co. 1587 

LaPlante t. Lee 2052 

Lapleine y. Eailroad &c. Co. 1989 

Laporte v. Brock 2629 

Lapp y. Illinois &c. Co. 1994 

V. Smith 1596 

Larabee v. Larabee 2194 

Laranger v. Foley 2621 

Lark v. Bande 2109, 2116 

Larkin y. Avery 1699 

V. Interstate &c. Co. 2414 

V. Mitchell &c. Co. 1732 

V. Wilson 2067 

Larco v. Casaneuava 2088 

Laredo y. Eussell 1974 

Larmon y. Carpenter 2020 

Larned v. Buflinton 1997 

Laros v. Commonwealth 2285, 2288 

Larrebee v. Fairbanks 1834 

V. Peabody 2515 

Larsen v. Breene 2576 

Larson v. Fitzgerald 1571 

Larue v. Hays 2191, 2193 

Lasater v. Van Hook 2050 

Lash V. Eendell 2077 

v. Von Neida 2577 

Lasher v. Medical Press Co. 2127, 2130 

Lashlee v. Jacobs 2080 

Lassiter v. Davis 2153 

y. Jackman 1705 

Latham v. Kenniston 2549 

y. Latham 2032 



Latham v. Eutley 1907 

Lathrop V. Eisner 1579 

V. Golden 2672 

Latimer v. Lovett 2053 

V. Sayre 2094 

Latoix V. Germania Ins. Co. 2298 

Latta V. Clifford 1618 

Latter v. Braddell 1701 

Lattin v. McCarty 2057 

Laubenheimer v. Bach 2662 

Laughlin v. Chicago &c. R. Co. 1917 

V. Grand Rapids &c. R. Co. 2517 

Laugley v. Jones 2046 

Laurel Hill State Co. v. Snyder 2621 

Laurence v. Laurence 2486 

Laurent v. Chatham Ins. Co. 2321 

Lauten v. Rowan 2586 

Lauve's Case 1709 

Lauzon v. Charroux 2102 

Lavery v. Crooke 1997, 2635, 2636, 2637, 

2643, 2646 

V. Bgan 2205 

V. Turley 1598 

Larina v. State 2106 

Lavis V. Wisconsin Cent. R. Co. 1903 

Law V. Commonwealth 2265 

V. Hunter 1610 

V. Lipscomb 2259 

V. Uhrlaub 1729 

V. Wilgees 2676 

Law Guarantee &c. Soc. v. Hogue 1939 

Lawler v. Earle 2452 

y. Jennings 1609 

Lawrence, In re 2032 

Lawrence v. Accident &c. Co. 2399 

v. Cooke 1863, 1878, 1888 

V. Everett 2629 

V. Foxwell 2124 

V. Graves 2467 

V. Haynes 1856, 1862 

y. Hedger 2111 

V. Hudson 2505 

V. Leathers 2472, 2473, 2475, 2476 

V. Mutual &c. Ins. Co. 2390 

V. Newberry 2448 

V. Ocean Ins. Co. 2442 

V. Oglesby 1725 

V. Phelps 2659 

V. Pond 2052 

V. Porter 1979 

Lawrence Co. v. Leonard 2235 

Lawrence Canning Co. v. H. D. Lee 

Mercantile Co. 2628 

Lawson, In re 2700 

Lawson v. Campbell 2651 

V. Nicholson 1633 

Lawton v. Chase 2671 

V. Steele 2524, 2527 

V. Sun &c, Ins. Co. 2446 

Lawyer v. Fritcher 2635. 2637 

Lay v. Neville 1851, 1852 

Laycock v. Pickles 1605 

Layman's Will, In re 2689 

Lea V. Ennis 2629 

v. Guice 2548, 2570 

V. Hendferson 2641 

Leach v. Burr 2692 

y. .Francis 1699 

V. Leach 1703 

V. New York &c. E. Co. 1981 

V. Rains 2246 

Leache v. State 2276 

Leaohman, In re 1804 

Leadbetter v. Etna Ins. Co. 2337 

Leader v. State 2457 

Leahan y. Cochran 2534 

Leahey v. Cass Ave. &c. R. Co. 2512 

Leahy y. Southern Pac. R. Co. 2012 



TABLE OF CASES. 



cm 



IReferences are to Sections.'} 



Leake v. Loveday 




2668 


T. Watson 




2206 


Leame v. Bray 




1922 


Learnard v. Bailey 




2120 


Learned v. Corley 




2008 


Leary t. T.aflln 




2000 


V. New 




2052 


Leas V. James 




1798 


Lease v. Pennsylvania Co. 




2019 


Leather &c. Bank v. Morgan 




2070 


Leavenworth &c. K. Co. v. Douglas 


Co. 




2124 


Leavitt v. Comer 




1665 


V. Cutler 




1889 


V. Morrow 




1597 


v. Mowe 




1590 


v. Savage 




1598 


Lebanon v. Twlford 




2539 


Lebanon &c. Ins. Co. v. Hoover 


2300 


V. Kepler 




2387 


LeBarron v. East Boston Ferry Co 


1895 


Le Boutillier v. Fiske 




2250 


Leckey v. Bloser 1872 


, 1873 


, 2001 


Lecoil V. Armstrong &c. Co. 




2263 


Lecomte v. Toudouze 


1850 


1857 


Le Couteulx v. Buffalo 


2234 


, 2235 


Ledbetter v. Embree 




2611 


Leddy v. Barney 




1597 


lederer v. Rosenthal 




1749 


Tjedgard v. Thompson 




1951 


Ledwith V. Catchpole 


1699 


2111 


Lee V. Abrams 


1600 


1601 


V. Burnham 




2621 


V. Cooley 


2634 


2635 


V. Cravens 




2553 


' V. De Bardeleben &c. Co. 




2011 


V. Figg 




2160 


V. Fox 




2609 


V. Hefley 


1590 


2640 


T. Hills 


1732 


2618 


V. Insurance Co. 




2296 


V. Lee 




2157 


V. Lord 




2653 


V. Muggeridge 




1728 


V. Pain 




2224 


V. Reed 




1609 


V. Reliance Mills Co. 




2012 


V. Salinas 




1584 


V. Shore 




1729 


V. Swilling 




1596 


' V. Tapseott 




2057 


V. TarpHn 




1599 


V. Templeton 




2073 


V. Wilmont 




2466 


V. Wimberly 




2553 


V. Woolsey 


1702, 


2005 


V. Yanaway 




1601 


Leech v.. Robinson 




2206 


Leeds v. Commonwealth 




1709 


V. Metropolitan &c. Co. 




1995 


Leek v. Chesley 




2612 


Leeper v. Baker 




2055 


V. Bates 




2133 


Leeson v. Anderson 




1596 


Leete v. Gresham &c. Ins. Qo. 




1963 


V. State Bank 




2G09 


Lefever v. Johnson 




2615 


Lefevre, Matter of 




2691 


Lefevre v. Lefevre 2210, 


2238, 


2240 


Lefler v. Field 




2137 


Lefvre's Estate, In re 




2691 


Leger v. Doyle 




1623 


Legeyt v. O'Brien 




2276 


Legg v. Britton 




2019 


V. Vinal 




1838 


Leggate v. Clark, 




2279 


Legge V. Edmonds 


1715, 


2086 



Leggett V. Boyd 2196 

V. Hyde 2551 

Lego V. Medley 1845, 1850 

Legrand v. Swayze 2668 

Lehigh Coal Co. v. Brown 1730 

Lehman v. Brooklyn 2502 

v. Bryan 1576, 1577 

V. Great Eastern &c. Co. 2403, 2406, 

2407 

Lehman, Durr & Co. v. Glenn 1946 

Lehmann v. Schmidt 2671 

Lehmicke v. St. Paul &c. R. Co. 2006 

Lehr v. Taylor 2663 

Lehrer v. Elmore 2457 

Leib V. Shelby Iron Co. 2120, 2121 

Leiber v. Liverpool &c. Ins. Co. 2331 

Leichtweiss v. Treskow 1879 

Leidigh v. Eeever 1733 

Leidy v. Quaker City &c. 1785 

Leigh V. Norbury 2207 

V. Shepherd < 2606 

Leighton v. Wales 2000 

Leiser v. McDowell 1604, 1605 

Leisberness v. Berry 2650 

Leitch V. Atlantic &c. Ins. Co. 2328 

■ V. Miller 1665 

Leland, In re 1805 

Lemaeks v. Glover 2206 

Leman v. Manhattan Ins. Co. 2387, 2388, 

2390, 2391, 2394 

Lemay v. Williams 2479, 2480 

Lemerand v. Flint &c. R. Co. 2067 

Lemere v. Elliott 1605, 1607 

Lemert v. Barnes 2067 

Lemon v. Phenix &c. L. Co. 2384 

Lemont v. Lord 2441 

Lempriere v. Humphrey 2655 

Lemster v. Warner 2461 

Lengert Wagon Co., In re 1799 

L'Engle v. Reed 2057, 2064 

Lenney v. Finley 1735 

Lennox v. Hendricks 1850 

Lent V. Padelford 1639 

Leohard v. Allen 2003 

Leonard v. Coleman 2039 

V. Davenport 2238 

V. Diamond 2039 

V. Fitchbury R. Co. 1918 
V. Flynn 1583, 2040, 2057 

V. Haworth 2204 

V. Leonard 1600, 2690 

V. Root 1664 

V. Sparks 2543 

Le Page v. McNamara 2237, 2245 

Lerow v. Wilmarth 215.4 

Le Roy v. Gouverneur 2441 

Leroy &e. E. Co. v. Ross 2006 

Lesh V. Meyer 1714 

Lesher v. Lavau 1951 

Lesieur's Estate 2205 

Lesley v. Johnson 2071 

Leslie, In re 1816 

Leslie v. Keepers 1598 

V. Leslie 1660, 1664 

V. Lewiston 2515 

V. McMurtry 2688 

Less V. Arndt 2467 

Lesser v. St. Louis &c. R. Co. 1988 

Lester v. Jackson 2235 

V. Pittsford 2511 

Letts V. Kessler 2525, 2529 

Leucker v. Steileu 2643 

Le Vay, In re 1816 

Levering V. Levering 2202 

Levi V. Baillee 2336 

V. Kraminer 2130, 2613 

V. Lynn &e. R. Co. 1910 



CIT 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to Sections.] 



Xievlne y. Lancashire Ins. Co. 1664, 

T. Taylor 
Levi stones v. Marigny 
Levy V. Brannan 2472, 

V. Cadet 

V. Cox 

V. Levy 2240, 2243, 

V. Merrill 
Lewensohn, In- re 
Lewis' Appeal 
Lewis, In re 
Lewis T. Albertson 

V. Banli 

V. Bannister 

V. Brehme 

V. Campbell 

V. Chapman 

V. Flint &c. E. Co. 

V. Harvey 

V. Hiegins 

v. Hoffman 

V. Hoover 

V. Kennedy 

V. Linscott 

V. Lewis 1855, 

V. Miles 

V. Morris 

V. Paull 

V. Pennsylvania E. Co. 

V. Phcenix &c. Ins. Co. 2371, 

V. Rice 

V. Kumney 

V. Schwenn 

V. Springfield Ins. Co. 2331, 

v. State 



V. Sntliff 
V. Tapman 



1865, 1873, 1874, 
1878, 

V. Trickey 

V. Woodfolfc 
Lewiston Falls Bank v. Leonard 
Lewton v. Bower 
Lewy V. Fischl 

V. Gillard 
Lexington Ins. Co. v. Paver 
Lexington &c. Min. Co. v. Stephens 
Ley V. Metropolitan &c. Ins. Co. 
Leyner v. Leyner 
Liavitt V. Windsor Land Co. 
Libbey v. Pierce 
Libby V. Brown 

V. Maine &c. E. Co. 

V. Eosekrans 
Lichtenberger v. Graham 2249, 

Lichtenhein v. Boston &c. E. Co. 
Lick V. Diaz 

V. O'Donnell 

V. Owen 
Lieb V. Craddock 
Lieberman v. Isaacs 
Liebrandt v. Sorg 
Lienow v. Ellis 

Liese V. Meyer 1865, 1887, 

Life Ins. &c. Co. v. Martin 
Life Ins. Co. v. Terry 
Liford's Case 
Ligare v. Peacock 
Liggins V. Inge 
Lightbody v. North American &c. 

Ins. Co. 
Lightly V. Clouston 
Ligon V. Dunn 1592, 

Lilienthal v. Suffolk &e. Co. 
Lillle V. Llllle 

V. McMillan 
Lilly V. New .York Cent. &c. R. Co. 

V. Waggoner 
Limbeck v. Gerry 2101, 2103, 2108, 



2359 
1584 
2466 
2473 
2573 
2057 
2245 
2577 
1821 
1666 
1807 
2072 
1929 
2170 
1837 
1728 
2449 
1895 
1830 
1590 
1645 
1703 
1746 
2161 
2697 
2044 
2203 
1979 
1919 
2381 
1745 
2086 
2577 
2334 
2641 
1741 
1875, 
1893 
1725 
1959 
1838 
2473 
2166 
2385 
2140 
2011 
2293 
1636 
1660 
2071 
2469 
1895 
2124 
2252 
1796 
1620 
1850 
2447 
2571 
2629 
1892 
1952 
1889 
2399 
2385 
2650 
1610 
2536 

2323 
1725 
1598 
2628 
2697 
2130 
2501 
2277 
2111 



Lime Eock Bank v. Mallett 




1843 


Linard v. Crossland 




2650 


Lincoln v. Claflin 


2027, 


2134 


V. Emerson 




1641 


V. Little Eock &c. Co. 




2000 


V. Mfg. Co. 




2533 


V. Perry" 




2205 


V. Eagsdale 




2137 


V. Saratoga &c. E. Co. 


1982, 


1984, 
2006 


V. Taunton Mfg. Co. 




1665 


V. Walker 




2500 


Lincoln Park &c. v. Swatek 


1940, 


2543 


Lindauer v. Hay 




2624 


Lindblom v. Sonstelie 




1653 


Linden v. Linden 




203O 


Linder v. Pryor 




1950 


Lindley, Ex parte 


-2236, 


2243 


Lindley v. Kein 




1628 


V. Kelley 




2595 


V. Eichmond &c. E. Co. 




1981 


Lindner v. St. Paul &c. Ins. 


Co. 


2307, 
2366 


Lindon v. Hooper 




1729 


Lindsay v. Anesley 




2000 


V. Bates 




1707 


V. Guy 




2566 


V. Lindsay 


2033 


2485 


V. McComick 




2576 


Lindsey v. Edmiston 




2570 


Line v. Mack 




1939 


Linen v. Maxwell 




1618 


Lines v. Darden 




2212 


V. State 




2595 


Lingenfelter v. Phoenix Ins. 


Co. 


2311 


Lingham v. Eggleston 




2624. 


Lingle v. Lingle 




2696 


Linker v. Linker 




2254 


Linn V. Sigsbee 




2006 


Linningdale v. Livingston 




1717 


Lins V. Lenhardt 




2254 


Linscott V. Fernald 




1854 


Linsell v. Bonsor 




2467 


Linsley v. Bushnell 


1982 


1983 


V. Chicago &c. E. Co. 


1016 


1919 


Linton's Appeal 
Linville v. State 




2689 




1608 


Lipe V. Eisenlerd 




2644 


Lipp V. South Omaha Land 


Syndi- 




cate 




1714 


Lipscomb v. Houston &c. E. 


Co. 


2019 


V. Lipscomb 




1833 


V. McClellan 




1618 


V. Eice 




1737 


Lisabelle v. Hubert 




2102 


Liscom V. Boston &c. Ins. Co. 


2315 


Lissak V. Croker Estate Co. 




2510 


Lister v. Campbell 




1761 


V. Priestly 




2589 


Litchfield V. Brown 




1639 


V. Johnson 




2067 


V. Keagy 




2008 


V. Eegister &c. 




2063 


V. Sewell 




1623 


Litchfield Bank v. Elliott 




2621 


Litchfield Iron Co. v. Bennett 


16.38 


Lites V. Addison 




2075 


Litson V. Brown 


2247 


2251 


Little V. Blrdwell 




2089 


V. Boston &c. R. Co. 


1916 


1917 


V. Koerner 




1596 


V. Mills 


1824 


1828 


V. Sogers 




1831 


V. Thompson 




2025 


v.- Vanleer 




1707 



Little Bros. Fertilizer &c. Co. 
Wllmott 



1728 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CV 



IReferences are to Sections.'] 



Little Klamath Water Ditch Co. v. 

Keam 1720 

Little EiTer Lumber Co., In re 1811 

Little Rock v. Wright 1579 

Little Rock &e. R. Co. v. Conaster 1907 

V. Eubanks 2519 

T. Harper 1916 

V. Leverett 2017 

v. Sparkman 1709 

V. Talbot 1916 

Littlefield v. Shee 1728 

Littler v. Holland 1951 

Littleton v. Richardson 2518 

Littlewood v. New York 2019 

Litton v. Litton 2067 

Livenmore v. Rhodes 1746 

Liverpool &c. Ins. Co. v. Goehring 1656 

V. Nations 2306 

Liverpool Steam Co. v. Phoenix Ins. 

Co. 2446 

Liverpool Wharf v. Prescott 1857 

Liveright v. Greenhouse 1744, 1746 

Livermore v. Rand 2467 

V. White 1571, 1574 

Llvesay v. Beard 1820, 2156, 2163, 2164 
Livings v. Home &c. Ins. Co. 2319 

Livingston, In re 2690 

Livingstone's Appeal 2689,^2693 

Livingston v. Burroughs 2109, 2115. 

2119 

V. Livingston 2254 

V. Rogers 1658 

V. Roosevelt 2550, 2567 

Lizzie v. Virden, The 2432 

Llewellyn Steam Mfg. Co. v. Malter 

2621, 2625 

Lloyd v. Archbowle 2570 

V. Bank 1777 

V. Fulton 2158 

V. Hanes 2521 

V. Harris 1661 

V. Lynch 2052, 2151 

V. Seal 1658 

V. Williams 2161 

Lobdell V. Hopkins 1725 

Lobdill V. Laboring Men's &c. Asso. 2417 

Lobenstein v. Pritchett 1768, 1775, 1779, 

1795 

Lochausen v. Laughter 1621 

Locke V. Merchants' National Bank 2666 

v. Whitney 2067 

Lockenour v. Sides 2483 

Lockett V. Merchants' Ins. Co. 2444 

Lockhard v. Beckley 2127 

Lockhart v. Fessenick 1840 

V. White 2487 

V. Wills 1574, 1576 

V. Woods 1757 

Loekridge v. Wilson 2542, 2560 

Lockwood V. Betts 2635 

V. Doane 2554 

V. Lockwood 1642, 1652, 2034 

V. New York &c. R. Co. 1995 

V. Perry 2604 

V. Sturdevant 1956 

V. Thorn 1606, 1607, 1608 

V. Tunbridge Wells Local Board 2579 

V. Weed 2243 

Lodge V. Rose Valley Mills 1744 

Loeb V. Flash 2141, 2624, 2627 

Loeschman v. Machin 2663 

Loewenberg v. Rosenthal 2660 

Loewer v. Harris 2148 

Loftus V. Riley 2620 

V. Union &c. Co. 2507 

Logan T. Austin 1702 

V. Davidson 1594 

V. Evans 1845 



Logan V. Gardner 






2067 


V. Hannibal &c. 


R. Co. 




1899 


V. Logan 






1642 


V. Mason 






2586 


V. Matthews 




1766, 


1784 


V. McAllister 






1932 


V. Moulder 






1957 


V. Talbot 






1728 


Logansport v. Crockett 




1942 


V. Dykeman 






1629 


V. Justice 






1984 


V. La Rose 






2071 


V. McMillen 






2006 


V. TJhl 






2072 


Lohner v. Coldwell 




1872 


1893 


Loker v. Gerald 






2257 


Lomax v. Shinn 






2212 


Lombar v. East Tawas 




2506 



Lombardi v. California St. R. Co. 1994 

Lomerson v. Johnston 2179 

Lomme v. Kintzing 2551 

London v. Bear 1618 

London &c. Ins. Co. v. Crunk 2293 
London & S. W. Bank v. Wentworth 

2073 

Lonergan v. Buford 2177 

V. Waldo 2618 

Long V. Crosson 2259 

V. Doxey 2010 

V. Garnett 2574 

V. Hebb 2663 

V. Higginbotham 2055 

V. Kasebeer 2057 

V. Meriden &c. Co. 1709 

V. Morrison 2003 

V. North British Ins. Co. 1636 

V. Penn. R. Co. 1902, 2498 

V. Sinclair 1951 

V. State 2111 

V. Straus 2577 

V. Thayer 1829 

V. Woodman 1723 

Long-Bell Lumber Co. v. Stump 1606 

Long Point Ins. Co. v. Houghton 2424 

Longfellow v. Moore 2073 

Longheed v. Dykeman's &c. Church 2236 

Longworth v. Higham 2576 

V. Wolfington ■ 2067 

Lonsdale v. Oltman 1602 

Lonsdale Co. v. Moles 1974 

Lonstrof v. Lonstrof 1642 

Lookout Bank v. Noe 1709 

Loomis V. Eagle &c. Ins. Co. 2381 

V. Foster 2607 

V. Stave 1798 

Looram, Matter of 2584 

Loos V. Wilkinson 1709 

Loranger v. Loranger 2448, 2450 

Lord V. Blgelow 1930 

V. Bourne 2205 

V. Dall 2370, 2380, 2381, 2382 

V. Edwards 2618 

V. Ferrand 2576 

V. Goddard 2137 

V. Hall 1633 

V. Lord 1664 

V. Ostrander 1590 

V. State 2490 

V. Wheeler 1733 

Lord Camoys v. Blundell 2212 

Lorenz v. Lorenz 2485, 2494 

Lorieux v. Keller 2212, 2231 

Lorig V. Davenport 2512 

Loring V. Dunning 2163 

V. Marsh 2227, 2231 

Los Angeles v. Cohn 1571 

Loshbaugh v. BirdseU 2006, 2007 

L'otan V. Cross 2650 



CVl 



TABLE OS CASES. 



IBeferences are to Sections.'] 



Lothrop T. Adams 2114, 

T. Michaelson 

V. Thayer 

V. Union Bank 
Lott T. Kaiser 

V. Keacli 

V. Tliompson 
Lotz V. Briggs 
Louclilieiin v. Gill 
Loucljs ' V. Paden 
Louden v. Bail 
Loughran v. Des Moines 
Louis V. Connecticut &c. Ins. Co. 
Louisville v. Snow 
Louisville, etc., Co. v. Aslier 

V. Youngstown &c. Co. 
Louisville &c. Ins. Co. v. Bland 

V. Monarch 
Louisville Press Co. v. Tennelly 
Louisville &c. E. Co. v. Balch 

v. Bates 

V. Beck 

V. Berry 

V. Biniou 

V. Bryan 

V. Buck 

V. Caldwell 

V. Caster 

V. Clarke 

V. Cox 

V. Davis 

V. Donnegau 

V. Echols 

V. Falvey 

V. Faylor 

v. Flanagan 

V. Gilmer 

V. Goodykoontz 

V. Greer 

V. Guinan 

T. Hall 

V. Harned 

V. Hedger 

v. Hendricks 

V. Hubbard 

V. Jacobs 

V. Johnson 

V. Jones 



1985, 



1984, 1987, 1989, 



1916, 
1903, 



1902, 1903, 1904, 
1976, 1989, 2017, 
V. Keefer 
V. Mahony 
V. Miller 

V. McClish 2016, 

V. McVay 
V. Natchez &c. Co. 
T. Orr 1895, 2519, 

V. Parish 
V. Payne 

V. Philyaw 1623, 2039, 
V. Qulnn 
V. Reynolds 
V. Bitter 
V. Rowan 
T. Hush 
V. Sanders 

V. Snyder 1903, 

V. Stacker 

V. Tennessee Brewing Co. 
V. Thompson 1898 

V. Touart ' 

V. Treadway 
V. Weaver 
V. Wilson 

V. Wood 1976 

V. Wright 1995' 

V. Wynn 
Louisville Trust Co. v. Cincinnati 
V. Louisville &c. R. Co. 



, 2452 
2067 
2399 
1831 
2399 
2257 
2206 
2062 
2612 
2547 
2600 
2536 
2390 
2511 
1605 
2000 
2439 
2439 
2450 
2666 
2498 
2072 
2013 
1991 
2503 
2013 
1947 
2501 
1995 
2006 
2519 
2517 
1911 
1991 
1903 
1940 
1626 
1995 
1991 
1899 
2520 
1920 
1920 
2476 
2581 
2537 
2501 
1917, 
2502 
1910 
2018 
1989 
2523 
1933 
1918 
2.321 
1736 
2007 
2057 
2521 
1978 
1902 
2005 
1995 
2019 
1989 
2013 
1917 
1903 
1916 
1899 
1905 
1914 
1989 
2520 
1919 
1579 
1932 



Louisville Water Co. v. Weiss 

Louk V. Woods 

Lounsbiiry v. Foss 

Louthain v. Fitzer 

Loux V. Fox 

Love V. Barnesville &c. Co. 

V. Buchanan 

v. Dilley 1829, 

V. Gates 2040, 2050, 

V. Johnston 

V. Love 1643, 

V. Masoner 

V. Payne 

V. People 

V. Shartzer 

V. Simms 
Loveden v. Loveden 
Lovegrove v. London &c. R. Co. 

V. State 
Lovenguth v. Bloomingtou 
Lovejoy v. Spatford 

V. Whipple 
Lovelace v. Travelers' &c. Asso. 

Lovell V. Accident Ins. Co. 

V. Earle 

V. Williams 
Lovelock V. Gregg 
Loveuthal v. Morris 
Lovier v. Gilpin 
Loving V. Hunter 
Low V. Freeman 

V. Griffin 

V. Nolte 

V. Settle 2039, 2040, 

V. Studabaker 

V. Tibbetts 
Lowder v. Lowder 
Lowe V. Chicago &c. R. Co. 

V. Harwood 

V. McClery 

V. State 

V. Turpie 
Lowell V. Robinson 
Lowenstein v. Bew 

V. Bresler 

V. Ecker 

V. Keller 
Lowndes v. Stone 
Lowrance v. Robertson 
Lowremore v. Berry 
Lowrey v. Danforth 

V. Manhattan R. Co. 
Lowry v. Barelli 

V. Coster 

V. Howard 

V. Pinson 

V. State 
Lowther Oil Co. v. Miller &c. Co. 
Loyd V. Ashby 

V. Finlayson 

V. Reynolds 
Lubbock V. Tribe 
Luby V. Bennett 
Lucas V. Bank 

V. Brandreth 

V. Cobb 

V. Cole 

V. Flinn 

V. Goff 

V. New Bedford &c. R. Co. 

V. Nichols 

V. Parsons 

V. State 
Luce V. Carley 

V. Dunham 
Luck V. Ripon 1973 

Luckel V. Century Bldg. Co. 



2533 
2652 
2528 
2610 
2581 
2620 
2211 
1840 
2065 
2283 
1652 
2641 
2544 
2524 
2067 
2065 
2033 
2503 
2288 
2515 
2071 
1832 
2399, 
2414 
2408 
1604 
1626 
2576 
1605 
2102 
2206 
1833 
1604 
1661 
2050 
1832 
1847 
2690 
2017 
2629 
2582 
2290 
1981 
1847 
1748 
2576 
2062 
2547 
2203 
1957 
2668 
1826 
1989 
2629 
2490 
2163 
2141 
2594 
2072 
2570 
2082 
1589 
1728 
2471 
1936 
2203 
2065 
2543 
1702 
2699 
1901 
2510 
2690 
2589 
2073 
2205 
1984 
2501 



TABLE or OASES. 



evil 



[.References are to SecUons.l 



Lucketts V. Townsend 








1798 


Luckey v. Gannon 








1798 


Ludlow V. Barr 








2057 


V. Dole 








1733 


Lueck V. Heisler 








2479 


Luen T. Wilson 








2050 


Luessen v. Oshkosh &c 


Co. 




1978 


Lum V. United States &c. 


Ins 


Co. 


2295, 










2355 


Luman v. Golden &c. Min 


Co 




2510 


Lumber Co., In re 








1799 


Lumberman's &c. Ins. 


Co. 


V. 


Bell 


2341, 
2358 


Lund V. Inhabitants 








2512 


V. New Bedford 






1972, 


1974 


V. Parker 






1617, 


2057 


T. Seaman's Bank &c. 






1789 


Y. Tyler 








1985 


V. Tyngsborough 








2517 


Lundie v. Robertson 








1725 


Lunguest v. Ten Byck 








2067 


Lunn v. Shermer 








2148 


Lunsford v. Dietrich 


2472. 


2474, 


2479 


T. Walker 






1697, 


1703 


Lunt V. Holland 








1847 


Luper V. Werts 








2684 


Xurie v. Radnitzer 






22.30 


2700 


Lushington v. Onslow 








2700 


Luther v. Medbury 








1665 


Lutton V. Hesson 








2130 


Xycoming Ins. Co. v. Mitchell 


2321 


2322 


V. SchreflBer 








2343 


Xycoming &c. Ins. Co. 


T. 


Jackson 


2309 


V. Sailer 








2304 


V. Storrs 








2304 


Lydick v. Gill 








2072 


Lyendecker v. Martin 








2600 


Lyle V. Lesia ' 








1579 


Lyman v. Bank 








2578 


V. . Cessford 








2127 


V. Gedney 








1845 


T. Hampshire 








2513 


V. Southern R. Co. 








1767 


Lynbuy t. Weightmau 








2460 


Lynch v. Johnson 






2264 


2270 


V. Kluber 








1791 


T. Knight 








1642 


V. Metropolitan &c. 


R. 


Co 


2111 


2114 


T. Rutland 








2062 


Lynchburg Nat. Bank 


V. 


Scott 


1825 


Lynd t. Pickett 








2004 


Xynde v. McGregor 








2143 


T. Thompson 








2000 


V. Williams 








1617 



M 



Lynn 

Lyon 

V. 



Lyndon Sav. Bank v. International 

Co. 1830 

Lyne v. Bank &c. 2158 

Lynn, Appeal of 2673, 2675 

V. Baltimore &c. R. Co. 2150 

Annable 1729 

Chamberlain 2626, 2627 

Fleahmann 2140 

V. Guild 2578 

■ V. Hancock 2479 

V. Kramer 1974 

V. Lenon 1772 

V. Lyon 2033 

V. Railway &c. Co. 2417 

V. Travelers' Ins. Co. 2299 

Xyons T. Cambridge 2511 

T. Orange &c. R. Co. 1932 

T. Red Wing 2512 

V. Thomas 1786 

T. Yerex 2205 

Lyons &c. Toll Road Co. v. People 1930 

Lytle T. Ault 1596 

V. Beverldge 2206 

Lytton V. Baird 2473, 2483 



MacDongall v. Central R. Co, 
MacEIree v. Wolfersberger 
Macintosh v. Bartlett 
McAdam y. Walker 
McAdams v. Gates 
McAdoo V. Sublett 
McAfee v. Fisher 
McAfCerty v. Conover 



2287, 



1850, 1854, 
1860, 1861, 
McAleer v. Horsey 2137, 2138, 
McAllister v. Clement 

V. Detroit Free Press Co. 2453, 
2457, 

v. Eichengreen 

V. Hartzell 

V. McAllister 2220, 2225, 2242, 

V. Smith 1824, 

McAlpine v. Reicheneker 
McAnaney v. Quigley 
McAndrews v. Collerd 
McAneany v. Jewett 
McAninch v. Dennis 
McAnnnlty v. Seick 
McArthur v. Gallaher 

V. Home &c. Ins. Co. 

V. Matthewson 2040, 

V. Phoebus 

V. Whitney 

V. Wilder 
McAulay v. Birkhead 1990, 

McAuliff V. Parker 
McBarron v. Gilbert 
McBeath t. Wabash &c. R. Co. 



McBee v. Bowman 

V. Fulton 2003, 

McBride v. Elmer 

V. Parmer's Bank 

T. Rinard 2338, 

V. Scott 

V. Thompson 

V. Whitaker 
McBurney v. Cutler 
McCabe V. Franks 

v. McKinstry 
McCafEerty v. Griswold 
McCaleb v. Peery 
McCall V. Merchants' Ins. Co. 2325, 

V. Nare 1605, 

McCallion v. Hibernia Savings & 

Loan Society 
McCallistei- v. Mount 
McCallum v. Driggs 1723, 

McCamant v. Batsell 
McCanless v. Fllnchum 2145, 

McCann v. Aetna Ins. Co. 

V. Preneveau 2452, 

V. Preston 

V. Tilllnghast 
McCardle v. McGinley 
McCargo v. Crutcher 
McCartee v. Orphan Asylum 2234, 
McCarthy v. CofEn 1882, 

V. De Armit 2105, 2110, 2117, 

V. Leary 

V. McCarty 

V. Mulgrew 

V. Nash 

V. New York &c. R. Co. 

V. Niskern 

V. Straus 

V. Travelers' Ins. Co. 2399, 

V. Waterman 

V. Wood 
McCasker v. Enright 



1901 
1878 
1694 
2288 
2148 
1855 
1832 
1857, 
1862 
2141 
1970 
2456, 
2458 
1755 
1623 
2243 
1840 
1856 
2595 
2537 
1974 
2160 
2627 
1707 
2420 
2043 
1707 
1717 
2626 
1997 
1622 
2065 
1916, 
1920 
2140 
2456 
2242 
1713 
2339 
1597 
1621 
1847 
2655 
2575 
2627 
1083 
2124 
233S, 
2347 
1807 

1937 
2449 
1826 
1602 
2163 
2313 
2479 
2138 
1692 
2471 
1654 
2236 
2003 
2118 
1694 
2030 
2519 
2556 
2399 
1997 
1625 
2414 
2686 
1605 
1825 



CVlll 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to Sections.'] 



McCaskey v. Pollock 
McCaw v. Burk 
McChesney v. Chicago 
McChord v. Barker 
McClaln v. Lowther 
McClair v. Wilson 
McClane v. Shepard 



2559 
2248 
1942 
1750 
1835 
2177 
1610 



McCIary v. Sioux City &c. R. Co. 1902 
McClaskey v. Barr 1541, 2186 
McClauglierty v. Cooper 2456, 2457 
McClay v. Hlcka 2473 
McClellan v. Carroll 2257 
V. Croftett. 1606, 1607 
T. Ft. Wayne &c. B Co. 2012 
V. Zwingli 2064 
McClelland v. Kay 1699 
V. Miller 2072 
V. West 1605 
McClintick v. Cummins 2169, 2170 
McCloskey t. McCloskey 2578 
McClue V. Girard Ins. Co. 2327 
McClung V. Bergfeld 2612 
V. Kelley 2621 
V. Spotswood 1626 
McClure v. Colclough 2591 
V. Jefferson 2619 
V. McClure 2696 
V. Mutual Life Ins. Co. 2287, 2393 
V. Sliroyer 1661 
McClurg V. Inglelieart 1924 
McComb V. Thompson 1830 
McCombie v. Spader 1782 
McCommon v. McCommon 2687 
McConeghy y. McCaw 2663 
McConkey v. Barnes 1879 
McConnel v. Delaware &c. Ins. Co. 2140 
V. Kibbe 1962, 1972 
McConnell v. Day 1615 
V. Hannah 2609 
v. Kennedy 2105, 2109, 2115 
McCook v. Bernd 2124 
McCoombs v. Tuttle 2448, 2450 
McCoon V. Allen 2689 
McCord V. Oakland Quicksilver Min- 
ing Co. 2673 
V. Ochiltree 2236, 2243 
McCord &c. Co. v. Tessier 1571 
McCormack v. Perry 2479 
V. Sawyer 1604 
McCormick v. Altneave 1607 
V. Blossom 1582 
V. Brown 2466 
T. Chicago &c. E. Co. 2651 
T. Littler 2279 
T. McCormick 2035 
v. Miller 2181, 2182 
V. Pennsylvania E. Co. 1905 
V. Roberts 1636 
V. Sisson 2473 
V. Skelly 2039, 2065 
V. St. Louis 1605, 1607 
McCormick &c. Co. v. Gray 1964 
V. Hamilton 2179 
McCormick Harvesting Co. v. Faulk- 
ner 1831, 1832 
V. Stires 1729 
McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. 

V. Waldo 1717 

McCormick Harvesting Mfg. Co. v. 

Jacobson 1826 
McCormick &c. Machine Co. v. 

Hamilton 2183 

T. Woulph 2610 

McCourtney v. Mathes 2227 

McCowen v. Gulf &c. R. Co. 2510 

McCoy V. Curtice 2598 

V. Galloway 1846, 1850, 1851, 1855, 

1856 



T. Grandy 2067" 

V. Jordan 2281 

V. Keokuk &c. E. Co. 1919 

V. McCoy 2035, 2456. 

V. Milwaukee &c. R. Co. 1992 

V. Northwestern &c. Asso. 2354 

V. Trucks 2631, 2635, 2636, 2643^ 
V. World's Columbian Exposition 

1943 
McCracken v. Consolidated Trac- 
tion Co. 2017 
McCrae v. Young 1751 
McCreary v. MoCreary 2022 
MeCreery v. Everding 2059 
McCreight v. Aiken 2279 
McCrelish v. Churchman 2124 
McCue V. Klein 1701 
V. Wapello Co. 2599' 
McCullough V. Franklin Coal Co. 1598 
V. Irvine, Exrs. 2680 
V. McCullough 2030, 2628 
V. Wall 1847'. 
McCully V. Clarke 2501 
McCune v. Lytle 1666 
McCutchen v. Blanton 2530 
McDaniel v. Baca 2136 
V. Chicago &c. R. Co. 1920 
V. Crosby 2276, 2278 
V. Terrill 1962, 1975, 1977 
McDaniels v. Lapham 1596 
V. Robinson 1785 
McDarmott v. Kennedy 1699 
McDavitt V. McNay 1593 
McDermott v. Hoffman 1857 
V. St. Wllhelmina &c. Soc. 1717 
McDonald v. Badger 2052 
V. Chicago &c. R. Co. 1984 
V. Edgerton • 1777 
V. Hanna 2083 
V. Hoover 1745 
V. Lewis 1665 
V. Lightfoot 2660 
V. McDonald 2697, 2698 
V. Matney 2553 
V. Schneider 2055, 2065 
V. Woodruff 2458 
McDonough v. Grand Trunk R. Co. 2011 
McDonough Will Case 2235 
McDougald v. Bellamy 2114 
V. l5awson 1635 
McDougle V. Royal &c. Ins. Co. 2445 
McDowell V. Addama 2200, 2201, 2202 
V. Goldsmith 1824, 1958 
V. King 2062 
V. McCormick 2602 
V. McDowell's Est. 2467 
V. North 2080, 2081 
r. Simpson 1630 
V. Sutlive 2067 
McDutt v. Detroit &c. Co. 2455 
McBldowney v. Wyatt 2055 
McBlfresh v. Guard 2696 
McElroy v. Melear 1728 
V. Phink 2697 
McBlwee v. Ferguson 2287 
V. Wolfersberger 1869 
McEntlre v. Durham 2052 
McEvers y. Lawrence 2348 
McEvoy V. Bock 2546 
V. Loyd 1844, 1845, 1848, 1862 
McFadden v. Henderson 2620 
V. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 1907 
V. Ross 2608 
McFadin v. Catron 2684 
McFarlan v. Triton Ins. Co. 1836, 1943 
V. Watson 1735 
McFarland v. Culbertson 2059 
V. Shlpp 172T 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CIS 



[References are to Sections.'] 



McFarland v. Sikes 1829, 1831, 1832 

V. United States &c. Asso. 2418 

McFarlane t. Ray 2057 

V. Sumner 1605 

McFeeley v. Scott 2082 

McGahan v. Indianapolis Nat. Gas. 

Co. 2497 

McGarr v. National &c. Mills 1995 

McGarrahan v. Layers 2116 

V. New York &c. R. Co. 1987, 1989 
McGary v. Hastings 1958 

McGee, In re 1801, 1811, 1812 

McGee v. Missouri Pacific R. Co. 1899, 

2505 

V. Prouty 1828, 1829, 1843 

V. State 2596 

McGeever t. Kennedy 2448, 2450 

TtlcGehee v. Jones 2094, 2095 

McGill V. Kennedy 2067 

McGlnley v. U. S. &c. Ins. Co. 2376 

McGinnis v. Kempsey 2280 

McGinty v. Henderson 2466 

McGlrr v. Aaron 2236 

McGlinchey v. Fidelity &e. Co. 2399, 

2411, 2412, 2414 

McGlother v. ProTident Mut. &c. 

Co. 2414, 2415 

McGoon v. Ankeny 1571, 1577 

McGovern v. Mowry 2040 

V. New York &c. R. Co. 1995 

McGowan v. Chapen 2663 

V. Chicago &c. R. Co. 2502 

T. Crooks 2055 

V. McGowen 2034 

McGrath v. Donnelly 2258 

T. New York &c. R. Co. 2504, 2505, 

2522 

McGraw's Will 2693 

McGregor v. Balch 2589 

T. Brown 2678, 2677, 2678 

T. Cleveland 2542 

V. Gladwin Co. 2596 

MeGrell v. Buffalo &c. Co. 2499 

McGrew v. Harmon 1959 

V. Thayer 1770 

T. Walker 2542, 2547 

McGuckin v. Milbank 1957 

McGuire v. Drew 2399 

V. Gadsby 2022 

V. People 2272 

McGurn, In re 1800, 1816 

McHan v. Ordway 2124 

McHaney v. Cawthorn 1749 

McHenry v. Bullfant 2628 

McHose T. Fulmer 1994 

McHugh V. Fitzgerald 2212 

V. Schlosser 1987 

McUhargy v. Chambers 1709 

Mcllroy v. Buckner 2124 

Mcllvoy V. Cockran 1699, 1701 

Mclnerney v. Beck 1622 

Mclntire t. Levering 2476, 2477 

V. Mclntire 2232 

V. Zanesville &c. Co. 2236 

Mcintosh V. Hodges 1735 

V. Moore 2691, 2697 

Mclntyre v. Mclntyre 2697 

V. New York &c. R. Co. 1985, 1995, 

1998, 2017 

v. Park 1639 

McJilton V. Love 1589 

V. Johnson 1596 

McKaig y. Hebb 2094, 2095 

McKavlin v. Bresslin 2249 

McKay v. Grinley 1605 

V. Overton 1607 

MeKean v. Burlington &c. R. Co. 2505 

McKeay v. Collehan 2124 



McKee v. Campbell 
V. Ingalls 
T. Lineberger 
V. Nelson 

V. Phoenix Ins. Co. 
V. Spiro 



2184 
2454, 2457 
2046 
1873 
2383 
2050 



McKeen v. Boatmen's Bank 1606 

McKeering v. Penn. R. Co. 2019 

McKeesport Sawmill Co. v. Pennsyl- 
vania Co. 2530 
McKeever v. Market St. R. Co. 1988 
McKeigue v. Janesville 2017 
McKelvey v. McKelvey 2206 
McKenna v. Algeo 1643 
v. Brooklyn &c. R. Co. 1988 
V. Lyle 1666 
McKenney v. Daniel 2065 
V. Dingley 2141 
McKenzie v. Allen 1694 
V. Culbrett 1596 
y. Lautenschlager 1648 
McKeown v. Allen 2154, 2157 
McKern y. Calvert 2641 
McKibben v. Bakers 1768, 1788 
McKim v. Phoenix Ins. Co. 2321 
McKimble y. Boston &c. R. Co. 2011 
McKlnder y. Littlejohn , 2577 
McKinley v. Chicago &c. R. Co. 1991 
V. Gaddy 2461, 2577 
v. McGregor 2251 
McKinney v. Carmack 2014 
V. Daniel 2042, 2065 
V. Doane 1845, 1846, 1850, 1856 
y. First Nat. Bank 2613 
y. Miller 2627 
V. Rhoads 1951 
y. Stewart 2194, 2205 
McKlnnon v. McEwau 1994 
McKlnsey v. Squires 1891 
McKinster v. Hitchcock 1605 
McKinstry y. Collins 1697 
V y. Solomons 1659 
McKissock y. St. Louis &c. R. Co. 2502 
McKnight y. Newell 1733 
McKonkey v. Gaylord 2517 
McKown V. Hunter 2146, 2472 
y. Whitmore 2465 
McKyring v. Bull 1726, 2023 
McLain v. Directors &c. 2236 
McLanahan v. Universal Ins. Co. 2328 
McLane's Estate, In re 2693 
McLaren v. Hall 1741, 1754, 1755 
McLarin v. Atlanta &c. R. Co. 1897 
McLaughlin v. Corry 1988, 1991 
V. Russell 2454 
y. San Francisco &c. R. Co. 1987 
V. Waite 2662 
McLaughlin Co. v. United States 1606, 

1608 

McLaury v. McGregor 2515 

McLawrin y. Salmons 1850 

McLean v. Dow 2071, 2074 

v. Farden 2059 

v. Piedmont &e. Ins. Co. 2297 

V. Thorp 2466 

McLendon v. State 2121 

McLeod V. State 2280, 2286 

McLeran v. Benton 1571 

McLoon v. Commercial &c. Ins. Co. 

2302, 2374 

McLure v. Lancaster 2261 

McMahan y. Canadian &c. R. Co. 1948 

v. Green 2112 

V. Spinning 1658, 1659 

McMahon v. Mayor &c. 1998 

V. Rooney 2124 

y. Supreme Council &c. 2417 

McMahill v. Jenkins 1610 



ex 



TABLE OP CASES. 



IBeferences are to Sections. "l 



McManamee v. Missouri Pac. E. Co. 1895 

McManus ¥. jEtna Ins. Co. 2357 

T. Carmichael 1845 

T. Crickett * 1692 

Y. Smitli 2039 

McMaster v. Scriven 2693 

McMasters v. Blair 2276 

V. Edgar 2248 

V. Insurance Co. 1713, 2346, 2387 

T. Torsen 2039, 2062 

V. Westchester Ins. Co. 2325. 2340, 

2358 

McMechen v. McMeclien 2684, 2689 

McMichael v. Eaoul 2575 

McMiclsen v. Safford 1826 

McMillan y. Knapp 1709 

T. Michigan &c. R. Co. 1916 

V. Warner 1574 

McMillin v. Staples 1971 

McMorran v. Fitzgerald 2533 

V. Moore 1737, 1743, 1745 

McMuUan v. McKenzie 2541 

McMullen v. Ritchie 2248 

McMurray v. Gifeord 2124 

V. Hughes 2071 

V. Rawson 1601 

McMurtey v. Munro 1605 

McNabb v. Lockhart 1767, 1795 

McNair v. Toler 1584 

McNally v. Phmnix Ins. Co. 2326, 2337, 

2347, 2359 

McNamara v. Clintonville 1987, 1989 

V. King 1703, 1990, 1997 

V. Seaton 1857 

McNaughton v. Elkhart 2518 

McNay v. Stratton 2103, 2106 

McNeal v. Glenn 1612 

McNear v. Roberson 2466 

McNeel v. Baker 1610 

McNeil T. Davidson 2006 

V. Dixon 1850, 1851 

V. Magee 1663 

v. Plows 1745 

McNeill V. Currie 1589 

V. Puller 2091 

V. Reid 1994 

V. Reynolds 2586 

McNeilly v. Continental Life Ins. 

Co. 1641 

McNerney v. Reading City 2505 

McNulty v. Cambridge 2511 

McNutt V. McNutt 2039 

McPeters v. Phillips 2672 

McPherson v. Cox 2174 

T. McPherson 1601 

V. Pac. &c. E. Co. 1923 

McPheters v. Page 2666 

McQuade v. Metropolitan St. R. Co. 2012 

V. Williams 1745 

McQuaid v. Portland &c. 1847 

McEae 7. Lilly 2003 

McRoberts v. Bergman 2040, 2057 

McSweeney v. McMlllen 1585 

McTaggart v. Thompson 2691 

McTavish v. Carroll 2004 

McWhirt t. McICee 1843 

McWhlrter v. Douglas 2006 

McWilliams t. Allen 1602 

V. Hoban 2117, 2483 

McWillie v. Van Vactor 2082, 2089 

McWhorter v. Bluthenthal 2586 

V. Heltzell 2050, 2055 

McVane t. Williams 2171 

Mabin v. Webster 1880, 1893 

Mabury v. Louisville &c. Co. 2075 

Macarthur v. Campbell 1661 

Macdougall v. Macgulre 1692, 1695 

V. Eobertson 1666 



Mace V. Cadell 2071 

V. Eamsey 1981, 1994 

Machine Co. v. Kenton Ins. Co. 2204, 

2298, 2311, 2312 

Mack V. Handy 2033, 2037 

V. Jones 2134 

V. Lancaster Ins. Co. 2293, 2305 

V. Leedle 1840 

V. Mack 1707 

V. Snell 2829 

Mackey v. Collins 1959 

Mackie v. Central E. Co. 2516 

Macklot V. Dudreuil 1616 

Maclean v. Dunn 1628, 1732 

V. Scripps 2146 

Macomb v. Wilber 1865 

Macomber v. Howard &c. Ins. Co. 2335 

v. Nichols 2528 

Macon &c. R. Co. v. Johnson 2003 

Macy V. China &c. Ins. Co. 2441 

V. Combs 2560 

V. Whaling Ins. Co. 2803 

Madden v. Blain 1504 

Maddocks v. Stevens 1957 

Maddox v. Atlantic &c. 1842 

V. Bevan 1597 

V. Maddox 2689, 2690 

Maddux v. West 2044 

Madera Irr. Dist., In re 1846 

Madigan v. De GratE 1809 

Madison v. Larmon 2208 

V. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 1987 

V. Owens 2049 

V. Smith 2508 

Madison Co. v. Paxton 2070 

V. Tullis 1962, 1972 

Madison &c. Bank v. Gould 2345 

Madison &c. E. Co. v. Whitesel 1941, 

1943 

Madisonville v. Pemberton's Admr. 

2010 

Magann v. Segal 2399 

Magee v. Magee 1616- 

V. Raiguel 1715 

V. Pacific Imp. Co. 1775 

Magel v. Milligan 2259 

Maggrath v. Church 2441 
Magid-Hope Silk Mfg. Co., In re 1800 

Jlagill V. Brown 2235 

Maglathlin v. Maglathlin 2038 

Magmer v. Renk 2479 

Magovern v. Robertson 2551 

Maguire v. Middlesex R. Co. 2521 

V. Moore 2206 

V. Sheehan 1939 

Mahau v. Brown 1969, 1971 

Maher v. Willson 25''5 

Maher's Estate. In re 2486 

Mahon v. Pac. &c. Ins. Co. 2304 

Mahoney v. Bedford 2003 

V. Middleton 2062 

Mailand v. Mailaud 1891 

Main v. McCarty 2110 

V. Ryder 2696 

Mams V. Cosner 2645 

Mainwarlng v. Leslie 2247, 2251 

Mainz V. Lederer 1888 

Mair v. Railway &c. Co. 2409 

Maire v. Kruse 1571, 1579 

Maisenbacker v. Concordia Soc. 1703 

Mattland y. Golduey 2449 

V. Manhattan E. Co. 1970 

Ma.lestic. The 1915 

Major V. Hawkes 2572 

Makepeace v. Bancroft 1850 

Malaney V. Taft 1765, 1783 

Maiden Bank v. Baldwin 1840 

Mallnieml v. Gronlund 2111 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXI 



[ReferenceB are to Sections^ 



Mallery v. Young 

Mallett T. Uncle Sam &e. Co. 1575, 

Mallory v. Travelers' 

Mallow V. Walker 
Malloy V. Malloy 
Malone v. Hawley 

V. Pittsburgh &c. 
Malott V. Shimer 
Malton V. Nesbit 
Manatt v. Scott 
Manby y. Scott 
Manchester v. Braedner 

V. Manchester 

V. Vale 
Manchester &c. Assur 

man 
Maud y. Patterson 
Mandel v. Peet 

y. Swan Land &c. 
Mandell v. McLure 
Mandeyille y. Ayery 

y. Welch 
Mandigo v. Mandigo 
Manhattan &c. Co. y. 
Manhattan &c. Ins. Co. y. Beard 

V. Broughton 

y. Carder 

V. McLaughlin 

y. Weill 

Y. Willis 



2691 

1576, 

1580 

Ins. Co. 2391, 2393, 

2399,. 2401, 2411 

2693 

2039 

2520 

E. Co. 1994 

1995 

2143 

2691, 2692 

2247, 2251 

2466 

2032 

1923 

Co. y. Feible- 

2363 
1664 
1743 
Co. 1943 

1752 
1589 
1715 
2036 
Sears 2551 

2395 
2395 
1635 
1654 
2420 
2293 



y. Wright 1572, 1576 

Manheimer v. Harrington 2134 

Manistee y. Cogswell 1852 

Manistef Bank y. Seymour 1826 
Manistee &c. Works v. Shores &c. 

Co. 2000 

Mahkey y. Willoughby 2094 

Mankins y. State 2450 

Manley y. Delaware &c. Co. 1976 



V. Pattison 






2010 


y. Robertson 






2461 


y. Staples 




2276, 


2692 


Manloye y. Naw 




2422 


2424 


Manly v. Field 






2631 


Mann v. Birchard 




1915, 


1916 


y. Mann 




2210, 


2211 


y. Richardson 






1667 


V. Taylor 


1576, 


2146. 


2627 


Mann-Boudoir &c. Co. v 


Dupre 


1989 


Manning y. Cogan 






2078 


v. Columbian Lodge 


&c. 




2140 


y. Finn 






2480 


y. Fitch 






1993 


y. Gasharie 






2686 


y. Manning 






1610 


V. Matthews 






1714 


y. Meredith 






1840 


y. Wells 






1923 


Mannix y. Purcell 






2244 


Manns y. Dupont 






1951 


Manor v. State 




2589 


2599 


Mansfield y. Edwards 






1843 


y. Hunt 






2524 



Mansfield Coal &c. Co. y. McBnery 2017 
Mansnr-Tabbetts Implement Co. v. 

Ritchie 1751 

Mantel y. Gibbs 2169 

Manter y. Truesdale 2148 

Manton y. Gammon 1717 

Manufacturers' &c. Co. v. Dorgan 2399, 

2408, 2414 

y. Fletcher 2347 

Manufacturers' Bank y. Hazard 2070 

Manufacturers' &c. Bank v. Winship 2571 
Manufacturers' Bank of Milwaukee 

y. Rugee 2627 



Marble y. Lypes 


2558, 


2560 


V. Marble 




2493 


Marblehead Ins. Co. v. Underwood 


2422 


Marbourg y. Lewfs Cook Mfg. 


Co. 


1745 


Marbury y. Madison 


2063, 


2593 


Marceau y. Travelers' Ins. Co 




2399 


March v. Allabough 




2000 


y. ^^■alke^ 




1995 


Marcos y. Barcas 




2189 


Marcumber y. Beam 




1737 


Marcy y. Sun Ins. Co. 




2440 


Maresl y. American Yacht Club 


2617 


Margarum y. Moon 




1589 


Margate Pier Co. v. Hannam 




2589 


Margoon v. Davis 




1615 


Marine Mach. Co., In re 




1815 


Marine Bank v. Flske 




2074 


Marine Ins. Co. y. Hodgson 




1953 


v. Winsmore 




2429 


Mariner v. Smith 


1775 


1779 


Marinl v. Graham 




2531 


Marion v. Chicago &c. E. Co. 




2510 


v. Great Republic Ins. Co 




2336 


V. Heimback 


' 


1596 


Marion County y. Clark 




1826 


Marion Distilling Co. y. Ellis 




2170 


Market y. St. Louis 




2513 


Markham y. Jaudon 




1782 


V. O'Connor 




2072 


V. Russell 




2452 


Markland v. Kimmel 




2072 


Markle v. Hatfield 




1730 


Markley v. Whitman 




1689 


Marks v. Baker 




2457 


y. Boone 




1837 


v. Hastings 


2479, 


2483 


v. Long Island &c. R. Co. 




1994 


y. Marks 




2034 


v. New Orleans C. S. Co. 


' 


1791 


v. Robinson 




2668 


v. Sigler 




2549 


V. Stein 




2551 


v. Sullivan 




2120 


v. Townsend 2102, 


2108, 


2120 


Marland v. Royal Ins. Co. 




2297 


Marlow v. Liter ■ 




2067 


Marmon y. Waller 




1607 


Marr's Appeal 




2124 


Marr v. Gilliam 




1617 


V. Hobson 




1843 


y. Howland 




2071 


V. Hyde 


1603, 


1714 


Marrett v. Brackett 




2580 


Marrotto v. McClotter 




2579 


Marschuetz v. Wright 




1798 


Marsh y. Astoria Lodge 




1934 


V. Bristol 




1703 


y. Brown 




2090 


y. Bulteel 




1666 


v. Case 




1610 


V. Collnett 




1951 


y. Home 




1916 


y. Marsh 




2038 


v. Marshall 




1845 


v. Mathias 


1932, 


1940 


y. Packer 




1666 


y. Richardson 




1849 


y. Tyrrell 




2283 


v. Webber 




2148 


V. Wood 




1666 


Marshall v. Betner 




1982 


y. Bompart 




1845 


V. Chicago' &c. R. Co. 




2510 


V. Crntwell 




2261 


y. Davis 




2663 


y. Marshall 




2698 


V. Oakes 




2253 


v. Strange 




1710 



cxu 



TABLE OF CASES. 



{References are to Sections.'] 



Marshall v. Taylor 




2630 


V. Thames Ins. Co. 




2140 


T. York &e. R. Co. 


1907 


1909 


Marshall Bank v. Child 




1840 


Marshalltown Bank v. Crabtree 


1830, 






1843 


Marshalsea, The 




1921 


Marston v. Boynton 




1727 


V. Hobbs 




1956 


V. Marston 




2688 


T. Rowe 




1617 


Martin v. Baldwin 




1589 


V. Beck with 




1605 


V. BUSS 




1921 


T. Boyd 




1830 


V. Capital Ins. Co. 




2322 


V. Carlin 


1846 


1847 


V. Cole 




1830 


V. Davis 




1751 


V. Equitable &c. Asso. 


2399 


2412 


T. Pewell 




2574 


V. Pishing Ins. Co. 




2432 


V. Franklin &c. Ins. Co. 




2371 


V. Hardesty 




2477 


V. Hughes 




1862 


V. Kelley 




2044 


V. Kennedy 


2145 


2161 


V. King 




2700 


V. Lloyd 




1845 


V. Lutkewitte 




2124 


V. Maine Cent. R. Co. 




2068 


V. Manufacturers' &c. Co 




2361 


V. Martin 1621, 


2491, 


2494 


V. Mayer 




1751 


V. Moore 


1691, 


2124 


V. Murphy 


1703, 


2000 


V. Nance 




1843 


T. New York &e. R. Co. 


2510, 


2512 


V. Payne 




2631 


V. Pensacola &c. R. Co. 


1931, 


1947 


V. Perkins 




2683 


V. Rexroad 




2156 


V. Shannon 


2583, 


2584 


V. Smith 




1838 


V. State 


2273, 


2275 


V. Stubblngs 


1826, 


2385 


V. Thornton 


1655, 


1665 


V. Travelers' Ins. Co. 




2399 


V. Walton 




2574 


V. Webb 




1634 


V. Wilson 




2460 


V. Woodruff 




1728 


V. Woods 




1584 


V. Zellerback 




2070 


Martin-Brown Co. v. Henderson 


1709 


Martindale v. Kendrick 2200, 


2202, 


2209 


Martinez v. Bernard . 




2012 


V. Martinez 




2699 


V. Vives 




2009 


Martyn v. Arnold 


1605, 


1606 


Marvin v. Brooks 




1611 


V. Elliott 




2039 


V. Ellwood 




1781 


V. New Bedford 




2506 


V. Smith 




1781 


Marx V. McGlynn 2236, 2284 


2691 


2696 


V. LeinkaufC 




1745 


Maryland &c. Co. v. Hudglns 




2399, 




2413, 


2415 


Marzettl v. Williams 




1972 


Mascolo V. Montesanto 


1826, 


2177 


Maslin V. Hlett 




1597 


Mason v. Bally 




2205 


V. Balr 




2077 


V. Bauman 




2148 


V. Calumet &c. Co. 




1618 


V. Campbell 




1596 



Mason v. Connell 2544 

V. Douglas 25T6 

V. Ellsworth 1991 

T. Fuller 2199 

V. Hawes 1982 

V. Henry 2461 

T. Hill 1970 

V. McLean 2227 

V. Mason 2490 

V. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 2505 
V. Methodist &e. Church 2236, 2243 

V. Partridge 2551 

V. Searies 2124 

V. St. Louis «&c. E. Co. 1978 
V. St. Louis TJn. St. Yds. Co. 1767, 

1791 

V. Warner 2579 

V. Wickershaw 1596 

V. Williams 2072 

Masonic &c. Asso. v. Bunch 2305 

Massey v. Johnson 1598 

V. Young 2129, 2133 

Massie v. Enyart 2161 

Massilon Engine &c. Co. v. Shirmer 2629 

Masson v. Anderson 1576 

Masten v. Olcott 1854 

Masters v. Warren 1988, 1991 

Masterson v. Bockel 1850 

V. Cheek 2065 

Masterton v. Mayor &c. 1994 

V. Mount Vernon 1994 

Matchin v. Matchin 2032 

Mateer v. Brown 1797 

Matoon v. Clapp 2086 

Matson V. Trower 1659 

Matheis v. Mazet 1997 

Mather v. American Ex. Co. 1981 

V. Day 1665 

V. Rogers 2466 

V. Walsh 1623 

V. Whitefoot 2288 



Mathews v. Daly-West Min. Co. 

V. Densmore 

V. Porniss 

V. Sims 
Matter v. Eadoyich 
Matteson v. New York &c. R. Co. 



2509 
2602 
2685 
1951 
2089 
1905, 
1991 

Matthews v. Boydstun 1745 

V. Cedar Rapids 2506 

V. Crosby 2218 

V. Huntley 2140 

V. Light 2053 

V. Redwine 2022 

V. Smith 2577 

V. Terry 1700 

V. Tower 1604 

V. Wilson 1610 

Mattis V. Hosmer 1636 

Mattison v. Tanfleld '>'^03 

Matton y. Young 2095 

Mattox V. Stevens 2053 

Mauck V. Melton 2682 

Maul V. Drexel 1709 

Maunder v. Venn 2631 

Maunsell v. Wlllett 2541 

Maupin v. Daniel 2541, 2575 

V. Scottish &e. Ins. Co. 1583 

Mauritz v. New York &c. R. Co. 1899 

Maury v. Talmadge 1904 

Maus v. Borne 1751 

Mawich V. Elsey 1695 

Max v. Roberts 1924 

V. Watkins 1751 

Maxham v. Day •>604 

Maxsou V. Llewllyn 1834 

Maxwell v. Bay City &c. Co. 2007 

V. Chapman 2491 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXlll 



IReferences are to Sections.l 



Maxwell v. Cunningham 




1615 


Megginson's Jilstate, In re 2485 


2488 


V. Higgins 






2545 


Meguiar v. Helm 


2562 


v. Hill 






2687 


Mehlhop V. Pettibone 


2151 


Maxwell Land Grant 


Co. V. 


Daw- 




Mehrhoff v. Mehrhoff 


1642 


Bon 


1617, 


1622, 


2049 


Meibus v. Dodge 


1997 


May V. Barnard 






1612 


Meier v. Pennsylvania E. Co. 


1903 


V. Behrends 






2628 


Meigs V. Lister 


2538 


V. Brown 






2458 


Meikel v. German &c. Soe. 


1585 


V. Crawford 






2000 


Melledge v. Boston Iron Co. 


1629 


V. Hewett 






2585 


Mellen v. Hamilton &c. Ins. Co. 


2340 


T. Kloss 




1605, 


1607 


V. National Ins. Co. 


2321 


■V. May 






1611 


V. Thompson 


1698 


T. Miller 






1664 


V. Whipple 
Mellon V. Spateman 1970 


1725 


■V. Newman 






1744 


1972 


V. O'Neal 






2666 


Melone v. Rufflno 


1840 


V. Pavey 






2612 


Melvin v. Hodges 


1831 


V. Ritchie 






2206 


V. Melvin 


2033 


V. State 






2014 


V. Waddel-l 


2040 


Maybury v. Berkery 






1607 


Memphis &c. Co. v. McCool 


1904 


Mayenborg v. Haynes 






2074 


Memphis &c. E. Co. v. Benson 


1899 


Mayer, In re 


1804, 


1805, 


1813 


V. Chastine 


1895 


Mayer v. Clark 






1753 


V. Neighbors 


2124 


T. Dean 




2624, 


2627 


V, Reeves 


1916 


T. People 






2142 


V. Rivers 


1947 


V. Schlamp 






2582 


V. Shoecraft 


2461 


V. Society for Visitation 




2243 


V. Whitfield 1903, 1988, 1991, 


1996 


T. Ver Bryck 






1720 


V. Womack 


2012 


V. Zingre 






1744 


Menasha Co. v. Lawson 


1849 


Mayhew y. Burns 






1995 


Mendelson v. Paschen 


2155 


V. Nelson 






1907 


Mendenhall v. Paris 


1854 


Maynard v. Black 






2576 


Mendenhall's Will 1687, 


2685 


V. Buck 






2505 


Mengedoht v. Van Dorn 


1699 


V. Frederick 






1660 


Menneiley v. Employers' &c. Corp. 


1399, 


V. Maynard 






2148 




2412 


V. Weeks 






1847 


Mennie v. Blake 


2604 


V. Woodard 






2235 


Mentzer v. Ellison 


1741 


Mayne v. Council Bluffs Sav. 


Bank 


1759 


Meranda v. Spurlin 


2006 


V. Jones 






2062 


Mercantile Library Company's Ap- 




Maynes v. Veale 






2067 


peal 


2236 


Mayo T. India &c. Ins. 


Co. 




2441 


Mercantile Nat. Bahk v. Pequonnock 


Mayor of London v. Lynn 




1945 


Nat. Bank 


1741 


Mayor of Macon v. Dykes 




2511 


Merced County v. Fleming 


1942 


Mayor y. Humphries 






1895 


Mercein v. Andrus 


2567 


T. Troy &c. E. Co. 






2518 


Mercer v. Corbin 


1689 


Mayor &c. v. Carleton 


2040, 


2055, 


2057 


V. Mackin 


2697 


T. Lefferman 




2175, 


2181 


V. Whall 


1965 


V. Lord 






2331 


Merchants' Bank v. Bergen Co. 


2598 


Meacham v. Galloway 






1776 


V. Easley 


1835 


Mead v. Bunn 






1798 


V. Harrison 1934, 2040, 


2050 


V. Conroe 




2130, 


2131 


V. State Bank 1634, 


1708 


V. Degolyer 






1717 


Merchants' Bank &c. v. Eawls 


1784 


V Husted 






2140 


Merchants' Ins. Co. v. Algeo 


2442 


V. Northwestern Ins. Co. 




2335 


V. Hinman 


2204 


V. Randall 






1652 


Merchants' Dispatch &c. Co. v. Bloch 


V. Wheeler 






2000 




1916 


V. White 




1605. 


1607 


Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Gilmartin 


1776 


Meadowcroft v. Wlnnebaeo Co. 


2194 


Merchants' &c. Bank v. Cardozo 


1937 


Meadows v. Meadows 






2124 


Merchants' &c. Co. v. Insurance Co. 




V. Pacific &c. Ins. 


:^o. 


2401 


2405 


&c. 


2309 


V. Smith 






2176 


Merchants' &c. Ins. Co. v. Dunbar 


2373 


Meadviile &c. Bank \ 


. New 


York 




Meredith v. Chancey 


2595 


&c. Bank 






1972 


V. Citizens' &c. Bank 


2160 


Meaher v. Cox 






2544 


Merest v. Harvey 


2004 


Means v. Flanagan 






2151 


Meriden Nat. Bank v. Gallaudet 


2550 


V. Kendall 






1823 


Meridian Fair &c. Asso. v. North 




V. Means 






2285 


Bermingham St. E. Co. 


1789 


Mears v. Cornwall 






2672 


Meridian Nat. Bank v. First Nat. 




V. Mears 




1685. 


2684 


Bank 


2580 


Mechanics' Bank v. Livingston 
Medcaif v. St. Paul City S. Co. 


1823 


Mefraii v. Dobbins 


2551 


2523 


Merrett v. Farmers' Ins. Co. 


2309 


Medford v. Levy 






2529 


V. Preferred &c. Asso. 2391, 


2402, 


Meech v. Lee 


2170, 


2178, 


2179 




2410 


Meehan v. Valentine 




2540, 


2570 


Merriam v. Baker 


1589 


Meek v. Atkinson 






2181 


V. Cunningham 


2270 


Meeker v. Meeker 






2288 


V. Hartford &c. E. Co. 1777, 


1905, 


Meekin v. Brooklyn &c 


E. Co 




1995 




1918 


Meekins v. Norfolk &c 


E. Co 




2016 


V, Meriden 


1974 


Meeks v. Southern &c. 


E. Co. 




2269 


Merrick v. Brainard 


1711 



Vol. 3 Elliott Ev.— viii 



CXIV 



TABLE OF CASES. 



IBeferences are to Sections.} 



Merrill, In re 
Merrill v. Hayden 

V. Insurance Co. &c. 

V. Ithaca &c. E. Co. 

T. Sanborn 

V. St. Louis 

V. Tobin 

V. Travelers' Ins. Co. 

V. Washburn 
Merrills v. Tariff Mfg. Co. 
Merritt v. Bartholick 

T. Cotton States L. Ins. Co. 

V. Duncan 

V. Port Chester 



2227, 



2227, 



V. Eichey 

V. Seaman 

V. State 

V. Walsh 
Merriwether v. Bell 
Mers V. Franklin Ins. Co. 
Mershon v. Hobensack 
Mersman t. Mersman 
Mertz Appeal 
Merwin t. Morris 
Messer v. Eeginnitter 

V. Woodman 
Messman v. Ihlenfeldt 
Messmore v. Morrison 

V. New York &c. Co. 
Messner v. Elliott 
Metcalf V. Baker 

V. Eedmon 
Metcalfe v. Conner 
Metheny v. Bohn 
Methodist Trustees v. Peaslee 



1590, 



1818 
2231 
2336 
2320 
2232 
1991 
2076 
2416 
2124 
2004 
1707 
2287 
1839 
2053 
2498 
1728 
2281 
2551 

1721, 1725 
2375 
2555 
2212 
2584 
1861 
1852 
1732 

2120, 2479 
1826 

1979, 1994 

2689, 2693 
1987 
2543 
1689 

2191, 2196 
2243 



Methodist &c. Church v. Pickett 1929 
Metropolis Bank v. Jersey City Bank 

1730 

Metropolitan Asylum Dist. y. Hill 2533 

Metropolitan &c. Asso. v. Froiland 2413 

V. Windover 2427 

Metropolitan &c. E. Co. v. Dickinson 

2533 
Metropolitan L. Ins. Co. v. McKenna 

2372 

V. McTague 2389 

Metropolitan E. Co. v. Jackson 2501 

Metropolitan St. B. Co. v. Hanson 2501 

V. Johnson 1942, 1991 

Metters v. Brown , 1715 

Metz V. Metz 1620 

Metzger y. Hochrein 2524, 2529 

V. Manchester &c. Assur. Co. 2320 

V. Schnabel 1776 

Meurer, Will of 2701 

Mews T. Mews 2261 

Meyberg v. Jacobs 1751 

Meyer, In re 1814, 2177 

Meyer & Sons Co. y. Black 1738, 1745 

Meyer v. Clark 2111 

V. Fidelity &c. Co. 2399, 2414 

V. Fogg 2092 

V. Garthwaite 1613 

V. Green 1596 

V. Hafemeister 2094 

V. Hehmer 1641 

V. Krohn 2574 

V. Ludeling 1654 

T. Marshall 1606 

V. Eeichardt 1840 

Meyers, In re 1816 

Meyers v. Boyd 1746 

T. Merilllon 2148 

V. Phillips 1724 

T. State ■ 2517 

Meyrovitz y. Glaser &c. 2126 

Miaghan v. Hartford F. Iris. Co. 2346 

Michael v. Allestree 1925 



Michael v. Curtis 

V. Marshall 

V. Scockwith 

V. Workman 
Michaels v. Post 

Michaels Bay Lumber Co. v. Jenks 
Michigan Cent. E. Co. v. Carrow 

V. Coleman 

V. Gilbert 

y. Gougar 
Michigan Ins. Bank v. Eldred 
Michigan Pipe Co. v. North British 

&c. Ins. Co. 
Michigan StoTe Co. v. Waco Hard- 
ware Co. 
Micnigan &c. Church v. Hearsou 
Michigan &c. E. Co. v. McDonough 
Middleditch v. Ellis 

T. Williams 2692, 2694, 

Middlesex Husbandmen v. Davis 
Middleton y. Earned 

V. Griffith 1824, 1829, 

y. Kentucky Lumber Co. 

V. Moore 

V. Nichols 

V. Pritchard > 1847, 

T. Westerney 2039, 2040, 2042, 
Middlewood v. Blakes 
Midland Steel Co. y. Citizens' Nat. 

Bank 
Mielenz y. Quasdorf 
Mierson y. Hope 

Milburn v. Phillips 2052, 

Milburn Wagon Co. v. Kennedy 
Miles V. Connecticut &c. Ins. Co. 

y. Gorton 

V. Knott 

V. Moodie 

y. Van Horn 

V. Wann 
Miles' Appeal 
Milford V. Holbroofc 
Milgate v. Kebble 
Millandon v. Western Ins. Co. 
Millard y. Truax 
Millay V. Millay 
Millcreek Tp. r. Eeed 
Milledge v. Gardner 
Miller, In re 1811, 

Miller v. Adams 

y. American &c. Ins. Co. 

V. Atkinson 

V. Atlee 

V. Bank 

V. Barber 

V. Beardsley 

V. Brown 2478, 

V. Building Asso. 

V. Bumgardner 

V. Burch 

V. Burns 

V. Butler 

V. Chippewa County 

V. Chittenden 

V. Cinnamon 

V. Coats 

V. Cook 

V. Coulter 

V. Cramer 

v. Cure 

V. Curtis 1692, 

V. Curtiss 

V. Dawson 

V. Eldridge 1596, 

V. Fidelity &c. Co. 2399, 2412, 

V. Florer 

V. Fowan 

V. Fraley 16I7, 



1974 
2696 
1951 
2550 
1820 
1720 
1777 
2496 
2521 
2510 
2460 

2294 

1756 
1666 
1916 
1607 
2696 
1936 
1829 
1834 
2628 
1974 
2631 
1848 
2062 
2442 

1951 
2450 
1789 
2160 
1576 
2389 
2663 
2052 
1733 
2003 
2559 
2700 
2518 
2663 
2321 
1702 
1623 
1579 
2577 
2696 
2109 
2399 
2245 
1729 
1607 
2142 
2466 
2582 
1596 
1615 
1979 
1606 
2454 
1609 
2243 
2463 
2170 
1907 
2224 
1845 
1849 
1702 
2148 
2467 
2581 
2413 
2572 
2151 
2161 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXV 



[References are to Sections.} 



Miller v. Godfrey 


1741 


1750 


Minot V. Boston Asylum &c. 2210, 


221.?, 


V. Halm 




2603 


P9->o, 2221, 


2242 


v. Hampton 




2077 


Minter v. Cupp 


1840 


V. Hardin 




2050 


V. Southern Kans. R. Co. 


1912 


T. House 




1823 


Minton v. Woodworth 


2022 


V. Hudson 




2607 


Misner v. Knapp 


2124 


V. Ingram 


2065, 


2067 


Mispelhorn v. Farmers' Ins. Co. 


2319, 


T. Johnson 




2450 




2350 


T. Lamb 




2625 


Mlsselhorn v. Mutual Reserve &c. 




T. Lively 




2609 


Asso. 


2297 


V. Long Island &c. E. Co. 


1620, 


2059 


Mission &c. v. Cronin 


2057 


V. McElwee 




2189 


Missionary Society v. Cadwell 


2226, 


T. McKee 




1693 


2238, 


2242 


V. McKenzie 




1826 


Missionary &c. Soc. v. Calvert 


2242 


V. Miller 1725, 2033, 


2170, 


2183, 


Mississippi V. .Tohnsou 


2063 


2250, 2449 


2693 


2696 


Mississippi Cent. E. Co. v. Miller 


2653 


T. Minor &c. Co. 


2170, 


2183 


Mississippi Mills Co. v. Smith 


2530 


v. Mills Co. 




1619 


Mississippi Val. L. Ins. Co. v. Ney- 




Y. Mutual &c. Ins. Co. 


2302 


2412 


land 2298 


2300 


V. Pryse 




1862 


Mississippi &c. Co. v. Prince 


1932 


V. Eapp 




2544 


V. Smith 


1976 


V. Rosier 




1888 


Missouri Co. v. Sturges 


2385 


T. Shields 


2248, 


2679 


Missouri &c. Coal Co. v. Pomeroy 


2629 


T. South Carolina Ins. Co 




2435 


Missouri Mai. Iron Co. v. Dillon 


2501 


V. Stone 




2543 


Missouri &c. R. Co. v. Baier 


2204 


V. Teachout 


2243 


2244 


V. Belcher 


1981 


T. Travers 2210, 


2211 


2223 


V. Flood 


2005 


V. Waite 




2668 


V. Johnson 2521, 


2523 


V. Weida 




2603 


V. McWherter 1597 


2082 


T. Whelan 




2148 


V. Ft. Scott 


1994 


V. White 1744, 1845, 


1857, 


2490, 


Missouri Pac. E. Co. v. Douglas 


1907 




2624, 


2627 


V. Hanson 


1992 


V. Wild Cat G. K. Co. 




1947 


V. MoSfatt 


2016 


V. Wilson 




2162 


V. Neiswanger 


2507 


V. Williamson 




2032 


V. Nevin 


1918 


Miller's Case , 




2202 


V. Riggs 


1913 


Miller's Estate, In re 2008, 


2206, 


2692 


V. Scott 1917, 


1919 


Millett V. Ford 




2206 


V. Sherwood 


1918 


Milligan v. Butcher 




2545 


V. Texas &c. E. Co. 


1919 


Millikan v. Patterson 




2053 


V. Wichita &c. Co. 1908, 


1916 


Millikeu v. Loring 




2572 


Missouri Val. &c. Ins. Co. v. Kelso 


1963, 


V. Randall 




2628 




1974 


Millikin v. Brown 




2579 


Missouri &c. Soc. v. Academy of Sci- 


Mills V. Bank of United States 


1824 


ence 


2235 


y. Barber 




1824 


Mistilski v. German Ins. Co. 


2293 


V. Collins 




2124 


Mitchell V. Allison 


2006 


V. Davis 




2467 


T. Belknap 


2565 


V. Duryee 




2027 


V. Chicago &c. E. Co. 


1902 


V. Fox 




1711 


V. Clarke 


1979 


V. Geron 




1607 


V. Davies 


2483 


V. Gilbreth 


1786 


1798 


V. Great Works Milling Co. 


1799 


V. Graves 




2077 


V. Hawley 


1598 


V. Kansas Lumber Co. 




2607 


V. Kingman 


1726 


V. Penny 




1851 


V. Le Clair 


1732 


V. Warner 




2144 


V. Malone 


2110 


Milman v. Dolwell 


2654 


2656 


V. Mitchell 2257, 


2491 


Milne v. Gratrix 




1666 


V. Nashville &c. R. Co. 


2498 


V. Kleb 




1628 


V. Pittsburg &c. E. 


2208 


V. Milne 




2236 


V. Read 


1994 


Milnes v. Van Horn 




1598 


V. Scott 


1717 


Milnor v. Georgia &c. Co. 




1667 


V. Shuert 


1974 


Milward v. Ingram 




1605 


V. Simpson 


2206 


Milwaukee &c. Ins. Co. v. Schallman 


V. Spradley 


2457 




2300, 


2345 


V. State 


2112 


V. Todd 




2305 


V. Staveley 


1665 


Milwaukee &c. E. Co. v. Arms 


1961 


V. Treanor 2251, 


2258 


V. Kellogg 




2501 


V. Union Life Ins. Co. 2380, 


2381 


Mims V. Armstrong 




1709 


V. United States Ex. Co. 1914 


1916 


V. Morrison 




2582 


V. Vickers 


2699 


Miner v. Clark 




1959 


V. Warner 1956, 1957 


1959 


V. Lorman 




2467 


V. Worcester 


2511 


V. Phillips 




2146 


V. Work 


1702 


Minesinger v. Kerr 




2458 


V. Wood 


2659 


Mlnkler v. Minkler 


2697. 


2698 


Mix V. National Bank of Blooming- 




Minneapolis &c. R. Co. v. Cooper 


1666 


ton 


1937 


Minnick v. Williams 




2020 


V. Osby 


1637 


Minor V. Guthrie 




2697 


V. People 


2026 


Mlnot V. Baker 




2236 


Mlze V. Glenn 


1972 



CXVl 



TABLE OF CASES. 



IBeferences are to Sections.l 



Mizner v. Frazler 

Moale T. HoUlns 

Mobile V. Louisville &c. E. Co. 

V. Mobile 
Mobile &c. E. Co. v. Ashcraft 

V. Cogsbill 

V. George 

V. Gilmer 

V. McArtliur 
Mobile &c. Ins. Co. v. McMillan 

V. Morris 2372, 

Mobile Sav. Bank v. McDonnell 
Mobley v. Griffln 2039, 2040, 

V. Eyan 
Mock V. Pleasants 
Modern Woodmen &c. v. Davis 

v. Kozak 

V. Shryock 
Modisett v. McPlke 1643, 

Moehriug v. Mitcbell 
Moffatt V. Fisber 
Moffett V. Hanner 
Moffit V. Witherspoon 
Mogk V. New York &c. Co. 
Mobamidu v. Pitchey 2082, 

Mohan v. Jackson 

Mohawk Bridge Co. v. Dtica &c. Co. : 
Moises V. Thornton 
Moline-Milburn Co. v. Franklin 
Mollne Water Power &e. Co. v. 

Nichols 
Moller v. Moller 

V. Tuska 
Mollwo V. Court of Wards 
Momence v. Kendall 
Monaghan v. Memphis Fair &c. Co. 
Monahan v. Supreme Lodge 
Monarch v. Board 
Monchief v. Ely 
Monday v. State 
Mondorf, In re 
Mong V. Eoush 
Monies v. Lynn 
Monk v. New Utrecht 
Monks V. Dykes 

Monkton v. Attorney-General 2196, : 
Monmouth v. Sullivan ; 

Monmouth &c. Asso. v. Wallis &c. 

Works 
Monongahela Nat. Bank v. Jacobus 
Monongahela Nav. Co. v. Coon 
Monroe v. Barclay 2693, 

V. Greenhoe '•' 

V. Williams 
Monson v. Beecher 

V. Lathrop 
Montag V. Linn 
Montamet, Succession of 
Montague v. Dougan 
Monteleone v. Eoyal Ins. Co. 
Montgomerie v. Ivers 
Montgomery v. Brush 

V. Commonwealth 

v, Delaware Ins. Co. 

V. Firemen's Ins. Co. 

V. Fritz 

V. Lansing &e. E. Co. 

V. Pacific &c. Bureau 

V. Pentriken 

V. Ship Abby Pratt 2431, 

V. Sutton 

V. White 
Montgomery &c. Co. v. Webb 
Montgomery &c. Soe. v. Hardwood 
Montgomery &c. E. Co. v. Culver 

V. Edmonds 1907, 

V. Mallette 

V. Varner 



1792 


Montgomery Webb Co. v. Dienelt 


2128 


2571 


Montross v. Bradsby 




2115 


1929 


Monumoi v. Eogers 




2654 


1850 


Moody V. Amazon Ins. Co. 


2292 


2293 


1904 


V. 


Insurance Co. 


2392 


2399 


1933 


V. 


Leavitt 




1598 


2010 


V. 


Moeller 




2657 


1623 


V. 


Thwying 




1605 


1989 


Mooers v. Allen 




1660 


2311 


V. 


Bunker 


2197 


2199 


2376 


V. 


Wait 




2663 


2151 


Moon 


V. Avery 


2649 


2650 


2044 


V. 


Hawks 




2621 


1824 


V. 


Hepford 




2208 


2124 


V. 


Eaphael 




2672 


2388 


V. 


Eollins 1572, 


1574 


1575 


2387 


Moone v. Henderson 




2206 


2412 


Moouey v. Ancient Order &c. 




2397 


1644 


V. 


Davis 




2624 


2209 


V. 


Howard Ins. Co. 




2303 


2483 


V. 


Iron Co. 




1733 


1611 


V. 


Olsen 2041, 2056, 2057 


2291 


2597 


2196 


Moore v. Adam 




1703 


1976 


v. 


Allen 




2690 


2083 


V. 


Anderson 


1962, 


1974 


2597 


V. 


Auge 




2006 


2530 


V. 


Butler 




2086 


1945 


V. 


Chicago &c. L. Soc. 




2384 


2141 


V. 


Chicago &c. E. Co. 




1618 




V. 


Combs 




2610 


1725 


V. 


Commonwealth 




2490 


2033 


V. 


Connecticut &e. Ins. Co 




2393 


2628 


V. 


Edison &c. Co. 




1895 


2553 


V. 


Bnsley 




1639 


2515 


V. 


Frankenfleld 




1958 


1577 


V. 


Harper 


2558, 


25.59 


2421 


V. 


Hillebrant 




2086 


1733 


V. 


Hinkle 1617 


1618 


20.53 


1734 


V. 


Holcombe 




1714 


1692 


V. 


Holt 




1589 


2696 


V. 


Hopkins 




1590 


2236 


V. 


Joyce 




1604 


2513 


V. 


Keokuk &c. E. Co. 




2523 


2515 


V. 


Knott 




2565 


1697 


V. 


Lesser 




2461 


2198 


V. 


McDonald 




2693 


2515 


V. 


Marshall 




1729 




V. 


Meacham 




2625 


2000 


V. 


Moore 2029, 2208, 


2235, 


2242, 


2096 






2243, 


2244 


2279 


V. 


Neill 




1741 


2696 


V. 


New York &c. E. Co. 


1970, 


1971 


2553 


V. 


Penn 




1752 


1749 


V. 


Pogue 




2577 


1726 


V. 


Protection Ins. Co. 


2335 


2345 


2450 


V. 


Eichmond 


2506. 


2515 


2067 


V. 


Eoe 


2161, 


2166 


2461 


V. 


Shields 




2667 


2627 


V. 


Smith 


2025. 


2461 


2364 


V. 


Stephens 


2682, 


2686 


1607 


V. 


St. Louis &c. E. Co. 




189S 


2668 


V. 


Taylor 




2653 


2281 


V. 


Thompson 2105, 


2106 


2452 


2305 


V. 


Trieber 




2562 


2333 


V. 


Vlele 




1713 


1609 


V. 


Westervelt 


2501, 


2517 


1976 


V. 


Wilson 


1581 


1584 


1625 


Moore Lime Co. v. Johnston, 


Adm 


2519 


2202 


Moorehead v. Jones 




2454 


2439 


V. 


Murray 




1635 


2479 


Moorhead v. Fry 




1717 


2192 


V. 


Thompson 




1603 


1931 


Moorman v. Gibbs 




1590 


1994 


V. 


Quick 




2608 


1905 


Morau v. Abbott 




2611 


1908 


V. 


Lezotte 


1845 


1858 


1989 


Mordecal v. Oliver 




2062 


2006 


More 


V. More 




2687 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXVll 



\_References are to Sections.'] 



Morehead v. Brown 




1768 


Morris v. Wilaux 




2628 


Morehouse v. Heatli 


1953, 


1957 


V. Winchester &c. Co. 


1978, 


198a 


T. Mathews 




2006 


V. Wood 




2551 


V. Second Nat. Bank 




1595 


Morris &c. E. Co. v. Newark 




1971 


Morel T. Mississippi &c. Ins. 


Co. 


2407 


Morrisette v. Wood 




1733 


Moreland v. Brady 




2211 


Morrison v. Burlington &c. R 


. Co. 


2089 


V. Myall 




2256 


V. Chapin 




1620 


Morey t. Hoyt 




2668 


V. Collins 




2584 


Morgan v. Adams 




1600 


V. Horrocks 




1610 


V. Burrows 




2211 


V. Insurance Co. &c. 




2299 


v. Curley 




1703 


V. Keen 




1843 


V. Des Moines &c. E. Co. 


1578, 


2580 


V. Kelly 




1618 


T. Dodge 


2212, 


2218 


V. Lawrence 




1942 


V. Durfee 


1703, 


2018 


V. Lumbard 




2610 


V. Farrel 


2555, 


2558 


V. Morris 




2151 


T. Hazlehurst Lodge 


2050, 


2065 


V. Morrison 2035, 2037, 


2227, 


2231 


v. Higgins 




2055 


V. Neffi 1846, 1850, 


1856, 


1862 


V. Jackson 




2607 


V. Robinson 




2067 


T. Kendall 


1703, 


1976 


V. Ross 




1715 


V. King 




2624 


V. Thompson 




1731 


V. Livingston 




2452 


V. Whiteside 


1625, 


1626 


V. Martin 




1642 


Morrow v. Higgins 




1628 


v. Mather 




1665 


V. Starke 




1597 


T. Metayer 




2466 


Morse v. Auburn &c. E. Co. 


1991 


1996 


T. Morgan 




2124 


V. Bellows 




2052 


V. Morse 




1968 


V. Bruce 




2585 


V. Muldooh 


1959 


2518 


V. Carpenter 




2245 


V. O'Daniel 




1692 


V. Cloyes 




1821 


V. Olvey 




2127 


V. Hamill 




2608 


T. Palmer 




1730 


V. Minneapolis &c. E. Co 




2506 


V. Purnell 




2199 


V. Moore 




2620 


T. Rogers 




2235 


V. Morse 


2031 


2032 


V. Ross 




2646 


V. Rathburn 




2000 


V. Shinn 




2627 


V. Richmond 


2552 


2567 


V. Skiddy 




2137 


V. Shaw 




2621 


V. Smith 




1665 


V. Sherman 




1732 


V. Stearns 




2553 


V. Stearns 




2211 


V. Stevens 




2699 


V. Woodworth 2177, 


2178, 


2183 


V. Weir 




2583 


Morss V. Doe 




2057 


Morgantown Mfg. Co. v. Ohio &c 




V. Salisbury 




2658 


R Co. 




1914 


Mortimer v. Cradock 




1967 


Moriarty v. Brooks 




1697 


v. McMuUen 




2151 


V. Moriarty 




2689 


V. Marder 




2545 


Morley v. Gaisford 




1692 


V. Thomas 




2119 


V. Chase 




2111 


Mortlock V. Williams 




1594 


v. Power 




1589 


Morton v. Barrett 




2009 


Morning Journal Asso. v. Duke 


2458, 


V. Folger 


2040, 


2057 






2459 


V. Green 




2063 


Morotoek Ins. Co. v. Fostoria &c. 




V. Heidon 




2701 


Co. 




2301 


V. Knox County 




2466 


Morrall v. Frith 




2463 


V. Morton 


1715 


25i;6 


V. Morrell 




2684 


Mosby V. Commission Co. 


2134 


2136 


Morrill v. Foster 




2196 


Moses V. Johnson 




2674 


V. Little Falls Mfg. Co. 




1946 


V. Katzenberger 




2621 


V. Nightingale 




1884 


V. McFarlan 




1729 


v. Otis 2188 


, 2190 


2193 


V. State 




2537 


V. Spurr 




2543 


V. Sun &c. Ins. Co. 




2436 


V. Titcomb 




1621 


Moshier v. Frost 




2073 


V. Weeks 




2000 


Mosier v. Stoll 


2003. 


2452 


Morring v. McBrlde 




1621 


Mosness v. German-American Ins. 




Morris v. Bebee 




2062 


Co. 


1656 


2350 


V. Budlong 




2148 


Moss V. Ashbrooks 




1589 


v. Chicago &c. E. Co. 


1988 


1991 


V. Averell 


1947, 


1948 


V. Grand Ave. E. Co. 




1987 


• V. Smith 


2362 


2441 


V. Lake Shore &c. E. Co. 




2503 


V. Union Bank 




2050 


V. Lyon 




2466 


Mosser v. Mosser 




2033 


V. Morton 




2690 


Mostyn v. Fabrigas 




1693 


V. New York &c. R. Co. 




1895 


Motes V. Bates 




2479 


V. Niles 




1735 


Mott V. Clark 




1714 


V. Norton 


1725 


2096 


V. Downer 




1601 


V. Piatt 


1698 


2399 


V. Goddard 




2641 


V. Quick 


1737 


1741 


V. Mott 




2000 


V. Sickly 




2212 


Motz's Estate 




2698 


V. State 


1590 


1591 


Moulor V. American &c. Ins. 


Co. 


2371, 


V. Stokes 




2695 




2374 


2378 


V. Swaney 




2698 


Moulton V. St. Paul &c. E. Co. 


1920 


V. Wadsworth 




2577 


Mount V. De Haven 


1595 


1599 


V. Wells 




2624 


V. Manhattan Co. 




1820 



CXVlll 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to Sections.'] 



Mount Hope Cem. Asso. v. Weiden- 

manu 1722 
Mountain Copper Co. v. Van Buren 2519 
Mouson v. Bochem 1571, 1576 
Mowbray v. State 2589 
Mower County v. Smith 24G5 
Mowry v. Chase 2105 
T. Home Ins. Co. 2383 
V. Smith 1702 
Moyer, Appeal of 2262 
Moyer v. Swygart 2685 
Moyle V. Congregational Soe. 1639 
Moyler v. Moyler 2029, 2034 
Moynahan t. Prentiss 2666 
Mozingo T. Ross 2466 
Mudd V. Bates 2552 
Mudgett V. Horrell 1943, 1945, 1946 
Mudsill Min. Co. v. Watrous 2141 
Mueller v. Northwestern University 1714 
V. Putnam &c. Ins. Co. 2293 
V. South Side F. Ins. Co. 2357 
Muenster v. Fields 2005, 2672 
Muhle V. New York &,c. R. Co. 1572, 
1573, 1579 
Muhlenberg's Appeal 2206 
Muir V. Miller 2694 
T. Schenck 1714 
Mulcairns v. Janesville 2498 
TNIuldon T. Whitlock , 2581 
Muldowney v. Illinois &c. R. Co. 1991 
Mulford V. Clewell 1642 
V. Tunis 2039 
Mulhall V. Berg 2577 
T. Fallon 2017 
Mulherin v. Simpson 2057 
Mull V. Orme 2044 
Mullaney v. Duffy 1851 
V. Mullaney 2494 
Mullally V. Dingman 1840 
Mullans, Admr., v. Carper 1620 
Mullan V. Philadelphia &c. Steam- 
ship Co. 2510 
Mullen V, Brown 2102 
V. Reed 2205 
V. Rutland 2514 
MuUer v. Eno 2629 
V. Hale 2505 
V. Southern Pac. R. Co. 1851 
V. State Life Ins. Co. 2419 
Mullin V. Spangenberg 1997 
Mulliner v. Guardian Ins. Co. 2376 
Mullins V. Chickering 2667 
V. Cottrell 2276, 2285 
Mullon, In re 2089 
Mulroy v. Knights of Honor 2421, 2423 
Multz V. Price 2070 
Mumtord v. Bowman 2194 
Muncey v. Sun Insurance Co. 1715 
Mundy v. Whittemore 2168, 2170, 2182 
Munger v. Baker 1989 
Municipal Court v. McDonough 1590 
Munn, Ex parte 2571 
Munro v. Alaire 1661 
V. De Chemant 2071 
Munroe y. Stickney 1972. 1974 
V. Williams 1749 
Muns V. Dupont 2117 
Munson v. Atwood 2140 
Murchie V. Peck 1840, 1843 
Murdock v. Mutual Ins. Co. 2310 
V. Ripley 1691 
T. Ward 2204, 2205 
Murphree y. Senn 2689 
Murphy y. American &e. Ins. Co. 2364 
y. Barnett 2065 
y. Bartsch 1798 
V. Brick 2576 
V. Brooklyn 2496 



1618, 
1972, 



2101, 2102, 



2271, 



Murphy y. Copeland 

y. Cuff 

y. Doyle 

V. Fond du Lac 

V. Henry 

y. Hobbs 

V. Kastner 

y. Larson 

V. Loomis 

y. Martin 

V. McGrath 

V. Montandon 

V. Murphy 

V. New York &c. R. Co. 

V. Olberding 

V. Red 

y. Southern L. Ins. Co. 

y. State 

V. Staton 

V. St. Louis &c. R. Co. 

v. Wabash R. Co. 

V. Walters 

y. Wilson 
Murray v. Barden 

y. Blackledge 

V. Boston &c. R. Co. 

V. Bronson 

V. Gouverneur 

V. Hatch 

V. Hoyle 

V. Hudson 

V. Lardner 

V. Long 

V. Lyiburn 

y. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 

V. Mumford 

V. National Line S. S. Co. 

V. New York L. Ins. Co. 

V. Snow 

y. Webster 
Murrell y. Murrell 

y. Pacific Ex. Co. 
Murry v. Hennessey 2684, 

Murtaugh y. New York &c. R. Co. 
Murtha v. Loyewell ■ 
Murto y. Lemon 1824, 

Muse V. Assurance Co. 
Musick y. Latrobe 1991, 

Musselbrook v. Dunkin 
Musselman y. Barker 

y. Musselman 
Mussen v. Price 
Musser y. Brink 
Mussey y, White 
Muth y. St. Louis &c. R. Co. 
Mutual Co. y. Stibbe 
Mutual Ins. Co. y. Norris 
Mutual Loan &c. Asso. y. Price 
Mutual Mercantile Agency. In re 
Mutual L. Ins. Co. y. Allen 

y. Brune 

y. Hillmon 

y. Nichols 

V. Schmidt 
Mutual &c. Asso. v. Barry 2399 

v. Tuggle 
Mutual &c. Co. y. Martin 

y. Stibbe 
Mutual &c. Ins. Co., 
Mutual &o. Ins. Co. 

y. Anderson 

y. Cannon 

y. CoatesylUe &c, 

y. Dayiess ' 2375 

y. Hillmon ' 

V. Richards 

y. Robertson 2304 

y. Simpson ' 



Matter of 
y. Allen 



Factory 



1847 
1695 
1620 
1974 
2202 
2479 
1596 
2483 
2057 
2105 
1702 
1755 
2124 
1995 
2457 
2385 
2300 
2490 
1915 
1903 
2521 
2120 
1692 
2082 
2056 
2510 
2208 
1714 
2441 
2055 
1618 
1829 
2102 
1714 
2504 
2572 
1775 
2302 
1596 
2654 
2563 
1981 
2680 
1988 
2537 
1830 
234n 
2517 
1661 
1867 
2031 
1717 
2553 
2053 
1987 
2345 
2070 
2124 
1815 
2384 
1589 
2287 
2301 
2000 
2411 
2399 
2010 
2344 
2419 
2385 
2385 
2375 
2327 
2395 
2393 
2385 
2306 
2396 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXIX 



[References are to Sections.'i 



2391, 2396, 



Mutual &c. Ins. Co. v. Stibbe 2345, 

V. Tillman 

V. Wise 

V. Wiswell 
Muzzy T. Howard 
Myatt V. Hodson 

V. Myatt 

V. Walker 
Myer v. Beal 
Myers v. Baltimore &c. R. Co. 

T. Bennett 

V. Davis 

T. Gemmel 

V. Girard Ins. Co. 2432, 2434, 

T. Kaicben 2457, 

T. McMillan 

V. Moore 

V. Munson 

T. Reed 

T. Spooner 1576; 

V. Standart 
Mygatt V. New Tork &c. Ins. Co. 
Mynn v. Robinson 
Mynning v. Detroit &c. B. Co. 



1692, 1695, 1697, 



2387, 
2390 
2393 
2378 
2402 
2113 
2467 

•2488 
2277 
2460 
2523 
1611 
1714 
1969 
2435 
2558 
1619 
2656 
1953 
2256 
1577 
2573 
2419 
2283 
2498 



2533 
2279 
1807 
2505 
2621 
2511 
1728 
2039 
1988 



N 

N. K. Fairbank Co. t. Babre 

Naanes v. State 

Nacbman, In re 

Nadau v. Wbite River &c. Co. 

Naested v. Scott 

Nagel V. Buffalo 

TSIaisb v. Tatlock 

Nalle V. Thompson 

Nappanee v. Buckman 

Narragansett Bank v. Atlantic S. Co. 

1932, 1936, 1939, 1943 

TSfasb v. Classen 2628 

V. Gilkeson 2002 

V. Meggett 1840 

V. Minnesota &c. Co. 2005 

V. Sharpe 1985 

V. Towue 1731 

Nashua &c. R. Co. v. Paige 2351 

Nashua Sav. Bank v. Sayles 1830 

Nashville &c. Co. v. Weaver 1929 

Nashville &c. R. Co. v. Prince 2003, 2016 

Nashville St. R. v. O'Bryan 1997 

Nason v. First Church 2242 

Nassoity v. Tomlinson 1596, 1599 

Natchez Cotton Mills Co. v. Mullins 2019 

National Bank v. Bangs 2073 

V. Croco 2170, 2183 

V. De Bernales 1939 

V. Derragh 1664 

V. Insurance Co. 2371, 2396 

National Bank &e. v. Ingrabam 2571 
V. Thomas 2570 

National &c. Bank v. Madden 2320 

V. White 2567 

National &c. Co. v. Iowa &c. Co. 2629 
V. Maroni 2501 

V. Minnesota &e. Co. 1971 

V. Townsend &c. Co. 2553 

National &c. Asso. v. Bowman 2403, 2404 
V. Dolpb 2399 

v. Gonser 2419 

y. Grauman 2293 

V. Shryock 2415 

V. Sturtevant 2387 

National Bank of Commerce v. At- 
kinson 1 933 
V. Chicago &c. R. Co. 2576, ?580 

National Ex. &c. Co. V. Burdette 1589 
V. Morris 1946 



National Pemberton Bank v. Lougee 1830 
National Refining Co. v. Bush 1729 

National Shoe &c. Co. v. Herz 2574 

National Union v. Bennett 2393 

v. Thomas 2009, 2393 

National &c. Ins. Co. v. Barnes 2300 
National &c. Oil Co. v. Citizens' Ins. 

Co. 2309 

Nattin V. Riley 2627 

Nave V. Flack 2399, 2515 

V. Home &c. Ins. Co. 2362, 2364 



Sturges 
Nax V. Travelers' Ins. Co. 
Naylor v. Fosdick 
Neafle v. Manufacturers' &c. Co. 
Neal V. Erving 

V. Handley 

V. Keying 

V. Joyner 

y. Reams 
Neale v. Engle 

V. Ledger 
Neall V. Hart 
Nealley v. Greenough 
Nearpass v. Gilman 
Neary v. Bostwick 
Nebraska City v. Campbell 1984, 



2544 
2414 
1709 
2417 
1639 
1596 
1706 
2110 
1843 
1722 
1659 
2115 
2182 
2094 
1599 
1985, 
1990 

Nebraska Mut. Bond. Asso. v. Klee 1834 
Nebraska Wesleyan U. v. Parker 1639 
Nebraska &c. Ins. Co. y. Christiensen 

2298 

V. Seivers 2312, 2313 

Nedrow v. Farmers' Ins. Co. 2297 

Neeb v. McMillan 2612 

Needles v. Martin 2245 

Needham v. Bremner 2260 

V. Wright 1589, 2572 

Neel V. Deens 1730 

V. McBlhenny 1617 

Neeley v. Southwestern &c. Co. 2519 

Neely v. Thompson 1596 

NefE v. Landis 2613 

Negus V. Negus 2228 

V. Simpson 1791 

Neidefer v. Chastain 2124 

Neill V. Jordan 1846 

V. Order of United Friends 2417 

V. Shamburg 2148 

Neilson v. Chicago &c. R. Co. 2006 

Neimltz v. Conrad 2103 

Neldon v. Smith 1598 

Nellis V. Cramer 2003 

Nelson, In re 1811, 1813 

Nelson v. Board 1602 

V. Borchaines 2454 

V. Brush 2064 

V. Evans 2459 

V. Iverson 2087 

T. Jenkins 2648 

V. Kilbride 1729 

V. Minneapolis St. R. 2132 

y. Munch 1741 

v.. Smith 2256 

V. Spaulding 2251 

V. State 1695 

V. Suddarth 2184 

V. Suffolk Ins. Co. 2446 

V. Wallace 2456 

V. Woodruff 1916 

Nelson &c. Co. v. Vossmeyer 2163 

Nelson's Will 2687, 2688, 2693 

Nesbit V. Garner 2516 

V. Schwab Clothing Co. 1748 

Neskern v. Northwestern &c. Asso. 2423 

Ness V. Minnesota &c. Co. 1596 

Netterville v. Stevens 1829 

Nevill V. Insurance Co. 2453 



cxx 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to Sections.l 



Neville v. Merchants' &c. Ins. Co. 2313 
Nevin v. Fouche 1755 

Nevins v. Peoria 1921 

New T. Walker 1825, 1826, 1828 

New Albany v. Slider 2526 

New Engtonfl Mfg. Co. v. Gay 1626 

V. Starin 1587 

New Bng. &e. Co. v. Farmington &c. 

Co. 1933 

New England &c. Ins. Co. v. Robin- 
son 2295, 2311, 2314 
T. Wetmore 2304 
New Era &c. Asso. v. Rossiter 2423 
New Hampsbire Cent. R. Co. v. 

Jobnson 1946 

New Hampshire &c. Ins. Co. v. Hunt 

1717, 2422 
New Haven Steamboat Co. v. Van- 

derbilt 1932 

New Haven &c. Co. v. Goodwin 2566 

V. New Haven 1971 

New Iberia State Bank v. Martin 1745 

New Jersey Patent Tanning Co. v. 

Turner 1726 

New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. v. Mer- 
chant's Bank 1731 
New Jersey &c. Co. v. Nichols 1984, 

1994 
New Jersey &c. Ins. Co. v. Baker 2420 
New Jersey School &c. Co. v. Board 

of Education 1972 

New Orleans v. Gauthreaux 2555 

New Orleans Canal Co. y. Mont- 
gomery 1830 
V. Templeton 1830 
New Orleans &c. Co. v. New Orleans 

&e. R. Co. 1916 

New Orleans &c. R. Co. v. Allbrit- 

ton 1982 

V. Hurst 1907 

New Salem v. Eagle Mill Co. 2526 

New York Iron Mine V. Citizens' 

Bank 1823 

New York Schools, In re 2243 

New York Bay &e. Co. v. Buckmas- 

ter 1611 

New York Ex. Co. v. De Wolf 1947 

New York Fire Ins. Co. v. Sturges 1932 
New York Institute &c. v. Howe 2240 
New York Life Ins. Co. v, Hoyt 2204 
New York Lumber &c. Co. v. Schnie- 

der 1661, 1665 

New York Rubber Co. v. Eotherly 2071 

New York &e. Bank v. Whitmore 1746 

New York &c. Society v. American 

&c. Society 2236 

V. Clarkson 2242 

New York &c. Co. v. Crow 1607, 1608 

V. Traders' Ins. Co. 2334 

New York &c. Ins. Co. v. Armstrong 

2184, 2141, 2397 

2354 

2421 

, 2335 

Ins. Co. 2298, 2325, 

2326, 2347, 2397 

2298 

2328 

2344 

1730 

1595 



T. Eggleston 

V. Fletcher 

V. Langdon 

V. National &c. 



V. Stone 

V. Walden 

V. Watson 
New York & R. Co. v. Marsh 

V. Martin 

V. Perrlguey 2501 

V. Rothery ' 1972, 1974 

V. Winter's Adm. 1899 

New York &c. Trust Co. v. Vlele 2208 
Newark Coal Co. v. Upson 2483 

Newbery Bank v. Sinclair 1842 

Newbold v. Sims 1601 



Newbraugh v. Curry 




2454 


Newcomb v. Boston &c. R. Co. 


2626 


V. Newcomb 




1584 


V. Wood 




1654 


Newcomer v. Alexander 




2607 


Newell V. Borden 




194T 


V. Bureau County 




2124 


V. Hancock 




2235 


V. Homer 




2698 


V. Horn 




2057 


V. Newton 




1589 


v.- Nlcholls 


2010 


2209' 


V. Sass 




2530- 


V. Whitcher 




1703 


Newell's Appeal 


2238 


2242 


Newhall v. Ireson 1847, 


1962, 


1972,. 
2535 


V. Union &c. Ins. Co. 




2293 


V. Wheeler 




2057 


Newhouse v. Godwin 




2696. 


Newland v. Douglass 




1665 


Newlin v. Beard 




2026 


V. Osborne 




1714 


Newlon-Hart Grocer Co. v. Peet 


1740. 


Newman v. Bennett 




1700- 


V. Cincinnati 




2057 


V. Covenant &c. Ins. Co. 




2293 


V. Foster 1845, 


1849, 


1850' 


V. Franklin 




1572 


V. Jenkins 




2080 


V. New York &c. R. Co. 




2111 


V. Railway &c. Asso. 




2399- 


V. Stein 




2454 


Newmarch v. Clay 




2586. 


Newmark v. Liverpool &c. Ins. Co. 


2320 


2331, 


2345- 


Newsom v. Pryor 


1845, 


1856. 


V. Starke 


2243, 


2244 


Newsome v. Graham 


1729, 


1730 


Newton v. Chaplin 




2454 


V. Mutual &c. Ins. Co. 




2395 


V. Newton 




1826 


Newton Mfg. Co. v. Wllgus 




1715. 


Newton Rubber Works v. De 


Las 




Casas 




1983 


Neyland v. Neyland 




1605 


Niagara &c. . Ins. Co. v. Greene 


1994 


Niblack v. Champeny 




1843 


Nicely v. Rogers 




2127 


Nicewander v. Nicewander 




2682- 


Nichoks V. Stevens 




2124 


Nichol V. Lytle 




1850. 


Nicholas v. Bucknam 




1728. 


V. Peck 




2515 


V. Ward 




2165- 


Nichole v. Allen 




1734^ 


Nlcholls, In re 




2597 


Nicholls v. Webb 




1838 


Nichols v. Baker 




2141 


V. Bank 




1590- 


v. Bastard 




2663 


V. Fayette &c. Ins. Co. 


2307, 


2310 


V. Frothingham 




1843 


V. Haviland 




2203 


V. James 




2568 


v. Knutson 




2608 


v. Minnesota &c. Co. 




2667 


V. Morse 


1732, 


2620' 


v. Munsel 




1968 


V. Nichols 1642, 1650, 


1652, 


1997 


V. Rogers 




2124 


V. Sutton 




1579 


V. Turney 




1845 


V. Winfrey 


2014 


2016 


Nichols, S. & Co. V. Cr&ndall 




2629 


Nicholson V. Coghlll 




2475 


V. DUhn 




2449- 


V. Moog 


2555, 


2574= 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXXl 



[References are to Sections.'] 



New York &c. R. Co. 



2449, 



Co. 



Nicholson 1 

V. Rust 
Nickell V. Fheniz Ins. Co. 
Nickerson v. Allen 

V. Buck 

V. Gould 

V. Nickerson 

V. Sheldon 
Nickey v. Zonker 
Nicklace v. Dlckerson 
Nlekleson v. Stryker 
Niokley v. Thomas 
Nicklin v. Williams 
Nicol V. Fitch 
Nicolai v. Lyon 
Nidever t. Hall 
NiehofE v. Dudley 
Niemeyer v. Brooks 
Niendortf v. Manhattan B. 
Nilson V. Jonesboro 
Niskern v. United Brotherhood &c. 
Nitche V. Earlc 
Niven v. Belknap 
Nixon V. Brown 

v. Hannibal &c. R. Co. 

V. Palmer 

T. Porter 1850, 1851 

T. Whitely &c. Co. 
Noah V. Angle 
Noble V. Blddle 

V. Burnett 

V. Chrisman 

V. Enos 

V. Epperly 

V. Pagnant 

V. Hand 

V. Thompson Oil Co. 
Nodlne v. Bank 
Noe V. Christie 
Noe's Case 
Noel T. Karper 2279, 

Noell V. Wells 

Noice T. Brown 1883, 

Noflre V. United States 2588, 

Nolan V. New York &c. R. Co. 
Noland v. Busby 

Nolin V. Parmer 1843, 

Nolte, Matter of 
Kolte V. Libbert 

V. Meyer 
Nonce v. Richmond &c. R. Co. 
Nones v. Homer 

V. Northouse 
Nonnemacher v. Nonnemacher 

2281, 
Noottan v. Bradley 

T. Lee 
Norcross v. GrifiBths 

V. Norcross 
Nord V. Gray 2448, 

Nordhaus v. Peterson 
Nordholt t. Nordholt 
Nordqulst v. Great Northern E. Co, 
Norfleet v. Russell 2057, 

Norfolk &c. Co. v. Dayls 
Norfolk &c. E. Co. v. Ferguson 

V. Marshall 

V. Nunally 

V. Poole's Adm. 

V. Wysor 
Norman y. Eckem 

T. Rogers 

V. Thompson 

V. Wells 
Normandin v. Gratton 
Norrls v. Beyea 



1593, 



T. Casel 



2656, 2692, 



1962 
2450 
2350 
2659 
2687 
1831 
2351 
1826 
2670 
1615 

■2630 
2148 
1592 
1717 
2124 
2454 
2554 
2579 
1974 
2000 
2415 
2050 
2072 
2490 
1987 
1639 
2065 
2248 
2006 
2067 
2092 
1855 
2696 
2607 
2622 
1974 
1714 
1607 
1595 
2236 
2280 
2082 
1884 

, 2589 
2501 
2603 

, 1846 
2696 
1585 
2236 
2460 
1733 
1984 
2278, 

, 2492 
2080 
2124 
1847 
1797 

, 2453 
1756 
21T1 

. 2521 

, 2058 
2448 
1900, 
2496 
1902 
1589 
2503 
1907 
2071 
2672 
1596 
2006 
1608 
2206 

, 2697 



Norrls v. Doniphan 1584 

V. Haggin 2465 

V. Hall 2009 

V. Insurance Co. &e. 1964 

V. Morrill 2146 

T. Whyte 1698 

North V. BIoss 2570 

V. People 2589 

V. Turner 1710 

North Adams t. Fitch 2243, 2244 

North Am. &c. Co. v. Adams 1571, 1573, 

1577 
North Am. &c. Ins. Co. v. Bur- 
roughs 2399, 2412, 2414 
V. Sickles 2293 
T. Zaenger 2344 
North Birmingham St. R. Co. v. Cal- 

derwood 1895, 1901 

North Brookfield v. Warren 2199 

North Carolina Inst. v. Norwood 2242 
North Carolina R. Co. v. Leach 1931 

North Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Barber 1978 
V. Lake View 2527 

North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Cotton 1903 
V. Fltzglbbons 1998 

North Hempstead v. Hempstead 2236 

North Muskegon v. Clark 1589 

North Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Kirk 2019 
North Point &c. Co. v. Utah &c. 

Co. 1979 

North River Bank v. Aymar 207O 

North Vernon v. Voegler 2535, 2537 

North &c. Rolling Stock Co. v. Peo- 
ple 1930 
Northern Belle, The 2432 
Northern Cent. R. Co. v. State 2498, 

2502 
Northern Grain Co. v. Pierce 1610, 1611 
Northern Line Packet Co. v. Piatt 1605- 
Northern Pacific R. Co. v. Mont- 
gomery 1959 
V. Lewis 2650 
V. Smith 1579 
Northern &c. R. Co. v. Hess 1901 
Northrop v. Hill 1972 
V. Knowles 2491, 2493 
Northwestern Conference v, Myers 2080^ 
Northwestern Cordage Co. v. Rice 2621 
Northwestern Guar. Co. v. Chan- 

nell 1557 

Northwestern &c. Asso. v. Jones 2384 

Northwestern &c. Co. v. Burlington 

&c. R. Co. 1907 

V. Tisdale 2009 

Northwestern Ins. Co. v. Rochester 

&c. Ins. Co. 236a 

Northwestern &c. Ins. Co. v. Ger- 

mania &c. Ins. Co. 2330- 

V. Gridley 2293 

V. Hazelett 2301, 2399 

V. Rochester &c. Ins. Co. 2362, 2363, 

2364 
V. Seaman 
V. Sun Ins. Office 
v. Woods 



Norton, The E. M. 

Norton v. Babeock 
T. Colgrove 
V. Dreyfuss 
V. Jackson 
V. Livingston 
V. Pettlbone 
V. Richmond 
V. Savage 
V. Schmucker 
V. Seymour 
State 



V. Warner 



2589 
2363, 2365 
2378 
1917 
1959 
1957 
2620' 
1959 
2452 
1858, 2087, 2689 
1637 
1659 
1959 
1823 
1932- 
2002: 



cxxn 



TABLE OF CASES. 



IReferences are to SecUons.l 



Norton v. Willis 2007 
Norwegian Plow Co. T. Hanthorn 2155, 

2164 
Norwick &e. Co. v. Western &c. Ins. 

Co. 2355 

Norwood T. Morrow 2065, 2291 

Nosotti T. Page 19T2 

Nossaman v. Nossaman 2487, 2488 

Nostrand v. Ditmis 1607 

Nowlin V. Pyne 2000 

Noxon V. Hill 2005, 2113 

Noyes, In re 1804 

Noyes v. Brown 1710 

T. Dyer 1620 

T. Edgerly 2103, 2105 

V. Phillips 2000 

V. Ward 1982, 1983 

V. Washington Co. Ins. Co. 2358 

Noyes's Will 2697 

Nudd V. Montayne 1781 

V. Wells 1907 

Nunn V. Bird 1841 

Nutall V. Brannin 2586 

Nutting T. Minnesota Fire &c. 1832 

Nye T. Denny 1857 

V. Grand Lodge &c. 2371, 2385, 2421 

Nys V. Biemeret 1859 



O 

O'Brien v. Bugbee 2194 

v. Commercial F. Ins. Co. 2341 

V. Coulter 2577 

T. Cunard S. S. Co. 1697, 1701 

V. Frasier 2478, 2483 

V. Home &e. Soc. 2420 

V. Joyce 2067 

V. People 2277 

V. Union &c. Ins. Co. 2298 

V. Wetherell 2056 

V. Woburn .2514 

O'Connell v. Supreme Conclare &c. 

2293, 2302 

O'Conner v. Arnold 1639 

O'Connor v. Bucklin 2109 

V. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. 2356 

v. Railroad Co. 2503 

O'Connor Min. Co. T. Dickson 2600 

O'Donnell v. Rodiger 2692 

V. Segar 2122, 2136 

O'Gara v. Eisenlohr 2196 

O'Hagan's Will 2687 

O'Keefe v. Dyer 2000 

V. First Nat. Bank 1829 

T. Liverpool &c. Ins. Co. 2322, 2363, 

2364 
O'Kelly V. Felker 2008 

O'Leary v. Rowan 1987 

O'Malia v. Glynn 1589 

O'Malley v. Great N. R. Co. 1914 

O'Mara v. Hudson River R. Co. 1998 
O'Mealey v. Wilson 1584 

O'Meara v. Merritt 2603 

V. McDaniel 1957 

O'Neal v. Hines 2000 

T. McKinna 2480 

V. SImontou 2650 

O'Neall V. Farr 2696 

O'Neil V. Will's Point Bank 1759 

O'Niel V. Buffalo F. Ins. Co., 2302, 2358 
O'Reilly v. New York &c. R. Co. 1589 
O'Rourke v. John Hancock &c. Ins. 

Co. 2373, 2374 

O'Shields V. Railway Co. 2460 

O. A. Smith &c. Co. v. Mitchell 2580 

Oakes v. Marcy 1621 

V. Wood 1698 



Oakland v. Carpentier 2124 

Oakland City &c. Soc. v. Bingham 1692 
Oakland R. Co. v. Fielding 1995 

Oakley v. Morton 1953 

Oakman v. Beldon 1643 

Oatfield V. Waring 1721, 1725 

Oberfelder v. Kavanaugh 2602 

Oberg V. Breen 2469 

Oberholtzer v. Hazen 1715 

Oberlander v. Spiess 2137 

Obermeyer v. Globe &c. Ins. Co. 2327 
Obert V. Landa 2181 

V. Obert 2091 

Obier v. Neal 1701 

Ocean &c. Co. v. Williams 2103, 2115, 

2116 
Ockendon v. Barnes 2124 

Odell V. Odell 2243 

V. Stephens 2640 

Oden V. Bonner 1607 

Odiorne v. Maxcy 1639 

V. New England Ins. Co. 2442 

Odom V. Odom 2030 

Odorilla, The v. Baizley 1630 

Odum V. Hutledge 1663 

Oelrichs v. Spain 1982 

Ogg V. Murdock 2115, 2119 

Ogden V. Astor 1605 

V. Beatty 2619, 2629 

V. Columbian Ins. Co. 2321 

V. Gibbons 2659 

V. Lund 1584 

V. Saunders 1799 

Ogle V. Atkinson 1798, 2664 

Oglesby v. Missouri Pae. R. Co. 1902, 

2519 

V. Thompson 2541 

Ogletree v. McQuaggs 2530 

Ohage V. Union Ins. Co. 2364 

Ohio Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Stowman 2295 
Ohio &c. Co. V. Marietta &c. Factory 

2419 
Ohio &c. Ins. Co. v. Bevis 

V. Burget 
Ohio &c. S. Co. V. Allender 

V. CoIIarn 

V. Harmmersley 

V. Hecht 1976, 1984, 

V. McCarthy 

V. Nickless 

V. Ridge 

V. Stein 

V. Voight 1903, 1995, 

V. Yohe 
Obi V. Eagle Ins. Co. 
Ohning v. Evansville 
Ohrlott V. Briscall 
Oilwell Supply Co. v. Wolfe 1593, 
Oklahoma City v. Hill 
Olcott V. Tioga B. Co. 
Old V. Keener 

Old Dominion B. & L. Asso. v 
Oldfather v. Zent 
Olerick v. Boss 
Oleson V. Lake Shore &c. R. Co 



2375 
2327 
1895 
2501 
2013 
1989 
1932 
2006 
1929 
2510 
2016 
1789 
2429 
2594 
1916 
1594 
2004 
1635 
2006 
Sohn 2589 
24S3 



V. Merrill 

V. Tolford 
Olewine, In re 
Olin V. Henderson 
Oliphant v. Mathews 
Oliver v. Commonwealth 

V. Denver 

V. Gray 

V. La Valle 

y. Maryland Ins. Co. 

V. Morgan 

V. North Pac. &c. Co. 

V. Oliver 



2604, 



1846, 



2523 
2611 
2006 
1S16 
1850 
2571 
2267 
2515 
2463 
1080 
2444 
1994 
1991 
2140 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXXlll 



[References are to Sections.l 



Oliver v. Perkins 






1927 


V. Phelps 




1592, 


2586 


T. Wilson 






1743 


Olleman v. Kilgore 






2682 


Oimstead v. Burlte 






1979 


V. Hay 1867, 


1868, 


1869 


1887 


V. Hill 






2535 


V. Partridge 




2474, 


2479 


V. Webb 






2692 


Olmstead's Estate 






2697 


Olmsted v. Hotailing 






2142 


V. Keyes 






2385 


V. Elcb 






2529 


Olney y. Chadsey 






1946 


Olsen V. Merrill 






2611 


V. Rogers 






1856 


Olson V. Brooks &c. Lumber 


Co. 


2650 


V. Neal 






2479 


V. Soiverson 


1865 


1875 


1876 


y. Tyete 






2472 


Olyey y. Jackson 




2466 


2576 


Omaha y. Ayer 






2501 



1790 
2322, 2446 
1589 
2297 
2293 



Omaha &c. Co. y. Parker 1618 

Omaha &c. Ins. Co. y. Dierks 2326, 2358 
Omberg y. United States &c. Asso. 

2399, 2414 
Oneida Co. Bank v. Bonney 1589 

Ontario State Bank v. Tibbits 1587 

Ontario &c. Asso. y. Cutting &c. Co. 2627 
Oppenheimer v. Halffi 2166 

Opsahl V. Judd 2017 

Oreamuno y. Uncle Sam &c. Co. 1572, 

1573 
Oregon Imp. Co. v. Seattle &c. Co. 
Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs 
Orman y. Lane 

Ormond y. Fidelity Life Asso. &c. 
Ormsby y. Phenix Ins. Co. 

y. Webb 2691, 2695 

Orner y. Sattley &c. Co. 2576 

Oroyille &c. E. Co. y. Plumas County 

1938, 2124 

y. Superyisors 2601 

Orr y. Hopkins 1607 

y. Jason 2583 

y. Peters 2129 

Orr Shoe Co. y. Harris 1746 

Orrell y. Hampden Fire Ins. Co. 2293, 

2305 

Orser y. Storms 2650 

Ortiz y. Nayarro 1876, 1887 

Orton y. Noonan 2050 

y. State 1701 

Ortt y. Minneapolis &c. R. Co. 1908 

Osborne & Co. y. Stringham 1833 

Osborn y. Bell 1717, 1721 

y. Jefferson & Bank 2230 

y. Prltchard 1959 

y. Bobbins 2170 

Osborne y. Detroit 2501 

V. Francis 2624 

y. Johnston 2040 

y. Moss 1714 

V. State 2588, 2589, 2594, 2596 

y. Van Dyke 2399 

V. Varney 2221 

y. Widenhouse 2202 

Osbrey y. Eeimer 2553 

Osgood y. Coates 1621 

V. Nichols 2073 

Oshkosh &c. Co. v. Germanla &e. 

Ins. Co. - 2330, 2359 

y. Insurance Co. 2364 

Osier y. Walton 2005 

Osment v. McElrath 2466 

Osmond y. Fitzroy 2276 

Osmun y. Winters 1889 

Osterhoudt y. Southern Pac. Co. 1911 



Osterman y. District Grand Lodge 2293 
Ostrander y. Lansing 1998 
y. Scott 1596 
Oswald y. Minneapolis Times Co. 1947 
Oswalt y. Hartford F. Ins. Co. 2337 
Otis y. Pennsylyania Co. 2019 
y. Raymond 2148 
Ott y. Schroeppel 1665 
y. Smith 2151 
Otto y. Doty 2682 
y. Klauber 2586 
y. Trump 2491 
Ottridge y. Thompson 1584 
Oughterson y. Clark 2468 
Ould y. Washington Hospital 2236 
Oulds y. Sansom 2252 
Outram y. Morewood 1715 
Outwater y. Dodge 1732 
Oyer y. Schiflling 1576, 2146, 2448 
Oyerall y. State 2281 
Overby v. Gordon 2684, 2685 
y. Thrasher 1664 
Overbeck y. Oyerbeck 2384 
Oyerdieck's Will 2205 
Oyerholt y. Vieths 2017 
Oyerton y. Dayisson 1845, 1851, 1855 
Owen y. Barrow 1633 
y. Bartholomew 1845, 1850, 1853, 
1859, 1862 
y. Crank 1731 
y. Dewey 2452, 2456 
y. Farmers' &c. Ins. Co. 2338 
y. Fowler 2062 
y. O'Reilly 1972 
y. Phillips 2537 
y. Potter 1710 
y. Shepard 1941 
Owens, In re 2236 
Owens y. Chandler 1592, 2027 
y. Farmers' &c. Ins. Co. 2353 
y. Gacho 2610 
y. Kansas City &c. R. Co. 1989 
y. Lewis 2618 
y. Missionary Society 2236, 2245 
y. Mitchell 2189 
y. People's &c. R. Co. 1991 
y. Snell 1828 
y. Travelers' Ins. Co. 2399 
y. Weedman 2663 
Owensboro &c. Co. y. Bliss 2555 
Owensboro Deposit Bank y. Smith 1750 
Owings y. Baker 1830 
y. Freeman 1845 
y. Hull 1639 
y. Speed 1941, 1942, 1945 
Owsley y. Montgomery &c. R. Co. 2114 
Oxford V. Rumney 2266 
Oxford Iron Co. y. Spradley 1932 
Oxnard y. Varnum 1835, 1836, 1837 
Oyshterbank y. Gardner 2496 
Oystead y. Shed 2112 
Oyster v. Burlington Relief Dept. 2019 
y. Knull 2206 
Ozark Lumbet Co. y. Chicago Lum- 
ber Co. 1732 



Pabst Brew. Co. v. Greenberg 2660 

Pace y. Klink 2205 

Pacey y. Powell 2608 

Pacific Bank y. De Ro 1938 

Pacific Cable Co. y. McNatt 2627 

Pacific Coast Bleyator Co. y. Brayin- 

der 2628, 2628 

Pacific Express v. Black 1918 

y. Darnell 1981 

y. Dunn 2652 



CXXIV 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to dections.l 



Pacific Guano Co. v. Mullen 




2625 


Pacific Ins. Co. v. Conrad 




1982 


Pacific R. Co. V. Walker 




2040 


Pacific &c. Co. V. Alaska &c. 


Asso. 


2005 


Pacific &c. Ins. Co. v. Guse 




2424 


V. Snowden 




2405 


Pack V. Thomas 




1840 


Packard v. Dunsmore 




2618 


V. Fire Ins. Co. 




2314 


V. Old Colony B. Co. 


1932 


1933 


V. Pratt 




2125 


Packer v. Hinckley Locomotive 




Works 




1641 


T. Schrader Min. Co. 




1846 


Pacquette v. Pickness 




2067 


Paddleford v. Thatcher 




1596 


Paddock v. Commercial Ins. 


Co. 


2439 


V. Franklin &c. Ins. Co. 


2432, 


2434, 


2435 


2437 


2439 


V. Robinson 


1883 


1885 


V. Somes 




2524 


V. Strobridge 




2148 


V. Watts 




2480 


Padelford's Estate 




2697 


Padget T. Priest 




2083 


Padgett V. Lawrence 




2701 


Page, In re 




2698 


Page V. Burnstine 




2096 


V. Cushlng 




2106 


•t. Davis 




2067 


V. Delaware &c. Co. 




1988 


V. Dixon 




2127 


V. Foster 




1654 


V. Fowler 




1798 


V. Francis 




2151 


V. McClinch 




2073 


V. Merwin 




2457 


V. Midland E. 




1957 


V. Miller 




2119 


T. Mitchell 


1590 


2105 


V. Parker 


2202 


2204 


V. Simpson 




2050 


Pagenhardt v. Insurance Co. 




2395 


Paget V. Cook 




2109 


Pagett V. Connecticut &c. Ins. Co. 


2393 


Paige T. Cagwin 




1715 


V. Hazard 




2006 


Paille V. Plant 




2461 


Pain v. Whlttaker 




2663 


Paine, In re 




1816 


Paine v. Consumers' &c. Co. 




1847 


V. Drew 




2460 


V. Griffiths 


1579 


1580 


V. Lake Erie &c. E. Co. 




1939 


V. Sherwood 




1981 


V. Tucker 




1628 


Painter v. Abel 




1727 


T. Industrial Life Asso. 




1639 


T. Ives 




2109 


Palrle v. Griffiths 




1573 


Paist V. Caldwell 




1666 


Pakas V. Hollingshead 




2629 


Palatine v. Weiss 




2362 


Palethorp v. Furnish 




1633 


Pallet V. Sargent 




2003 


Palm V. Medina &c. Ins. Co. 


2311, 


2314 


Palmby v. MeCleary 




2634 


Palmer v. Bennett 




2461 


V. Broder 




2479 


V. Crook 




1649 


V. Dodge 




2574 


V. Dougherty 
V. Dunham 




1847 




2208 


V. Fafrell 




1847 


V. Field 


1830, 


2461 


V. Horn 




2208 


V. Maine Cent. E. Co. 




2111 


V. McCarthy 




1709 



Palmer v. McLennen 


leor 


V 


Merrill 1707 


, 1710> 


V 


Osborne 


184.5 


V 


Pinkham 


2558- 


V 


Eice . 


1839 


V 


Skillenger 


1693- 


V. 


Stacy 


2601 


V. 


Stephens 


2561 


V. 


Van Wycfc 


1660- 


V. 


Warren Ins. Co. 


2442 


V. 


Wetmore 


1969- 


V. 


Winona &c. Co. 


1900 


V. 


Wright 


1585 


V. 


Yager 


1596- 


Palmer Brick Co. v. Chenall 


2519- 


Palmtag v. Deutrick 


1789 


Paltrovitch v. Phoenix Ins. Co. 


2337 


Pancoast, In re 


1818 


Panton v. Holland 


1971 


Pape 


V. Ferguson 


2620 


Parberry v. Woodson Sheep Co. 


1750- 


Parchen v. Anderson 


2071 


Pardey v. MechanicsviUe 


2511 


Parfltt V. Lawless 


2696- 


Parich v. Whitney 


1957 


Parish v. Burwood 


2025 


V. 


Stone 


1826 


Parish Fork &c. Co. v. Bridgewater 


Gas Co. 


1578 


Park 


V. Armstrong 


1737 


V. 


McGowen 


1600 


V. 


Phoenix Ins. Co. 


2336 


V. 


Wiley 


2587 


V. 


Wilkinson 


1945 


Parker, In re 


2576 


Parker v. Amazon Ins. Co. 


2346 


V. 


Atlantic &c. E. Co. 


1915 


V. 


Canfleld 2551 


2555 


V. 


Carolina Sav. Bank 


1929 


V. 


Cassingham 


2039 


V. 


China &c. Ins. Co. 


2442 


V. 


Colcord 


1591 


V. 


Coture 


1702 


V. 


Dorsey 


1665 


V. 


Elliott 


2637 


V. 


Poote 


1969 


V. 


Forehand 


1890 


V. 


Gilmore 


1824 


V. 


Grant 


2460 


V. 


Great Western E. Co. 


1730 


V. 


Griswold 1962, 1972, 


1974 


V. 


Hendrle 


2623 


V. 


Hotchkiss 


2651 


V. 


Jenkins 1987 


1988 


V. 


Lowell 


1502 


V. 


Luce 


1739 


T. 


Monteith 2636, 


2642 


V. 


Nlms 


2202 


T. 


Oakley 


2550- 


V. 


Parker 1664, 2479, 2480, 


2583 


V. 


Pennsylvania Co. 


2503 


V. 


Pettlt 


2629 


V. 


Potts 


2435 


V. 


Providence &c. Co. 


2019 


V. 


Eamsbottom 


1598 


V. 


Selden 


2620 


V. 


Smith 


1847 


V. 


State 2025, 


2589 


V. 


Stephens 


2067 


V. 


Valentine 


2126 



Parkersburg Indust. Co. t. Schultz 2055. 

2065 
Parkhill v. Brighton 2515 

Parkhurst v. Ketchum 2003 

V. Masteller 1991, 2483 

V. McGraw 2127 

Parkins v. Dunham 1573 

Parks V. Morris &c. Co 1994 



TABLE OF CASES. 



exxv 



[References are to Sections.'} 



Parks v. Mosher 




2549 


V. Satterthwaite 




2468 


Parlin v. Small 




2131 


Parlln and Orendorff Co. v. 


Spen- 




cer 




1752 


Parlin &c. Co. v. Boatman 




2628 


Parmelee v. Hoffman Ins. Co 




2346, 




2388, 


2389 


V. Oswego &c. E. Co. 




2057 


V. Tennessee &c. R. Co. 




1591 


Parmenter v. Fitzpatrick 


1803, 


2671 


Parmeutier v. Pater 2172, 


2177, 


2178 


Parmer t. Anderson 




2452 


v. Keith 




1745 


Parmly t. Farrar 




1720 


Parrett v. Palmer 


2255, 


2257 


Parrish v. Higginbotham 




1663 


V. Stephens 


20T0, 


2074 


V. Thurston 2041, 


2611, 


2613 


Parrott v. Baker 




1621 


Parry v. House 




2606 


V. Libbey 




1715 


T. Roberts 




1795 


V. Squair 1785, 


1786, 


1793 


Parschen, In re 




1816 


Parshall v. Fisher 




2560 


Parson v. Aldrich 




1661 


V. Hall 




1665 


Parsons v. Dickinson 




2650 


V. Frost 




1826 


T. Harper 


2109 


2115 


V. Lindsay 


2006, 


2517 


T. Manufacturers' Ins. Co 




2303 


V. Moses 




2067 


V. Parsons 2210, 2221 


2280 


2291 


V. State 




2278 


T. Stockbridge 




1746 


T. Sutton 




1979 


v. ToplitE 




1801 


V. Trustees 




1942 


Partelo v. Harris 




2151 


Partridge v. Badger 


1708 


1944 


V. Coates 




2025 


V. Scott 




1969 


Paschal v. Acklin 




2244 


Pasley v. Freeman 


2137 


2139 


T. Richardson 




1620 


Pasmore v. Bousfleld 




1588 


Pass V. Critcher 




1654 


Pastorlus v. Fisher 




1972 


Patch V. Keeler 




1850 


V. Washburn 




1830 


T. White 




2211 


Patchen t. Keeley 




2004 


Patchin V. Stroud 


1575 


, 1580 


Patee v. Whltcomb 2291, 


2691 


2696 


Paton V. Coit 




1826 


Patrick v. Farmers' Ins. Co. 




2348 


V. Hallett 


2432 


2435 


V. Putnam 




1717 


Patten v. Cilley 2684, 


2685 


2689 


T. Patten 


2261 


, 2263 


T. Tallman 




2686 


Patterson v. Carrell 




1824 


V. Clyde 




1916 


T. Cobb 




2086 


V. Gaines 




2485 


V. Gibson 




2170 


V. Hayden 




2641 


v. Rickey 




2698 


T. Johnson 




1611 


V. Keystone &c. Co. 




1907 


V. Litton 




2039 


V. Nutter 




1700 


V. Prior 




2628 


T. Ransom 




2686 


T. Relgle 




1619 


V. State 




2491 



Patterson v. Sweet 




1957 


Pattisou V. Blanchard 




2553 


V. Hull 




1707 


V. Syracuse Nat. Bank 


1774, 


1776, 
1787 


Patton T. Ash 




2582 


V. Garrett 




1654 


V. Holland 




1971 


V. Lund 




1823 


v. Taylor 




2124 


V. Texas &c. R. Co. 


2012, 


2519 


Paul V. Berry 




1831 


V. Slason 1962 


1970, 


1974 


V. Travelers' Ins. Co. 


2399, 


2411, 
2412 


V. Ward 




2065 


Paulman v. Clayeomb 




2618 


Paulsen v. Manske 




1666 


Paulus V. Reed 




2277 


Paune t. Harnett 




1598 


Pause V. Atlanta 




1994 


Pawlowski v. Jenks 




2480 


Pawtucket &c. Co. v. Briggs 




1604 


Paxton V. Boyer 




1689 


T. Price 




2196 


Payne v. Bacomb 




1717 


V. Benham 




1590 


V. Chicago &c. R. Co. 




2523 


V. Crawford 




2057 


V. Donegan 




2479 


V. Elliot 




2661 


V. English 




1846 


V. Fraternal &c. Asso. 


2399, 


2414, 
2496 


V. Metz 




2124 


T. Payne 




2029 


V. San Francisco 




2596 


V. Sayle 




2206 


V. Treadwell 




2039 


T. Williams 




1643 


Paynter v. Williams 




1728 


Peabody v. Peabody 




2036 


v. Rice 




1658 


V. Washington Co. &c. Ins. Co. 


2308 


Peabody. Heights Co. v. Sadtler 


1847 


Peabody Ins. Co. v. Wilson 




1835 


Peaceable v. Watson 




2669 


Peacock y. New York &c. Ins. Co. 


2378 


V. People 


2170 


2172 


V. Pursell 




1798 


V. Smart 




2202 


Pearce.v. Hooper 




1951 


V. Kyzer 




2197 


V. Needham 




2115 


V. Rickard 


2207 


2208 


Pearl v. Cortright 




1830 


V. M'Dowell 




2279 


Pearman v. Pearman 




1700 


Pease v. Anderson 




2602 


V. Shlppen 




2003 


Pearson v. Coles 




1964 


V. Flanagan 




2050 


V. McGowran 




2025 


v. Pearson 




2196 


V. Thomason 




1596 


Pecare v. Chouteau 




,1956 


Peck V. Armstrong 




1782 


V. Botsford 




2086 


V. Carmichael 




2065 


Y. Cary 




2701 


V. Chouteau 




2476 


v. Equitable &c. Asso. 


2401 


2414 


V. Kansas City &c. Co. 




2005 


v. Land 




2164 


V. Louisville &c. R. Co. 


2039 


2064 


V. Loyd 




1972 


V. Mayo 




1824 


V. New York &c. Co. 




2467 



TABLE OP CASES. 



[References are to Sections.'} 




Peck V. Pierce 2582 


Pennsylvania E. Co. v. Dale 1984, 


1985, 


V. Small 1997, 2482 






1994 


V. Thompson 1726 


V. 


Prana 


2501 


V. Wheatou 2086 


V. 


Hensil 2501 


2511 


Pecker v. Hoit 2623 


V. 


Horton 


2504 


Pecks V. Elliott 2576 


V. 


Hughes 


2668 


Peddicord v. Connard 1609 


V. 


Kelly 


1995 


Pedens v. King 1587 


V. 


Liveright 1916 


1917 


Peebles v. Horton 2144, 2145, 2161 


V. 


MacKinney 1895, 


1902 


v. Rand 1726 


V. 


Poor 1907, 


1912 


V. Reading 2056 


V. 


Price 


1894 


Peek V. Gurney 2074 


V. 


Raiordon 1916, 1919, 


2399 


V. Traylor 1651b, 1652 
Peekskill &c. K. Co. v. Peekskill 2000 


V. 


Righter 


2501 


V. 


Stegemeier 


2504 


Peele ¥. Provident &c. Soc. 2326, 2347, 


V. 


Zebe 


1995 


2399, 2414 


Pennsylvania T. Co. v. Books 


1898 


Peeler v. Lathrop 1611, 1612 


Pennsylvania &c. Co. v. Graham 


1987, 


Peery v. Peery 2694 






1991 


Peet V. Commerce &c. St. R. Co. 2204 


V. 


Sanderson 


1971 


Pebrson v. Hewitt 2124 


Penny, In re 


196i> 


Peightal v. Cotton States &c. 1841 


Penny, Succession of 1728, 


2577 


Peirce v. Boston &c. R. Co. 1579 


Penny v. Atlantic Coast Line E. Co 


1895 


Pekin v. Brereton 1921 


V. 


Croul 


22.55 


Pell V. Ball 2209 


v. 


Jackson 


2124 


Pelton V. Bemis 2124 


V. 


Porter 


1907 


Pelzer Mfg. Co. v. Sun Fire Office 2339, 


V. 


Southeastern R. Co. 


1971 


2355 


Pennybacker v. Laidley 


2148 


Pembroke v. Hayes 1826 


Pennypacker v. Capital Ins. Co. 


2326 


Pemigewasset Bank v. Brackett 1726 


V. 


Jones 1994, 


2000 


Pence v. Arbuekle 2070, 2074 


Penobscot R. Co. v. Dummer 


194(i 


V. Croan 2152 


V. 


Mayo 


1726 


V. Langdon 2622 


Penobscot &c. E. Co. v. Dunn 


1943 


Pendleton v. Davis 1703 


Penoyar v. Kelsey 


1744 


V. Galloway 2124 


Penri) 


ddock's Case 


2534 


Pentold V. Universal L. Ins. Co. 2394, 


Pentz 


V. Receivers .^tna &c. Ins. Co. 


2331 


2399 


Peopl 


e V. Barber 


2286 


Penick v. Tbom 2237 


V. 


Bernal 


2267 


Peninsular Stove Co. v. Ellis, 2610, 


V. 


Beverly 


2278 


2613, 2666 


V. 


Board 


1596 


Peninsular &c. Bank v. Currie 2547 


V. 


Briggs 


2140 


Penn v. Brashear 2610 


V. 


Burt 


2111 


V. Cox 2200 


V. 


Burtleson 


2529 


V. Glover 1958 


V. 


Calder 


2486 


V. Smith 2628 


V. 


De Fore 


2640 


V. Ward 1698 


V. 


De la Guerra 1581, 1582, 


1591 


Penn &c. Ins. Co. v. Mechanics' &c. 


V. 


Denby 


1701 


Co. 2293 


V. 


Detroit White Lead Works 


2537. 


V. Wiler 2293, 2372, 2376 






253S 


Pennell v. Percival 1821 


V. 


Douglass 


1898 


Penniman v. Alexander 1832, 1839 


V. 


Drain Com. of Wayne County 2256 


Pennington v. Acker 2248 


V. 


DriscoU 


2517 


V. Flock 2157, 2164 


V. 


Egnor 


2278 


v. Lewis 2648, 2650 


V. 


Empire &c. Ins. Co. 


2355 


V. Pacific &c. Ins. Co. 2412 


V. 


Feilen 


2487 


V. Seal 2154 


V. 


Francis 


2276 


Pennock v. Dialogue 1571 


V. 


Frank 


1938 


V. Freeman 2056 


V. 


Fnlton F. Ins. Co. 2186, 2196 


2199 


Pennoyer v. Wadhams 2236 


V. 


Garbutt 


2288 


Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Sanderson 1971 


V. 


Getchell 


2138 


Pennsylvania Co. v. Conlan 2521 


V. 


Griffin 


2138 


V. Hensil 2504 


V. 


Hamilton 


2590 


V. Holderman 1907 


V. 


Hancock County 


1942 


V. Jones 2521 


V. 


Hatch 


1854 


V. Keane 1990, 2017 


V. 


Hawkins 


2291 


V. Lilly 1995 


V. 


Hayes 


2600 


V. Long 2013 


V. 


Healy 


2124 


V. Marlon 1987 


V. 


Hillsdale &c. Tpk. Eoad 


1930 


V. Roy 2017 


V. 


Hoeh 


22S1 


V. Stoeike 2505 


V. 


Hyde Park 


2601 


V. Weddle 2476, 2477 


V. 


Imes 


2490 


Pennsylvania P. Ins. Co. v. Drack- 


V. 


Isham 


2491 


ett 2364,- 2441 


V. 


Jones 


1847 


Pennsylvania Lead Co., Appeal of 2524, 


y. 


Koerner 


2289 


2537 


V. 


Lambert 


2491 


Pennsylvania E. Co. v. Allen 1991 


V. 


Leonard 


2590 


V. Angel 2537 


V. 


Mallory 


2538 


V. Barnett 2501 


V. 


March 


2281 


V. Books 2510 


V. 


Mayne 


2196 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXXVIL 



[.References are to l?ections.'i 



People v. McDowell 








2448 


Perkins v. Lockwood 




V. McKenna 








2124 


V. Lyman 




V. Molineux 








2142 


V. Mathes 




V. Montgomery 






2276, 


2288 


V. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 




V. Murphy 








2006 


T. Patten 




V. Murray 








2593 


V. Perkins 2277, 


2689, 


V. Nash 








1666 


V. Prout 


1824, 


V. Niagara &c. 








2606 


V. Rogers 




V. Nino 








2291 


V. Sanders 




V. Northern Pac 


R. 


Co. 




1931 


v. Schneider 




V. Nostrand 






2589, 


2599 


v. Stebbins 




T. Osmond 








2280 


V. Tilton 




V. Peek 








1602 


V. Washington Ins. Co. 




V. Perley 








1930 


V. Wing 




V. Perriman 








2490 


Perley v. Perley 




V. Pine 








2281 


Perot V. Cooper 1826, 1829, 


1840, 


V. President &c. 








1932 


Perrin v. Protection Ins. Co. 




V. Rice 








2278 


Perrine v. Hankinson 




T. Ritchie 








2454 


V. Winter 




V. River &c. E. Co. 






1930 


Perry v. Bozeman 




V. Schmitt 








2281 


V. Buss 




v. Schuyler 








2278 


V. Butt 




V. Seaman 








2141 


V. Chandler 




V. Smith 






2288 


2640 


V. Cobb 




V. State Board 








2590 


V. Dover 




V. Stokes 






2488 


.2490 


V. Ellis 




V. Therrien 








2597 


V. Gray 




V. Thomas 








2138 


V. Hardy 




V. Thornton 








2455 


v. Hunter 




V. Tobin 








2277 


V. Langley 




V. Vernon 








2510 


V. Lovejoy 1642, 1645, 


1647, 


V. Volcano Canyon 


Toll 


Road 




1649, 1651, 


1652, 


Co. 








1930 


v. New Orleans &c. R. Co 




V. Warren 








2120 


V. Perry 




V. Wheeler 








2106 


v. Sutley 


2102, 


V. Wilson 








1942 


V. Weeks 




V. Wood 








2280 


Perryman v. Pope 1740, 


1743. 


V. Zeyst 








1942 


Pershing v. Chicago &c. R. Co. 


Peoples V. Evening 
People's Bank v. Bo 


News 


2140 


2456 


Peshine v. Shepperson 


1988, 


gart 




2148 


Peteflsh V. Becker 




V. BroTOn 








1805 


Peter v. Thickstun 




V. Keech 








1840 


Peters v. Ballistier 




People's Nat. Bank 


V. 


Harper 


1751 


v. Bowman 




People's &c. Asso. v 


Smith 




2326 


v. Craig 




People's &c. Ins. Co 


V. 


Allen 


2424 


2426 


V. Fowler 




V. Hartshorne & Co 






2422 


V. Hilles 




People's &c. Soc. v. 


Templeton 


2371, 


V. New Orleans &c. R. Co. 








2380 


2381 


V. Reichenbach 1857, 1859 


, 1860, 


Peoria v. Johnson 








1579 


V. Siders 




Peoria Bridge Asso. 


V. Loomis 


1987, 


V. Warren Ins. Co. 


2431, 










1991 


Petersen v. Chemical Bank 




Peoria &c. Ins. Co. v. Lewis 




2325. 


Petersilea v. Stone 




2326, 


2347, 


2356 


2358 


Peterson v. Ayre 




V. Whitehill 








2358 


V. Chicago &c. R. Co. 




Peoria &c. R. Co. v. 


CI ay berg 




2505 


V. Haffner 




V. Peoria &c. R. 


Co. 






1974 


V. Loring 




V. United States 


Rol. Stk 


Co. 


1909 


V. Murray 




Peper's Estate, In re 






2236 


V. Toner 




Pepper v. Burland 








1717 


V. Webb 




V. Mayes 








2113 


v. Western V. Tel. Co. 




Peppinger v. Low 








1874 


Petit V. Woodlief 




Perea v. Barela 








2686 


Peto V. Hague 




Percifleld v. Black 








2263 


Petrel Guano Co. v. Providence &c. 


Percival v. Blake 








1730 


Ins. Co. 




V. Chase 








2057 


Petrie v. Feeter 




Percy v. Cockrill 








2465 


V. Petrie 




Perdew v. Tillman 








1595 


V. Rose 


2003, 


Perigo V. Chicago &( 


. R 


Co. 




2510 


Pettee v. Appleton 




Perin v. Carey 








2235 


V. Prout 




V. Catheart 






1594 


1596 


Petterson v. Stockton &c. R. 


Co. 


Ferine v. Grand Lodge 




2293, 


2686 


Pettes v. Bingham 




Perkins v. Augusta Ins. 


Co. 




2444 


Pettihgill V. McGregor 




v. Blood 






1571, 


1574 


Pettis V. Ray 




v. Catlin 








1830 


V. Westlake 




V. Giles 








1654 


Pettit V. Black 




v. Hart 








1609 


Pettitt V. Pettitt 




V. Headley 








1596 


Peyser v. Mayor &c. 


1728, 


V. Kent 








2577 


Peyton v. Rogers 


1692, 



1596. 
2000 
2218 
1904 
2164 
2692 
1825- 
1584 
1932 
2628 
1638 
1924 
1629 
1661 
2401 
2586 
2431 
1720 
1997 
2586 
2103 
2564 
2660 
2432 
1730 
2466 
2577 
1861 
2212 
1814 

1648, 
1653 
2537 
170O 
2118 
2057 
1747 
1895 
1994 
2691 
1606 
1639 
1956 
1666 
2249 
2624 
1920 

, 1861 
2231 
2439 
1713 
2589 
1656 
1899 
1689 
1660 
2457 
1695 
2204 
2450 
1596 
1633 

2305 
2071 
2690 
2458 
2551 
1820 
1733 
2276. 
1864 
1595 
1824 
2682 
2287 
2170 
1698 



CXXVlll 



TABLE OF CASES. 



IReferences are to Sections.'] 



Pfefferle v. Welland 2067 

Pflstner v. Bird 2649 

Pflueger v. State 2279 

Pforzheimer v. Selkirk 2124 
Phadenliauer t. Germania &c. Ins. 

Co. 2395 

Pharo v. Beadleston 2624 

Phelan v. Travelers' Ins. Co. 2399 

Phelln V. Kenderline 2630, 2640 

Phelps V. Abbott 1840 

T. Decker 2023 

T. Elliott 2124, 2461 

T. George's Creek &c. R. Co. 2146, 

2147 

V. Nowlen 1969 

v. Smith 2152, 2157 

V. Winona &c. E. Co. 1590, 2017 

V. Zuschlag 2181 
Phenix Ins. Co. v. Charleston Bridge 

Co. 2332 

T. Rogers 2340 

V. Stock 2292, 2293, 2304, 2305, 

2306, 2373 

Phipps V. Ingram 1665 

Philadelphia v. Elliott 2235 

T. Fox 2235 

V. Girard 2243 

T. Given 2599 

V. Riddle 1571 

Philadelphia &c. Asso. v. Hart 2236 
Philadelphia &e. Ins. Co. v. Amer- 
ican &c. Ins. Co. 
Philadelphia &c. R. Co. v. Adams 
V. Beyer 
V. Fronk 
V. Hickman 

V. Hughes 1994, 2503, 2519 

V. Quigley 2114, 2450 
V. Spearen 
V. Stebbing 
Philadelphia Bank v. Officer 
Philadelphia City Pass. E. Co. v. 

Hassard 2501, 2502 
Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Philadel- 
phia Co. 2087 
Philbrick v. Spangler 2488 
Philip V. Heraty 2015 
Philips V. Belden 1609, 1611 
V. Samuel 2554 
Phillip &c. Constr. Co. T. Seymour 1951 
Phillips T. Burr 2252 
T. Cummings 1588 
T. Crosby 2629 
V. Crutchley 1863 
T. Denver 2533 
V. Gorham 2057 
V. Harrow 2235 
V. Henry 2177 
V. Heraty 2009 
V. Howgate 1698 
V. Insurance Co. 2292 
V. Kelly 2034 
V. Lawrence 1571 
V. Louisiana &c. Ins. Co. 2395, 2396 
V. McGuire 2578 
V. Nash 2570, 2571 
V. Phillips 2032, 2038, 2543, 2556 



2323 
1995 
2511 
2501 
1945 



2269 
2503 
1943 



Potter 

Protection Ins. Co. 



V. Sanchez 

V. Schooley 

V. Singer M(g. Co. 

V. Southwestern R. Co. 

T. Southern R. Co. 

V. Terry 

y. Trull 



2124 
2326, 2347, 
2353, 2358 
2258 
2124 
2026 
1984 
1899 
2007 
2110 



Phillips V. Williams 




2629 


Phillips Academy v. King 




2234 


Phillipson v. Hayter 




2258 


Philpot V. Holmes 




2654 


V. O'Brion 




1800 


Philpott V. Penna. E. Co. 




2019 


Phleger v. Ivins 




1637 


Phoenix Bank v. Curtis 




1585 


Phoenix Brewing Co. v. Weiss 


1835 


Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Allen 




1798 


V. Bailey 




2383 


V. Benton 




2375 


V. Bowersox 




2428 


V. Copeland 


2317 


2318 


V. Lawrence 




2345 


V. Moog 




2124 


V. Munday 




2024 


V. Railroad Co. 




2327 


V. Summerfield 




2336 


V. Taylor 




2335 


V. Tucker 




2328 


Phoenix &c. Co. v. Badger 




1947 


Phoenix &c. Ins. Co. v. Raddin 


2389 


Phffinix &c. Works v. Pittsburg &c. 




R. Co. 




1916 


Phyaick's Estate, In re 




2488 


Pick V. Strong 


2009, 


2082 


Pickard v. Collins 




1969 


V. Samuels 


1737, 


1748 


V. Sears 


2071, 


2072 


V. Simpson 




1605 


Pickel V. Phoenix Ins. Co. 




2348 


Picken's Estate, In re 




2490 


Pickens v. Davis 


2697 


2698 


Pickerell v. Pisk 




2543 


Pickering v. Cassidy 




2399 


V. Frink 




2466 


V. Pickering 




2211 


V. Shotwell 


2235, 


2236 


Picket V. Dowdall 




1571 


Pickett V. Doe 




2061 


V. King 


2466, 


2467 


V. Nelson 


1857, 


1860 


V. Pac. &c. Ins. Co. 2304, 


2399 


2411 


V. Pearsons 




1601 


V. Pipkin 2124, 


2126, 


2127 


V. West Monroe 




1972 


Pickle V. Muse 1829 


1840 


2582 


Pickup V. Thames Ins. Co. 




2435 


Pidcock V. Potter 




2289 


Piedmont &c. Ins. Co. v. Ewing 


2301, 




2372 


2374 


Pier V. Bullis 




1829 


V. Heinrlchshoffen 




1835 


Pierce v. Benjamin 




2672 


V. Empire Ins. Co. 




2375 


V. Equitable &c. Soc. 




1610 


V. Faunce 




1845 


V. Felter 




2057 


V. Frace 




2063 


V. Fuller 




2000 


v. Hoffman 




2141 


V. Hosmer 




1972 


V. Hower 2071, 2158 


2263 


257(; 


V. Lacy 




1587 


V. Mlllay 




1991 


V. Pierce 




1607 


V. Shippee 




2552 


V. Stuart 




2059 


V. Travelers' &c. Ina. Co. 


2394 


2395 


Plerse v. Smith 




1739 


Pierson v. Crooks 




2619 


V. Smith 




2262 


V. State 




2311 


V. Tom 




1752 


V. Wallace 




2006 


Pigot's Case 




2026 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXXIX 



IBeferences are to Sections.} 



Pigott V. Holloway 1951 

Pike v. Dilling 1999 

V. Grand Trunk E. Co. 2501 

T. Hanson 2105 

V. Hayes 1658, 2658 

v. Pike 2276 

Pile V. McBratney 2186 

Fill T. Brooklyn &c. E. Co. 1985 

Pilling V. Otis 2166 

Pillow V. Bushnell 1701 

T. Roberts 1620 

PiUsbury t. Moore 1972 

Piltz T. Yonkers E. Co. 1980 

Pinch V. Wiliard 2627 

Pinchon y. CBilcott 1605 

Pinckston v. Brown 2170 

Pindar v. King's Co. &c. Ins. Co. 2006, 

2335 

V. Wadswortli 1972 

Pine City v. Munch 2530 

Pingree v. Comstock 1709 

Pinkerton v. Bailey 1824 

v. Manchester &c. E. Co. 1798 

V. Woodward 1797 

Pinkham v. Blair 2204 

Pinnel's Case 1596 

Plnney, Matter of 2281 

Pinney v. Newton 2211 

Pino V. Merchants' Hut. Ins. Co. 2297, 

2298, 2299, 2301 

Piper V. Andricks 2696 

V. Mercantile &c. Asso. 2407 

V. Moulton 2235 

Pirani v. Barden 2604 

Pirkle v. Chamblee 1843 

Pisano v. B. M. Shanley &c. Co. 2019 

Pit V. Choimonddley 1609 

Pitford V. Armstrong 1699 

Pitkin V. Frink 1717 

V. Pitkin 2555 

Pitt V. Texas Storage Co. 2671 

Pitts t: Melser 2682 

T. Waugh 2570 

Pittsburg &c. Co. v. Foster 1994 

V. Stickiey 1619 

Pittsburg Ins. Co. v. Frazee 2335, 2346 

Pittsburgh &e. E. Co. v. Burton 1995 

v. Fraze 2523 

V. Gazzam 1941 

V. Gipe 2019 

V. Hazen 1916 

V. Hollowell 1916 

V. Hosea 1995, 2019 

V. Hine 2460 

V. Hixon 2006 

V. Kinnare 2016, 2017 

V. McCurdy 2454 

V. McNeil 2523 

V. Montgomery 1991 

V. Moore 2019 

V. Nash 1918 

V. Noel 1945 

V. Noftsger 2146 

V. O'Brien 2039, 2044 

T. Parish 2016 

T. Powers 1990 

V. Seivers 2501 

V. Slusser 2114 

V. Theobald 1895 

V. West 2523 

V. Yundt 2505 

Plxley V. Clark 1969 

Place V. Baugher 1604 

Plank V. Grimm 1696, 2146 

Planing Machine Co. v. Keith 1571 

Planters' Bank v. Massey 2584 

Planters' &c. Ins. Co. v. Deford 2387 



Planters' Ins. Co. v. Dlggs 2305, 2307, 

2310 

V. Sorrels 2420 

Piano Mfg. Co. v. Frawley 2546 

Piatt V. Brown 1999 

V. Mickle 2204 

V. Tuttle 2666 

Platte Valley Bank v. Harding 1932 

Pledger t. Chicago &e. K. Co. 2510 

Plevin v. Henshall 2672 

Plimpton V. Gardiner 1979 

V. Plimpton 2067 

Plowman v. Foster 1926 

Plumb V. Bank of Enterprise 1946 

V. Cattaraugus &c. Ins. Co. 2077 

Plume T. Seward 2059 

Plumer v. Harper 2534 

V. Johnston 1847 

Plumleigh v. Dawson 1962, 1972 

Plummer v. Farmers' Bank 2071 

V. Gheen 2473 

V. Milan 1991 

V. People 2170 

Plunkett, In re 2223 

Plymouth v. Carver 1957 

V. Painter 2589 

Podrasnik v. Martin Co. 2570 

Poertner v. Poertner 2033 

Po£E V. New Bug. Tel. &e. Co. 2010, 2460, 

2462 

Poillon V. Secor 2558i 2568 

Pointer v. Merchants' Mut. Ins. Co; 2431 

Poissenot v. Eenther 2457 

Pokriefka v. Mackurat 1695 

Polack y. McGrath 1618 

Polk y. Oliver 2574 

y. State 2632 

Pollak y. Davidson 2672 

y. Searcy 2151, 2152" 

Pollard v. Barkley 2092 

V. Cocke 2050 

y. Hanrick 2039 

V. Lyon 1921, 1978, 2447 

V. Scears 2086 

Pollock V. Gantt 1985 

V. Morrison 2146 

V. Pollock 1645, 2030 

y. Sullivan f885 

V. United States &c. Asso. 2415, 2499 

Polly v. McCall 2533 

Poison V. Ingram 1576 

V. Poison 2038 

Pomeroy v. Bailey 2154, 2165 

v. Benton 2148 

V. Gold 1663 

Poncin v. Furth 1826 

Pond V. Gibson 2461 

y. Merrifleld 1972 

V. People 1701 

Ponder v. Graham 2071 

Pontius y. Durflinger 1596 

Pool v. Lewis 2071, 2072 

y. Southern Pac. &c. E. Co. 2016, 

2017 

Poole v. Fisher 2558 

y. Protective Ins. Co. 2441 

Pooley V. Whitmore' 2567 

Poor y. Poor 1700 

Pope v. Allen 2094 

y. Davies 2025 

v. Hall 1797 

y. Hart 2146 

y. Pollock 2470, 2524 

y. Pope 2207 

y. Terre Haute &c. Co. 2621 

v. Tunstall 1596 

Poppers V. Schoenfeld 1605 



Vol. 3 Elliott Ev.— ix 



cxxx 



TABLE OF CASES. 



IBeferences are to /Sections.] 



Poppitz V. German Ins. Co. 




2365 


Powers' Bxr. v. Powers 


2694, 


2696 


Porges V. Cohen 




2611 


Pownal T. Ferrand 




1728 


Porter v. Askew 




2202 


Pozzi v. Shipton 


1907, 


1909 


V. Caylor 




2035 


Prader v. National &c. Asso. 




2403 


V. Chicago &c. E. Co. 




1914 


Prater v. Prater 




2257 
2596 


T. Cole 




1951 


Prather v. Hart 




V. Dugat 




1664 


Pratt, Succession of 




2257 


V. Hannibal &c. R. Co. 


1991, 


1995 


Pratt T. Andrews 




2003 


V. Kingsbury 


1589, 


1590 


V. Ayler 




1703 


V. McClure 




1732 


V. Curtis 




2154 


T. Mitchell 




2612 


V. Grimes 




1610 


V. Noyes 




1957 


v. Pierce 




2486 


V. Pequonnoe Mfg. Co. 




2517 


V. Putnam 




1639 


T. Eitch 




2005 


V. Sweetzer 


1579, 


1580 


V. Eobertson 




1636 


Preachers' Aid Society v. England 


2226, 


V. Seller 1691, 1702, 


2001, 


2002 






2242 


V. State 


1935, 


1948 


v. Rich 


2236, 


2242 


V. WoodruflE 




2148 


Preble v. Maine Cent. E. Co. 




1619 


Porter's Appeal 




2699 


Preferred &c. Co. v. Muir 




2414 


Port Jervis v. First Nat. Bank 


2518 


Prentice v. Knickerbocker &c. Ins. 




Portland v. Eichardson 




2518 


Co. 


2353, 


2354 


Portsmouth v. Donaldson 




1601 


Prentis v. Bates 2689, 


2692, 


2693 


V. Portsmouth 




2279 


Prentiss v. Kelley 




2549 


Portsmouth Ins. Co. V. Reynolds 


2293, 


T. Euss 


2148, 


2628 




2353, 


2355 


T. Savage 




1824 


Posey V. Hanson 




2189 


V. Shaw 1702, 


1991, 


2005 


Post V. .SItna Ins. Co. 2298, 


2314, 


2338, 


T. Sinclair 




2574 


2353 


2354 


2358 


V. Wood 




1668 


V. Campau 




1959 


Prescott V. Flinn 




1633 


V. Clark 




1729 


V. Guyler 


1876, 


1886 


V. Koch 




2259 


V. Trueman 


1857, 


1859 


V. Phoenix Ins. Co. 




2444 


V. Vershire 




2466 


V. Springfield &c. Bank 




1596 


Prescott Bank v. Caverly 




1843 


Post Hill &c. V. Brandegee 


1850 


1862 


Presgrave v. Saunders 




2606 


Post Pub. Co. v. Hallam 




2452 


President &c. v. Hamilton 




1585 


Postal Tel. &e. Co. v. Douglass 


1967 


V. Salmon 




1921 


Postlewaite v. Postlewalte 


1642 


2009 


President &c. of Mt. Vernon 


V. Du- 




Postmaster-General v. Eidgway 


2026 


souchett 




2539 


Potter ¥. Ahrens 




2000 


Preston v. Boston 




2179 


T. Baldwin 




2291 


V. Bowers 


1642, 


1648 


V. Cave 




2506 


V. Bowmar 1844, 


1853, 


2065 


V. Chapin 




2236 


¥. Foster 2226, 


2240, 


2242 


V. Clapp 


2485, 


2486 


V. Gould 


1830, 


1843 


V. Douglass 




1596 


V. Hilburn 




1622 


V. McDowell 




2154 


V. Leighton 




1967 


V. Phenix Ins. Co. 


2314 


2323 


■V. Mann 




2071 


V. Sheets 




2248 


V. Peterson 


1710 


2609 


V. Taylor 




1957 


V. Preston 




2053 


V. Third Nat. Bank 




2096 


Prettyman v. Prettyman 




2032 


V. Titcomb 




2577 


V. Williamson 1642, 


1643, 


1650, 


Potter's "Will 




2691 


1651B 


1652 


1653 


Pottlitzer v. Wesson 




1596 


Pretzfelder v. Merchants' Ins. Co. 


2351 


Potts v. Chapin 




2148 


Prewett v. Dyer 




2461 


T. Felton 




2686 


Prewit V. Wilson 




2149 


V. Plaisted 




2587 


Price, In re 


1806 


1808 


V. Ward 




1666 


Price V. Alexander 




2555 


Poucher v. Scott 




2577 


V. Combs 




1604 


Poullain v. Poullain 




2148 


V. Conway 




2448 


Pounds V. Dale 2227, 


2228 


2231 


V. Grantz 




2528 


Powell V. Biddle 2210, 2211, 


2213 


2223 


V. Green 




2000 


v. Blow 




2576 


V. Hall 




1619 


v. Brookfield &c. Co. 


2524 


2537 


V. Hay 




1725 


V. Glenn 




2206 


V. Hubbard 




1959 


V. Parker 




2124 


v. Knights of Honor 




2385 


V. Stickney 




2130 


V. Laing 




1709 


V. Thomas 




1830 


V. Dawson 




2004 


Powelson v. Powelson 




2034 


V. Marsh 




1631 


Power V. Butcher 




1728 


V. Page 




2224 


V. Harlow 


1987 


1998 


V. Phoenix &c. Ins. Co. 


2293 


2302 


V. Well 




1723 


V. Planters' Nat. Bank 




2250 


Powers' Appeal 




2072 


V. Price 1642, 1649, 1652 


, 1720 


, 2092 


Powers V. Boston &c. E. Co. 




1947 


V. Eichmond &c. E. Co. 




2019 


V. Floranee 




2660 


V. School Directors 




2235 


V. Hazelton &c. E. Co. 




2006 


V. Seeley 




2111 


V. Insurance Co. 




1605 


V. Standard &c. Ins. Co. 




2298 


V. Northeastern &c. Asso 


2378 


, 2389 


V. St. Louis &c. E. Co. 


1895 


, 1923 


V. Presgroves 




2003 


V. Utah &c. E. Co. 




2124 


V. Russell 




1968 


Prideaux v. Mineral Point 




2510 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXXXl 



IBeferences are to Sections.'} 



Priest v. Citizens' Ins. Co. 2359 

V. Deaver 1957 

Priewe v. Fitzsimons &c. Co. 2530 

Princeton &c. Co. v. Gulicls 2547 

Pringle v. Leyerich 2559 

V. Pringle 1715 

Printz V. Cheeney 2651, 2654 

Prinz T. Moses 2672 

Pritchard v. Atliinson 1957 

V. Budd 1729, 1731 

V. Henderson 2696 

V. James 2206 

Pritchett v. Ahrens 2071 

T. Slieridan 1826 

Proby, In re 1819 

Proctor V. Clark 2205 

V. Cole 1842 

V. Hartigan 1839 

V. Irvin 2672 

V. Smith 2067 

T. Tows 1635 

Proctor Coal Co. v. Moses 2473 

Proffit T. Henderson 2673 

Propagation Soc. v. Town of Paw- 
let 1585 
Proppe V. Metropolitan &c. Ins. Co. 2387 
Proprietors of Locks &c. v. Railroad , 

Co. 1579 

Prosser v. Montana Cent. R. Co. 2505 

V. Wapello Co. 2006 

Protection Ins. Co. v. Harmer 2308, 2335 

V. Wilson 2431 

Providence &c. Co. v. Burke 1572 

V. Clare 2012 

Providence &c. Ins. Co. v. Board &c. 2367 

Provident Institution for Sayings v. 

Burnham 1935 

Provident &c. Co. v. Martin 2405, 2407 

Provident &c. Ins. Co. v. Baum 2326, 

2383, 2384 

Provident &c. Soc. v. Cannon 2304, 2306 

V. Johnson 2473 

Provis V. Reed 2291 

Provost V. Brueck 2452, 2454 

Pruden v. Alden 1943 

Prudential Ins. Co. v. Hunn 2371 

Pruitt V. Cox 2644 

V. Hannibal &c. R. Co. 1912 

Pruner v. Pendleton 2533 

Prunk V. Williams 1745 

Pryor v. Duncan 2206 

V. Johnson 1604 

V. Metropolitan St. R. Co. 1984, 1994 

V. Wright 1824 

Pudritzky v. Supreme Lodge &c. 2378 

Puett V. Beard 1692, 1695 

Puffer &c. Mfg. Co. v. May 2612 

Puget Sound &c. R. Co. v. Ouellette 1933 

Pugh V. Calloway 1792 

V. Miller 1711 

Pnlford V. Fire Dep't &c. 2299 

Pullen V. Glidden 2478 

Pulliam V. Burlingame 2073 

Pullis V. Robison 2382 

Pullman v. Hill 2450 

Pullman &c. Co. v. Barker 1989 

V. Central &c. Co. 1611 

V. Smith 1989 

Pullman &c. Car Co. v. Lawrence 1997 

Purcell V. English 2501 

V. McNamara 2472, 2475 

Purdy V. Davis 2227, 2231 

V. Nova Scotia Midland R. Co. 1708 

V. Rutter 1611 

Purkiss V. Benson 1850, 1862 

Purple V. Greenfield 2513 

Purrington v. Loring 2595 

Pursell, In re 1804 



Purslow V. Jackson 2148 

Purvis V. Coleman 2501 

Puryear v. Reese 2276 

Pusey V. McElveen Commission Co. 2629 

Putman v. Bond 1850 

Putnam v. Fisher 1851, 1858 

V. Home Ins. Co. 2311, 2314 

V. Kingsbury 1923 

V. Mercantile &c. Ins. Co. 2429 

V. Phoenix Ins. Co. 2336 

V. Tyler 2065, 2067 

V. Valentine ' 2530 

V. Wood 2432 

V. Wyley 2649, 2650 

Putnam Foundry &c. Co. v. Canfleld 2579 

Putney v. Lapham 1588 

Pyles V. Reeve 2050 

Pynchon v. Stearns 2673 



Quackenbush v. Chicago &c. R. Co. 1976 

Quaife v. Chicago &c. R. Co. 1963, 1992 

2502 

Quarrier v. Peabody Ins. Co. 2310 

Queen Ins. Co. v. Hudnut Co. 2332 

V. Legare 2421 

V. Young 2309 

Queen's College v. Sutton ' 2242 

Queenan v. Oklahoma 2290 

Quick V. Miligan 2070 

Quigley v. Central &c. R. Co. 1991 

Quillen v. Betts 1962 

Quimby v. Durgin 2578 

v. Melvin 1660 

V. Vanderbilt 1899 

Quin V. Moore 1995, 1998 

Quinby v. Carhart 2626, 2627 

Quincy v. Attorney-Gen'l 2235 

V. Barker 
Quincy Coal Co. v. Hood . 
Quinebaug Bank v. Tarbox 
Quinlan v. Houston &c. R. Co. 
V. Providence &c. Ins. Co. 



Quinn v. Dresbach 

V. Heisel 

V. New York &c. R. Co. 

V. White 
Quinton v. Van Tuyl 
Quirk V. Siegel-Cooper Co. 
Quisenberry v. Quisenberry 



2515 

2010 

1589 

1932 

1625, 

2348, 2352 

1641 

2110 

2521 

1604, 1605 

1694, 2002 

1976 

2291 



2630, 

1851, 1853, 

1969, 



Rabb v. Graham 
Rabeke v. Baer 
Racer v. State 
Racine v. Emerson 

RadcliflE v. Mayor &c. 
Radford v. Folsom 

V. Johnson 1846, 1850, 1852, 
Radich v. Hutchins 1730, 

Radley v. Columbia Southern R. Co, 
RadlofC V. Haase 1962, 1972, 

Rafferty v. New Brunswick Ins. Co. 
Ragsdale v. Mitchell 
Raiford v. Wilmington &e. R. Co. 
Railroad v. Cabinet Co. 

V. Delaney 
Railroad Co. v. Barron 1995, 

V. Belle Center 2080, 

V. Carrington 

V. Maugans 

V. Reeves 



2696 
2634 
2588 
1857, 
1858 
1971 
1589 
1856 
2175 
1899 
1974 
2335 
2039 
2399 
1981 
1979 
1998 
2082 
2393 
2501 
1915 



CXXXll 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to Sections.'^ 



Eailroad v. Sehurmelr 

V. Stout 

V. Varnell 

V. Walrath 
Eailsback v. Eailsback 
Eailway Co. v. Carr 



1848 
2501 
2149 
1903 
1642 
2524 



V. Combs 2006, 2007 

I V. Jones 2006 

' V. Lyman 2007 

V. Manchester Mills 1916 

Eailway &e. Asso. v. Drummond 2399, 

2412, 2414 

I V. Johnson 2399 

V. Eobinson 2389 

Eailway &c. Assur. Co. v. Burwell 2325, 

2326, 2347 

Eaines v. Totman 2622 

Eains V. St. Louis &c. E. Co. 1995 

Eainy v. Bravo 2454 

Eaisin Fertilizer Co. V. Barrow, Jr., 

Co. 2629 

Eajnowski v. Detroil; &c. E. Co. 2007 
Ealeigh's Estate 2205 

Ealeigh &c. E. Co. v. Glendon &c. 

Co. 2687 

Ealey v. Williams 2070 

Ball V. Cook 2005 

Ealph V. Garriek 2207 

Ealston's Estate 2083 

Eambler v. Tryon 2691 

Eamsdell v. Edgarton 1834 

v.- Nat. Eivet &c. Co. 1941 

Eamsdill v. WgntWorth 2227, 2231 

Eamsey v. Arrbtt 2479 

T. Cheek 2449 

V. Peoria &c. Co. 1935, 1943 

T. Eushville &c. Co. 2515 

V. Eyerson 1642 

Eamuz v. Crowe 1823 

Eand v. Huff . 1621 

T. Life Assur. Soc. 2378 

V. Wright 1605 

Eand &c. Co. v. Continental &c. Ins. 

Co. 2425 

Eand'all v. Broadhead 1592 

V. Gill 1852 

V. New Orleans &c. E. Co. 2012 

T. Eandall 2033, 2257 

V. Van Vechten 1629 

Eandie v. Eailroad Co. 2537 

V. Webb 1698 

Eandlett v. Eice 2486 

Eandolph v. Allen 2148 

T. Sentllles 1855 

Eangler v. Hummell 1585 

Eankin v. Rankin 2283 

Bansom v. McCurley 2452 

V. New York &c. E. Co. 1988, 1991, 

1998 
Eansone v. Christian 2456 

Eapho V. Moore 2513 

Eapier v. Loii'dbn Trans. &c. Co. 2537 
Eapp V. Matthias 2206 

Earick v. tJlmer 2690, 2692 

Easmussen v. McKnight 2124 

Rasor t. Quails 2656 

Eastetter v. Eeynolds 2628 

Eateau t. Bernard 1584 

Eath V. Rath 1643, 1645, 1646 

Eatliff V. Huntly 2659 

V. Pemberton 1951 

Eau v. Little Rock 2073 

V. Von Zedlltz 2171 

Eaub V. Nisbett 1607 

Eaudebaugh v. Shelly 2686 

Eaveuscroft t. Hunter 2700 

Eaver v. Webster 1750, 1756, 1758 

Eawlings V. Fisher 1840 



Eawlinson v. Clarke 2000 

Eawls V. American &c. Ins. Co. 2376, 

2383', 2384 

Eawson v. Guiverson 1589 

T. Morse 2654^ 2656 

V. Eawson 2205 

Eay V. Bank of Ky. 1786 

V. McMurtry 2071 

V. Smith 1889 

Eaymond v. Baar 1730 

V. Bearnard 1717 

V. Cook 2165 

V. Eldrldge 1734 

V. Keseberg 1988 

V. Nash 1843 

V. Morrison 1618 

V. Eaymond 1956 

T. Wathen 2276, 2292 

Eayner v. Godmond 2445 

Eaynes v. Bennett 2258 

V. Eaynes 2196 

Eajnor v. Timerson' 2039, 2065 

Eea V. Durkee 2247, 2258 

V. St. Louis &c. E. Co. 2497 

V. Tucker 2642 

Eeab y. Poole 2570 

Eead v. Barlow, 1604 

V. Bertrand 1601 

V. Brooklyn &c. E. Co. 2017 

T. Buteum 1707, 1708 

V. Fite 2206 

T. Great Eastern E. Co. 2019 

V. Howe 2067 

V. Hu£E 2248 

V. St. Louis &c. E. Co. 1916 

Eeade v. Button 1658 

V. Livingstone 2159, 2165 

Eeading v. Gazzam 1642, 1643, 1652 

V. Eeiner 2518 

Eeading F. Ins. &e. Co., Appeal of 2486 

Eealf V. Eealf 2033 

Beam v. Goslee 1957 

Eeamer v. Nesmith 1850 

Beardon v. New York Consolidated 

Card Co. 2519 

Rearick v. Wilcox: 2458 

Reasoner v. Edmundson 1956 

Reast v. Donald 1852 
Eeay v. Butler 2039, 2059, 2060 
Eeber v. Columbus &c. Mfg. Co. 2558, 

2559 

Eeetor v. Morehouse 2577 

Eedd y. Clopton 2202 

Eedden v. Baker 2279, 2292 

V. Covington 2599 
v. Tefft 2041, 2056, 2057 

Eeddie v. Scoolt 2637 
Eeddin y. Gates 1691, 1694, 1702, 2002, 

2004 

Eedfleld v. Eedfleld 1699 

Redman v. Adams 1732 

V. .SEtna Ins. Co. 2293 

V. Green 1610 

V. Hendricks 2606 

Redmond v. Burroughs 2204 

v. Industrial &c. Asso. 2387, 2389 

Eedpath v. Brown 2621 

Eeece v. Taylor 1698 

Eeed v. Bias 2660 

v. Bott 2124 

V. Clark 1888, 1892 

v. Hackney 1617 

V. Harper 2457 

V. Home Sav. Bank 2114 

V. Kremer 2546 

V. Locks 1854 

V. Mayor 2514 

V. McGrew 1730 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXXXllL 



IBeferences are to Sections.'] 



Eeed v. Metropolitan St. E. Co. 1980 

V. Noxon 2127 

T. Phillips 1858 

T. Pierson 2583 

V. Puelbo Bank 1826 

V. Eeed 1642, 1643, 1645, 1646, 

1884, 2550, 2612 

V. Spicer 1845, 1938, 2473, 2515 

V. Tacoma Bldg. &c. 1848, 1855 

V. Vancleve 1842 

V. Watson 2686 

V. Weldon 2442 

V. Williams 2639, 2641 

V. Winston 1611 
Eeed Bros. Co. v. Weeping Water 

First Nat. Bank 1745 

Eeeder v. Moore 2611 

V. Purdy 1974 

Eeedy v. Millizen 2009 

Eeel V. Eeel 2688 

Eees T. Jackson 2627 

T. Waters 1661, 1665 

Eeese t. Barbee 1701 

v. Chilton 2247 

T. Hershey 2520 

V. Eeese 2034, 2236 

Eeeside, The Schooner 2430, 2432 

Eeeves t. Sherwood 2163 

V. Morgan 2248 

T. Stipp 2000 

V. Winn 1997 

Eeg. V. Ambergate &c. E. Co. 2074 

V. Barry 1969 

V. Barton 2287 

• V. Beere 2450 

T. Bigg 1629 

V. Chorley 1577 

V. Francis 2452 

T. Jessop 2287 

V. Layton 2277, 2286 

T. Llanfaethly 2454 

V. Lock 1701 

V. Loxtett 2450 

V. Oxford 2288 

V. Eenshaw 2281 

V. Simpson 2022 

V. Stephen 2529 

y. Tooley 2111 

V. Tucket 2288 

Regents of Univ. v. Williams 1931 

Eeherd's Adm. v. Clem 2626 

Eehill V. McTague 1609 

Eeichman, In re 1802, 1813 

Reid V. Armour Packing Co. 1737, 1755 

V. Ferris 2610 

V. Kreling 2559 

T. Eeid 2032 

V. Stuart 2206 

V. Wells 2586 

Eeidel y. Philadelphia &c. E. Co. 2504 

Reier v. Strauss 1838 

Eeiger v. Dayis 2145, 2153, 2161 

Reilly v. Union Prot. Infirmary 2226, 

2238, 2242, 2322 

Eeinecke v. Gruner 1751 

Reizenstein y. Clark 1692 

Reining y. Buffalo 2511 

Reinke y. iBentley 1999 

Reisan y. Mott 2473, 2482 

Reissner v. Oxiey 2621 

Relyea v. Ramaaiy 1667 

Remlck V. Butterfleld 2080, 2081, 2082, 

2091 

Remington y. Congdon ' 2452 

V. 'Palmer ' ■■ 1728 

Eemsen t. Eemsen 1611 

Remsey v. Duke 1607 

Eenfro v. Prior 2482 



Eenier y. Dwelling House Ins. Co. 2300" 

Renner y. Marshall 1589 

y. Reed 1586 

Eenninger y. Spatz 2621 

Reno y. Moss 2056 

V. Wilson 2115 
Eens y. Northwestern &c. Asso. 2391, 

2393 
Renshaw y. Missouri &c. Ins. Co. 2335 
Rensselaer Glass Factory v. Eeid 1602 

Eenwick y. D. & N. W. E. Co. 2006 

Reppert v. Colvin 2573 

Requa y. Rochester 2513 

Reserye &c. Ins'. Co. v. Kane 2380 

Resor y. Resor 2249 

Rettinger'y. Passaic 2072 

Reuck y. McGregor 2111 
Reusens y. Lawson 2039, 2044, 2049, 

2065 

Reyett y. Braham 1965 

y. Brown 2650 

Rewe y. Whitemore 1611 

Rex y. Aickles 2454 

V. Almon 1631 

y. Amery 1932 

y. Bear 2450 

y. Berry 1924 

y. Birhie 2110 

y. Bishop of London 2601 

y. Commissioners &c. 1969 

y. De Berenger 1584 

y. Fairie 2533 

V. Leigh- 1930 

V. Martin 1943 

y. Morean 1695 

V. Morris 2528- 

V. Mothersell 1942, 1943 

y. Neil 2538 

V. Rogers 2025- 

V. Rosenstein 2454 

V. Saloway 2287 

V. Slythe 2589 

y. St. George 2025 

y. 'Watson ■ 2454 

V. Williams 2138 

Rey y. Toney 1790 

Reymond y. Newcomb 2466» 

Reynolds y. Accidental Ins. Co. 2401, 

2414: 

y. Adams 2291 

V. Bridenthal 194S 

y. Clarke 1922 

V. Collins 1630, 1635 

V. Commissioners 2235 
y. Continental -Ins. Co. 1630, 1635 

y. Equitable &c. Asso. 2408, 2414 

V. French 1840 

V. Harris 1589 

V. Haywood 2479 

V. Horton 1743 

y. Insurance Co. 2399 

y. Lansford 2154 

V. Myers 1936, 1943 

y. Padgett 1729 

V. EejTiolds 1596 

y. Sh'uler 2672 

y. Skelton 1938 

y. State 2593 

y. Strong 2256 

y. Washington &c. Co. 2587 

y. Whelan " 2220' 

y. Witte 1798. 

Rhead y. Hounson 2124 

Rhett y. JenMn^ 2050 

Rhine y. Morr-is 1974 
Rhinehart y. Alleghany &c. Ins. Co. 2422 

y. Schall 1843 

V. Whitehead 169ft 



CXXXIV 



TABLE OF CASES. 



{References are to Sections.1 



Rhino V. Emery 
Khoades v. Cotton 
Rhodes v. Bunch 

v. Green 

y. King 

V. Nevada 

V. Patterson 

V. Railway &c. Ins. Co. 

V. Rhodes 

T. Rodgers 
Rhoton V. Blevin 2227, 

Ricard v. Williams 
Rice V. Ashland County 

V. Barrett 2556, 2559, 

T. Bunce 

V. Gove 1628, 

V. Hall 

V. Jackson 

v. Loomis 

V. London &c. Co. 

V. Lumley 

V. McKune 

V. Miller 

V. Perry 

V. Provincial Ins. Co. 

V. Railroad Co. 

v. Rice 1643, 1645, 1646, i652, 

V. Schloss' 1604, 1605, 

V. State 

V. Thomson 
Rich y. Cockwell 

V. Eldredge 

V. Keyser 

V. Mclnerny 2102, 2105, 2108, 

V. Rich 
Richard v. Bent 1956, 

V. Carrie 

V. Haebler 
Richards, In re 1807, 

Richards v. Hatfield 

V. Hunt 

V. Millard 

V. Miller 2194, 2205, 

V. Moore 1581, 

V. Oshkosh 2506, 

V. Protection Ins. Co. 

V. Richards 2033, 

V. Ross 

V. Torbert 

V. Travelers' Ins. Co. 2399, 

V. Vaccaro 1752, 2151, 

V. Vanderpoel 2176, 

Richardson v. Anderson 

V. Baltimore &c. R. Co. 2039, 

V. Cambridge 

V. Chickering 

V. Dorr 

V. Duncan 2181, 

V. Farmer 

V. Foster 1830, 

V. Fouts 

V. Goddard 

V. Hall 

V. Hine 1702, 

y. Huston 2108, 

y. Jones 

y. League 

y. Lowry 

y. Martin 

y. McGoldrick 

y. McNulty 

y. Mead 

y. Opelt 

V. Richardson 2032, 2033, 

y. Roberts 

V. Snider 

V. St. Joseph Iron Co. 



2465 
2621 
2660 
2127 
2120 
1987 
2602 
2417 
2236 
1702 
2230 
2065 
1589 
2568 
2072 
1630 
2683 
2567 
1665 
1596 
2084 
1846 
2483 
2157 
2336 
2250 
2690 
1607 
2490 
2026 
2261 
1608 
1699 
2115, 
2117 
1974. 
1957 
2053 
2628 
1818 
2582 
2574 
1731 
2212 
1584 
2516 
2335 
2189 
2617 
2675 
2414 
2154 
2181 
1639 
2066 
1840 
2072 
1956 
2183 
2570 
1843 
2644 
1918 
1728 
2005 
2116 
1974 
2252 
2254 
2205 
1732 
1571 
1711 
1589 
2092 
2452 
2574 
1630 



Richardson y. Thomas 2466 
V. Williamson 2461 
y. Zuntz 2005 
Richardson's Appeal 2206 
Richardson's Express Co. y. Cun- 
ningham 1750 
Richelieu &c. Co. y. Boston &c. Ins. 

Co. 2432, 2439 

Bichey y. Ford 2611 

y. McBean 2474 

Richmond y. Mississippi Mills 1709 

v. Niagara &c. Ins. Co. 2298 

V. Petitioner 2086 

V. Roberts 1870 

y. Sundberg 2625,2626 

Richmond's Appeal 2693 

Richmond City R. Co. y. Scott 1895 

Richmond &c. R. Co. y. Elliott 1984, 2017 

y. Hammind 2016 

y. Johnson 2023 

V. Norment 1987 

Richner v. Brisbane 2044 

Richwine y. Jones 1845 

Rick y. Neitzy 2541 

Rickaly v. O'Brien Boiler &c. Co. 2519 

Bicker v. Freeman 1689 

Rickert v. Snyder 1959 

v. Stanley 2450 

Rickey v. Morrison 1823 

Ricketson y. Galligan 1932 

y. Richardson 2000 

Ricketts v. Loftus 1601 

V. Pendleton 1843 

Ricord v. Bettenham 1584 

V. Cent. Pac. R. Co. 2476 

Riddle y. Brown 1695 

V. Dixon 1715 

y. Etting 2572 

y. Murphy 2050 

v. Varnum 2624 

Riddick y. Walsh 2257 

Ridenbaugh v. Burnes 1610 

Ridenhour v. Kansas City Cable R. 

Co. 2267 

Rideout v. Knox 2525 

Rider, In re 1820 

Rider y. Johnson 1714 

Ridgeley y. West Fairmont 1926 

Rldgeway v. Underwood 2165 

Ridgway, Matter of 2209 

Ridlon V. Davis 1596 

Ridway y. Farmers' Bank 1943 

Rie v. Rie 2032 

Rieden v. Kothman 1590 

Rigg y. Wilton 2685 

Riggin v. Patapsco Ins. Co. 2444 

Riggs y. Rlggs 2686 

y. Riley 2055 

Rlgney v. Chicago 1971 

Riker y, Leo 2239 

RikhoCE y. Brown's &c. Co. 1930 

Riland y. Eckert 2065 

Riley V. Griffln 1845, 1846, 1851, 1853 

y. Hartford Ins. Co. 2321 

y. Missouri Pac. K. Co. 2501 

y. Norton 2456 

y. Pettis County 2576 

V. Riley 1598, 2124 

y. Treanor 1840 

y. West Virginia &c. R. Co. 1988 

Rime y. Rater 1865, 1869, 1876, 1886, 

„, , „ , 1888, 1892 

Rlmel V. Hayes 

Rimmer'y. Webster 
Rlnehart y. Bills 



Rlner y. Riner 
Rlnes V. German Ins. 



2557, 

2070 
1642, 1651, 1651A, 
1652, 1653 
2369 
2326 



Co. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CSXXV 



[References are to Sections.'] 



Ring V. Lawless 

V. Windsor Co. &c. Ins. 
Ringgold V. Haven 

V. Ringgold 

V. Stone 

V. Waggoner 
Ringhouse v. Keever 
Ringle v. Pennsylvania Co. 
Ringwalt v. Wabash R. Co. 
Rinkard v. State 
Rintoul V. New York &c. R. 
Rio Grande &c. R. Co. 



Co. 



1907, 



2692 
2420 
1909 
1612 
2124 
2161 
2009 
2019 
1905 
2692 
1916 



Co. 
V. Rubenstein 

1984, 1994 
Ripka V. Sergeant 1972 

Ripley v. ^tna Ins. Co. 2354 

V. Babcock 2276 

V. Case 1730 

v.. Railway &c. Co. 2399 

Ripon V. Bittel 1984, 1990, 2513 

Hippe V. Stogdill 1613 

Rising Sun Ins. Co. v. Slaughter 2293 
Risley v. Phoenix Bank 1710 

T. Wightman 2467 

Rison V. Berry 1659 

V. Moon 1666 

V. Newberry 2148 

Risse V. Gasch 2686 

Rissing v. Fort Wayne 2598 

Ritchie v. Stenius 2452 

Riteuhour v. Mathews 1597 

Ritter v. Mutual &c. Ins. Co. 2395, 2397 

V. Phcenix &c. Ins. Co. 1749 

Ritzier v. World &c. Ins. Co. 2378, 2389 
Rittler v. Smith 2385 

Rittmaster v. Brisbane 2044 

Rivara v. Queen's Ins. Co. 2300, 2420 
River Falls Bank v. German &c. 

Ins. Co. 2293 

Riverside Co. v. Townshend 2040, 2055, 

2057 
Roach V. Brannon 1737, 

v. Caldbeck 1692, 

V. Gilmer 1596, 

V. Heffernan 

T. Kentucky &c. Ins. Co. 



V. Western &c. R. Co. 
Roakes v. Bailey 
Roan Mt. &c. Co. v. Edwards 
Roanoke &c. Co. v. Watkins 
Robb V. Carnegie 



V. 


Dobinski 


Robb 


ns. In re 


Robbins v. Chicago 


V. 


Downey 


V. 


Fletcher 


v. 


Fuller 


V. 


Harvey 


V. 


Magee 


V. 


Packard 


V. 


Potter 


V. 


Quinliven 


V. 


Spencer 


Roberge v. Burnham 


Robert v. Barnum 


V. 


Les Cure &c. 


Roberts v. Abbot 


V. 


Baumgarten 


V. 


Bethell 


T. 


Bonaparte 


V. 


Buckley 


V. 


Crume 


V. 


Dame 


V. 


Druillard 


V. 


Farmers' &c. Bank 


V. 


Graham 


V. 


Insurance Co. 


V. 


Mariett 



1745, 2077 

1702, 1703 

1599, 1609 
2062 

2293, 2306, 
2372 
2510 
2586 
2049 
2022 
2535 

2608, 2612 
1847 
2518 
1605 

2449, 2452 
2572 
1726 
2077 
2672 
2071 
2208 
1621 
2140 
1596 
1971 
2692 
2039 
1823 
1873 

1816, 2153 
2206 
2655 
1889 

2158, 2160 
1980 
2296 
2026 



Rober 


ts V. Mason 






1982 


V. 


Mazeppa Mills 






2618 


V. 


Morgan 






1617 


V. 


New York &c. R. 


Co. 




2006 


V. 


Norris 






2611 


V. 


Ogbourne 






2206 


V. 


Pepple 






1626 


V. 


Preston 






1849 


V. 


Shroyer 






1820 


V. 


Totten 






1609 


V. 


Trawick 


2283 


2688, 


2695 


V. 


Welch 




2684, 


2686 


V. 


White 






2607 


V. 


Wilcoxson 




2579, 


2623 


V. 


Wold 






1835 


V. 


Woods 






2140 


Robertson y. Archer 






1611 


V. 


Cornelson 






1991 


V. 


Deming 






2140 


V. 


Edelstein 






2448 


V. 


Bphriam 






1581 


V. 


Lynch 




1717, 


1720 


V. 


McNeil 




1664, 


1666 


V. 


Meadors 






2675 


V. 


Mooney 






1845 


V. 


Parker 






2113 


V. 


Rowell 




1831, 


1832 


V. 


Schemerhorn 






2212 


V. 


State 






2593 


V. 


Wabash R. Co. 






1987 


V. 


Wright 






1607 


Robeson v. Pittinger 






2530 


Robey v. Howard 




1964, 


1965 


Robie 


V. Sedgwick 




1571, 


1579 


Robinoe v. Doe 






2057 


Robins v. Warde 






2566 


Robinson v. Adames 


2278, 


2280, 


2281 


V. 


Aird 






1837 


v. 


Allison 






1615 


V. 


Baugh 






2538 


V. 


Bishop 






2206 


V. 


Blakely 






2196 


V. 


Bland 






1601 


V. 


Brewster 






2687 


V. 


Brooks 






2621 


V. 


Burton 


2641, 


2642, 


2643 


V. 


Craver 1869, 


1872, 


1874, 
1892, 


1886, 
1893 


V. 


Centenary Fund 


&c. 




2000 


V. 


Chamberlain 






2600 


V. 


Compher 






2552 


V. 


Detroit &c. R. Co. 




1596 


V. 


Dolores &c. Co. 






2124 


V. 


Edwards 






2657 


V. 


Fitchburg &c. R. 


Co. 




2510 


V. 


Frost 






1782 


V. 


Gould 2167, 


2169, 


2170, 


2183 


V. 


Green 






2542 


V. 


Greenville 






2524 


V. 


Harman 






1981 


V. 


Hurley 






1798 


V. 


Hutchinson 






2688 


V. 


Hyer 






1994 


V. 


Kenawha Valley Bank 


1829 


1839 


V. 


Kime 






1855 


V. 


Laurer 






1844 


V. 


Marino 


1976, 


1991, 


1998 


V. 


Marney 






2579 


V. 


Nahon 






2071 


y. 


Pennsylvania &c 


Ins. 


Co. 
2354, 


2351, 
2355 


V. 


Peru Plow Co. 






2668 


V. 


Powers 


2002, 


2632, 


2641 


V. 


Railroad Co. 






1594 


V. 


Robards 






2163 


V. 


Russell 






2675 


V. 


Shanks 






1664 


V. 


Shatzley 






2614 



CSXXVl 



TABLE OF CASES. 



IBeferences are to Sections.} 



Robinson v. Simpson 


198T 


V. Skipwortli 


2666 


V. Smia 


1823 


V. State 


2461 


T. Stokely 


1703 


V. Superior &c. E. Co. 


1999 


V. Swett 


1618 


V. Thornton 


2052 


V. United States 


2618 


V. United States &c. Asso. 


2314, 


2384, 2399 


2403 


V. Wilkinson 


2570 


V. Welty 1722 


1729 


V. Woodmansee 2134 


2145 


V. Yarrow 


2073 


Robinson Notion Co. v. Ormsby 


1745 


Robinson &c. Co. v. Nipp 


1639 


Robison v. Lyle 


1843 


V. Rupert 


2005 


V. White 


2648 


Robson V. Dayton 


1826 


V. Godfrey 


1717 


Roby V. American &c. Ins. Co. 


2359 


T. New York &c. R. Co. 1577 


1579 


Roche T. Washington 


2488 


Rochereau v. Lewis 


1589 


Rochester v. Anderson 


1702 


V. Montgomery 


2518 


V. Whitehouse 


1641 


Rochester &c. R. Co. v. Babcocb 


1932, 




2576 


Rockafellow v. Baker 


2148 


Rockford &e. R. Co. v. Wilcox 


1635 


Rockhill V. Nelson 


2205 


Rockhold T. Canton &c. Soc. 


2384 


Rockland v. Farnsworth 


.2020 


Rockland &c. Co. v. Sewall 


1930 


Rockmore v. Davenport 1840, 


1843 


Rockwell V. Adams 


1859 


V. Brown 


1709 


V. Proctor 


1777 


V. Saunders 


2604 


Rocky Mount Mills v. Wilmington 




&c. E. Co. 


1981 


Rocky Mountain &c. Bank v. Me- 




Caskill 


2574 


Rodde V. Hollweg 1736, 


1741 


Eoddey v. Brwin 


1745 


Eoddy V. Finnegan 


2110 


Eodenhausen v. Craven 


2537 


Roderick v. Railroad Co. 


1920 


Eodey v. Travelers' Ins. Co. 


2399 


Eodgers v. Crook 


2627 


V. Eodgers 
V. Stephens 


2697 


1725 


Rodick V. Gandell 


1714 


Rodney v. St. Louis &e. E. Co. 


1991 


Rodriguez v. Tadmire 


2478 


Rods, In re 


.1811 


Eoe V. Bank of Versailles 


2579 


V. Baxter 


2065 


V. Columbus Ins. Co. 


2333 


V. Kiser 


1826 


V. Taylor 


2696 


Eoe d. Wood v. Doe 


1659 


Eoehl V. Haumesser 


1628 


Eoesnerv. Uarrali 


1648 


Eoger V. Spokane 
Rogers v. Arnold 


1595 


2604 


V. Bemus 


1994 


V. Bolton 


2249 


V. Brooks 


2020 


V. CromWe 


2672 


V. De Bardeleben Goal i&c. Co. 


2264 


V. Hall 


2151 


V. Kennebec Steamboat Co. 


1899 


V. Lamb 2001, 


2481 


V. McCune 


1632 



Rogers v. Murray 




2547 


V. Odell 




1589 


V. Park 




2191 


V. Priest 




2576 


V. Rogers 2035, 2038, 


2086, 


2206, 
2211 


V. Schuleuburg 




1826 


V. Shirley 




2513 


V. State 




2594 


V. Stevens 




2682 


V. Sun &c. Ins. Co. 




2436 


V. Traders' Ins. Co. 




2358 


V. Troost 




2001 


V. Union &e. Co. 




2259 


V. Verona 




1732 


V. Waite 




1698 


V. Walker 




2277 


V. Weir 




1789 


Roger's Planing Mill, In re 




1811 


Roggencamp y. Converse 




1623 


Rohan v. Hanson 




1841 


V. Sawin 2107, 


2110 


2111 


Rohn V. Rohn 




2083 


Eohr V. Anderson 




1596 


Eohrback v. Germania Ins. Co. 


2309 


Eohrbracker v. Schilling 




2577 


Rokes V. Amazon Ins. Co. 


2325, 


2326, 


2353, 


2354, 


2358 


Eolla State Bank v. Pezoldt 




1837 


Roller V. Kling 2589 


2690 


2692 


Boilings V. Cate 


2173, 


2184 


Eollins V. Davidson 




1845 


V. Lashus 




2184 


Rollins Gold &c. Min. Co., Ir 


re 


1815 


RoIIison V. Hope 




1710 


Eomanow, In re 




1814 


Eomans v. State 




1625 


Eomayne v. Duane 




2001 


Eombach v. Piedmont &c. Ins 


. Co. 


2380, 




2381, 


2382 


Rome Planing Mill, In re 


1800, 


1801, 


1802, 1811, 


1812, 


1813 


Romer v. Jaecksch 




2565 


Ronald v. Mutual &c. Asso. 




2353 


Rook V. Wilson 




2686 


Rooney v. Randolph 




2513 


Eoop V. Brubacker 




1665 


Roose, In re 




1817 


Root V. Butte &c. R. Co. 




1979 


V. Chandler 




2650 


V. Cincinnati 


1845, 


1846 


V. French 


2604, 


2613 


V. Fellowes 




2027 


V. King 




2003 


V. Scbaffner 




2124 


V. Sturdivant 


1703, 


1991 


Root's Appeal 


2213, 


2214 


Roots V. Beck 2040, 


2044, 


2055 


Eoper V. Clay 




1893 


V. Schaefer 




2554 


Eorback v. Dorsheimer 




2124 


Eoscorla v. Thomas 




1725 


Eose V. Brown 




2156 


V. Cash 




2608 


V. Clark 




2486 


V. Coffieia 




2574 


V. Poord 




1725 


V. Groves 




2535 


V. Jackson 




1720 


V. Louisville &c. R. Co. 




1962 


V. Miles 




1921 


V. Wells 




2628 


Eose Hill &c. E. Co. v. People 


1932 


Eoseboom v. Billlngton 




2467 


Eosenau v. Syring 




2666 


Eosenbaum v. Howard 2546 


2556 


2566 


V. McThomas 




1962 


Rosenberger v. Marsh 




1979 



TABLE OF CASES. 



exxxvii 



{References are to Sections.'i 



2477, 



2362, 
2050, 



2528, 2530, 



2470, 2472, 2476, 
2472, 

2118, 
2115, 



Rosencrance v. Johnson 
Eosenfield t. Express Co. 

V. Fortier 

V. Haight 

V. New 
Rosenkrans v. Barker 
Rosenstiel v. Gray 
Rosenstock v. Dessar 
Rosenthal v. Mayhugh 

V. Hambo 

V. Walker 

V. Wehe 
Rosenzweig v. Prazer 
Rosetto T. Gurney 
Rosevelt v. Hungate 2040, 
Rosewater v. Hoffman 
Ross T. Banta 

V. Barland 

V. Butler 

T. Clark 

V. Clifton 

V. Crutsingep 

V. Espy 

V. Faust 

V. Gould 

V. Hellyer 

V. Hill 

V. Hixon 

V. Innis 

V. Irving 

T. Langworthy 

V. Leggett 

V. Loomis 

V. Madison 

V. Menefee 

V. McQuiston 2281, 

V. Miner 2122, 2129, 2134, 

2624, 

V. New Home &c. Co. 

V. Overton 

V. Reed 

V. Smith 

V. Stackhonse 

V. State 

V. Stockwell 

V. Webster 

V. Wellman 2153, 

V. Williamson 
Rosseau v. Rouss 
Rosser, In re 
Rosser v. Randolph 
Rossiter v. Loeber 1884, 

Rossou V. Carroll 

Rosum V. Hodges 2665, 

Roswald V. Hobbie 
Roswell V. Leslie 

Rotan V. Fletcher 2667, 

Rotch V. Emerson 
Roth V. Roth 2033, 

V. Smith 
Rothschild v. American -Ins. Co. 

V. Williamson 
Eoumage v. Mechanics' &c. Ins. Co. 
Rounsaville v. Kohlheim 
Rouse V. Hornsby 

V. Martin 
Rouss V. Ditmore 
Rous V. Salvador 
Rouyer y. Miller 
Rover, The 
Rowe v. Arnold 

v. Beckett 

v. Hasland 

y. Minneapolis 

T. SIosBs 
Eowell V. Boiler 

V. Klien 1636, 2248, 2252, 

Rowland v. Dillingham 



2583 
1974 
1606 
2551 
1594 
2483 
2544 
2578 
2084 
1830 
2463 
1744 
1798 
2441 
2051 
2004 
2071 
2048 
2537 
1738 
1665 
2163 
1843 
1847 
1574 
1576 
1795 
2480 
2477 
2067 
2479 
2116 
2009 
1942 
2609 
2283 
2621, 
2627 
1974 
1665 
2588 
1829 
2072 
2273 
2006 
1834 
2154 
2596 
2094 
1807 
2530 
2174 
1838 
2666 
1751 
1976 
2668 
2235 
2124 
2118 
2140 
1979 
2326 
2530 
1903 
2530 
2460 
2441 
1965 
2432 
1585 
2039 
2187 
1576 
1703 
1785 
2263 
2073 



Rowland v. Donovan 1608 

V. Samuel 2483 

V. Updike 1615 

V. Williams 1619 

Rowley v. Bigelow 2143, 2624 

V. London &c. E. Co. 1984 

V. Stoddard 1597 

Eown V. Christopher &c. R. Co. 2115 

Eoy V. Goings 2479 

V. Union Mercantile Co. 1745 

Royal V. Chandler 1849 

Eoyal Arcanum v. Brashears 2374, 2390, 

2391 
Royal Ins. Co. v. Martin 2305 
V. Mclntyre 2362, 2363, 2367 
Royce v. Gazan 2146 
V. Nye 1823 
V. Tyler 1947 
Ruben v. Ludgate &c Co. 1907 
Ruble V. Turner 1597 
Ruck V. Fricke 1607 
Rucker v. M'Neely 2649 
V. Steelman 2052 
Ruckman v. Ramson 1664 
Rudd V. Matthews 2071 
v. Robinson 1946 
V. Rounds 1642, 1649, 1653 
Rudder v. Price 1717 
Rude V. Nass 2448 
Rudulph V. Brewer 1830 
Ruff V. Jarrett 2130 
V. Milner 1821 
RufEner v. Hewitt 1607 
V. Hill 1854 
Rugg V. Rugg 2687, 2701 
Ruggles V. American &c. Ins. Co. • 2314 
V. Lesure 2656 
V. Nevada 2512 
V. Randall 2194, 2205 
Rugland v. Anderson 2460 
Ruiz V. Norton 2628 
Ruloff V. People 2111 
Rumbolds v. Parr 2127 
Rumford Falls Power Co. v. Rum- 
ford Falls Paper Co. 1720 
Eumph V. Truelove 1590 
Eumsey v. Phoenix Ins. Co. 2309 
Rumsey &c. Co. v. Novelty &c. Mfg. 

Co. 1810 

Rundell v. La Fleur 1661, 1664 

Rundle v. Kennan 2422 

Runey v. Edmands 2200 

Runkle v. Gates 2697 

Eunyan v. Mersereau 1707 

V. Price 2693 

Runyon v. Snell 2252 

Ruoffi V. Greenpoint Sav. Bank 2009 

Rupert V. Mark 2039 

Ruppert V. Brooklyn Heights R. Co. 2503 

Rusby V. Scarlett 1633 

Ruse V. Mutual &c. Ins. Co. 2305, 2323, 

2371 2379 

Rush V. CoaliBluffi Min. Co. ' 2501 

V. Fister 2576 

V. Frost 1590 

V. Halcyon &c. Co. 1940 

V. Megee 2276, 2280, 2690, 2792 

V. Peacock 2086 

V. Wick 1879 

Rusher v. Aurora 2516 

Rusling V. Bray 1611 

V. Rusling 2691, 2692 

Russ V. ButteBfieia 2358 

V. Mitchell 1584 

V. Perry 1957 

V. Telfener 1625 

Russell V. i^llen 2236 

V. :AlvArez 1589 



CXXXVIU 



TABLE OF CASES. 



IReferences are to Sections."] 



Eussell T. Anthony 2456 

T. Bradley 2483 

V. Burlington 2006 

V. Chambers 2630, 2635, 2638, 2643, 

2645 

V. Columbia 1988, 1991 

V. Cowles 1874 

V. Davis 1573 

V. Earl 2602 

T. Erwin 1623, 2065 

V. Farrell 2452 

V. Fidelity Ins. Co. 2293 

V. Hallett 2209 

T. Hilton 2093 

V. Hunnicutt 1851 

V. Kelly 2454 

V. Livingston 1910 

V. Lode 1857 

V. Louisville &c. E. Co. 2020 

V. Lytle 1595 

V. Mandell 2059 

V. Railroad Co. 2501 

V. Skipwith 1584 

V. Smith 1661 

V. South Britain Society 1723 

V. State 2281 

V. Stratton 1578 

Eussell & Co. V. Davis 2466 

Rust V. Eckler 2517 

Ruth V. Katterman 2369 

V. Oberbrunner 2236 

Eutherford v. Davis 2603 

V. Foster 1690, 2010 

v. Mclvor 2584 

V. Morris 2291 

v.. Paddock 2452, 2456, 2457 

V. Swiuk 1942 

V. Tracy 1845 

Ruthven v. Beckwith 1739, 1750, 1759, 

1760, 1762 

Rutland R. Co. v. Chafleee 1579 

Rutland &c. R. Co. v. Mlddlebury 

Bank 2672 

Rutledge v. Moore 1605 

Eutter V. Collins 1869, 1870, 1871 

Ryan v. Baltimore &c. E. Co. 1625 

V. Clarke 2630, 2655 

V. Donelly 2111 

V. Dunlap 1707 

V. Hurley 2670 

V. Martin 2050, 2065 

V. Missouri &c. E. Co. 1916 

V. New York 2172 

V. Sams 2071 

V. Schwartz 2064 

V. Seaboard &c. E. Co. 1589 

V. Sun Sing 2650 

Eyburn v. Pryor 2670 

Ryerson v. Chapman 1959 

Ryles, Wilson Co. v. Shelby Mfg. 

Co. 1750 

Eyman v. Crawford 2695 
Eymer v. South Pennsylvania Oil Co. 

2579 
S 

SabariegOjV. Maverick 2058 

Sabine &c. Co. v. Perry 2670 

Sabre v. Mott 1699 

Sack V. Dolese 2519 

Sackett v. Andross 1799 

V. Owen 1665 

Sacramento &c. Bank v. Hynes 2124 

Sadler v. Olmstead 1657, 1665 

v. Whithurst 1610 

Sadller v. New York 2537 

Safe Deposit &c. Co. v. Turner 1787, 

2562, 2563 



Safety &c. Co. v. Creamer 1610 

Safford v. Annis 1958 

V. Drew 1995 

Sager v. Portsmouth &c. Co. 1916 
V. Tupper 1607, 2551, 2560 

Sailor v. Hertzogg 1620 

Saintner v. Ferguson 2000 

Salem v. Webster 1992 
Salem Bank v. Gloucester Bank 1730 
Salem Iron Co. v. Lake Superior 

Consol. Iron Mines 2628 
Salina v. Trosper 2513 
Saline Mill &c. Co. v. Hoyne 1998 
Salinger v. Black 2461 
Salisbury v. Aldrich 2692 
V. Cambridge City Bank 1843 
V. Hekla F. Ins. Co. 2294, 2312 
Sallow V. Girling 1660 
Salmon v. Bennett 2154, 2158, 2162 
Salmon Lumber Co. v. Dusenbury 1846 
Salomon, In re 2620 
Salsbury, In re 1816 
Salsbury v. Falk 2124 
Salt Lake City v. Hollister 2114 
Salter v. Ham 1610 
V. Salter 2463 
Saltmarsh v. Bower 1727 
Saltonstall v. Sanders 2243, 2244 
Saltus V. Ocean Ins. Co. 2362 
Samms v. Stewart 1775 
Sammls v. Wightman 1711, 2027 
Sammons v. Newman 2075 
Sample v. Consolidated &c. Co. 2510 
V. Reeder 1623 
V. Eobb 1573 
V. Wynn 2002 
Samples v. Carnahan 1965 
apson V. Bowdoinham &c. Co. 1932 
V. Coy 2659 
V. Fox 1840 
V. Henry 1690 
V. Smith 1700 
Samson v. Freedman 1607- 
V. Thornton 1830 
Samuel v. Payne 2111 
Samuels v. McDonald 1795 
San Antonio St. E. Co. v. Muth 2503 
San Antonio Traction Co. v. Wil- 
liams 1895 
San Antonio &c. E. Co. v. Bennett 2015 
V. Griffin 2477 
V. Keller 1991 
V. Long 2006 
San Joaquin Land &c. Co. v. Beecher 

1947 

Sanborn v. Cole 1831 

V. Fireman's Ins. Co. 2311, 2314 

V. Gale 1648, 1649 

V. Neal 1831 

V. School Dist. 1942 

Sandeen v. Kansas City R. Co. 1603 

Sanders v. Bond 2628 

V. Bryer 2587 

V. Coleman 1893 

V. Godding 18-13 

V. Hartge 1720, 2588 

V. Johnson 2459 

V. SImoich 2009 

V. Stokes 2662 

Sanderson v. Collman 2073 

V. Frazler 1901 

V. Morgan 1584 

Sandman v. Seaman 2163 

Sands v. Annesley 2425 

V. Gelston 2463, 2466 

V. Illckey 2082 

V. Hill 2424 

V. Klmbark 2424 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXXXIX 



{References are to Sections.^ 



Sands T. Potter 


1604, 1717 


T. Sanders 


2425 


V. St. John 


2425 


V. Taylor 


1732 


Sanford v. Abrams 


1594 


V. Augusta 


1987 


V. Bank 


2000 


V. Belle Plaine &c. Bank 


2000 


V. Gaddis 


2449 


V. Rowley 


2457 


V. Sornborger 


2181 


V. Trust &c. Ins. Co. 


2311 



Sanford Mfg. Co. v. Wiggin 2602, 2608 

Sanger v. Merritt 2039 

T. Thomasson 1756 

Sankey v. Noyes 2059, 2060 

Santa Clara Academy v. Sullivan 2234 
Santa Fe Bank v. Haskell County 

Bank 1742 

Santer v. New York &c. R. Co. 1989 

Sapiro, In re 1807 

Sappington v. Watsoh 2475 

Sargent v. Adams 1723 

V. Cornish 2235, 2407, 2543, 2547 

T. Home &c. Asso. 2387, 2389, 2390 

V. Parsons 1601 

V. Sturm 2611 

V. Webster 1933 

Sarles v. Sarles 2675 

Sarraille v. Caiman 1829, 1840 

Sarter v. Beaty 2577 

Sartwell v. Horton 2182 

Sasportas v. Jennings 2184 

Satcher v. Grice 1617 

Sater v. Henry Co. &c. Ins. Co. 2312 

Sauerwein v. Renard &c. Co. 1583 

Saufley v. Howard 2551 

Saugatuck Cong. Soc. v. Bast Sauga- 

tuck School Dist. 1621 

Saunder's Appeal 2695 

Saunders v. Boston 2511 

V. Chicago &c. R. Co. 1903 

V. Fuller 2197, 2199 

V. Hartsook 1780, 1787 

V. Heaton 1664 

V. Railroad Co. 1873 

T. Stotts 2123 

V. Wilson 2654 

Saussy v. South Florida R. Co. 1638 

Sauter v. New York &c. R. Co. 1984 

T. Scrutchfleld 2258 

Sayaeool v. Boughton 2120 

Savage v. Blanchard 1598 

V. Carter 1598 

V. Davis 2251 

V. Everman 1596, 1598 

V. Howard Ins. Co. 2341 

V. Knight 2153 

V. Medbury 2424 

V. Pleasants 2444 

V. Russell 1939 

Savage &c. Co. v. Armstrong 2351 

Savannah &c. R. Co. v. Flannigan 2522 

V. Gill 2530 

V. Harris 1917 

v. Humphreys 1933 

V. Parrish 2528, 2535 

V. Pritchard 1981 

Saveland v. Fidelity &c. Co. 2417 

Savil V. Roberts 2472 

Saville v. Insurance Co. 1605 

Saving Bank v. Central Market Co. 1840 

Saving Fund Soc. v. Saving Bank 1626 

Saving & Loan Soc. v. Burnett 1840 

Sawtelle v. Sawtelle 1950 

Sawyer v. Cutting 2251 

V. Davis 2537 

V. Dulany 



Sawyer v. Fellows 1850, 1857 
V. Hannibal &c. R. Co. 1895 
V. Jarvis 2660 
V. Manchester &c. B. Co. 1942 
v. Mayhew 2308 
V. Newland 2656 
V. State 2280 
V. Tappan 2586 
V. United States &c. Co. 2417 
Sawyer Paper Co. v. Mangan 1751 
Saxon V. Whitaker 2276, 2277 
V. Wood 1877 
Sayen v. Ryan 1702 
Sayer v. .Kitchen 1823 
Sayles v. Hoetzel 2474 
V. Olmstead 2577 
Sayre v. Earl of Bochford 2653 
V. Mohney 1826 
V. Sayre 2003 
Sayres v. Commonwealth 2281, 2284 
Scaife v. Emmons 2699 
Scammon v. Germania Ins. Co. 2348 
V. Scammon 2591 
Scanlou v. New York 2513 
Scanlon-Gipson Lumber Co. v. Ger- 
mania Bank 2070 
Scates V. Henderson 2050 
Scattergood v. Wood 2006 
Scearce v. Scearce 1661 
Schaefer v. Fond du Lac 2518 
SchaefEer v. Perry 1844, 1845 
V. Philadelphia &c. R. Co. 1916 
Schaefler v. Sandusky 2515 
Schafer v. Mayor of New York 2511 
Schallehn v. Hibbard 1829 
Schaller v. Chicago & Northwestern 

R. Co. 1912 

ScharfE v. Keener 2196 

V. Lisso 2460 

Schattgen v. Holnback 2473 

Schauber v. Jackson 2039 

Scheafer v. Selvage 1942 

Schee v. McQuilken 2169 

Scheel v. Beimer 1695 

Scheer v. Keown ' 2478 

SchefEer v. National &c. Ins. Co. 2395 

V. Washington City &c. R. Co. 2010 

Scheible v. Hart 1619. 

Seheiderer v. Travelers' Ins. Co. 2409 

Schell V. Plumb 1994 

Schellhamer v. Rometsch 1639 

Schemerhorn v. Jenkins 1585 

Schenck v. Mercer Co. &c. Ins. Co. 2347 

V. Saunders 2616 

V. Schenck 1589, 2450 

V. Vail 2200, 2204 

Schenkel v. Pittsburg &c. Co. 1991 

Schenkien, In re 1800 

Schermerhorn v. Van Volkenburgh 2667, 

2668 

Scherrer v. Baltzer 2005 

Schettler v. Lynch 2074 

Scheufler v. Grand Lodge &c. 1940 

Schier v. Quirin 2510 

Schierbaum v. Schemme 2695 

Schierl v. Baumel 1836 

Schilling v. Durst 2578 

V. Holmes 1958 

V. Mullen 1714 
Schimpf V. Lehigh Valley &c. Ins. 

Co.. 2419, 2422 

Schlater v. Gay 2005 

Schlessinger v. Cook 2604 

Schloss V. Montgomery &c. Co. 1940 

Schlosser v. CruTckshank 1847 

V. Fox 1690, 1697, 1702 

Schmechel Clock &c. Co., In re 1811 

Schmick v. Noel 2122 



cxl 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to Sections.] 



Schmidt v. Blood 1785, 1796 

T. Braunn 1590 

V. Glade 1664 

v. Marine Ins. Co. 2297 

V. New York &c. Ins. Co. 2140 

V. Schanzlin 2624 

T. Schmidt 2032 

Schmisseur r. Beatrie 2487 

Schmitt T. National L. Asso. 2387, 2388 
Schmittler v. Simon 1839 

Schmurr t. State Ins. Co. 2337 

Schnable v. Providence Pub. Mar- 
ket 1995, 2505 
Schnee v. Sehnee • 2698 
Schneider v. Koester 2227 
V. Market St. R. Co. 2011 
V. Patterson 1850 
V. Provident &c. Ins. Co. 2399, 2405, 

2407 

V. Second Ave. E. Co. 2006, 2501 

Schoellhamer v. Eonetsch 2178 

Schoener v. 'Lissauer 2170, 2179, 2183 

Schoenhofen Brewing Co. v. Weng- 

ler 1636 

Schoenholtz v. Third Ave. E. Co 1792 
Schoepper v. Hancock Chemical Co. 2502, 

2503 

Schofleld V. Bayard 1835 

V. Blind 2127 

V. Conley 2628 

V. Ferrers 2475 

V. Shiffer 2624 

V. Territory 1757 

Scholey v. Bew 2073 

Scholtz V. Freud 2551 

Schomer v. Hekla &c. Ina. Co. 2314 



Schommer v. Farwell 
Schonberg, In re 
Schonfleld v. Turner 
School Dist. V. Alderson 

V. Bennett 

V. Benson 

V. Boston &c. R. Co. 
Schoolfleld v. Ehodes 
Schoonover v. Osborne 
Schorn v. Berry 
Schouler's Petition 
• Schrack v. Zubler 
Schram v. Taylor 
Schramm v. Boston Sugar 

ing Co. 
Schreckengast v. Ealy 
Schroeder v. Clark 

V. Trade Ins. Co. 

V. Turner 

V. Walsh 
Schroth V. Gedney 
Schryer v. Fenton 
Schuek V. Hagar 
Schuer v. Veeder 
Schufeldt V. Schnitzler 
Schulenberg v. Harriman 
Schultz V. Catlin 

V. Chicago &c. E. Co. 

V. Citizens' &c. Ins. Co, 

V. Culbertson 

V. Huebner 

V. Insurance Co. 

V. Jordan 

V. Pacific Ins. Co. 

V. Pacific E. Co. 

V. Schultz 
Schultze V. Steele 
Schulze V. Jaloniok 
Schum V. Pennsylvania E. Co. 
Schumann v. Torbett 
Schumpert v. Southern E. Co. 
Schumucker v. Eeel 



2182 
1808 
2385 
1940 
2591 
1571 
1907 

2039, 2065 
1609 
1652 
2236 
2064 
2163 

Eefln- 

2621 
1867 
2602 

2292, 2321 
1830 

2136, 2151 
2550 
2668 
1694, 1702, 2641 
1921 
2624 
2612 
2170 
2505 

2204, 2205 

2170 

2120 

2392, 2395, 2396 

2628 

2432, 2435 
2496 
2698 
2550 
2454 
2501 
2479 
2501 
2246 



Schuneman v. Palmer 1642, 1643, 

Schunior v. Eussell 

Schurmeier v. St. Paul &c. 

Schuster v. State 

Schutter v. Williams 

Schuyler v. Eoss 

Schuylkill &c. Co. v. Farr 

Schwab, In re 

Schwab V. Madison 

Schwallback v. Chicago &c. E. Co. 

Schwartz v. Allen 

Schwartze v. Kuhn 

Schwarzbach v. Ohio Valley &c. 

Union 
Schwarzhoff v. Necker 
Sehwede v. Hfemrich 
Schweider v.' Lang 
Schwerin v. DeGraff 
Schwier v. New York &c. R. Co. 
Schwingschlegl v. Monroe 1987, 
Scidmore v. Smith 
Scobey v. Kinningham 
Scofield V. Clark 
Scoland v. Scoland 
Scollans V. Bollins 
Scott, In re 1800, 1807, 

Scott V. Bailey 2579, 

V. Bassett 

V. Blood 

V. Brest 

V. Buchanan 

V. Burch 

V. Cleveland &c. E. Co. 

V. Colmesnil 2551, 

V. Congdou 

V. Crews 

V. Davis 

V. Dewey 

V. Dickson 2368, 

V. Fleetford 

V. Fleming 1702, 

V. Fletcher 

V. Gamble 

V. Guernsey 

V. Hawk 2687, 

V. Home Ins. Co. 

V. Hudson 

V. Hull 1950, 1964, 

V. Jester 1777, 1780, 

V. Kirkendall 

V. Lara 

V. Lloyd 

V. McGraw 

V. McNeal 

V. Mills 

V. Montgomery 

V. National Bank 

V. Peebles 2001, 

V. Perlee 

V. Pettigrew 

V. Phoenix Ins. Co. 

V. Eand 

V. Eatliffe 2009, 

V. Sampson 

V. Scott 2029, 2035, 

V. Sebright 

V. Shephard 1689, 

V. Strobach 

V. Thompson 

V. Wood 1963, 

V. Yard 
Scott's Estate 

Scottish Union Ins. Co. v. Clancey 
Scottish &c. Co..v. Stewart 
Scougale v. Sweet 
Scranton v. Hill 
Scrlbner v. Beach 

V. Crane 



1646 
1856 
1847 
1584 
1702 
1607 
2056 
1819 
1929 
2050 
2585 
1573 

2376 
2008 
1856 
1596 
1732 
1967 
1991 
1921 
2073 
1597 
2034 
2666 
1816 
2583 
2059 
2560 
2025 
2270 
2671 
2499 
2570 
1732 
1798 
2153 
2472 
2383 
1826 
2005 
2481 
1610 
2206 
2688 
2140 
2257 
1965 
1791 
1959 
2137 
1840 
2613 
2084 
1709 
1991 
1788 
2008 
1824 
1844 
2305 
1589 
2049 
2003 
2486 
2177 
1922 
1584 
2444 
1968 
1849 
2689 
2388 
1932 
2452 
2515 
1699 
2701 



TABLE OF CASES. 



cxli 



IBeferences are to Sections.'} 



Scribner v. Flagg Mfg. Co. 1948 

Scripture v. Lowell &c. Ins. Co. 2333 
Scruggs v. Decatur &c. Co. 2465 

ScrugEam t. Wood 1951 

Scudder y. Payton 1742 

Scullane v. Kellogg: 1987 

Seullin v. Harper 2451 

Scurry v. Freemen 2025 

Seaboard Mfg. Co. v. Woodson 1963, 

1988 

Seaborn v. Sutherland 2124 

Seabright v. Seabrlght 2204 

Seabrook v. .Seabrook 2205 

Seabury v. BoUes 1607 

Seacord t. People 2529 

Sealey v. Metropolitan St. R. Co. 1980 

Seaman v. Hogeboom 1845, 1850, 1855 

Searcy v. SudhofE 2454 

T. Tarnell 1940 

Searles v. Alabama &c. E. Co. 1917 

V. Bawington 2467 

V. Cronk 1970, 1974 

V. Manhattan E. Co. 1895, 2503, 

2507 
Sears v. Chapman 1954, 2235, 2236 

V. Daly 1625, 2079 

y. Eastern R. Co. 1899 

v. Lyons 2004 

Searsburgh Tpk. Co. v. Cutler 1934, 1938 
Seat V. Moreland 1974 

Seattle Bank v. Harris 1829, 1840 

Seattle Nat. Bank v. School Dist. 1613 
Seaver v. Adams 1652 

T. Dingley 2604 

V. Wilder 1592 

Sebree V: Clay 1586 

T. Dorr 1823, 1829 

Second Con. Society v. First So- 
ciety 2243 
Second Nat. Bank v. Graham 1776 
V. Midland Steel Co. 1947 
V. Ocean Nat. Bank 1774, 1790 
V. Walbridge 1782 
Second Religion Soc. t. Harriman 2235 
Secrist v. Green 2009, 2199 
Security Batik v. Holmes 1959 
Security Co. v. Greybeal 2576 
Security Ins. Co. v. Pay 2359 
V. Kentucky Ins. Co. 2311 
Seda V. Huble 2236 
Sedalia Third Nat. Bank v. Cramer 1744 
Seddon v. Senate 1958 
Sedgwick v. HoTlenback 1956, 1958 
V. Tucker 2097, 2146 
See V. Derr 2206 
Seebold v. Lockner 1589 
Seebrock v. Fedawa 2684, 2693 
Seeds v. Grand Lodge 2008 
Seekel v. Norman 1841 
Seely t. Boon 1587 
Segelbaum v. Segelbaum 2034 
Seger v. Barkhamsted 1991, 1998 
Seghetti v. Queen Ins. Co. 2336 
Segnitz v. Garden City Banking &c. 

Co. 1799 

Segrist v. CraMree 2578 

Seiber v. Amnnson 1597 

T. Price 2183 

Selbert v. Chosen Friends 2423 

V. Price 2117, 2474 

V. True 2082 

Seibold v. Christman 2254 

Seidschlag v. Antioch 2074 

Seidensparger v. Spear 1962, 1970 

Seidentopf v. Aunabil 1746 

Seifert v. Jones 2250 

Selfred v. Pennsylvania E. Co. 2522 

Seigrlst v. Sehmoltz 2369 



Seller v. Economic &e. Asso. 2397 

Seip V. Deshler 2454 

Seisel v. Folmar 1751 
Selther v. Philadelphia Traction 

Co 1597 

Selby V. Bardons 1698 

y. Bass 2588 

Selden v. Cashman 2005 

y. Washington 1835, 1838 

Self V. Tune 2206 

Seliger v. Bastian 2006 

Seligman v. Rogers 2671 

Sell V. Bailey • 2157 

Selleck v. Selleck 1770, 1772, 1782 

Seller v. Steamship Pacific 1914 

V. The Pacific 1915 

Sellers v. Jones 2578 

V. Zimmerman 1693 

Sellick V. Adams 1661 

Sellman v. Hardin 2050 

V. Wheeler 1690, 2116 

Selma &c. E. Co. v. Lacy 2010 

V. Tipton 1932 

Seloer's Assigned Estate 1598 

Selwood V. Mildmay ,2210 

Semmel, In re 1816 

Semmens v. Walters 2164 

Semple v. Glenn 1840, 1943 

Seneca v. Allen 2073 

Senger t. Senger 2210, 2211 

Sentman v. Gamble 2137 

Serat v. Smith . 1599 

Serensen v. Northern Pac. E. Co. 1985, 

1995 

Sergeant v. Ewing 1606, 1607, 1608 

Sergent v. Liverpool &c. Ins. Co. 2352 

V. Sergent , 2035 

Service v. Heermance 2124 

Sessions v. Little 1648 

Seton V. Lefone 2069 

Setzer v. Beale 2543 

Severance v. Hilton 2003 

V. Kimball 2181 

Severn v. Giese 1742 

Severns v. B!rainard 2479 

Sevier v. Wilson 1848 

Seville v. Wagner 1737 

Sewall V. Baxter 2154, 2158 

V. Cargill 2235, 2236, 2242 

V. Roberts 2208 

V. Sparrow 2027 

Seward v. Jackson 2154 

V. Liberty 2124 

Sewell V. Cohoes 2516 

Sexey v. Adkinson 1752 

Sexson v. Barker 1617 

V. Hoover 2482 

Sexton V. Ins. Co. 2345 

V. Rhames 2050 

V. Todd 1982 

V. Wheaton 2159 

Seybolt v. New York &c. R. Co. 2498, 

2502 

Seyk V. Millers' Ins. Co. 2322, 2363, 

2366 

Seymour v. Bailey 1690 

V. Brainerd 1837, 1838 

V. Osborne 1571 

V. Smith 2576 

Seymour Mfg. Co. v. Sheahan 1744 

Shaber v. St. Paul &c. R. Co. 2505 

Schackelford v. Shackelford 2564 

Shackleford v. Hamilton 1885 

V. Hooker 1839 

V. Bucket 1664 

Shackleton v. Sun Fire Ins. Co. 2328 

Shaeffer v. State 2288 

Shafer v. Eneu 2208 



cxlii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to Sections.} 



Shafer v. Lacock 

v. Randolpti 

V. Smith 1692, 

V. Wilson 
ShaCfer v. Gaynor 

T. McCracliin 

V. Nail 

y. Spangler 
Shailer v. Bumstead 2692, 2694, 
Shain t. Markham 
Shain Packing Co. v. Burrus 
Siiakespeare v. Baughman 
Shakopee First Nat. Bank t. Strait 
Shaler v. Magin 

Shank v. Wilson 2486, 

Shanley v. Wells 2110, 

Shannon v. Burr 

V. Jones 

T. Owen 
Shapiro v. Michelson 
Shapleigh v. Pillsbury 
Sharkey v. Mansfield 
Sharland v. Washington &c. Ins. Co, 

Sharon v. Gager 

V. Mosher 

V. Sharon 

V. Tucker 
Sharp V. Blankenship 

T. Daugney 

V. Johnson 

v. Kansas City &Q. R. Co. 

V. Mauston 

V. Spier 

V. Thompson 1845, 

Sharpe v. Commercial &c. Asso. 

T. Johnston ' 2475, 

Shartle v. Hutchinson 
Shatto V. Brie E. Co. 
Shattuck V. Myers 2003, 

V. Eobbins 

T. Stoneham &c. E. Co. 2006, 
Shaughnessy t. Eensselaer Ins. Co. 
Shaul V. Norman 1690, 

Shavalier v. Grand Rapids &c. Co. 
Shaver v. Adams 
Shaw V. Camp 

V. Chairitie 

T. Chicago &c. R. Co. 

T. Ferguson 

V. Hill 2040, 2057, 

V. Jacobs 

V. Jones 

V. Republic &c. Ins. Co. 

V. Scottish Com'l Ins. Co. 

V. Silloway 

V. State 

V. Wallace 

V. Wilshire 

V. Woodcock 

V. York &c. R. Co. 
Shaw's Will, In re 
Shea V. Kerr 

V. Massachusetts &c. Asso. 

V. Minneapolis &c. E. Co. 
Sheahan v. Barry 1864, 

Shealy v. Edwards 2144, 

Shearer v. Evans 

V. Gunderson 

V. Jewett 

V. Ranger 
Shebek y. National Cracker Co. 
Shedd V. Disney 

V. Webb 
Sheehan v. Edgar 

V. Hamilton 

v. Kearney 2685, 2689, 2691, 

V. Sturges 1691, 1700, 



1636 
2556 
1703 
1994 
1622 
2516 
2202 
2370 
2695 
1699 
2536 
1732 
2461 
2067 
2494 
2116 
1974 
2480 
2662 
1702 
2236 
1606 

2390 
2183 
1989 
2032 
1620 
1850 
1617 
2065 
1903 
1595 
2053 
2589 
2415 
2479 
2452 
2504 
2641 
1947 
2007 
2424 
2140 
1933 
1850 
2700 
2111 
1596 
1798 
2067 
1823 
2248 
2355 
2336 
2460 
2459 
1974 
1798 
1730 
1907 
2696 
1720 
2428 
1916 
1893 
2166 
2667 
1765 
1732 
1957 
2521 
2053 
2071 
1987 
2057 
2693 
1702 



Sheehan's Estate 2188 

Sheer v. Sheer 2687 

Sheetz v. Longlois 1957, 1959 

Sheffield v. Lovering 2200 

V. Sheffield 2033 

Shelbury v. Scotsford 1789 

Shelby Iron Co. v. Ridley 2657 

Shelden v. Peck _ 1782 



1775, 1779, 



Eobinson 
Sheldon v. Atkinson 

r. Atlantic &e. Ins. Co. 

V. Carpenter 

V. Connecticut &c. Ins. Co. 



1781 
2055 
2298 
2483 
2295, 
2296 
2059 
2595 
1857 
1610 
2663 
2235 

1833, 1834 
1969 

2693, 2696 
1745 



V. Mull 

V. Payne 

V. Perkins 

y. Sheldon 

V. Soper 

V. Stockbridge 

Sheley v. Brooks 

Shell V. Kemmerer 

Shell's Estate, In re 

Shellabarger v. Mottin 

Shelling v. Farmer 1664 

Shelsbury v. Scotsford 2073 

Shelton v. Hudson Elver E. Co. 2503 

v. Merchant's Desp. &c. Co. 1918 

V. Pendleton 2251 

V. Shelton 2210 

Shepard v. Meridian Nat. Bank 1589 

V. Mills 1722 

v. Milwaukee &c. Co. 1994 

V. Watrous 1665, 2179, 2182 

Shepardson v. Perkins 1968 

Shepherd v. Chamberlain 1835 

V. Harrison 2626 

V. Jermigan 2067 

V. Johnson 1981 

V. Eoyce 2140 

V. Shepherd 2124 

Sheppard v. Furniss 2102 

V. Graves 1581, 1582 

Shera, In re 1807 

Sherburne v. Eodman 2479 

Sheridan v. Brooklyn &c. E. Co. 1998 

V. New Quay Co. 1798 

V. Salem 2516 

Sherlock v. Ailing 2019 

V. German Ins. Co. 2316, 2320 

Sherman v. Dutch 2004 

V. Fitch 1634 

V. Hogland 2144, 2152, 2157 

V. Kane 1861 

y. Langham 2538 

y. Menominee &c. Co. 1895, 2593 

V. St. Paul &c. E. Co. 2006, 2007 

y. Willett 2080 

V. Williams 1958 

SherritE v. Cadell 2662 

Sherrill v. Welsiger &c. Co. 1639 

Sherrod v. Langdon 2558 

Sherrou v. Wood 1665 

Sherry v. Picken • 2611, 2618 

V. Schuyler 2660 

Sherwood v. Agricultural Ins. Co. 2348 

V. American Bible Society 2234, 2243 

v. Chicago &c. E. Co. 1984, 1987, 

1988, 1991, 1998 

y. Sherwood 2211 

V. Titman 2635 

Shevlin v. American &e. Asso. 2407 

Shewalter y. Bergman 1997,- 2635, 2641, 

2642 

Shlck V. Citizens Enterprise Co. 1930 

Shields y. Ivey 1621 

y. Lewis 1871, 1877 

Shiell y. McNltt 2000 



TABLE OF CASES. 



cxliii 



{References are to Sections.'} 



Shillaber v. Wyman 




2083 


Sicotte V. Barber 




1599 


Shilling T. Carson 


2003, 


2458 


Sidaways v. Todd 




1790 


Shimer v. Mann 




2206 


Sidensparker y. Sidensparker 




2164 


Shingloff V. Bruner 




2689 


Sides V. Brendlinger 




1655 


Shipley v. Edwards 




1698 


v. Hilleary 




2621 


V. Fox 




2069 


V. Schartf 




1571 


v. Shilling 




2467 


Sieber v. Frink 




1574 


T. Shook 


2039, 


2052 


V. Weiden 


2167, 


2168 


V. Todhunter 




2450 


Siebert v. Milligan 




1709 


Shipman v. Beers 




1969 


V. People 




2287 


Shipman &c. Co. v. Pfeiffer 




2612 


Siegel &c. Co. v. Connor 




2111 


Shipp v. Miller 




1845. 


Sigua Iron Co. v. Greene 




1946 


T. Story 




2458 


Silberman v. Munroe 




2627 


Shipwick V. Blanchard 




2667 


Sllliman v. Sampson 




1694 


Shireley v. Cedar Rapids &c. 


R. Cc 


. 


V. United States 


2170, 


2179 




2533, 


2537 


Silsbee v. Webber 




2170 


Shirk V. Chicago 




1572 


Silsby V. Michigan Car Co. 


1977, 


1978, 


V. Thomas 




1940 


1980, 


1984, 


1994 


Shirley v. Fearn 




2668 


V. Strong 




1709 


v. Hagar 


1585, 


2264 


Siltz V. Hawkeye Ttis, Co. 




2319 


Shisler v. Vandike 




2071 


Silvarer v. Hansen 


1618, 


1857 


Shivers v. Wilson 




1584 


Silver v. Kent 




1981 


Shloss V. Cooper 




2650 


V. Worcester 




2565 


Shober v. Wheeler 




2163 


Silver Creek «&c. Co. v. Union &c. Cc 


. 


Shockey v. Mills 




2146 


1619, 


2039, 


2044 


Shockley v. Van Baton 




2583 


Silverthorne v. Brands > 




1611 


Shoe & Leather &c. y. Wood 




1824 


Silvey v. McCool 




.1850 


Shoemaker &c. Co. v. Bernard 


2563 


Sim V. Russell 




2692 


Shoner v. Pennsylvania Co. 




2501 


Simmerman v. State 


2110, 


2111 


Shook V. Peters 




1694 


Simmon v. Si^es 




1766 


Shore v. Taylor 




2249 


Simmons v. Brown 


1994, 


2535 


V. Wilson 




2242 


V. Clark 




1595 


Shore Lumber Co. v. Claney 




2628 


v. Green 




2629 


Shores v. Shores 




2035 


V. McConnell 




2017 


Short V. Acton 




2457 


V. Millingen 




2111 


V. Hepburn 




1589 


V. Oullahan 




15-93 


V. Mathis 




2201 


V. Simmons 




1866 


V. New Orleans &c. E. Co. 


2498 


V. St. Paul &c. E. Co. 




2006 


V. Pratt 




1660 


V. Vandyke 




2113 


V. Spragins 




2476 


Simmons Creek Coal Co. v. Doran 


1618 


V. Stotts 




1878 


Simms v. Garrot 




2206 


V. Symmes 




1697 


V. Kirtley 




2562 


Shorten v. Judd 




2490 


V. South Carolina R. Co 




2501 


Shoun V. Armstrong 




1948 


Simonin v. New York &c. E. 


Co. 


1985 


Shoup V. Shields 


2651 


2652 


Simons v. Burnham 




2452 


Shove V. Webb 




1730 


v. Busby 2635, 2643, 


2645, 


2646 


Shown V. McMackin 




2187 


V.' Johnson 




1598 


Shrewsbury v. Smith 




2650 


V. Waldron 




1587 


Shriver v. Bean 




1689 


V. Ypsilanti Paper Co. 




2623 


V. Nimick 




1600 


Simonson v. Sinsheimer 




1814 


V. Sioux City &c. E. Co. 


1916 


1917 


Simonton v. Minneapolis &c. 


Bank 


1641 


V. State 


2187 


2189 


V. Winter 




1950 


Shropshire v. Shropshire 




1615 


Simplot V. Chicago &e. R. Co 




1715 


Shroyer v. Campbell 




2533 


Simpson v. Boring 2041, 


'2056, 


2057 


V. Miller 




2003 


V. Bowden 




1725 


V. Richmond 




2080 


V. Brown-Desnoyers Shoe 


Co. 


2461 


Shuck V. State 


2590 


2593 


V. Davis 


1823, 


2401 


Shuflf V. Morgan 
Shulman v. Brantley 




2602 


V. Eggington 




1597 




2576 


v. Grayson ' 2630 


2631 


2637 


Shulte V. Hennessy 




1664 


V. Hand 




1922 


Shultz V. Hawkeye Ins. Co. 




2297 


V. Krumdick 




2620 


V. Hoagland 




2127 


V. London &c. R. Co. 


1981 


1994 


V. State 




2281 


V. McCaffrey 


2118 


2660 


Shuman v. Shuman 




2196 


V. M'Parland 




2607 


Shumway v. Phillips 




2057 


V. Montgomery 




2399 


V. Shumway 




2279 


V. Pearson 




2256 


V. Walworth &c. Co. 




1989 


V. Pegram 




2617 


Shurtlefe v. Willard 




2618 


V. Southwood 




2236 


Shute V. Taylor 




2000 


V. Swan 




1729 


Shuter v. Page 




2612 


V. Watrus 




2656 


Shutesbury v. Hadley 


1942 


2491 


V. Westenberger 




2002 


Shuttleworth v. Winter 




2261 


V. Wiley 




2450 


Sibley v. Lay 




2472 


V. Wrfenn 




1781 


v. Parsons 




2574 


Sims V. Frankfort 




2055 


Siboni y. Kirkman 




1599 


V. Glazener 




2659 


Sibree v. Tripp 




1596 


V. Smith 


1639 


2252 


Sickel V. Keach 




1659 


Sinclair v. Eldred 




2483 


Sickles V. Missouri &c. Co. 




1895 


V. Maritime &c. Co. 


2399 


2415 



cxliv 



TABLE OF CASES. 



IReferences are to 8eeUons.'\ 



Sinclair v. Roush 2007 

V. Stanly 1699 

V. Wood 2560 

Singer v. National Bedstead &c. Co. 1799 

T. Schilling 2621 

Singer Mfg. Co. v. Ellington 1769 

V. Potts 1840 

Singleton v. Jackson 2067 

T. Kennedy 2148 

V. School Dist. 2055 

V. St. Louis Mut. Ins. Co. 2305, 2371 

V. Thomas 1596 

Sinking Fund Comis. v. Northern 

Bank of Ky. 1941 

Sinton t. Steamboat R. R. Roberts 1587 

Siracusa v. Atlantic City R. Co. 2522 

Sisson V. Barrett 1843 

Sitler T. Gehr 2198 

Sivell V. Hogan 2629 

Sivers V. Sivers' 2579 

Skannel V. Taylor 2577 

Skee V. Coxon 1666 

Skeggs T. Horton 2698 

Skelley v. KaHn 1767 

Skelly V. Bristol Sav. Bank 1840 

Skidmore v. Bricker 2472, 2474, 2477 

Skillin V. Merrill 1728 

Skillman v. Skillman 2261 

Skinner v. E. D. Kerwin &c. Co. 2629 

T. Flint 2624 

V. Fulton 2188, 2193 

V. Grant 2448 

V. Harrison Tp. 



2211, 2226, 2235, 
2242 



V. Hartford &c. Co. 1971 

V. Hendrick 1843 

V. Lewis 2687 

V. London &c. E. Co. 1903 

V. McDaniel 2062 

V. Mbye 1959 

T. Raynor 1828 

V. Stouse 2604 

V. Tinker 1954 

V. Upshaw 2667 

Skipworth v. Martin 1620 

Skowhegan Bank v. Cutler 1941 

Skrable v. Pryne 1660 

Slack T. McLagan 2124 

Slade V. Leonard 2086, 2087, 2090 

Slagle & Co. T. Goodnow 2624 

Slater v. Arnett 1611, 2541 

V. Dangerfield 2207 

V. Kimbro 2483 

V. Sherman 1991 

V. South Carolina E. Co. 1916 

V. Swann 1926 

V. Wood 2111 

Slatterie v. Pooley . 2662 

Slaughter v. First Nat. Bank 1932 

V. Marlow 2628 

V. Metropolitan St. E. Co. 1987 

V. Stevens 2697 

Slauson v. Goodrich &c. Co. 2039 

Sledge V. Pope 1692, 1703 

Sleeper t. Laconia 1847, 1850, 1853 

T. New Hampshire Ins. Co. 2336 

Slingeroff v. Bruner 2686, 2690, 2692 

Slinger's Will 2690 

Sloan T. Central Iowa E. Co. 2501 

V. Edwards 1703, 1976, 1991, 1997 

V. Gilbert 2448, 2456 

V. Glancy 1576 

V. Langert 1757 

V. Lick Creek &c. Co. 2666 

v. McDowell 1589 

V. New York &c. R. Co. 2006 

V. Sloan 2094 

Sloane v. Southern Cal. E. Co. 1989 



Slocovieh v. Orient &c. Ins. Co. 
Slocum T. Compton 2039, 

V. Eiley 
Sloggy V. Crescent 

T. Di I worth 
Sloss &c. Co. T. Smith 
Slosson T. Beadle 

v. Lynch 2204, 

Slover V. Rock 
Sluby T. Champlin 
Smaldone t. Insurance Co. &c. 
Small T. Boudinot 

V. Clewley 1826, 

V. Gwinn 

V. Prentice? 

V. Rose 
Smalley v. Hendrickson 

V. Hale 
Smart v. Baugh 

T. Blan'ehard 

T. Kansas City 
Smawley v. Stark 
Smeberg v. Cunningham 
Smedes v. Elmendorf 
Smedley v. Hestonville &c. R. Co. 
Smeed v. Poord 
Smelser v. Wayne &c. Tpk. Co. 

Smets V. PlunkBt 

Smiar v. Shea 

Smiley v. Citizens' &e. Ins. Co. 

T. Dewey 

V. Gambill 
Smith, Matter of 
Smith V. Abington Bank 

V. JEtnsi &c. Ins. Co. 

V. American Ex. Co. 

V. Armour 

V. Atlantic Mut. P. Ins. Co. 

V. Bagwell 

T. Barber 

V. Bingham 

V. Birmingham Gas &c Co. 

V. Boruff 

V. Boston 

V. Bowker 

V. Bradley 

V. Branch Bank 

V. Brittenham 

V. Brown 1596, 

V. Brush 

V. Bunn 

V. Burnet 

V. California Ins. Co. 

V. Campbell 

V. Chicago &c. B. Co. 1987, 

V. Chilton 

V. Clark 

V. Click 

V. Coe 

V. Cohn 

V. Colby 

V. Combs 

V. Compton 

V. Corcoran 

V. Cremer 

V. Croom 

V. Cushing 

V. Dawley 

V. Day 

V. Doe 

V. Doherty 

V. Donelly 

V. Dovers 

V. Eastern Bldg. &c. Asso. 

V. Eaton 

T. Ege 

V- Elrod 1592, 1595, 



2008, 
1728, 



1692, 



2110, 



2439 
2057 
2461 
1972 
2534 
1979 
2000 
2205 
1595 
1728 
2352 
2124 
1968 
1583 
2511 
2469 
2621 
2134 
2024 
2454 
2497 
2454 
1619 
1731 
1988 
1979 
1935, 
1948 
2002 
2668 
2346 
1591 
2697 
2696 
1957 
2406 
1916 
1736 
1589 
1991 
2619 
2651 
1629 
2576 
2531 
1587 
2050 
2126 
2124 
1961 
1601 
1577 
2576 
2351 
2203 
1988 
1596 
1839 
2148 
2000 
1596 
2626 
2010 
1888 
2053 
2071 
2209 
1576 
1693 
2689 
2061 
1727 
2111 
1584 
2472 
1745 
2117 
1599 



TABLE OF CASES. 



cxlv 



IBeferences are to Sections.'} 



Smith v. Erie R. Co. 




2399 


V. Estill 




1615 


V. Eubanks 




1994 


V. First Nat. Bank 




1787 


V. First Presbyterian Church 2238, 

OOAO 


V. Folwell 




2206 


T. Forrest 1851, 


1852, 


1861, 1862 


V. Gaines 




2200, 2202 


V. Gale 




1617 


V. Gardner 




1829, 1840 


V. Gayle 




1597 


V. Griffith 




2560 


V. Griswold 




1826 


V. Hall 1708 


1869, 


1882, 1883 


V. Harre 




1751 


V. Harris 




2612, 2614 


V. Hatch 




1729 


V. Heniine 


2684, 


2695, 2696 


V. Hodson 




1725 


V. Holcomb 




1703, 1991 


V. Holden 




2212 


V. Hosmer 


1848 


1857, 1859 


V. Hughes 




1956, 1957 


V. Hutchison 




1855 


V. James 




2661 


V. Johnson 




1743 


V. Josselyn 




2148 


V. Keegan 




1800 


V. Kimball 


.2218 


2238, 2242 


V. Kimbell 




2206 


V. Knight 




2541 


V. Knox Dist. Tp. 




2588, 


V. Kramer 




2288 


V. Lathrop 




1589 


V. Lawrence 




2064 


V. Lawson 




1830 


V. Lindsey 




2040, 2050 


V. Loag 




1974 


V. Long 




2124 


V. Lorillard 




2040, 2057 


V. Lozano 




2026 


V. Ludlow 




2573 


V. Ludwig 




1596 


V. Lyke 




1643, 1646 


V. Mabeu 




2479 


V. Marvin 




1609 


V. Hasten 




t651B, 1652 


v. Mauch Chunk 


198T, 


1988, 1991, 
1998 


T. M'Campbell 




1957 


V. McConathy 




2528 


. V. McDaniel 




2479 


T. McGaughey 




2056 


T. Midland R. Co. 




1919 


V. Milburn 




2637, 2641 


V. Miller 




2580 


v. Milles 




2082 


T. Milligan 




1734 


V. Mitchell 




2319 


V. Moore 




2590 


V. Moynihan 




2541 


V. Mussetter 




1831, 1832 


V. National &c. Soc 


. 2376 


2393, 2397 


v. Nelson 




2236 


V. Newlin 




1824 


V. Newton 




2070 


V. New York Cent. 


R. Co. 


1917 


V. New York &c. Ins. Co. 


2163 


V. New York &c. R 


Co. 


1727 


V. North Canyon &c. Co. 


1615 


v. North Carolina 


B. Co. 


1916 


V. O'Donnell 




1994 


V. Olmstead 




2227 


V. Parsons ' 




1824 


V. Pattle 




2086 


V. Pattlson 




2151 


V. Petitioner 




2205 



Smith T. Philbrick 1824, 1835, 1838 

V. Pittsburgh &c. R. Co. 1991 

V. Plomer 2663 

V. Preferred &c. Asso. 2408 

V. Prewit 1857 

T. Roberts 2055 

V. Russell 1857 

V. San Francisco &c. Co. 1946 

V. Savin 1798 

V. Schanek 1715 

V. Shackleford 1850, 1856, 1862 

V. Sheehan 2232 

V. Shepard 1958 

T. Sims 2124 

V. Sioux City &e. R. Co. 1991 

V. Sloan 2567 

V. Slocomb 1858 

V. Smith 1612, 1642, 1717, 2008, 

2010, 2029, 2030, 2032, 2035, 2210, 

2212, 2214, 2215, 2217, 2452, 2453, 
2486, 2539 

V. Sprague 1957 
V. State 1692, 1696, 2105, 2276, 2632 

V. State Ina. Co. 2312 

V. Steele 1623 

T. Stephen 2602 

V. Stewart 1664, 1726 

V. Stoker 1709 

V. Stone 2071 

St. Paul &c. R. Co. 1895, 1902 



V. Sun Pub. Co. 

V. Sutton 

V. Tripp 

V. Trowdale 

V. Wabash R. Co. 

V. Walker 

V. Webb 

V. Webber 

V. Wells Mfg. Co. 

V. Whiting 

V. Williamson 

V. Wood 

V. Woodward 

V. Woodworth 

V. Worn 

V. Wright 

V. Wunderlieh 

v. Yaryan 
Smith's Appeal 
Smith's Case 



2454 
2073 
2460 
1596 
2523 
2552 
1715 
1668 
1933 
1824 
2604 
2124 
1951 
1604 
1577 
2553 
1997, 2004 
2003, 2630, 2641 
1840, 2578 
2280 

Smith Drug Co. V. Casper Drug Co. 1744 

Smith-Frazer Boot &c. Co. v. White 2461 

Smitherman v. Kidd 1598 

V. Smith 1599 

Smithpeter t. Ison 2577 

Smithwick v. Ward 1694, 1702 

Smock T. Smock 2697 

Smoot V. Cook 2668 

Smouse v. Iowa State &c. Asso. 2414 

Smyles v. Hastings 1571 

Smyth V. Harvie 2572 

Smythe v. Tolbert 2050 

Snead v. Barringer 2561 

Snedeker v. Snedeker 1995, 2204 

Snell V. Bray 1880 

V. De Land 2553 

V. Delaware &c. Ins. Co. 2321 

V. Levitt 1575 

V. Mecham 2067 

V. Snow 2454 

Snethen v. Memphis Ins. Co. 2432, 2435, 

2440 
Snider v. Newell 2631 

Snider's Sons Co. v. Troy 1930 

Snoddy v. Bolen 1847 

Snodgrass v. Branch Bank 2122, 2134 
V. Broadwell 1732 

V. Caldwell 2576 



Vol. 3 Elliott Ev.— x 



cxlvi 



TABLE OP CASES. 



IBeferences are to Sections.'] 



Snodgrass v. Carnegie Steel Co. . 2519 

Snook V. Lord 1731 

Suover v. Blair 2251 

Snow V. Boston &c. E. Co. 2006, 2007, 

2285, 2288 

V. Carpenter 1588 

V. Indiana &c. R. Co. 1907 

V. Mt. Desert Island &c. 1847 

T. Paine 1646 

v. Union &c. Ins. Co. 2441 

Snowden t. Gulon 2321 

V. State 1700 

V. Wilas 2656 

Snyder v. Braden 2170 

T. Depew 2675 

T. Murdock 1709 

V. Pharo 1597 

V. Eiley 1830 

V. Wheeling &c. Co. 2498 

V. Willey 1831 

V. Witt 1597 

Sobieski v. St. Paul &c. R. Co. 1941 

Society v. Moll 2236 

T. Young 1939 

Society &c. v. Pawlet 1948 

Soderman v. Kemp 2519 

Sodusky v. McGee 1695 

Soencer v. Marriott 1958 

Sohier v. Coffin 2007 

V. Norwich Ina. Co. 2372 

V. St; Paul's Church 2236 

Sohn V. Cambern 2531 

V. Jervis 1732 

Soloman v. Brodie 1829 

Solomons v. Medex 1924 

Solomons & Co. v. Jones 1843 

Soltau V. DeHeld 2525, 2528 

Somers v. Cresse 1609 

Somervail v. Gilles 2577 

Somerville v. Dickerman 1658 

T. Hawkins 2448 

V. Knights Templars &c. 2393 

V. Waltham 2235 

Soper V. Brown 2208 

Sorensen v. Sorensen 2094 

Sorenson v. Dnndas 2105, 2115 

V. Menasha Paper &c. Co. 2011, 2502 

Soulsby V. Hodgson 1659 

Soule V. Barlow 1618 

T. Bruce 1694 

South Branch Lumber Co. v. Ott 1709 

South Branch E. Co. v. Long 1946 

South Carolina S. B. Co. v. South 

Carolina B. Co. 2524, 2526, 2530 

South Covington St. R. Co. v. Ware 1987 
South & N. Ala. R. Co. v. Henlein 1625, 

1916 

V. Schaufler 1895 

V. Wood 1915 

South &c. R. Co. V. Chappell 2114 

V. McLendon 1991 

V. Thompson 2522 

V. Wilson 1907 

Southall T. Parish 2124 

Southard v. Railway &c. Co. 2399, 2410, 

2415 

V. Eexford 1893 

Southerland t. Jackson 1847 

Southern Bank v. Williams 1940 

Southern Bell Tel. Co. v. Cassin 2019 

Southern Ex. Co. v. Ashford 1910 

V. Caperton 1912 

V. McVeigh 1907 

V. Todd 1636 

V. Western &c. R. Co. 1930 

Southern Fert. Co. v. Reams 2554 

Southern Hotel Co. v. Newman 1947 

Southern Ins. Co. v. Lewis 2345 



Southern Ins. Co. v. Wilkinson 2196 
Southern Iron Works v. Georgia E. 

Co. 1847 

Southern Kans. R. Co. v. Hinsdale 1701 

T. Bobbins 2521 

Southern L. Ins. Co. v. Booker 2298, 

2300, 2376 

Southern Pac. Co. v. Arnett 1918, 1978, 

1985, 2466 

Southern Pac. E. Co. v. Burr 1578, 1579 

Southern Penn. Iron Co. v. Stevens 1931 

Southern E. Co. v. Allison 1911 

V. Carson 2501 

V. Evans 2017 

V. Howell 1988, 2521 

V. Kendrick 2653 

V. Smith 1897, 2523 

Southern Suspender Co. v. Van Bor- 

ries 1709 

Southington &c. Soc. v. Gridley 2653 

Southmayd v. Henley 2059 

Southwestern &c. Co. v. Benson 1605 

Southwick V. McGovern 2560 

Southworth v. Adams 2698 

Sovereign Camp &c. v. Haller 2393, 2394 

Soward v. Coppage 1715 

Sowden v. Idaho &c. Min. Co. 2509 

Sowell V. McDonald 2002 

Sowers v. Cyrenius 2243, 2244 

V. Dukes 2006 

Sowles V. Butler - 2582 

Spaids V. Barrett 2184 

Spaits V. Poundstone 2450 

Spalding v. Dunlap 1601 

V. Lowe 2146, 2479 

Spangler v. Indiana &e. E. Co. 1585 

Sparhawk v. Sparhawk 2686 

Sparks, Matter of 2696 

Sparks v. Life Ins. Co. 2395 

Sparling v. Conway 2479 

Sparrow v. Hovey 1622 

V. Universal &c. Ins. Co. 2348 

Sparry's Case 1589 

Spaulding v. Arnold 2588 

V. Baldwin 2054 

V. Chicago &c. E. Co. 2017, 2019 

V. Groton 2511 

V. Jennings 2662 

Spear v. Coate 1851 

V. Hiles 1997, 2482 

V. Hubbard 1974 

V. Newell 1601 

V. Philadelphia &c. E. Co. 1903 

V. Spear 2076 

V. Sweeney 1692, 1695, 2004 

Spears v. Burton 2486 

Specht V. Belndorf 1832 

Speer v. Bishop 2574 

V. Miller 2202 

Spelling V. Parks 1891, 1893 

Spellman v. Muehlfleld 1606 

V. Elchmond E. Co. 2535 

Spence v. Bagwell 2156 

V. Dunlap 2154 

V. Healey 1598 

V. Smith 2669 

Spencer v. Citizens' &c. Ins. Co. 2301, 

2387, 2393 

V. Hewett 1603 

V. Higgins 2211 

V. Sloan 1830, 1843 

V. St. Paul &c. E. Co. 1979 

V. Terry 2692 

V. Wolfe 2082 

Spensley v. Lancashire Ins. Co. 2332 

Spicer v. Hoop 2000 

Splgelmoyer v. Walter 2004 

Spill V. Maule 2449 



TABLE OF CASES. 



cxlvii 



IReferences are to Sections.] 



Spinetti v. Atlas &c. Co. 2431 

Spltze V. Baltimore &c. R. Co. 2019 

Spivey v. Jones 2040 

V. State 2290 

Splahn v. Gillespie 2595 

SpofEord v. Hobbs 1639 

Spooner v. Delaware &c. R. Co. 1932 

V. Mattoon 1795 

V. Payne 1658, 1660 

Spotts V. Hanley 2059 

Sprague v. Baker 1959 

V. Dodge 2140 

T. Parsons » 1737 

V. Rochester 2513 

Sprague's Collecting Agency v. Spie- 
gel 2666 
Sprigg T. American &e. Ins. Co. 2306 
V. Moale 2188, 2189 
Spring V. Coffin 1730 
Springer v. Bowdoinham 2513 
T. Schultz 1903 
Springfield Consolidated R. Co. v. 

Welscli 2510 

Springfield People's Bank v. Wil- 
liams 1749 
Springfield &c. Ins. Co. v. Hull 2178 
T. McLimans 2328 
V. Winn 2336 
Springfield &c. R. Co. v. Allen 1599 
v. Hoetener 1992, 1998 
Sprout v. Crowley 2551 
Spruance v. Farmers' &c. Ins. Co. 2419 
Spruil V. Cooper 2456 
Spruill T. North Carolina &c. Ins. 

Co. 2407 

V. Northwestern &c. Ins. Co. 2373, 

2395 

Spurck V. Crook 1664 

Spurgeon t. Swain 1839 

Spurr V. Cofflng 2621 

V. North Hudson &c. R. Co. 1597 

Squier v. Gould 1978 

V. Hydliff 2275 

Squire v. State 2487, 2491 

Squires v. Elwood 2000 

St. Clair v. Chicago &c. R. Co. 1915 

St. Clair &c. Soc. v. Fietsam 2420 

St. Colombe v. United States 1611 

St. Joe &c. V. First Nat. Bank 1843 

St. John T. American &c. Ins. Co. 2333, 

2368, 2385 

V. Eastern R. Co. 2116 

V. Erie R. Co. 1994 

V. Mutual Life Ins. Co. 1711 

St. Joseph V. Union R. Co. 2518 

St. Joseph &c. R. Co. v. Hedge 1901 

V. Shambaugh 1932 

V. Wheeler 2019 

St. Lawrence &c. Ins. Co. v. Paige 2424 

St. Ledger's Appeal 2696 

St. Louis V. Connecticut &c. Ins. 

Co 2518 

V.' Heitzeberg Packing &c. Co. 2524, 

2527 
St. Louis &c. Co. V. McPeters 2542 

St. Louis Hay & Grain Co. v. United 

States 1732 

St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Berger 2010 
St. Louis &c. Ins. Co. v. Kyle 2297, 2325. 
2326, 2357, 2358, 2446 
St. Louis Gas. L. Co. V. St. Louis 1942, 
1943, 1944 
St. Louis &c. B. Co. vr Ayres 2005, 2006, 

2007 
V. Bamett 2399 

V. Biggs 2535 

V. Burrows 1902 



St. Louis &c. R. Co. T. Cambden 

Bank 1605 

V. Carlisle 1636 

V. Commercial &c. Ins. Co. 1913 

V. Davis 1596, 1599 

V. Dobbins 1991 

V. Dorsey 2017 

V. Ferguson 1989 

V. Foltz 1578 

V. Greenthal 2282 

V. Harper 2519 

V. Hawkins 1905 

V. Hays 1911 

V. Hicks 2012 

V. Jefferson &c. Co. 2000 

V. Johnston 2124 

V. Knight 1908, 1911 

V. Larned 1632 

V. Lesser 1916 

V. Moore 1895 

V. Murray 1904 

V. Parmer 1916 

V. Piper 1919 

V. Tierman 1947 

V. Townsend 2010, 2011 

V. Wallin, 2472 

V. Weakly 1916, 1920 

V. Weaver 2498 

St. Luke's Home &c. v. Association 

&c. 2238 2241 2242 

St. Mary's Church v. Cagger' 1607, 1947 
St. Ores V. McGlashen 1690 

St. Paul Fire &c. Ins. Co. v. Allis 1935 
St. Paul &c. Ins. Co. v. Gotthelf 2319, 

2359 
St. Paul &c. R. Co. V. Murphy 2006 

St. Paul's Church v. Attorney-Gen- 
eral 2235 
St. Peter's Church v. Beach 1983 
Staal V. Grand Rapids &c. R. Co. 1988. 

2016 

Stabler v. Gund " 1839 

Stache v. St. Paul &c. Ins. Co. 2346 

Stachlin v. Destrehan 1699 

Stack V. Beach 1827, 1830, 1843 

Stadleman v. Fitzgerald 1625 

Staed V. Mahon 1744 

Stafford V. King 1846 

V. Mills 1743, 1749 

V. Sibley 1604, 2552 

V. Stafford 2030, 2032 

V. Williams 2581 

Stager v. Ridge &c. Co. 1895 

Stagg V. Compton 2626 

V. St. Jean 1608 

Stahl V. Brown 1667 

Stahr V. Carter 1579 

Staininger v. Andrews 2059 

Stair V. Richardson 1705 

Stalford v. Goldring 2050, 2051, 2059, 

2060 
Stallcup V. National Park Bank of 

New York 2624 

Stalling V. Hlnson 2094 

Stalworth v. Inns 1664 

Stambaugh's Estate 2206 

Stamford Steamb. Co. v. Gibbons 1789 
Stamp V. Cooke 2203 

Stamper v. Temple 1717 

Stanard v. Bldridge 1957 

Stanchfield v. Palmer 2555 

Standard Furniture Co. v. Vftti AI- 

stine 2073 

Standard Implement Co. v. Parlin 

Co. 1751 

Standard Oil Co. v. Bretz 2610 

V. Tiemey 1991, 2508 

V. Van Etten 1606, 1607 



cxlviii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to Sections.l 



Standard &c. Ins. Co. v 


. Jones 


2404 


State 


y. Cincinnati &c. Co. 




2043 


V. 


Langstou 






2399 


V. 


Clark 




2490 


T. 


Schmaltz 


2399 


2412 


2414 


y. 


Cleaves 




2253 


V. 


Thomas 






2412 


V. 


Close 




2526 


V. 


Thornton 






2391 


y. 


Colby 




2491 


Standish v. Babeock 




1610 


1611 


V. 


Crocker 




1850 


Standlee v. St. Louis &c. E. 


Co. 


2016 


y. 


Cronan 




1946 


Standley v. Stephens 






2073 


V. 


Crowe 




2589 


Stanfleld t. Stiltz 2122 


2133 


, 2136 


2615 


V. 


Culver 




1579 


Stanford t. Mangin 






2039 


y. 


Cunningham 




2288 


Stange v. Wilson 






2618 


y. 


Curry 




1942 


Stanhope v. SwatCord 






1744 


y. 


Dayton &c. E. Co. 




2530 


Stanley v. Dunn 




2173 


2248 


V. 


Duestrow 




2280 


T. 


Green 






1854 


y. 


Dugan 




2588 


V. 


Johnson 




2039 


2065 


V. 


Duket 




2484 


V. 


Marshall 






2076 


V. 


Duncan 


2589 


2598 


V. 


Montgomery 






2000 


V; 


Dunn 




1&72 


V. 


Powell 






1689 


y. 


Engle 




2194 


V. 


Stanley 




1652 


1943 


V. 


Bstel 




2127 


V. 


Western Ins. Co. 






2331 


y. 


Federal &c. Co. 




2398 


Stansbury v. Stansbury 






2461 


y. 


Ferris 




1946 


Stansfeld v. Levy 




1964 


1965 


V. 


Fitzgerald 


2253, 


2287 


Stanton v. Embrey 






1589 


V. 


Flye 




1968 


V. 


Bstey Mfg. Co. 






2071 


v. 


Fredericks 




2591 


V. 


Hart 






2110 


V. 


Garvey 




1696 


T. 


New York &c. E 


Co. 




1974 


y. 


Gerard 




2243 


V. 


Willson's Bxr. 






2270 


y. 


German! a Bank 




2073 


Staples V. Sprague 






2552 


y. 


Gonce 


2032, 


2490 


Stapleton y. Benson 






2026 


y. 


Goodrich 


2487, 


2490 


y. 


King 






1782 


y. 


Griffith 


2243, 


2244 


Star Brick Co. y. Eidsdale 




1932 


y. 


Grubb 




2273 


Star Wagon Co. y. Matthiessen 


2450, 


y. 


Hadley 




2596 










2576 


V. 


Hamilton 




2603 


Starattou y. Physio-Medical College 


2221 


y. 


Hammond 




1972 


Starbuck y. New England &c. Ins. 




y. 


Handy 


2265, 


2275 


Co. 






2437 


2438 


y. 


Hansen 




2281 


Starin y. Kelly 






2151 


y. 


Harney 




2179 


Stark 


y. Boswell 






1715 


y. 


Harris 


1930, 


2600 


V. 


Starr 






2067 


V. 


Harrison 


2595, 


2596 


y. 


Thompson 






1597 


V. 


Haskins 




2456 


Starke v. Paine 






2610 


V. 


Hauss 




2596 


Starr 


V. Child 






1847 


y. 


Hawkins 




2463 


y. 


Jackson 






2650 


y. 


Hayes 




2258 


V. 


Stevenson 






2624 


y. 


Haynes 


1581, 


1584 


Starr &c. Co. y. Sibley 






2401 


y. 


Henderson 




2454 


Starrett y. Barber 






2586 


y. 


Hendricks 




2258 


Start 


V. Clegg 




2039, 


2064 


V. 


Hodgskins 




2487 


Staser y. Hdgan 


2282, 


2692, 


2696 


y. 


Hoyt 


2288, 


2289 


State 


y. Abbey 




2490, 


2491 


V. 


Hooker 




1701 


y. 


Allen 






2592 


V. 


Horton 




2591 


y. 


Armfield 






2647 


V. 


Hughes 




2600 


y. 


Arnold 






2273 


y. 


Huting 




2281 


y. 


Atkinson 






2235 


V. 


Independent School Dist. 


1948 


V. 


Baltimore &c. E. 


Co. 


1929, 


1995, 


y. 


Isenhart 




2491 




2497, 


2499 


2502, 


2504 


v. 


Jackson 


2593, 


2602 


y. 


Barnes 






2253 


V. 


Jennings 




1610 


y. 


Beach 






1709 


v. 


Joest 




2273 


y. 


Becker 






2399 


v. 


Johnson 2593 


, 2596 


2599 


y. 


Beckner 






2656 


v. 


Jones 




2596 


y. 


Behrman 






2491 


y. 


Joyce 




2682 


y. 


Berg 






2596 


y. 


Keenan 




2457 


y. 


Best 






2274 


v. 


Keen 




2278 


V. 


Bittick 






2484 


y. 


Kelley 




2281 


y. 


Blossom 






2589 


v. 


Kings County Sup. Ct. 




1799 


y. 


Board 




2594, 


2599 


v. 


Kluseman 




2265 


y. 


Boyle 






2253 


y. 


Knowlton 




1587 


y. 


Brady 






2256 


y. 


Krlng 


2281, 


2284 


y. 


Brink 






2491 


v. 


Kupferle 




1933 


V. 


Brooks 






1840 


v. 


Lewis 


2281, 


2291 


y. 


Brown 






2277 


v. 


Libby 




2490 


y. 


Brutch 






2090 


y. 


Lindley 




2085 


y. 


Bryant 






2111 


y. 


Louisiana State Bank 




1934 


y. 


Bryson 






1698 


v. 


Lowe 




2276 


y. 


Butman 






2457 


V. 


Lunsford 




2101 


V. 


Cain 






2199 


y. 


McDaniel 




2113 


y. 


Carr 






1934 


y. 


McGill 


2600, 


2601 


y. 


Chapin 
Chrfstmas 






2593 


v. 


McKee 


2454, 


2527 


V. 






2288 


V. 


Maine Cent. R. Co. 


2010, 


2011 



TABLE OF CASES. 



cxlix 



[References are to Sections. '\ 



State V. Manchester &c. E. Co. 2016, 
2020, 2522 
T. Manufacturers' &c. Ins. Co. 2419 

V. Marguire 1698 

V. Marvin 2490 
T. Mason 2129, 2133, 2146, 2205, 

2451 

V. Matley 1589 

T. Matlock 2491 

v. Merchants' &c. Soc. 2368 

V. Monitor &c. Asso. 2422 

V. Montgomery &c. Co. 1932 

V. Moores 2590 

V. Morris 1743, 1750 

V. Mott 2528 

V. Mowry 2111 

V. Murray 2590 

V. Myers 1689 

T. Neff 1700 

V. Newman 2281 

V. Nichleson 2275 

V. O'Hearn 1584 

V. Oliver 1700 

V. Omaha Nat. Bank 2666 

V. Peelle 2592, 2593 

V. Penman 2541 

V. People's &c. Asso. 2419 

V. Pepper 2075 

V. Pike 2278 

V. Plainstea 2270 

V. Plym 2487 

V. Polke 2603 
V. Portsmouth Sav. Bank 1618, 2055, 

2598 

V. Privitt 2283 

V. Punshon 2287 

V. Ray 2589 

V. Eayburn 1962, 1972 

V. Eeddick 2276 

V. Reesa 1579 

V. Rhoades 2594 

V. Eice 2456 

V. Richie 2267, 2271 

V. Riggs 2450 

V. Ross 2122, 2133 

V. Row 2589 

V. Ruff 2595 

V. Schaack 2601 

V. Schweickardt 2235 

V. Scott 2291 

V. Seals 2490 

V. Sewell 2276 

V. Shaffner 2450 

V. Shattuck 2485 

V. Shay 2593 

V. Shee 2258 

V. Shelton 2025, 2111 

V. ShufE 2290 

V. Shuford 2143 

V. Simms 2288 

V. Sims 2110, 2111 

V. Smith 2599 

V. Soper 2288 
V. Spencer 2276, 2281, 2285, 2286 

V. Stanley 2588 

V. Standard &c. Asso. 2419 

V. Stark 2281, 2285 

V. Steele 1701 

V. Stewart 1664 

V. Story 1597 

V. Superior Court 1589 

V. Swope 2460 

V. Thiele 2277 

V. Thompson 1938, 1997 

v.. Tillinghast 2490, 2491 

V. Towne 2596 

v. Underwood 2110 

V. Vann 2281 



V. 



V. 
V. 



V. 



state V. Van Tassell 2288 

V. Vlneennes Univ. 1932 

V. Vinson 2143 

V. Walford 2600 

V. Ward 197* 

V. Warren 2236 

V. Wenzel 2588 

V. Wertzell 2072 

White 1698, 2457, 2491, 2600 

Whittier 2272 

Wiggins 1692 

Williams 2124, 2253, 2490 

Williamstown &c. Co. 2599 

Wilner 2276 

Wilson 2490 

Windsor 2288, 2289 

Woodward 2528 

V. Worthingham 2486, 2490 

State Bank v. Fearing 2073 

V. Byrne 1840 

v. McCabe 1836 

V. Napier 1835 

V. Wilson 2585 

State Board v. Citizens' St. R. Co. 1940 

State Ins. Co. y. Belford 2850 

V. Schrack 2327 

Staub V. Benthuysen 2475 

Stauflter v. Young 2129, 2134, 2135 

Staunton, In re 1816 

Staunton v. Goshorn 2473 

Stayton v. State 2452 

Stead v. Salt 1657 

Steam Packet Co. v. Bradley 1589 

Steamboat Co. v. Wilmington R. Co. 

2530 

Stean v. Anderson 2651 

Steam v. Clifford 2627 

Stearns v. Cope 1655, 1665 

V. Farrand 1777 

V. Gosselin 2146 

V. Marsh . 1798 

V. Ontario Spinning Co. 2498 

V. Page 1609 

y. Sampson 1689 

V. Vincent 2668 

Stebbin's Estate, In re 2231 

Stedman v. Eveleth 1947 

Steed, In re 1800 

Steed V. Baker 2124 

Steedman v. Dobbins 1709 

Steeds v. Steeds 1598 

Steel V. Kurtz 2204 

V. Smelting Co. 2072 

V. Solid Silver &c. Co. 1637 

Steele v. Dodd 1748 

V. Grand Trunk &c. Co. 1589 

V. Helm 2689 

V. Holladay 2673 

V. Kinkle 2124, 2127 

V. Marsicano 1998 

V. Price 2697, 2698 

V. Taylor 1853 

V. Townsend 

Steeple v. Downing 

Steer v. Brown 

Steere v. Tiffany 

Steers v. Shaw 

Stegall V. Huff 

Steger v. Bush 

Stehman v. Crull 

Stehman's Appeal 

Stein V. Bowman 

V. Burden 

V. Dahm 

V. Fogarty 

V. Grand Ave. B. Co. 
V. Stein 



2039, 



Steinbach v. Relief Ins. Co. 



1915 
2053 
2000 
1577 
1589 
2050 
1798 
2039 
1601 
2196, 2199 
1972, 2531 
1577 
1840 
2013, 2510 
2486 
2073 



cl 



TABLE OF CASES. 



IBeferences are to Sections.'] 



Steinback v. Diepenbroct 

T. Fitzpatrick 

V. State 
Steinecke v. Marx 
Stefner v. Epplnger 

v. Jeffries 

V. Parsons 
Steinhart v. Nat. Bank 
Stelnke's Will 
Steinman v. Magnus 

V. McWilllama 
Steinmetz v. Kelly 
Stemmer v. Scottish Ins. Co. 1665, 
Stephens v. Atkins Bros. 

T. Baird 

V. Berry 

T. Gardner Creamery Co. 

T. Hambleton 

V. Moore 

V. Vaughan 
Stephenson v. Bankers' &c. Asso. 

V. Cady 

V. Little 

V. Martin 

V. Oatman 

V. Reeves 

T. State 2007, 

T. Thayer 

T. Wright 
Stepp V. National &c. Asso. 2303, 
Sterling v. Mercantile &c. Ins. Co. 

V. Warden 1698, 

Stermau v. Marx 
Stern v. Filene 

V. Michigan Cent. E. Co. 1895, 
Sternfels v. Metropolitan &c. E. Co. 
Sternfield v. Park &c. Ins. Co. 
Stetlar v. Nellis" 
Stetson V. Faxon 2526, 

T. Godfrey 
Steuben Co. Bank v. Alberger 
Stevens v. Boston &c. Co. 

V. Connecticut &c. Ins. Co. 

V. Dennett 

V. Dillman 

V. Flannagan 

V. Faucet 

V. Fisher 

V. Fuller 

V. Gainesville Nat. Bank 

V. Gray 

V. Griffith 

V. Handly 

V. Hauser 2040, 

V. Hollister 

V. Judson 

V. Leonard 2690, 2692, 2693, 



V. Lloyd 

V. Ludlum 

V. Lyford 

V. Martin 

V. McClure 

V. McLachlan 

V. McNamara 

V. Moore 

V. Norfolk 

V. Robinson 

V. Rogers 

V. Ross 

V. Saginaw 

V. State 

V. Stevens 



V. Vancleve 

V. Warren 
Stevens' Estate 
Stevenson v. Belknap 



2033, 2146, 

2686, 2690, 

2143, 



2071, 



1972 



2486, 
2692, 
8276, 
2381, 
2230, 
2640, 



2385 
2060 
2589 
2452 
2096 
5580 
2124 
2576 
2697 
1596 
2140 
1698 
1667 
2083 
2072 
1607 
2538 
2057 
2044 
1789 
2391 
2629 
2668 
2080 
1667 
2065 
2273 
2672 
2005 
2355 
2124 
1699 
2457 
2617 
1902 
2015 
2336 
1702 
2531 
1604 
1741 
2508 
2442 
2070 
2163 
2206 
2553 
2027 
2148 
2582 
1664 
2062 
1983 
2064 
1843 
2123 

2696, 
2701 
1698 
2074 
1979 
1617 
2614 
1828 
2053 
2124 
1571 
2154 
2461 
1610 
1609 
2278 

2659, 
2697 
2281 
2385 
2231 
2645 



Stevenson v. Morris 




1976, 


1982 


Steward v. Hinkel 






1732 


Stewart v. Ashley 






2264 


V. 


Babbs 






2248 


V. 


Crosby 






1856 


V. 


Davis 




1732 


2618 


V. 


Drake 




1957 


1959 


V. 


Feeley 


2103, 


2109 


2110 


V. 


Fenner 




2134, 


2141 


V. 


Galveston &c. R. 


Co. 




2522 


V. 


Gilruth 






2620 


V. 


Harriman 






2092 


V. 


Hawley 






2120 


V. 


Hopkins 






2586 


V. 


Keith 






2586 


V. 


Lispenard 






2276 


V. 


Long 




2666, 


2671 


V. 


Lyman 






1743 


V. 


Maddox 






2115 


V. 


Martin 






2660 


V. 


Marvel 






2621 


V. 


McFarland 






2466 


V. 


Minneapolis Tribune Co. 


2458 


V. 


Ohio River R. Co 






2519 


V. 


Powers 






2206 


V. 


Redditt 






2291 


V. 


Ripon 


1989, 


1991, 


1992 


V. 


Robinson 






2543 


V. 


Severance 






2134 


V. 


Smith 


2634, 


2639 


2641 


V. 


Sonneborn 2472, 


2473, 


2475 


2483 


V. 


Spedden 






2046 


V. 


State 




1971, 


2289 


V. 


Stearns 






1861 


V. 


Stewart 


2067, 


2687, 


2693 


V. 


Stone 




1765 


1785 


V. 


Supreme Council 




2421 


2423 


V. 


Thomas 




2132. 


2149 


V. 


Union Mut. &c. Ins. Co. 


2298 


V. 


Wyoming Cattle &c. Co 




2148 


Stewart's Estate, In re 






2089 


Stewart's Will 






2697 


Stickley v. Mobile Ins. 


Co. 




2311 


Stlckney v. Allen 






2672 


v. 


Smith 






2541 


Stlckney, Matter of 






2697 


Stiff 


V. Cobb 






1620 


V. 


Fisher 






1744 


Stiles 


V. Laurel &e. Oil 


&c. Co. 


2469 


V. 


Llghtfoot 






2126 


V. 


Stiles 






2033 


V. 


Vanderwater 






1843 


still 


V. Halford 




1658, 


1659 


V. 


Hutto 






2187 


Stillwell T. Farewell 






2671 


Stilson V. Tobey 






2022 


Stimson v. Connecticut &c. R 


. Co. 


1905 


V. 


Milwaukee &c. R 


. Co. 




1902 


V. 


Railroads 






1982 


V. 


Whitney 






2574 


Stinchfleld y. Emerson 






2189 


Stinson v. Davis 






1667 


Stirling V. Winter 






2460 


Stith 


V. FulUnwider 






2456 


Stitt 


V. State 






2014 


Stlx V. Pump 






1747 


V. 


Sadler 






2130 


Stock 


V. Reynolds 






1743 


Stockbridge v. West Stockbrldge 


1938 


Stocker v.- Harris 






2442 


Stocking V. State 






2596 


Stockley v. Cissna 






1618 


Stocks V. Dobson 






1714 


Stocksdale v. CulUson 






2688 


Stockton V. Frey 






1991 


v. 


Gelssler 




1620, 


•2059 


V. 


Morris 






2049 


V. 


Stockton 






2595 



TABLE OF CASES. 



oli 



IReferences are to Sections.'] 



Stockton V. Williams 2199 
Stockton Harv. &c. Works v. Houser 

1933 
Stockton Sav. Bank v. Staples 1621 

Stockwell V. State 2050 

v. United States 2020 

Stoddard v. Johnson 2071 

Stoddard Mfg. Co. v. Krause 2574 

Stoeckman v. Terre Haute &c. R. Co. 

2512 

Stoelke v. Hahn 2311 

Stoever v. Gloninger 1582 

Stokeley V. Gordon 2211 

V. Eobinson 1658 

Stoker v. Schwab 1932 

Stokes T. Lewis 1728 

V. Mackay 1732 

V. Taylor 2576 

Stone V. Atwood 1664 

V. Boston &c. E. Co. 2522, 2523 

T. Brown 2465 

V. Clark 1850, 1854 

V. Congregational Soc. 1936 

V. Damon 2692 

V. Evans 1952 

T. Griffin 2236 

V. Hubbard 2654 

V. Langworthy 2511 

V. Miller 1594, 2578 

V. Parmalee 2467 

V. Powell 2474 

V. Sanborn 1869, 1870 

1 T. Seattle 2516 

V. Spencer 1751 

V. Tupper 2584 

V. United States &c. Co. 2405 

T. Varney 2003, 2459 

Stonehouse v. Elliott 1699 

Stoody V. Detroit &c. E. Co. 1903 

Storer v. Freeman 1850, 2210 

Storey t. Early 2458 

T. Wallace 2450, 2457 

Storrie v. Grand Trunk El. Co. 2509 

Storm, In re 1813 

Storr T. James 2654 

Storrs v. Barker 2072 

Storr's School v. Whitney 2236 

Story V. Atkins 1607 

V. Bishop 1710 

V. Chicago &c. E. Co. 2504 

V. Elliott 1654 

V. Veach 2503 

Storz T. Pinklestein 1756 

Stott V. Chicago 2599 

Stoudt V. Shepherd 2630, 2631, 2637, 

2641, 2644 

Stouffer v. Latshaw 2181 

T. Niple 1743 

Stout, In re 1820 

Stout V. Coffin 1911 

V. Judd 1834 

V. McPheeters 2039 

Stoutimore v. Clark 1932 

StouTenel t. Stephens 2009 

Stover V. Flack 1728 

V. Mitchell 2184 

V. Poole 2124 

Stow V. Scribuer 2656 

V. Tarwood 2672 

Stowe V. Bishop 2509, 2510 

V. Miles 2528, 2533 

V. New York &c. R. Co. 1908 

Stowell V. Beagle 2452, 2454, 2457 

V. Lincolb 1972 

Stoytes V. Pearson 1951 

Strader v. Mullane 2140 

V. Snyder 2454 

V. White 2551 



Strain v. Sweeny 
Strang y. Holmes 
Strange y. King 
Strasburger v. Barber 
Strasser v. Conklin 



2206 
1597 
2057 
1994 
1597 



Stratton v. Dole 1882, 1888, 1893 

V. O'Connor 2551 

Straus V. Kohn 2554 

V. Young 2475, 2479 

Strauss v. Abrahams 1737, 1738, 1745 

V. Kranert 2129 

V. Nat. Parlor &c. Co. 2619, 2620 

V. Seamon 1742 

Straw V. Societies 2242 

Strawbridge v. Robinson 1824 

V. Spann 1636 

Strawn v. Strawn 2256 

Strecker v. Conn 2570, 2574 

Streeper v. Williams 2000 

Street v. Augusta Ins. &c. Co. 2446 

V. Blay 2629 

Streeter v. Horlock 1717 

V. Rush 2000 

V. Sumner 1723 

Strehlow v. Pettit 2479 

Stribley v. Welz 2489 

Strieker v. Barnes 1831 

Strickier v. Todd 1858 

Strike v. Wisconsin &c. Ins. Co. 2385 

Strimpfler v. Roberts 1635 

Stringer v. Northwestern Mut. L. 

Ins. Co. 2270 

Strite V. Reiff 1654 

Strode v. Conkey 2510 

T. Magowan 2186, 2486 

V. Strode 2071 

Strong V. Adams 2650 

V. Baker 2565 

V. Grannls 2181 

V. Hobbs 2656 

V. Lawrence 2154 

V. Moul 2257 

V. Slicer 2583 

T. State 2594 

V. Strong 1655, 1664, 1665 

Strosser v. Ft. Wayne 2072, 2073 

Stroup V. Stroup 2124 

Strout V. Berry 2656 

V. Gooch 2105 

Struby-Estabrook &c. Co. v. Eyes 2480 

Strum V. Baker 2626 

Struve V. Republican &c. R. Co. 1578, 

1580 
Stryker v. Cassidy 1607 
Stuart V. Bigler 1798 
V. Dutton 2039, 2065 
V. Easton 2235 
Stubbings v. Dockery 2626 
Stubbs V. Houston 2285 
V. Sargon 2225 
Stuber v. McEntee 1597 
Stubly V. Beachboard 2141 
Stuckey v. Hardy 1604, 1733 
Studdard v. Lemond 2072 
Studdy V. Sanders 1717 
Studabaker v. White 2000 
Studebaker, In re 1816 
Studebaker v. Langson 1829, 1840 
Studebaker's Mfg. Co. v. Montgom- 
ery 1940 
Stump V. Hornback 2067 
Stumpf V. Osterhage 2199 
Stupetski V. Transatlantic &c. Ins. 

Co. 2328 

Stuppy V, Hof 1703 

Sturbridge v. Franklin 2247 

Sturdevant, Appeal of 2689, 2692, 2693 

Sturgis V. Baker 1829, 1840 



clii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



IReferences are to Sections.'] 



Sturgis V. Ward 
Sturgeon v. Sturgeon 
Sturges V. Bush 

V. Crowninsliield 
Sturm V. Atlantic &c. Ins. Co, 

V. Boker 
Stuyvesant Bank, In re 
Suburban Electric Co. i 



Sugden t. St. Leonards 

Sugg V. Pool 

Suggett v.. Bank 

Sullens V. Chicago &c. E. Co. 

Sullings T. Carter 

Sullivan t. Colby 



2211 

1694, 1702 
1601 

1799, 2460 
2429 
1605 

1804, 1808 

Nugent 2012, 

2503 

2698 

2109, 2110 
1591 
2535 
2655 
2070 



V. Hartford P. Ins. Co. 2322 

T. Jefferson &c. K. Co. 1895 

v. Marin 1989 

V. Royer 2533, 2537 

T. Tioga R. Co. 2010 

Sullivan's Will, In re 2687, 2688 

Sullivan Timber Co. V. Brushagel 1604 

Sully V. Pratt 1733 

Summerall v. Tboms 1617 

Summerbell v. Summerbell 2033 

Summerlin v. Hesterly, 1854 

Summerlot v. Hamilton 2567 

Summers v. Copeland 2682 

V. Fidelity &c. Co. 2412, 2414 

V. Glancy 1755 

V. Home Ins. Co. 2345 

V. Howland 2141, 2166 

V. McKim 1733 

Summerville v. Summerville 2485, 2494 

Sumner, In re 1818 

Sumner v. Hamlet 2624 

V. Thorp 1610 

Sun Fire Office r. Clark 2327 

Sun Ins. Co. v. Kountz Line 2071 

Sun Ins. Office v. Merz 2371 

Sun Pub. &c. Co. V. Scheuck 2452, 2458 

Sundmacher v. Block 2111 

Sunnyside Coal &c. Co. v. Eeltz 2659 

Supervisors &c. v. Decker 2124 

Supreme Commandery v. Ainsworth 

2397 

Supreme Council v. Anderson 2427 

V. Garrigus 2399 

Supreme Council &c. v. Boyle 2386, 

2401 
V. Brashears 2301 

V. Conklln 2386, 2395, 2399, 2421 
Supreme Council Chosen Friends v. 



Bennett 
Supreme Lodge &c. v. Beck 
V. Foster 
V. Jaggers 
V. Johnson 
T. Matejowsky 



2204 
2388 
2392 
2389 
2421, 2423 
2304, 2306, 2372, 
2373 
1941 
2301 



V. Robbing 
V. Wollschlager 
Supreme Tent &c. v. Stensland 2346, 
2388 2392 
Supreme Tribe v. Hall 1626,' 2584 

Surtell V. Brallsford 1585 

Sussdort V. Schmidt 1732 

Susquehanna Fertilizer Co. v. Ma- 
lone 2528, 25,38 
T. Spangler 2537 
Susquehanna &e. Ins. Co. v. Elkins 

2298, 2300 
V. Gackenbach 2425 

V. Tnnkhannock Toy Co. 2339 

Sutherland v. Albany &c. Co. 1779 

V. Ingalls 2654 

V. Standard &c. Ins. Co. 2293, 2404, 

2406 



Sutherland v. Troy &c. R. Co. 
Suttle V. Richmond &c. R, Co. 

Sutton V. American &c. Ins. Co. 

2344, 

V. Baldwin 2576, 

V. Calhoun 

V. Casselleggi 

V. Howard 

V. Johnstone 

V. McConnell 

V. McLeod 

V. New York &c. E. Co. ■ 

V. Pollard 

V. Sadler 2277, 

V. Stephan 
Suydam v. Columbus Ins. Co. 
Swails V. State 
Swain v. Edmunds 

V. Knapp 1604, 

V. Schieffelin 1989, 

Swaine v. Stafford 
Swan v. Middlesex 

V. Munch 

V. Thompson 
Swann v. Sanborn 
Swanson v. Mississippi & E. B. Co. 
Swar-ts V. St. Louis Fourth Nat. 

Bank 
Swasey v. American Bible Soc. 

T. Jaques 
Swatts V. Bowen 
Swayne v. Waldo 
Swayze's Exr's. v. Carter 
Swazey v. Blackman 
Sweeney v. Metropolitan &c. Ins. 
Co. 2302, 2373, 

V. Perney 2474, 

V. Reilly 1574, 

Sweeny v. Franklin F. Ins. Co. 

V. Montana &c. E. Co. 
Sweet V. Boyd 1690, 

V. Burton 

V. Dutton 2194, 

V. Providence &c. E. Co. 

V. Tuttle 
Sweetland v. Hill 

V. Stetson 
Sweetser v. Mellick 
Sweezey v. Willis 2200, 2201, 

Sweigart v. Lowmarter 
Sweney v. Talcott 
Swenson's Estate, In re 
Swerdterger v. Hopkins 
Swick V. Home L. Ins. Co. 2301, 

Swift V. Agnes 
V. Broyles 

V. Massachusetts &c. Ins. Co. 
V. Mulkey 
V. Smith 
v. Union &c. Ins. Co. 2432, 

Swift Co. V. United States 

Swift Electric Light Co. v. Grant 

Swift Elver Co. v. Brown 

Swift & Co. V. Eutkowski 

Swing V. Parkersburg &c. Co. 

Swink V. French 

Swindle v. State 

Swinneaton v. Columbian Ins. Co. 

SwofCord Bros. v. Smlth-McCord 

Swope V. Donnelly 

V. Paul 2662, 2667, 

V. Shafer 
Sword V. Wickersham 
Syers v. Chapman 
Sykes, Goods of 



2505 
2039, 

2057 
2343, 

2472 
2580 
2053 
1621 
2000 
2473 
2478 
2065 
2501 
2055 
2291 
2612 
2313 
2589 
2684 
1607 
1994 
2476 
2007 
1818 
2447 
2659 
2530 

1811 
2236 
2204 
1823 
2629 
2072 
2682 

2374 
2475 
1576 
2308 
2005 
1697 
2063 
2205 
2015 
2006 
1578 
2650 
2628 
2202 
1601 
1932 
2206 
1621 

2302, 
2374 
2057 
1993 
2376 
1617 
1824 

2433, 
2437 
1730 
2510 
1726 
2503 
2424 
2197 
2450 
1584 
1752 
2688 
2668 
2039 
1932 
169T 
2700 



TABLE OF CASES. 



eliii 



IReferences are to Sections. 1 



Sykes v. People 

V. Sykes 
Sylvester v. Casey 
Sylvester's Case 
Symns Grocery Co. v. Snow 



1938 
2699 
2515 
1584 
1746 



T. B. Scott Lumber Co. v. Hafner- 

Lotham Mfg. Co. 2628 

Taaffe v. Slevin 2109, 2116 

Tabb V. Gist 2544 

Taber v. China &c. Ins. Co. 2303 

y. Ferguson 2072 

V. Hutson 1703, 2659 

Tabert v. Cooley 2475 

Tabler v. Hannibal &c. E. Co. 2501 

Tabor v. Judd 2648 

Tacoma v. Commercial Electric &c. 

Co. 1589 

Tacoma Coal Co. v. Bradley 2622, 2628 
Taft V. Montague 1717 

Taggard v. Loring 2429 

Tague V. John Caplice Co. 1727 

Tahoe Ice Co. v. Union Ice Co. 2628 
Tainter v. Clark 2235 

Talbot V. Copeland 1846 

Talbott V. English 1596 

Talbotton R. Co. v. Gibson 1602, 1604 
Talcot V. Commercial Ins. Co. 2432, 

2433 
Talcott V. Crippen 2005 

V. Chew 1606 

V. Wabash E. Co. 1905 

Taliaferro v. Travelers' &c. Asso. 2399 
Talkin v. Anderson 1850 

Talley v. Beever 2498 

V. Courier 2005 

Tallman v. Atlantic &c. Ins. Co. 2308 

V. Hoey 1711 

V. Tallman 1660, 1665 

Talmadge v. Baker 2457 

Talmage v. Smith 1699 

Talmon v. Citizens' &c. Ins. Co. 2331 
Talty V. Preedman's Sav. &c. Co. 1798 
Tamblyn v. Johnston 2471 

Tamke v. Vangsnes 1872, 1886, 1888, 

1890 
Tanner, In re 

Tanner v. Merrill 1596, 

Tanner &c. Co. V. Hall 
Tantum v. Green 
Tapley v. Herman 

V. Tapley 
Tappan v. Deblois 

V. Tappan 
Tappan's Appeal 
Tarbell v. Farmer's &c. Co. 
Tarbox v. Eastern &c. Co. 
Tarbuck v. Bispham 
Tarleton v. McGawley 
Tarver v. Rankin 
Tarwater v. Hannibal E. Co. 
Tasker v. Crane Co. 

V. Stanley 1576, 1642, 



V. Tasker 
Tassey v. Church 
Tate V. Clements 

V. Greensboro 

V. Sullivan 

V. Tate 
Tatham v. Wright 
Tatnall v. Courtney 
Tatro V. Bailey 
Taussig v. Bode 

V. Scbields 



1804 

1599, 2510 

2555, 2560 

2151 

1833 

2170, 2175 

2242, 2243 

1617, 2057 

2236 

2587 

1911, 1968 

1605 

1994 

2027 

2501 

2619 

1643, 1645, 

1646, 2146 

1643 

1606 

2573 

1971 

1838 

2685 

2701 

1702, 1708, 200.5 

1730 

1779, 1784, 1786, 1788 

1793 



Tayloe v. Bush 2553 

V. Merchants' &c. Ins. Co. 2295, 
2313, 2353, 2358 

V. Sandiford 2586 

Taylor v. Adams 1692, 2039 

V. Alexander 2108, 2109 

V. Armstrong 1847 

V. Atwood 1709 

V. Bray 1994, 2200, 2202 

V. Carryl 1754 

V. Cole 2653 

V. Connor 1639 

V. Coryell 1665 

V. Cottrell 2181, 2182 

V. Cox 2687, 2697 

V. Cranberry Iron Co. 2460 

V. Creswell 2276 

V. Dansby 1826 

V. Duesterberg 2094 

V. Dustin 1994 

V. Eckford ' 2163 

V. Eubanks 2154 

V. Pelsing 2502 

V. Fomby 1849 

V. Foster 2466 

V. French 1830 

V. Gay 1831 

v. Gooch 2044 

V. Gran* Trunk E. Co. 2510 

V. Great India Pa. E. Co. 2070 

V. Guest 2137, 2138 

V. Hargous 1571 

V. Hayes 2659 

V. Hearn 2259, 2518 

V. Herring 2562 

V. Jacques 2182, 2183 

V. Kelly 2688 

V. Kymer 2586 

V. Laird 1717 

V. Long 2006 

V. Lowell 2432, 2435 

V. McConigle 1853 

V. Merchants' &c. Ins. Co. 2311 

V. Merrill 1625 

V. Mississippi Mills 2624 

V. Monnot 1797 

V. Monroe 1978, 1979, 1985 

V. Morton 1982 

V. New Orleans 2466 

V. Page 1601, 2401, 2402 

V. Eoblnsou 2143 

V. Sayre 1665 

V. Shelkett 2630, 2643, 2646 

V. Snyder 1830 

V. Spears 2461 

V. State Ins. Co. 2288, 2291, 2339, 

2490 

V. Sullivan 2590 

V. Taylor 2049 

V. Thuring 1608 

V. Tolen 2223, 2242 

V. Trich 2689 

V. Webster 2560, 2567 

V. Whiting 2190, 2193 

V. Wllburn 2696 

V. Wllllans 2473 

V. Wilson 2576 

Taylor's Appeal 2699 

Taylor's Succession 2491 

Taylor &c. E. Co. v. Taylor 2520 

Tayon v. Ladew 1573, 2055 

Tea V. Gates 2670 

Teal V. Pelton 2663 

V. Fissel 2470 

V. Langsdale 2052 

Teasley v. Bradley 1613 

Teat's Case 1954 

Tebbets v. Hapgood 2248 



cliv 



TABLE OP OASES. 



[References are to Sections.'] 



Tebba v. Cleveland &c. K. Co. 1981 

Teed, In re 2236 

Teegarden v. Lewis 2690 

Teel T. Miles 2614 

Teeple v. Dickey 2610 

Teerpfoning v. Corn &c. Ins. Co. 2006 

Teese v. Huntington 1982 

Tefft V. Marsh 1868, 1869, 1870 

V. Wilcox 1991 

Teinen t. Lally 2528 

Telephone &c. Co. v. Shaw 1997 

Telfer v. Northern E. Co. 1995 

Temescal &c. Co. v. Salcido 1578 

Temperance Hall Asso. v. Giles 2505, 

2506, 2514 

Temple v. Baker 1843 

V. Equitable &c. Co. 2259 

Templeton t. Ferguson 2082 

V. Lowry 2067 

V. Twitty 2257 

Ten Byck v. Craig 1711 

V. Pontiac &c. E. Co. 1940 

Tennant t. Hamilton 2533 

T. Travelers' Ins. Co. 2298, 2299, 

2415 

Tennessee Coal &c. Co. v. Linn 1622 

V. Sargent 2611, 2613 

Tennessee Mfg. Co. v. Haines 1668 

Tennessee &c. E. Co. v. Tulfiviler 2039 

Tenney v. Diss 1745 

V. Evans 1648 

V. Harvey 2109 

V. Eapid City 2006 

Tenny v. Tuttle 2523 

Tepoel V. Saunders &c. Bank 2124 

Terhune v. Colton 2586 

Terpening v. Skinner 2206, 2212 

Terre Haute v. Hudnut 1994 

Terre Haute &c. E. Co. v. Buck 1903, 

1989, 2010, 2498 

V. Harris 1668 

V. Mason 2480 

V. McCorkle 1923, 2503 

V. McMurray 1635 

V. Sheeks 1900, 1903 

V. Sherwooa 1916, 3920 

V. Voelker 2501 

Territory v. Padilla 2289 

Terrell v. Butterfield 2611, 2666 

V. Green 2144 

V. Weymouth 2071 

Terrett v. Taylor 2236 

TerwiUiger v. Supreme Council &c. 

„ 2376 

Terry y. Birmingham Nat. Bank 1943, 

„ ^ 19*5 

V. BuiBngton 2276 

V. Chandler 1857 

V. Foster 2226, 2227 

V. Imperial Fire Ins. Co. 2287 

V. Munger 1603 

V. Warder 1733 

Tescher v. Merea 1824 

Teter v. Teter 2486, 2487, 2488, 2492, 

2494 

Tetrault v. O'Connor 2006 

Tewksbury v. Howard 1628 

V. Tewksbury 2033 

Texas Banking Co. v. Hutchins 2357 

Texas M. E. Co. v. Jumper 1903 

Texas Pae. R. Co. v. Smith 1620 

Texas &e. Co. v. National &c. Co. 1948 

Texas &c. Ins. Co. v. Stone 2420 

Texas &c. E. Co. v. Adams 1917 

V. Arnold 1920 

V. Bailey 2278 

V- Barnhart I917 

V. Black 1897 



Texas &c. E. Co. v. Bowlln 1986 

V. Brick 2519 

T. Curry 1986 

V. Eddy 2006, 2007 

V. Gentry 2498 

V. Hall 2013 

V. Maloue 1991 

V. Thompson 2519 

V. Volk 1995, 2521 

Thacher v. Phinney 2146, 2154 

Thallhimer v. Brinckerhoff 1731 

Thames v. Eembert 2126, 2144 

Tharpe v. Stallwood 2082 

Thatcher v. Dinsmore 2579 

V. Hayes 1611 

V. Massey 2586 

V. McCuIloh 2442, 2444 

Thayer v. Bacon 1846 

V. Boston 2210 

V. Boyle 2002, 2140 

V. Daniels 17,14 

V. Pinton 1845 

V. Mauley 1961 

V. McGee 2588 

V. Standard &e. Ins. Co. 2412 

V. Thayer 2033, 2281 

Thebaud v. Great Western Ins. Co. 2443 

V. Phoenix Ins. Co. 2432 

Thebaut v. Canova 2528 

Theiss v. Weiss 2621 

Thelan v. Farmer 2531 

Thelin v. Dorsey 2478 

Theobold v. Eailway Pass. &c. Soc. 2399 

Theodore v. New Orleans &c. Asso. 2301 

Therasson v. People 2137 

Thibault v. Sessions 2452 

Thieband v. Sebastian 2682 

Thillman v. Neai 1691 

Third Nat. Bank v. Boyd 1798 

Thistle V. Frostburg &c. Co. 2059 

Thoen v. Eoche 1851, 1855 

Thomas, In re 1816 

Thomas, Goods of 2687 

Thomas' Will 2684 

Thomas v. Beck 2161 

V. Black 1698, 2227, 2228, 2231 

V. Brackney 2528 

V. Brown 1742 

V. Cameron 1585 

V. Carey 2463 

V. Central E. Co. 1597 

V. Chamberlain 2082, 2086 

V. De Graffenreld 1621, 2669 

V. Glendinning 2461 

V. Grand Lodge &c. 2376 

V. Grise 1726 

V. Hatch 2279 

V. Heathorn 1596 

V. Hubbell 2594 

V. Hughes 2127 

V. Hunsucker 2065 

V. Hunt 1847 

V. Isett 2659 

V. Kelly 2065 

V. Levering 2207 

V. Merry 2468 

V. Nebraska Plow Ca 1843 

V. Patten 1850 

V. Powell 2005 

V. Euddell 2124 

V. Eussell 2478 

V. Scutt 2627 

V. Snyder 2650 

V. State 2110, 2278 

V. Stevens 2211, 2223 

V. Stickle 1958 

V. Thomas 2008, 2210, 2212, 2215, 

2218, 2223 



TABLE OF CASES. 



clv 



[References are to Sections^'} 



Thomas v. ThomasviUe Shooting 

Club 1725 

V. Wells 1626 

V. Western &e. Co. 2498, 2502 

V. Whallon 2424 

V. Wiesmann 1972 

V. Wilson 1597 

Thomas &c. Co. t. Wabash &c. R. Co. 1981 

Thomasson v. Driskell • 2086 

V. Gray 1692, 1698 

V. Odum 1664 

Thomlinson v. Barnshaw 1605 

Thompson v. Adams 2039 

V. Beacon Valley Rubber Co. 2475, 

2476 
T. Beasley 2208 

T. Bennett 2695 

V. Borg 1860 

T. Boston &c. R. Co. 2505, 2521 

V. Brazile 1959 

T. Burhans 2057, 2059 

V. Church 2002 

T. Citizens' Ins. Co. 2322 

V. ClendeniDg 2635, 2641, 2645 



V. 


Davenport 


1731 


V. 


Deans 


1654 


V. 


Deprez 


2006 


V. 


Ellsworth 


2115 


V. 


First Nat. Bank 


2558 


V. 


Force 


2479 


V. 


French 


1720 


V. 


Gibson 


2534 


V. 


Gotham 


2053 


V. 


Greenwood 


1583 


V. 


Ish 


2291, 2692 


V. 


Johnston Bros. Co. 


2017 


V. 


Keteham 


1843 


V. 


Linscott 


2275 


V. 


Louisville &c. R. Co. 


2010 


V. 


Lyon 


1589 


V. 


Mitchell 


1661 


V. 


Montreal Ins. Co. 


2331, 2334 


V. 


Morris 


2148 


V. 


National Ex. Co. 


1992 


V. 


New Orleans &c. B. Co. 1972 


V. 


Niggley 


2170, 2183 


V. 


Percival 


1596 


V. 


Peter 


2086 


V. 


Philadelphia &c. Co. 


1618 


T. 


Pownlng 1982 


, 1983, 2452 


V. 


Railroad Co. 


2521 


T. 


Reed 


1734 


V. 


Ross 


2607 


V. 


St. Louis &e. Co. 


1785 


V. 


St. Louis &e. Ins. Co. 


2298, 2306, 
2322 


V. 


St. Nicholas &c. Bank 


1798 


V. 


Shepard 


2252 


V. 


Sloan 


1840 


T. 


State 


2588, 2603 


V. 


Sun Pub. Co. 


2448 


V. 


Swope 


2234 


V. 


Thompson 


2035, 2036 


V. 


Waterman 


1751, 1752 


V. 


Wright 


1743 


Thomson, In re 


2689 


Thomson-Houston &c. Co. v. 


Durant 


&c. 


Co. 


1994 


Thorburn v. Barnes 


1665 


Thoreson t. Northwestern &c. Ins. 


Co. 




2140 


Thorn v. Knapp 


1889, 1891 


V. 


Pinkham 


2179 


Thornburgh v. Hand 


2602, 2603 


Thorne v. McVeigh 


1994 


V. 


Tilburn 


2664 


Thorlngton v. Smith 


1840 


Thornton y. Dean 


1824 



2207, 



1835, 



Thornton v. McCormick 

V. Travelers' &c. Asso. 
Thorp V. Burling 

V. Carvalho 
Thorpe v. Atwood 

V. Erye 
Thrall v. Knapp 

V. Lanthrop 

V. Newell 

V. Wright 
Thrasher v. Bentley 

V. Stonington 
Three-foot v. Nuckols 
Threshing Mach. Co. v. Peterson 
Throckmorton v. Holt 
Throop V. Sherwood 
Thurber v. Chambers 

V. Sprague 
Thurman v. Wild 
Thurmond v. Sanders 
Thursby v. Plant 
Thurston v. Cornell 

T. Hancock 

V. Wright 2479, 

Thurtell v. Beaumont 
Thwing V. Great Western Ins Co. 

Tibbe v. Kemp 2693, 

Tice V. Fleming 

V. Munn 
Tichenor v. Brewer 

V. Newman 
Tickell V. Bea:d 
Tickner v. Roberts 
Ticknor's Estate 
Ticonic Bank v. Stackpole 
Tidden v. Raab 

Tidmarsh v. Washington &e. Ins. 
■ Co. 

Tidswell, In re 
Tiebout v. Millican 
Tiernay v. Whiting 
Tierney, In re 

Tietz V. Philadelphia &e. Co. 
Tift V. Wight &c. Co. 
Tilford V. Miller 
Tilghtman v. Fisher 
Till V. Collier 
Tillet V. Linsey 
Tilley v. American &c. Asso. 

V. Hudson River &e. R. Co. 
Tillman v. Allies 

V. Davis 
Tillotson V. Preston 

V. Prichard 1856, 

V. Smith 1962, 

TlUou V. Kingston &c. Ins. Co. 
Tilson V. Warwick Gas Co. 
Tilton V. American Bible Society 

2233, 

V. Hamilton &e. Ins. Co. 

V. Tilton 
Timms v. Shannon 
Timon V. Claffy 
Timothy v. Simpson 
Tindall v. McCarthy 
Tinder v. Tinder 
Tindle v. Birkett 
Tingley v. Providence 
Tingue v. Port Chester 
Tinker v. Catliu 
Tinsley v. Fruits 
Tippets V. Heane 

Tipton Fire Co. v. Barnheisel 1935 

Tlsdale v. Connecticut Mut. L. Ins^ 

Co. 2008, 2009, 

V. Essex 
Tise V. Shaw 



1665 
2412 
2650 
2102 
2057 
1668 
2005 
2070 
1826 
2264 
1709 
1730 
2476 
1823 
2688 
1605 
2206 
1596 
1597 
1605 
1952 
2146 
2525 
2483 
2140 
2303, 
2355 
2696 
2067 
1989 
2242 
2629 
1701 
1837 
2236 
1838 
2627 

2436 
1665 
1571 
1959 
2235 
1985 
2618 
2576 
2577 
2259 
2466 
2000 
1995 
1726 
2205 
2648 
1861 
1972 
2310 
2020 
2211, 
2242 
2331 
2218 
2124 
2698 
2111 
1788 
2206 
2137 
2006 
1968 
1830 
2077 
2467 
1948 

2386 
1958 
2039 



elvi 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to Sections.^ 



Tison T. Broward 
Titcomb v. Vantyle 
Tltlow ¥. Titlow 
Titterington v. Trees 
Titus V. Corkius 

V. Glens Falls Ins. Co. 



2283, 



2336, 
2356, 

V. Scantling 
Tobey V. Secor 1623, 

Tobias v. Treist 
Tobin v. Jenkins 

V. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 

V. Shaw 1867, 1871, 1886, 

V. Western &e. Soc. 
Tode V. Gross 
Todd, In re 
Todd T. Fentou 

V. Jackson 1699, 

V. Keene 1972, 

V. Rennick 

V. Second Ave. &c. Co. 1985, 

V. Todd 

V. Troy 
Toebbe t. Williams 2697, 

Tognazzini v. Morganti 
Tolan T. Hodgeboom 
Toland v. Sprague 
Toledo &c. R. Co. v. Bailey 

V. Beggs 1895, 

V. Brannagan 

V. Brooks 

V. Chew 

T. Goddard 

T. Roberts 
ToUe V. Alley 
Tolman v. Smith 
Tolson V. Mainor 
Tompkins v. Clay St. R. Co. 

V. Hollister 

V. Knut 

V. Nichols 2127, 

y. Saltmarsh 1784, 

V. Wisener 
Tombler v. Reitz 2259, 

Tomle V. Hampton 
Tomlinson v. Derby 1978, 1979, 

Tompson v. Dashwood 

Tones v. Sills 

Toof V. Martin 1800, 

Toole V. Toole 

Tooley v. Railway &c. Co. 

Toomey v. London &c. R. Co. 1895, 

Tootle T. Clifton 

Topham v. Braddick 

Topliff V. Jackson 

Topeka V. Sherwood 

Topeka Mfg. Co. v. Hale 

Topeka Water Supply Co. v. Root 

Torian v. McClure 

Torsch V. Dell 

Torrance v. Betsy 

Torrence v. Graham 

Torres y. Rogers 

Torry y. Black 

Totten V. James 

V. Read 
Tourgee v. Rose 

Tourtellot v. Rosebrook 1923, 

Tourtelotte y. Pearce 
Tousaint y. Martinuant 1723, 

Tousley y. Barry 

v. Galena &c. 
Toussaint v. Hartop 
Towers y. Barrett 
Towle V. Blake 1702, 

V. Pacific Improyement Co. 
Towles y. Tanner 



2652 
2279 
2690 
1852 
1982 
2338, 
2359 
1654 
1857 
1762 
2283 
2501 
1892 
2428 
2000 
1816 
2696 
2651 
1974 
2698 
1991 
2249 
2513 
2700 
1855 
1729 
1607 
2016 
1903 
1895 
1895 
1732 
2501 
1907 
1591 
2148 
2065 
1597 
2148 
1701 
2153 
1795 
2454 
2263 
2524 
1985, 
1988 
2451 
1605 
1801 
2033 
2405 
2503 
1972 
1601 
2562 
2517 
1947 
2279 
2611 
2117 
2039 
1664 
2612 
2672 
2065 
1888 
2641 
2495 
1618 
1728 
1715 
1847 
1665 
1723 
2565 
2523 
2071 



Town Council v. Burnett 2179 

Towne v. Jaquith 1660 

V. St. Anthony Elevator Co. 2671 

Townes y. Birchett 1607 

Townsend v. Briggs 1691 

V. First Freewill Baptist Church 

1945 

V. French 1609 

V. Hayt • 1844 

V. Howard 2697 

y. Kerns 2648, 2650 

V. Michigan Cent. B. Co. 1571, 1579 

y. Pepperell 2279, 2289, 2692 

y. RadclifCe 2204 

Townsend Sav. Bank v. Todd 2077 

Townsend's Estate, In re 2694 

Townshend v Townshend 2276, 2287 

Towsey y. Shook 1826 

Tozier v. Merriam 2610 

Tracy v. Hacket 2003 

V. Herrick 1661, 1665 

y. Norwich &c. R. Co. 2039 

Trader's Nat. Bank v. Day 1751 

Traders' &c. Co. v. Wagley 2407 

Trafton v. Hawes 1956 

Train v. Holland &c. Ins. Co. 2294, 2298 

Trainer y. Seymour 2466 

Trainor v. German-Am. &c. Asso. 1604 

y. Worman 2350 

Traitel v. Dwyer 1607 

Trammell v. Russellville 2113, 2121 

V. Vaughan 1885, 1890 

Trans-Atlantic &c. Ins. Co. v. Dor- 

sey 2333 

Transportation Co. y. Chicago 1971 

V. Downer 1916 

Traphagen v. Fidelity &c. Co. 2404 

V. Voorhees 1596, 2140 

Trapnall v. Hattler 2604 

Trapnell v. Red Oak Junction 2498, 2501 

Trask, In re 1808 

Trask v. State &c. Ins. Co 

Traster v. Snelson 

Travelers' Ins. Co. 

V. Dunlap 

v. Duvall 

V. Edwards 

V. Harvey 

V. Jones 



2326, 2348 
1956 
Chappelow 2576 
2413 
2414 
2359 
2414 
2408 

V. McConkey 2391, 2399, 2401, 2410, 

2412 

V. Melick 

V. Mosley 

V. Murray 2411, 

V. Myers 

V. Nicklas 2388, 2390, 

V. Nitterhouse 2387, 



2399 

2376 
2412, 2414 

2326 
2391, 2392 
2391, 2394, 
2396, 2401 

2405 
2403, 2405, 



V. Randolph 

V. Seaver 2403, 2405, 2408 

V. Selden 2399 

y. Sheppard 2345, 2386, 2401 

Travellers' Ins. &c. v. Tount 1854 

Travelers' &c. Asso. v. Stone 2399 

Trayers v. McBlvain 2059 

V. Murray 2498 

Travis v. Barger 2637, 2644 

V. Smith 2117, 2472 

Trawick v. Martin Brown Co. 1590 

Treadwell v. Whittler 1988 

Treacy v. Barclay 1765, 1780 

Treat v. Barber 2004 

V. Price 1596, 1599 

V. Union Ins. Co. 2435 

Treat's Appeal 2243 

Tredwell v. Graham 2145 

Treece v. American Asso. 1617 

Treloar v. Lean 2686 



TABLE OF OASES. 



elvii 



[References are to SectionsJ\ 



Trenouth v. Gilbert 
Trenton v. Mutual &c. Ins. Co. 
Trenton Banking Co. v. Duncan 
Trenton &c. Ins. Co. v. Jolinson 

2370, 2371, 
Trew T. Railway &c. Assur. Co. 



Trexler v. Miller 
Trezevant v. Rains 
Tribble v. Anderson 
Trice V. Kayton 
Tri-City R. Co. v. Brennan 
Tridell T. Munball 
Trieber t. Andrews 
Trimble v. State 

T. Trimble 
Trinity College v. 

Co. 
Tripp V. Fausett 
Trippe v. Frazier 

V. Provident Fund Soc. 



Travelers' Ins. 
2371, 



2235, 
2326, 
2359, 
Triplett v. Rugby Distilling Co. 
Triscony v. Orr 
Tritschler v. Benefit Asso. 
Trotter v. Trotter 2086, 2227, 

Trow V. Vermont Cent. R. Co. 
Trowbridge v. Bullard 
Troxell v. Johnson 
Troy V. Atchison &c. R. Co. 

V. Rogers 1743, 1759, 

Troy Fertilizer Co. v. Norman 
Troy Turnpike v. M'Chesney 
Troy &c. Co. v. Dolph 
Troy &c. R. Co. v. Kerr 
Truax v. Miller ^1594, 

V. Slater 
Truckee Lodge &c. v. Wood 
Trudden v. Metropolitan &c. Ins. 

Co. 
True V. True 
Trueman v. Fenton 
Truesdale v. Ford 
Truesdell v. Combs 
Trumball v. Gibbons 
Trumbull v. Hewitt 

V. O'Hara 
Truman v. Owens 1605, 

Trundle v. Providence &c. Ins. Co. 

V. Williams 
Trust Co. V. Nettleton 
Trustee v. Cagger 
Trustees V. Saunders 
Trustees &c. v. Adams 

V. Brooklyn Ins. Co. 

V. Brooklyn &c. Ins. Co. 2295, 

V. Colgrove 2221, 

v. Peaslee 2210, 2218, 2238, 

V. Short 
Tryon v. Pingree 2131, 

V. Sutton 

V. White. 
Tubervil v. Stamp 
Tucker v. Barrow 

V. Call 

v. Fredrick 

V. Gordon 

V. Hyatt 

V. Johnson 

V. Lawson 

V. Mutual &c. Co. 2399, 2412, 

V. New York &c. R. Co. 2498, 

V. Page 

V. Parks 

V. Peaslee 

V. People 

V. Seaman's Aid Society 2213, ; 



1617 


Tucker v. State 1696, 


2010 


2169 


2380 


V. Tucker 1643, 1645 


1646 


2206 


2077 


V. Walters 




1698 


2368, 


V. Winders 




1997 


2372 


V. Wright 




2672 


2399, 


Tuckerman v. Hartwell 




1824 


2414 


Tudor V. Terrel 


2210 


2211 


2206 


Tuffree v. Polhemus 




1615 


2278 


Tufts y. Adams ' 1956, 


1957 


1959 


2073 


V. Bennett 




1974 


1957 


Tull V. David 1965, 


2456 


2457 


2510 


Tullay V. Reed 




1699 


2466 


Tulley V. Citizens' State Bank 


2576 


2627 


Tullidge V. Wade 




2646 


1696 


Tunno, In re 




1659 


2032 


Tunnell v. Ferguson 




2456 




TuuniclifEe v. Bay City &c. R 


Co. 


1991 


2380 


Tupper V. Cadwell 




2270 


2067 


Turgeon v. Cote 




1602 


2245 


Turley v. Edwards 2170, 


2172 


2178 


2356, 


V. North American Ins. Co. 


2337 


2418 


Turman v. White 




2206 


2612 


Turnbull v. Paysou 




1946 


2124 


V. Schroeder 




1S56 


2395 


V. Witherspoon 




2463 


2692 


Turner v. Aldridge 




2058 


2501 


V. Alway 




1665 


2603 


V. Ambler 




2476 


1618 


V. Baker 1623, 


1850 


1857 


1942 


V. Cook 


1696, 


2686 


1760 


V. Eyles 




1952 


1752 


V. First Nat. Bank 


2052 


2417 


1629 


V. Hallowell 




2211 


1974 


V. Hand 




2280 


1948 


V. Hearst 


2004, 


2452 


1596 


V. Hitchcock 




1597 


1715 


V. Huggins 




2627 


1974 


V. Killian 




2124 




V. Mcllhany 




2560 


2387 


V. Nassau &c. R. Co. 




1989 


2032 


V. Nat. Bank 




2052 


1728 


V. O'Brien 


2118, 


2479 


2059 


V. Reynolds 




2057 


2113 


V. Rusk 




2276 


2696 


V. Sealock 




2009 


2151 


V. Starling 




1962 


1832 


V. Turner 


1829 


1840 


1607 


V. Yates 1635, 2002, 


2479 


2480 


2295 


Turnipseed v. Hudson 




2075 


2586 


Turpie v. Lowe 




1974 


2654 


Turpin v. Remy 
Turrentine v. Grigsby 




2474 


1605 




2584 


1826 


Turton v. Turton 




2038 


2236 


Tuthill V. Morris 




2587 


2298 


Tuttle V. Chicago &c. R. Co. 




1904 


2311 


V. Mayo 




1717 


2242 


V. Travelers' &c. Ins. Co. 


2399, 


2407, 


2240 






2408 


1623 


Twilley v. Perkins 




2107 


2479 


Twitchell v. Shaw 


1596, 


2121 


2249 


Twogood V. Hoyt 




1850 


1700 


Twombley, Estate of 




2687 


1925 


Twombly v. Kimbrough 




2124 


1605 


Twomley v. Central &c. R. Co 




1904 


2449 


V. Monroe 




2448 


1740 


Tyee Consol. Min. Co. v. Langstedt 


1614 


1664 


Tygert Co. v. The Charles P 


Sin- 




1866 


nickson 




1916 


1690 


Tyke v. Costord 




1605 


2458 


Tyler, Estate of 




2701 


2414 


Tyler v. Gallop's Estate 




2270 


2523 


V. Murray 




1583 


1664 


V. Salley 




1891 


2124 


V. Stephens 


1658. 


1660 


2564 


Tyler Car &c. Co. v. Wettermark ' 


1714 


2491 


Tyler Lumber Co. v. Charlton 




2623 


2220, 


Tynburg v. Cohen 




1583 


2221 


Tyudal v. Hutchinson 




2022 



clviii 



TABLE OP CASES. 



[References are to Sections.^ 



Tyres v. Kennedy 
Tyrone &c. t. Cross 
Tyrrel v. Painton 
Tyson v. Booth 

T. Shueey 

T. Tyson 
Tywne's Case 



2609 
1846 
2693 
1702, 1976, 2005 
2650 
2689 
2145 



D 



U. B. Blackloek &c. Co. v. W. D. 

Clark & Bros. 2629 

TJ. B. Mutual Aid Soc. v. McDonald 2380 
Uertz T. Singer Mfg. Co. 1703 

Dhl- V. Bingaman 2574 

V. Commonwealth 2253 

T. Harvey 2252, 2558 

TJlbricht v. Bufaula &c. Co. 1972 

Uline V. New York Cent. &c. E. Co. 2535 
UHman r. Abrams 2472, 2475 

Dlman v. Clark 1845, 1850, 1855 

TJlrich V. McCormiek 1641 

V. Eeinoehl 2370 

Ulysses &e. Co. v. Hartford &c. Ins. 

Co. 2343 

Uncapher v. Baltimore &e. E. Co. 2607 
Uncas Paper Co. v. Corbin 1705 

Underbill's Will, In re 2235 

Underbill v. Agawam &c. Ins. Co. 2358 
Underwood v. Farmers' &c. Ins. Co. 2350, 

2354 

T. Eobbins 

V. Wing 

V. Wolf 
Unfried v. Baltimore &c. R. Co. 
Unger v. Eoper 
Union v. Plainfield 
Union Bank v. Bank 

V. Knapp 



Maynard 
V. Meeker 
V. Shea 
V. Willis 
Union Bank &c. 



V. Eidgely 



Union Baptist Society v. Candia 
Union Canal Co. T. Young 
Union Casualty &c. Co. v. Harroll 
Union Cent. &c. Ins. Co. v. Hollo- 
well 2390, 2391 
T. Pauly 2295, 2297! 
Union Compress Co. v. Nunnally 



2206 
2209 
2629 
2011 
1620 

2196, 2198 
1607 
1605 

2040, 2065 
1843 
1839 

1824, 1830 

1951, 2026, 
2171 



2243 
1616 
2399 



2395 
2313 
1774, 
1778 

Union Cong. Soc. t. West Cong. Soc. 2235 
Union Ex. Co. v. Graham 1915 

Union F. E. Co. T. Winkley 1912 

Union Gold MIu. Co. v. Eocky Mt. 

Nat. Bank 1948 

Union Ins. Co. v. Barwick 2361 

V. Hoge 2419 

V. McGookey 2293 

V. Smith 2437, 2438 

V. Tysen 2442 

Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Masten 1625 



Union Press v. N. Y. &c. Co. 
Union Eubber Co. v. Tomlinson 
Union Storage Co. v. Speck &e. Co. 1782 
Union Stk. Yds. Nat. Bank v. Coff- 

man 2250, 2259 

Union St. E. Co. v. Stone 1991 

Union Trust Co. v. Kendall 1932, 1941 

V. Whiton 
Union &c. Co. v. Barton 

V. Goddard 

V. Mondy 2411 

V. Eocky Mt. Bank 
Union &c. Ins. Co. v. Buxer 

V. Cheever 



1974 
1732 



1727 
1994 
2401 
2412, 2414 
1639 
2376 
2376 



Union &c. Ins. Co. v. Hollowell 2375 
V Payne 2388, 2391, 2392 

V. Pollard 2376 

V. Wilkinson 2300 

Union E. &c. Co. v. Eiegel 1907 

United Brotherhood v. Dinkle 1948 

United Copper &c. Co. t. Franks 2053 
United Kingdom Asso. T. Houston 1660 
United Life &c. Ins. Co. v. Foote 2333 
United Loan & Deposit Co. t. Bitzer 2094 
United States v. 1756 Shares Cap- 
ital Stock 1584 
V. Adam 1599 
V. Alexander 2599 
V. American &c. Co. 2309 
V. America &c. Bank 1731 
V. Barker 1837 
V. Behan 1994 
V. Chaves 2486 
V. Child 2170 
V. Colt 2020 
V. Hall 1571 
V. Hays 2487 
V. Holmes 2281, 2282 
V. Homestake &c. Co. 2005, 2660 
V. Huckabee 2170, 2174, 2176, 2183 
V. Jackalow 1849 
V. Johns 1934 
V. Fifteen hundred bales of cot- 
ton 1584 
V. Greathouse 1584 
V. McGlue 2276 
V. Euggles 1700 
V. Sharp 2284 
V. Terry 2253 
United States Bank v. Bank of Geor- 
gia 1839 
V. Binney 2563, 2571 
V. Dandridge 1932, 2588 
V. Stearns 1934 
United States HI. &c. Co. v. Leiler 1931 
United States Ex. Co. v. Joyce 1911 
United States &c. Asso. v. Barry 2399, 
2412, 2414 
V. Hubbeir 2399, 2401, 2404, 2405, 

2414 

V. Millard 2403, 2417 

V. Newman 2399, 2411 

United States &c. Co. v. O'Brien 1961 

United States &c. Ins. Co. v. Kiel- 

gast 2387, 2390 

V. Kimberly 2327 

V. Vocke 2009, 2390 

Universal &e. Ins. Co. v. Block 2298 

University of North Carolina v. 

Harrison 2008, 2186 

Updegratf v. Bennett 2632, 2637 

Updegrove v. Zimmerman 2452 

Updyke v. Wheeler 2608 

Upton V. Hume 2457 

V. Johnston 2551 

Uransky v. Dry Dock &c. R. Co. 1980 
Urich's Appeal 2206 

Urmey v. Wooden 2243 

Urton V. Price 1597 

Utah &c. Co. V. Dickert &c. Co. 1574 

Uther V. Eich 1829 

Utica Bank v. Phillips 1835 

Utica First Nat. Bank v. Ballou 2466 
Utt V. Frey 1571, 1574, 1577 

Utter V. Travelers' Ins. Co. 2399, 2401, 
2403, 2411, 2412 



Vaccaro v. Security Bank 
Vaiden v. Commonwealth 
Vail V. Central R. Co. 



1810 
1698 
1589 



TABLE OF CASES. 



clix 



IBeferenees are to Sections.^ 



Vail V. Judson 1641 

Valentine v. Piper 1831 

Valentine's Will 2697, 2698 

Valkinburgh v. Watson 1725 

Vallett V. Parker 2541 

Valley &c. Asso. v. Teewalt 2376 

Valpy V. Manley 1730 

Valton V. National &c. Assur. Co. 2385 

Vanatta v. New Jersey &c. Ins. Co. 2422 

Vanauken v. Hornbeck 1823, 1829 

Vanderveer, In re 2122 

Vance, In re 2235 

Vance v. Forster 2315 

V. Richardson 1702 

T. Smith 1709 

V. Vance 2033, 2696 

V. Wells 2250 

Vance's Succession 2236 

Vaudalia &c. Ins. Co. v. Peasley 2424, 

2428 

Vanderbilt v. Mathis 2479 

Vanderburgh v. Truax 1989 

Vanderpool v. Brake 2071 

V. Richardson 1870, 1873, 1886, 1887, 

1888 
Vandervelden v. Chicago &c. E. Co. 1599 
Vandervolgen v. Yates 2236 

Vandiver t. Pollak 1597 

V. Vandiver 2211 

Vanduyn y. Hepner 1614, 2087 

Vanmeter v. True 1700 

Vann v. Pipkin 2596 

Vanneman v. Young 1937 

Vannorsdall v. Van Deventer 2206 

Vanormer v. Hornberger 2371, 2385 

Vanslckle v. Brown 2474, 2479 

v. Shenk 2152, 2157, 2481 

Vanvalkenbere v. Vanyalkenberg 2696 
Van Allen v. Smith 2608, 2609 

Van Arminge v. Taylor 2589 

Van Arnam v. Ayers 1642 

Van Auken v. Monroe 2039, 2040, 2057 
Van Bergen v. Van Bergen 2530 

Van Beuren v. Dash 2207 

Van Bibber v. Williamson 2067 

Van Brunt v. Mather 2555 

Van Buskirk v. Warren 1709, 1710, 1714, 

1840 

Van Cortlandt v. Underbill 1659, 1665 

Van Den Brooks v. Correon 2050 

Van Deusen v. Blum 1733 

V. Young 2006, 2680 

Van Dereer v. Sutphin 2452 

Van Dyke v. Wilder 1596 

y. Wood 2177 

V. Van Buren 1617 

Van Etten v. Howell 1840 

V. Newton 1913 

Van Fossen y. Clark 2531 

Van Frank v. United States &c. 

Sec. 2422 

Van Gaasbeek v. Staples 2082 

Van Gelder v. Van Gelder 1715 

Van Haagen Soap Co.'s Estate 1826 

Van Houten y. Morse 1881 

Van Hoyen y. Weller 2032 

Van Hyl y. Great Northern R. Co. 2509 
Van Ingen y. Schophofen 1816 

Van Keuren y. Parmelee 2573 

Van Kleeck y. McCabe 2558 

Van Kleek y. Leroy 2142, 2624 

Van Loan v. Farmers' &c. Ins. Asso. 2294 
Van Ness v. Pacard 2311 

Van Nostrand y. Board &c. 2219, 2238, 

2242 
Van Olinda v. Hall 1642, 1643, 1646, 

1651 
Van Oimen v. Van Ormen 2993 



Van Pelt v. New Athens Mill. Co. 

Van Reeden y. Evans 

Van Santen y. Standard Oil Co. 

Van Schoick v. Niagara Ins. Co. 

Van Sciver Co. v. MePherson 2122, 

Van Sickle v. Gibson 

Van Vacter v. McKillip 

Van Valkenburg y. Insurance Co. 

Van Valkenburgh v. Rouk 2026, 

Van Vechten v. Hopkins 

Van Velson y. Seeberger 1962, 

Van Vliet v. Greenwich Ins. Co. 

Van Voorhes v. Leonard 2104, 

Van Wagenen v. Baldwin 
Van Wagner v. Van Nostrand 
Van Wickle v. Mechanics' &c. Ins. 
Co. 2342, 2433, 

Van Winkle v. Von Houten 
Van Wyck v. Seward 
Van Zandt v. Mutual Ben. Life Ins. 
Co. 2278, 2287, 

Varney y. Conery 
Vastbinder, In re 
Vashon y. Barrett 
Vasse v. Smith 
Vastine v. Wilding 
Vater v. Lewis 
Vaughan v. Blanchard 
Vaughn y. Congdon 

y. Perrine 

V. Stuzaker 

v. Webster 
Vawter v. Franklin College 

v. Hultz 
Veazie v. Hosmer 

v. Penobscot R. Co. 
Vedder y. Vedder ■ 1594, 

Veghte v. Raritan &e. Co. 
Veiths v. Hagge 1756, 

Veneman v. Jones 2110, 2111, 

Verdelli v. Gray's &c. Co. 
Verdery v. Savannah &c. B. Co. 
Vergeront v. German Ins. Co. 
Vermillion y. Bailey 
Vermont y. Miller 
Verner y. Sweitzer 
Vernon v. Curtis 

y. Vawdry 
Vernor v. Henry 2210, 

Verral v. Robinson 
Verrill v. Minot 
Verry v. Watkins 
Very y. Levy 
Vicary v. Moore 
Vickers y. Durham 
Vicksburg v. Hennessy 
Vlcksburg &c. R. Co. y. O'Brien 

y. Ouachita 

V. Putnam 

v. Ragsdale 

y. White 
Victor V. Davis 

Victoria &c. Ins. Co. v. Thomson 
Vidal y. Girard 
Vlele v. Germania Ins. Co. 

V. Judson 
Vierling v. Binder 
Vigo Agricultural Soc. v. Brumfiel 
Vigus V. O'Bannon 
Vilas v. Mason 
Villa y. Jonte 
Vinal y. Core 
Vincent v. Rather 
Vincett v. Cook 
Vlning v. Gilbreth 

y. Hall 
Vintroux v. Simms 



1984, 1985, 1987, 



2119, 2473, 



2501 
1703 
1730 
2298 
2134 
2199 
1652 
2374 
2123 
2454 
1974 
2436 
2105, 
2118 
2242 
1956 

2436 
2212 
2154 

2395 
1596 
1814 
2461 
2275 
1829 
1947 
2022 
2113 
2641 
1956 
1785 
1936 
2014 
2584 
2518 
1599 
1579 
1963 
2116 
2519 
1616 
2356 
1610 
1579 
1916 
2083 
1609 
2212 
2666 
1991 
2003 
2124 
1951 
2526 
2515 
2510 
1947 
1990 
1981 
2015 
1725 
2422 
2235 
2300 
2072 
1888 
1776 
2134 
2072 
2546 
2475 
1796 
2498 
2618 
2698 
2055 



clx 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to Sections.] 



2387, 



2535, 

. 2433, 

1605, 

Co. 



2350 
2393 
1806 
2590 
1577 
2584 
2097 
2436 
1607 
2389 
2498 



Virginia &c. Co. t. Hale 1613 
Virginia Coai &c. Co. V. Keystone 

Coal &c. Co. 2049 

Virginia &c. Ins. Co. V. Bucls 1726 

Virginia &c. R. Co. v. Crow 1579 

Vivar t. Kniglits of Pytliias 2371, 2384 

Vliet V. Eastburn 2259 
Voali V. National Inv. Co. 
Voelkel v. Supreme Tent &c. 
Vogel, In re 
Vogel V. State 
Vogler V. Geiss 
Vogt V. Butler 
Voiles V. Voiles 
Voisin v. Commercial Ins. Co 
Volkening v. DeGraff 
Volker v. Metropolitan &c. Ins. 
Volkmar v. Manhattan R. Co. 

Voltz V. Blackmar 2004, 2005 

Von Latham v. Libby 2102 

Von Rosenberg v. Haynes 1846 

Von Sachs v. Kretz 1709 

Von Storch y. Griffin 1869 
Vonderhorst Brewing Co. V. Am- 

rhine 1625 

Voorhees v. Bonesteel 2124 

V. Fisher 1824, 2124 

Vore V. Hurst 1843 

Vos T. Robinson 2358 

Vosburg V. Putney 1689, 1703 

Vosburgh v. Diefendorf 1825 

V. Teator 1857 

Vose V. Bradstreet 2399 

Y. Handy 1845 

T. Yulee 1798 

Vossel V. Cole 2637 

Vought V. Williams 2008 

Vowles Y. Young ■ 2196 

Voyce V. Voyce 2655 

Vredenburgh v. Hendricks 2109 

Vreeland v. Ellsworth 2072 

Vrooman v. King 1715 

V. Phelps 2123 
Vulcan &e. Co. v. American Can Co. 1706 

Vurpillat v. Zehner 1757 

Vusler V. Cox 2247, 2251 

Vyne v. Glenn 2184 

Vynior Case 1666 



W 



First Nat. 



Wabash Elevator Co. v 

Bank 
Wabash B. Co. v. Coker 

v. Cregan 
Wabash &c. R. Co. v. Friedman 

T. Hicks 

V. Koenigsam 



2623 

2497, 2499 

1995 

1978 

2522 

1895 

2399, 2497, 2498, 2511 

1979 

1991 

Black 2012, 

2509 

Wachsmuth v. Merchants' &c. Bank 2109, 

2114, 2119 

Wachter v. Phoenix Assur. Co. 1633, 2078 

Waddell v. Waddell 2206 

Waddingham v. Loker 2136 

V. Waddingham 2487 

Wade T. American Colonization Soc. 2243 



Locke 
V. Lynch 
T. Morgan 
Wabash Screen Door Co. v. 



V. Chaflee 

V. Garrett 

V. Johnson 

V. Leroy 

V. State 

V. Thompson 
Wadleigh t. Veazie 



1976, 



2110, 2116 
1620 
1623 
1984, 1987, 1990 
2276 
2050 
1589 



Wadsworth v. Allcott 1782, 2621 

V. Gay 1732 

V. Pacific Ins. Co. 2303, 2441 

V. Sharpsteen 2279 

V. Treat 1998 

V. Woodford 1588 

Wagenhurst v. Wineland 1705 

Wagenseller v. Simmers 1863, 1866, 1869, 

1875 

Wager y. Hall 1801 

V. Lamont 2508 

Wagner y. Finnegan 1959 

T. Gibbs 1997 

V. Haak 1695 

V. Nagel 2260 

V. State 2457 

V. Union Stock Yards &c. Co. 1597 

y. Ziegler 2685 

Wagner's Appeal 2215, 2223 

Wagnon y. Clay 2567 

Wagon Co. y. Benedict 1737 

WagstafE v. Schippel 2473 

Wahl y. Barnum 1610 

V. Laubersheimer 2059 

Wainwright's Appeal 2696 

Wait V. Holt 2086 

T. Kellogg 2124 

V. Maxwell 1956, 2279 

y. Westfall 2689 

Waite y. Barry 1655 

y. Gale 2083 

Wakefield y. Connecticut &c. R. Co. 2522 

y. Fairman 1690 

V. Farnum 1607 

y. Llanelly &c. Co. 1655 

y. Martin 1714 

V. Newbon 1730 

Wakely v. Hart 2111 

y. Johnston 2457 

Wakeman v. Robinson 1689 

y. Wheeler &c. Co. 1994, 1995 

Walbridge y. Arnold 2176, 2181, 2183 

Walbrum y. Ballen 1623 

Walcot V. Pomeroy 2603, 2650 

Walcott V. Metropolitan &c. Ins. 

Co. 2391, 2394, 2395, 2401 

V. United Life &c. Co. 2417 

Waldeck y. Springfield &c. Ins. Co. 2346 

Waldele y. New York Cent. &c. R. 

Co. 2013, 2512 

Walden y. Sherburne 2573 

Waldhier v. Hannibal &c. R. Co. 1895 

Waldo Bank v. Greely 2541 

Waldron y. Evans 1609 

V. McCarty 1958 

V. Portland &c. R. Co. 2648 

V. Tuttle 2053, 2197 

V. Waldron 1642, 1643, 1652, 1653 

Waldthier v. Hannibal &c. R. Co. 1923 

Wales V. Bogue 2039 

V. Coffin 2067 

V. Jones 1589 

Walker, In re 1808 

Walker y. Ann Arbor 2514 

V. Baxter 2075 

V. Butler 2588 

y. Camp 2475 

V. Chicago &c. R. Co. 2498 

V. Clay 2281 

V. Collins 2149, 2150, 2153 

V. Conant 1730 

V. Denisou 1641 

V. Detroit &c. R. Co. 1931 

V. Driver 1607 

V. Egbert 1834 

V. Brie R. Co. 1895, 1903, 1985, 1991 

V. Fox 2065 

V. Hagerty 1746 



TABLE OF CASES. 



clxi 



IBeferences are to Seciions.1 



"n'alker v. Haggerty 

V. Ham 

v. Heller 1590, 

T. Hoisington 

T. Howard 

V. Hughes 1621, 

V. Humbert 

V. Johnson 1869, 

V. Larkin 2172, 2182, 

V. Maitland 

V. Matthews 

T. McNeill 

T. Melcher 

V. Metropolitan Ins. Co. 

V. Neil 

V. Philadelphia 

V. Phcenix Ins. Co. 

T. Pitman 

T. Price 

V. Reese 

V. Richards 

V. Rogers 

V. Shelbyvllle &c. R. Co. 

v. Smith 

v. Staples 

V. State 2289, 

T. Walker 2071, 2207, 

V. Welch 

V. Wilson 

V. Woodward 
Walker's Case 
Wall V. Hill 

V. Howard Ins. Co. 
■ V. Livezay 1991, 

Wall's Appeal 
Wallace v. Agry 

V. Central Vermont R. Co. 
• y. Clark 2637, 

V. Gwin 

V. Insurance Co. 

V. Jameson 

V. Kelsall 

V. King 

V. Lodge 

T. Maxwell 

V. McConnell 

V. Nodine 

V. Pennsylvania R. Co. 1984, 

V. Richards 1643, 

V. Robeson 1738, 

v. Swinton 

V. Western &c. R. Co. 
Waller v. Armistead 

V. Parker 
Wallerstein v. Columbian Ins. Co. 

2364, 
Walley v. Platte &e. Ditch Co. 
Walling V. Hannig 
Wallingford v. Columbia &c. R. Co. 

Wallis V. Carpenter 

V. Doe 2061, 

V. Hodgeson 

V. Littell 

V. Luhring 2690, 2691, 2692, 

Walls V. Walls 2576, 

Wallscourt v. Wallscourt 
Walmsley v. Robinson 

V. Walmsley 
Walrod v. Flanigan ' 

Walsh V. Boston &c. R. Co. 

V. Hill 

y. Ketchum 

V. Mayer 

v. Washington &c. Ins. Co. 2432, 

Vol. 3 Elliott Ev. — xi 



1826 
1730 
1591 
2629 
2056 
1622 
2067 
1893 
2183 
2446 
2542 
2521 
1660 
2311 
2097 
1987 
2353 
2479 
1899 
1599 
2623 
1836 
1941 
1998 
1798 
2589 
2278 
1748 
2651 
1610 
1952 
2279 
2336 
1998 
1722 
1830 
2505 
2641 
1824 
2321 
2452 
1597 
2667 
1740 
1618 
1823 
1637 
1985, 
1987 
1840 
1751 
2039 
1991 
2257 
2184 
2362, 
2441 
2531 
2258 
1916, 
1919, 
2000 
2062 
2683 
1843 
2695, 
2696 
2577 
2034 
1874 
2575 
1855 
3011 
2059 
2154 
2466 
2433 



Walter y. Post 

V. Selfe 

y. Victor G. Bloede Co. 
Walters v. Gilbert 

V. Laurens Cotton Mills 

y. Pfeil 

y. Stockberger 
Waltermire y. Westover 
Walther y. Mutual &c. Ins. Co. 

2388 
Walton y. Kendrick 2218^ 

y. Mandeyllle 
Waltz y. Foster 
Waluesley y. Cooper 
Wampol y. Kountz 
Wamsley y. Darragh 
Wanamaker y. Bowes 
Wangner y. Grimm 
Wankford y. Wankford 
Wanser y. Wyckoff 
Warbritton y. Demorett 
Warburton y. Storr 
Ward y. Bampston 

y. Barrows , 

y. Bartlett 

V. Berkshire L. Ins. Co. 

V. Blackwood 1702, 1703, 

y. Blake Mfg. Co. 

y. Charleston City R. Co. 

V. China &c. Ins. Co. 

V. Cochran 1618, 

V. Cozzens 

v. Dick 

V. Dulaney 

y. Evans 

V. Hudson Riyer B. Co. 

V. Lewis 

V. Luneen 

V. Macauley 

V. Metropolitan &c. Ins. Co. 

V. Minnesota &c. Co. 

v. Montgomery 

y. Morrison 

V. Parks 2061, 

v. Perrigo 

V. Saunders 

V. Sheppard 2673, 

V. Stow 

y. Thompson 

V. Ward 

y. Wheeler 

V. White 1695, 1702, 

V. Williams 
Warden v. McConnell 
Warden v. Witt 
Warder v. Henry 1589, 

V. La Belle Creole 

y. Myers 
Warder &c. Co. v. Angell 
Wardlaw v. Railroad Co, 
Ware v. Bradford 

V. Brookhouse 

V. Cartledge 2004, 

V. Dudley 

V. Lithgow 

V. Manning 

V. Ware 
Warfleld, Ex parte 
Warfleld y. Walter 
Waring y. Warren 
Warn y. Brown , 

Warner y. Abbey 

y. Beem 

V. Capps 

V. Chamberlain 

y. Chappell 

V. Citizens' Bank &c. 1824, 



1994 
2537 
2628 
1943 
1589 
2539 
1875 
2460 
2387, 
2390 
2688 
1839 
2530 
1597 
2070 
2170 
2672 
1715 
2082 
2102 
1847 
1666 
1924 
2588 
2656 
2070 
2010 
2628 
2509 
2436 
1621 
2130 
2452 
2485 
1639 
2000 
1709 
2124 
2649 
2374 
1948 
2053 
1714 
206* 
1843 
2206 
2675 
2208 
2540 
2448 
1604 
2005 
1639 
1597 
2500 
1590 
2443 
1730 
1606 
1774 
2052 
1621 
2452 
1605 
1958 
1608 
2284 
1650 
2102 
2087 
2206 
2004 
2424 
1972 
1991 
1708 
1835, 
1840 



clxii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



IReferences are to Sections.'i 



Warner v. Clark 






2456 


Watgamood v. Randolph 




2541 


V. Daniels 






1941 


Watkins v. Baird 




2181 


2182 


V. Dove 






2157 


V. De Armond 






2260 


V. Hardy 
V. Holyoke 
V. Marr 






2046 


V. Ford 






1605 






1579 
2461 


V. Gaston 
V. Hill 






1692 
2579 


V. Miller 




1643, 


1653 


V. Holman 






1850' 


V. Page 






2040 


V. Junker 






1979 


T. United States &c. 


Asso. 




2401 


V. Lynch 






1579 


Y. Warner 






2035 


V. Martin 






2461 


V. Wheeler 






1730 


V. Roberts 




1767, 


1789 


Warnock v. Davis 


2369, 


2380, 


2385 


V. Stevens 






2463 


V. Mitchell 






2450 


V. Vince 






1633 


Warren v. Barnett 






2249 


V. Wallace 


2122, 


2140, 


2146 


V. Bowdran 






1623 


Watkinson v. Inglesby 






1596 


V. Chandler 






1983 


Watkinson & Co., In re 




1818 


V. Cleveland 






2466 


Watrous v. Mississippi 


&c. Ins. Co. 


2297 


V. Cockran 






2650 


V. Morrison 


1619, 


1845, 


1860 


V. Dennett 




2102, 


2103 


Watry v. Ferber 






1702 


V. Englehart 






2204 


Watson, Ex parte 




2557, 


2569 


V. Flagg 






2027 


Watson V. Ambergate &c. R. 


Co. 


1979 


V. Gabriel 


2122, 


2130, 


2134 


V. Bissell 






1621 


T. Hofer 






2266 


V. Brewster 




2196, 


2199 


V. Prescott 






2208 


V. Chesire 






2146 


V. Robinson 






1821 


V. Christie 




1700, 


2003 


V. Schainwald 






2148 


V. Clark 






2435 


V. Thomaston 






1847 


V. Gregg 






1617 


V. Warren 




1642, 


1652 


,v. Hastings 


1690 


1698, 


1699 


Warrender v. Warrender 




2257 


V. Jones 






1589 


Warshawky v. Anchor &c. Ins 


. Co. 


2322 


V. King 






1951 


Wasey v. Travelers' Ins 


. Co. 


2344, 


2390 


V. Loughran 




1777, 


1790 


Washband v. Washband 






2613 


V. McLaren 






2072 


Washburn v. Cutter 






1616 


V. Milwaukee &c. R 


Co. 




2006 


V. McGuire 






1746 


V. New Milford &c. 


Co. 


1962, 


1974 


V. National &c. Soc. 






2393 


V. Peters 




1843, 


1847 


V. Sewall • 




2236, 


2243 


V. Sherman 






1628 


V. Winslow 






1594 


V. St. Paul &c. R. Co. 




2204 


Washburn-Crosby Co. 


V. William 




V. Threlkeld 






2071 


Johnston Co. 






1916 


V. Watson 2102 


2120, 


2635, 


2641, 


Washburn &c. Mfg. Co. 


V. Reliance 










2642 


&c. Ins. Co. 






2441 


V. Williamson 






2206 


Washer v. Allensville &c. Co. 




1943 


Watson's Will 






2683 


Washington v. Missour 


&c. B 


. Co. 


2502 


Watt V. Greenlee 






2479 


Washington Home v. Chicago 




2071 


Watts V. MoJCett 




2247, 


2251 


Washington Ice Co. v. Webster 


2614 


V. Norfolk &c. R. Co. 




1974 


Washington Ins. Co. v. 


Hayes 




2327 


V. Phcenix &c. Ins. 


Co. 




1972 


Washington &c. Ins. Co 


V. Haney 


2376 


V. Sheppard 






2000 


V. Merchants' &c. Ins. Co 




2335 


V. Shewell 






2582 


Washington &c. E. Co. 
V. McDade 


V. Dashiell 


1976 


V. Sweeney 






1583 






2501 


V. Welman 






1957 


V. Patterson 






1991 


V. Weston 






1974 


Washington &e, Univ., 


Appeal of 


2218, 


Waugh V. Carver 






2569 








2220 


V. Fielding 






2146 


Washoe &c. Mfg. Co. 


V. Hibernia 




V. Moan 






2291 


Ins. Co. 






2298 


V. Riley 






2583 


Wasson v. Canfleld 


1702, 


2116 


2660 


V. Waugh 






1858 


Waterbury v. Miller 






2607 


Waughop V. Bartlett 






246T 


V. Westervelt 






1714 


Wayne v. Sands 






2169 


Waterhouse v. Jos. Schlitz 


Brew 




Wayland University v 


Boorman 


1824 


Co. 






2505 


Waydele v. Velie 






2576 


Waterman v. American Pin Co. 


1790 


Waxelbaum, In re 






1800 


V. Johnson 






1857 


Way V. Ablngton &c. Ins. Co 




2334 


V. Sprague Mfg. Co 






2460 


V. Chicago &c. R. Co. 




1899 


V. Waterman 






2273 


V. Modlgllani 






2442 


V. Whitney 2291, 


2688, 


2691, 


2694. 
2697 


V. Ryther 
V. Townsend 






2627 
2113 


Waters v. Bishop 






2194 


Wead V. St. Johnsbury &c. 




1860 


V. Brown 




1702 


2005 


Weall V. King 






1923 


V. Clark 






1735 


Wear v. Sanger 




1751 


1752 


V. Howard 






2212 


Wear Bros. v. Schmelzer 




2578' 


V. Lilley 






2656 


Weatherhead v. Baskerville 


2208 


2211 


V. Merchants' &c. Ins. Co 


2333 


2446 


Weaver v. Bachert 


1863, 


1869, 


1872, 


V. Richmond &c. R. 


Co. 




1907 








1891 


V. Tazewell 






2204 


V. Btish 






1699 


y. Towers 






1994 


V. Carpenter 






2270 


V. Waters 




2284 


2578 


V. Hendrick 






2452 


Watertown v. Mayo 






2527 


V. Lapsley 
V. Leiman 






184S 


Watfon V. Turner 






1728 




2196 


, 2491 



TABLE OF CASES. 



clxiii 



IBeferences are to Sections.l 



"Weaver v. Lloyd 




2454 


Welch V. Durand 


1689, 


1982 


T. Page 




2482 


V. Garrett 


1571, 


1574 


v. Ward 




1689 


V. Importers &c. Nat. Bank 


1932 


V. Whilden 




2044 


V. Jugenheimer 




2140 


Webb V. Alexander 




1958 


V. Mandeville 




1714 


V. Chambers 




2623 


V. N. Y. Central E. Co. 




2081 


V. Corbin 




2099 


V. Portland 




2513 


V. DemopoUs 




1847 


V. Thorn 




2000 


V. Dye 




2701 


V. Tribune Pub. Co. 




2452 


T. Fleming 




2686 


V. Ware 




1991 


y. Oilman 1T03, 


1997, 


1999 


V. Wave 




1994 


V. Gross 




1972 


V. Welch 




2030 


-y. Johnson 




2555 


V. Zerger 




2578 


T. John Hancock &c. Co. 


2075, 


2259 


Welcome v. Mitchell 




1715 


T. Michener 




2565 


Weld V. Hubbard 




1587 


V. Nat. Bank of Eepub. 




2580 


V. Locke 




2124 


v. Neal 




2243 


Weleker v. Le Pelletier 




1586 


T. Paternoster 




2536 


Welker v. Butler 




2457 


V. Portland Mfg. Co. 


1962. 


1970, 


Weiland v. Krejnick 




1771 




1972, 


1974 


Weller v. Baker 


1924, 


1972 


V. Rhodes 


1618, 


1619 


V. Chicago &c. E. Co. 




2017 


V. Richardson 




2199 


Welles V. Newsom 




2067 


V. State 




2281 


V. Thornton 




1789 


T. Thiele 




1623 


Welling V. Le Bau 




1611 


Webber t. Clarke 


1618, 


2059 


Wellington v. Kelly 




1597 


V. Gay 




2120 


V. Moore 




2006 


V. Nicholas 




2483 


Wellman v. Miner 


2461, 


2468 


V. Read 




2607 


Wells V. Cooke 




1659 


V. Sullivan 


2693 


2696 


V. Doane 




2244 


Weber v. Couch 




1598 


v. Hardy 




1879 


V. Fickey 


1941 


1947 


V. Head 




2660 


V. Kirkendall 




2177 


V. Hopwood 




2445 


V. Squier 




1974 


V. Howell 




2647 


Webster v. Clark 




2558 


V. Jackson 


1848 


2121 


V. Drinkwater 1603 


1721 


1725 


V. Nat. Life Asso. 




1994 


V. Fitchbury E. Co. 




1899 


V. Padgett 




1874 


V. Lee 




1655 


V. Parsons 




2473 


V. Morris 




2235 


V. Patton 




1583 


T. Phcenix Ins. Co. 


2330 


2359 


V. Philadelphia Ins. Co. 




2429 


-V. Warren 




1953 


V. Pressy 




1942 


V. Watts 




2111 


V. Eodgers 




1933 


V. Webster 




2675 


V. Watling 




1972 


V. White 


1846 


2006 


V. Wells 




2688 


V. Wiggin 




2235 


V. Williams 




1584 


V. Yorty 




2697 


Welsh V. Insurance Co. 




2338 


Weddigen v. Boston Elastic 


&c. Co 


. 2581 


V. Lindo 




2024 


Weed V. Ballston Spa 




2513 


V. London &c. Co. 


2348 


2354 


V. Mut. Life Ins. Co. 


2277. 


2287, 


V. Piercy 




2659 


2391 


, 2393 


2396 


V. Seaborn 




1727 


V. Page 




2613 


V. Tayler 




1579 


V. Saratoga &c. E. Co. 




1907 


Weltou V. Martin 




1972 


V. Smull 




1610 


Welty V. Indianapolis &c. E 


. Co. 


1571 


Weedon v. Timbrell 




2647 


Wendall v. Chicago &e. E. Co. 


2399 


Weehawken &e. Co. v. Sisson 


2208 


Wendell v. Jackson 


1850 


1855 


Weekes v. Cottingham 




2010 


V. Moulton 




2067 


Weeks v. McBeth 




2698 


Wendover v. Hogeboom 




2429 


Weeping Water v. Eeed 




1615 


Wennall v. Adney 




1728 


Wehle V. Conner 




1754 


Wennhak v. Morgan 




2450 


V. United States &c. Asso. 


2399, 


Wenning v. Teeple 


2485 


2486 




2412 


, 2414 


Wentworth v. Abbetts 




2039 


Weide v. Porter 




1925 


V. Summit 




2511 


Weideman v. Tacoma E. Co. 




2498 


V. Wentworth 




2008 


Weigel V. Hartman &c. Co. 




1605 


Wentz V. Bernhardt 


2108 


2115 


Weil V. Guerin 




1589 


Wert V. Crawfordsville &c. 


Tpk. Co. 


Weiland v. Bhlers 




1610 






1930 


Weill V. Lucerne &c. Co. 




1576 


Wertheimer v. Pennsylvania E. Co 


1916 


Weiller v. Schreiber 




1744 


Weser v. Welty 




2110 


Weinman v. Wilkensburg &c. Co. 


1940 


Wessels v. Weiss 




2551 


Weinstein v. National Bank 




2070 


Wesson v. Washburn Iron 


Co. 


2531, 


Weir v. Hoss 




2454 






2533 


Weirs v. Jones County 




2514 


West, In re 


1800 


1801 


Weir's Will 




2285 


West v. Bretelle 


1845 


2039 


Weisbrod v. Chicago 




•1747 


V. Druff 2637, 2641 


2642 


Weiser v. Welch 




2170 


v. Forrest 




1991 


Weiss V. Binnian 




1957 


V. Fox Elver &c. 




1847 


Weisser v. Dennison 




1609 


V. Graff 


2610 


2611 


Weissinger v. Studebaker 




1742 


V. Hayes 




2603 


Weith v. Wilmington 




1942 


V. St. John 




2602 



clxiv 



TABLE OF CASES. 



{References are to Sections."] 



West v. Wright 2124 

West Branch Ins. Co. t. Macklin 2426 
West Chicago St. K. Co. v. Carr 1887, 

1992 

V. Dougherty 1992 

V. Foster 1991 

V. Kennelly 1992 

V. Levy 1976, 1979 

V. Winters 2501 

West Co. T. Lea 1800, 1814 

West Mahanoy Tp. v. Watson 2501 

West Manayunk Gas L. Co. t. New 

Gas L. Co. 1932 

Westbay v. Milligan 2607 

Westbrook v. Miller 2588 

Westchester &c. Ins. Co. v. Coverdale 

2360 

y. Earle 2299, 2300, 2357 

Westcott v. Cady 2080 

T. Sharp 171T 

Westerfleld t. Williams 2067 

Western Assur. Co. t. McAlpin 2311, 

2313 
Western Ave. &c. Asso. v. Walters 2178 
Western Home Ins/ Co. v. Richard- 
son 2338 
V. Thorpe 2338 
Western Ins. Co. v. Hogue 2300 
V. Tobin 2434, 2440 
Western Mass. Ins. Co. v. DufEey 2311 
Western Md. E. Co. v. Manro 1948 
Western Mfg. Co. t. Kingman 2620 
Western E. Co. v. Arnett 2521 
V. Harwell 1916, 1919 
Western Stage Co. v. Walker 2567 
Western Transp. Co. v. Newhall 1916 
Western U. Tel. Co. T. American 
Bell Tel. Co. 1611 
T. Crall 1786 
T. Byser 1948, 1985 
V. Ferris 2666 
V. Graham 1994 
V. Hall 1974 
V. Henley 1981 
V. Scircle 2020 
v. State 2498 
Western &c. Asso. v. Holbrook 2399 
y. Smith 2399, 2414 
Western &c. Co. v. Cox 1994 
y. Meredith 1991 
Western &c. Ins. Co. y. Hutchinson 
&c. Co. 2424 
V. Richardson 2298 
y. Scheidle 2293, 2306 
Western &c. B. Co. T. Atlanta 2518 
y. Hix 1942 
y. Meigs 2019 
y. Young 2504 
Western &c. Scraper Co. y. McMil- 
len 1640 
y. Stickleman 1640 
Westfall V. Hudson River &c. Ins. 

Co. *^335 

Westfield y. Mayo 2518 

Westlake y. Westlake 1642, 1643, 1644, 

1648, 1649, 1652 

Westmoreland v. Preferred &c. Ins. 

Co. 2415 

Weston V. Downes 1723 

y. Gravlin 2660 

y. Hlgglns 2276 

y. Hodgkins 2467 

. y. Weston 2205 

y. Wiley 2576 

Westphal y. Ludlow 1798 

West Winstead Say. Bank &c. T. 

Ford 1948 

Wetherall v. Harris 2228 



Wetherbee v. Baker 1945 

y. Marsh 2003, 2459 

Wetherington y. Williams 2094 

Wetherly v. Straus 2124 

Wetmore, In re 1800, 1816 

Wetmore v. Crouch 1596 

y. Mell 1872 

y. Parker 2234 

Wettach y. Horn 2214 

Wetter v. Habersham 2201, 2204 

v. Walker 2204 

Wetumpka &c. E. Co. T. Bingham 1932 

Wetzell v. Bussard 2466 

Weyh y. Boylan 2071 

Weymouth v. Sawtelle 2257 

Whalen y. Layman 2645 

v. St. Louis &c. R. Co. 1991, 1995 

Wharton v. Anderson 1608 

v. Cain 1605 

V. Garvin 1845 

Whattor»y. Thomasou 2585 

Wheatland y. Taylor 2000 

Wheatley v. Thorn 1702 

Wheaton v. Beeeher 2111, 2120 

y. East 1956 

y. North British &c. Ins. Co. 2299, 

2300, 2354 

Whcdbee y. Stewart 1745 

Wheelan v. Chicago &c. E. Co. 2016 

Wheeland v. Atwood 2370 

Wheeler v. Alderson 2285 

y. Benjamin 1850, 1855 

y. Burrow 2266 

v. Field 1830. 

y. Gorman 1620 

V. Hanson 2483 

y. Hatch 1956 

V. Home 1601 

y. Laird 1616 

y. Merriman 2067 

y. Neyins 1628 

V. New Brunswick E. Co. 2073 

y. Oceanic &c. Co. 1905 

y. Eobb 2450 

y. Sage 2567 

y. Smith 2245- 

y. State 1851, 1852, 2279, 2281 

v. Thomas 2585 

v. Train 2604, 2663 

y. Walker 1945, 1946 

y. Wheeler 1715, 2034 

y. Whitney 1697 

Wheeler &c. Mfg. Co. v. Boyce 2114, 2115 

y. LeetzlafE 3607 

Wheeler y. Wilson Mfg. Co. y. Keeler 

2624 

Wheelock y. Archer 2112 

V. Cozzens 2604 

Wheelock's Will, In re 2281, 2291, 2688 

Whelan y. Kinsley 2464 

y. Lynch 2671 

v. New York &c. R. Co. 1987 

y. Watmough 1601 

Wheless y. Second Nat. Bank 2114 

Whintringham y. Dibble 2583 

Whipple y. Cumberland Mfg. Co. 1962, 

1970, 1972 

y. Fuller 1983 

Whisler v. Drake 2583 

Whissenhunt v. Jones 2040, 2050, 2065 

Whltaker y. Brown 2541 

v. Erie Shooting Club 1618 

y. Farmers' &c. Ins. Co. 2323 

V. Freeman 2450 

v. Latham 2218 

V. Sumner 2052 

Whltaker Iron Co. y. Preston Nat. 

Bank 2624 



TABLE OF CASES. 



clxv 



{References are to Sections.'i 



Whitall V. Brig William Henry 2432 

Whitbeck v. Cook 1956 

Whitcher v. Whitciier 1654, 1665 

Whitcomb v. Rodman 2211 

White V. Ambler 1727 

v. Amrhien 1849 

V. Arletli 2000 

V. Bailey 2278, 2517 

T. Barlow 2073 

V. Boston &c. K. Co. 1903 

V. Campbell 1607 

V. Continental Nat. Bank 1839, 

2073 
V. Cotzhausen 1709 

V. Dinkins 2669 

V. Edgman 1631 

T. Elgin &e. Co. 1933 

V. Flannigain 1847 

T. Gay 1845, 1854 

T. Gemeny 2612 

T. Gray 1595 

T. Gregory 1997, 2642 

V. GriflEen 1972 

V. Harris 2059, 2060, 2236, 2419, 

2424 
V. Hicks 2212 

v. Holland 2212 

V. Holstein 2490 

v. Howard 2236 

V. Keller 2057, 2058 

T. Kilgore 1710, 1711 

V. Lady Lincoln 1611 

v. Manhattan E. Co. 2536 

V. Maxey 2014 

V. McQueen 2116, 2118 

V. Merchants' Ins. Co. 2305 

V. Miller 1994 

V. Milwaukee &c. E. Co. 1988 

V. Missouri Pac. E. Co. 2501 

V. Morris 1586 

v. Murtland 1997, 2630, 2635, 2636, 
2637, 2640, 2641, 2642, 2643, 2644, 

2645 
V. Nellis 2643 

V. Nicholls 2451 

V. Cliyer 1717 

V. Palmer 2279 

V. Perry 2127 

T. Republic F. Ins. Co. 2331, 2334 
V. Ross 1643, 1648 

V. Sabariego 1584 

T. Shepperd 2089 

V. Stanfleld 2194 

T. State 1932, 1938, 1941, 1942, 

1947 
v. Strother 2196, 2199 

T. Task 2243, 2245 

V. Thomas 1889 

V. Thompson 1583 

V. Tucker 2565 

V. Walker . 1609 

V. White 1584, 2486 

V. Whitney 1959 

V. Wilson 1747 

V. Yawkey 2650, 2663 

White's Will 2697 

White Mountains E. Co. v. Eastman 

1946 

Whitecraft v. Vanderver 2025 

Whitecross &c. Co. v. Savill 2334 

Whited V. Germania Ins. Co. 2300 

Whiteford v. Burckmyer 1837, 1838 

Whitehead v. Atchison 1845 

v. Coyle 2608 

T. Ducker 1974 

V. Jessup 2475 

V. State 2454 

V. St. Lonls &c. B. Co. 1895 



Whitehead v. Tattersall 1668 

V. Taylor 2606 

V. Tuckett 1633 

Whitehouse t. Travelers' Ins. Co. 2412 

Whitehurst v. Fayetteville &c. Ins. 

Co, 2331, 2334 

V. North Carolina &e. Ins. Co. 2323, , 

2338, 2348 

Whiteley v. China 2006, 2007 

Whiteman t. Whlteman 2092, 2224, 2697 

Whitenack v. Stryker 2281 

Whitescarver v. Bonney 2263 

Whiteside v. Connolly 1967 

V. Hoskins 2576 

V. United States 2598 

White Eiver School Tp. v. Caxton 

Co. 1730 
Whitewater Valley Canal Co. v. 

Boden 1934 

V. Henderson 1664 

White Water &c. Co. v. Boden 1929 

Whltefield v. Longfellow 2181, 2182 

Whitfield V. Levy 2000 

V. Westbrook 2480 

Whiting V. Aldrich 1728 

V. Dewey 1845 

V. Independent &e. Ins. Co. 2308 

V. Lake 1630 

V. Mississippi &c. Ins. Co. 2318 

V. New Baltimore 2000 

v. Sullivan 1725 

Whitlatch v. Casualty Co. 2401 

V. Fidelity &c. Co. 2404, 2410 

Whitley v. Ogle 2254 

Whitelocke v. Baker 2198 

Whitlock V. McKechnie 2550 

Whitman v. Boston &c. E. Co. 2007 

V. Foley 2094 

V. Granite Church 1943 

V. Haywood 1858 

V. Lex 2243, 2244 

V. Mason 2422 

V. Merrill 1972 

V. Shaw 1620 

Whitmarsh v. Charter Oak &c. Ins. 

Co 2335 

V.' Conway &c. Ins. Co. 2335 

Whitmore v. Fourth Cong. Soc. 1936 

Whitney v. Bigelow 2463 

V. Black River Ins. Co. 2328 

V. CliSEord 2140, 2502 

V. Cook 1595 

V. Dinsmore 1956 

V. Janesville Gazette 2452 

V. Morrow 2676 

V. Eichards 1595 

V. Twombly 2692 

V. Wright 2057 

Whitney Arms C». v. Barlow 1931, 1933 

Whitney Wagon Works v. Moore 2624 

Whiton V. Albany &c. Ins. Co. 2302, 2442 

Whitsett V. Chicago &c. E. Co. 2505 

V. Union Depot &c. E. Co. 25<1 

Whlttaker v. S. W. &e. Co. 2179 

Whittemore v. Cutter 1962, 1970 

V. Fisher 1611 

V. Eussell 2231 

Whittier v. Gould 1587 

Whittington v. Doe 1617 

Whittle V. Phelps 2618 

Whittlesey v. Heberer 2080 

Whitty, In re 2223 

Whitwell, Ex parte 2524 

V. Wells 1574 

V. Willard 1602 

Whitworth v. Erie &c. E. Co. 1916 

V. Pelton 1837 

Whorf V. Equitable &c. Ins. Co. 2446 



clxvi 



TABLE OF CASES. 



{References are to SeoMons.] 



Wickham v. Freeman 2650 

WicklifEe v. Ensor 1621 

V. Owings 1582 

Wichita &c. R. Co. v. Kuhu 2006 

Widdifield v. Widdifleld 2546 

Widgery v. Hasliell 1709 

Wietiug v. MillSton 1989 

Wifwall V. Hall 1664 

Wiggin T. Amory 2444 

V. Day 2143 

T. Perkins 2206 

Wiggins T. Burkham 1606, 1607 

T. McCleary 1573, 1576 

Wight V. Shelby E. Co. 1947 

V. Stiles 2626 

Wightman v. Coates 1863, 1868, 1869, 

1874 

V. Western &c. Ins. Co. 2140 

Wilbraham y. Snow 2650 

Wilbur y. Abbott 2027 

y. Cedar Eapids &c. Co. 1619 

V. Johnson 1888 

Wilburn v. Wilburn 2205 

Wilch y. Phelps 2625 

Wilcher y. Eobertson 2065 

Wilcox, In re 1860, 1820 

Wilcox y. Arnold 1725 

y. Corwin 2094, 2100 

y. Green 1872, 1874 

y. Howard 2622 

y. Howland 2179 

y. Leake 2006 

y. Palmeter 1791 

y. Smith 2588, 2598 

y. Williams 2460 

y. Wilmington City E. Co. 2017 

Wilcus y. Kling 1974 

Wild y. Brewer 2227, 2232 

V. New York &c. 1637 

y. Odeli 2479 

Wilde y. New Orleans 1974 

y. Vinor 1666 

Wilder y. Bailey 1754 

y. Brooks 2254 

y. Goss 2232, 2227 

y. Holden 2473 

y. Metropolitan St. R. Co. 1904 

Wilderman y. Baltimore 2245 

Wildey y. School Dist. 1733 

Wildman y. Gelder 1745 

Wilds y. Bogan 1891, 2643 

y. Layton 2675 

Wiler y. Piegel 2251 

Wiley y. Lindley 1845 

y. Wilson 2270 

Wiley's Estate 2699 

Wilken y. Bxterkamp 1697 

Wilkerson v. Bishop 2173 

y. Clark 2206 

y. Hood 2170, 2184 

Wilkes y. Dinsman 1690, 1700 

. y. Ferris 2618 

Wilkle y. Collins 2494 

Wilkins y. Germanla F. Ins. Co. 2302 

y. Gillis 1835, 1836 

y. Mayor &c. Wilmington 2502 

V. Ordway 2204, 2205 

y. Suttles 2075 

y. Tobacco Ins. Co. 2327, 2442 

Wilkinson v. Arnold 2472, 2479 

y. King 2663 

V. Moseley 1923 

Will of John Kellum, Matter of 2684 

Willamette &c. Co. y. McGoldrlck 2562 

Willans y. Taylor 2472 

Wlllard V. Albertson 2072 

y. Germer 2578 

y. Pettlt 2479 



Willard y. Stone 1863, 


1879, 1893 


V. 


Twitchell 


1956 


y. 


Wood 


2460 


Willeford y. Bailey 


2631, 2643 


Willett y. Johnson 


1691 


y. 


Maxwell 


2467 


y. 


Eich 1765, 


1784, 1796 


y. 


Willett 


1725 


Willey y. Beach 


2258 


y. 


Carpenter 1689, 


1697, 1701 


y. 


Warden 


1599 


Willi 


y. Lucas 


1691 


Williams, Ex parte 


2524 


Williams y. Albany Ins. Co. 


2297 


y. 


Ashton 


2203, 2700 


y. 


Atkinson 


1846 


y. 


Bank of Michigan 


1935 


y. 


Banks 2154, 


2157, 2158 


y. 


Birbeck 


1641 


V. 


Bosanguet 


1952 


y. 


Brown 


1974 


y. 


Burnett 


2042 


V. 


Butler 


2544 


y. 


Casebeer 


2479 


V. 


Cawley 


2454 


y. 


Champion 


1574 


y. 


Chicago &c. E. Co. 


2124, 2690 


V. 


Christian Female College 1948 


V. 


Citizens' St. E. Co. 


1930 


V. 


Clark 


2521 


y. 


Corzine 


2088 


y. 


Coward 


2251 


y. 


Esling 


1972 


y. 


Firemen's &c. Ins.- Co. 


2335 


y. 


Floyd 


1831 


V. 


German &c. Ins. Co. 


2426 


y. 


Glenn 


1843 


V. 


Green 


2000 


V. 


Greenwade 


2458 


y. 


Gridley 


2467 


V. 


Hathaway 


2654, 2656 


y. 


Hartford Ins. Co. 


2349, 2362, 
2364 


y. 


Hewitt 


1930 


y. 


Hunter 


2470, 2471 


V. 


Judy 


1842 


V. 


Kane 


1762 


y. 


Kessler 


2612 


V. 


Lawrence 


2551 


V. 


Lewis 


2612 


y. 


McManus 


2457 


V. 


Miner 


2452 


y. 


Morland 


1921 


V. 


MoBtyn 


1962 


V. 


Newberry 


2004 


y. 


Niagara &c. Ins. Co. 


2337 


V. 


North-German Ins. Co 


2328 


y. 


Norwood 


2473 


V. 


Osbon 


2609 


V. 


Paschall 


1665 


V. 


Pearson 


2236, 2243 


V. 


People's &c. Ins. Co. 


2328, 2335 


V. 


Peyton 


2053 


V. 


Phelps 


1596 


V. 


Planters' Ins. Co. 


2114, 2470 


y. 


Preferred &c. Asso. 


2416 


V. 


Rand 


1623 


y. 


Elchards 


2073 


y. 


Eobblns 


2143 


y. 


Robinson 


2684, 2689 


y. 


Scott 


1623 


y. 


Sills 


1961 


y. 


Slote 


1613 


y. 


Smith 


2666 


y. 


State 


2265. 2281 


y. 


United States &c. Asso. 2399, 




2404 


2408, 2409 


T. 


Urmston 


2259 



TABLE OF CASES. 



elxvii 



[Beferejices are to Sections.'] 



Williams v. Vance 




2000 


Wilson V. Hanson 


1709 


2578 


V. Vanderbilt 




1989 


V. 


Herbert 




2251 


V. Van Meter 


2472 


2479 


V. 


Inloes 


1848 


2039 


v. Waters 




2005 


V. 


Johnson 




2044 


V. Weatherbee , 




1959 


V. 


King 




1726 


V. Williams 1642, 1644, 


1646, 


1648, 


V. 


Eohlheim 




2154 


1653, 1656, 2029, 2030, 


2032, 


2234, 


V. 


Lemon 




2053 


2236, 2243 


, 2280 


2486 


V. 


Little 




1798 


Williamsburg v. Smith 




1847 


V. 


Logue 




2252 


Williamsburg &e. Ins. Co. v. 


Cary 


2357 


V. 


Maltby 




2073 


Williamson v. Cline 




1826 


V. 


Manhattan R. Co. 




2111 


v. Doe 




2061 


V. 


Marshall 




1605 


V. Down 


1611 


1612 


V. 


Millikin 


1589 


1590 


V. Eastern Bldg. Asso. 




1741 


V. 


Mitchell 


2196 


2280 


v. Jones 




2067 


V. 


Nelson 




1813 


T. Eokomo &c. Asso. 


1930, 


1935, 


V. 


Noouan 




2146 






1940 


V. 


Northwestern &e. Assc 


. 


2407, 


T. New Jersey &c. Co. 




2613 








2418 


V. New Orleans Ins. Co. 




2302 


V. 


Palmer 




2058 


T. Paxton 




1590 


T. 


Pearson 




1576 


v. Simpson 




1846 


T. 


Peeile 


2040 


2050 


V. Williamson 




2038 


T. 


Pennsylvania R. Co. 


1988 


1991 


v. Yager 




1710 


V. 


Phosnix &c. Co. 




2650 


Williamson Co. v. Farson 




1972 


V. 


Randall 




1845 


Williamson's Succession 




2204 


V. 


Reed 




1597 


Willies V. Farley 




2669 


V. 


Robinson 




2452 


Willing T. Brown 




2056 


V. 


Rybolt 




2604 


Willingham v. Hooven 




1994 


V. 


Shearer 




2663 


Willis V. Crawford 




2543 


V. 


Shepler 1997, 2635, 


2642, 


2643, 


V. Dewitt 




2610 








2645 


V. Forrest 




2660 


V. 


Silkman 




2254 


V. Hudson 




2648 


V. 


Smith 




1922 


V. Jernegan 


1604 


1607 


V. 


Spring 




1617 


V. Lowry 




1745 


V. 


Sproul 


2641 


2645 


V. Mott 




2686 


V. 


Squire 




2242 


V. Newham 




2466 


V. 


Stoner 




1862 


V. People 




2280 


V. 


Tummon 




1639 


Willison y. Watkins 




2073 


V. 


Wagar 




1972 


Willow River Lumber Co. v 


. Luger 


V. 


Watterson 




1573 


Furn. Co. 




257.6 


T. 


Wheeling 




1988 


Wills V. Wells 




2672 


V. 


Whitaker 




1974 


Willson V. Baltimore 




2000 


V. 


Wilson 1607, 


1840 


1921 


V. Cleaveland 1572, 


1574, 


1576 


T. 


Young 


1703 


2483 


Wilmarth v. Burt 
Wiimerton v. Sample 


2102 


2121 
2474 


Wilson &c. Co. V. Curry 
Wiltse V. Holt 




2179 
2110 


Wilmhurst v. Bowker 

Wilmington &c. Bank v. Wollaston 

Wilmot V. Bordes 

Wilson, In re 1803 


2663 
2075 
2052 
2700 


Wiltsey's Will, In re 
Wimberg t. Schwegeman 
Wimp V. Early 
Winborne v. Lassiter 




2696 
1962 
1634 
2143 


Wilson V. Atkinson 
T. Bibb 
V. Bishop 
V. Borden 
V. Bowen 
V. Braden 
V. Brannan 
T. Buchanan 
V. Carrico 




1620 


Winch V. Mutual &c. Ice Co 




2000 




2652 
2250 
2005 
2483 
2065 
1798 
2159 
2053 


WincheU v. National Ex. Co. 

T. Strong 
Winchester v. Craig 

V. Charter 

V. Everett 

T. Howard 

V. Stevens Point 


1918 
2454 
2005 
2154 
2102 
2621 
2057 


T. Cedar Rapids 




2513 


Windfall Mfg. Co. v. Patterson 


2526, 


V. Chippewa Valley Elec. 


E. Co. 








2530 




2010, 


2503 


Windham Bank v. Norton 




1835 


V. Clark 




2146 


Windle v. Canaday 




2071 


V. Cobb 




2543 


v. 


Jordan 




1963 


T. Coulter 




1644 


Windt V. Banniza 




1741 


V. DaTis 


2079, 


2083 


Winer 


V. Mast 




1585 


V. Dowse 




1611 


Wines 


V. State Bank 




1829 


V. Edmonds 




1725 


V. 


Woods 




1959 


V. Ensworth 




2637 


Wing 


V. Angrave 




2209 


V. Fall River Daily Herald 


2454 


V. 


Bishop 




1715 


1 V. Pine 


2058, 


2063 


V. 


Martel 




1824 


V. Forbes 




1956 


V. 


Mill 




1728 


v. Foree 




1732 


Wingate v. Astoria 




2072 


V. Posket 




2231 


Winkler v. St. Louis &c. R. 


Co. 


1991 


T. Fuller 




2149 


Winn 


V. Abeles 




1619 


V. Glenn 




2055 


V. 


Peckham 


1997, 


2482 


V. Goodln 




2582 


Winner v. Hoyt 




1709 


V. Haley &c. Co. 




2649 


V. 


Kuehn 




1745 


V. Hampden F. Ins. Co. 


2302, 


2374 


V. 


Penniman 




2661 



cLwiii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to Sections.'] 



Winnipisiogee v. New Hampshire &c. 

Winship v. United States Bank 2567, 

2570 

Winslow V. Gumming 2236 

T. Lane 1962, 1972 

V. Leonard 2624 

V. Young 2553 

Winsmore v. Greenbank 1642, 1648, 

1649 
Winspear v. Accident Ins. Co. 2399, 

2414 

Winston y. Taylor 1784 

Winter v. Central Iowa E. Co. 1895 

V. Davis 1744, 1745 

T. Donovan 2454 

T. Peterson 1847 

V. Rockwell 2536 

T. Simonton 2576 

V. White 2055 

Winterbottom v. Ingham 1735 

Winters v. Cowen 1982 

V. Hainer 1617 

Winthingham v. Hayea 1765, 1766, 

1768, 1784, 1785, 1786, 1791, 1793 

Wintrode v. Renbarger 2456 

Winthrop t. Fairbanks 1847 

Winthrop Sav. Bank v. Jackson 1798 

Wintz V. Morrison 2148 

Wipperman v. Hardy 1596, 2576 

Wischstadt v. Wischstadt 2450 

Wise V. Foote 2696 

V. Schloesser 1864, 1869 

V. Williams 2461, 2558 

V. Wynn 2196, 2198 

Wiseman v. Chiapella 1824 

V. Wiseman 2030, 2032, 2094, 2486, 

2488, 2490 

Wiser t. Lawler 2072 

Wishart v. McKnight 2057 

Wissler v. Atlantic 2512 

Wistar v. Scott 2208 

Wiswall V. Campbell 1820 

Wiswell ¥. Jarvis 2154 

■\^'itbeck V. Marshall-Wells Hardware 

Co. 1740 

Witchcot T. Nine 1958 

Witcher v. Jones 2448 

V. Richmond 2450 

WItheral t. Muskegan &c. Co. 1993 

Witherell v. Maine Ins. Co. 2331, 2334 
Withers V. Sandlin 1605 

Witherspoon v. Carmichael 2124 

Withington v. Warren 1668, 1735 

AVithrow V. GiggerstafE 2143 

AYithy V. Mangles 2203 

Witman v. Egbert 1643 

Witte V. Williams 1829, 1840 

Wittich V. First Nat. Bank 1969 

Witting V. St. Louis &c. E. Co. 1916 

Wittkowski t. Smith 1824 

Wittkowsky v. Reid 2586 

Wittman v. Watry 2082 

Wittowiski v. Harris 1607 

Wittsey's Will, In re 2694 

Witz V. Tregallas 1654, 1656, 1660 

Witzler v. Collins 1914 

Wixwiroski v. Lake Shore &c. R. Co. 

2011 

Wojciechowskl v. Spreckles Sugar 

Eeflning Co. 2519 

V. Ensign 2576 

Wolcott V. Melick 2530 

T. Merchants Co. 1710 

Wolf V. Augustine 1666 

V. Baldwin 2059 

V. Beaird 1730 

V. Foster 2576 



Wolf V. Frank 1642, 1651b, 1652 

V. Hawkins 1577 

T. Holton 2656 

T. Lawrence 2551 

V. Smith 1630 

v. Trinkle 1703, 1991 

T. Wolf 1642, 2659 

Wolfe V. Doe 2039, 2044 

WolfE T. Cohen 1702 

v. Connecticut &c. Ins. Co.. 2393 

T. Matthews 1604 

V. Mutual &c. Asso. 2393 

Wolfstein t. Stelnharter 1750 

Woltner v. Lehman 1751, 1752, 1762 

Wolstenholm v. Davies 1633 

Wolverton v. State 2490 

Womack v. Tankersley 2490 

Woman's &c. Soc. v. Mead 2226, 2238 

Wonderly v. Christian 1604, 1607, 1608 

Wood, In re 1816 

Wood V. Agostines 2027 

V. American F. Ins. Co. 2298, 2307 

V. Amory 2124, 2148 

V. Andes 2515 

V. Auburn &c. E. Co. 1628 

V. Bailey 1741 

V. Bretherton 1924 

V. Bridgeport 2501 

V. Carpenter 2465 

T. Chicago &c. E. Co. 2502, 2509 

V. Cohen 2611 

v. Conrad 2067 

T. Corl 1824 

V. Cullen 2556 

T. Drake 2227 

T. Gale 1702 

V. Gault 1605 

V. Goss 2124 

V. Graves 2106, 2183 

• v. Guarantee &c. Co. 2577 

V. Hammond 2242 

V. Jefferson County Bank 1934, 1936 

V. Lafayette 1857, 2650 

V. Losey 2264 

y. Massachusetts &c. Asso. 2132 

V. Mathews 1651a 

V. Merrow 1601 

V. New York &c. E. Co. 1989 

V. Ostram 2075 

V. Paine 2235 

V. Peake 2593, 2602 

v. Pennell 2558 

V. Poughkeepsie &c. Ins. Co. 2298 

V. Sawyer 2283 

V. State 2581, 2597, 2601 

V. Vallette 2551 

y. Wiley Const. Co. 1932 

V. Willard 1851 

V. Wood 2067 

Woodbeek v. Keller 2140 

V. Wilders 2651 

Woodbury y. Columbia 1988 

V. Lerned 1636 

y. Northy 1664, 1665 

V. Venia 1849 

Woodbury Sav. Bank v. Charter Oak 

Ins. Co. 2310 
Woodenware Co. v. United States 2005 

Woodflll V. Patton 2697 

Woodfln V. Ashville Ins. Co. 2338 

Woodford v. Dorwin 1829 

Woodhull v. Rospnthal ' 2067 

Wooding V. Bradley 1625 

Woodman v. Howell 1699 

v. Illinois Trust &c. Co. 2696 

v. Tufts 1962, 1972 

Woodrlck v. Woodrick 2033 

Woodroof V. Howes 2124 



TABLE OF CASES. 



clxii 



IBeferences are to Sections.} 



"Woodruff V. Brie R. Co. 




2073 


Wright T. Boiler 




2505 


V. Hundley 




2687 


V. 


Boynton 




2544 


T. Painter 


1780, 


1785 


T. 


Caldwell 




1777 


V. Roysden 




1617 


V. 


Comptou 


1976 


1991 


V. Scaife 




2567 


V. 


Court 




2107 


Woods V. Banks 




2059 


V. 


CrawfordsTiUe 


2003, 


2016 


V. Bonner 




2044 


V. 


Dobie 




2000 


V. Drake 


2227, 


2232 


V. 


Doe 




2284 


V. Edwards 




1723 


V. 


Dunn 




2657 


T. Groton 




2518 


V. 


Equitable &c. See. 




2389 


V. Gummert 




2134 


V. 


Gregory 




2452 


V. Montevallo &e. Co. 


1616, 


1618, 


V. 


Guy 




1601 






1622 


V. 


Hanna 




2479 


T. Ward 




2543 


V. 


Hazen 




2113 


V. Wiman 




2448 


V. 


Hencock 




2156 


Woodstock Iron Co. v. Roberts 


1618 


V. 


Linn 




2235 


Woodward v. Boone 




1772 


V. 


Maiden &c. R. Co. 




2501 


V. Clark 




2556 


V. 


Maseras 




1591 


T. Edmunds 




1772 


V. 


McKee 




2002 


V. Foster 




1843 


V. 


Methodist &c. Church 




2204 


V. Gates 




2006 


V. 


Milwaukee &c. Co. 




1579 


V. Goulstone 




2698 


V. 


Moore 




2536 


V. Lindley 




2252 


V. 


Morris 




1717 


V. Newhall 




1588 


V. 


Mutual &c. L. Asso. 




2385 


T. Remington 




2625 


V. 


Newton 




2070 


V. Seeley 




2536 


V. 


Orient &c. Ins. Co. 




2433 


V. Stark 


1581 


1591 


V. 


Ramp 




2628 


V. St. Louis &c. R. Co. 




2114 


V. 


Smith 1743 


1748, 


1751 


T. Washburn 




2106 


V. 


Solomon 




1635 


T. Woodward 




1668 


V. 


Stanard 




2163 


Woodward's Will, In re 




2692 


V. 


Stevens 




2067 


Woodwortb v. Hodgson 




2617 


V. 


Stice 


1620, 


2039 


T. Knowlton 




2612 


V. 


Sun &c. Ins. Co. 




2409 


T. Mills 


2477 


2479 


V. 


Tichenor 




2050 


Woolbrlght V. Sneed 




2621 


V. 


Trustees &c. 


2205, 


2236 


Wooldrldge v. Boydell 




2442 


V. 


Williams 




2071 


Woolen V. Rockafeller 


2052 


2053 


V. 


Woodgate 


2449, 


2454 


Woolen Mills Co. v. Titus 




1717 


V. 


Wright 2030, 2035, 


2278, 


2686, 


Woolery v. Louisville &c. R 


Co. 


1898. 








2700 






2505 


T. 


Zeigler 




1715 


Wooley V. Cobb 




1840 


Wright Lumber Co., In re 


1811. 


1812 


T. Grand St. &c. R. Co. 




2506 


Wrightsville &c. K. Co. v. Holmes 


2659 


Woollen V. Wire 




1823 


Wrigley, In re 




1749 


Woolley V. Clark 




2082 


Wrought Iron Bridge Co. v. 


High- 




Woollman v. Ruehle 




1617 


way Commissioners 


1720. 


1726 


Wooster v. Kisch 




2000 


Wuensch v. Morning Jour. Asso. 


2001, 


Wooten V. Harrison 




2577 








2003 


V. Redd 


2210 


2212 


Wuest V. American Tobacco Co. 


2479. 


Worcester v. Eaton 




2171 








2480 


Worden v. Humeston &c. R. 


Co. 


2520 


Wunderlich v. Palatine Ins. 


Co. 


2140 


Worford v. Isbel 




1703 


Wurth V. Paducah 




2469 


Work V. Leathers 




2432 


Wurtzburger v. Anniston Rolling 




Works V. Junction R. Co. 




2530 


Mills 




1947 


World Pub. Co. v. Mullen 




2457 


Wusthoff V. Dracourt 


2212. 


2213 


Worley v. Hicks 




2050 


Wyandotte El. L. Co. v. Wyandotte 


1930 


Wormley Estate, In re 




2255 


Wyant v. Crouse 




2004 


Wormsdorf v. Detroit City 


R. Co. 


2503 


Wyatt V. Freeman 




2607 


Woronieki v. Pariskiego 


1705 


1708 


V. 


Gore 




2458 


Worrall T. Parmelee 




1707 


V. 


Harrison 




1969 


Worrell, In re 




1805 


Wyckoff V. Johnson 




1944 


Worsley v. Wood 


2337 


2341 


Wyeth V. Stone 




2208 


Wort V. Jenkins 




2004 


Wylie 


V. Elwood 2526 


2531, 


2533 


Worth V. German Ins. Co. 




2298 


V. 


Posey 




2122 


Wortham t. Cherry 




2050 


V. 


Railes 




2657 


Worthington t. Baughman 




1844 


Wyman v. Ballard 




1957 


T. Bearse 


2327 


2429 


V. 


Bowman 




1931 


V. Central Vermont R. Co. 


2501 


V. 


Colorado Nat. Bank 




1824 


V. Lee 




2073 


V. 


Hallock 




1755 


V. Shipley 




2154 


V. 


Hurlburt 


1571, 


1574 


Worthley v. Burbanks 1614, 1617 


1618 


V. 


Leavltt 




1991 


Worthy t. Caddell 




2151 


V. 


People's Ins. Co. 




2359 


V. Johnson 




2091 


V. 


Winslow 




1840 


Wozelka v. Hettrick 




2458 


Wynn 


V. Parsons 




1982 


Wray v. Doe 




2588 


Wynne v. Alexander 


1850, 


1854 


T. Miller 




1862 


T. 


Cornelison 




2465 


Wrege v. Jones 




2457 


V. 


Mason 




2163 


Wright, In re 




1808 


V. 


State 




2517 



clxx 



TABLE OF OASES. 



[Referenced are to Sections.'] 



X 






Young y. Hudson 
■ y. Kimball 


1711, 


1713 
2604 


Xenla First Nat. Bank v. Stewart 


2584 


y. Kinney 




1656 


Xenos T. Wickham 




2295 


y. Lyall 
y. Lynch 




2479 
1750 


Y 






y. Mahoming Co. 
y. Mertens 




2067 
2659 


Yahoola &c. Co. v. Irby 




2005 


y. Miller 1659, 


2089, 


2690 


Yakima Nat. Bank v. Knipe 




1929 


V. Newark &c. Ins. Co. 




2293 


Yale V. Curtlss 


1867 


1887 


y. Pacific &c. Ins. Co. 




2441 


V. Dederer 




2259 


V. Preston 




1723 


T. Saunders 




2672 


V. Rummel 1726, 


1736, 


1756 


Yancey v. Tatlock 




1957 


V. Smith 


2556, 


2568 


Yanlsh y. Tarbox 




1845 


V. Spencer 




1972 


Yarbarough v. Weaver 


1759 


1762 


V. Steyens 




2278 


Yarborougb v. Ward 




2079 


y. Travelers' Ins. Co. 




2417 


Yardley t. Cuthbertson 




2277 


y. White 


2154, 


2157 


Yarnall's Will 




2699 


y. Young 
.Young Man s Inst. v. New Hi 




1585 


Yarnell v. Anderson 




2576 


lyen 


2235 


Yater v. Mullen 




2671 


Youngs y. Cunningham 




1621 


Yates V. Boen 




2026 


y. HefEner 




2084 


V. North 




1741 








V. People 




2516 


Z 






T. Wing 
Yazoo &c. R. Co. v. Pulton 




2456 










1595 


Zacharie y. Godfrey 




1584 


Yeates v. Reed 




2451 


Zachmann y. Zachmann 




2191 


Yeatman v. New Orleans Say 


Inst. 


1798 


Zahm y. Dopp 




2050 


Yeaton v. Fry 




2442 


Zang y. Wyant 




1946 


Yeaw V. Williams 




2417 


Zantzinger y. Weightman 




2479 


Yellow Poplar Lumber Co. y. 


Chap- 




Zebach y. Smith 




2206 


man 




2628 


Zeibold y. Poster 




1855 


Yelton V. Bvansville &c. E. Co. 


2019 


Zeigler y. Gray 




1728 


Yentzer y. Thayer 




1590 


y. Wells 




2672 


Yenner y. Hammond 




2000 


y. Zeigler 
Zellln y. Rogers 




1665 


Yerkes y. Norris 




2578 




1620 


t^etzer y. Thoman 


1850, 


1857 


Zeisweiss y. James 


2236, 


2245 


Ynguanzo y. Salomon 




2124 


Zelch y. Hirt 




1732 


Yocum y. Zelmer 




2649 


Zell y. Dunkle 




1603 


Yoner y. Neidig 




2662 


Zell Guano Co. y. Heatherly 




2124 


Yopst y. Yopst 




2249 


Zellers y. Eckert 




1617 


York y. Blott ^ 




1823 


Zelnicker &c. Co. y. Misslssipoi &c. 




y. Pease 




2452 


Oil Co. 


1586. 


1587 


y. Rockwood 


2158, 


2160 


Zemp y. Wilmington &c. R. Co. 


1902, 


York Co. &c. Ins. Co. y. Knight 


2425 






2510 


York Park &c. Asso. y. Barnes 


1941 


Zerbe y. Miller 


2134, 


2161 


Yorke, In' re 




2280 


Zerfing y. Mourer 


2637, 


2644 


Yorke's Estate 




2693 


Zettler y. Atlanta 




2515 


Yorkshire &c. Co. y. Beatson 




2571 


Zibble y. Zibble 




2694 


Yorty y. Webster 




2694 


Ziegler y. Mutual &e. Asso. 


2421, 


2428 


Yost y. Conroy 


2006, 


2007 


Zilch y. Young 




2040 


Youmans y. Paine 




2453 


Zilmer y. Gerichten 


2040, 


2057 


y. Smith 




2450 


Zimmerman y. Anders 




2236 


Youndt y. Youndt 


2597, 


2698 


v. Brannon 




2146 


Young V. Adams 




1730 


v. Fremont &c. Bank 




2399 


y. Bairner 




1965 


y. McMabin 




2449 


y. Brehe 




2075 


V. Whiteley 
Zinc & Co. y. LaSalle 


1646, 


1647 


v. Cooper 




1744 




1847 


y. Coy ell 




2137 


Zion Church y. Parker 




1715 


y. Cureton 




2006 


Zitzer y. Merkel 


2637, 


2641 


V. Dayles 




2208 


Zobel y. Bauersachs 




1715 


y. Doherty 




2583 


Zottman y. San Francisco 




1639 


y. Edwards 


2122, 


2131 


Zube y. Weber 




1691 


y. Foster 




2071 


Zucker y. Korpeles 




2624 


V. Gilbert 




2454 


Zumpfe y. Gentry 




2627 


V. Greenlee 




2124 


Zundel y. Baldwin 




2651 


y. Hartford F. Ins. Co. 




2298 


Zweibel y. Myers 




162S 


V. Hill 


1607, 


2086 


Zwisler y. Storts 




2617 



THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 



CHAPTEK LXXV. 



ABANDONMENT. 



Sec. 

1571. Generally. 

1572. Burden of proof. 

1573. Question of law or fact. 

1574. Range of evidence. 

1575. The act. 



Sec. 

157:6. The intent. 

1577. "What Is sufficient evidence. 

1578. What is not sufficient evidence. 

1579. Non-user and misuser. 

1580. Lap^e. o£ time. 



§ 1571. Generally. — Abandonment has been defined as the relin- 
quishment or surrender of rights or property by one person to an- 
other.^ But it is to be distinguished from a mere surrender, gift, or 
conveyance to some particular person;^ and it would, perhaps, be 
better to define it as a voluntary relinquishment, or leaving and giv- 
ing up, of a right or property without transferring or surrendering 
it to any particular person. Both the intention to abandon and the 
■external act are essential ; or, in other words, there must be both the 
intention to abandon and the actual relinquishment, so that, in the 
case of property, it may be appropriated by the next comer.* But the 
intention may sometimes be inferred from the act and circumstances. 
Abandonment may be in issue in many cases, for there may be an 
abandonment of an equitable right,* or of almost any kind of prop- 

'Bouv. Law Diet. (Rawle's Ed.) 'Hickman v. Link, 116 Mo. 123, 
2; Hickman v. Link, 116 Mo. 123, 22 S. W. 472, 473; Stevens v. Nor- 
folk, 42 Conn. 377; Livermore v. 
White, 74 Me. 452, 43 Am. R. 600; 
Judson V. Malloy, 40 Cal. 309; Utt 
V. Frey, 106 Cal. 392, 39 Pac. 807, 
809. 

•Picket V. Dowdall, 2 Wash. 
(Va.) 106; Derby v. Ailing, 40 



22 S. W. 472, 473. 

"Hagan v. Gaskill, 42 N. J. Bq. 
215, 6 Atl. 879; Richardson v. Mc- 
Nulty, 24 Cal. 339; McLeran v. Ben- 
ton, 43 Cal. 467. See also, Eads v. 
Brazelton, 22 Ark. 499, 79 Am. Dec. 
S8. 



§ 1571.J 



ABANDONMENT. 



erty. Title to personal property may thus be lost/ and so, in some in- 
stances may the title to land.^ Trademarks/ inventions or patent 
rights/ water rights/ mining claims/" highways/^ and easements- 
generally/^ may also be abandoned.^^ 

Conn. 410; Dikes v. Miller, 24 Tex. Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. (U.. 

417; Dodge v. Harden, 7 Ore. 456; S.) 516, evidence lield sufficient to 

PhUadelphia v. Riddle, 25 Pa. St. show abandonment of unpatented 

259; Gluckauf v. Reed, 22 Cal. 469. invention. 



'McGoon V. Ankeny, IIIU. 558; 



'Dodge V. Harden, 7 Ore. 456; 



Wyman v. Hurlburt, 12 Ohio 81, 40 Utt v. Frey, 106 Cal. 392, 39 Pac. 



Am. Dec. 461; Haslam v. Lock- 
wood, 37 Conn. 500, 9 Am. R. 350; 



807; Hewitt v. Story, 51 Fed. 101; 
North Am. &c. Co. v. Adams, 104 



Dougherty v. Creary, 30 Cal. 290, 89 Fed. 404. 



Am. Dec. 116. 

"Dikes V. Hiller, 24 Tex. 417; 
Tiebout v. Hillican, 61 Tex. 517; 



'"Harkrader v. Carroll, 76 Fed„ 
474, and cases cited. 
"Hewes v. Village of Crete, 175 



Fine v. St. Louis Pub. Schools, 30 111. 348; 51 N. E. 696; Los Angeles- 
Mo. 166; Clark v. Hammerly, 36 v. Cohn, 101 Cal. 373, 35 Pac. 1002; 
Ho. 620; Burke v. Hammond, 76 Derby v. Ailing, 40 Conn. 410; Phil- 
Pa. St. 172. See also, Jones v. Her- lips v. Lawrence (Ky.), 64 S. W. 
rimack & Co., 31 N. H. 381. 411; Larson v. Fitzgerald, 87 Iowa 
Homesteads: See, Sides v. Scharffi, 402, 54 N. W. 441; Jefferson ville, 
93 Ala. 106, 9 So. 228; Fyffer v. &c. R. Co. v. O'Connor, 37 Ind. 95; 
Beers, 18 Iowa 4, 85 Am. Dec. 577; Kelsoe v. Hayor, (Ga.) 48 S. B. 366. 
Cabeen v. Hulllgan, 37 111. 230, 87 See, Elliott Roads and Streets (2nd 
Am. Dee. 247 and note; Kaes v. ed.) §§ 871-874; Maire v. Kruse, 85 



Gross, 92 Ho. 647, 1 Am. St. 767; 
Taylor v. Hargons, 2 Cal. 268, 60 
Am. Dec. 607, note; HcCord &c. Co. 
v. Tessier, 66 Neb. 740, 96 N. W. 342. 



Wis. 302, 55 N. W. 389, 26 L. R. A. 
449, note. 

^' Town of Freedom v. Norris, 128 
Ind. 377, 27 N. E. 869; Farrar v. 



But the title to land, especially if Cooper, 34 Me. 394; Smyles v. Hast- 
acquired by deed, cannot ordinarily ings, 22 N. Y. 217; Canny v. An- 



be abandoned in the true sense. Ro- 
bie V. Sedgwick, 35 Barb. (N. Y.) 
319; Perkins v. Blood, 36 Vt. 273; 
Hummel v. Cumberland &c. R. Co., 



drews, 123 Hass. 155. But as to the^ 
evidence where the easement is ac- 
quired by deed, see, Townsend v.. 
Hich. Cent. R. Co., 101 Fed. 757; 



175 Pa. St. 537. 34 Atl. 848; School Edgerton v. McHullan, 55 Kans. 90, 
Dist. V. Benson. 31 Me. 381, 52 Am. 39 Pac. 1021; Butterfleld v. Reed, 



Dec. 618. 



160 Hass. 361, 35 N. B. 1128; Welch 



'Kohler Hfg. Co. v. Beeshore, 59 v. Garrett, 5 Idaho 639, 51 Pac. 405; 
Fed. 572; Houson v. Bochem, 26 Ch. Dill v. Board &c. 47 N. J. Eq. 421, 



Div. 398, 28 Sol. Jour. 361; Bower v. 
Boulton, 53 Fed. 389. 

■Pennock v. Dialogue, 2 Pet. (U. 
S.) 1; United States v. Hall, 7 
Mackey (D. C.) 19; Planing Ma- 
chine Co. V. Keith, 101 U. S. 479; 



20 Atl. 739. 10 L. R. A. 276. 

"The term is also used in other 
connections with a somewhat vary- 
ing meaning. In divorce proceed- 
ings, for instance, it is often use* 
in the sense of desertion, and ia 



BURDEN OF PROOF. 



[§§ 1573, 1573. 



§ 1572. Burden of proof. — The burden of proof as to the issue of 
abandonment is usually upon the party that asserts it.^* The burden 
of proof in the sense of making out his case by proving ownership, or 
the like, may be and remain upon the plaintiff ; and yet the burden of 
going forward with the evidence at the proper time, in order to de- 
feat the plaintifE's prima facie case by showing an abandonment, may 
rest upon the defendant.^^ It will not be presumed that an owner 
has abandoned valuable property, or that a highway, or the like, has 
been abandoned.^" Upon the same principle, a homestead right, when 
once acquired will not be presumed, without proof, to have been aban- 
doned ; and the burden is upon the party that claims that it has been 
abandoned.^''" But it has been held that proof of an actual removal 
from the premises throws upon the person who claims the homestead 
the burden of showing an intention to return and occupy the prem- 
ises as a homestead.^' 

§ 1573. Cluestion of law or fact. — The question of abandonment 
is generally a question of fact, or a mixed question of law and fact, 
as distinguished from a question of law.^" But it may, in some cases. 



marine insurance it has a special 
meaning. See also as to abandon- 
ment of an animal which, will pre- 
vent recovery against a railroad 
company for killing it; Welty v. In- 
dianapolis &c. R. Co., 105 Ind. 55, 4 
N. E. 410; Ft. Wayne &c. R. Co. v. 
Woodward, 112 Ind. 118, 13 N. E. 
260. 

"Tayon v. Ladew, 33 Mo. 205; 
Hicks V. Steigieman, 49 Miss. 377; 
Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Wright, 
126 Fed. 82, 89; Providence &c. Co. 
V. Burke (Ariz.), 57 Pac. 641; Ore- 
amuno v. Uncle Sam &c. Co., 1 Nev. 
215; Moon v. Rollins, 36 Cal. 333, 95 
Am. Dec. 181; Hall v. Lincoln, 10 
Colo. App. 360, 50 Pac. 1047. See 
also, Hennessy v. Murdock, 137 N. 
Y. 317. 

'"Muhle V. New York &c. R. 
Co., 86 Tex. 459, 25 S. W. 607-608. 
As to when defendant may show 
abandonment under general denial, 
see, Bell v. Red Rock Tunnel &c. 



Co., 36 Cal. 214; Willson v. Cleave- 
land, 30 Cal. 192. 

" Hicks V. Steigieman, 49 Miss. 
377; Shirk v. Chicago, 195 111. 
298, 63 N. E. 193, 199, citing Elliott 
Roads and Streets (2nd ed.) § 872. 
See also, Dingwall v. County Com., 
19 Colo. 415, 36 Pac. 148; Hennessy 
v. Murdock, 137 N. Y. 317; Manhat- 
tan Life Ins. Co. v. Wright, 1.26 Fed. 
82, 89. 

"Boot v. Brewster, 75 Iowa 631, 
36 N. W. 649, 9 Am. St. 515; Cooper 
V. Basham (Tex.), 19 S. W. 704. 

" Newman v. Franklin, 69 Iowa 
244, 28 N. W. 579; Bell v. Great- 
house, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 478, 49 S. 
W. 258. 

."Keane v. Cannovan, 21 Cal. 291, 
82 Am. Dec. 738; Russell v. Davis, 
38 Conn. 562; Landes v. Perkins, 12 
Mo. 238; Langdon v. Templeton, 66 
Vt. 173, 28 Atl. 866; Wiggins v. Mc- 
Cleary, 49 N. Y. 346; Oreamuno v. 
Uncle Sam &c. Co., 1 Nev. 215; 



§ 1574.] ABANDONMENT. 4 

be a question of law for the court. This is the case where the facts are 
undisputed and but one reasonable inference can be drawn from them. 
Thus, where there is no dispute as to the facts, and it clearly appears 
that a party has thrown away an article and has declared that he has 
relinquished all rights to it, or where he has removed all improve- 
ments from a mining claim, or wild land, to which he has not yet ac- 
quired a legal title and has remained continuously absent for many 
years, and permitted it to return to its wild state without asserting 
any rights to it, and has done other acts to indicate an abandonment, 
and nothing indicative of ownership or claim to it, the question may 
become one of law for the cpurt.^" So, if the law conclusively implies 
an abandonment from certain facts and those facts are proved with- 
out dispute or explanation, the question is one of law;^^ and it is like- 
wise evident that where there is no evidence even tending to show 
the existence of an element necessary, under the law, to constitute an 
abandonment, the court may declare as matter of law that there has 
been no abandonment. 

§ 1574. Bange of evidence. — -The relinquishment or non-user of 
property, although it may not, of itself, be sufficient evidence of aban- 
donment, may, of course, be shown in a proper case as one of the ele- 
ments thereof.^ ^ Indeed, the voluntary leaving or relinquishment is 
one of the essential elements that must be shown.^^ The other es- 
sential element is the intent, and this must also be shown, but, as will 
hereafter appear, it may be shown by circumstantial as well as by di- 
rect evidence. It may, indeed, sometimes be inferred from lapse of 
time coupled with the act of relinquishment, or from the manner and 

Brentlinger v. Hutchinson, 1 Watts Pa. St. 214; Sample v. Robb, 16 Pa. 

(Pa.) 46, 52; Parkins v. Dunham, 3 St. 305. 

Strobh. (S. Car.) 224; Hatch v. "Brentlinger v. Hutchinson, 1 

Dwight, 17 Mass. 289, 297, 9 Am. Watts (Pa.) 46; Clemmins v. Gott- 

Dec. 145; Schwartze v. Kuhn, 10 shall, 4 Yeates (Pa.) 330; Grant 

Me. 274, 25 Am. Dec. 239; North v. Allison, 43 Pa. St. 427. 

Am. &c. Co. V. Adams, 104 Fed. 404; ^ Sieber v. Frink, 7 Colo. 148, 2 

Carr v. Foster, L. R. 3 Q. B. 581, 43 Pac. 901. 

B. C. L. 876; Chicago &c. R. Co. v. =»Utt v. Frey, 106 Cal. 392, 39 Pac. 

Clapp, 201 111. 418, 66 N. E. 223; 807, 809; Cook v. McCord, 9 Okla. 

Muhle V. New York &c. R. Co., 86 200, 60 Pac. 497; Whitwell v. Wells, 

Tex. 459, 25 S. W. 607. 24 Pick. (Mass.) 25; Wyinan v! 

^"Pairie v. Griffiths, 86 Fed. 452; Hurlburt, 12 Ohio 81, 40 Am. Dec. 

Atchison v. McCulloch, 5 Watts 461. 
(Pa.) 13; Wilson v. Watterson, 4 



5 EANGE OF EVIDENCE THE ACT. [§ 1575. 

circumstances of the relinquishinent itself. All relevant evidence to 
show or rebut, the relinquishment or intention is generally adfliissible. 
Indeed, it has been stated in broad terms that upon this question, as 
upon a question of fraud, a wide range should be allowed; for it is 
generally from facts and circumstances that the truth is to be dis- 
covered, and "both parties should be allowed to prove any fact or cir- 
cumstance from which any aid for the solution of the question can be 
derived."^* Thus, evidence of removal, making a sworn inventory, as 
an insolvent, which did not include the property in question, and 
knowledge of the taking possession of the property by another person 
under claim of title, without objection, has been held coinpetent as 
tending to show an abandonment.^^ So, on the other hand, evidence 
that an agent was left in charge,^" or to explain the apparent abandon- 
ment by showing that it was iiot voluntary, or the like, has also been 
held admissible.^'' Both the acts and the declaration of the party 
claimed to have abandoned the property, made at the time of the al- 
leged abandonment, are generally admissible on the question of aban- 
donment.^* 

§ 1575. The act. — As already stated, in order to constitute an 
abandonment there must be both an actual relinquishment of the 
right or property, and an intention to abandon it. The act of re- 
linquishment may be proved, in general, as any other act, and there 

=*Willsoii V. Cleaveland, 30 Gal. '"Keane v. Canavan, 21 Cal. 293, 

192, 201; Bell v. Red Rock Tunnel 82 Am. Dec. 738. 

&c. Co., 36 Cal. 214; Moon V. Rollins, "Lockhart v. Wills, 9 N. Mex. 

36 Cal. 333, 95 Am. Deo. 181; Lock- 263, 50 Pac. 318; Livermore v. 

hart V. Wills, 9 N. Mex. 263, 50 Pac. White, 74 Me. 452, 43 Am. Dec. 600; 

318. On an issue as to the abandon- Welch v. Garrett, 5 Idaho 639, 51 

ment of a railroad right of way Pac. 405; Utah &c. Co. v. Dickert 

where the company had ceased to &c. Co., 6 Utah 183, 21 Pac. 1002, 5 

operate its branch to a mine after L. R. A. 259. See also, where party 

the mine was exhausted and had acts under mistake or ignorance: 

torn up its tracks, evidence that the Ross v. Gould, 5 Greenl. (Me.) 204; 

road was built merely to haul sup- Williams v. Champion, 6 Ohio 169. 

plies and coal to and from the mine ^ Kercheval v. Ambler, 4 Dana 

was held competent in a recent case. (Ky.) 166; Dodge v. Marden, 7 Ore. 

Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Clapp, 201 III. 456; Perkins v. Blood, 36 Vt. 273. 

418, 66 N. E. 223. To much the same See also, Bliss v. Ellsworth, 36 Cal. 

effect is. Gill v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 310; McMillan v. Warner, 38 Tex. 

118 Iowa 88, 90 N. W. 606. 410; Benbow v. Boyer, 89 Iowa 494, 

">Barada v. Blumenthal, 20 Mo. 56 N. W. 544. 
162; Sweeney v. Reilly, 42 Cal. 402. 



1576.] 



ABANDONMENT. 



is nothing peculiar to this branch of the subject, so far as the ad- 
missibility of evidence is concerned. Lapse of time may be an im- 
portant element in determining whether there has been an abandon- 
ment,^" but time is not an essential element, for the moment that the 
actual relinquishment and the intention concur the abandonment is 
usually complete.^" 

§ 1676. The intent. — The intention is usually the paramount, sub- 
ject or inquiry where abandonment is claimed.'^ There must also be 
an act of relinquishment; but, while it alone or in connection with 
the circumstances may furnish evidence of an intention to abandon, 
there is no abandonment unless there is an intention to abandon or to 
relinquish the right or property.^^ Direct evidence as to the intention 
is usually admissible,'*^ although it is not necessarily conclusive. But 
the intention is frequently proved by circumstantial evidence, and all 
the relevant and proper facts and circumstances of the case may be 
shown to prove or rebut an intention to abandon.^* 



=»Moon V. Rollins, 36 Cal. 333, 
95 Am. Dec. 181; Patchin v. 
Stroud, 28 Vt. 394; Mallett v. Uncle 
Sam &c. Co., 1 Nev. 188, 90 Am. 
Dec. 484; Dawson v. Daniel, 2 Flip. 
(U. S.) 305. 

» Snell v. Levitt, 110 N. Y. 595, 18 
N. E. 370, 1 L. R. A. 414; Mallett v. 
Uncle Sam &c. Co., 1 Nev. 188, 90 
Am. Dec. 484. 

=' Mallett V. Uncle Sam &c. Co., 1 
Nev. 188, 90 Am. Dec. 484; Sweeney 
V. Rellly, 42 Cal. 402; City of Cleve- 
land V. Cleveland &c. R. Co., 93 
Fed. 113, 122; Manhattan Life Ins. 
Co. V. Wright, 126 Fed. 82, 89, and 
cases cited. 

""Dyer v. Sanford, 9 Mete. 
(Mass.) 395, 43 Am. Dec. 399; 
Smith V. Gushing, 41 Cal. 97; Pol- 
son V. Ingram, 22 S. Car. 541, 546; 
Wilson V. Pearson, 20 111. 81; Rowe 
V. Minneapolis, 49 Minn. 148, 51 N. 
W. 907; Sloan v. Glancy, 19 Mont. 
70, 47 Pac. 334; Weill v. Lucerne 
&c. Co., 11 Nev. 200; Wiggins v. 
McCleary, 49 N. Y. 346. So. the 



mere suspension of the exercise of 
a right is not an abandonment un- 
less the intention is present, Baiiks 
V. Banks, 77 N. Car. 186; Faw v. 
Whittington, 72 N. Car. 321; Mas- 
son V. Anderson, 3 Baxt. (Tenn.) 
290; Breedlove v. Stump, 3 Yerg. 
(Tenn.) 257; Mouson v. Boehm, 26 
Ch. Div. 398. 

'"Butterfleld v. Reed, 160 Mass. 
361, 35 N. E. 1128; Boot v. Brew- 
ster, 75 Iowa 631, 36 N. W. 649, 9 
Am. St. 515; Milburn Wagon Co. v. 
Kennedy, 75 Tex. 212. See also, 
Bidinger v. Bishop, 76 Ind. 244; 
Over V. Schlffling, 102 Ind. 191; 
Georgia &c. R. Co. v. Bskew, 86 Ga. 
641, 12 S. B. 1061, 22 Am. St. 490; 
Mann v. Taylor, 78 Iowa 355, 43 N. 
W. 220; Gardom v. Woodward, 44 
Kans. 758, 21 Am. St. 310; Tasker 
V. Stanley, 153 Mass. 148, 26 N. E. 
417; Elliott Roads and Streets (2nd 
ed.) § 156. 

"Myers v. Spooner, 55 Cal. 257; 
WlUson v. Cleaveland, 30 Cal. 192, 
201; Davis v. Perley, 30 Cal. 630; 



7 EVIDENCE OF. [§ 1577. 

§ 1577. What is sufficient evidence. — A Connecticut case'^ illus- 
trates the doctrine of the preceding section and is of importance in 
ihis connection as showing both what is sufficient evidence of an aban- 
donment by the original owner and what is not sufficient to prove an 
abandonment by the- finder and appropriator. In that ease manure 
dropped in the street by horses was left there by the owners of the 
liorses, as worthless to them, and the plaintifE raked it up into heaps 
intending to cart it away the next day, but before he could do so, the 
•defendant took it and carted it away. It was held that the original 
owners had abandoned it and that the first appropriator had not 
abandoned it, and that he was entitled to maintain an action of trover 
against the defendant. If an article is purposely thrown away by the 
•owner, this is sufficient evidence of its abandonment.^' So, where a 
mining claim was located in the name of four persons and the one who 
located it and was the only person who had anything to do with it, 
testified that after working it a while he decided it was worthless and 
destroyed the monuments and left with the intention of having noth- 
ing further to do with it, it was held that the claim was abandoned 
hy all four.^' The non-user of a water right, and the diversion of the 
water to another ditch may, under certain circumstances, constitute 
an abandonment of the first ditch,^^ but the mere non-user of the 
Tight for a time, or suffering the ditch to become obstructed, will not 
necessarily constitute an abandonment.^" Eemoval of a homestead 
with the intention of permanently residing and going into business 

Ross v. Hellyer, 26 Fed. 413; Kim- Pac. 723. See also, Myers v. Spoon- 

Isall V. Wilson, 59 Iowa 638; Leh- er, 55 Cal. 257,, evidence of aban- 

man v. Bryan, 67 Ala. 558; Lock- donment sufficient to justify jury in 

hart V. Wills, 9 N. Mex. 263, 50 Pac. so finding notwithstanding party 

318, 320. See also, Elliott Roads testified he did not intend to aban- 

and Streets (2nd ed.) § 156. State- don; Harkrader v. Carroll, 76 Fed. 

ments of the owner at the time the 474. 

act was done have been held admis- ^ Hewitt v. Story, 51 Fed. 101, af- 

sible for, as well as against, him in firmed in 64 Fed. 510, 30 L. R. A. 

a dedication case; City of Denver v. 265, where the subject is also treat- 

Jacobson, 17 Colo. 497, 30 Pac. 246, ed in the note. 

347. Acts and declarations at time ''North Am. &c. Co. v. Adams, 

■of alleged abandonment also held 104 Fed. 404; Utt v. Frey, 106 Cal. 

admissible: Kercheval v. Ambler, 4 392, 39 Pac. 807; Hall v. State, 77 

Dana (Ky.) 166. N. Y. 282; Herriman &c. Co. v. Keel, 

'"'Haslem v. Lockwood, 37 Conn. 25 Utah 96, 69 Pac. 719. See also, 

500, 9 Am. R. 350. Butterfleld v. O'Neill (Colo. App.), 

^McGoon V. Ankeny, 11 111. 558. 72 Pac. 807. 

"Kinney v. Fleming (Ariz.), 56 



§ 1578.] ABANDONMENT. 8 

elsewhere, has also been held sufficient evidence of abandonment of 
the homestead, even though the owner intended at some time to re- 
turn if his business elsewhere should prove unsuccessful.'"' So, while 
mere non-user, without adverse possession, has been held insufficient 
to destroy an easement, especially when the easement was acquired 
by grant and not by prescription ; yet it has often been held that non- 
user accompanied by acts clearly evincing an intention to abandon, 
especially if such acts destroy the object or enjoyment of the easement, 
will be sufficient to show an abandonment.*^ 

§ 1578. What is not sufficient evidence. — Where the lessee of a 
stone quarry, after taking out a large quantity of stone, left the stone 
taken out, together with his tools, upon the ground, and went away 
for two years to attend to other business, it was held that there was no 
abandonment, unless there was intention to abandon, and that the 
nature and value of the property and the fact that it was left be- 
cause it could not be sold for an adequate price at the time tended to 
repel any abandonment and justified the jury in finding that there 
was none.*^ So, in many cases, the non-user for many years of prop- 
erty condemned for railroad purposes has been held insufficient, of it- 
self, to show an abandonment.*^ The mere removal from a house does 
not establish an intent to abandon the ownership of it ;** nor does the 
mere failure to pay taxes on property necessarily show an intent to 

*" Kimball v. Wilson, 59 Iowa E. 1053 ; Hayford v. Spokesfield, lOO 

638; Conway v. Nichols, 106 Iowa Mass. 491; Smith v. Worn, 93 Cal. 

358, 76 N. W. 681; Wolf v. Hawkins, 206; Fairbury Agriculture Board v. 

60 Ark. 262; Smith v. Bunn, 75 Mo. Holly, 169 111. 9, 48 N. E. 149; Bow- 

559; Lehman v. Bryan, 67 Ala. 558; en v. Cooper (Ky.), 66 S. W. 601. 

Gregory v. Gates, 92 Ky. 532, 18 S. -^Russell v. Stratton, 201 Pa. St. 

W. 231. 277, 50 Atl. 975. 

" Freedom v. Norrls, 128 Ind. 377, « Struve v. Republican &c. R. Co.,. 

27 N. E. 869; Steere v. Tiffany, 13 2 Neb. 585, 89 N. W. 604; Morgan v. 

R. I. 568; Canny v. Andrews, 123 Des Moines &c. R. Co., 113 Iowa 561, 

Mass. 155; Vogler v. Geiss, 51 Md. 85 N. W. 902; St. Louis &c. R. Co. 

407; Monaghan v. Memphis Fair v. Foltz, 52 Fed. 627, 633; Southern 

&c. Co., 95 Tenn. 108, 31 S. W. 497; Pac. R. Co. v. Burr. 86 Cal. 279, 24 

Stein v. Dahn, 96 Ala. 481; Fitzpat- Pac. 1032; Hummel v. Cumberland 

rick V. Boston &c. R. Co., 84 Me. 33, &c. R. Co., 175 Pa. St. 537, 34 Atl. 

24 Atl. 432; Reg. v. Chorley, L. R. 12 848; Gurney v. Minneapolis &c. R- 

Q. B. 515, 64 E. C. L. 515. But see as Co., 63 Minn. 70, 65 N. W. 136. 

to what is insufficient and as to "Howard v. Pessenden, 14 Allen 

what must be shown: Roby v. New (Mass.) 124. 
York &c. R. Co., 142 N. Y. 176, 36 N. 



9 



NON-USER AND MISUSEE. 



[§ 1579. 



abandon it.*' And the fact that a landowner has left his premises 
vacant and remained absent for several years, vrhile it is admissible as 
evidence of abandonment, does not necessarily require that inference.** 
The removal of a fence for the purpose of replacing it with a better 
one does not show an intention to abandon the premises.*^ The fail- 
ure to operate a mine continuously does not necessarily amount to an 
abandonment,*^ nor does an unsuccessful attempt to relocate a min- 
ing claim effect an abandonment of a prior valid location.*' 

§ 1579. Non-user and misuser. — It seems to be the rule at common 
law that easements and other incorporeal hereditaments, acquired by 
user, might be lost by non-user, at least if the non-user were contin- 
ued for the time necessary to acquire them;'^" but when they were 
acquired by deed they could not be extinguished by mere non-user, 
without other evidence of intention to abandon, or unless adverse user 
or some element of estoppel were present.^^ But this distinction has 
been denied in some cases,^^ and it has often been held, although 
generally in other classes of cases, that abandonment may be inferred 
from non-user for many years.^^ Fon-user is at least an element to be 



«Keane v. Canovan, 21 Cal. 219, 
82 Am. Dec. 738. 

«Judson V. Malloy, 40 Cal. 299; 
Langdon v. Templeton, 66 Vt. 173, 
28 Atl. 866; Cravens v. Moore, 61 
Mo. 178. But see, Crutsinger v. Ca- 
tron, 10 Humph. (Tenn.) 24. 

" Sweetland v. Hill, 9 Cal. 556. 

«Belk v. Meagher, 104 U. S. 279; 
Buffalo &c. Co. V. Crump, 70 Ark. 
525, 69 S. "W. 572. But see, as to 
leases: Parish Fork &e. Co. v. 
Bridgewater Gas Co., 51 "W. Va. 583, 
42 S. E. 655, 59 L. R. A. 566; Barns- 
dall v. Boley, 119 Fed. 191; Calhoon 
V. Nelly, 201 Pa. St. 97, 50 Atl. 967; 
Gadbury v. Ohio &c. Co. (Ind.), 67 
N. E. 259. In locating mining 
claims, however, a certain amount 
of work is required and failure to 
perform it may work a forfeiture 
under the law. 

"Temescal &c. Co. v. Salcide, 137 
Cal. 211, 69 Pac. 1010. 

"Peoria v. Johnson, 56 111. 45; 



Vermont v. Miller, 161 111. 210, 4S 
N. E. 975; Farrar.v. Cooper, 34 Me. 
394; Corning v. Gould, 16 Wend. 
(N. Y.) 530; Robie v. Sedgwick, 35 
Barb. (N. Y.) 319; Canny v. An- 
drews, 123 Mass. 155. 

"Welsh V. Tayler, 134 N. Y. 450, 
31 N. E. 896, 18 L. R. A. 535 and 
note; Kuecken v. Voltz, 110 111.264; 
Curran v. Louisville, 83 Ky. 628; 
Arnold v. Stevens,' 24 Pick. (Mass.) 
106, 35 Am. Dec. 217; Dill v. Cam- 
den Board &c., 47 N. J. Eq. 421, 10 
L. R. A. 276; Heller v. Dailey, 28 
Ind. App. 555, 63 N. E. 490. 

"^Veghte V. Raritan &c. Co., 19 N. 
J. Eq. 156. 

■» Paine v. Griffiths, 86 Fed. 452; 
Pratt V. Sweetzer, 68 Me. 344; 
French v. Braintree &c. Co., 23 
Pick. (Mass.) 216, 222; Eads v. Bra- 
zelton, 22 Ark. 499, 79 Am. Dec. 88; 
Robie V. Sedgwick, 35 Barb. (N. 
Y.) 319, 329; Clemmins v. Gottshall, 
4 Yeates (Pa.) 330; Hartford 



§ 1579.] 



ABANDONMENT. 



10 



considered, with other circumstances, upon the question. But if it 
alone is not sufScient to show an intention to abandon, and abandon- 
ment is necessary, there must be other evidence of the intention." 
Thus, the mere non-user of a railroad right of way, or the like, hag 
been held insufficient to constitute an abandonment unless an inten- 
tion to abandon is also shown by the circumstances or other evidence.^' 
So, as to highways.'" But it has been held that the failure for over 
twenty years to operate a street railroad on a certain street raises a 
presumption of abandonment of the grant so far as concerns that 
street." In some jurisdictions the non-user of an old highway and the 
establishment of a new Way in its place, will operate as an abandon- 
ment or discontinuance of the old way.'' But in nearly all states this 
matter is largely controlled by statute. The misuser of an easement 
or of a franchise, although it may constitute a ground for forfeiture 
in a proper case, is not of itself sufficient to constitute an abandon- 
ment.'' 



Bridge Co. v. Bast Hartford, 16 
Conn. 149, 173; Muhle v. New York 
&c. R. Co., 86 Tex. 459, 25 S. W. 607, 
608. 

"Lathrop v. Eisner, 93 Mich. 599, 
53 N. W. 791; Butterfield v. Reed, 
160 Mass. 361, 35 "N. E. 1128; Barnes 
V. Lloyd, 112 Mass. 224; Langdon v. 
Templeton, 66 Vt. 173, 28 Atl. 866. 

"" Townsend v. Michigan Cent. R. 
Co., 101 Fed. 757; Barlow v. Chi- 
cago &c. R. Co., 29 Iowa 276; Dur- 
fee V. Peoria &o. R. Co., 140 111. 435, 
30 N. E. 686; Rutland R. Co. v. 
Chafeee. 71 Vt. 84. 42 Atl. 984; 
Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Smith, 171 
U. S. 260, 18 Sup. Ct. 794; Southern 
Pac. R. Co. v. Hyatt, 132 Cal. 240, 
€4 Pac. 272; Virginia &c. R. Co. v. 
Crow, 108 Tenn. 17, 64 S. "W. 485. 

"' Kelly Nail &c. Co. v. Lawrence, 
46 Ohio St. 544, 22 N. E. 639; Brown 
V. Hiatt, 16 Ind. App. 340, 45 N. E. 
481; State v. Culver, 65 Mo. 607, 27 
Am. R. 295. See also, Watkins v. 
Lynch, 71 Cal. 21; Little Rock v. 
Wright, 58 Ark. 142, 23 S. W. 876; 
Eureka v. Armstrong, 83 Cal. 623, 



22 Pac. 928; Herald v. Moore, 79 Me. 
271, 9 Atl. 734; Elliott Roads and 
Streets (2nd ed.) §§ 873, 874. 

=' Louisville Trust Co. v. City of 
Cincinnati, 76 Fed. 296; Henderson 
V. Central &c. R. Co., 21 Fed. 358. 
But see, Wright v. Milwaukee &e. 
Co., 95 Wis. 29, 69 N. W. 791; Den- 
ison &c. R. Co. v. St. Louis &c. Co., 
30 Tex. Civ. App. 474, 72 S. W. 201; 
Columbus V. Columbus &c. R. Co., 
37 Ind. 294. 

""Peoria v. Johnson, 56 111. 45; 
Warner v. Holyoke, 112 Mass. 362; 
Bowley v. Walker, 8 Allen (Mass.) 
21; Stahr v. Carter, 116 Iowa 380, 
90 N. W. 64; Brook v. Horton, 68 
Cal. 554, 10 Pac. 204; Lyle v. Lesia, 
64 Mich. 16, 31 N. W. 23; Nichols v. 
Sutton, 22 Ga. 369; Closson v. Ham- 
blet, 27 Vt. 728; Millcreek Tp. v. 
Reed, 29 Pa. St. 195; State v. Reesa, 
59 Wis. 206, 17 N. W. 873. See 
generally Maire v. Kruse, 85 Wis. 
302, 26 L. R. A. 449, and extended 
note. 

""Roby V. New York &c. Co., 142 
N. Y. 176, 36 N. E. 1053. The erec- 



11 



LAPSE OF TIME. 



[§ 1580. 



§ 1580. Lapse of time. — ^As we have already said, non-user for any 
particular period of time is not an essential element of abandonment. 
Actual relinquishment accompanied by the necessary intention will 
operate as an abandonment at once. But, on the other hand, absence 
or non-user of property, without any intention to abandon it, will not 
•constitute an abandonment even though years may elapse. Thus, ab- 
sence from the premises for a number of years will not of itself neces- 
sarily constitute an abandonment,*" nor is the mere non-user of a 
portion of the right of way of a railroad for eight or ten years suffi- 
cient to constitute an abandonment if there is no intention to aban- 
don.'^ But lapse of time is generally a circumstance to be considered.*'- 
As already shown, an easement may sometimes be lost by lapse of 
iime ; or lapse of time may lead to the inference of abandonment, and, 
with other circumstances. Justify a finding to that effect. 



tion of a warehouse and elevator on 
a right of way does not constitute 
an ahandonment: Gurney v. Minne- 
apolis &c. El. Co., 63 Minn. 70, 65 
N. W. 136. Similar decisions have 
also been made where part of the 
property has been leased or devoted 
to other purposes: Peirce v. Boston 
&c. R. Co., 141 Mass. 481, 6 N. E. 96; 
Rutland R. Co. v. Chaffee, 71 Vt. 84, 
42 Atl. 984; Southern Pac. R. Co. v. 
Burr, 86 Cal. 279; 24 Pac. 1032; Dil- 
lon V. Kansas City &c. R. Co., 67 
Kans. 687, 74 Pac. 251; Durfee v. 
Peoria &c. R. Co., 140 III. 435, 30 N. 
E. 686; Roby V. New York &c. R. 
Co., 142 N. Y. 176. 36 N. E. 1053. 
See also. Proprietors of Locks &c. v. 
Ballroad Co., 104 Mass. 1; 1 Elliott 
Railroads, §§52, 55; 3 Elliott Rail- 
roads, § 931. 

"o Cravens v. Moore, 61 Mo. 178; 
Judson V. Malloy, 40 Cal. 299; Lang- 
don v. Templeton, 66 Vt. 173, 28 Atl. 



866. See also, Gassert v. Noyes, 18 
Mont. 216, 44 Pac. 959; Pratt v. 
Sweetzer, 68 Me. 344; Mallett v. 
Uncle Sam &c. Co., 1 Nev. 188, 90 
Am. Dec. 484. 

»' Durfee v. Peoria &c. R. Co., 140 
111. 435, 30 N. E. 686; Struve v. Re- 
publican &c. R. Co., 2 Neb. 585, 89 
N. W. 604; Morgan v. Des Moines 
&c. R. Co., 113 Iowa 561, 85 N. W. 
902. But see as to failure to com- 
ply with conditions in deeds and 
provisions for forfeiture and re- 
verter: Gill V. Chicago &c. R. Co., 
118 Iowa 88, 90 N. W. 606; Hickox 
V. Chicago &c. Co., 78 Mich. 615, 44 
N. W. 143; Indianapolis &c. R. Co. 
V. Hood, 66 Ind. 580. 

«= Judson V. Malloy, 40 Cal. 299; 
Jeffersonvilie &c. R. Co. v. O'Con- 
nor, 37, Ind. 95; Paine v. Griffiths, 
86 Fed. 452; Patchin v. Stroud, 28 
Vt. 394; Mallett v. Uncle Sam &c. 
Co., 1 Nev. 188, 90 Am. Dec. 484. 



CHAPTER LXXVI. 



ABATEMElSiT. 



Sec. 

1581. Burden of proof. 

1582. Question of law or fact. 

1583. Order of proof and hearing. 

1584. Alien enemy. 

1585. Want of legal capacity to sue. 

1586. Insufficient service. 



Sec. 

1587. Misnomer. 

1588. Non-joinder of parties. 

1589. Another action pending. 

1590. Pendency of former action. 

1591. Best and secondary evidence. 



§ 1581. Burden of proof. — ^A plea in abatement is an affirmative 
plea, and the burden of proving it is on the defendant.^ Thus, to 
prove want of jurisdiction the evidence must show that the jurisdic- 
tional ground did not exist. ^ So, where the plea is of another action 
pending, the burden of proving it is upon the party who pleads it.* 
And this is also true, as a general rule at least, as to a plea of alienage.* 

§ 1582. Question of law or fact. — A plea in abatement generally 
tenders an issue of fact, and must be proved like any other issue in 
the case ;^ but a pure issue of law raised by plea in abatement is triable 

'■ Gilmer v. Grand Rapids, 16 Fed. ^ Fowler v. Byrd, Hempst. (U. 

708; Woodward v. Stark, 4 S. Dak. S.) 213, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4999a; Peo- 

588, 57 N. W. 496; Kluteman v. pie v. De la Guerra, 24 Gal. 73; 

Page, 3 Willson App. Gas. (Tex.) Hoag v. Weston, 10 N. Y. Civ. Proc. 

203; Graves v. First Nat. Bank, 77 92. 

Tex. 555, 14 S. W. 163; Hart, Wig- * Richards v. Moore, 60 Vt. 449, 15 

gin & Co. V. Kanady, 33 Tex. 720; Atl. 119; State v. Haynes, 54 Iowa 

Jewett V. Davis, 6 N. H. 518; Bel- 109, 6 N. W. 156; Keenan v. State, 

lows V. Murray, 66 Me. 199. But 8 Wis. 26; Moore v. Wilson, 10 

see, Hawkins v. Albright, 70 111. 87. Yerg. (Tenn.) 406; but see Alien 

"^ Robertson v. Ephriam, 18 Tex. Enemy, post § 1584. 
118; Hopson v. Saswell, 13 Tex. Civ. "Sheppard v. Graves, 14 How. (U. 
App. 492, 36 S. W. 312; Gilmer v. S.) 505; Hart, Wiggin & Co. v. Kan- 
Grand Rapids, 16 Fed. 708.; Shep- ady, 33 Tex. 720. See also, Har- 
pard V. Graves, 14 How. (U. S.) mon v. McRae, 91 Ala. 401, 8 So. 
505; Henwood v. State, 11 Ind. App. 548, 551. 
636, 39 N. E. 289. 

13 



13 



OEDEK OF PROOF ALIEN ENEMY. [§§ 1583, 1584. 



by the court.* An issue of fact raised by such plea should usually be 
submitted to the jury,' but an issue of fact if the parties agree,* is, of 
course, triable by the court. 

§ 1583. Order of proof and hearing. — The evidence upon the plea 
in abatement should be first in order of proof. ° Eegularly, issues in 
abatement should be tried and disposed of before issues on the merits.^" 
This was the rule at common law and is the rule still in force in most 
of the states, but in some instances it has been changed by statute. 
Where the rule prevails, the evidence on the hearing of the issue in 
abatement is confined to that issue ; and the merits of the case are not 
ordinarily gone into.^^ 

§ 1584. Alien enemy. — When a plaintiflE is incapacitated from suing, 
by reason of his alienage, the defendant should raise the objection 
by plea in abatement.^^ An alien enemy is not permitted to prosecute 



'People v. De la Guerra, 24 Cal. 
73; D'Wolf v. Rabaud, 1 Pet. (U. 
S.) 476; Wicklifle v. wings, 17 
How. (U. S.) 47; Jones v. League, 
18 How. (U. S.) 76; Conard v. At- 
lantic Ins. Co., 1 Pet. (U. S.) 386. 

^McCormlck v. Blossom, 40 Iowa 
256; Enders v. Beck, 18 Iowa 86; 
Stoever v. Gloninger, 6 S. & R. 
(Pa.) 63. 

'Anderson v. Garrett, 9 Gill 
(Md.) 120; Tyler v. Murray, 57 Md. 
418. 

° Leonard v. Flynn, 89 Cal. 535, 26 
Pac. 1097, 23 Am. St. 500; Black- 
well V. Dlbbrell, 103 N. Car. 270, 9 
S. E. 192; Small v. Gwinn, 6 Cal. 
447; White v. Thompson, 1 111. 72-; 
Wells V. Patton, 50 Kans. 732, 33 
Pac. 15; Flournoy v. Flournoy, 29 
La. Ann. 737; Coombs &c. Co. v. 
Block, 130 Mo. 668, 32 S. W. 1139. 

"•Boland v. Ross, 120 Mo. 208, 25 
S. W. 524; Hummel v. Meyers, 26 
Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 279; Brown 
County V. Van Stralen, 45 Wis. 675; 
Fremont v. Merced Min. Co., McAU. 
(U. S.) 267, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 5095; 



Tynburg v. Cohen, 67 Tex. 220, 2 S. 
W. 734; Watts v. Sweeney, 127 Ind. 
116, 26 N. E. 680, 22 Am. St. 615; 
Carmien v. Cornell, 148 Ind. 83, 89, 
47 N. E. 216. 

"Choutean v. Boughton, 100 Mo. 
406, 13 S. W. 877; Tyler v. Murray, 
57 Md. 418; Sauerwein v. Renard 
&c. Co., 68 Mo. App. 29; but see, 
Thompson v. Greenwood, 28 Ind. 
327. Even under a statute permit- 
ting pleas in abatement and pleas 
in bar to be filed together, going to 
trial on the merits without bring- 
ing the plea in abatement to trial is 
held a waiver of such plea: Stephen 
PI. 105; Gould PI., ch. 5, §2; Mau- 
pin V. Scottish &c. Ins. Co., 53 W. 
Va. 557, 45 S. B. 1003. 

"^Shivers v. Wilson, 5 Har. & J. 
(Md.) 130, 9 Am. Dec. 497; Martin 
V. Woods, 9 Mass. 377; McNalr v. 
Toler, 21 Minn. 175; Educational 
&c. Soc. V. Varney, 54 N. H. 376; 
Burnside v. Matthews, 54 N. Y. 78; 
Lee V. Salinas, 15 Tex. 495; Rateau 
V. Bernard, 3 Blatchf. (U. S.) 244, 
20 Fed. Cas. No. 11579; Bee, The, 1 



1584.] 



ABATEMENT. 



14 



suits in court; and if the plaintiff, at the commencement of a suit, is'. 
an alien enemy, there is a cause for abatement ; but the right of action 
generally revives on cessation of hostilities.^^ The reason for pro- 
hibiting alien enemies from suing is that aid would be given the enemy 
by recovery.^* It has been held, however, that the rule, that an alien 
enemy has no standing in court, does not apply to courts of ad- 
miralty ;^° and it has also been held that where one of the plaintiffs' 
is a mere nominal party, the fact that he is an alien enemy is nO' 
ground for dismissing the petition of the real plaintiff who is not an 
enemy.^' The burden of proving alienage is ordinarily upon the party 
who asserts it;^^ but it has been held that foreigners by birth are pre- 
sumed- to be aliens,^^ and that, when once this fact is established, the 
status is presumed to continue,^ ° at least in the absence of anything 



"Ware (U. S.) 336, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 
1219; Comyns Dig. 428; Burk v. 
Brown, 2 Atk. 397. But see, Dewitt 
V. Buchanan, 54 Barb. (N. Y.) 31; 
White v. Sabariego, 23 Tex. 243. 

"Daniell PI. and Pr. 45-53; Kent 
Comm. 68; O'Mealey v. Wilson, 1 
Campb. 482; De Luneville v. Phil- 
lips, 2 B. & P. N. R. 97; Daubigny 
V. Davallon, 2 Anst. 462; Anthon v. 
Fisher, 2 Doug. 649 note, 3 Doug. 
166, 26 B. C. L. 69; Alcinous v. Ni- 
greu, 4 EI. & Bl. 217, 82 E. C. L. 217, 
1 Jur. N. S. 16; Sylvester's Case, 7 
Mod. 150; Kanawha Coal Co. v. 
Kanawha &c. Coal Co., 7 Blatchf. 
(U. S.) 391; Adventure, The, 8 
Cranch (U. S.) 221; Crawford v. 
The William Penn, 3 Wash. (U. S. 
C. C.) 484; Knoefel v. Williams, 30 
Ind. 1; Perkins v. Rogers, 35 Ind. 
124, 9 Am. R. 639; Norris v. Doni- 
phan, 4 Mete. (Ky.) 385; Dorsey v. 
Kyle, 30 Md. 513, 96 Am. Dec. 617; 
Hutchinson v. Brock, 11 Mass. 119; 
Levlne v. Taylor, 12 Mass. 8; Bon- 
neau v. Dinsmore, 23 How. Pr. (N. 
Y.) 397; Bell t. Chapman, 10 Johns. 
(N. Y.) 183; Sanderson v. Morgan, 
39 N. Y. 231, 25 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 
144; Russell v. Skipwith, 6 Bin. 
(Pa.) 241; Hardy v. De Leon, 5 



Tex. 211; Bishop v. Jones, 28 Tex. 
294. 

"Zacharie v. Godfrey, 50 111. 186, 
99 Am. Dec. 506; Clarke v. Morey, 
10 Johns. (N. Y.) 69; Russ v. Mitch- 
ell, 11 Fla. 80; Hoskins v. Gentry, 
2 Duv. (Ky.) 285; Griswold v. Wad- 
dington, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 57; Emu- 
lous, The, 1 Gall. (U. S.) 563; John- 
son V. Thirteen Bales &c., 2 Paine 
(U. S.) 639. 

"United States v. 1756 Shares. 
Capital Stock, 5 Blatchf. (U. S.) 
231; see also, Ottridge v. Thompson, 
2 Cranch (U. S.) 108; Sylvester's. 
Case, 7 Mod. 150; Wells v. Williams, 
1 Ld. Raym. 282, 1 Lutw. 34, 1 Salk. 
46; Ricord v. Bettenham, 3 Burr. 
1734. 

"Hoskins v. Gentry, 2 Duv. (Ky.) 
285. 

"Smith V. Dovers, 2 Doug. 428; 
Moore v. Wilson, 10 Yerg. (Tenn.) 
406; Keenan v. State, 8 Wis. 132; 
State V. Haynes, 54 Iowa 109, 6 N. 
W. 153; Richards v. Moore, 60 Vt. 
449, 15 Atl. 119; but compare au- 
thorities cited in next note below. 

" Behrensmeyer v. Kreitz, 135111. 
591, 26 N. E. 704; White v. White, 2 
Mete. (Ky.) 185. 

" Hauenstein v. Lynhan, 100 U. S. 



15 



WANT OP LEGAL CAPACITY. 



[§ 1585. 



to the contrary. In a charge of alienage the best evidence of which the 
nature of the case admits mnst be produced.^" For instance, the dec- 
larations of a juror after verdict have been held inadmissible to show 
that he was an alien and therefore not qualified."^ A certificate of 
naturalization in a foreign country has been held admissible/^ as evi- 
dence of alienage ; and so has the recital in a deed/^ but it is not con- 
clusive. Where the defendant pleads that the plaintiff is an alien 
enemy and the plaintiff replies that he is a native citizen, the burden 
is upon the defendant to prove that the plaintiff is an alien as al- 
leged;^* and if the plaintiff replies that he was duly naturalized, the 
proper evidence thereof is the record, or an exemplified copy of the 
record of the court in which he was naturalized.^^ But naturalization 
may sometimes be inferred from the fact that one has long exercised 
the privileges of a citizen.^' The courts take judicial notice of the ex- 
istence of a war in which this country is involved,''^ and also of the 
restoraltion of peace proclaimed by the President.^' 

§ 1585. Want of legal capacity to sue. — Ability is the rule and 
disability the exception.^" In the absence of anything to the contrary 



483; Kadlec v. Pavik, 9 N. Dak. 
278, 83 N. W. 5. But it may be re- 
butted by proper evidence. 

^"Keenan v. State, 8 Wis. 132. 

"Schuster v. State, 80 Wis. 107, 
49 N. W. 30. 

'^Newcomb v. Newcomb, 22 Ky. 
L. R. 286, 57 S. W. 2. 

=^Lacoste v. Odam, 26 Tex. 458. 

=• Smith v. Dovers, 2 Doug. 428; 
see also, State v. Haynes, 54 Iowa 
109, 6 N. W. 156; but compare. 
White V. White, 2 Mete. (Ky.) 185; 
Behrensmeyer v. Kreitz, 135 111. 
591, 26 N. E. 704. 

""And parol or secondary evi- 
dence is not ordinarily admissible: 
Belcher v. Parren, 89 Gal. 73, 26 
Pae. 791; Berry v. Hull, 6 N. M^x. 
643, 30 Pac. 936; State v. O'Hearn, 
58 Vt. 718, 6 Atl. 606; Green v. 
Salas, 31 Fed. 106. 

" Boyd V. Nebraska, 143 V. S. 135, 
12 Sup. Ct. 375, and secondary evi- 
dence is admissible where the rec- 
ord has been destroyed; Hogan v. 



Kurtz, 94 U. S. 773; Scott v. Stro- 
bach, 49 Ala. 477; Heney v. Brook- 
lyn &c. Soc, 39 N. Y. 333. 

" Swinneaton v. Columbian Ins. 
Co., 37 N. Y. 174. 93 Am. Dec. 560; 
Perkins v. Rogers, 35 Ind. 124, 9 
Am. R. 639; Ogden v. Lund, 11 Tex. 
688; United States v. Greathouse, 2 
Abb. (U. S.) 364; Cuyler v. FerrlU, 
1 Abb. (U. S.) 169; Aleinous v. Ni- 
gren, 4 El. & Bl. 217, 82 E. C. L. 
217; Rex v. De Berenger, 3 M. & S. 
67; in one case the court seems to 
have taken judicial notice that a 
litigant was an alien enemy, Beck- 
ham's Succession, 16 La. Ann. 352. 

^Perkins v. Rogers, 35 Ind. 124, 
9 Am. R. 639; so held in United 
States V. Fifteen hundred Bales of 
Cotton, 10 Int. Rev. Rec. 52, al- 
though no proclamation had been 
made by the President. 

=» Briscoe v. Johnson, 73 Ind. 573; 
Frankboner v. Corder, 127 Ind. 164, 
26 N. E. 766. 



§ 1585.] ABATEMENT. 16 

it will be presumed that all the parties to an action are adults f and 
one who relies upon a plea that one of the parties is an infant has 
the burden of proving it.*^ In a recent case it is said: "It is true 
that infancy may be pleaded either in abatement or in bar, depending 
on the facts shown. In case the facts pleaded show, or do not deny a 
good cause of action, but merely disclose that the party is a minor 
and therefore cannot maintain or defend the action, then the plea, if 
made, would be in abatement.'^ Doubtless, however, the court, in such 
case, would appoint a guardian ad litem for a minor defendant, and 
the trial would proceed; and even if judgment should be entered 
without such appointment, the error would be but an irregularity, 
and the judgment, if not attacked on its merits, would stand.^^ In 
case, however, the facts should show that the party against whom 
the action was brought was a minor at the time of executing the note 
or other obligation sued on, then, it is plain, that no cause of action 
would be shown against him. The minor having been incapable of 
entering into the alleged contract, there would, in fact, be no eon- 
tract; and the answer setting up such a state of facts would be a 
plea in bar, and not in abatement." Coverture, like infancy, when 
it does not appear on the face of the complaint or declaration, and 
goes merely in abatement, must be so pleaded;'* and the same has 
been held as to the want of legal capacity of an administrator to sue.^^ 
So, it has been held that the fact that a corporation has ceased to 
exist,'" or that it has no legal existence,'^ should be pleaded in abate- 
ment. But the weight of authority at common law seems to be to the 

=»McSweeney v. McMillen, 96 Ind. Car.) 333; Rangier v. Hummell, 37 

298; Rowe v. Arnold, 39 Ind. 24. Pa. St. 130. 

=»Prankboner v. Corder, 127 Ind. '"Nolte v. Libbert, 34 Ind. 163; 
164, 26 N. E. 766; McSweeney v. see also, Conkey v. Kingman, 24 
McMillen, 96 Ind. 298; Palmer v. Pick. (Mass.) 115; Kane v. Paul, 14 
Wright, 58 Ind. 486; Shirley v. Ha- Pet. (U. S.) 33; Thomas v. Cam- 
gar, 3 Blackf. (Ind.) 225. See as to eron, 16 "Wend. (N. Y.) 579. 
plea in abatement being proper: '"President &c. v. Hamilton, 34 
Schemerhorn v. Jenkins, 7 Johns. Ind. 506; Meikel v. German &c. 
(N. Y.) 373; Blood v. Harrington, 8 Soc, 16 Ind. 181. 
Pick. (Mass.) 552; Young v. Young, "Jones v. Cincinnati Type &c. 
3 N. H. 346, 26 Am. Law Reg. 42. Co., 14 Ind. 89; see also, Propaga- 

" Winer v. Mast, 146 Ind. 177, 183, tion Soc. v. Town of Pawlet, 4 Pet. 

184, 45 N. B. 66. (U. S.) 480, 501; Jones v. Bank of 

=' Citing Cohee v. Baer, 134 Ind. Tenn., 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 122, 46 Am. 

375, 32 N. E. 920. Dec. 540; Phoenix Bank v. Curtia, 

"Surtell V. Brailsford, 2 Bay (S. 14 Conn. 437, 36 Am. Dec. 492. 



17 INSUFFICIENT SERVICE MISNOMER. [§§ 1586, 1587. 

effect that a plea of nul tiel corporation is a plea in bar when directed 
against the plaintiff.** In most jurisdictions, however, either by stat- 
ute or decision, an unverified general denial alone does not put the 
plaintiff to proof of its corporate existence. But where the question is 
properly raised, the burden is upon the plaintiff, suing as a corpora- 
tion, to prove that it has corporate existence.*" 

§ 1586. Insufficient service. — Irregularities in process or service 
should be taken advantage of, by plea in abatement, or, in some in- 
stances, by motion to quash; as a general appearance by pleading to 
the merits, or the like, waives such irregularities.*" Where defective 
or improper service is the foundation of a plea in abatement, as where 
it was improper in that the day of service was Sunday, the court will 
take judicial notice of the day and refer to a proper almanac in the 
matter. The same rule is applicable to other days on which, either by 
statute or by proclamation of the chief executive of any state, service is 
improper and defective.*^ But, as already stated, irregularity in the 
service of a summons on such a day, is cured by a general appearance 
without objecting or properly raising the question.*^ And it has been 
held that the insufficiency of the return of service of summons on a 
foreign corporation may be corrected by amendment, if the facts war- 
rant it, so as to conform to the statute, and is not ground for abate- 
ment.** 

§ 1587. Misnomer. — A general appearance waives a misnomer in 
a summons.** An allegation by the defendant in pleading, that he was 

"6 Thompson Corp., §7669. Marsh. (Ky.) 552; Bmbry v. Devin- 

'"Spangler v. Indiana &c. R. Co., ney, 8 Dana (Ky.) 202; Renner v. 

21 111. 276; Bailey v. Valley Nat. Reed, 3 Ark. 339; Hooper v. Jelli- 

Bank, 127 111. 332, 19 N. E. 695; In- son, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 250. 

dianapolis &o. Min. Co. v. Herkimer, ^^ White v. Morris, 107 N. Car. 92, 

46 Ind. 142; Johnson v. Hanover 12 S. E. 80. 

Nat. Bank, 88 Ala. 271, 6 So. 909; «Zelnicker &c. Co. v. Mississippi 

Hallett V. narrower, 33 Barb. (N. &c. Oil Co., 103 Mo. App. 94, 77 S. 

Y.) 537. "W. 321; but see, Clark v. Oregon &c. 

"2 Elliott Gen. Pr., §§475-477. Co. (Mont), 74 Pac. 734. 

^2 Greenleaf Ev., §20; Draper v. "New Eng. Mfg. Co. v. Starin, 60 

Moriarity, 45 Conn. 476; Weleker v. Conn. 369, 22 Atl. 952; see also, 

Le Pelletier, 1 Campb. 479; that de- Phillips Code PI., §238; Ontario 

fects in process or return may be State Bank v. TIbbits, 80 Cal. 68, 22 

pleaded in abatement to the writ, Pac. 66. 
see also, Sebree v. Clay, 3 A. K. 
Vol. 3 Elliott Ev.— 2 



§ 1588.] ABATEMENT. 18 

baptized by a certain name, though it may have been unnecessary to 
have made such averment, must be proved as made. Proof is by pro- 
duction of the baptismal records or register, or by an authenticated 
copy thereof, and this record must be further accompanied by proof 
of the defendant's identity with the person named therein. A name 
may be proved in other ways, however, if there be no averment of the 
fact of baptism; as by competent evidence that the defendant was 
known by, and claimed the said name.*= If a defendant is sued by the 
wrong name, or, if an initial letter is used instead of his christian 
name, a plea in abatement is the proper mode of taking advantage of 
such an error ; and the same is true where the name of the defendant 
differs in the writ and declaration.*" The use of the word "the" in a 
declaration or complaint before the title of a defendant corporation, 
where defendant's true title contains no such word, has been held a 
misnomer which is cause for a plea in abatement.*^ So, where the 
defendant answered in abatement for misnomer, stating its true name, 
it was held error for the court to render Judgment against the de- 
fendant on the merits, and that the plaintiff should either have 
amended, the truth of the plea being conceded, or the action should 
have been abated.*^ Ordinarily, where there is no plea in abatement, 
a slight variance between the name of the corporation as stated in the 
pleadings, and that as stated in articles of incorporation offered in 
evidence, will not cause the exclusion of such articles if the identity 
of the corporation is clear; but in a case where the variance was so 
great as to leave a doubt as to whether the articles referred to the 
same alleged corporation, they were held inadmissible in evidence.*' 

§ 1588. Non-joinder of parties. — Another cause of a plea in abate- 
ment is the non-joinder of proper parties. °'' Several excellent illus- 

"2 Greenleaf Bv., §21; Holman Co. (Del.), 56 Atl. 366; but see, Zel- 

V. Walden, 1 Salk. 6. nicker &c. Co. v. Mississippi &c. Oil 

"Seely v. Boon, Coxe (N. J.) 138; Co., 103 Mo. App. 94, 77 S. W. 321. 
State V. Knowlton, 70 Me. 200; Si- "'Clark v. Oregon Short Line R. 

mens V. Waldron, 70 111. 281; Fed- Co. (Mont), 74 Pac. 734. 
ens V. King, 30 Ind. 181; Sinton v. "Bank of Commerce v. Mudd, 32 

Steamboat R. R. Roberts, 46 Ind. Mo. 218 ; see also, Bartlett v. Brick- 

476; see also, Weld v. Hubbard, 11 ett, 14 Allen (Mass.) 62. 
111. 573; Pierce v. Lacy, 23 Miss. ""Bledsoe v. Irvin, 35 Ind. 293; 

193; Smith v. Bowker, 1 Mass. 76; Dillon v. State Bank. 6 Blackf. 

Whittier v. Gould, 8 Watts (Pa.) (Ind~) 5; Wadsworth v. Woodford, 

485. 1 Day (Conn.) 28, 

"Lapbam v. Philadelphia &c. R. 



19 ANOTHER ACTION PENDING. [§ 1589. 

trations are given in an earlier work.^°* If the defendant pleads that 
he made the promise jointly with another, evidence of a promise 
jointly with an infant will sustain the plea;" for the promise of an 
infant is voidable only, and not void.=^ If he has avoided the promise 
it will be a good replication, and plaintifE must prove it. Where the 
plea was that several persons being the assigns of a bankrupt, ought 
to have joined as co-defendants, it was held that proof of having acted 
as assignees was not sufficient, and that nothing less than proof of the 
assignment would satisfy the allegation. ^^ And if, on the face of the 
assignment, it should appear that there were other assignees not 
named in the plea, it would falsify it." If, on the plea of non-joinder 
of other partners as defendants, it is proved that while the contract is 
in the firm name, it was made by agency and for the use of the de- 
fendant, and the proceeds were so applied by him in fraud of his 
partners, the plea will not be maintained.^** 

§ 1589. Another action pending. — It is a well established general 
rule that the pendency of a prior suit for the same cause of action, 
between the same parties in a court of competent jurisdiction, of the 
same state, will abate a later suit.^^ This rule is applicable, in most 

™* See 2 Greenleaf Ev., §24. Moss v. Ashbrooks, 12 Ark. 369; 

■^Gibbs V. Merrill, 3 Taunt. 307; Dyer v. Scalmanlni, 69 Cal. 637, 11 

Woodward v. Newhall, 1 Pick. Pac. 327; Damon v. Denny, 54 Conn. 

(Mass.) 500; Story PI. 35; Went- 253, 7 Atl. 409; Quinebaug Bank v. 

worth PI. 17; Chitty Preced., p. 197; Tarbox, 20 Conn. 510; Beach v. Nor- 

Gould V. Lasbury, 1 C. M. & R. 254; ton, 8 Conn. 71; National Ex. &c. 

Gale V. Gapern, 1 Ad. & El. 102. Co. v. Burdette, 7 App. Cas. (D. C.) 

"= Fisher v. Jewett, 1 Berton (N. 551; Steele v. Grand Trunk &c. Co., 

B.) 35; Kent Comm. 234-236; 4 125 111. 385, 17 N. E. 483; Heath v. 

Cruse Dig. (Greenleaf) 14, n. 2. Bates, 70 Ga. 633; Branigan v. Rose, 

™Pasmore v. Bousfield, 1 Stark. 8 111. 123; Shepard v. Meridian Nat. 

236, per Ld. EUenborough. Bank, 149 Ind. 20, 48 N. B. 352; 

" Ibid. Loyd v. Reynolds, 29 Ind. 299 ; Raw- 

i'** Hudson V. Robinson, 4 M. & S. son v. Guiberson, 6 Iowa 507; Chal- 

475; Burgess v. Merrill, 4 Taunt, liss v. Smith, 25 Kans. 563; Graves 

468; Phillips v. Cummings, 11 v. Allan, 13 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 190; 

Cush. (Mass.) 469; Gulf &c. R. Co. Rochereau v. Lewis, 26 La. Ann. 

V. Cusenberry, 86 Tex. 525; Putney 581; Bischoff v. Theurer, 8 La. Ann. 

V. Lapham, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 234; 15; Kline v. Preret, 5 La. Ann. 492; 

Briggs V. Taylor, 35 Vt. 66; Chitty Dick v. Gilmer, 4 La. Ann. 520; 

PI. 75; Snow v. Carpenter, 49 Vt. Fahy v. Brannagan, 56 Me. 42; Com- 

426. monwealth v. Churchill, 5 Mass. 

"Foster v. Napier, 73 Ala. 595; 174; Wales v. Jones, 1 Mich. 254; 



§ 1589.] 



ABATEMENT. 



30 



jurisdictions, to an action between privies, or parties representing 
the same interest, of the parties to the prior pending action." But the 
character in which the defendant is sued must usually be the same," 
although the fact that in one action the plaintiff is called a receiver 
and in the other a trustee, where the complaints are identical and the 
relief demanded is the same and for the same purpose, will not make 
the plea bad."* The general test for determining whether the causes 
of action are identical within the rule, is found in the answer to the 
question ; would a judgment on the merits in the prior action be a bar 
to the second action."" It has also been said that the true criterion is: 
whether the evidence, properly admissible in the one action, will sup- 
port the other."" The relief sought, as well as the grounds upon 
which the relief is sought, must ordinarily be the same, or substan- 
tially the same in both actions f^ and if the prior action cannot fur- 



Merriam v. Baker, 9 Minn. 40; 
Warder v. Henry, 117 Mo. 530, 23 S. 
W. 776; State v. Matley, 17 Neb. 
564, 24 N. W. 200; Rogers v. Odell, 
39 N. H. 417; Hixon v. Schooley, 26 
N. J. L. 461; Schenck v. Schenck, 
10 N. J. L. 327; Porter v. Kings- 
bury, 77 N. Y. 164 ; Baker v. Baker, 
70 Hun (N. Y.) 95, 23 N. Y. S. 1083; 
Alexander v. Norwood, 118 N. Car. 
381, 24 S. E. 119; McNeill v. Currie, 
117 N. Car. 341. 23 S. E. 216; Weil 
v. Guerin, 42 Ohio St. 299; Crane v. 
Larsen, 15 Ore. 345, 15 Pac. 326; 
Cleveland &c. R. Co. v. Erie, 27 Pa. 
St. 380; O'Reilly v. New York &c. R. 
Co., 16 R. I. 388, 17 Atl. 171, 906, 19 
Atl. 244, 5 L. R. A. 364; Walters v. 
Lalirens Cotton Mills, 53 S. Car. 155, 
31 S. E. 1; Kirby v. Jackson, 42 Vt. 
552; Tacoma v. Commercial Elec- 
tric &c. Co., 15 Wash. 515, 46 Pac. 
1043; Blair V. Gary, 9 Wis. 495; 
Renner v. Marshall^ 1 Wheat. (U. 
S.) 215, 4 L. Ed. 74; Harvey v. 
Lord, 10 Fed. 236; Wadleigh v. Vea- 
zie, 3 Sumn. (U. S.) 165, 28 Fed. 
Cas. No. 17031; Sparry's Case, 5 
Coke 61a; Bain v. Bain, 10 U. C. Q. 
B. 572; Commercial Bank v. Jarvis, 
6 U. G. Q. B. (0. S.) 257. 



"Crane v. Larsen, 15 Ore. 345, 15 
Pac. 326; Richardson v. Opelt 
(Neb.), 82 N. W. 377; Needham v. 
Wright, 140 Ind. 190, 195, 39 N. E. 
510; Holloway v. Holloway, 103 Mo. 
274, 15 S. W. 536; Morley v. Power, 
5 Lea (Tenn.) 691. 

" Dengler v. Hays, 63 N. J. L. 14, 
42 Atl. 775; Blackburn v. Watson, 
85 Pa. St. 241; Poster v. Foster, 24 
Ky. L. R. 1396, 71 S. W. 524. 

™ Shepard v. Meridian Nat. Bank, 
149 Ind. 20, 48, N. E. 346; Beach v. 
Norton, 8 Conn. 71. 

=» Richardson v. Opelt (Neb.), 82 
N. W. 377; Hall v. Suskind, 109 Cal. 
203, 41 Pac. 1012; Beyersdorf v. 
Sump, 39 Minn. 495, 41 N. W. 101, 12 
Am. St. 678; Moore v. Holt, 3 Tenn. 
Ch. 141; Newell v. Newton, 10 Pick. 
(Mass.) 470; Watson v. Jones, 13 
Wall. (U. S.) 679; Haytlan Repub- 
lic, 154 U. S. 118, 14 Sup. Ct. 992. 

^ Steers v. Shaw, 53 N. J. L. 358, 
21 Atl. 940; Steam Packet Go. v. 
Bradley, 5 Granch (U. S.) 393. 

"Heilbron v. Fowler Switch Ca- 
nal Co.. 75 Cal. 426, 17 Pac. 537, 7 
Am. St. 183; Ayres v. Bensley, 32 
Cal. 620; Eaton v. Eaton, 68 Mich. 
158, 36 N. W. 50; Johnson v. Robert- 



31 



ANOTHER ACTION PENDING. 



[§ 1589. 



nish adequate relief which can be furnished in the second action,'* 
and the second action is not vexatious, as where the proceedings in the 
first action are fatally defective/' it is held in many jurisdictions 
that the second action should not be abated. But in some jurisdic- 
tions it is generally presumed as a matter of law that the action is 
vexatious. °* The general rule under consideration does not apply 
where the prior action is pending in a court of another state or gov- 
ernment. °° This is true where one action in personam is in a state 
court, and the other action is in a federal court."' But it seems that 
the court in which the subsequent action is pending may stay pro- 



son, 20 Ky. 35, 45 S. "W. 523; Coles 
V. Yorks, 31 Minn. 213, 17 N. W. 
341; La Croix v. Fairfield County, 
50 Conn. 321, 47 Am. R. 648; Man- 
devlUe v. Avery, 124 N. Y. 376, 26 
N. B. 951, 21 Am. St. 678. 

»^Branigan v. Rose, 8 111. 123; 
Scott V. Rand, 118 Mass. 215; See- 
bold V. Lockner, 30 Md. 133; Thomp- 
son V. Lyon, 14 Cal. 39; Horton v. 
Bassett, 17 R. I. 129, 20 Atl. 234; 
Gibson V. Southwestern Land Co., 
89 Wis. 49, 61 N. W. 282; Atlantic 
Mut. Ins. Co. V. Alexander, 16 Fed. 
279; Carpenter v. Talbot, 33 Fed. 
537; 1 Cyc. 29. 

°=See Byne v. Byne, 1 Rich. (S. 
Car.) 438; O'Malia v. Glynn, 42 111. 
App. 51; Drea v. Ceriveau, 28 Minn. 
380, 9 N. W. 802; Dyer v. Sealman- 
ini, 69 Cal. 637, 11 Pac. 327; Reyn- 
olds V. Harris, 9 Cal. 338; Griffin v. 
Board, 71 Miss. 767, 15 So. 107; Nor- 
folk &c. R. Co. V. Nunally, 88 Va. 
546, 14 S. E. 367, second action in- 
stituted before dismissing first, to 
avoid running of statute of limita- 
tions. 

"1 Bacon Abr. 13; Jones v. 
McPhillips, 82 Ala. 102, 2 So. 468; 
Gamsby v. Ray, 52 N. H. 513; Or- 
man v. Lane, 130 Ala. 305, 30 So. 
441. 

" Hill V. Hill, 51 S. Car. 134, 28 S. 



E. 309; Sloan v. McDowell, 75 N. 
Car. 29; Smith v. Lathrop, 44 Pa. 
St. 326, 84 Am. Dec. 448, and note; 
De Armond v. Bohn, 12 Ind. 607; 
Grider v. Apperson, 32 Ark. 332; 
McJilton V. Love, 13 111. 486, 54 Am. 
Dec. 449; Craig Silver Co. v. Smith, 
163 Mass. 262, 39 N. B. 1116; Chat- 
tanooga &c. R. Co. V. Jackson, 86 
Ga. 676, 13 S. B. 109; Mutual Life 
Ins. Co. V. Brune, 96 U. S. 588. 

» Gordon v. Gilfoil. 99 TJ. S. 169 
Stanton v. Bmbrey, 93 U. S. 548 
Humphrey v. Thorp, 89 Fed. 66 
Short V. Hepburn, 75 Fed. 113; Rice 
V. Ashland County, 114 Wis. 130, 89 
N. W. 908; Russell v. Alvarez, 5 
Cal. 48; State v. Superior Court, 14 
Wash. 686, 45 Pac. 670; Oneida Co. 
Bank v. Bonney, 101 N. Y. 173, 4 N. 
E. 332; Hollister v. Stewart, 111 N. 
Y. 644, 19 N. E. 782. Even when 
the federal court is in the same dis- 
trict: North Muskegon v. Clark, 62 
Fed. 694; Dwight v. Central Vt. R. 
Co., 9 Fed. 785; see also. Interna- 
tional &c. R. Co. v. Barton, 24 Tex. 
Civ. App. 122, 57 S. W. 292; Vail v. 
Central R. Co., (N. J.) 4 Atl. 663; 
but compare, Radford v. Folsom, 14 
Fed. 97; Hughes v. Green, 75 Fed. 
693; Smith v. Atlantic Mut. F. Ins. 
Co., 22 N. H. 21; Wilson v. Mille- 
ken, 103 Ky. 165, 44 S. W. 660. 



§ 1590.J 



ABATEMENT. 



S3 



ceeding or grant a continuance until the former action in the foreign 
jurisdiction is determined."'' 

§ 1590. Pendency of former action. — The action pleaded in abate- 
ment must usually be shown to be actually pending at the time of the 
trial f^ but it has been held sufficient to show that the action pleaded 
in abatement was pending at the time the second suit was com- 
menced."" There is ordinarily no presumption that suit commenced 
is still pending until it is affirmatively proved.'" But it was held in 
one case that when the defendant showed the issuing of a writ for the 
same cause of action, he proved prima facie the pendency of suit; 
and it then devolved on plaintiff to prove suit no longer pending.'"^ 
The former action is considered pending during an appeal which sus- 
pends the judgment and which has not been dismissed or determined.'^ 



»' Margarum v. Moon, 63 N. J. Eq. 
586, 53 Atl. 179; Kerr v. Willetts, 48 
N. J. L. 79, 2 Atl. 782; Douglas v. 
Phoenix Ins. Co., 138 N. Y. 209, 33 N. 
E. 938, 20 L. R. A. 118, 34 Am. St. 
448; see also, Martin v. Baldwin, 19 
Fed. 340; Ryan v. Seaboard &c. R. 
Co., 89 Fed. 397. 

''Grider v. Apperson, 32 Ark. 332; 
Dyer v. Scalmanini, 69 Cal. 637, 11 
Pac. 327; Moore v. Hopkins, 83 Cal. 
270, 23 Pac. 318. 17 Am. St. 248; 
Balfour Guthrie Inv. Co. v. Wood- 
worth, 124 Cal. 169, 56 Pac. 891; 
Craig V. Smith, 10 Colo. 220, 15 Pac. 
337; Yentzer v. Thayer, 10 Colo. 63, 
14 Pac. 53, 3 Am. St. 563; Rumph v. 
Truelove, 66 Ga. 480; Gilmore v. 
Georgia R. &c. Co., 93 Ga. 482, 21 S. 
B. 50; Morris v. State, 101 Ind. 560; 
Ball V. Keokuk &c. R. Co., 71 Iowa 
306, 32 N. "W. 354; Moorman v. 
Gibbs, 75 Iowa 537, 39 N. W. 832; 
Rush V. Frost, 49 Iowa 183; Adams 
V. Gardiner, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) 197; 
Wilson V. Millikin, 19 Ky. L. R. 
1843, 44 S. W. 660, 42 L. R. A. 449; 
Schmidt v. Braunn, 10 La. Ann. 26; 
Clark V. Comford, 45 La. Ann. 502, 
12 So. 763; Leavitt v. Mowe, 54 Md. 
613; Lewis v. Higgins, 52 Md. 614; 



Nichols V. Bank, 45 Minn. 102, 47 N. 
W. 462; Page v. Mitchell, 37 Minn. 
368, 34 N. W. 896; Warder v. Henry, 
117 Mo. 530, 27 S. W. 776; Gamsby v. 
Ray, 52 N. H. 513; Crossman v. Uni- 
versal Rubber Co., 131 N. Y. 636, 30 
N. E. 225; Averill v. Patterson, 10 
How. Pr. (N. Y.) 85; Porter v. 
Kingsbury, 77 N. Y. 164; Lord v. 
Ostrander, 43 Barb. (N. Y.) 337; 
Hyatt V. Ingalls, 124 N. Y. 93, 26 N. 
E. 285; Findlay v. Keim, 62 Pa. St. 
112; Burnett v. Southern R. Co., 62 
S. Car. 281, 40 S. E. 679; Banigan v. 
Woonsocket Rubber Co., 22 R. I. 93, 
46 Atl. 183; Trawick v. Martin . 
Brown Co., 74 Tex. 522, 12 S. W. 
216; Payne v. Benham, 16 Tex. 364; 
Williamson v. Paxton, 18 Gratt. 
(Va.) 475. 

"Lee V. Hefley, 21 Ind. 98; Porter 
V. Kingsbury, 77 N. Y. 164. 

™ Phelps V. Winona &c. R. Co., 37 
Minn. 485, 35 N. W. 273, 5 Am. St. 
867. 

"Fowler v. Byrd, Hempst. (U. S.) 
213, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 4999a; contra: 
Hirsch v. Manhattan R. Co., 82 N. 
Y. S. 754. 

'" Pisk v. Atkinson, 71 Cal. 452, 10 
Pac. 374; Merritt v. Richey, 100 Ind. 



23 



BEST AND SECONDAEY EVIDENCE. 



[§ 1591. 



§ 1591. Best and secondary evidence. — The proper evidence to 
support a plea of another action pending is the record or a duly au- 
thenticated copy or transcript thereof.'^ But secondary evidence is 
admissible, upon a proper showing, where the record is lost or de- 
stroyed.'* And, under proper pleadings, where it cannot be satis- 
factorily determined from the record whether the parties and the 
causes of action are the same, parol evidence has been held admissible 
for that purpose.''^ 



416; "Walker v. Heller, 73 Ind. 46; 
Bond V. White, 24 Kans. 45; Althen 
V. Tarbox, 48 Minn. 18, 50 N. W. 
1018, 31 Am. St. 616; Municipal 
Court V. McDonough, 24 R. I. 498, 53 
Atl. 866; but compare, Rieden v. 
Kotbman (Tex. Civ. App.), 73 S.W. 
425. 

'^ Smiley v. Dewey, 17 Ohio 156; 
Walker v. Heller, 73 Ind. 46; Kel- 
logg V. Sutherland, 38 Ind. 154; 
Bond V. White, 24 Kans. 45; Craig 
V. Smith, 10 Colo. 220, 15 Pac. 337; 
People V. De la Guerra, 24 Cal. 73; 
Parmelee v. Tennessee &c. R. Co., 13 
Lea (Tenn.) 600; Commonwealth v. 



Churchill, 5. Mass. 174; Parker v. 
Colcord, 2 N. H. 36. 

"Suggett V. Bank, 8 Dana (Ky.) 
201; Tolls V. Alley (Ky.), 24 
S. W. 113; Dean v. Massey, 7 Ala. 
601; see also. Woodward v. Stark, 4 
S. Dak. 588, 57 N. W. 496; see. Vol. 
I, § 618. 

"Davis V. Dunklee, 9 N. H. 545; 
Damon v. Denny, 54 Conn. 253, 7 
Atl. 409; see also, Foye v. Patch, 132 
Mass. 105; Morris v. State, 101 Ind. 
560; Bain v. Bain, 10 U. C. Q. B. 
572; but compare, Wright v. Mase- 
ras, 56 Barb. (N. T.) 521; see, Vol. 
I, § 618. 



CHAPTBE LXXVII 



ACCORD AND SATISFACTION. 



Sec. 

1592. Generally. 

1593. Burden of proof. 

1594. Questions of law or fact. 

1595. Satisfaction as well as accord 

must be proved. 

1596. Liquidated and unliquidated 

claims or demands. 



Sec. 

1597. Parties. 

1598. Documentary and parol evi- 

dence. 

1599. Range and sufficiency of evi- 

dence. 



§ 1592. Generally. — Accord and satisfaction is defined in a re- 
cent case as "the discharge of a contract, or cause of action or dis- 
puted claim arising either in contract or tort, by the substitution of an 
agreement between the parties in satisfaction of such contract, cause 
of action, or disputed claim, and the esecution of that agreement.'"^ 
The issue, it has been said, on a plea of accord and satisfaction, is 
upon the delivery and acceptance of something in satisfaction of debt 
or damages demanded.^ At common law evidence of accord and satis- 
faction was admissible under thef general issue in assumpsit, case, and 
debt, on simple contract. G-reenleaf states that substantially the same 
rules prevail in the United States,^ but both in England and America 
the general rule now is that accord and satisfaction must be specially 
pleaded.* Such a plea is a plea in confession and avoidance, and pro- 



' Hennessy v. St. Paul City R. Co., 
65 Minn. 13, 67 N. W. 635. 

^ 2 Greenleaf Ev., § 28. 

» 2 Greenleaf Bv., § 29. 

* Coles V. Soulsby, 21 Cal. 47; In- 
gram V. Hilton &c. Co., 108 Ga. 194, 
33 S. E. 961; Covell v. Carpenter (R. 
I.), 51 Atl. 425; Barnum v. Green, 13 
Colo. App. 254, 57 Pac. 757; Parker 
V. Lowell, 11 Gray (Mass.) 353; 
Combs V. Smith, 78 Mo. 32; Jacobs 
V. Day, 25 N. Y. 763; Randall v. 



Broadhead, 70 N. Y. 43; Alexander 
V. Strong, 9 M. & W. 733. Or, in 
some jurisdictions, due notice of the 
defense must be given when plead- 
ing the general Issue, in order to let 
In such evidence: Seaver v. Wilder, 
68 Vt. 423. It is inadmissible under 
a plea of payment: Smith v. Elrod, 
122 Ala. 269, 24 So. 994; Hamilton 
V. Coons, 5 Dana (Ky.) 317; see also, 
Friermuth v. McKee, 86 Mo. App. 
64; Owens v. Chandler, 16 Ark. 651; 



M 



25 BURDEN OF PROOF. [§§ 1593, 1594. 

ceeds on the theory that although the plaintiff once had a cause of 
action it has been discharged by some subsequent act or matter; but 
where it is established, the accord and satisfaction will operate as a 
bar to the cause of action covered by it in the absence of fraud, duress, 
or mistake, as effectually as if the plaintiff never had any such cause 
of action.' 

§ 1593. Burden of proof. — The defendant has the burden of proof 
upon the issue of accord and satisfaction raised by his plea.° But in a 
suit or in an action to set aside an accord and satisfaction on the 
ground of fraud or mistake, the burden is upon the plaintiff.' So in 
jurisdictions and cases in which the plaintiff may set up fraud or 
mistake in the same action in which the accord and satisfaction is 
pleaded to his original claim, if he admits the accord and satisfaction 
but seeks to avoid it for fraud, mistake, or the like, the burden of 
doing so is upon him.^ And when, in making out his own case, the 
plaintiff shows an accord, it seems that he has the burden of showing 
that there was no satisfaction.' 

§ 1594. ftuestions of law or fact. — It is a general rule that the 
construction of written instruments is for the court, and where the 
agreement is in writing, it would seem, ordinarily at least, to be a 
question for the court, to determine whether it constituted an ac- 
cord.^" So, if there is no conflict in the evidence, and if but one rea- 
sonable inference can be drawn therefrom, the question is one of law 
for the court. ^^ But in other cases, where the question as to whether 

Barnum v. Green, 13 Colo. App. 254, v. Wolfe, 127 Mo. 616, 30 S. W. 145; 

57 Pac. 757; but compare, Howe v. McDavitt v. McNay, 78 111. App. 396; 

Mackay, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 44; First Noe v. Christie, 51 N. Y. 270; Board 

Nat. Bank v. Kimberland, 16 W. Va. v. Durnell. 17 Colo. App. 85, 66 Pac. 

555; Ligon v. Dunn, 6 Ired. L. (N. 1073; Johnson v. Collins, 20 Ala. 435. 

Car.) 138. ' Currey v. Lawler, 29 W. Va. Ill, 

"Alden v. Thurher, 149 Mass. 271, 11 S. B. 897; Ball v. McGeoch, 81 

21 N. E. 312; Oliver v. Phelps, 20 N. Wis. 160, 51 N. W. 443. 

J. L. 180; Harrison V. Close, 2 Johns. = Helling v. United Order, 29 

(N. Y.) 448, 3 Am. Dec. 444; Gul- Mo. App. 309; Haist v. Grand Trunk 

dager v. Rockwell, 14 Colo. 459, 24 R. Co., 22 A. R. (Ont.) 505. 

Pac. 556; Hosier v. Hursh, 151 Pa. "Browning v. Crouse, 43 Mich. 

St. 415, 25 Atl. 52; Lane v. Apple- 489, 5 N. W. 664. 

gate, 1 Stark. 78; Nicklin v. Wil- "Sanford v. Abrams, 24 Fla. 181, 

liams, L. R., 10 Exch. 259. 2 So. 373. 

° Simmons v. OuUahan, 75 Cal. " Hinkle v. Minneapolis &c. R. Co., 

508, 17 Pac. 543; Oilwell Supply Co. 31 Minn. 434, 18 N. W. 275; Gibbs v. 



§ 1595.] 



ACCOED AND SATISFACTION. 



26 



there has been an accord and satisfaction is disputed, it is a question of 
fact for the jury to determine. ^^ So, where fraud or mistake is in issue 
the question is generally one of fact; and where the evidence is con- 
iiicting as to whether the claim constituting the cause of action is 
included in the accord' and satisfaction, the question is generally one 
of fact for the Jury.^^ 

§ 1595. Satisfaction as well as accord must be proved. — In order 
to constitute a bar the accord must be executed; or, in other words, 
satisfaction as well as accord must be proved.^* There are some au- 
thorities which hold that an accord with tender of performance and 
refusal to accept is sufficient, and this doctrine seems to be approved 
by G-reenleaf ;^^ but the better rule, which is sustained by the weight 
of authority, is that mere readiness to perform, without acceptance or 
execution of the accord, is insufficient to make it a bar,^" unless the 



Wall, 10 Colo. 153, 14 Pac. 216; Lo- 
gan V. Davidson, 45 N. Y. S. 961; 
Washburn v. Winslow, 16 Minn. 33; 
Helling v. United Order of Honor, 
29 Mo. App. 309; see also, Truax v. 
Miller, 48 Minn. 62, 50 N. W. 935; 
Vedder v. Vedder, 1 Denio (N. Y.) 
257. 

i^Oilwell Supply Co. v. Wolfe, 127 
Mo. 616, 30 S. W. 145; Perin v. Cath- 
cart, 115 Iowa 553, 89 N. W. 12; Rob- 
inson V. Railroad Co., 84 Micli. 685, 
48 N. W. 205; Stone v. Miller, 16 Pa. 
St. 450; Brenner v. Herr, 8 Pa. St. 
106; Frick v. Algeier, 87 Ind. 255; 
see also, Mortlock v. Williams, 76 
Mich. 568, 43 N. W. 592; Rosenfeld 
V. New, 10 N. Y. S. 232. 

^^ Madden v. Blaln, 66 Ga. 49. 
Where the whole is in writing, how- 
ever, the question as to what is in- 
cluded may be merely a question of 
the construction of the writing for 
the court to determine. 

"Slover V. Rock, 96 Mo. App. 335, 
70 S, W. 268; Burgess v. Denison &c. 
Co., 79 Me. 266, 9 Atl. 726; Alexan- 
der Lumber Co. v. Johnson, 70 Ark. 
215, 66 S. W. 921; Arnett v. Smith, 
11 N. Dak. 55, 88 N. W. 1037; Her- 



mann V. Orcutt, 152 Mass. 405, 25 N. 
B. 735; New York &c. R. Co. v. Mar- 
tin, 158 Mass. 313, 33 N. B. 578, 579; 
Roger V. City of Spokane, 9 Wash. 
168, 37 Pac. 300; Cobb v. Malone, 86 
Ala. 571, 6 So. 6; Holton v. Noble, 
83 Cal. 7, 23 Pac. 58; Jacobs v. Mark, 
183 111. 533, 56 N. B. 154; Anderson 
v. Scholey, 114 Ind. 553, 557, 17 N. 
E. 125; Jackson v. Olmstead, 87 Ind. 
92; Bradley v. Palen, 78 Iowa 126, 
42 N. W. 623; Bank v. De Grauw, 23 
Wend. (N. Y.) 342, 35 Am. Dec. 569; 
Russell v. Lytle, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 
390. 

"2 Greenleaf Bv., § 31; Colt v. 
Houston, 3 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 243. 
Heirn v. Carron, 11 Smed. & M. 
(Miss.) 361, 49 Am. Deo. 65; Brad- 
shaw V. Davis, 12 Tex. 336; but see. 
Bank v. Curtis, (Tex.) 36 S. W. 911; 
Bradley v. Gregory, 2 Campb. 383; 
see also, Bvans v. Powis, 11 Jur. 
1043, 1 Welsh. H. & G. 601; Case v. 
Barber, T. Raym. 450; 1 Comyn Dig. 
Accord. B. 4; Goodrich v. Stanley, 
24 Conn. 613; Babcock v. Hawkins, 
23 Vt. 561. 

" Francis v. Deming, 59 Conn. 108, 
21 Atl. 1006; Hearn v. Kiehl, 38 Pa. 



27 



LIQUIDATED AND UNLIQUIDATED CLAIMS. 



[§ 1596. 



new agreement or promise, instead of actual performance, is accepted 
as a satisfaction.^' Much depends, however, on the agreement in the 
particular case.'^* 

§ 1596. Liquidated and unliquidated claims or demands. — It is 

well settled in most jurisdictions, although the rule has met with 
much apparently just criticism, that the mere payment of a part of 
a debt or liquidated demand that is due is not an accord and satis- 
faction of the entire demand even though the creditor agrees to ac- 
cept it as such.^^ But this rule has been abrogated or modified by 



St. 147, 80 Am. Dec. 472 ; Blackburn 
V. Ormsby, 41 Pa. St. 97; Noe v. 
Christie, 51 N. Y. 270; Kromer v. 
Helm, 75 N. Y. 574; Clark v. Hawk- 
Ins, 5 R. I. 219 ; Pettis v. Ray, 12 R. 
I. 344; Carpenter v. Chicago &c. Co., 
7 S. Dak. 584, 64 N. W. 1120; Har- 
bor V. Morgan, 4 Ind. 158; Yazoo &c. 
R. Co. V. Pulton, 71 Miss. 385, 14 So. 
271; Globe v. Bank. 46 Neb. 891, 65 
N. W. 1062; Dudley v. Kennedy, 63 
Me. 465; Gleason v. Allen, 27 Vt. 364. 

" Hosier V. Hursh, 151 Pa. St. 415, 
25 Atl. 52; White v. Gray, 68 Me. 
579; Smith v. Elrod, 122 Ala. 269, 24 
So. 994; Morehouse v. Second Nat. 
Bank, 98 N. Y. 503 ; Whitney v. Cook, 
53 Miss. 551; Allison v. Abendroth, 
108 N. Y. 4701, 15 N. E. 606; Gulf 
&c. Co. V. Harriett, 80 Tex. 73, 15 S. 
W. 556; Whitney v. Richards, 17 
Utah 226, 53 Pac. 1122; Cartwright 
V. Cooke, 3 B. & Ad. 701; Evans v. 
Powis, 11 Jur. 1043, 1 Welsh. H. & 
G. 601; but see. Frost v. Johnson, 8 
Ohio 393. 

'= Hosier v. Hursh, 151 Pa. St. 415, 
25 Atl. 52; Whitney v. Richards, 17 
Utah 226, 53 Pac. 1122; Sharp v. 
Mauston, 92 Wis. 629, 66 N. W. 803; 
Gowlng V. Thomas, 67 N. H. 399, 40 
Atl. 184; Simmons v. Clark, 56 111. 
96; Perdew v. Tillman, 62 Neb. 865, 
88 N. W. 123; Rogers v. City of 



Spokane, 9 Wash. 168, 37 Pac. 300, 
301, 302; Bennett v. Hill, 14 R. I. 
322; Gulf &c. R. Co. v. Harriett, 80 
Tex. 73, 15 S. W. 556, 557. The ac- 
ceptance of a note of third persons 
in lieu of the debtor's, without any 
agreement to accept it in satisfac- 
tion is held not to discharge the 
original debt; Mount v. De Haven, 
29 Ind. App. 127, 62 N. E. 330. 

" Leading Article in 57 Cent. Law 
Jour. 244; Reynolds v. Reynolds, 55 
Ark. 369, 18 S. W. 377; Miller v. Eld- 
ridge, 126 Ind. 461, 27 N. E. 132; 
Meyer v. Green, 21 Ind. App. 138, 51 
N. E. 942, 69 Am. St. 349 and note; 
Jennings v. Durflinger, 23 Ind. App. 
673, 55 N. E. 979; Hayes v. Massa- 
chusetts Co., 125 111. 626, 18 N. E. 
322; Keller v. Strong, 104 Iowa 585, 
73 N. W. 1071; St. Louis &c. R. Co. 
V. Davis, 35 Kans. 464, 11 Pac. 421; 
Leeson v. Anderson, 99 Mich. 247, 58 
N. W. 72, 41 Am. St. 597; Robert v. 
Barnum, 80 Ky. 28; Rohr v. Ander- 
son, 51 Md. 205; Twitchell v. Shaw, 
10 Gush. (Mass.) 46, 57 Am. Dec. 80; 
Wetmore v. Crouch, 150 Mo. 671, 51 
S. W. 738; Mcintosh v. Johnson, 51 
Neb. 33, 70 N. W. 522; Murphy v. 
Kastner, 50 N. J. Eq. 214, 24 Atl. 
564; Allison v. Abendroth, 108 N. Y. 
470, 15 N. E. 606; Commonwealth v. 
Cummins, 155 Pa. St. 30, 25 Atl. 996; 



§ 1596.] 



ACCORD AND SATISFACTIOlir. 



28 



statute in several jurisdictions; and as it is a rule "which obviously 
may be urged in violation of good faith, it is not to be extended be- 
yond its precise import," so that whenever the technical reason for its 
application does not exist, the rule itself is not to be applied.^" Hence, 
courts are disposed to hold it inapplicable where there is a new con- 
sideration or collateral benefit received by the payee or claimant, which 
constitutes a sufficient consideration even though it may be less than 
the actual debt or demand. Thus, evidence of payment before the 
debt or demand is due of a less sum which is received in full satisfac- 
tion is sufficient to support a plea of accord and satisfaction,^^ and the 
same has been held where the payment is so made and received in full 
satisfaction at a difEerent place from that at which the debtor was 
otherwise bound to pay.^^ So, satisfaction by giving new security,^^ 
transferring property other than money,^* or the like,^° has been held 



Bowdon V. Robinson, 4 Tex. Civ. 
App. 626, 23 S. "W. 816; Bowker v. 
Harris, 30 Vt. 424; Smith v. Chilton, 
84 Va. 840, 6 S. E. 142; Palmer v. 
Yager, 20 Wis. 91; Fire Ins. Asso. 
V. Wickham, 141 XJ. S. 564, 12 Sup. 
Ct. 84; Thomas v. Heathorn, 2 B. & 
C. 477; Steinman v. Magnus, 11 Bast 
390; Pinnel's Case, 5 Coke 117; but 
see Clayton v. Clark, 74 Miss. 499, 
21 So. 565, 22 So. 189, 60 Am. St. 
521, 37 L. R. A. 771; Aborn v. Rath- 
bone, 54 Conn. 444, 8 Atl. 677. A 
new consideration or, in some cases, 
a release under seal, may render the 
rule inapplicable. See also for a 
discussion and history of the rule, 
Foakes v. Beer, 54 L. J. Q. B. Div. 
130, L. R. 9 App. Cas. 605. 

"° Brooks V. White, 2 Meto. (Mass.) 
283, 37 Am. Dec. 95, 96. See also 
leading article in 57 Cent. Law Jour. 
244. 

"Boyd V. Moats, 75 Iowa 151, 39 
N. W. 237; KirchofE v. Voss, 67 Tex. 
320, 3 S. W. 548; Brooks v. White, 
2 Mete. (Mass.) 283, 37 Am. Dec. 95; 
Barry v. Goodrich, 98 Mass. 335; 
Schweider v. Lang, 29 Minn. 254, 13 



N. W. 33; Miller v. Building Asso., 
50 Pa. St. 32; Bryant v. Proctor, 14 
B. Mon. (Ky.) 451; Smith v. Brown, 
3 Hawks. (N. Car.) 580; see also, 
Fire Ins. Asso. v. Wickham, 141 U. 
S. 564, 12 Sup. Ct. 84; Alexander 
Lumber Co. v. Johnson, 70 Ark. 215, 
66 S.,W. 924; Dalrymple v. Craig, 
149 Mo. 345, 50 S. W. 884; Smith v. 
Trowdale, 3 E. & B. 83; Adams v. 
Tapling, 4 Mod. 88. 

''^ Jones V. Perkins, 29 Miss. 139, 
64 Am. Dec. 136; Cavaness v. Ross, 
33 Ark. 572; Pope v. Tunstall, 2 Ark. 
209; McKenzie v. Culbrett, 66 N, 
Car. 534; Fenwiek v. Phillips, 3 
Mete. (Ky.) 87; see also, Jaffray v. 
Davis, 124 N. Y. 164, 26 N. E. 351. 

^ Smith V. Ludwig, 26 Minn. 85, 1 
N. W. 803; Varney v. Conery, 77 Me. 
527, 1 Atl. 683; Boyd v. Hitchcock, 
20 Johns. (N. Y.) 76, 11 Am. Dec. 
247; Jaffray v. Davis, 124 N. Y. 164, 
26 N. E. 351; Day v. Gardner, 42 N. 
J. Eq. 199, 7 Atl. 365; Post v. 
Springfield &c. Bank, 138 111. 559, 28 
N. E. 978; Gunn v. McAden, 37 N. 
Car. 79; Steinman v. Magnus, 11 
East 390. 



29 



LIQUIDATED AND UNLIQUIDATED CLAIMS. 



[§ 1596. 



sufficient; and the same is true as to a compromise or composition 
agreement between an insolvent and his creditors.^° If the alleged 
debt or demand is genuinely in dispute, concessions made by one 
party will constitute sufficient consideration for concessions by the 
other, and if a smaller sum than that claimed by the one is received 
by him in full satisfaction by way of compromise, or the like, this 
will usually amount to an accord and satisfaction.^^ So, if the amount 
is unliquidated the general rule that the payment and acceptance of 
a smaller sum than the debt or demand due is not an accord and satis- 
faction, does not apply.^* In such cases if the debtor tenders a sum 



=»Neal V. Handley, 116 111. 418, 6 
N. B. 45, 56 Am. R. 784; Savage v. 
Bverman, 70 Pa. St. 315, 10 Am. R. 
676; Gavin v. Annan, 2 Cal. 494; 
Watkinson v. Inglesby, 5 Johns. (N. 
Y.) 386; Ridlon v. Davis, 51 Vt. 457; 
Hasted v. Dodge, (Iowa) 35 N. W. 
462; Williams v. Phelps, 16 "Wis. 80; 
Pinnel's Case, 5 Coke 117; see also, 
Traphagen v. Vorhees, 44 N. J. Bq. 
21, 12 Atl. 895 ; Thurber v. Sprague, 
17 R. I. 634, 24 Atl. 48. 

'"Pearson v. Thomason, 15 Ala. 
700, 50 Am. Dec. 159; Singleton v. 
Thomas, 73 Ala. 205; Wippermann 
V. Hardy, 17 Ind. App. 142, 46 N. B. 
537; Mason v. Campbell, 27 Minn. 
54, 6 N. W. 405; Guild v. Butler, 127 
Mass. 386; Thompson v. Percival, 5 
B.& Ad. 925; Lytle v. Ault, 7 Bxch. 
669; Sibree v. Tripp, 15 M. & M. 23; 
Brooks V. White, 2 Mete. (Mass.) 
283, 37 Am. Dec. 95; Allison v. Aben- 
droth, 108 N. Y. 470, 15 N. B. 606; 
Mason v. Wickershaw, 4 S. & R. 
(Pa.) 100. In most of these cases 
the note or indorsement of a third 
person was given and accepted. 

^"Pontius V. Durflinger, 59 Ind. 
27; Hill V. Werthmier &c. Co., 150 
Mo. 483, 51 S. W. 702; Murray v. 
Snow, 37 Iowa 410; Bartlett v. 
Woodworth &c. Co., 69 N. H. 316, 41 
Atl. 264; Perkins v. Lockwood, 100 
Mass. 249, 1 Am. R. 103; Paddleford 
V. Thatcher, 48 Vt. 574; Steinman v. 



Magnus, 11 Bast 390; Norman v. 
Thompson, 4 Bxch. 755; see also. 
Freeman In re, 117 Fed. 680; but 
compare, Pearson v. Thomason, 15 
Ala. 700, 50 Am. Dec. 159. 

"Hutton V. Stoddart, 83 Ind. 539; 
Little V. Koerner, 28 Ind. App. 625, 
63 N. B. 766; Nassoity v. Tomlin- 
son, 148 N. Y. 326, 42 N. B. 715; 
Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Buckstafl 
(Neb.), 91 N. W. 426; Tanner v. 
Merrill, 108 Mich. 58, 65 N. W. 664, 
62 Am. St. 687; Lapp v. Smith, 183 
111. 179, 55 N. E. 717; Fuller v. 
Fuller, 23 Fla. 236, 2 So. 426; Neely 
V. Thompson (Kans.), 75 Pac. 117; 
Truax V. Miller, 48 Minn. 62, 50 N. 
W. 935 ; Shaw v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 
82 Iowa 199, 47 N. W. 1004; Brown 
V. Ladd, 144 Mass. 310, 10 N. B. 839, 
and note. So held as to contingent 
or uncertain claim. Carter's Bstate, 
In re, (Rep. Rice v. London &c. Co.) 
70 Minn. 77, 72 N. W. 826; but see, 
Ness V. Minnesota &c. Co., 87 Minn. 
413, 92 N. W. 333. Other cases in 
which settlements of doubtful 
claims were held good are, Lee v. 
Swilling, 68 Ark. 82, 56 N. W. 447; 
Boffinger v. Tuyes, 120 XJ. S. 198, 7 
Sup. Ct. 529; Continental Nat. Bank 
V. McGeoch, 92 Wis. 286, 66 N. W. 
606; Dunham v. Griswold, 100 N. Y. 
224, 3 N. B. 76. 

=« Balrd v. United States, 96 U. S. 
430, 431; Shaw v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 



1597.] 



ACCORD AND SATISFACTION. 



30 



with notice that it is tendered in full payment and satisfaction of the 
demand, and the creditor accepts it, this will amount to an accord and 
satisfaction;^" and this is true where the creditor retains it when the 
payment is made on such condition, known to him, even though he 
protests at the time that it is not all that is due or afterwards claims 
he did not accept it in full satisfaction.^" But to have this efEect the 
payment must be made upon such condition and not under such cir- 
cumstances as Justify the creditor in treating it as a mere payment 
on account or the like.^^ 



§ 1597. Parties. — There was once a tendency to regard satisfac- 
tion from a stranger as insufiQcient, under any circumstances, to con- 
stitute a bar;^^ but if it is accepted as such by the creditor and is 
authorized or ratified^^ by the debtor, it is now well settled that it will 



82 Iowa 199, 47 N. W. 1004; People 
V. Board, 96 N. Y. 640, and cases 
cited In following notes. 

=» Fuller V. Kemp, 138 N. Y. 231, 33 
N. E. 1034, 20 L. R. A. 785 and note; 
Eames Vacuum Brake Co. v. Pros- 
ser, 157 N. Y. 289, 51 N. E. 986; Os- 
trander v. S^cott, 161 111. 339, 43 N. 
B. 1089; Truax v. Miller, 48 Minn. 
62, 50 N. W. 935; Marion v. Heim- 
back, 62 Minn. 214, 64 N. W. 386; 
Keck v. Insurance Co., 89 Iowa 200, 
56 N. W. 438 ; Petit v. Woodlief, 115 
N. Car. 120, 20 S. B. 208; Bull v. 
Bull, 43 Conn. 455; Smith v. Colin, 
170 Pa. St. 132, 32 Atl. 565. 

^Hutton V. Stoddart, 83 Ind. 539; 
Talbott V. English, 156 Ind. 299, 59 
N. B. 857; Potter v. Douglass, 44 
Conn. 541; Treat v. Price, 47 Neb. 
875, 66 N. W. 834; Nassoity v. Tom- 
linson, 148 N. Y. 326, 42 N. E. 715; 
Freiberg v. Moffit, 91 Hun (N. Y.) 
17, 36 N. Y. S. 95; Roach v. Gilmer, 
3 Utah 389, 4 Pao. 221; McDaniels v. 
Lapham, 21 Vt. 222; but see, Robin- 
son V. Detroit &c. R. Co., 84 Mich. 
858, 48 N. W. 205; Day v. McLea, 58 
L. J. Q. B. 293; Perin v. Cathcart, 
115 Iowa 553, 89 N. W. 12 ; Neely v. 
Thompson (Kans.), 75 Pac. 117. 



^ Pottlitzer v. Wesson, 8 Ind. App. 
472, 35 N. B. 1030; Curran v. Rum- 
mell, 118 Mass. 482; Van Dyke v. 
Wilder, 66 Vt. 579, 29 Atl. 1016; Bos- 
ton Rubber Co. v. Peerless &c. Co., 
58 Vt. 551, 5 Atl. 407; De Kalb &c. 
Works V. White, 59 111. App. 171; 
Perkins v. Headley, 49 Mo. App. 
556; Cooley v. Kinney, 119 Mich. 
377, 78 N. W. 332 ; Fremont Foundry 
&c. Co. V. Norton, 3 Neb. 804, 92 N. 
W. 1058; Board v. Runnell, 17 Colo. 
App. 85, 66 Pac. 1073. 

'^ See, Groshon v. Grant, 2 Ky. 
Dec. 268; Stark v. Thompson, 3 T. 
B. Mon. (Ky.) 296; Blum v. Hart- 
man, 3 Daly (N. Y.) 47; Daniels v. 
Hallenbeck, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 408; 
Grymes v. Blofield, Cro. Bliz. 541; 
Edgcombe v. Rodd, 5 East 294. 

==As to the necessity of authority 
or ratification, see, Leavitt v. Mor- 
row, 6 Ohio St. 71, 67 Am. Dec. 334; 
Snyder v. Pharo, 25 Fed. 398 ; James 
V. Isaac, 22 L. J. C. P. 73; Goodwin 
V. gremer, 18 Q. B. 757; Kemp v. 
Balls, 10 Exch. 607; but It need not 
be express, Bennett v. Hill, 14 R. I. 
322; Snyder v. Pharo, 25 Fed. 398; 
Leavitt v. Morrow, 6 Ohio St. 71, 67 
Am. Dec. 334; see also, Belshaw v. 



31 



PARTIES. 



[§ 1597. 



be sufficient to sustain a plea of accord and satisfaction.^* Proof of 
accord and satisfaction made by one of several Joint obligors^" or 
wrongdoers^" is good and available to all. So, if it is made with one 
of several plaintiffs or joint creditors."^ But a covenant not to sue one 
of several persons Jointly liable, or a part payment by one of them, 
not accepted in full satisfaction of the damage or injury at least so far 
as he is concerned, has been held not to release the others f^ and the 



Bush, 11 C. B. 191; Harrison v. 
Hicks, 1 Port. (Ala.) 423, 27 Am. 
Dec. 638; Wellington v. Kelly, 84 N. 
Y. 543; Gray v. Herman, 75 Wis. 
453, 44 N. W. 248, 6 L. R. A. 691; 
Griffin v. Petty, 101 N. Car. 380; 
Strasser v. Conklin, 54 Wis. 102, 11 
N. W. 254; CMcago &c. R. Co. v. 
Brown (Neb.), 97 N. W. 1038. 

^'Ritenour v. Mathews, 42 Ind. 7; 
Chicago &o. R. Co. v. Brown (Neb.), 
97 N. W. 1038; Crumlish v. Central 
Imp. Co., 38 W. Va. 399, 18 S. E. 456, 
45 Am. St. 872, 23 L. R. A. 120, and 
note; Harvey v. Tama County, 53 
Iowa 228, 5 N. W. 130; Atlantic 
Dock Co. V. New York, 53 N. Y. 64; 
Leavitt v. Morrow, 6 Ohio St. 71, 67 
Am. Dec. 334; Snyder v. Pharo, 25 
Fed. 398; Simpson v. Eggington, 10 
Exch. 845; Belshaw v. Bush, 11 C. 
B. 191; Hawkshaw v. Rawlings, 1 
Str. 23. 

=° Strang v. Holmes, 7 Cowp. (N. 
Y.) 224; see also, Connecticut Fire 
Ins. Co. V. Oldendorff, 73 Fed. 88; 
Thomas v. Wilson, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 
203; Scofield v. Clark, 48 Neb. 711, 
67 N. W. 754; Maslin v. Hiett, 37 W. 
Va. 16, 16 S. E. 437; but compare, 
Elgin &c. Banking Co. v. Self (Tex. 
Civ. App.), 35 S. W. 953. In many 
jurisdictions to have this effect 
there must usually be a technical 
release under seal. 

" Vandiver v. Pollak, 107 Ala. 547, 
19 So. 180; Cobb v. Malone, 86 Ala. 
571, 6 So. 6; Donaldson v. Car- 
michael, 102 Ga. 40, 29 S. E. 135; 



Snyder v. Witt, 99 Tenn. 618, 42 S. 
W. 441; Spurr v. North Hudson &c. 
R. Co., 56 N. J. L. 346, 28 Atl. 582; 
Brown v. Cambridge, 3 Allen 
(Mass.) 474; Ruble v. Turner, 2 H. 
& M. (Va.) 38; Barrett v. Third Ave. 
R. Co., 45 N. Y. 628; Brown v. Louis- 
burg, 126 N. Car. 701, 36 S. B. 166, 
78 Am. St. 677; Dufresne v. Hutch- 
inson, 3 Taunt. 117; Thurman v. 
Wild, 11 Ad. & El. 453; see also, 
Aschraft v. Knoblock, 146 Ind. 169, 

45 N. E. 69 ; and note in 11" Am. St. 
906-909; Abb v. Northern Pac. R. 
Co., 58 L. R. A. 293, and note. 

"State V. Story, 57 Miss. 738; 
Brwin v. Rutherford, 1 Yerg. 
(Tenn.) 169; Morrow v. Starke, 4 
J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 367; Austin v. 
Hall, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 286, 7 Am. 
Dec. 376; Wallace v. Kelsall, 7 M. & 
W. 264; Husband v. Davis, 10 C. B. 
645, so held even though it is not 
shown that he had any authority 
from the others. State v. Story, 
57 Miss. 738; Wallace v. Kelsall, 7 
M. & W. 264; see also, Thurman v. 
Wild, 11 Ad. & El. 453; Husband v. 
Davis, 10 C. B. 645; Crowe v. 
Lysaght, 12 Ir. C. L. 481. 

^ Chicago V. Babcock, 143 111. 358, 
32 N. E. 271; Smith v. Gayle, 58 Ala. 
600, 62 Ala. 446; Arnett v. Missouri 
Pac. R. Co., 64 Mo. App. 368; see 
also, Clark v. Dinsmore, 5 N. H. 136; 
Durell V. Wendell, 8 N. H. 372; 
Bozeman v. State Bank, 7 Ark. 328, 

46 Am, Dec. 291; Couch v. Mills, 21 
Wend. (N. Y.) 425; Rowley v. Stod- 



§ 1598.] 



ACCOED AND SATISFACTION. 



32 



same concliision has been reached where the person from whom the 
satisfaction as a joint wrongdoer moved, was not liable,^* and also 
where the claimant was an infant.*" It is well settled, however, that 
if there is a complete accord and satisfaction, it will release all, not- 
withstanding any agreement between the party injured and the wrong- 
doer from whom the satisfaction moves, that it shall not operate to 
release any of the other joint wrongdoers.*^ 

§ 1598. Documentary and parol evidence. — At common law there 
could be no parol accord and satisfaction of an obligation which was 
required to be and was under seal, or of a judgment, and the same 
rule has been laid down in many decisions in this country;*^ but it 
has been largely changed by statute, and is generally enforceable in 
equity, or will constitute a good defense in actions at law in jurisdic- 



dard, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 207; Good- 
now v. Smith, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 414; 
Hutton V. Eyre, 6 Taunt. 296, 1 E. 
C. L. 388; Waluesley v. Cooper, 11 
Ad. & El. 216; Ford v. Beech, L. R. 
11 Q. B. 852, 63 E. C. L. 852. 

™ Wagner v. Union Stock Yards 
&c. Co., 41 111. App. 408; Turner v. 
Hitchcock, 20 Iowa 310; Seiber v. 
Amunson, 78 Wis. 679, 47 N. W. 
1126; see also, Gilbert v. Pinch, 46 
N. Y. App. Div. 75; Wilson v. Reed, 
3 Johns. (N. Y.) 175; Thomas v. 
Central R. Co., 194 Pa. St. 512, 45 
Atl. 344; Missouri R. Co. v. Mc- 
Wherter, 59 Kans. 345, 53 Pac. 135; 
Warden v. McConnell, 25 Neb. 558, 
41 N. W. 548; contra: Brown v. 
Cambridge, 3 Allen (Mass.) 474; 
Leddy v. Barney, 139 Mass. 394; 
Tompkins v. Clay, St. R. Co., 66 Cal. 
166; Denver &c. R. Co. v. Sullivan, 
21 Colo. 302, 41 Pac. 501; Hartigan 
V. Dickson, 81 Minn. 284, 83 N. W. 
1091. 

"Baker v. Lovett, 6 Mass. 78, 4 
Am. Dec. 88; see, Burt v. Mc- 
Bain, 29 Mich. 260; also as to settle- 
ments by administrators and 
agents: Stuber v. McEntee, 142 N. 



Y. 200, 36 N. B. 878; Anderson v. 
Highland Tpk. Co., 16 Johns. (N. 
Y.) 86; Jones v. Ransom, 3 Ind. 327; 
Maddox v. Bevan, 39 Md. 485. 

"Ayer v. Ashinead, 31 Conn. 447, 
83 Am. Dec. 154; Ruble v. Turner, 2 
H. & M. (Va.) 38; Abb v. Northern 
Pac. R. Co., 28 Wash. 428, 68 Pac. 
954; Arnett v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 
64 Mo. App. 368; Ellis v. Bitzer, 2 
Ohio St. 89, 15 Am. Dec. 534; Brown 
V. Kecheloe, 3 Coldw. (Tenn.) 192; 
see also, Urton v. Price, 57 Cal. 270; 
Seither v. Philadelphia Traction Co., 
125 Pa. St. 397, 17 Atl. 338, 4 L. R. A. 
54, 11 Am. St. 9.05, and note; Gun- 
ther v. Lee, 45 Md. 67, 24 Am. R. 
504; McBride v. Scott (Mich.), 93 
N. W. 243, 61 L. R. A. 445. 

^''Ligon V. Dunn, 28 N. Car. 133; 
Milnes v. Van Horn, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 
198; Weber v. Couch, 134 Mass. 26, 
45 Am. R. 274; Batchelder v. 
Sturgis, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 201; Riley 
V. Riley, 20 N. J. L. 114; Mitchell v. 
Hawley, 4 Denio (N. Y.) 414, 47 Am. 
Dec. 260; Parker v. Ramsbottom, 3 
B. & C. 257; Cordwent v. Hunt, 8 
Taunt. 596; Spence v. Healey, 8 
Exch. 668. 



33 DOCUMENTARY AND PAROL RANGE OP EVIDENCE. [§ 1599. 

tions in which equitable defenses may be set up in such actions.*' So, 
except in jurisdictions in which the rules requiring a writing, as above 
stated, obtain, the accord and satisfaction may usually rest in parol.** 
If the agreement of accord and satisfaction is in writing the instru- 
ment must generally be produced or its absence satisfactorily ex- 
plained ;*° but it has been held that when the agreement itself is not in 
writing but was consummated by the execution and delivery of a note 
or the like, this may be shown by parol without producing the note.*° 
So, where an agreement of accord and satisfaction between a county 
board, representing the county, and a claimant has been executed and 
the benefits received and accepted by the latter, it has been held that 
this may be shown by parol evidence in the absence of any written 
record or minutes thereof.*^ Parol evidence has also been held admis- 
sible to remove the doubt where a written agreement is ambiguous, 
and it is doubtful as to what it covers.** 

§ 1599. Range and sufficiency of evidence. — The proof must ac- 
cord with the allegations and not make a substantially different case.*® 
Hence, evidence of an accord and satisfaction of a materially differ- 
ent character is not admissible,^" and the same has been held where the 

" Steeds v. Steeds, L. R. 22 Q. B. « See, Lavery v. Turley, 6 H. & N. 

537; Smitherman V. Kldd, 36 N. Car. 239; Massey v. Johnson, 1 Exch. 

86; see also, Boffinger v. Tuyer, 120 241; Green v. Lancaster County, 61 

U. S. 198, 7 Sup. Ct. 529; Dearborn Neb. 473, 85 N. W. 439. 

V. Cross, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 48; Keeler "American v. Rlnpert, 75 111. 228; 

V. Salisbury, 33 N. Y. 648, affirming, see also, Brantley Co. v. Lee, 106 Ga. 

27 Barb. 485; Moody v. Leavitt, 2 N. 313, 32 S. E. 101. 

H. 171; Cutler v. Cox, 2 Blackf. « Fisher v. George S. Jones Co., 93 

(Ind.) 178, 18 Am. Dec. 152; Neldon Ga. 717, 21 S. E. 152; Brantley Co. 

V. Smith, 36 N. J. L. 148; Cabe v. v. Lee, 106 Ga. 313, 32 S. E. 101. 

Jameson, 32 N. Car. 193, 51 Am. Dec. " Green v. Lancaster County, 61 

386; Savage v. Carter, 2 B. Mon. Neb. 473, 85 N. W. 439. 

(Ky.) 512; Paune v. Barnett, 2 A. •» Seloer's Assigned Estate, 7 Pa. 

K. Marsh. (Ky.) 312; Leavitt v. Sav- Co. Ct. 417; see also. Fire Ins. Asso. 

age, 16 Me. 72; see likewise as to v. Wickham, 141 U. S. 564, 12 Sup. 

judgments: Savage v. Blanchard, Ct. 84; Simons v. Johnson, 3 B. & A. 

148 Mass. 348. 19 N. B. 396; Jones v. 175. 

Ransom, 3 Ind. 327; Savage v. Ever- *» Smith v. Elrod, 122 Ala. 269, 24 

man, 70 Pa. St. 315, 10 Am. 676; So. 994; "Walker v. Reese, 110 Ga. 

McCullough V. Franklin Coal Co., 21 582, 35 S. B. 771. 

Md. 256; Cobb v. Cowdery, 40 Vt. 25, ■» Walker v. Reese, 110 Ga. 582, 35 

94 Am. Dec. 370; Boffinger v. Tuyes, S. E. 771; but see, Smitherman v. 

120 U. S. 198, 7 Sup. Ct. 529. Smith, 20 N. Car. 89. 

Vol. 3 Elliott Ev.— 3 



§ 1599.] 



ACCORD AND SATISFACTION. 



34 



evidence was of an accord with a different person from that alleged.^^ 
A receipt in full is admissible in support of the plea/^ and where the 
amount is disputed, evidence of the retention by the plaintiff of a 
check stated to be in full of the claim has been held admissible in 
support of the plea, although indorsed by the plaintiff as received on 
account.^^ So, evidence of the discontinuance of a former action for 
the same cause on payment of costs by the defendant has been held 
sufficient prima facie evidence of an accord and satisfaction,^* and 
lapse of time after the breach and before the commencement of the 
action may be. shown with other evidence of accord and satisfaction.^^ 
Where a claim is presented to a municipal corporation and allowed 
and accepted for a sum less than that demanded, this has been held 
evidence of an accord and satisfaction,^ ° and it has been held that it 
may be shown by parol evidence where no record thereof was made.^^ 
But saying "It is not enough but there will be no trouble" is not sufiS- 
cient,^^ and an order given by the plaintiff to the defendant is not ad- 
missible to support a plea of accord and satisfaction unless there is 
other evidence that it was intended or accepted in accord and satisfac- 
tion^* or at least an offer or promise of evidence to connect it with 



"Chappell v. Phillips, "Wright 
(Ohio) 372. 

''"Grumley v. Wehb, 48 Mo. 562; 
Treat v. Price, 47 Neb. 875, 66 N. W. 
834; Vedder v. Vedder, 1 Denio (N. 
Y.) 257; Serat v. Smith, 15 N. Y. S. 
330; Springfield &c. R. Co. v. Allen, 
46 Ark. 217; United States v. Adam, 
7 Wall. (U. S.) 463; see also as to 
refusal to give receipt as evidence 
to the contrary; Sicotte v. Barber, 
83 Wis. 431, 53 N. W. 697; with 
which compare; Keck v. Insurance 
Co., 89 Iowa 200, 56 N. W. 438 ; Nas- 
soity V. Tomlinson, 148 N. Y. 326, 42 
N. E. 715, 51 Am. St. 695. As to ex- 
planation of receipt, see, Fire Ins. 
Asso. V. Wickham, 141 U. S. 564, 12 
Sup. Ct. 84; Tanner v. Merrill, 108 
Mich. 58, 65 N. W. 664, 62 Am. St. 
687. 

™Kine v. Dorman, 55 N. Y. 876. 
So giving a note has been held 
prima facie evidence of settlement 



of an account, Kinman v. Canne- 
fax, 34 Mo. 147. 

"Dana v. Taylor, 150 Mass. 25, 22 
N. B. 65; but see. Carter v. Wilson, 
2 Dev. &. B. (N. Car.) 276; Bond v. 
McNider, 3 Ired. L. (N. Car.) 440. 

"= Jenkins v. Hopkins, 9 Pick. 
(Mass.) 543; Ketchem v. Gulick, 
(N. J.) 20 Atl. 487; Abbott v. Wil- 
mot, 22 Vt. 437; Bradley v. Gregory, 
2 Campb. 3§3. But it has been held 
insufficient of itself to establish the 
plea, Austin v. Moore, 7 Mete. 
(Mass.) 116; Siboni v. Kirkman, 1 
M. & W. 418. 

""Brick V. Plymouth County, 63 
Iowa 462. 19 N. W. 304. 

"'Green v. Lancaster County, 61 
Neb. 473, 85 N. W. 439. 

"'Willey V. Warden, 27 Vt. 655; 
but see, Neary v. Bostwick, 2 Hilt. 
(N. Y.) 514. 

™Hogan V. Burns, (Cal.) 33 Pa*. 
631. 



35 



SUPFICIBNCT OF EVIDENCE. 



[§ 1599. 



the accord and satisfaction pleaded. So where an agreement and ac- 
ceptance by the plaintiff of the covenant of a third person in full 
satisfaction of a note sued on was alleged by the defendant evidence 
of an indorsement on the note by such third person that he was to 
pay the same at a certain date and a credit of the same date still 
legible, though lines were drawn through it, was held insufficient to 
show an accord and satisfaction."" Only a fair preponderance of the 
evidence, however, is required to support such a plea."^ 



™ Bruce v. Bruce, 4 Dana (Ky.) 
530. For other cases in which the 
evidence was held insuflScient to es- 
tablish accord and satisfaction, see, 
Lee V. Tarplin, 183 Mass. 52, 66 N. 
E. 431; Bloomington Min. Co. v. 
Brooklyn &c. Co., 68 N. Y. 699, af- 
firmed in 171 N. Y. 673, 64 N. B. 
1118; Mount v. De Haven, 29 Ind. 
App. 127, 63 N. E. 330. 

"'Bruce v. Bruce, 4 Dana (Ky.) 
530; Cheeves v. Danielly, 74 Ga. 712. 



As to evidence In rebuttal, see: 
Bliss V. New York &c. R. Co., 160 
Mass. 447, 36 N. E. 65, 39 Am. St. 
504; Leslie v. Keepers, 68 Wis. 123, 
31 N. W. 486; Fire Ins. As^o. v. 
Wlckham, 141 U. S. 564, 12 Sup. Ct. 
84; St. Louis &c. R. Co. v. Davis, 35 
Kans. 464. 11 Pac. 421; with which 
compare. Roach v. Gilmer, 3 Utah 
389, 4 Pac. 221; Vandervelden v. Chi- 
cago &c. R. Co., 61 Fed. 54. 



CHAPTEK LXXVIII. 



ACCOUNTS AKD ACCOUNTING. 



Sec. 

1600. Generally. 

1601. Evidence and procedure. 

1602. Accounts. 

1603. Actions on accounts. 

1604. Burden of proof and evidence. 

1605. Accounts stated — Generally. 

1606. Questions of law or fact. 

1607. Burden and manner of prov- 

ing account stated. 

1608. Presumptions in cases of ac- 

count stated. 



Sec. 

1609. Impeachment of accounts 

stated. 

1610. Accounting in equity — Before 

interlocutory decree. 

1611. Accounting in equity — ^After 

interlocutory decree. 

1612. Accounting in equity — ^Answer 

as evidence. 

1613. Accounting under the code. 



§ 1600. Gfinerally. — At common law aceoTint, or "account ren- 
der," was a form of action used where one had received goods or money 
for another, to ascertain and recover the balance due ; but it could be 
maintained only where the amount was unliquidated."^ It was one of 
the oldest forms of actions, and was, perhaps, most frequently used 
where two persons were parties in a mercantile adventure, or where the 
defendant was under a duty to account as bailiff, receiver, or guardian 
in socage;^ but it has been abolished or changed 'by statute in some 
states/ and has very generally fallen into disuse by reason of the fact 



' Shipman Com. Law PI. (2nd 
ed.) 46; 1 Bouv. Law Diet. 
(Rawle's ed.) 64; see also, Godfrey 
V. Saunders, 3 Wils. 94; Foster v. 
Allanson, 2 Term R. 479; Harring- 
ton V. Deane, 1 Hob. 36; Conklin v. 
Bush, 8 Pa. St. 514; Duncan v. 
Lyons, 3 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 351; 
Shriver v. Nimick, 41 Pa. St. 91; 
Lee V. Alrams, 12 111. Ill; Morgan 
v. Adams, 37 Vt. 233; Park v. Mc- 
Gowen, 64 Vt. 173, 23 Atl. 855; Ap- 
pelby V. Brown, 24 N. Y. 143. 



= Beach v. Hotchkiss, 2 Conn. 425; 
Powle V. Kirkland, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 
299; Leonard v. Leonard, 1 W. & S. 
(Pa.) 342; Griffith v. Willing, 3 Bin. 
(Pa.) 317; see also, Field v. Brown, 
146 Ind. 293, 45 N. E. 464. 

' In a few jurisdictions the action 
or remedy has been enlarged or ex- 
tended by statute. See, Garrity v. 
Hamburger Co., 136 111. 499, 27 N. 
E. 11; Park v. McGowan, 64 Vt. 173, 
23 Atl. 855; Cooley Blackstone 163; 
Andrews Am. Law 1074; see also, 



36 



37 t EVIDENCE AND PHOCEDUKE. [§ 1601. 

that there is usually a more satisfactory remedy by an action of as- 
eumpsit or a proceeding in equity. Accounts, however, so often come 
in question and evidence relating to accounts and accounting is so 
often of importance in actions at law, as well as in suits in equity, 
that it has been deemed advisable to treat the whole subject here, so 
far at least as questions of evidence are concerned. 

§ 1601. Evidence and procedure. — We have stated the general na- 
ture of the action of account at common law, but have not yet fully 
considered the course of procedure and the admissibility of evidence 
in such actions. The first question, and usually the only question, to 
be determined before verdict or judgment quod computet, is the lia- 
bility of the defendant to account, and, it being found that the de- 
fendant should account an interlocutory judgment quod computet is 
rendered.* The matter is then referred to an auditor or auditors to 
take and to report the account with the balance found due, and there- 
upon final judgment quod Recuperet is usually rendered by the court.* 
It seems that the only plea in bar is one which shows that the defend- 
ant is not liable to account," and, as the judgment to account is usu- 
ally conclusive as to the mere liability to account, such a plea should 
be pleaded before the interlocutory judgment to account ; and the de- 
fendant cannot, ordinarily, introduce evidence to show that he has 
accounted, or the like, after such a judgment is rendered.' But a plea 
denying the relation on which the alleged liability to account is 
based,* or a plea that the defendant has fully accounted, plene corn- 
Black v. Nichols, 68 Me. 227; Bitter- 'Garrity v. Hamburger Co., 136 
ling V. Deshler, 160 Pa. St. 1, 28 Atl. 111. 499, 27 N. B. 11. Nor should the 
445; Hamilton v. Conine, 28 Md. 635, plea be to separate items nor to re- 
92 Am. Dec. 724. lease separate items of the account; 

*Lee V. Abrams, 12 HI. Ill; Haw- Mott v. Downer, 1 Root (Conn.) 
ley V. Burd, 6 111. App. 454; Lee v. 425; Joy v. Walker, 29 Vt. 257. 
Yanaway, 52 111. App. 23; Hathaway 'Lee v. Abrams, 12 111. Ill; God- 
V. Russell, 46 N. Y. Super. Ct. 103; frey v. Saunders, 3 Wils. 94; Taylor 
McPherson v. McPherson, 11 Ired. v. Page, 3 Cro. Car. 116; Day v. 
L. (N. Car.) 391, 53 Am. Dec. 416. Lockwood, 24 Conn. 185; Hayden v. 

"Shipman Com. Law PI. (2nd ed.) Merrill, 44 Vt. 336, 8 Am. R. 372. 
49; Bouv. Law Diet. (Rawle'a ed.) 'McMurray v. Rawson, 3 Hill (N. 
64; Lee v. Abrams, 12 111. Ill; Mc- Y.) 59; Bishop v. Baldwin, 14 Vt. 
Pherson v. McPherson, 11 Ired. L. 145; Bruismaid v. Mayo, 9 Vt. 31; 
(N. Car.) 391, 53 Am. Dec. 416; 1 Ricketts v. Loftus, L. R. 14 Q. B, 
Cyc. 413. 482. 



§ 1601.] 



ACCOUNTS AND ACCOUNTING. 



38 



putavit/ if interposed before the interlocutory judgment, is proper as 
showing that there is no liability to account/" although it is held that 
if the defendant pleads plene computavit, the burden is upon him to 
show an actual accounting and balance struck.^^ The evidence on the 
part of the plaintifE must support the material averments in the dec- 
laration.^^ There must be evidence, unless otherwise provided by stat- 
ute of a privity, either by contract, express or implied,^^ by the law ; 
and if the defendant is charged as bailiff, or guardian, or receiver, or 
tenant in common, or joint tenant, he must be proved to have acted in 
the specific character charged, for the measure of their liability is 
different;^* and the property, or interest in the money demanded, or 
the goods bailed, must be stated and proved as laid, as it is a material 
allegation.^^ And if the action is against several defendants jointly, 
they must be proved to be jointly and not severally liable.^' It is said 
by some courts and text writers that a special demand to account is 
not necessary to be proved ;" but it is safer and probably necessary in 
most cases to allege and prove a demand.^* After a judgment quod 
computet, and a reference to auditors, all articles of account between 



' Godfrey v. Saunders, 3 Wils. 94; 
Whelan v. Watmough, 15 S. & R. 
(Pa.) 153. 

" It is said in general terms that 
it is proper to plead any facts show- 
ing that the defendant is not liable 
to account: Ricketts v. Loftus, L. R. 
14 Q. B. 482; 2 Chitty PI. 294; as to 
pleas of nothing in arrear, release 
and infancy, see, Lee v. Abrams, 12 
111. Ill; Pickett v. Pearsons, 17 Vt. 
470; Godfrey v. Saunders, 3 Wils. 
94; Bishop v. Baldwin, 14 Vt. 145. 

" Baxter v. Hozier, 5 Bing. N. 
Gas. 288; McPherson v. McPherson, 
11 Ired. L. (N. Car.) 391, 53 Am. 
Dec. 416; Lee v. Abrams, 12 111. Ill; 
see also, Read v. Bertrand, 20 Fed. 
Gas. No. 11602, 4 "Wash. (U. S.) 556; 
but compare, Evans v. Birch, 3 
Gampb. 10. 

" Jordan v. Williams, 13 Fed. Gas. 
No. 7526; see also. Spear v. Newell, 
22 Fed. Gas. No. 13224. 

"King of France v. Morris, cited 
3 Yeates (Pa.) 251; Goke Litt. 40 b. 



172 a; Wood v. Merrow, 25 Vt. 340; 
Portsmouth v. Donaldson, 32 Pa. St 
202, 72 Am. Dec. 782. 

"1 Selwyn, N. P. 1-3; Goke Lltt, 
172 A; Sargent v. Parsons, 12 Mass 
149; Gearnes v. Irving, 31 Vt. 604 
Barnum v. Landon, 25 Gonn. 137 
Griffith V. Willing, 3 Bin. (Pa.) 317 
Hughes V. Woosley, 15 Mo. 492 
Wheeler v. Home, Willes 208; Jor 
dan V. Wilkins, 2 Wash. (U. S.) 485 
Stat. 4 & 5 Anne, § 27; Irvine v 
Hanlln, 10 S. & R. (Pa.) 221 
Wright V. Guy, 10 S. & R. (Pa.) 
227. 

"Jordan v. Wilkins, 2 Wash. (U. 
S.) 482; Spalding v. Dunlap, 1 Root 
(Gonn.) 319. 

" Whelan v. Watmough, 15 S. & R. 
(Pa.) 158. 

" Sturges v. Bush, 5 Day (Conn.) 
452; 2 Greenleaf Bv. 337; Shipman 
Gom. Law PI. (2nd ed.) 236. 

"Topham v. Braddick, 1 Taunt. 
572; Barnum v. Landon, 25 Gonn. 
137; Chadwick v. Divol, 12 Vt. 499. 



39 ACCOUNTS. [§ 1603. 

the parties incurred since the commencement of the action are to be 
included by the auditors, and the whole is to be brought down to the 
time when they make an end of the account.^' But it has been held 
that after such judgment, rendered on confession against a receiver, 
if the auditors certify issues to be tried, the plaintiff, upon the trial of 
such issues, cannot give evidence of moneys received by the defendant 
during any other period than that described in the declaration.^" The 
judgment quod computet, however, does not conclude the defendant 
as to the precise sums or times mentioned in the declaration ; but the 
account is to be taken according to the truth of the matter, without 
regard to the verdict.^^ 

§ 1602. Accounts. — An account is usually defined as a detailed 
statement of mutual demands in the nature of debt and credit be- 
tween parties, arising out of contract or some fiduciary relation ;^^ 
but it is said that the term has no very clearly defined legal meaning,^* 
and that an account is not necessarily anything more than a list or 
catalogue of items, whether of debits or credits;^* and it would seem 
that, ia the ordinary sense, items of charge by one person against 
another arising out of contract, express or implied, or from some 
fiduciary relation or duty imposed by law may be none the less an ac- 
count notwithstanding there are no mutual demands of debit and 
credit.^^ The term, however, usually imports a general course of deal- 
ing rather than an isolated transaction resting upon special contract,^" 
and it has been said that the items must be proper subjects of entries 

"Robinson v. Bland, 2 Bur. 1086; liams v. Allen, 45 Mo. 573; Gale v. 

•Cousclier v. Tulam, 4 Wash. (U. S.) Drake, 51 N. H. 78. 

442; Stehman's Appeal, 5 Pa. St. "^ Nelson v. Board, 105 Ind. 287, 4 

413; Smith v. Brush, 11 Conn. 359; N. E. 703. 

Newbold V. Sims, 2 S. & R. (Pa.) 317. =* Rensselaer Glass Factory v. 

"Swelgart v. Lowmarter, 14 S. & Reld, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 587, 593; ap- 

R. (Pa.) 200. proved in. Nelson v. Board, 105 Ind. 

"'Newbold v. Sims, 2 S. & R. (Pa.) 287, 4 N. B. 703. 

317; James v. Browne, 1 Ball. (Pa.) ^Nelson v. Board, 105 Ind. 287, 4 

339; Sturges v. Bush, 5 Day (Conn.) N. E. 703; People v. Peck, 57 How. 

452. Pr. (N. Y.) 315; Camp v. IngersoU, 

=^ 1 Bouv. Law Diet. (Rawle's ed.) 86 N. Y. 433; Eaton v. Peavy, 75 

63 ; see also, Turgeon v. Cote, 88 Me. Iowa 740, 38 N. W. 423. 

108, 33 Atl. 787; Whitwell v. Wil- ^McCamant v. Batsell, 59 Tex. 

lard, 1 Mete. (Mass.) 216; McWil- 363. 



§ 1603.] ACCOUNTS AND ACCOUNTING. 40 

ia an account book;^^ but it is not necessary that they should be en- 
tered in an account book in order to constitute an account."' 

§ 1603. Actions on accounts. — Matters of account are frequently, 
although not always, the subject of an action in assumpsit, and the 
remedy and the evidence are, in many jurisdictions, now regulated, to 
some extent, by statute. There are some cases in which a party may 
waive a tort and sue upon the implied contract,"" but he cannot, where 
he has no such election, by merely tabulating his claim, convert an 
action in tort into an action on account.*" An entire account, con- 
sisting of several items, may be regarded as a unit on which an action 
may be brought f^ and it is held that a party cannot claim the benefit 
of credits without also submitting to debits as shown by the account.'" 
So, in actions on a general balance, the plaintifE, by showing the 
debits with the credits to which the account is entitled, may thus 
prove the balance to be recovered unless other credits are shown, or 
the account is otherwise falsified f^ but where a payment is shown on 
the account generally, it has been held that the full balance cannot 
be recovered without proof of the specific items of debt because there 
is no authority to apply the payment to any particular item.'* 

'^Dallas V. Ferneau, 25 Ohio St. 17 Am. Dec. 242-247; 4 Elliott Rail- 

635, 637; Penn v. Early, 113 Pa. St. roads, § 1693. 

264, 6 Atl. 58. But, while this may '"Spencer v. Hewett, 20 Ga. 426; 
be true before they can be admissl- Albertson v. Grier, 4 Houst. (Del.) 
ble as book entries, it is not neces- 541; Atchison &c. R. Co. v. Wilkin- 
sarily true that the subject matter son, 55 Kans. 83, 39 Pac. 1043; San- 
may not be treated as an account so deen v. Kansas City R. Co., 79 Mo. 
far as the remedy is concerned; Hil- 278. 

ton V. Burley, 2 N. H. 193; Talbot- ''Phillips Code PI., § 472. 

ton R. Co. V. Gibson, 106 Ga. 229, 32 '"Fitzpatrlck v. Harris, 8 Ala, 32; 

S. B. 151. Dougherty v. Knowlton, 19 111. App. 

"^ Black V. Chesser, 12 Ohio St. 283; Bell v. Davidson, 3 Wash. (U. 

621; Clark v. Clark, 46 Conn. 586; S.) 328; Green v. Glasscock, 9 Rob. 

Lonsdale v. Oltman, 50 Minn. 52, 52 (La.) 119; but see Marr v. Hyde, 8 

N. "W. 131. Rob. (La.) 13; Moorhead v. Thomp- 

" Zell V. Dunkle, 156 Pa. St. 353, son, 1 La. Ann. 283. 

27 Atl. 38; Bradfleld v. Patterson, =° Hooper v. Hartwell, 12 Colo. 

106 Ala. 397, 17 So. 536; Terry v. App. 161, 54 Pac. 864; Hunt v. 

Hunger, 121 N. Y. 161, 24 N. E. 272, Mewis, 17 Neb. 422, 23 N. W. 10. 

18 Am. St. 803 and note, 8 L. R. A. "Huffstater v. Hayes, 64 Barb. 

217; note to "Webster v. Drlnkwater, (N. Y.) 573; Allen v. Brown, 11 Tex. 

520. 



41 



BUEDEN OF PROOF EVIDENCE. 



[§ 1604. 



§ 1604. Burden of proof and evidence. — The burden of proof is 
upon the plaintiff to establish the material allegations of his com- 
plaint ;^° but it has been held that he is not required to prove the cor- 
rectness of each specific item of the account if the correctness of the 
account as a whole is otherwise established.'* Thus, it may be es- 
tablished by an admission of the defendant that the account is cor- 
rect,'" and if a stated account'* or an implied assent'' is proved, it 
will generally be sufficient.** As a general rule, all evidence legiti- 
mately tending to show the correctness of the various items of ac- 
count,*^ on the one hand, or the non-existence or incorrectness of 
the plaintiff's claim,*^ on the other hand, is admissible in such actions. 
And, although a special contract is not, ordinarily, the subject of a 
book account, yet if it has been executed or fully performed by the 
plaintiff, and the obligation to pay money rests upon the defendant 



°° Carver v. Harris, 19 La. Ann. 
121; Fluke v. Martin, 26 La. Ann. 
279; Moore v. Joyce, 23 Miss. 584; 
Crawford v. McLeod, 64 Ala. 240; 
so held in. Rice v. Schloss, 90 Ala. 
416, 7 So. 802, where the distinction 
is also pointed out as to stated ac- 
counts casting the burden upon the 
defendant to impeach their correct- 
ness. On the plaintiff, items on 
book, debt denied: Read v. Barlow, 
Aik. (Vt.) 145; Matthews v. Tower, 
39 Vt. 433; but see as to plea of 
payments. Smith v. "Woodworth, 43 
Vt. 39. 

="Pryor v. Johnson, 32 Ala. 27; 
Ward V. Wheeler, 18 Tex. 249; Baer 
V. Pfaff, 44 Mo. App. 35. But, other- 
wise; the proof must go to the items. 
Coats V. Gregory, 10 Ind. 345. 

"Sullivan Timber Co. v. Brus- 
hagel. 111 Ala. 114, 20 So. 498; Bon- 
nell V. Mawha, 37 N. J. L. 198; see 
also, Stetson v. Godfrey, 20 N. H. 
227; Hurly v. Roche, 6 Fla. 746; 
Chandler v. Meckling, 22 Tex. 36; 
Gill V. Staylor, 93 Md. 453, 49 Atl. 
650; Anderson v. Best, 176 Pa. St. 
498, 35 Atl. 194; McCormack v. Saw- 
yer, 104 Mo. 36, 15 S. "W. 998. 

^Rice V. Schloss, 90 Ala. 416, 7 



So. 802; Duffy v. Hickey, 63 Wis. 
312, 23 N. W. 707; Lelser v. Mc- 
Dowell, 74 N. Y. 1021. 

■"EUwood Mfg. Co. V. Betcher, 72 
Minn. 103. 75 N. W. 113; Swain v. 
Knapp, 34 Minn. 232, 25 N. W. 397; 
Quinn v. White, 26 Nev. 42, 62 Pac. 
995; Rice v. Schloss, 90 Ala. 416, 7 
So. 802; Willis v. Jernegan, 2 Atk. 
251. 

"We do not mean, however, that 
it will always be conclusive. 

*i Graham v. Harmon, 84 Cal. 181, 
23 Pac. 1097. 

*"Pawtucket etc. Co. v. Briggs, 21 
R. I. 457, 44 Atl. 595; Glenn v. Sal- 
ter, 50 Ga. 170; Price v. Combs, '12 
N. J. L. 216; Field v. Knapp, 108 N. 
Y. 87, 14 N. K. 829; but see. Low v. 
GriflBn, (Tex. Civ. App.) 41 S. W. 
73; Wolff V. Matthews, 39 Mo. App. 
376; Wonderly v. Christian, 9i Mo. 
App. 158. Where the plaintiff de- 
nied signing a contract, which was 
claimed to be signed by his mark, 
evidence of experts as to the fair 
market price of the work called for 
by such writing, was held admissi- 
ble on the question of the probabil- 
ity of such contract having been 
executed. 



§ 1605.] 



ACCOUNTS AND ACCOUNTING. 



43 



and is all that remains, there may be a recovery in assumpsit as npon 
an account and the plaintifE may prove his claim as laid.*' In some 
states a verified account is, by statute, made prima facie proof of its 
correctness, but, in general the rules of evidence in actions on ac- 
counts are, in most respects, the same as in other similar cases. The 
subject of accounts and shop books as evidence is fully treated else- 
where,** and other matters relating to the evidence in actions on ac- 
counts are considered in the chapter on Assumpsit.*" 

§ 1605. Accounts stated — Generally. — ^An account stated is "an 
agreement between parties, who have had previous transactions of a 
monetary character, that all items of the account representing such 
transactions are true, and also that the balance struck is correct, to- 
gether with a promise, express or implied, for the payment of such 
balance."** The assent of both parties or of their authorized agents 
must generally be shown,*' and admissions to third persons do not 



" Talbotten R. Co. Gibson, 106 Ga. 
229, 32 S. B. 151; Lovell v. Earle, 
127 Mass. 546; Elm City Club v. 
Howes, 92 Me. 211, 42 Atl. 392; but 
see, Bennett v. Davis, 68 Me. 544; 
Stuckey v. Hardy, 15 Ind. App. 19, 
41 N. E. 606; Emslie v. Leaven- 
worth, 20 Kans. 562; Chesapeake 
&c. Canal Co. v. Knapp, 9 Pet. (U. 
S.) 565; Fairfax &c. Co. v. Cham- 
bers. 75 Md. 604, 23 Atl. 1024. Evi- 
dence of the contract price is usu- 
ally admitted in such cases on the 
measure of the recovery. Jenney 
Electric Co. v. Branham, 145 Ind. 
314, 41 N. E. 448; Stafford v. Sibley, 
106 Ala. 189, 17 So. 324; Sands v. 
Potter, 165 111. 397, 46 N. E. 282, 56 
Am. St. 253, 260. 

"See Vol. I, ch. XXI, §§ 454-475. 
See also, the following recent au- 
thorities: Trainor v. German- Am. 
&c. Asso. 204 111. 616, 68 N. E. 650; 
Place V. Baugher, 159 Ind. 232, 64 
N. E. 852; and elaborate notes in 52 
L. R. A. 545, 689, 833; and 53 L. R. 
A. 513. 

"See post, ch. LXXXV, §§ 1717- 



1735; see also, the subject of ac- 
counting and actions under the 
codes, post, §§ 1605, 1613. 

"Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2d 
ed.) 437. 

"Hoffar V. Dement, 5 Gill (Md.) 
132, 46 Am. Dec. 628; Chatham v. 
Niles, 36 Conn. 403; Tarbuck v. 
Bispham, 2 M. & W. 2; Hughes v. 
Thorpe, 5 M. & W. 656; Christian v. 
Hill, 122 Ala. 490, 26 So. 149; Louis- 
ville &c. Co. V. Asher (Ky.), 65 S. 
W. 133; Holmes v. Page, 19 Ore. 232, 
23 Pac. 961; but see Leiser v. Mc- 
Dowell, 74 N. Y. S. 1021; as to who 
are authorized to assent, see. Rice 
V. Schloss. 90 Ala. 416. 7 So. 802; 
Heidenhelmer v. Ellis, 67 Tex. 426, 
3 S. "W. 666; Southwestern &c. Co. 
V. Benson, 63 Ark. 283, 38 S. W. 
341; Cady v. Kyle, 47 Mo. 346; 
Martyn v. Arnold, 36 Fla. 446, 18 
So. 791; Burraston v. Bank, 22 
Utah 328, 62 Pac. 425; Moody v. 
Thwing, 46 Minn. 511, 49 N. W. 
229; Concord &c. Co. v. Alaska &c. 
Co., 78 111. App. 682; Trustee v. 
Cagger, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 576; Lang- 



43 



ACCOUNT STATED. 



[§ 1605. 



constitute an account stated,*' although it has been held that admis- 
sions to third persons that an account has been stated between the 
parties, and that a certain sum is due thereon, may be shown.*" It 
must appear that there were previous dealings of a monetary char- 
acter between the parties before the alleged statement of the account,"" 
but the specific items need not be shown."^ These previous transac- 
tions may have consisted of mutual demands or only of a single 
item;^^ but where the account stated is as to a single item, that item 
must be of such a character that it constitutes, or creates, a debt.'' 
The account need not be in any particular form ;°* and the mere state- 



ley V. Oxford, Amb. 17; St. Louis 
&o. R. Co. V. Camden Bank, 47 Ark. 
541, 1 S. W. 704; McCormick v. St. 
Louis, 166 Mo. 315, 65 S. W. 1038. 

" Thurmond v. Sanders, 21 Ark. 
255; Huffiar v. Dement, 5 Gill (Md.) 
132; Breckton v. Smith, 1 Ad. & El. 
488; Bates v. Townley, 2 Exch. 152; 
McMurtey v. Munro, 14 U. C. Q. B. 
166. 

"Bloomley v. Gruiton, 1 U. C. C. 
P. 309; Green v. Burtch, 1 U. C. C. 
P. 313; Wharton v. Cain, 50 Ala. 
408; see also, Goodrich v. Coffin, 83 
Me. 324, 22 Atl. 165; as to admis- 
sions in the presence of the other 
party, Forbes v. Wheeler, 39 Misc. 
(N. Y.) 538, 80 N. Y. 373; Lallande 
v. Brown, 121 Ala. 513, 25 So. 997; 
see also, Burraston v. Neplie &c. 
Bank, 22 Utah 328, 62 Pac. 425. 

"Field V. Knapp, 108 N. Y. 87, 14 
N. E. 829; Austin v. Wilson, 11 N. 
Y. S. 565; Truman v. Owens, 17 Ore. 
523, 21 Pac. 665; Powers v. Insur- 
ance Co., 68 Vt. 390, 35 Atl. 331; 
Clarke v. Webb, 1 C. & M. 29; Tones 
V. Sills, 29 U. C. Q. B. 497. 

"' Jacksonville &c. R. Co. v. Warri- 
ner, 35 Fla. 197, 16 So. 898; Union 
Bank v. Knapp, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 96, 
15 Am. Dec. 182; Albrecht v. Gies, 
33 Mich. 389; Gregory v. Bailey, 4 
Har. (Del.) 256; American &c. Co. 
V. Berner &c. Co., 83 111. App. 446; 



Knowles v. Michel, 13 Bast 249; but 
it is held that plaintiff may show 
items in certain cases. Koegel v. 
Givens, 79 Mo. 77; Cape Girardeau 
&c. Co. V. Kimmel, 58 Mo. 83; Mead 
V. White (Pa.), 8 Atl. 913; and on 
the other hand, that if any item is 
proved incorrect he cannot recover 
for that item. Withers v. Sandlin, 
44 Fla. 253, 32 So. 829; Poppers v. 
Schoenfeld, 97 111. App. 477. 

"'Knowles v. Michel, 13 East 249; 
Bartlett v. Emery, 1 Term. R. 42, 
note; Lane v. Hill, L. R. 18 Q. B. 
252, 83 E. C. L. 252; Rutledge v. 
Moore, 9 Mo. 537; Weigel v. Hart- 
man &c. Co., 51 N. J. L. 446, 20 Atl. 
67; Neyland v. Neyland, 19 Tex. 
423; Cobb v. Arundell, 26 Wis. 553. 

"See, Tucker v. Barrow, 7 B. & 
C. 623, 14 E. C. L. 103; Gough v. 
Findon, 7 Exch. 48; Lemere v. 
Elliott, 6 H. & N. 656; Wilson v. 
Marshall, 2 Ir. C. L. 356; Ware v. 
Dudley, 16 Ala. 742; Truman v. 
Owens, 17 Ore. 525, 21 Pac. 665; 
Kennedy v. Adams, 15 N. Br. 162; 
McKay v. Grinley, 30 U. C. Q. B. 
54. 

"Ogden V. Astor, 4 Sandf. (N. Y.) 
311; Bevan v. CuUen, 7 Pa. St. 281; 
Tyke v. Cosford, 14 U. C. C. P. 64; 
see also, Graham v. Chubb, 39 Mich. 
417. 



§ 1605.] 



ACCOUNTS AND ACCOTFNTING. 



44 



ment of a balance due, without the specific items, if accepted, may 
constitute a stated account;" but it should be something more than, 
a mere partial account or memorandum which does not indicate that 
a final settlement is intended.^* It is usually in writing, but it is not 
an essential requisite that it should be in writing" unless the case is 
one where writing is required by the statute of frauds.^* The stating 
of an account is not strictly, and in every sense, the making of a new 
contract or the creation of a new debt,^' but it is regarded at com- 
mon law as creating an implied promise to pay the balance thus ascer- 
tained which is in the nature of a new promise, and the action is upon 
it and not upon the original items of account.** So, under the code, if 
the action is upon the account stated, it cannot be sustained by proof 
of the original transaction upon failure to prove an account stated,*^ 



'" Robbins v. Downey, 18 N. Y. 100, 
N. Y. St. 279; May v. Kloss, 44 Mo. 
300. 

=» Sturm V. Boker, 150 U. S. 312, 
14 Sup. Ct. 99, 108; Coffee v. Wil- 
liams, 103 Cal. 550, 37 Pac. 504; 
Thomllnson v. Earnshaw, 14 III. 
App. 593; see also, Pickard v. Simp- 
son, 6 N. Y. S. 93; Allen v. ■Woon- 
socket Co., 11 R. I. 288; Burden v. 
McElmoyle, Bailey Eq. (S. Car.) 
375; Glasscock v. Ronengrant, 55 
Ark. 376, 18 S. W. 379; McCarthy v. 
■Wood, (Ky.) 13 S. W. 792;. Bouslog 
V. Garrett, 39 Ind. 338. 

"Watkins v. Ford, 69 Mlcli. 357, 
37 N. W. 300; Lallande v. Brown, 
121 Ala. 513, 25 So. 997; Gibson v. 
Sumner, 6 Vt. 163; Quinn v. White, 
26 Nev. 42, 62 Pac. 995; Knowles v. 
Michel, 13 East 249; Pinchon v. 
Chilcott, 3 Car. & P. 236, 14 E. C. L. 
545; McFarlane v. Sumner, 1 
Hawaii, 364; Gross v. Bricker, 18 
U. C. Q. B. 410; but compare Wood 
V. Gault, 2 Md. Ch. 433; Heath v. 
Doyle, 18 R. I. 252, 27 Atl. 333 ; Con- 
verse v. Scott, 137 Cal. 239, 70 Pac. 
13. 

™See Martyn v. Arnold, 36 Fla. 
446, 18 So. 791; Falmouth v. 
Thomas, 1 C. & M. 89, 3 Tyrw. 26; 



but compare, Cosking v. Ward, 1 C. 
B. 858. So, the fact that it is not in 
writing may, in some jurisdictions 
at least, have an important bearing 
upon the question as to whether the 
statute of limitation is a bar. Chase 
V. Trafford, 116 Mass. 529, 17 Am. 
171. 

™ See and compare, Chace v. Traf- 
ford, 116 Mass. 529, 17 Am. R. 171; 
McKinster v. Hitchcock, 19 Neb. 
100; Laycock v. Pickles, 4 B. & S. 
497; Going v. Patten, 17 Abb. Pr. 
(N. Y.) 339, 340. 

™Hendy v. March, 75 Cal. 566, 17 
Pac. 702; Throop v. Sherwood, 9 111. 
92; Holmes v. D'Camp, 1 Johns. (N. 
Y.) 34, Am. Dec. 293; Holmes v. 
Page, 19 Ore. 232, 23 Pac. 961; Co- 
lumbia Brewing Co. v. Berney, 90 
Mo. App. 96; Foster v. AUanson, 2 
Term R. 479; Arthur v. Dartch, 9 
Jur. 118. 

»' Volkening v. De Graff, 81 N. Y. 
268; Saville v. Insurance Co., i* 
Mont. 419, 20 Pac. 646; Martin v. 
Beckwith, 4 Wis. 239; Auzerais v. 
Naglee, 74 Cal. 64, 15 Pac. 371; Phil- 
lips Code PI., § 474; see also, Christ- 
offerson v. Howe, 57 Minn. 67, 58 
N. W. 830; Bartlett v. Emery, 1 
Term R. 42, note; McCall v. Nave,, 



45 QUESTIONS OF LAW OR FACT. [§ 1606. 

but it has been held that if the original transaction is counted on, 
it is open to proof and disproof."^ 

§ 1606. Questions of law or fact. — There is some apparent con- 
flict among the authorities as to the exact province of the court and 
jury in eases of accounts stated, but it may, perhaps, be said that 
whether on a given state of facts the transaction constitutes a stated 
account is usually a question of law,°^ and if the evidence is with- 
out conflict and but one reasonable inference can be drawn from it 
the question would certainly seem to be one of law for the court. 
Where the transaction is in writing and is unambiguous, its construc- 
tion and legal effect are both, as a rule, questions for the court. °* But 
in other cases where the evidence is conflictiag or it is a question of 
fact as to whether the parties assented, or the like, the question is for 
the jury'" under proper instructions from the court."' It has been 
held in many cases that it is a question for the jury as to whether 
timely objection was made to an account rendered," and the ques- 
tion as to the reasonableness of the time for which the account was 
held without objection, under the rule that assent is implied from un- 

52 Miss. 494; McClelland v. West, 70 Mansfield, 90 N. Y. 227, 43 Am. R. 

Pa. St. 183; Loventhal v. Morris, 161; Lockwood v. Thome, 18 N. Y. 

103 Ala. 332, 15 So. 672. 285; Meyer v. Marshall, 34 "W. Va. 

»= Phillips Code PI., § 474; Green- 42, 11 S. B. 730; Hollenbeck v. Ris- 

fleld v. Insurance Co., 47 N. Y. 430; tine, 105 Iowa 488, 75 N. W. 355, 67 

Northern Line Packett Co. v. Piatt, Am. St. 306; Kronenberger v. Binz, 

22 Minn. 413; Cross v. Moore, 23 56 Mo. 121; Spellman v. Muehlfield, 

Vt. 482; hut see. Rand v. Wright, 166 N. Y. 245, 29 N. E. 817; see also, 

129 Mass. 50; Milward v. Ingram, 2 Warder &c. Co. v. Angell, 99 Wis. 

Mod. 43; Callander v. Howard, 10 298, 74 N. W. 789; Tassey v. Church, 

C. B. 290, 70 A C. L. 290. 4 W. & S. (Pa.) 141, 39 Am. Dec. 

*■ Lockwood V. Thorne, 11 N. Y. 65; Bertrand v. Taylor, 32 Ark. 470; 

170, 42 Am. Dec. 81; Talcott v. Bailey v. Bensley, 87 111. 556. 

Chew, 27 Fed. 273; Bishop v. Cham- ""Wiggins v. Burkham, 10 Wall, 

bre, 3 Car. & P. 55, 14 B. C. L. 207. (U. S.) 129; Martyn v. Arnold, 36 

"Dobbs V. Campbell, 10 Kans. Fla. 446. 18 So. 791; Ault v. Inter- 

App. 185, 63 Pac. 289; Gem Chemic- state Sav. &c. Assp., 15 Wash. 627, 

al Co. V. Youngblood, 58 S. Car. 56, 47 Pac. 13; Sergeant v. Ewing, 36 

36 S. E. 437; but see, where the set- Pa. St. 156; Davis v. Tierman, 2 

tlement is ambiguous, Ferguson v. How. (Miss.) 786. 

Davidson, 147 Mo. 664, 49 S. W. 859. <" Peter v. Thickstun, 51 Mich. 

°=Rosenfield v. Fortier, 94 Mich. 589, 17 N. W. 68; Erevan v. Cullen, 

29, 53 N. W. 930 ; MeCIellan v. Croft- 7 Pa. St. 281, and authorities cited 

en, 6 Me. 307; Fleischer v. Kubli, 20 in next note below. 
Ore. 328, 25 Pac. 1086; Sharkey v. 



1607.] 



ACCOUNTS AND ACCOUNTING. 



46 



reasonable delay and failure to object, is uiidoubtedly a question for 
the jury in many cases, at least where there are circumstances mak- 
ing it a question of fact;*^ but where the facts are clear and undis- 
puted and there are no peculiar circumstances, the question is one of 
law for the court.*" 

§ 1607. Burden and manner of proving account stated. — In an 

action upon an account stated the burden of establishing a stated ac- 
count is upon the plaintiff,'" and so, on the other hand, when the de- 
fendant pleads and relies upon a stated account, the burden as to 
that fact or issue is upon him.'^ Parol evidence has been held admis- 
sible to identify the transaction covered by a stated account in writ- 
ing,'^ and the fact of examination of books of account by the party 
sought to be charged,'^ or that a statement of the account was de- 



"^ HoUenbeck v. Rtstine, 105 Iowa 
488, 75 N. W. 355, 67- Am. St. 306; 
Miller v. Burns, 41 111. 293; Hutch- 
inson V. Market Bank, 48 Barb. (N. 
Y.) 307; Austin v. Ricker, 61 N. H. 
97. 

'"McLaughlin Co. v. United 
States, 37 Ct. CI. 150; Long-Bell 
Lumber Co. v. Stump, 86 Fed. 574; 
Standard Oil Co. v. Van Elten, 107 
U. S. 325, 1 Sup. Ct. 178; McKeen v. 
Boatmen's Bank, 74 Mo. App. 281; 
Fleischner v. Kubli, 20 Ore. 328, 25 
Pac. 1086. 

'"Comer v. Way, 107 Ala. 300, 19 
So. 966, 54 Am. St. 93; Truman v. 
Owens, 17 Ore. 523, 21 Pac. 665; 
Volkening v. De Graff, 81 N. Y. 268; 
McClellan v. Crofton, 6 Me. 307. 
The burden of ultimately establish- 
ing his case, indeed, remains upon 
the plaintiff throughout, but on 
proof of a stated account he usually 
makes at least a prima facie case; 
and the burden in the sense of going 
forward with evidence or suffering 
defeat, may then be said to shift to 
the defendant. 

" Clark V. Marbourg, 33 Kans. 



471, 6 Pac. 548; Allen v. Woonsocket 
Co., 11 R. I. 288; White v. Campbell, 
25 Mich. 463. 

"Ferguson v. Davidson, 147 Mo. 
664, 49 S. W. 859 ; but where the set- 
tlement is reduced to writing, the 
written instrument is usually the 
best evidence. Walker v. Driver, 7 
Ala. 679. 

"Raub V. Nisbett, 118 Mich. 248, 
76 N. W. 393; Gibson v. Sumner, 6 
Vt. 163; Rice v. Schloss, 90 Ala. 416, 
7 So. 802; Swain v. Knapp, 34 Minn. 
232, 25 N. W. 397; Kock v. Bonitz, 4 
Daly (N. Y.) 117; see also. Brewer 
V. Wright, 2S Neb. 305, 41 N. W. 
159, presumption that he examined 
them; Heartt v. Corning, 3 Paige 
(N. Y.) 566. In the first case cited 
in this note it was proved that he 
examined the books and made no 
objections for years, and it was held 
that the books were admissible as 
in the nature of an admission. But 
the mere balancing of books with- 
out examination or assent by the 
other party does not prove an ac- 
count stated. Nostrand v. Ditmis, 
127 N. Y. 355, 28 N. E. 27. 



47 



BURDEN AND PEOOP OF ACCOUNT STATED. [§ 1607. 



livered'* or mailed^' to him may be shown in a proper case. It has 
also been held that the admission by a corporation of the account as 
stated may be shown by the approval of its authorized oflBcers with- 
out the minutes or record entries of such action,'^" and that an an- 
swer of a garnishee in prior garnishment proceedings is competent to 
show the admission of a debt under a complaint on an account stated." 
Promissory notes/* accepted bills of exchange/' due bills/" I. 0. 
U.'s/^ and the like/^ are admissible in a proper case as evidence in 
an action upon an account stated. As elsewhere shown, while the 
mere rendering of an account is not sufficient of itself to establish 



"Truman v. Owens, 17 Ore. 523, 
21 Pac. 665; May v. Kloss, 44 Mo. 
300; delivery held to stop the party 
that delivered the account, in the 
absence of fraud, mistake or undue 
advantage; Fitzgerald v. First Nat. 
Bank, 114 Fed. 474, 481, citing nu- 
merous authorities. 

"Ault V. Interstate &c. Co., 15 
Wash. 627, 47 Pac. 13; Darby v. 
Lastrapes, 28 La. Ann. 605; New 
York &c. Co. V. Crow, 51 N. Y. S. 
252. 

" Jacksonville &c. R. Co. v. War- 
riner, 35 Fla. 197, 16 So. 898; see 
also, St. Mary's Church v. Cagger, 
6 Barb. (N. Y.) 576; but see 
Chatham v. Niles, 36 Conn. 403. 

"American Brew. Co. v. Berner- 
Mayer Co., 83 111. 446. 

™Remsey v. Duke, Morr. (Iowa) 
385; Maybury v. Berkery, 102 Mich. 
126, 60 N. W. 699; McCormick v. 
Altneave, 73 Miss. 86, 19 So. 198; 
Seabury v. Belles, 51 N. J. L. 103, 16 
Atl. 54; Oden v. Bonner, 93 Ala. 
393, 9 So. 409; Fairchild v. Denni- 
son, 4 Watts (Pa.) 258; Story v. At- 
kins, 2 Str. 719. 

"Anthony v. Savage, 3 Utah 272, 
3 Pac. 546; Orr v. Hopkins, 3 N. 
Mex. 45, 1 Pac. 181; Emerson v. 
Gardiner, 1 Allen (N. Br.) 451; but 
only between parties. Stephens v. 
Berry, 15 U. C. C. P. 548. 

"Frost V. Clark, 82 Iowa 298, 48 



N. W. 82; Mills v. Geron, 22 Ala. 
669; Highmore v. Primrose, 5 M. & 
S. 65; Lemere v. Elliott, 6 H. & N. 
656, 30 L. J. Ex. 350; Wilson v. Wil- 
son, 14 C. B. 616, 78 E. C. L. 616. 

»^ Curtis V. Rickards, 1 M. & G. 46; 
Fesenmayer v. Adcock, 16 M. & W. 
449; Buck v. Hurst, L,. R. 1, C. P. 
297; but see Lemere v. Elliott, 6 H. 
& N. 656. 

=^ Barry v. White, 59 Pa. St. 172; 
Bull V. Brockway, 48 Mich. 523, 12 
N. W. 685; Grant v. Young, 23 U. C. 
Q. B. 387; Palmer v. McLennen, 22 
U. C. C. P. 258, 565; awards in cer- 
tain cases: Bates v. Curtis, 21 Pick. 
(Mass.) 247; Gooding v. Kingston, 
20 Mich. 439; Buschman v. Morling, 
30 Md. 384; Montgomerie v. Ivers, 
17 Johns. (N. Y.) 38; but not a judg- 
ment: Gooding v. Kingston, 20 
Mich. 439. See, however. Hall v. 
Odber, 11 East 118; nor where the 
strict rule prevails, an instrument 
under seal: Middleditch v. Ellis, 2 
Ex. 623; Baker v. Heard, 5 Ex. 959, 
2 L. J. Ex. 444; Young v. Hill, 67 N. 
Y. 162, 23 Am. R. 99; but see Hoyt 
V. Wilkinson, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 31; 
proved by pass book in defendant's 
possession in. Ruck v. Fricke, 28 
Pa. St. 241; see also where bank 
book was balanced from month to 
month, Nodine v. Bank, 41 Ore. 386, 
68 Pac. 1109. 



§ 1607.] 



ACCOUNTS AND ACCOUNTING. 



48 



an account stated,^' yet it is generally an essential step, and when 
the account purporting to be in complete settlement is acquiesced in, 
this is usually sufficient to support a recovery. This assent may be 
either express or implied, and circumstantial evidence, as well as 
direct evidence, is admissible to show it.** As a general rule it may 
be said that all proper facts and circumstances may be shown that will 
aid in determining or explaining what occurred at the alleged settle- 
ment.*^ The defendant may also introduce proper evidence to ex- 
plain and rebut his apparent assent from failure to object,*" and, in 
general, to show that there was no stated account as claimed by the 
plaintiff.*' But the fact that the account is stated to be subject to 



"'Toland v. Sprague, 12 Pet. (U. 
S.) 300; Stryker v. Cassidy, 76 N. 
Y. 50, 32 Am. R. 262; Atkinson v. 
Burt, 65 Ark. 316, 53 S. W. 404; 
Robertson v. Wright, 17 Gratt (Va.) 
534; Guernsey v. Rexford, 63 N. Y. 
631; that it may be shown by cir- 
cumstantial evidence, see Hatch v. 
Van Taube, 64 N. Y. S. 393; but it 
is said that after proof that the ac- 
count was rendered, the burden is 
upon the one denying the existence 
of a stated account to show that ob- 
jection was made within a reasona- 
ble time. Ruffner v. Hewitt, 7 W. 
Va. 585; Townes v. Birchett, 12 
Leigh (Va.) 173. 

** See generally for admissibility 
of evidence to show that the account 
was stated : Chapman v. Lee, 47 Ala. 
143; Sager v. Tupper, 38 Mich. 258; 
Albrecht v. Gies, 33 Mich. 389; Ser- 
geant V. Bwing, 36 Pa. St. 156; 
Fitch V. Leitch, 11 Leigh (Va.) 471; 
retention an unreasonable time 
without objection: Standard Oil Co. 
V. Van Btten, 107 U. S. 325, 1 Sup. 
Ct. 178; Freas v. Truitt, 2 Colo. 
489; Knickerbocker v. Gould, 115 N. 
Y. 533, 22 N. E. 573; Fames &c. Co. 
v. Pressor, 157 N. Y. 289, 51 N. E. 
986; Christian &c. Co. v. Hill, 122 
Ala. 490, 26 So. 149; Pierce v. 
Pierce, 199 Pa. St. 4, 48 Atl. 



689; Willis v. Jernegan, 2 Atk. 
251; payments: Samson v. Freed- 
man, 102 N. Y. 669, 7 N. E. 419; 
Charlotte &c. Co. v. Hartog, 85 Fed. 
150; accepting money or check for 
balance due: McCormick v. City, 
166 Mo. 315, 65 S. W. 1038; Bank v. 
Busbey, 45 Mich. 135, 7 N. W. 725; 
Schuyler v. Ross, 37 N. Y. St. 805, 
13 N. Y. S. 944; evidence of usage: 
Union Bank v. Bank, 9 Gill & J. 
(Md.) 439, 31 Am. Bee. 113; hut see 
as to partnership accounts, Hughes 
V. Smither, 49 N. Y. 115, 163 N. Y. 
553, 57 N. E. 1112. 

»=Mead v. White, (Pa.) 8 Atl. 913; 
Coffee v. Williams, 103 Cal. 505, 37 
Pac. 504; Goodrich v. Coffin, 83 Me. 
324, 22 Atl. 217; Walker v. Diver, 7 
Ala. 679; Blanc v. Forgay, 5 La. 
Ann. 695; see also, Binford v. 
Miner, 101 Ind. 147; Koegel v. Giv- 
ens, 79 Mo. 77; Field v. Knapp, 108 
N. Y. 87, 14 N. E. 829. 

™Lockwood V. Thorne, 18 N. Y. 
285; Ault v. Interstate &c. Asso. 
15 Wash. 627, 47 Pac. 13; Miller v. 
Bank, 6 Cush. (Miss.) 81; Carpen- 
ter V. Nickerson, 7 Daly (N. Y.) 
424; Wittowiski v. Harris, 64 Fed. 
712; Follansbee v. Parker, 70 111. 
11; Wiggins v. Burkham, 10 Wall. 
(U. S.) 129. 

«'See McCall v. Nave, 52 Miss. 



49 



PRESUMPTIONS. 



[§ 1608, 



correction or contains the letters "E. and 0. E." (errors and omis- 
sions excepted) does not prevent it from being considered as a stated 
account or from becoming such by assent implied from failure to ob- 
ject within a reasonable time.'* 

§ 1608. Presumptions in cases of accoiints stated. — As already 
seen, a presumption or implication of assent arises from proof of the 
retention of an account rendered and retained beyond a reasonable 
time without objection.*' So, ther^ is a presumption, frequently 
called a strong presumption, that all items that each party has against 
the other which are due at the time, are included in a settlement and 
stated account.*" And where an account stated is proved there is 
also a presumption that it is correct, and this presumption is con- 
clusive as between the parties unless fraud, mistake, or omission is 
shown.*^ These are the most important presumptions that are at all 



494; Goodwin v. United States &c. 
Co., 64 Conn. 591; Hill v. Durand, 
58 Wis. N. W. 160; Standard Oil 
Co. V. Van Btten, 107 U. S. 325, 1 
Sup. Ct. 178; Dingley v. McDonald, 
124 Cal. 90, 56 Pac. 790; Hawley v. 
Harran, 79 Wis. 379, 48 N. W. 676; 
Wakefield v. Farnum, 170 Mass. 422, 
49 N. B. 640; Traitel v. Dwyer, 61 
N. Y. S. HOC; as to surcharging 
and falsifying tlie account, see post, 
§ 1609. 

=* FMschner v. Kubli, 20 Ore. 
328, 25 Pac. 1086; Marmon v. 
Waller, 53 Mo. App. 610; Wonderly 
V. Christian, 91 Mo. App. 158; 
Xoung V. Hill, 67 N. Y. 162, 23 Am. 
R. 99; Branger v. Chevalier, 9 Cal. 
353; McKay v. Overton, 65 Tex. 86; 
Johnson v. Curtis, 3 Bro. C. C. 266; 
but see Ingraham v. Lukens, 30 S. 
Car. 616, 19 S. E. 348; Harden v. 
Gordon, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6047. 

*> Hollenbeck v. Ristine, 105 Iowa 
488, 75 N. W. 355, 67 Am. St. 306; 
Goldsmith v. Latz, 96 Va. 680, 32 
S. E. 483; Crawford v. Hutchinson, 
38 Ore, 578, 65 Pac. 84; McLaugh- 
lin V. United States, 36 Ct. CI. 138, 
37 Ct. CI. 150; Rich v. Eldredge, 42 
Vol. 3 Elliott Ev. — 4 



N. H. 153; Loekwood v. Thorn, 18 
N. Y. 285; Ellwood Mfg. Co. v. 
Batcher, 72 Minn. 103, 75 N. W. 
113; see as to effect of failure to 
object to account which is present- 
ed although not due, Jugla v. 
Trouttet, 120 N. Y. 21, 23 N. B. 
1066. 

""Linville v. State, 130 Ind. 210, 
212, 29 N. B. 1129; and authorities 
there cited; Taylor v. Thuring, 21 
Misc. (N. Y.) 76, 46 N. Y. 892; 
Freeman v. Bolzell, 63 Wis. 378, 23 
N. W. 708; Johnson v. Johnson, 4 
Call (Va.) 38; Normandin v. Grat- 
ton, 12 Ore. 505, 8 Pac. 653; but it 
is held that there Is no such pre- 
sumption as to the inclusion of an 
item not due or that it may be 
proved that the item was not due. 
Beebe v. Smith, 194 111. 634, 62 N. 
E. 856; Bowling v. Blackman, 70 
Ala. 303. 

"Keller v. Keller, 18 Neb. 366, 
25 N. W. 364; Batson v. Findley, 52 
W. Va. 343, 43 S. E. 142; Wonderly 
V. Christian, 91 Mo. App. 158; Free- 
man V. Bolzell, 63 Wis. 378, 23 N. 
W. 708; see also, Charlotte &c. Co. 
V. Hartog, 85 Fed. 150; Wharton v. 



§ 1609.J 



ACCOUNTS AND ACCOUNTING. 



50 



peculiar to the subject now under consideration; but other presump- 
tions may arise as in other cases, such, for instance, as the presump- 
tion of regularity of mails and that accounts duly mailed were re- 
ceived,'^ in the absence of anything to the contrary."^ 

§ 1609. Impeachment of accounts stated. — The burden is upon the 
party who seeks to impeach a stated account, and, as a general rule, it 
can only be impeached by showing fraud, omission, mistake, or undue 
advantage ;°* and even when there are omissions or mistakes, the 
courts are reluctant to open and set aside the entire settlement, and 
will usually merely allow the account to be surcharged or falsified." 
It has been held, however, that, in order to impeach an account stated 
for errors or mistakes, it is not necessary that they should be mutual ;" 
but it may be impeached in a proper case either at law or in equity 
for fraud or mistake, whether it is brought forward as a cause of 
action or a defense,"^ unless the settlement is in such form that, in 



Anderson, 28 Minn. 301, 9 N. W. 
860; Brown v. Van Dyke, 8 N. J. 
Eq. 795, 55 Am. Dec. 250; Camp v. 
Wilson, 97 Va. 265, 33 S. B. 591; 
Stagg V. St. Jean (Mont), 74 Pac. 
740, 741. 

'''Darby v. Lastraper, 28 La. Ann. 
605; Ault V. Interstate &c. Asso., 15 
Wash. 627, 47 Pac. 13; New Yorls; 
&c. Co. V. Crow, 51 N. Y. S. 252; 
but see Rowland v. Donovan, 16 
Mo. App. 554. For consideration of 
this presumption generally, see Vol. 
I, § 82. 

""For other presumptions in this 
class of cases, see Brewer v. Wright, 
25 Neb. 305, 41 N. W. 159; Ware v. 
Manning, 86 Ala. 238, 5 So. 682; 
Sergeant v. Ewing, 36 Pa. St. 156. 

"Hoyt V. McLaughlin, 52 Wis. 280, 
8 N. W. 893; Montgomery v. Fritz, 
7 N. Dak. 348, 75 N. W. 266; Good- 
rich v. Coffin, 83 Me. 324, 24 Atl. 
217; Freeland v. Heron, 7 Cranch 
(U. S.) 147; Stearns v. Page, 7 
How. (U. S.) 819; Allen West Co. 
v. Patlllo, 90 Fed. 628, 631; Fish v. 
Basche, 31 Ore. 178, 49 Pac. 981; 



Dobbs v. Campbell, 10 Kans. (App.) 
185, 63 Pac. 289; Brown v. Van 
Dyke, 8 N. J. Eq. 795, 55 Am. Dec. 
250; Somers v. Cresse (N. J.), 13 
Atl. 23; Chambers v. Goldwin, 9 
Ves. 254; Pit v. Cholmondeley, 2 
Ves. 565. 

°° Roberts v. Totten, 13 Ark. 609; 
White V. Walker, 5 Fla. 478; Brown 
V. Rowles, 21 Md. 21 ; Miller v. Chip- 
pewa County, 58 Wis. 630, 17 N. W. 
535; Smith v. Marvin, 27 N. Y. 137; 
Carpenter v. Kent, 101 N. Y. 591; 
Rehill V. McTague, 114 Pa. St. 82, 

60 Am. R. 341; Vernon v. Vawdry, 
2 Atk. 119. The burden is upon the 
party seeking to surcharge or fal- 
sify; Cowan v. Jones, 27 Ala. 317; 
Philips V. Belden, 2 Edw. (N. Y.) 
1; Townsend v. French, 2 Mol. (Ir. 
ch.) 242. 

""Conville v. Shook, 144 N. Y. 
686; 39 N. E. 405; Eddie v. Eddie, 

61 111. 134. 

"Bank v. Allen, 100 Ala. 476, 14 
So. 335, 338; Dewey v. Sloan, 11 
Cin. Law Bui. (Ohio) 102; Colo- 
rado Fuel &c. Co. V. Chappell, 12 



51 



IN EQUITY. 



[§ 1610. 



the particular jurisdiction it is necessary first to go into a court of 
equity. It has also been held that where the account has been settled 
and acquiesced in by the original parties, the right to impeach it can- 
not be assigned,"^ and that admissions by the assignor made after as- 
signment of an account are not admissible to impeach it .by showing 
errors."' 

§ 1610. Accounting in equity — ^Before interlocutory decree. — As 

a general rule, the plaintiff's right to an accounting must be estab- 
lished before a reference will be made for the purpose of taking the 
account j^"" and on the hearing before the interlocutory decree the 
question is usually as to such right and the evidence is then confined 
to such matters as tend to establish or disprove it.^"^ The evidence 
must make out a case for accounting under the allegations, and not a 
totally different case.^"^ The burden is upon the plaintiff to estab- 



Colo. App. 385, 55 Pac. 606; Stevens 
V. Saginaw, 62 Mich. 579, 29 N. W. 
492; Clark v. Marbourg, 33 Kans. 
471, 6 Pac. 548; Peddlcord v. Con- 
nard, 85 111. 102; Weisser v. Deni- 
son, 10 N. Y. 68, 61 Am. Dec. 731; 
Carroll v. Paul, 16 Mo. 226; Perk- 
ins v. Hart, 11 Wheat. (U. S.) 237; 
but see Roach v. Gilmer, 3 Utah 389, 
4 Pac. 221; as to what may be 
shown generally, see Christian v. 
Niagara &c. Co., 101 Ala. 634, 14 So. 
374; Madigan v. De Graff, 17 Minn. 
52; Conville v. Shook, 144 N. Y. 
686, 39 N. E. 405; Waldron v. Evans, 
1 Dak. 11, 46 N. W. 607; Schoon- 
over V. Osborne, 108 Iowa 453, 79 
N. W. 263; Boston &c. Co. v. Nashua 
&c. R. Co., 157 Mass. 258, 31 N. E. 
1067; Lee v. Reed, 4 Dana (Ky.) 
109; Higman v. Harris, 108 Ind. 
246, 8 N. E. 255; Hardy v. Chesa- 
peake Bank, 51 Md.^ 562, 34 Am. R. 
325. 

"Cross v. Sacramento Sav. Bank, 
66 Cal. 426, 6 Pac. 94; but see as to 
impeachment by assignee where 
the account Is not stated, Lawler v. 
Jennings, 18 Utah 35, 55 Pac. 60. 



"State V. Jennings, 10 Ark. 428. 

""Graham Paper Co. v. Pembroke, 
124 Cal. 117, 56 Pac. 627, 71 Am. St. 
26, 44 L. R. A. 632; Safety &c. Co. 
V. Creamer, 84 Hun (N. Y.) 570, 33 
N. Y. S. 411; Hunt v. Gordon, 52 
Miss. 194; Hargrave v. Conroy, 19 
N. J. Eq. 281; Sadler v. Whithurst, 
83 Va. 46, 1 S. B. 410; Beale v. Hall. 
97 Va. 383, 34 S. E. 53. i 

"'Law v. Hunter, 1 Russ. 100; 
Walker v. Woodward, 1 Russ. 107; 
Barrett v. Henry, 85 N. Car. 321,-: 
Morrison v. Horrocks, 40 Hun (N. 
Y.) 428; Ligare v. Peacock, 109 111. 
94; Hudson v. Trenton &c., 16 N. 
J. Eq. 475; Bradshaw v. Clark, 31 
N. J. Eq. 39; but see, Standish v. 
Babcock, 48 N. J. Eq. 386, 22 Atl. 
734, 30 L. R. A. 604; Ridenbaugh v. 
Burnes, 14 Fed. 93; Albright v. Al- 
bright, 91 N. Car. 220. 

"^Crothers v. Lee, 29 Ala. 337; 
Hunt V. Stockton Lumber Co., 113 
Ala. 387, 21 So. 454; Matthews v. 
Wilson, 27 Mo. 155; Craig v. Mc- 
Kinney, 72 111. 305; Scott v. Gamble, 
9 N. J. Eq. 218; Arnett v. Welch, 46 
N. J. Eq. 543, 20 Atl. 48; Salter v. 



§ 1611.J 



ACCOUNTS AND ACCOUNTING. 



52 



lish his right to an accounting ;^°^ but where a defendant pleads a 
stated account, or the like, it has been held that the burden as to such 
issue is upon him.^°* If a stated account is established it will con- 
stitute a bar to the suit for accounting unless it is impeached for 
fraud, mistake, or the like,^"" and the burden of impeachment is upon 
the party who seeks to open it."^ 

§ 1611. Accounting in equity — ^After interlocutory decree. — 

After the interlocutory decree for an accounting evidence is usually 
heard as to the state of the account. In most jurisdictions an order 
of reference is made to a master for this purpose, especially where thC' 
account is complicated, long and intricate;^"' but it has been held 



Ham, 31 N. Y. 321; Manning v. 
Manning, 89 Hun (N. Y.) 471, 35 
N. Y. 333; but see. Northern Grain 
Co. V. Pierce, 13 S. Dalt. 265, 83 N. 
W. 256 ; Coward v. Clanton, 122 Cal. 
451, 55 Pac. 147; Brower v. Brower, 
29 Fed. 485; Pierce v. Equitable &c. 
Soc, 145 Mass. 56, 12 N. E. 858, 1 
Am. St. 433. 

'■^ Graham Paper Co. v. Pembroke, 
124 Cal. 117, 56 Pac. 627, 44 L. R. 
A. 632, 71 Am. St. 26; Beale 
V. Hall, 97 Va. 383, 34 S. E. 53; 
Farrington v. Harrison (N. J.), 15 
Atl. 8; Fidetity &c. Co. v. Weitzel, 
152 Pa. St. 498, 25 Atl. 569; burden 
of explaining apparent laches also 
held to be on plaintiff in Sheldon 
V. Sheldon, 133 N. Y. 1, 30 N. E. 
730. 

'"•Allen V. Woonsocket Co., 11 R. 

I. 288; see also, Standish v. Bab- 

,cock, 48 N. J. Eq. 386, 22 Atl. 734; 

Stevens v. Ross (N. J.) 13 Atl. 225; 

Pratt V. Grimes, 48 111. 376. 

'°° See authorities cited in the 
last note, supra; also, Vermillion v. 
Bailey, 27 111. 229 ; Craig v. McKin- 
ney, 72 111. 305; Weiland v. Eklers, 
107 Iowa 186, 77 N. W. 858; Wahl 
v. Barnum, 116 N. Y. 87, 22 N. E. 
280, 5 L. R. A. 623; Harrison v. 
Farrington, 40 N. J. Bq. 353, 3 Atl. 



80; Dawson v. Dawson, 1 Atk. 1; 
Sumner v. Thorp, 2 Atk. 1; see also. 
Grant v. Bell, 87 N. Car. 34. 

'■"Marsh v. Case, 30 Wis. 531; 
Redman v. Green, 38 N. Car. 54. 
So, where leave is granted to sur- 
charge or falsify, and it is held 
that an account stated which is set 
up as a defense cannot be opened, 
surcharged, or falsified by the plain- 
tiff where his bill merely seeks an 
accounting unless the bill is amend- 
ed; Cross V. Sacramento Sav. Bank, 
66 Cal. 462, 6 Pac. 64; Costin v. 
Baxter, 41 N. Car. 197; McMahill v. 
Jenkins, 69 Mo. App. 279; McNeel 
V. Baker, 6 "W. Va. 153; McClane v. 
Shepard, 21 N. J. Eq. 76; Hoyt v. 
Clarkson, 23 Ore. 51, 31 Pac. 198; 
Barker v. Hoff, 52 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 
382; Hutchinson v. Market Bank, 
48 Barb. (N. Y.) 302; "Weed v. 
Smull, 7 Paige (N. Y.) 573; Daw- 
son V. Dawson, 1 Atk. 1; but see, 
"Weiland v. Ehlers, 107 Iowa 186, 77 
N. "W. 855, allowed under reply. 

""Campbell v. Campbell, 8 N. J. 
Eq. 738, 743; St. Clombe v. United 
States, 7 Pet. (U. S.) 625; Bryan 
V. Morgan, 35 Ark. 113; Enesser v. 
Hudek, 169 111. 494, 48 N. E. 673; 
Barnebee v. Beckley, 43 Mich. 613, 
5 N. "W. 976. See also, generally as 



53 



IN EQUITY. 



[§ 1611. 



that the court may hear the evidence without a reference, and this is 
sometimes done, where the account is short and simple and not com- 
plex or intricate.^"^ The scope of the inquiry is determined by the 
order of reference and the pleadings,^ °^ and under the United States 
equity rule the parties must bring in their accounts in the form of 
debtor and creditor. Any of the parties not satisfied may then exam- 
ine the accounting party viva voce, or on interrogatories, or by deposi- 
tion, as the master may direct.^^" This practice is also followed in 
many of the state courts j^^'^ and after the accounts are submitted, 
evidence is usually received only as to the matters thus shown to be 
in dispute.^^^ The accounting party has the burden of discharging 
himself from any charge that appears against him on his own state- 
ment of account,^^^ and generally of proving any credit that he 
claims.^^* He is also frequently required to produce vouchers ;^^° but. 



to reference, Kimberly v. Arms, 129 
U. S. 512, 9 Sup. Ct. 355; Chicago 
&c. Co. V. Tompkins, 176 U. S. 167, 
20 Sup. Ct. 336; Western U. Tel. 
Co. V. American Bell Tel. Co. 125 
Fed. 342. 

"°* Bryan v. Morgan, 35 Ark. 113; 
Emery v. Mason, 75 Cal. 222, 16 Pac. 
894; May v. May, 19 Fla. 373; 
Standish v. Babcock, 48 N. J. Bq. 
386, 22 Atl. 734; Darby v. Gilligan, 
43 W. Va. 755, 28 S. E. 737; but see, 
Moffett V. Banner, 154 111. 649, 39 
N. B. 474; Beale v. Bealp, 116 111. 
292, 5 N. E. 540. 

'"'Calvert v. Carter, 18 Md. 73; 
Izard V. Bodine, 9 N. J. Eq. 309; 
Remsen v. Remsen, 2 Johns Ch. (N. 
Y.) 495; Phillips v. Belden, 2 Edw. 
Ch. 1; Purdy v. Rutter, 3 W. Va. 
262; but see. Northern Grain Co. v. 
Pierce, 13 S. Dak. 265, 83 N. W. 
256. 

""United States Eq. Rule 79; 2 
Beach Mod. Eq. Pr., § 693; Foote v. 
Silsby, 3 Blatchf. (U. S.) 507, 9 
Fed. Cas. No. 4920. 

"'Patterson v. Johnson, 113 111. 
559; Remsen v. Remsen, 2 Johns. 
Ch. (N. Y.) 492; Kirkman v. Van- 



lier, 7 Ala. 217; Callender v. Cole- 
grove, 17 Conn. 1. 

'"Myers v. Bennett, 3 Lea (71 
Tenn.) 184; see also, Purdy v. Rut- 
ter, 3 W. Va. 262; Patterson v. John- 
son, 113 111. 559. 

'" Williamson v. Downs, 34 Miss. 
402; 2 Dan. Ch. Pr. 880, where the 
defendant required to account, occu- 
pies a fiduciary relation the burden 
is held to be upon him to show the 
performance of his trust; Marvin v. 
Brooks, 94 N. Y. 71, but no final 
decree can ordinarily be rendered 
unless the evidence shows that 
something is due; Slater v. Arnett, 
81 Va. 432; Peeler v. Lathrop, 48 
Fed. 780, and the burden of account- 
ing is not always on the defendant; 
Davenport v. Schutt, 46 Iowa 510; 
Pullman &c. Co. v. Central &c. Co., 
34 Fed. 357. 

"'Thatcher v. Hayes, 54 Mich. 
184, 19 N. W. 946; Crawford v. Nor- 
ris (Ark.), 12 S. W. 707; New York 
Bay &c. Co. v. Buckmaster (N. J.), 
33 Atl. 819; Silverthorne v. Brands, 
42 N. J. Bq. 703, 11 Atl. 328. 

""Halstead v. Tyng, 29 N. J. Eq. 
86; Davenport v. Davenport, 1 Sim. 
512. 



1612.] 



ACCOUXTS AND ACCOUNTIKG. 



54 



unless he occupies a fiduciary relation, if entries in his own books are 
used to charge him, it has been held that he may use entries in the 
same book in his discharge.'^" Objections to evidence taken before the 
master should be made before him.^^' After he has made his report 
the case is usually heard by the court on such report, but it may be re- 
committed to him to be restated and even to hear further evidence,^^" 
and it has been held that relevant evidence as to matters occurring 
after his report and before the final hearing is admissible on such 
hearing.^^' 

§ 1612. Accounting in equity — ^Answer as evidence. — In equity a 
somewhat peculiar practice prevails in regard to the use of an answer 
under oath as evidence. Wlien the bill calls for a discovery and answer 
as to the state of the account, without waiving oath, a responsive an- 
swer under oath is prima facie evidence of such matter therein con- 
tained, for, as well as against, the defendant.^^" But this is true only 
so far as the answer is responsive.^^^ The general rule in the Federal 
courts, and in most other jurisdictions as well, is that such an answer 
requires the allegations of the bill to which it is responsive, to be sus- 



"° Robertson v. Archer, 5 Rand. 
(Va.) 319; Jones v. Jones, 4 H. & 
M. (Va.) 447; Freeland v. Cocke, 3 
Munf. (Va.) 352; Darston v. Earl 
of Oxford, 1 Bq. Cas. Abr. 10 ; Dolan 
V. Mitchell, 57 N. Y. S. 157; but 
compare, Wilson v. Dowse, 140 111. 
18, 29 N. E. 726; White v. Lady 
Lincoln, 8 Ves. 363; Rewe v. White- 
more, 11 Jur. N. S. 722. 

"' Callender v. Colegrove, 17 Conn. 
1; Reed v. Winston, 4 H. & M. (Va.) 
450; Remsen v. Remsen, 2 Johns 
Ch. (N. Y.) 495; Kirkman v. Van- 
lier, 7 Ala. 217; but see as to reser- 
vation of such questions for the 
hearing on the report: Rusling v. 
Bray, 37 N. J. Eq. 174; Welling v. 
Le Bau, 32 Fed. 293; and compare, 
Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Cellonite Mfg. 
Co., 40 Fed. 476, 478. 

"'Barnum v. Barnum, 42 Md. 251; 
Donnelly, In re, 3 Phila. (Pa.) 18; 
see also, Camac v. Francis, 4 Fed. 
Cas. No. 2329; Beale v. Beale, 116 



111. 292, 5 N. E. 540. Sometimes the 
court restates the account without 
recommitting it; Whittemore v. 
Fisher, 132 111. 243, 24 N. B. 636. 

""Kendall v. New England &c. 
Co., 13 Conn. 383. 

""Dillard v. Ellington, 57 Ga. 567; 
May V. Bjirnard, 20 Ala. 200; Wil- 
liamson V. Down, 34 Miss. 402; 
Bailie v. Bailie, 166 Pa. St. 472, 31 
Atl. 246 ; Fidelity &c. Co. v. Weltzel, 
152 Pa. St. 498, 25 Atl. 569; Dozier 
V. Edwards, 3 Litt. (13 Ky.) 67; 
Barksdale v. Hall, 13 Rich. Eq. (S. 
Car.) 180; Peeler v. Lathrop, 48 
Fed. 780. 

'^'McNeal v. Glenn, 4 Md. 87; 
Ringgold V. Ringgold, 1 Har. & G. 
(Md.) 11, 18 Am. Dec. 250; Dono- 
van V. Haynle, 67 Ala. 51; Brad- 
shaw V. Clark, 31 N. J. Eq. 39, and 
authorities cited in last note supra; 
but see, Davis v. Crockett, 88 Md. 
249, 41 Atl. 66, for what is respon- 
sive. 



55 UNDER THE CODE. [§ 1613. 

tained by the testimony of two witnesses or one witness and corrob- 
oratiag circumstances.^^^ 

§ 1613. Accounting under the code. — An action for accounting 
under the code of civil procedure is essentially an equitable one, and 
the procedure and rules of evidence are in the main the same as in 
suits in equity for an accoimting.^^' The fact that the same court 
usually has both law and equity jurisdiction and is empowered to give 
coinplete relief in the one proceeding'^ ^* where it rightfully assumes 
jurisdiction, and the fact that there are different statutory provisions, 
will be found in some respects to vary the old system of procedure in 
equity. The general rule under the code is that the actual facts should 
be alleged, and such relief may then be granted, whether legal or 
equitable, as the allegations and proof justify.^ ^° It is not our purpose 
to treat of procedure generally, and, as decisions from code states are 
cited in considering the subject of accounting in equity, it is unneces- 
sary to consider the subject at length in this connection. 

^== Peeler v. Lathrop, 48 Fed. 780, 103 Cal. 550, 37 Pac. 504; Williams 

788, and authorities cited. This v. Slote, 70 N. Y. 601; Dehority v. 

rule has not always been applied Nelson, 56 Ind. 414; Dougherty v. 

without modification, however, and GoufC, 23 Neb. 105, 36 N. W. 351; 

it may be doubted whether it would Rippe v. Stogdill, 61 Wis. 38, 20 N. 

be uniformly applied in cases of ac- W. 645; Buist v. Melchers, 44 S. 

counting. Car. 46, 21 S. B. 449; Dunn v. John- 

"^ Smith V. Smith, 88 Cal. 572, 26 son, 115 N. Car. 249, 20 S. E. 390; 

Fac. 356; Garner v. Reis, 25 Minn. Teasley v. Bradley, 110 Ga. 497, 35 

475. S. E. 782; Seattle Nat. Bank v. 

™ Virginia &c. Co. v. Hale, 93 Ala. School Dist., 20 Wash. 368, 55 Pac. 

542, 9 So. 256; Cook County v. Da- 317; Bliss Code PI. (3d ed.), §§ 161, 

vis, 143 111. 151, 32 N. E. 176; 162; 2 Woolen Tr. Proc. (Indiana), 

■Brooks V. Goodwin, 70 N. H. 281, 47 § 3178. It should be observed, how- 

Atl. 255; Meyer v. Garthwaite, 92 ever, that even under the code the 

Wis. 571, 66 N. W. 704; Alpaugh v. complaint should proceed on a defi- 

Wood, 45 N. J. Eq. 153, 16 Atl. 576. nite theory and that a total failure 

■^Kayser v. Mougham, 8 Colo, to prove that theory will generally 

232, 6 Pac. 803; Coffee v. Williams, prevent a recovery thereon. 



CHAPTEE LXXIX. 

ADVERSE POSSESSION. 

Sec. Sec. 

1614. Generally. 1620. Character and extent of pos- 

1615. Burden of proof. session. 

1616. Question of law or fact. 1621. Declarations. 

1617. Presumptions. 1622. Reputation. 

1618. The possession. 1623. Evidence to rebut or defeat. 

1619. The intent. 

§ 1614. Generally. — It is said by the Supreme Court of the 
United States that "where one has had the peaceable, undisturbed, 
open possession of real or personal property, with an assertion of his 
ownership, for the period which, under the law, would bar an action 
for its recovery by the real owner, the former has acquired a good 
title."^ The question of adverse possession^ however, most often arises 
in regard to real property, and it is generally held that where ad- 
verse possession for the requisite period is shown, the title thus ac- 
quired is as effective, either in support of a cause of action or a de- 
fense, as a title by deed. In most jurisdictions color of title is unnec- 
essary, but in nearly, if not all, claim of title is necessary, and color 
of title may have an important bearing upon the question of con- 
structive possession and on the extent of the right acquired. So, in 
this connection, the question of good faith often becomes important. 
Ordinarily, however, the two essential elements are the possession and 
the intent; or, in other words, the possession must usually be hostile 
and exclusive, open, notorious, continuous for the requisite period, 
and under claim of right.'' 

'Campbell v. Holt, 115 U. S. 620, of limitations, as in Vanduyn v. 

6 Sup. Ct. 209, 211. Hepner, 45 Ind. 589, that the true 

^ See Worthley v. Burbanks, 146 owner may be barred no matter 

Ind. 534, 45 N. B. 779, and numerous whether the defendant's possession 

authorities cited; Tyee Consol. Min. has been under claim of title and 

Co. V. Langstedt, 121 Fed. 709, 712, adverse or not, and there need be 

and federal decisions cited, and note no express claim of title by word 

in 28 Am. St. 158-162. It is some- of mouth. See generally, leading, 

times held, however, under statutes article in 53 Cent. Law Jour. 482. 

56 



57 



BURDEN OF PROOF. 



[§§ 1615, 1616. 



§ 1615. Burden of proof. — The burden of establishing adverse 
possession is upon the party who relies upon it.' He must, ordinarily, 
show the existence of every element necessary to constitute adverse 
possession,* and it has been held that this includes the burden of show- 
ing the extent of his possession. ° But where a prima facie case of 
adverse possession is made, in order to avoid it, the burden of going 
forward with evidence has been held to be upon the other party.® 

§ 1616. ftuestion of law or fact. — Adverse possession in most 
cases may be said to be a mixed question of law and fact, or, in other 
words, it is usually a question of fact for the jury under proper in- 
structions from the court.' It may be said to be a question of fact or 
a mixed question of law and fact in most cases because it is for the 
jury to determine, where there is dispute as to the facts, — whether the 
facts exist which are necessary to constitute adverse possession.* But 
the question as to what is necessary in law to constitute adverse posses- 
sion is a question of law, and where there is no dispute as to the facts 
and reasonable inferences, or if those most favorable to the claimant 



'Beasley v. Howell, 117 Ala. 499, 
22 So. 989; TufEree v. Polhemus, 108 
Cal. 670, 41 Pac. 806; Kurz v. Miller, 
89 Wis. 426, 62 N. W. 182; Evans v. 
Welch, 29 Colo. 355, 68 Pac. 776; 
McConnell v. Day, 61 Ark. 464, 33 
S. W. 731; Nicklace v. Dickerson, 65 
Ark. 422, 46 S. W. 945; Rowland v. 
Updike, 28 N. J. L. 101; Bryan v. 
Spivey, 109 N. Car. 57, 13 S. E. 766; 
Smith V. North Canyon &c. Co., 16 
Utah 194, 52 Pac. 283; Herman v. 
Stearns (W. Va.) 27 S. B. 601; Max- 
well V. Cunningham, 50 W. Va. 298, 
40 S. E. 499. 

•Weeping Water v. Reed, 21 Neb. 
261, 31 N. W. 797; DeHaven v. 
Landell, 31 Pa. St. 120; Kennebeck 
Purchase v. Call, 1 Mass. 483; Rob- 
inson V. Allison, 97 Ala. 596, 12 So. 
382, 604; Howard v. Howard, 17 
Barb. (N. Y.) 663; Smith v. Estill, 
87 Tex. 264, 28 S. W. 801; DeFrieze 
V. Quint, 94 Cal. 653, 30 Pac. 1, 28 
Am. St. 151; Digman v. Nelson, 26 
Utah 186, 72 Pac. 936. 



''Braxton v. Rich, 47 Fed. 178; 
Cantey v. Piatt, 2 McCord (S. Car.) 
260. 

° Shropshire v. Shropshire, 7 
Yerg. (Tenn.) 164; Miller v. Bum- 
gardner, 109 N. Car. 413, 13 S. E. 935, 
avoidance on ground of disability; 
see also, Margoon v. Davis, 84 Me. 
178, 24 Atl. 809; Highstone v. Bur- 
dette, 54 Mich. 329, 20 N. W. 64. 

'Kennedy v. Townsley, 16 Ala. 
239; Jackson v. Joy, 9 Johns (N. Y.) 
102; Broxson v. McDougal, 70 Tex. 
64, 7 S. W. 591. 

"Haney v. Breeden, 100 Va. 781, 
42 S. E. 916; Barnes v. Light, 116 
N. Y, 34, 22 N. E. 441; Flannery v. 
Hightower, 97 Ga. 592, 25 S. E. 371; 
Jangraw v. Mee, 75 Vt. 211, 54 Atl. 
189; Harrison v. Spencer, 90 Mich. 
586, 51 N. W. 642; Wheeler v. Laird, 
147 Mass. 421, 18 N. E. 212; Hop- 
kins V. Deering, 71 N. H. 353, 52 
Atl. 75; Bradstreet v. Huntington, 
5 Peters (U. S.) 402, and authori- 
ties cited in following note. 



§ 1617.] 



ADVERSE POSSESSION. 



58 



are insufficient as a matter of law to constitute adverse possession, the 
■court may decide the question without submitting it to the jUTy.* 

§ 1617. Presumptions. — Presumptions frequently exert an impor- 
tant influence in cases involving the question of adverse possession. 
One of the most important is the presumption that the possession is 
in subordination to the title of the true owner.^" Similarly, as it is 
sometimes stated, where title is shown the true owner is presumed to 
be in possession until adverse possession is shown to have begun.^' 
But as a general rule, one who enters under claim and color of title is 
presumed to occupy according to his title,^^ and he may thus have 
constructive possession of more than he actually occupies.^^ So, the 



'Verdery v. Savannah &c. R. Co., 
82 Ga. 675, 9 S. E. 1133; Union 
Canal Co. v. Young, 1 Whart. (Pa.) 
410, 30 Am. Dec. 212; Herbert v. 
Hanrick, 16 Ala. 581; Washburn v. 
Cutter, 17 Minn. 361; Maoklot v. 
Dudruil, 9 Mo. 477, 43 Am. Dec. 
550; Harper v. Morse, 114 Mo. 317, 
21 S. W. 517; Magee v. Magee, 37 
Miss. 138; Johnson v. Townsend, 77 
Tex. 639, 14 S. W. 233; Chandler v. 
Von Roeder, 24 How. (U. S.) 224; 
but see, Woods v. Montevallo &c. 
Co., 84 Ala. 560, 3 So. 475, 5 Am. 
St. 393; Bennett v. Morrison, 120 
Pa. St. 390, 14 Atl. 264, 6 Am. St. 
711. 

" Buckley v. Taggart, 62 Ind. 236, 
238; Heller v. Cohen, 154 N. Y. 299, 
48 N. E. 527; Jackson v. Thomas, 
16 Johns (N. Y.) 293; Harvey v. 
Tyler, 2 Wall (U. S.) 328; Heer- 
mans v. Schmaltzs, 10 Biss. (U. S.) 
323; Brown v. Cockerell, 33 Ala. 38; 
Barrs v. Brace, 38 Fla. 265, 20 So. 
991; Bryan v. East St. Louis, 12 
111. App. 390; Marr v. Gilliam, 1 
Coldw. (Tenn.) 488; Fuller v. 
Worth, 91 Wis. 406, 64 N. W. 995; 
Sharp V. Daugney, 33 Cal. 505; 
Alexander v. Polk, 39 Miss. 737; 
Lund V. Parker, 3 N. H. 49; Cheney 
T. Ringgold, 2 Har. & J. (Md.) 87; 



Whittlngton v. Doe, 9 Ga. 23; but 
see, Alexander v. Gibbon, 118 N. 
Car. 796, 24 S. E. 748, 54 Am. St. 
757; Satcher v. Grice, 53 S. Car. 
126, 31 S. E. 3. 

^Altschul V. O'Neill, 35 Ore. 202, 
58 Pac. 95; Miller v. Praley, 23 Ark. 
735; Summerall v. Thorns, 3 Fla. 
298; Brooks v. Penn, 2 Strobh. Eq. 
(S. Car.) 113; Holley v. Hawley, 39 
Vt. 525, 94 Am. Dec. 350; Browns- 
ville V. Cavazos, 100 U. S. 138; 
Baloh V. Smith, 4 Wash. 497, 30 
Pac. 648. 

" Tappan v. Tappan, 31 N. H. 41; 
Lund V. Parker, 3 N. H. 49; Jack- 
son V. Thomas, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 
293; see also, Treece v. American 
Asso., 122 Fed. 598; Chicago &c. R. 
Co. V. Wood, 30 Ind. App. 650, 66 
N. E. 923; Reed v. Hackney, 69 N. 
J. 27, 54 Atl. 229. 

"Worthley v. Burbanks, 146 Ind. 
534, 45 N. E. 779; Winters v. Hainer, 
107 Tenn. 337, 64 S. W. 44; Smith 
V. Gale, 144 U. S. 509, 12 Sup. Ct. 
674; note in 12 Am. Dec. 357-359; 
and note In 88 Am. St. 703-729. 
So, on the other hand, the presump- 
tion is that one in possession under 
a deed claims thereunder, and is 
limited thereby, although he is not 
necessarily precluded from showing 



59 



PEESTJMPTIOIfS. 



[§ 161T. 



adverse character of the possessiomnay be inferred from actual pos- 
session accompanied by the usual acts of ownership of property of the 
kind in question, which are inconsistent with ownership ia another; 
and it is frequently said that the presumption is that such possession 
is adverse.^* Unexplained, continuous and exclusive possession for 
the requisite period gives rise to a similar presumption.^' So, where 
adverse possession is shown it is held in some jurisdictions that it will 
be presumed to continue until the contrary is shown,^" but in other 
jurisdictions it seems that there is no such presumption.^' The ques- 
tion of good faith is also important in some cases, and, in the absence 
of anything to the contrary, good faith is generally presumed.^* In 
the absence of anything to the contrary, possession by one tenent-in- 
common or co-owner is presumed to be the possession of all ;^^ but this 
is not a rule of law absolutely prohibiting adverse possession hj one 
of them against the others.^" 



adverse possession of a larger 
tract; Maxwell Land &c. Co. v. Daw- 
son, 151 U. S. 586, 14 Sup. Ct. 458. 

"Alexander v. Wheeler, 69 Ala. 
332; Black v. Tennessee &c. Co., 93 
Ala. 109, 9 So. 537; Hammond v. 
Crosby, 68 Ga. 767; Barnes v. Light, 
116 N. Y. 34, 22 N. E. 441; Gillespie 
v. Jones, 26 Tex. 343; see also, 
Moore v. Hinkle, 151 Ind. 343, 50 N. 
B. 822; Worthley v. Burbanks, 146 
Ind. 534, 45 N. E. 779; Ewing v. 
Burnet, 11 Pet. (U. S.) 41; Holtz- 
man v. Douglas, 168, 18 Sup. Ct. 65. 

'= Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz, 
106 Wis. 499, 81 N. W. 1027, 82 N. 
W. 534; Woollman v. Ruehle, 104 
Wis. 603, 80 N. W. 919; Bishop v. 
Bleyer, 105 Wis. 330, 81 N. W. 413; 
Alexander v. Gibbon, 118 N. Car. 
796, 24 S. E. 748, 54 Am. St. 757; 
Green v. Anglemire, 77 Mich. 168, 
43 N. W. 772; Swift v. Mulkcy, 14 
Ore 59, 12 Pac. 76; Heller v. Peters, 
140 Pa. St. 648, 21 Atl. 416; Neel v. 
McElhenny, 69 Pa. St. 300. 

'"Elyton Land Co. v. M'Elrath, 53 
Fed. 763; Marston v. Rowe, 43 Ala. 
271; Abbett v. Page, 92 Ala. 571, 9 
So. 332; Clements v. Lampkln, 34 



Ark. 598; Wilson v. Spring, 38 Ark. 
181. 

''Lynde v. Williams, 68 Mo. 360; 
Atkinson v. Smith, (Va.) 24 S. E. 
901. 

"Sexson v. Barker, 172 111. 361, 
50 N. E. 109; Hilgenberg v. North- 
rup, 134 Ind. 92, 33 N. E. 786; 
Garrett v. Adrain, 44 Ga. 274; 
Hammond v. Crosby, 68 Ga. 767; 
Baxley v. Baxley, 117 Ga. 60, 43 S. E. 
436. 

'= Stevens v. Martin, 168 Mo. 407, 
68 S. W. 347; Clymer v. Dawkins, 3 
How. (U. S.) 674; Elder v. Mc- 
Claskey, 70 Fed. 529; Brown v. Mc- 
Kay, 125 Cal. 491, 57 Pac. 1001; 
Roberts v. Morgan, 30 Vt. 319 ; Wat- 
son V. Gregg, 10 Watts (Pa.) 289, 
36 Am. Dec. 176; Woodruff v. Roys- 
den, 105 Tenn. 491, 58 S. W. 1066, 
80 Am. St. 905. 

"■Van Dyke v. Van Buren, 1 Cai. 
(N. Y.) 13, 84; Baker v. Oakwood, 
123 N. Y. 16, 25 N. B. 312; Clymers 
V. Dawkins, 3 How. (U. S.) 674; 
Zellers v. Eckert, 4 How. (U. S.) 
289; Trenouth v. Gilbert, 86 Cal. 
584, 25 Pac. 126; Cummings v. Wy- 
man, 10 Mass. 465. 



§ 1618.] 



ADVERSE POSSESSION. 



60 



§ 1618. The possession. — The constmetive possession of land is in 
the holder of the real title, and actual possession for the necessary 
period is required in order to defeat it.^^ A mere claim, unaccom- 
panied by possession, will not ripen into a title,^^ even though it is 
asserted under a deed.^' The fact of possession is generally required 
to be proved before, or in connection with, evidence of declaration or 
claim or color of title. It is a fact, it is said, "to be proved by evidence 
as other facts are proved."^* But actual residence on the land, un- 
less required by statute, is not absolutely necessary where the character 
of the land and the circumstances are such as to prove an established 
and complete dominion f^ nor is the inclosure, cultivation or improve- 
ment of the land always necessary.^* But these and similar facts are 



" Archibald v. New York &c. R. 
Co., 157 N. Y. 574, 52 N. E. 567; 
Ward V. Cochran, 150 U. S. 597, 14 
Sup. Ct. 230, 233; Goltermann v. 
Schiermeyer, 125 Mo. 291, 28 S. W. 
616; State v. Portsmouth Sav. Bank, 
106 Ind. 453, 7 N. B. 379; Troxell v. 
Johnson, 52 Neb. 46, 71 N. W. 968; 
Conway v. Kinsworthy, 21 Ark. 9; 
Jones' v. McCauley, 2 Duv. (Ky.) 
14; London v. Bear, 84 N. Car. 266. 
The possession need not, however, 
be that of the claimant himself 
through the entire period. It may 
be "Tacked" to that privity with 
him. 

^ Linen v. Maxwell, 67 N. H. 370, 
40 Atl. 184; Abell v. Harris, 11 Gill 
& J. (Md.) 367; State v. Ports- 
mouth Sav. Bank, 106 Ind. 453, 7 
N. B. 379; Dennett v. Crocker, 8 Me. 
239. 

'"Lipscomb v. McClellan, 72 Ala. 
151; Jones v. Wilson, 69 Ala. 400; 
Bagle &c. Mfg. Co. v. Brunswick 
Bank, 55 Ga. 44; Greer v. Ander- 
son, 62 Ark. 213, 35 S. W. 215; 
Stockley v. Cissna, 119 Fed. 812; 
a deed, it is held, is not evidence of 
actual possession according to the 
boundaries therein described; Hef- 
felflnger v. Shutz, 16 S. & R. 
(Pa.) 44; Hudglns v. Simon, 94 Va. 



659, 27 S. E. 606; nor does mere 
payment of taxes constitute actual 
possession; Raymond v. Morrison, 
59 Iowa 371, 13 N. W. 332; Brown 
V. Bocquin, 57 Ark. 97, 20 S. W. 
813; Dickinson v. Bales, 59 Kans. 
224, 52 Pac. 447; Chamberlain v. 
Abadie, 48 La. Ann. 587, 19 So. 574; 
Langdon v. Templeton, 66 Vt. 173, 
28 Atl. 866. 

=*Doe V. Clayton, 81 Ala. 391, 2 
So. 24, 30; see also, Silvarer v. Han- 
sen, 77 Cal. 579, 20 Pac. 136; Webb 
V. Rhodes, 28 Ind. App. 393, 397, 61 
N. E. 735; Woodstock Iron Co. v. 
Roberts, 87 Ala. 436; Bryan v. 
Spivey, 109 N. Car. 57, 13 S. B. 766. 

==WorthIey v. Burbanks, 146 Ind. 
534, 45 N. B. 779; Anderson v. Burn- 
ham, 52 Kans. 454, 34 Pac. 1056; 
Webber v. Clarke, 74 Cal. 11, 15 
Pac. 431; Ford v. Wilson, 35 Miss. 
490, 72 Am. Dec. 137; Hook v. Joyce, 
94 Ky. 450, 22 S. W. 651, 21 L. R. 
A. 96; Swan v. Munch, 65 Minn. 
500; 67 N. W. 1022, 60 Am. St. 491, 
35 L. R. A. 743. 

""Worthley v. Burbanks, 146 Ind. 
534, 45 N. B. 779; Murray v. Hud- 
son, 65 Mich. 670, 32 N. W. 889; 
Henry v. Henry, 122 Mich. 6, 80 N. 
W. 800; Hubbard v. Kiddo, 87 111. 
578; Horner v. Router, 152 111. 106, 



61 



INTENT. 



[§ 1619. 



significant evidence tending to show the adverse character and extent 
of the possession.^' No hard and fast rule can be laid down/^ and all 
that can be said is that the situation of the parties, the nature of the 
claim and title, and especially the character of the land and purpose 
to wljich it is adapted are to be considered along with the fact of pos- 
session and its nature and extent;^* and if the acts of ownership are 
such as lands of like character are reasonably adapted to, and such 
as would reasonably be expected to inform the true owner of the fact 
of possession and adverse claim, they will be sufficient to justify a find- 
ing of adverse possession if continued for the necessary period.^" 

§ 1619. The intent. — The intent as well as the possession is an 
important element, and it is often a controlling factor, especially 
in eases of mistaken boundaries.'^ A secret intent, however, not evi- 



38 N. E. 747; Booth v. Small, 25 
Iowa 177; Bell v. Denson, 56 Ala. 
444; Dickinson v. Bales, 59 Kans. 
224, 52 Pac. 447; Cooper v. Morris, 
48 N. J. L. 607, 7 Atl. 427; Simmons 
Creek Coal Co. v. Doran, 142 U. S. 
417, 12 Sup. Ct. 239. 

="Latta V. Clifford, 47 Fed. 614; 
Tourtelotte v. Pearce, 27 Neb. 57, 42 
N. W. 915, 917; Omaha &c. Co. v. 
Parker, 33 Neb. 775, 51 N. W. 139, 
29 Am. St. 506; Costello v. Bdson, 
44 Minn. 135, 46 N. W. 299, 301; 
Morrison v. Kelly, 22 111. 609, 74 Am. 
Dec. 169; Kane v. Tooth, 70 111. 587; 
Foulke V. Bond, 41 N. J. L. 527; 
Ellicott V. Pearl, 10 Pet. (U. S.) 
412, 441; Wallace v. Maxwell, 32 N. 
Car. 110, 51 Am. Dec. 380; Deer 
Lake Co. v. Michigan Land Co., 89 
Mich. 180, 50 N. W. 807; Congdon 
V. Morgan, 14 S. Car. 587; Johns v. 
McKibben, 156 111. 71, 40 N. E. 449; 
Kirkman v. Mays, (Miss.) 12 So. 
443; Thompson v. Philadelphia &c. 
Co., 133 Pa. St. 46, 19 Atl. 346; 
Soule V. Barlow, 49 Vt. 329. 

"^Ewing V. Burnet, 11 Pet. (U. 
S.) 41; Polack v. McGrath, 32 Cal. 
15; Eastern R. Co. v. Allen, 135 
Mass. 13; Mason v. Calumet &c. Co., 
150 Ind. 699, 50 N. E. 85. 



=™Bowen v. Guild, 130 Mass. 121; 
Houghton v. Wilhelmy, 157 Mass. 
521, 32 N. B. 861; Murphy v. Doyle, 
37 Minn. 113, 33 N. W. 220; Worth- 
ley V. Burbanks, 146 Ind. 534, 45 N. 
E. 779; Moore v. Hinkle, 151 Ind. 
343, 50 N. B. 822; Ewing v. Burnet, 
11 Pet. (U. S.) 41; Robinson v. 
Swett, 3 Me. 316; Draper v. Shoot, 
25 Mo. 197, 69 Am. Dec. 462; Benne 
V. Miller, 149 Mo. 228, 33 S. W. 220. 

»» Moore v. Hinkle, 151 Ind. 343, 
50 N. E. 822; Woods v. Montevallo 
&c. Co., 84 Ala. 560, 3 So. 475, 5 Am, 
St. 393; Costello v. Edson, 44 Minn. 
135, 46 N. W. 299; Eddy v. Gage, 
147 111. 162, 35 N. E. 347; Whitaker 
V. Erie Shooting Club, 102 Mich. 
454, 60 N. W. 983; Goltermann v. 
Schiermeyer, 111 Mo. 404, 19 S. W, 
484, 20 S. W. 161; Fletcher v. Fuller, 
120 U. S. 534, 7 Sup. Ct. 667; see 
also, Holtzman v. Douglas, 168 U, 
S. 278, 18 Sup. Ct. 65; Hornsby v. 
Davis, (Tenn.) 36 S. W. 159; Moore 
V. Chicago &c. R. Co., 78 Wis. 120, 
47 N. W. 273; Jangraw v. Mee, 75 
Vt. 211, 54 Atl. 189. 

''Webb V. Rhodes, 28 Ind. App. 
393, 61 N. E. 735; Pittsburgh &c. 
Co. V. Stickley, 155 Ind. 312, 314, 58 
N. E. 192; with which compare, Sil- 



§ 1630.J 



ADVERSE POSSESSION. 



62: 



denced by declarations or acts, which are known or ought to be known 
to the true owner, is of no effect.^'' The intent may be inferred from 
hostile acts of possession and use, such as those referred to in the pre- 
ceding section,^ ^ or it may, in a proper case, be evidenced by declarj,- 
tions made in connection with the possession.'* ^ 

§ 1620. Character and extent of possession. — As a general rule 
any writing tending to show the nature and extent of the possession 
is admissible in a proper case.''* Thus, deeds, even though defective 
or invalid, have often been admitted for that purpose.'" So, the record 



ver Creek &c. Co. v. Union &c. Co., 
138 Ind. 297, 35 N. E. 125, the pos- 
session in the former case being 
held adverse because of the inten- 
tion to so claim, and held not ad- 
verse in the latter because the inten- 
tion was to claim only to the true 
line. Colvin v. Republican Land &c. 
Co., 23 Neb. 75, 36 N. W. 361, 8 Am. 
St. 114; Preble v. Maine Cent. R. 
Co., 85 Me. 260, 27 Atl. 149, 21 L. R. 
A. 829, and note; Watrous v. Mor- 
rison, 33 Pla. 261, 14 So. 805; 
Scheible v. Hart, (Ky.) 12 S. W. 
628; Haffendorfer, Gault, 84 Ky. 
124; Miller v. Mills Co., Ill Iowa 
654, 82 N. W. 10, 38; see also, 
Smeberg v. Cunningham, 96 Mich. 
378, 56 N. W. 73, 35 Am. St. 613; 
Hudson V. Putney, 14 W. Va. 561; 
Jackson v. Huntington, 5 Pet. (U. 
S.) 439; Price v. Hall, 140 Ind. 314, 
39 N. B. 941, 49 Am. St. 196; Brown 
V. Cockerell, 33 Ala. 45; Winn v. 
Abeles, 35 Kans. 85, 57 Am. R. 138; 
Alien V. Holton, 20 Pick. (Mass.) 
458; and article in 53 Cent. Law 
Jour. 482. 

=^Bast Tenn. &c. R. Co. v. Davis, 
91 Ala. 615, 8 So. 349, party who 
took possession cannot testify as to 
his unoommunlcated motives or 
claim in so doing; Rowland v. Wil- 
liams, 23 Ore. 515, 32 Pac. 402; 
Blake v. Shriver, (Wash.) 68 Pac. 
330; Smeberg v. Cunningham, 96 



Mich. 378, 56 N. W. 73, 35 Am. St. 
613 ; Comstock v. Eastwood, 108 Mo. 
41, 18 S. W. 39; Gage v. Downey, 94 
Cal. 241, 29 Pac. 635; Myers v. Mc- 
Millan, 4 Dana (Ky.) 485; French 
V. Pearce, 8 Conn. 440, 21 Am. Deo. 
680; Culver v. Rhodes, 87 N. Y. 348. 

== Barnes v. Light, 116 N. Y. 34, 
22 N. E. 441; Dean v. Goddard, 55 
Minn. 290, 56 N. W. 1060; Wilbur 
V. Cedar Rapids &c. Co., 116 Iowa 
15, 89 N. W. 101; Conyers v. Kenan, 
4 Ga. 308, 4'8 Am. Dee. 226; Hill v. 
Coal Valley &c. Co., 103 III. App. 41. 

"Blakely v. Morris, 89 Va. 717, 
17 S. B. 126; Patterson v. Reigle, 4 
Pa. St. 201, 45 Am. Dec. 684; and 
post, § 1621. 

'= Branch v. Baker, 70 Tex. 190; 
Halbert v. Martin (Tex. Civ. App.), 
30 S. W. 388; Mullans Admr. v. 
Carper, 37 W. Va. 215, 16 S. E. 527; 
Hitchcox V. Morrison, (W. Va.) 34 
S. E. 993; Wade v. Garrett, 109 Ga. 
270, 34 S. E. 572; Wright v. Stice, 
173 111. 571, 51 N. E. 71; Brind v. 
Gregory, 122 Cal. 480, 55 Pac. 250; 
Avera v. Williams, (Miss.) 33 So. 
501; Elder v. McClaskey, 70 Fed. 
529; Texas Pac. R. Co. v. Smith, 159 
U. S. 66, 15 Sup. Ct. 994; note in 88 
Am. St. 701-729. 

=«Skipworth v. Martin, 50 Ark. 
141, 6 S. W. 514; Wilson v. Atkin- 
son, 77 Cal. 485, 20 Pac. 66, 11 Am. 
St. 299, void tax deed; Murphy v. 



63 



DECLARATIONS. 



[§ 1621. 



of a former suit in which the real owner recovered possession, is ad- 
missible to show adverse possession.^' Evidence of a conveyance or 
mortgage of the property by the adverse claimant has likewise been 
held admissible.^^ So, evidence of the payment of the taxes by the 
adverse claimant is also admissible;^" and it may be said with little 
if any qualification, that all acts on the part of the occupant tending 
to show a claim of ownership and characterize his possession as ad- 
verse, may be shown in evidence.*" 

§ 1621. Declarations. — Declarations of the party in possession are 
generally admissible to explain the charactA, and extent of his claim 



Doyle, 37 Minn. 113, 33 N. W. 220; 
Pillow v. Roberts, 13 How. (U. S.) 
472; Irey v. Markey, 132 Ind. 546, 
32 N. E. 309; Erdman v. Corse, 87 
Md. 506, 40 Atl. 107. Many other 
authorities might be cited to the 
same effect, although there is con- 
siderable conflict as to whether a 
deed void on its face constitutes 
color of title. See, for extensive re- 
view of authorities, notes in 88 Am. 
St. 701.-729; 9 L. R. A. 772, and 10 
L. R. A. 387. 

■" Pauloon V. Johnston, 102 N. Car. 
364, 9 S. E. 394, 11 Am. St. 737; 
see also, Unger v. Roper, 53 Cal. 39; 
Barron v. Barron, 122 Ala. 194, 25 
So. 55; Hickman v. Link, 97 Mo. 
482, 7 S. W. 12; Sharon v. Tucker, 
144 U. S. 533, 12 Sup. Ct. 714. So it 
has been held that the prosecution 
of actions against trespassers by 
the claimant in possession, whether 
successful or not, may he shown; 
HoUister v. Young, 42 Vt. 403; see 
also, Morrison v. Chapin, 97 Mass. 
72. 

=" House V. Williams, 16 Tex. Civ. 
App. 122, 40 S. W. 414; Noyes v. 
Dyer, 25 Me. 468; Elder v. M'Clas- 
key, 70 Fed. 529. The last case cited 
also contains other illustrations of 
acts tending to show an adverse 
possession. See also. Stiff v. Cobb, 
126 Ala. 381, 28 So. 402. 



^Holtzman v. Douglas, 168 U. S. 
278, 18 Sup. Ct. 65; Fletcher v. 
Fuller, 120 U. S. 534, 7 Sup. Ct. 
667; Murphy v. Doyle, 37 Minn. 113, 
33 N. W. 220; Wheeler v. Gorman, 
80 Minn. 462, 83 N. W. 442; Carter 
V. Clark, 92 Me. 225,' 42 Atl. 398; 
Miller v. Long Island R. Co., 71 N. 
Y. 380; Pasley v. Richardson, 119 N. 
Car. 449, 26 S. B. 32; Elwell v. 
Hinckley, 138 Mass. 225; but com- 
pare. Whitman y. Shaw, 166 Mass. 
451, 44 N. B. 333; Jay v. Stein, 49 
Ala. 514; Archibald v. New York 
&c. R. Co., 157 N. Y. 574, 52 N. E. 
567; Langdon v. Templeton, 66 Vt. 
173, 28 Atl. 866. 

"Frlck V. Sinon, 75 Cal. 337, 17 
Pac. 439; Barron v. Barron, 122 Ala. 
194, 25 So. 55; Bradshaw v. May- 
field, 18 Tex. 21, receipt of rents; 
Metz V. Metz, 48 S. Car. 472, 26 S. 
E. 787; Jacob Tomb Inst. v. Croth- 
ers, 87 Md. 596, 40 Atl. 261, per- 
forming work on land by grantor; 
Lick V. Diaz, 44 Cal. 479; see also. 
Sailor v. Hertzogg, 10 Pa. St. 296; 
Fellows V. Fellows, 37 N. H. 75; 
Comins v. Comins, 21 Conn. 413; 
Stockton V. Geissler, 43 Kans. 612, 
23 Pac. 619; Durel v. Tennison, 31 
La. Ann. 538; Zeilin v. Rogers, 21 
Fed. 103; as to declarations, see next 
section. 



§ 1622.] 



ADVERSE POSSESSION. 



64 



and possession, and this rule applies to declarations tending to show- 
that his possession is hostile.*^ But declarations as to the source of his 
title which are not explanatory of the possession and not part of the 
res gestae are not admissible.*^ So, while declarations by a party in 
possession have been held admissible after his death, as evidence of 
the character of the possession, they are not competent for the pur- 
pose of sustaining or destroying the record title.*^ It has also been 
held that possession cannot be proved by declarations of the grantee 
that he owned the property, as such declarations are only admissible 
to characterize the possesigion and not to prove it without other evi- 
dence.** Declarations out of the presence of the grantor made by a 
grantee who has never had possession are not admissible;*^ and dec- 
larations made to a stranger by one who entered under another and 
set up title by disseisin, are not admissible to show that he held ad- 
versely to the true owner.** 

§ 1622. Reputation. — The existence of a fact cannot, ordinarily, 
be proved by reputation or notoriety, and it is therefore held that the 
fact of possession, ownership or title in the claimant cannot be shown 



" Stockton Sav. Bank v. Staples, 
98 Cal. 189, 32 Pac 936; Cannon v. 
Stockmon, 36 Cal. 535, 95 Am. Dec. 
205; Ward v. Cochran, 71 Fed. 127; 
Blakey v. Morris, 89 Va. 717, 17 S. 
E. 126; Youngs v. Cunningham, 57 
Mich. 153, 23 N. W. 626; Lamoreux 
v. Huntley, 68 Wis. 24, 31 N. W. 
331; Dunlap v. Griffith, 146 Mo. 283, 
47 S. W. 917; Rand v. Huff, 59 Kans. 
777, 53 Pac. 483; Lochausen v. 
Laughter, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 291, 23 
S. W. 513; Doe v. Pettett, 5 B. & 
Aid. 223, 7 E. C. L. 129; Shields v. 
Ivey, 52 N. J. L. 280, 19 Atl. 261; 
Saugatuck Cong. Soc. v. East Sauga- 
tuck School Dist., 53 Conn. 478, 4 
Atl. 246; Robbins v. Spencer, 140 
Ind. 483, 38 N. B. 523. 

*= Jones V. Pelham, 84 Ala. 208, 4 
So. 22, 23; McBride v. Thompson, 8 
Ala. 650; Dodge v. Trust Co., 93 U. 
S. 379; Sutton v. Casselleggl, 5 Mo. 
App. Ill; Morrlng v. McBride, 62 
Tex. 309; see also, Gilbert v. Odum, 



69 Tex. 670, 7 S. W. 510; Morrill v. 
Titcomb, 8 Allen (Mass.) 100; 
Swerdferger v. Hopkins, 67 Vt. 136, 
31 Atl. 153; Martin v. Martin, 174 
111. 371, 66 Am. St. 290, 51 N. B. 
691; Crawford v. Crawford, 60 Kans. 
126, 55 Pac. 842. 

"Decker v. Decker (Neb.), 89 N. 
W. 795, 798; see also, Osgood v. 
Coates, 1 Allen (Mass.) 77; Watson 
V. Blssell, 27 Mo. 220; Hays v. Hays, 
66 Tex. 606. 

" Walker v. Hughes, 90 Ga. 52, 15 
S. B. 912; see also, Thomas v. De- 
graffenreid, 17 Ala. 602; Comins v. 
Comins, 21 Conn. 413; Wickllffe v. 
Ensor, 9 B. Mon. (Ky.) 253. 

"Parrott v. Baker, 82 Ga. 364; 
see also, Dunlap v. Griffith, 146 Mo. 
283, 47 S. W. 917; Ware v. Brook- 
house, 7 Gray (Mass.) 454. 

" Crane v. Marshall, 16 Me. 27, 33 
Am. Dec. 631; Oakes v. Marcy, 10 
Pick. (Mass.) 195; Jones v. Pelham, 
84 Ala. 208, 4 So. 22. 



65 



EVIDENCE TO REBUT. 



[§ 1623. 



by evidence that the land was reputed to be his.^' But, that fact be- 
ing otherwise proved, such evidence is admissible, in a proper case, 
to show notoriety and thus charge the real owner with notice.** It 
has also been held competent for the claimant to prove that particular 
landmarks, such as trees, streams or lines, according to general re- 
port, constituted parts of his boundary.*' There is, however, some 
apparent conflict among the authorities upon the general subject and 
■especially upon the last two propositions.^" 

§ 1623. Evidence to rebut or defeat. — Evidence that the posses- 
sion was not exclusive or of such a nature as to sustain the claim of ad- 
verse possession is admissible to rebut or defeat such claim.^"^ So, evi- 
dence showing an interruption of the right or a break in the neces- 
sary continuity of possession,^^ or an abandonment of possession be- 
fore the necessary time has run,^^ or a recognition of the owner's 



"Goodson V. Brothers, 111 Ala. 
589, 20 So. 443; Woods v. Montevallo 
■Coal Co., 84 Ala. 560, 3 So. 475, 5 
Am. St. 393; Walker v. Hughes, 90 
■Ga. 52, 15 S. E. 912; Rowland v. 
•Crocker, 7 Allen (Mass.) 153; see 
also, Mclnerney v. Beck, 10 Wash. 
!515, 39 Pac. 130. 

"Tennessee Coal &c. Co. v. Linn, 
123 Ala. 112, 26 So. 245 ; Sparrow v. 
Hovey, 44 Mich. 63, 6 N. W. 93; 
Knight v. Knight, 178 111. 553, 53 N. 
E. 306; Klinkner v. Schmidt, 114 
Iowa 695, 87 N. W. 661; McAulift v. 
Tarker, 10 Wash. 141, 38 Pac. 744; 
Maxwell Land Grant Co. v. Dawson, 
151 U. S. 586, 14 Sup. Ct. 458. 

"Shaffer v. Gaynor, 117 N. Car. 
15, 23 S. E. 154. 

™ In the following cases evidence 
of reputation was held inadmissi- 
hle: Atwood v. Canrike, 86 Mich. 
99, 48 N. W. 950; Beecher v. Gal- 
vin, 71 Mich. 391, 39 N. W. 469; 
Walker v. Hughes, 90 Ga. 52, 15 S. 
E. 912; Casey v. Inloes, 1 Gill 
(Md.) 430, 39 Am. Dec. 658; Preston 
T. Hilburn (Tex. Civ. App.), 44 S. 
W. 698. 

'" Jennings v. Gorman, 19 Mont. 
Vol. 3 Elliott Ev.— 5 



545, 48 Pac. 1111; Collins v. Lynch, 
167 Pa. St. 635, 31 Atl. 921; Roggen- 
camp v. Converse, 15 Neb. 105, 17 
N. W. 361; Mobile &c. R. Co. v. Gil- 
mer, 85 Ala. 422, 5 So. 138, to show 
that possession was permissible. 
Thus it is admissible to show that 
other persons used the property. 
Bracken v. Union Pac. R. Co., 56 
Fed. 447. 

'^Johnston v. Fitz George, 50 N. 
J. L. 470, 14 Atl. 762; Doe v. Eslava, 

11 Ala. 1028; Campbell v. Wallace, 

12 N. H. 362, 37 'Am. Dec. 219; 
Smith V. Steele, 17 Pa. St. 30; 
Turner v. Baker, 64 Mo. 218, 27 Am. 
R. 226. 

■^ Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Philyaw, 
88 Ala. 264, 6 So. 837; Jarrett v. 
Stevens, 36 W. Va. 445, 15 S. E. 177; 
Hickman v. Link (Mo.), 7 S. W. 
12; Downing v. Mayes, 153 111. 330, 
38 N. E. 620, 46 Am. St. 896, and 
note; Trustees &c. v. Short, 58 L. J. 
P. C. 4, 13 App. Cas. 793. It is not 
meant, however, that mere inter- 
ruption or temporary abandonment 
of actual possession will in all cases 
defeat the claim of adverse posses- 
sion. We are here dealing only with 



§ 1623.] 



ADVERSE POSSESSION. 



66 



title, ^* is likewise admissible. Evidence of attempts to purchase or 
lease the land from the other party during the statutory period, is 
generally admissible,^^ but there is some conflict on this subject, and 
the purchase or attempt to purchase an outstanding title, claim or 
interest is not always held sufficient to defeat the claim of adverse 
possession.'"' Declarations made by the claimant tending to show that 
his possession was not hostile are also admissible,"'^ and the same has 
been held as to declarations of a former occupant under whom the 
adverse possessor claims, 'showing that he entered without claim of 
title.^8 



the question of the admissibility of 
evidence and not with the question 
as to its effect without other evi- 
dence. 

"Zwelbel v. Myers (Neb.), 95 N. 
W. 597; Bradford v. Guthrie, 4 
Brewst. (Pa.) 351; Jones v. Wil- 
liams, 108 Ala. 282, 19 So. 317; 
Sample v. Reeder, 107 Ala. 227, 18 
So. 214; Calkins v. Isbell, 20 N. Y. 
147; Free v. Fine (Tenn. Ch.), 59 
S. W. 384; Mlllay v. Mlllay, 18 Me. 
387; Daveis v. Collins, 43 Fed. 31; 
Williams v. Scott, 122 N. Car. 545, 
29 S. E. 877. 

"Zweibel v. Myers, (Neb.) 95 N. 
W. 597, 599; Baldwin v. Temple, 101 
Cal. 369, 35 Pac. 1008; Horton v. 
Davidson, 135 Pa. St. 186, 19 Atl. 
934; Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Keegan, 
185 III. 70, 56 N. E. 1088; Russell v. 
Erwln, 38 Ala. 44; Groan v. Joyce, 3 
Bush (Ky.) 454; Gay v. Mofflt, 2 
Bibb (Ky.) 506, 5 Am. Dec. 633; 
Litchfield V. Sewell, 97 Iowa 247, 66 
N. W. 104. 

•"Webb V. Thlele, 56 Neb. 752, 77 
N. W. 56; McAllister v. Hartzell, 60 



Ohio St. 69, 53 N. E. 715; Tobey v. 
Secor, 60 Wis. 310, 19 N. W. 99; 
Bannon v. Brandon, 34 Pa. St. 263, 
75 Am. Dec. 655; Headrick v. Fritts, 
93 Tenn. 270, 24 S. W. 11; see also, 
Walbrum v. Ballen, 68 Mo. 164; Ma- 
ther V. Walsh, 107 Mo. 121, 17 S. W. 
755; Warren v. Bowdran, 156 Mass. 
280, 31 N. E. 300; Chapin v. Hunt, 
40 Mich. 595; Dean v. Goddard, 55 
Minn. 290, 56 N. W. 1060. 

"'Kirkland v. Trott, 66 Ala. 417; 
Beasley v. Howell, 117 Ala. 499, 22 
So. 989; Dillon v. Center, 68 Cal. 
561, 10 Pac. 176; Critchlow v. Beat- 
ty, (Ky.) 23 S. W. 960; Crane v. 
Marshall, 16 Me. 27, 33 Am. Dec. 
631; Wade v. Johnson, 94 Ga. 348, 
21 S. B. 569; see also, Williams v. 
Rand, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 631, 30 S. 
W. 509; Hale v. Silloway, 1 Allen 
(Mass.) 21; Leger v. Doyle, 11 Rich. 
L. (S. Car.) 109, 70 Am. Dec. 240; 
Daveis v. Collins, 43 Fed. 31. 

■» Keener v. KaufCman, 16 Md. 296; 
see also, Coffrin v. Cole, 67 Vt. 226, 
31 Atl. 313, that he was so informed 
by his grantor. 



CHAPTEE LXXX. 



AGENCY. 



Sec. Sec. 

1624. Generally — Scope of chapter. 1634. Course of dealing — ^Acts of 

1625. Burden of proof — Scope of evi- agent in other transactions. 

dence. 1635. Circumstantial evidence. 

1626. Question of law or fact. 1636. Declarations and admissions 

1627. Evidence of agency. • of agent. 

1628. Authority — How proved. 1637. Admissions of principal. 

1629. When corporation is principal. 1638. Agency not provable by gen- 

1630. Authority in writing. eral reputation. 

1631. Agency inferred from relation 1639. Ratification. 

of parties. 1640. Parol evidence. 

1632. Extent of agency. 1641. Revocation and termination of 

1633. Habit and course of dealing. agency. 

§ 1624. Generally — Scope of chapter. — It is not proposed in this 
chapter to consider the substantive law of agency any farther than 
seems absolutely necessary to a full understanding of the rules and 
principles of evidence treated herein. The rights, duties and lia- 
bilities of the principal and of the agent, as between themselves and 
as between either or both of them and a third person, are matters that 
belong to the substantive law rather than to the law of evidence. But 
the manner of showing the relation and its extent, the kind of evi- 
dence necessary and proper to show it, or to show ratification, and the 
like, are matters governed, in the main at least, by rules of evidence. 
So, questions as to the burden of proof and the relative provinces of 
the court and jury, if not strictly within the domain of the law of 
evidence, are on the border line and will be treated in this chapter. 

§ 1625. Burden of proof — Scope of evidence. — The burden of 
proof is, ordinarily, upon the party who seeks to establish the rela- 
tion of agency;^ and it is sometimes said that the proof or evidence 

'Russ V. Telfener, 57 Fed. 973; 36 Pac. 820; McCarty v. Straus, 21 
Anderson v. Rassmussen, 5 Wyo. 44, La. Ann. 592; Wooding v. Bradley, 

67 



§ 16S6.] AGENCY. 68 

must be clear.^ This is said to be particularly true where the agent 
relies upon parol or implied authority to charge real estate.' In a 
recent case it is held that the employment or agency must be shown 
before statements of the alleged agent or employe are admissible 
against the master, and that in an action against a railroad company 
for the alleged wrongful act of an employe, it must be shown that the 
person wTio committed the injury was an employe. The difficulty of 
making such proof will not obviate the necessity of doing so, al- 
though it may, perhaps, permit of slighter evidence than might other- 
wise be required.* In another, recent case it was held that, in an ac- 
tion for damages caused by the defendant's vehicle colliding with that 
of the plaintiff, proof that the defendant's vehicle has his name on it 
satisfies an allegation that it was driven by his agent, and casts the 
burden upon the defendant to show that the driver was not his agent.° 
It has also been held that, under an allegation of a contract by the 
principal, evidence of a contract through his authorized agent is ad- 
missible." 

§ 1626. ftuestion of law or fact. — As a general rule, the question 
as to whether an agency exists, and the authority of the agent, when 
the facts are in dispute, is a mixed question of law and fact, or a 
question of fact for the jury, under proper instructions from the 

re Va. 614; Duncan v. Hartman, 143 " dence has a tendency to prove the 

Pa. St. 595, 24 Am. St. 570; Quin- agency, if otherwise proper, is ad- 

lan v. Providence &c. Ins. Co., 133 missible, and though it may not be 

N. Y. 356, 31 N. E. 31, 28 Am. St. entirely clear and satisfactory the 

645; Kelly v. Strong, 68 Wis. 152, question ought usually to be left to 

31 N. W. 121; Mechem Agency, the jury. South & N. Ala. R. Co. v. 

I 276; but see. Sears v. Daly, 43 Ore. Henleln, 52 Ala. 606; Morrison v. 

346, 73 Pac. 5; Montgomery v. Pa- Whiteside, 17 Md. 452, 79 Am. Dec. 

cific &c. Bureau, 94 Gal. 284, 29 Pac. 661. 

€40, 28 Am. St. 122; agent acting as 'Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Mast- 
such, where he claims he was not en, 3 Fed. 881; Challoner v. Bouck, 
agent has burden of rebutting the 56 Wis. 652. 

presumption, Romans v. State, 51 *Axtell v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 

Ohio St. 528. 37 N. E. 1040. (Idaho) 74 Pac. 1075. 

' Stadleman v. Fitzgerald, 14 Neb. ° Vonderhorst Brewing Co. v. Am- 

290, 15 N. W. 234; Barrett v. Frank- rhine, (Md.) 56 Atl. 833; see also, 

lin, 14 R. I. 241; Hood v. Adams, Ryan v. Baltimore &c. R. Co., 60 111. 

128 Mass. 207; Taylor v. Merrill, 55 App. 612. 

111. 52; Hodge v. Combs, 1 Black "Hare v. Winterer, (Neb.) 96 N. 

(U. S.) 192. But it would seem that W. 179. 
in a general sense whatever evi- 



69 EVIDENCE OF AUTHORITY. [§§ 1637, 1628. 

court. ^ But it is for the court to decide whether there is any legal 
evidence to establish agency/ and where the facts are undisputed, or 
the question depends entirely on the construction of an unambiguous 
written contract, the question is usually one of law for the court.* 
And in one case it is said : "If the facts constituting the agency are in 
dispute, so as to leave the question as to whose agent he is in doubt, 
then an admission may serve to assist in solving the doubt and bind 
the party making it. But when the facts are established, ^he law de- 
termines whether or not there is an agency, and no admission can 
change it."" 

§ 1627. Evidence of agency. — The appointment of an agent ma,y 
be either express or implied, and the evidence of agency is either di- 
rect or indirect. Agency is directly proved by express words of ap- 
pointment, whether oral or contained in some writing. It may be in- 
directly established by, or may be implied from, evidence of the 
relative situation of the parties, or of their habit and course of dealing 
and intercourse ; or it may be deduced from the nature of the employ- 
ment or from subsequent ratification.^^ 

§ 1628. Authority — How proved. — As a general rule, it may be 
laid down that the authority of an agent may be proved by parol evi- 
dence, either by words spoken, or by writing not under seal, or by 

I 

'Morrison v. Whiteside, 17 Md. Md. 5; Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Gil- 

452, 79 Am. Dec. 661; Hankinson v. mer, 89 Ala. 534, 7 So. 654, 655. 

Lambard, 25 111. 572, 79 Am. Dec. ' Gulick v. Grover, 33 N. J. L. 463,. 

348; Lovell v. Williams, 125 Mass. 97 Am. Dec. 728; see also, Supreme 

439; Thonms v. Wells, 140 Mass. Tribe v. Hall, 24 Ind. App. 316, 328,. 

517; Roberts v. Pepple, 55 Mich. 56 N. B. 780; Saving Fund See. v. 

367; Commercial Un. Ins. Co. v. El- Saving Bank, 36 Pa. St. 498, 78 Am. 

liott, (Pa. St.) 13 Atl. 970; Brad- Dec. 390. 

street Co. v. Gill, 72 Tex. 115, 13 '"Howe v. Provident Fund Soc, 7 
Am. St. 768; Durrell v. Evans, 1 H. Ind. App. 586, 591, 34 N. E. 830. 
& C. 174, 31 L. J. Bxch. 337; New "Starkie Ev., §§ 55-58; Story 
England Mfg. Co. v. Gray, 33 Fed. Agency, § 45; 2 Kent Comm. 612, 
636, ratification is for the jury 613; Paley Agency, § 2; Fouck v. 
where there is evidence tending to Wilson, 59 Ind. 93; Kaufman v. Far- 
prove it; Drakely v. Gregg, 8 Wall, ley Mfg. Co., 78 Iowa 679, 46 N. W. 
(U. S.) 242. 312, 16 Am. St. 462; Duncan v. Hart- 
'McClung V. Spotswood, 19 Ala. man, 143 Pa. St. 595, 22 Atl. 1099, 
165; Lamb v. Irwin, 69 .Pa. St. 436; 24 Am. St. 570; Hansen v. Flint &c'. 
Coe V. Johnson, 6 Houst. (Del.) 9; R. Co., 73 Wis. 346, 41 N. W. 529; 9 
Bank v. Baltimore Nat. Bank, 36 Am. St. 791. 



§ 1628.] 



AGENCY. 



ro 



acts and implication.^^ But to this rule there are some exceptions. 
Thus, when an act is required to be done under seal, the authority of 
the agent to do it must also generally be proved by an instrument 
Tinder seal.^^ A writing without seal will not be sufficient at common 
law to give validity to a deed, though a court of equity might, in a 
proper case, compel the principal to confirm and ratify the deed." 
The principle of this exception, however, is not entirely followed out 
even in the common law ; for an authority to execute a written instru- 
ment not required to be under seal, as to fill in blanks or sign or in- 
dorse promissory notes, may often be proved by mere oral communi- 
cations, or by implication /° and even where the statute of frauds 
requires an agreement to be in writing, the authority of an agent to 
sign it may be verbally conferred.^'' 



1^ Story Agency, § 47; 3 Chitty 
Comm. & Man., p. 5; Coles v. Tre- 
cothick, 9 Ves. 250; Drumright v. 
Philpot, 16 Ga. 424. 

"Elliott V. Stock, 67 Ala. 336; 
Watson v. Sherman, 84 111. 263; 
Blood V. Goodrich, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 
68, 24 Am. Dec. 121; Paine v. Tuck- 
er, 21 Me. 138, 38 Am. Dec. 255; 
Berkeley v. Hardy, 5 B. & C. 355, 11 
E. C. L. 251; Mechem Agency, § 93. 
But, as remarked by Mr. Mechem, 
this rule, though well settled, is 
highly technical, and the modern 
tendency is to do away with many 
of the distinctions founded upon the 
use of a seal. 

" Story Agency, § 49 ; Harrison v. 
Jackson, 7 Term R. 207; Paley 
Agency (by Lloyd), 157, 158. If the 
deed Is executed in the presence of 
the principal, no other authority is 
necessary: Story Agency, § 51. 
Though a power of attorney not un- 
der seal may not be a sufficient au- 
thority to execute an instrument 
under seal, yet it is not for that 
reason absolutely void. If it author- 
izes a sale of land, the sale may be 
valid, and if the purchaser under 
such a sale pays his money for the 
land, he thereby acquires an equita- 



ble title to the land, and a court of 
equity will enforce this title, either 
by compelling the vendor to make 
out sufficient deeds and conveyances 
of the land, or by enjoining process 
of law brought to eject the vendee 
when he is in possession: Watson 
V. Sherman, 84 111. 263; see also, 
GrofE V. Ramsay, 19 Minn. 44; Mor- 
row V. Higgins, 29 Ala. 448; Baker 
V. Freeman, 35 Me. 485. Where a 
statute makes it indispensable to a 
good conveyance of land that the 
deed shall be witnessed by two sub- 
scribing witnesses, a power of attor- 
ney to convey lands under such 
statute has been held not good, un- 
less witnessed by two subscribing 
witnesses: Gage v. Gage, 30 N. H. 
420. 

'"Story Agency, § 50; Angle v. 
Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 92 
V. S. 331; Rice v. Gove, 22 Pick. 
(Mass.) 158, 33 Am. Dec. 124; Han- 
dyside v. Cameron, 21 111. 588, 74 
Am. Dec. 119. 

"Maclean v. Dunn, 4 Bing. 722; 
Coles V. Trecothick, 9 Ves. 250; Bm- 
merson v. Heelis, 2 Taunt. 38 ; Roehl 
V. Haumesser, 114 Ind. 311, 15 N. 
E. 345; Tewksbury v. Howard, 138 
Ind. 103, 37 N. E. 355; Story Agency, 



71 



CORPORATION PRINCIPAL. [§§ 1639, 1630. 



§ 1629. When corporation is principal. — It was formerly held 
that the authority of the agent of a corporation aggregate could be 
proved only by deed, under the seal of the corporation. But this rule 
is now very much relaxed both in England and America; and in all 
matters of daily necessity, within the ordinary powers of its officers, 
or touching its ordinary operations, the authority of agents may be 
proved as in the case of private persons. ^^ So, where a deed is signed 
by one as the agent of a corporation, if the seal of the corporation is 
affixed thereto, it will be presumed, in the absence of contradictory 
evidence, that the agent was duly authorized to make the conveyance. '^^ 

§ 1630. Authority in writing. — If the authority of the agent is in 
writing, the writing must be produced ; and if, from the nature of the 
transaction, the authority must have been in writing, parol testi- 
mony will not be admissible to prove it, unless as secondary evidence. 



§ 50. If an instrument, executed by 
an agent, be one whlcb, without seal, 
would bind the principal, it will 
bind him, if it be under seal: Wood 
v. Auburn &c. R. Co., 8 N. Y. 160; 
see, Wheeler v. Nevins, 34 Me. 54. 
Although authority to make a writ- 
ten contract to sell and convey land 
need not itself be in writing, but 
may be made orally, yet it is held 
that a mere authority to sell will 
not authorize the agent to sign a 
written contract for conveyance; 
Milne v. Kleb, 44 N. J. Eq. 378; 
Lindley v. Keim, 54 N. J. Bq. 418, 
34 Atl. 1073. 

"Story Agency, § 53; East Lon- 
don &c. Co. V. Bailey, 4 Bing. 283; 
Bank of Columbia v. Patterson, 7 
Cranch (TJ. S.) 299-305; Smith v. 
Birmingham Gas &c. Co., 1 Ad. & 
El. 526; Bank of the U. S. v. Dan- 
dridge, 12 Wheat. (U. S.) 67-75; 
Randall v. Van Vechten, 19 Johns. 
(N. Y.) 60; Dunn v. St. Andrew's 
Church, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 118; Per- 
kins V. Washington Ins. Co., 4 
Cowp. (N. Y.) 645; Troy Turnpike 
V. M'Chesney, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 296; 
Reg. V. Bigg, 3 P. Wms. 427; Mel- 



ledge V. Boston Iron Co., 5 Cush 
(Mass.) 179; Logansport v. Dyke 
man, 116 Ind. 15, 17 N. E. 587; Indi 
ana &c. R. Co. v. Adamson, 114 Ind 
282, 15 N. E. 5; Painter v. Indus 
trial Life Asso., 131 Ind. 68, 30 N, 
E. 876. In a recent case in Maine 
it was held that it is not necessary 
that the agent of a corporation 
should be authorized by instrument 
under seal, or even by formal vote, 
when the act or acts which he is to 
perform do not involve the aflBxing 
of a seal to any written instrument: 
Fitch V. Steam Mill Co., 80 Me. 34. 
The modern rule is that a seal is no 
more essential to authorize one to 
act as agent for a corporation than 
for an individual: Green Co. v. 
Blodgett, 159 111. 169, 42 N. E. 176; 
Cook Corporations, § 721; Clark 
Corporations, §§ 19, 156; Bank of 
Columbia v. Patterson, Admr., 7 
Cranch (U. S.) 299. 

"Flint V. Clinton Co., 12 N. H. 
430; Jinwright v. Nelson, 105 Ala. 
399; Gutzeil v. Pennie,,95 Cal. 598, 
30 Pac. 836; Gorder v. Plattsmouth 
Co., 36 Neb. 548. 



.§ 1631.] 



AGENCY. 



T3 



after laying the proper foundation by proof of the loss of the original, 
or the like.^° Where the authority was verbally conferred, the agent 
himself is a competent witness to prove it;^" but his declarations, 
when they are no part of the res gestae, are inadmissible^^ to prove 
the fact of agency. 

§ 1631. Agency inferred from relation of parties. — "Where the 
agency is inferred from the relative situation of the parties, it is 
generally sufficient to establish the fact that the relationship in ques- 
tion was actually created ; this must be proved by the kind of evidence 
appropriate to the case."^^ Thus, where a sheriff was sued for the 
wrongful act of a bailiff, it was held not enough to prove that he was 
a general bailiff, by official acts done by him as such, but proof was 
required of the original warrant of execution, directed by the sheriff 
to the bailiff, as this was the only source of a bailiff's authority, he not 
being the general officer of the sheriff. ^^ If the relation is one which 
may be created by parol, it may be shown, in many instances, as will 
hereafter appear, by evidence of the servant or agent, acting in that 
relation, with the knowledge and acquiescence of the principal, whether 
express or implied.^* 



"Johnson v. Mason, 1 Esp. 89; 
Hovey v. Deane, 13 Me. 31; Rich- 
ardson v. St. Joseph Iron Co., 5 
Blackf. (Ind.) 146, 33 Am. Dec. 460. 

" The agency as a question of fact, 
however, in a collateral proceeding, 
as between other parties, may be 
proved by the acts or declarations 
of the principal and agent; and the 
proof is not confined to the writing 
itself: Columbia &c. Co. v. Geisse, 
38 N. J. L. 39; Reynolds v. Collins, 
78 Ala. 94; Wolf v. Smith, 14 Ind. 
360; Indianapolis Chair Mfg. Co. v. 
Swift, 132 Ind. 197, 31 N. E. 800. 

"McDowell v. Simpson, 3 Watts 
(Pa.) 129, 27 Am. Dec. 338; Rice v. 
Gove, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 158; Clark 
V. Baker, 2 Whart. (Pa.) 340; Co- 
lumbus &c. R. Co. V. Powell, 40 Ind. 
37; see post, §1636. Declarations of 
the agent to third parties, stating 
his agency and its scope, are not 



competent evidence to prove the ex- 
istence or scope of the agency. Nor 
are his acts done without the knowl- 
edge or authority of the alleged 
principal, and not ratified subse- 
quently by him, evidence of the 
agency: Whiting v. Lake, 91 Pa. St. 
349; Reynolds v. Continental Ins. 
Co., 36 Mich. 131. Yet a series of 
continuous acts performed by him 
in the business of his alleged prin- 
cipals, and their recognition and ac- 
quiescence in this conduct by him, 
may furnish evidence of his employ- 
ment: Odorilla, The, v. Baizley, 128 
Pa. St. 292. 

'" 2 Greenleaf Ev., § 64. 

'^ Drake v. Sykes, 7 Term R. 109. 

"Price V. Marsh, 1 Car. & P. 60; 
Rex V. Almon, 5 Bur. 2686; Garth 
V. Howard, 5 Car. & P. 346, 8 Blng. 
451; Story Agency, § 55; White v. 
Edgman, 1 Over. (Tenn.) 19. 



73 EXTENT HABIT AND COURSE OF DEALING. [§§ 1633, 1633. 

§ 1632. Extent of agency. — The mere existence of the relation 
of principal and agent ordinarily shows or establishes an agency no 
further than is necessary or proper and customary for the discharge 
of the duties ordinarily belonging to it. Thus, it has been held that 
the actual command of a ship, by one as master, renders the owner 
chargeable only for such acts as are done by the master in the ordinary 
course of his employment. ''^ And it has also been held that the marital 
relation alone will not render a husband liable, by raising a presump- 
tion of agency in the wife, where her orders for goods are of an ex- 
travagant and unusual or unsuitable nature, disproportionate to the 
husband's apparent ability.^^ 

§ 1633. Habit and course of dealing. — In many instances, espe- 
cially in transactions which relate to affairs of trade and commerce, 
the agency is, or may be, proved by, or inferred from, evidence of the 
halits and course of dealing between the parties. This may be such as 
to b-how either that there must have been an original appointment, or 
that there was a subsequent or continued ratification of the acts done ; 
but in either case the principal is equally boomd. Having himself 
recognized another as his agent, by adopting and ratifying his acts 
done in that capacity, the principal is not permitted to deny the rela- 
tion to the injury of the third persons who have dealt with him as 
sueh.^^ "Cases frequently occur in which, from the habit and course 
of conduct and dealing adopted by the principal, the jury have been 
advised or permitted to infer the grant of authority to one to act as 

*> Story Agency, §§116-123; Ab- Bank of Batavia v. New York &c. R. 

bott Shipping, part 2, cc. 2, 3; Rog- Co., 106 N. Y. 195; St. Louis &c. R. 

ers V. McCune, 19 Mo. 557. The Co. v. Larned, 103 111. 293; 1 Elliott 

master of a ship has no general au- Railroads, § 303; 4 Elliott Rail- 

thority as such to sign a bill of lad- roads, § 1416. 

ing for goods which are not put on ^ Lane v. Ironmonger, 1 New Pr. 

board the vessel, and if he does so, Cas. 105; Freestone v. Butcher, 9 

the owners are not responsible Car. & P. 643. The goods, it has 

therefor: Grant v. Norway, 2 Eng, been held, must be necessary, as 

Law & Eq. 337; Hubbersty v. Ward, well as suitable: Dolan v. Brooks, 

18 Eng. Law & Eq. 551 ; Coleman v. 168 Mass. 350, 47 N. E. 408. 

Riches, 29 Fed. 323; see also, as to "2 Kent Comm. 614, 615; Foss- 

fictitious bills of lading issued by Schneider Brewing Co. v. McLaugh- 

other agents: Friedlander v. Texas lin, 5 Ind. App. 415, 31 N. E. 838. 
&c. R., 130 U. S. 416, 9 Sup. Ct. 570; 



1633.] 



AGENCY. 



U 



his salesman,^* broker/" servant/" or general agent/^ and even to Ms 
wife/^ to transact business in his behalf ; and he has been accordingly- 
held bound. A single payment, without disapprobation, for what a 
servant bought upon credit, has been deemed equivalent to a direc- 
tion to trust to him in future/^ and the employer has been held 
bound in such case, though he sent him the second time with ready 
money, which the servant embezzled.^* In regard to the payment on 
moneys due, the authority to receive payment is inferred from the 
possession of a negotiable security ; and, in regard to bonds and other 
securities not negotiable, the person who is instructed to take the se- 
curity, and to retain it in custody, is generally considered as intrusted 
with power to receive the money when it becomes due."^° 



The decisions on Implied agen- 
cies are collected and arranged in, 1 
Hare & Wallace Am. L. Cas., pp. 398- 
404. 

^ Story Agency, § 55; Harding v. 
Carter, Park Ins., p. 4; Prescott v. 
Flinn, 9 Blng. 19; Isbell v. Brink- 
man, 70 Ind. 118. Evidence that the 
defendant's son, a minor, had in 
three or four Instances signed for 
his father, and had accepted bills 
for him, has been held suflScient 
prima facie evidence of authority to 
sign a collateral guaranty: Watkins 
V. Vlnce, 2 Stark. 324. 

=» Whitehead v. Tuckett, 15 East 
400. 

™ Hazard v. Treadwell, 1 Str. 506. 

='Burt V. Palmer, 5 Esp. 145; Peto 
v. Hague, 5 Esp. 134. 

^^ Palethorp v. Furnish, 2 Esp. 
511; Emerson v. Blonden, 1 Esp. 
142; Anderson v. Sanderson, 2 
Stark. 180; Clifford v. Burton, 1 
Blng. 199; 1 Blackstone Comm. 430; 
Fenner v. Lewis, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 
38; Lord v. Hall, 8 M. G. & S. 627; 
see, however, Barnett v. Glutlng, 3 
Ind. App. 415, 29 N. E. 154. 

^'1 Blackstone Comm. 430; Bryan 
V. Jackson, 4 Conn. 291; Story 
Agency, § 56. 

•"Rusby V. Scarlett, 5 Esp. 76; 



Hazard v. Treadwell, 1 Str. 506; 
2 GreenleafEv., § 65; Story Agency, 
§ 56. 

^'^ Story Bills, § 415; Story Agen- 
cy, §§ 98, 104; Wolstenholm v. Da- 
vies, 2 Freem. 249; 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 
708, 709; Duchess of Cleveland v. 
Dashwood, 2 Freem. 249; Owen v. 
Barrow, 1 New R. 101; Kingman v. 
Pierce, 17 Mass. 247; Anonymous, 
12 Mod. 564; Gerard v. Baker, 1 Ch. 
Cas. 94; when possession was- ob- 
tained surreptitiously the owner 
was held not bound; Lawson v. 
Nicholson, 52 N. J. Eq. 821. As a 
general rule the principal is bound 
by an act proved to have been done 
by the agent within the apparent 
scope of his authority, which the 
principal permits to exist and on 
which the other rightfully relies, 
unless the plaintiff had actual 
knowledge that the act was not 
within the scope of the agent's au- 
thority: Wachter v. Phoenix Assur. 
Co., 132 Pa. St. 438; Brocklesby v. 
Temperance Asso., 1893, 3 Ch. 130; 
Jackson v. Emmens, 119 Pa. St. 
356; 1 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law 
(2d ed.) 959, 960; Mechem Agency, 
§ 282; Blanke Tea &c. Co. v. Trade 
Exhibit Co., (Neb.) 98 N. W. 714. 



75 COURSE OF DEALING OTHER TRANSACTIONS. [§ 1634. 

§ 1634. Course of dealing — Acts of agent in other transactions. — 

Prom what has been said in the last preceding section it follows that 
evidence of the course of dealings between the parties through the al- 
leged agent is generally relevant and admissible upon the question 
of agency and its extent.'^ Thus, in a recent ease it is said: "One 
of the vital questions of the case on trial was whether, in fact, the de- 
fendant was the plaintiffs agent, and as such made the loan for him. 
The plaintiff alleged in his complaint the affirmative of this proposi- 
tion, and the defendant denied it by his answer, and followed it by 
the allegations we have quoted. The reply denied that the rela- 
tion between the parties alleged in the answer was a true one. The 
burden of proof was then upon the plaintiff to show that the re- 
lation of the parties was that alleged by him. ISTow, if the defendant 
had acted as plaintiff's agent in loaning money for him for some years 
prior to the time in question, such facts, and the number and character 
of the loans, and the course of dealing between the parties with refer- 
ence thereto, would tend in a material degree to show that such 
agency still existed when the loan in question was made. Therefore 
the rejected evidence was material.'"^ Indeed there are instances in 
which acts of the agent in regard to similar matters accepted and 
carried out by the principal, although the parties were not the same, 
have been held admissible upon an issue as to the authority of the 
agent to bind his principal. Thus, in a recent case it was held that, 
upon an issue as to the authority of an agent to bind his principal by a 
particular contract, evidence is admissible to show that he made other 
similar contracts which had been carried out by his principal and that 
the principal had referred to him as having authority to make con- 
tracts of that kind,^* and in the course of the opinion the court said : 
"The accepted acts of an agent or officer of a corporation are always 
evidence to show the extent of his powers."^' So, as said in another 
case, "It is not necessary, in order to constitute a general agent, that 
he should have before done an act the same in specie with that in ques- 
tion. If he has usually done things of the same general character and 
effect with the assent of his principal, that is enough."*" But it has 
been held, on the other hand, in a recent case, that, on an issue as to 

" See Vol. I, § 172. Bank v. State Bank, 10 "Wall. (U. S.) 

"Eisenberg v. Matthews, 84 Minn. 604, 19 L. ed. 1008; Martin v. Webb, 

76, 86 N. W. 870. 110 U. S. 7, 3 Sup. Ct. 428, 28 L. ed. 

*Kent v. Addicks, 126 Fed. 112. 49; Sherman v. Fitch, 98 Mass. 59. 

=»Bank v. Dandridge, 12 Wheat. "Bank v. Norton, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 

(U. S.) 64, 6 L. ed. 552; Merchants' 6«1. 



§ 1635.] AGENCY. 76 

whether a landlord's agent consented to the sale of certain seed to the 
defendant and waived the landlord's lien thereon, evidence of a waiver 
of the lien on other crops grown by the tenant, by consent to their 
sale, was not admissible. ^'^ 

§ 1635. Circumstantial evidence. — The mere fact that a person has 
assumed to act as agent for another is not, of itself, sufficient to prove 
that the relation of principal and agent exists, much less that the 
person so acting was fully authorized to do what he assumed to do,*'' 
unless his acts were so open and under such circumstances as to make 
evident, or to imply, knowledge and assent on the part of the alleged 
principal.*^ But, as already intimated, and in accordance with the 
doctrine of the preceding section, agency may be proved by circum- 
stantial evidence.** Thus, authority as an agent to make a sale may 
be inferred from the fact that at the time of the sale and afterward 
the supposed agent acted in connection with other persons whose 
agency was admitted ;*^ and it has been held that the agency of a rail- 
way conductor in the operation of the train and care of passengers is 
sufficiently shown by evidence that he had charge of defendant's 
train.** Proof that one person was openly acting as agent for another 
under circumstances which imply knowledge on his part is, ordi- 
narily, prima facie sufficient to charge the latter as principal.*' So, 
if necessary to protect the rights of innocent parties who have dealt 
with the agent on the faith of his supposed agency, and who have been 
led to believe an agency existed by acts and omissions of the princi- 
pal, an agency may sometimes be conclusively presumed from circum- 

"Wimp V. Early, (Mo. App.) 78 amson, 114 Ind. 282, 15 N. E. 5; 

S. W. 343. Barnett v. Glutlng, 3 Ind. App. 415, 

"McDougald v. Dawson, 30 Ala. 420, 29 N. B. 154; Wright v. Solo- 

553; Huntsville &c. R. Co. v. Cor- men, 19 Cal. 64, 79 Am. Dec. 196; 

pening, 97 Ala. 681, 12 So. 295; Strimpfler v. Roberts, 18 Pa. St. 

Reynolds v. Continental Iris. Co., 36 283, 57 Am. Dec. 606; Olcott v. Ti- 

Mich. 131; International &c. R. Co. oga R. Co., 27 N. Y. 546, 84 Am. Dec. 

V. Prince, 77 Tex. 560, 14 S. W. 171, 298. 
19 Am. St. 795. « Isbell v. Brlnkman, 70 Ind. 118. 

*= Indiana &c. R. Co. v. Adamson, '» Columbus &c. R. Co. v. Powell, 

114 Ind. 282, 15 N. B. 5; Reynolds v. 40 Ind. 37; Terre Haute &c. R. Co. 

Collins, 78 Ala. 94; Rockford &c. R. v. McMurray, 98 Ind. 358, 368. 
Co. V. "Wilcox, 66 111. 417; Proctor v. "Indiana &c. R. Co. v. Adamson, 

Tows, 115 111. 138, 3 N. B. 569. 114 Ind. 282, 290; Barnett v. Glut- 

" Isbell V. Brinkman, 70 Ind. 118; ing, 3 Ind. App. 415, 420; Foss- 

Columbus &c. R. Co. v. Powell, 40 Schneider Brewing Co.' v. McLaugh- 

Ind. 37; Indiana &c. R. Co. v. Ad- lin, 5 Ind. App. 415, 31 N. E. 838. 



77 DECLARATIONS OF AGENT. [§ 1636. 

stances, although no contract of agency in fact existed.*^ Proof that 
the principal permitted the supposed agent to perform similar acts 
and transactions with other persons is competent as tending to estab- 
lish the existence of an agency.*^ So, a commercial correspondence 
relative to the same matter, though with third persons, may be admis- 
sible to show the relations of the parties;^" and the relationship be- 
tween the parties, such as the fact that the principal was the wife of 
her supposed agent, may be considered in determining whether or not 
he had authority to represent her.^^ It has also been held that where 
evidence tending to prove the agency has been introduced by plain- 
tiff, the defendant's failure to deny such agency may be considered 
as a circumstance tending to prove that the agency existed.^^ But the 
mere fact that a person had charge of some live stock for an adminis- 
trator after the owner's death does not prove his authority as agent 
to bind the administrator by representations made to a purchaser as 
to the condition of such stock.°^ 

§ 1636. Declarations and admissions of agent. — Although, as al- 
ready seen, an agent is competent to testify in a proper case as to the 
fact of agency,^* yet the declarations of an alleged agent are not ad- 
missible to prove his agencyj^" nor, in the first instance, to prove the 
extent thereof. "^^ But when the fact of agency is once established, his 
declarations are often admissible against the principal, especially 
when part of the res gestae, under principles elsewhere stated. ^^ The 

" Foss-Schneider Brewing Co. v. "= Barnett v. Gluting, 3 Ind. App. 

McLaughlin, 5 Ind. App. 415, 418, 31 415, 421, 29 N. E. 154. 

N. E. 838; see also, Manhattan Life "Applegate v. Moffitt, 60 Ind. 104. 

Ins. Co. V. Carder, 82 Fed. 986; Call- "See ante, § 1630; see also Vol. I, 

fornia Ins. Co. v. Gracey, 15 Colo. § 252, n. 66. But, where he has de- 

70, 22 Am. St. 376; Blanke Tea &c. nled the agency as a witness, previ- 

Co. V. Trade Exhibit Co., (Neb.) 98 ous admissions may be competent to 

N. W. 714. impeach him: Shafer v. Laeock, 168 

"Kitchens v. Ricketts, 17 Ind. Pa. St. 497, 32 Atl. 44, 29 L. R. A. 

625; Moorehead v. Murray, 31 Ind. 254; Strawbridge v. Spann, 8 Ala. 

418; Cunningham v. Mitchell, 30 820. 

Ind. 362; Barnett v. Gluting, 3 Ind. '^''See Vol. 1, § 252. 

App. 415, 421; Kent v. Addicks, 126 »» French v. Wade, 35 Kans. 391, 

Fed. 112; Eisenberg v. Matthews, 84 11 Pae. 138, and note; Clark v. Fols- 

Minn. 76, 86 N. W. 870. croft, 67 Kans. 446, 73 Pac. 86, and 

™ Barnett v. Gluting, 3 Ind. App. authorities there cited; Bacon v. 

415, 421, 29 N. E. 154. Johnson, 56 Mich. 182, 22 N. W. 276. 

" Turner v. Yates, 16 How. (U. S.) See also. Vol. 1, § 252. 

14. "See Vol. 1, §§ 252, 564, 565. 



§ 1637.] AGENCY. 78 

subject is so fully considered in the place to which reference is made 
in the last note that further discussion is unnecessary. It may be well, 
however, in this connection, to refer to a recent case in which declara- 
tions of an agent were held inadmissible.^* In that case it was said, 
that the declarations, in order to bind the principal, must be made 
within the scope of his authority at the time of the transaction, and 
be a part of the res gestae; and that if made after the transaction is 
completed, they are in the nature of hearsay and are mere narratives 
of a past transaction. It was also held that written declarations of 
the agent of an acrimonious character, and not relating to the matter 
in controversy, were inadmissible. But an agent cannot object to his 
own declarations being shown against himself even though they were 
made by him as agent, and not in his own behalf .°° 

§ 1637. Admissions of principal. — The principal may, of course, 
in a proper ease testify to the existence or non-existence of the agency 
as a fact, just as the agent may. So, the acts and admissions of the 
principal properly tending to show the existence of the agency and 
the authority of the agent are admissible against himself.*" But it 
has been held that admissions of the principal generally as to the 
agency of a person are not proof of the agency at a particular time," 

There must, however, first be some 81; see also, the following recent 

evidence of agency. See, Coon v. cases for declaration or admissions 

Gurley, 49 Ind. 199; Mattis v. Hos- of agents held inadmissible: St. 

mer, 37 Ore. 523, 62 Pac. 17; Louis &c. R. Co. v. Carlisle (Tex. 

Cliquot's Champagne, 3 Wall. (U. Civ. App.), 78 S. W. 553; Axtell v. 

S.) 114; Southern Ex. Co. v. Todd, Northern Pac. R. Co. (Idaho), 74 

56 Fed. 104; Sehoenhofen Brewing Pac. 1075. 

Co. V. Wengler, 57 111. App. 184; ""Leyner v. Leyner (Iowa), 98 

Porter v. Robertson, 34 111. App. 74; N. W. 628, 629. 

Long V. North British Ins. Co., 137 ""Phleger v. Ivins; 5 Har. (Del.) 

Pa. St. 335, 20 Atl. 1041, 21 Am. St. 118; Haughton v. Maurer, 55 Mich. 

879; McCormick V. Roberts, 36 Kans. 323; Wild v. New York &c. Co., 59 

552, 13 Pac. 827. Unless the court, N. Y. 644; "Wallace v. Nodine,' 57 

in its discretion, admits the evi- Hun (N. Y.) 239, 32 N. Y. St. 657, 

dence out of its usual order on 10 N. Y. S. 919 ; Haughton v. Maurer! 

promise to connect or the like: 55 Mich. 323; Arthur v. Gard, 3 Colo. 

Woodbury v. Lerned, 5 Minn. 339. App. 133; Steel v. Solid' Silver 

Subsequent proof of agency may &c. Co., 13 Nev. 486; Mix v. Osby, 

cure the error. Rowell v. Klein, 44 62 111. 193; Norton v. Richmond, 93 

Ind. 290, 15 Am. R. 235; McCormick 111. 367. 

V. Roberts, 36 Kans. 552, 13 Pac. "Irwin v. Buckaloe, 12 S. & R. 

827. (Pa.) 35. 
""Hogan V. Kelly, (Mont.) 75 Pac. 



79 REPUTATION' — EATIFICATION. [§§ 1638, 1639. 

whereas the admissions of an agent, as already shown, are not, ordi- 
narily, at least, receivable against the principal until the existence 
of the agency has otherwise been shown. 

§ 1638. Agency not provable by general reputation. — The fact of 
agency and the authority of an alleged private agent to represent his 
•principal cannot be established by evidence of general reputation."^ 
Where the agency may be shown by parol, one having knowledge of 
the fact of agency may testify to the fact, in so far at least as it is a 
fact, but mere general reputation is not actual knowledge of the fact."* 
It has been said, however, by some authorities that general reputa- 
tion may be shown in connection with the facts."* 

§ 1639. Ratification. — The general rule upon the subject of rat- 
ification of the acts of an agent, or alleged agent, is laid down as fol- 
lows: "One may ratify the previous unauthorized doing by another 
in his behalf, of any act which he might then and still lawfully do 
himself, and which he might then and could still lawfully delegate to 
•such other to be done.""° Where the agency is to be proved by the 
subsequent ratification and adoption of the act by the principal, there 
must usually be evidence of previous knowledge on the part of the 
principal of all the material facts."" When the principal is once fully 

"Saussy v. South Florida R. Co., "Owiags v. Hull, 9 Pet. (U. S.) 
22 Fla. 327; -Graves v. Horton, 38 607; Bell v. Cunningham, 3 Pet. 
Minn. 66, 35 N. W. 568; Blev- (U. S.) 81; Courteen v. Touse, 1 
ins V. Pope, 7 Ala. 371; Perkins Campb. 43, n.; see also, Wilson 
V. Stebhins, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 523; v. Tummon, 6 Scott N. R. 894; Nix- 
Clark V. Farmers' Woolen Mfg. Co., on v. Palmer, 4 Seld. (N. Y.) 398; 
15 Wend. (N. Y.) 256. Cram v. Sickel, 51 Neb. 828; Golin- 

"^ Central &c. Co. v. Smith, 76 sky v. Allison, 114 Cal. 458; Halsey 

Ala. 572, 52 Am. R. 353. v. Monteiro, 92 Va. 581; Moyle v. 

"Abbott Tr. Ev. 41; Litchfield Congregational Soc, 16 Utah, 69; 

Iron Co. V. Bennett, 7 Cowp. (N. Y.) Sherrill v. Weisiger &c. Co., 114 

234. N. Car. 436; Davis v. Talbot, 137 

•"Mechem Agency, § 112; O'Con- Ind. 235, 36 N. B. 1098; Haynes v. 

ner v. Arnold, 53 Ind. 205; Zottman Railroad Co., 7 Wash. 211, 34 Pac. 

v. San Francisco, 20 Cal. 96, 81 Am. 922; Egglestone v. Mason, 84 Iowa, 

Dec. 96. See also, generally, on the 630, 51 N. W. 1; but not necessarily 

subject of this section, "Ratification of the law: Kelly v. Railroad Co., 

in the Law of Agency," 57 Cent. 141 Mass. 496; the burden of proof 

Law Jour. 463; notes in 5 Am. St. is on the party alleging knowledge 

109-114; and 5 Am. St. 618-621; and and ratification: Moore v. Bnsley, 

in 79 Am. Dec. 387-389. 112 Ala. 228, 20 So. 744; Cravens v. 



§ 1639.] 



AGENCY. 



80 



informed of what has been done in his behalf, at least where the re- 
lationship of principal and agent existed before the act, he is bound, 
if dissatisfied, to express his dissatisfaction within a reasonable time, 
and if he does not, his assent will be presumed.®^ But where the 
act of the agent was by deed, the ratification also must, according to 
the common .law, be by deed.^^ Or, to state the rule in general terms, 
whenever the adoption of any particular form or mode is necessary 
to confer the authority in the first instance, the same mode must be 
pursued in the ratification.*' The acts and conduct of the principal, 
evincing an assent to the act of the agent, are generally interpreted 
liberally in favor of the latter, and slight circumstances may suffice 
to raise the presumption of a ratification, which becomes stronger in 
proportioii as the conduct of the principal is inconsistent with any 
other supposition.'" Thus, where goods are sold without authority, if 
the owner receives the price, or pursues his remedy for it by action at 
law against the purchaser, or if any other act be done in behalf of 
one, who afterwards claims the benefit of it, this will usually con- 
stitute a ratification.''^ Payment of a loss, upon a policy subscribed 



Gillilan, 63 Mo. 28; Schellhamer v. 
Rometsch, 26 Ore. 394, 38 Pac. 344; 
Nebraska Wesleyan U. v. Parker, 52 
Neb. 453, 72 N. W. 470. 

" Calrnes v. Bleecker, 12 Johns. 
(N. Y.) 300; Kent v. Quicksilver 
Min. Co., 78 N. Y. 159; Bredig v. 
Dubarry, 14 S. & R. (Pa.) 27; 
Amory v. Hamilton, 17 Mass. 103; 
"Ward V. Evans, 2 Salk. 442; Farm- 
ers' &c. Bank v. Farmers' Bank, 49 
Neb. 379; Litchneld v. Brown, 36 U. 
S. App. 130; Jones v. Atkinson, 68 
Ala. 167; Alexander v. Jones, 64 
Iowa, 207. If lie assents while igno- 
rant of the facts, he may generally 
disaffirm when informed of them: 
Copeland v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 6 
Pick. (Mass.) 198; Davis Lumber 
Co. V. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 95 
Wis. 226, 70 N. W. 84. 

''Blood V. Goodrich, 9 Wend. (N. 
Y.) 68, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 525; Story 
Agency, § 252; Attorney-General v. 
Murphy, 1896, 1 Ir. 65; but see, 
Bless V. Jenkins, 129 Mo. 647; 



Mclntyre v. Park, 11 Gray (Mass.) 
102; Holbrook v. Chamberlin, 116 
Mass. 155. The modern. tendency is 
to do away with the requirement of 
a seal. 

™ Despatch Line, &c. v. Bellamy 
Man. Co., 12 N. H. 205; Spofford v. 
Hobbs, 29 Me. 148; Boyd v. Dodson, 
5 Humph. (Tenn.) 37; Kozel v. 
Dearlove, 144 111. 23, 2 N. B. 542; 
Hammond v. Hammin, 21 Mich. 
374; otherwise it may be parol; 
Goss V. Stevens, 32 Minn. 472; .Tay- 
lor V. Connor, 41 Miss. 722. 

"Story Agency, § 253; Ward v. 
Evans, 2 Salk. 442. 

"Peters v. Ballistier, 3 Pick. 
(Mass.) 495; Henry v. Heeb, 114 
Ind. 275, 16 N. E. 606; Sims v. 
Smith, 99 Ind. 469; but If the 
action is discontinued or with- 
drawn, on discovering that the rem- 
edy is misconceived, it may not be 
ratification, and acceptance of ben- 
efits of an act within the authority 
of the agent will not ordinarily be 



81 EATIFICATION. [§ 1639. 

by an agent, is evidence that he had authority to sign it.^" Proof that 
one was in the habit of signing similar policies in the name and as 
the agent of another, and with his knowledge, is also evidence of his 
authority to sign the particular -policy in question;'^ and if the 
principal has been in the habit of paying the losses upon policies so 
signed in his name, this has been held sufficient proof of the agency, 
though the authority was not conferred by an instrument in writing/* 
And an authority to sign a policy has been held sufficient evidence of 
authority to adjust the loss.'^ Where the principal, in an action 
against him on a policy signed by the agent, used the affidavit of the 
agent to support a motion to put ofE the trial, in which the agent 
stated that he subscribed the policy for and on account of the defend- 
ant, this was held a ratification of the signature.^* So, where a city 
had paid for work on its streets, done under the direction of the city 
marshal, this was held sufficient to show that the work was author- 
ized by the city, and it was held liable for injury to a traveler be- 
cause of the negligent manner in which the work was done.'^ Long 
acquiescence of the principal, after knowledge of the act done for 
him by another, will also, in many cases, be sufficient evidence of a 
ratification. If no agency actually existed, the silence or mere acqui- 
escence of the principal may well be taken as proof of a ratification, 
although it is not every case in which silence alone will be sufficient. 
If the silence of the principal is either contrary to his duty, or has a 
tendency to mislead the other side, it is generally conclusive. Such, 
it is said, is the case among merchants, when notice of the act done is 
given by a letter which is not answered in a reasonable time. Whether 

construed as a ratification of acts "Neal v. Erving, 1 Esp. 61; see 

outside the scope of the agent: also, Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. 

Robinson, &o. Co. v. Nipp, 20 Ind. Bradford, 201 Pa. St. 32, 50 Atl. 

App. 156, 50 N. E. 408; see also, 286, 55 L. R. A. 408. 

Lent v. Padelord, 10 Mass. 230p; hut "Haughton v. Ewbank, 4 Camph. 

see Episcopal Ch. Soc. v. Episcopal 88; see also, as to hills of exchange: 

Ch. in Dedham, 1 Pick. (Mass.) Hoe v. Oxley, 1 Wash. 19, 23; hut 

372; Kupfer v. Augusta, 12 Mass. compare. Farmer's Mut. Ins. Co. v. 

185; Odiorne v. Maxcy, 13 Mass. Taylor, 73 Pa. St. 342. 

178; Herring V. PoUey, 8 Mass. 113; "Richardson v. Anderson, 1 

Pratt V. Putnam, 13 Mass. 361; Camph. 43, n.; see also, 2 Kent. 

Fisher v. Willard, 13 Mass. 379; Comm. 614, 615. 

Copeland v. Merchant's Ins. Co., 6 "Johnson v. Ward, 6 Esp. 47. 

Pick. (Mass.) 198. "Goshen v. Alford, 154 Ind. 58, 55 

" Courteen v. Touse, 1 Camph. 43, N. E. 27. 
n, 2 Stark. Cas. 368. 

Vol, 3 Elliott Ev.— 6 



§ 1640.] AGENCY. 83 

a mere voluntary intermeddler, without authority, is entitled to the 
benefit of the principal's silence, is not clearly agreed, but the better 
opinion, it is said, is, that "where the act was done in good faith for 
the apparent benefit of the principal, who has full notice of the act, 
and has done nothing to repudiate it, the agent is entitled to the 
benefit of his silence as a presumptive ratification.'"* 

§ 1640. Parol evidence. — The subject of the admissibility of parol 
evidence to show the agency and extent thereof, has already been con- 
sidered in this chapter, and other phrases of the general subject have 
been considered in another volume.'® It may be well, however, to refer 
to a few recent authorities. In a late text book it is said that while 
extrinsic evidence is generally inadmissible to vary or contradict the 
contents of a written instrument, yet "such evidence is always ad- 
missible to charge with liability an undisclosed principal, or one who, 
though disclosed, is not named in the instrument."*" And in a recent 
case it is held that an action on a contract, apparently signed by one 
person as principal and another as witness, parol evidence is admissi- 
ble to show that the former had no real interest but merely signed for 
the accommodation of the latter, who did not want to appear as a 
party, and that the latter was the real party in interest.*^ So, in an- 
other recent ease, it is held that although a note executed by the di- 
rectors of a corporation imports a personal liability, it may be shown 
by parol, on an issue of reformation, that the intention of all parties 
was to execute an instrument binding the corporation alone.*^ 

" 2 Greenleaf Ev., § 67, citing, Sto- " See Vol. 1, § 616. 

ry Agency, §« 255-258; Amory v. "Rheinard Agency, § 223; see 

Hamilton, 17 Mass. 103; Kingman v. also. Ford v. Williams, 21 How. 

Pierce, 17 Mass. 247; Frothingham (U.S.) 289; Exchange Bank v. Hub- 

V. Haley, 3 Mass. 70; Erick v. John- bard, 62 Fed. 112, 10 C. C. A. 295; 

son, 6 Mass. 193 ; see also. Union &c. Byington v. Simpson, 134 Mass. 169, 

Co. V. Rocky Mt. Bank, 2 Colo. 248, 45 Am. R. 314; Briggs v. Partridge, 

259. There is a stronger presump- 64 N. Y. 357, 21 Am. R. 617; Hig- 

tion of knowledge where an agent gins v. Senior, 8 M. & W. 834. 

has merely exceeded his authority "Curran v. Holland, 141 Cal. 437, 

than there is where the act was per- 75 Pac. 46. This certainly could not 

formed by one who was not an be the rule, however, in all cases, at 

agent before the act: Hyatt v. least when persons in good faith 

Clark, 118 N. Y. 563, 23 N. E. 891. were misled to their prejudice with- 

An affirmative ratification is held out fault on their part, 

necessary in such a case in: Ward ''Western &c. Scraper Co. v. Mc- 

V. Williams, 26 111. 447, 79 Am. Dec. Millen (Neb.), 99 N. W. 512; see 

384. also, Vol. 1. § 616; Keldan v. 



83 



REVOCATION. 



[§ 1641. 



§ 1641. Revocation and termination of agency. — The proof of 
agency to charge the principal may be rebutted by showing that his 
authority was revoked and due notice thereof given or had, prior to 
the act in question.*' But if he was constituted by writing, and the 
written authority was left in his hand subsequent to the revocation, 
and he afterwards exhibits it to a third person, who deals with him 
on the faith of it without notice of the revocation, or the knowledge 
of any circumstances sufficient to have put him on his guard, the act 
of the agent, withia the scope of the written authority, will bind the 
principal.** And, generally, where notice is not given to third persons 
and the circumstances are such that they have a right to rely on the 
continuance of the agency until notified, the acts of the agent within 
the scope of his apparently continuing authority will usually bind 
the principal.'^ Where the agency is not coupled with an interest, 
and there is nothing else to prevent a revocation, it may be express 
or implied, and may be by parol even where the authority was in 
writing.*" 



Winegar, 95 Mich. 430, 54 N. "W. 
501, 20 L. R. A. 705, and hote; West- 
ern &c. Scraper Co. v. Stlckleman, 
122 Iowa 396, 98 N. W. 139; 4 
Thompson Corp., § 5141. 

''Gunter v. Stuart, 87 Ala. 196; 
Clark V. MuUenix, 11 Ind. 532; 
Johnson v. Youngs, 82 Wis. 107, 51 
N. W. 1095. Notice may be given by 
the agent, and may also be Implied: 
Vail V. Judson, 4 B. D. Smith (N. 
Y.) 165; Williams v. Birbeck, Hofl. 
Ch. (N. Y.) 359. 

"Beard v. Kirk, 11 N. H. 397; but 
see, where notice was given: Clark 
v. MuUenix, 11 Ind. 582. 

" Insurance Co. v. McCain, 96 U. 
S. 84; Johnson v. Christian, 128 U. 
S. 374, 9 Sup. Ct. 87; McNeilly v. 
Continental Life Ins. Co., 66 N. Y. 
23; Quinn v. Dresbach, 75 Cal. 159, 
7 Am. St. 138; Foellinger v. Leh, 
110 Ind. 238, 11 N. E. 289; Fellows 
V. Hartford &c. Co., 38 Conn. 197; 
Anonymous v. Harrison, 12 Mod. 
346. So, if, under such circum- 



stances, one properly makes a pay- 
ment to the agent, the principal can 
not hold the person making it liable 
therefor: Ulrich v. McCormick, 66 
Ind. 243; Packer v. Hinckley Loco- 
motive Works, 122 Mass. 484; Meyer 
V. Hehmer, 96 111. 400. 

"Brookshire v. Brookshire, S 
Ired. L. (N. Car.) 74, 47 Am. Dec. 
341; Rochester v. Whitehouse, 15 N.. 
H. 468; C&peland v. Mercantile Ins.. 
Co., 6 Pick. (Mass.) 198. As to re- 
vocation or termination by death, 
disposition of the property or sub- 
ject matter, and the like, see Mc- 
Claskey v. Barr, 50 Fed. 712; Lin- 
coln V. Emerson, 108 Mass. 87; 
Johnson v. Wilcox, 25 Ind. 182; 
Gait v. Galloway, 4 Pet. (IT. S.) 
332, 344; Companari v. Woodburn, 
15 C. B. 400, 80 E. C. L. 400; Simon- 
ton v. Minneapolis &c. Bank, 24 
Minn. 216; Walker v. Denison, 86 
111. 142; Comley v. Dazian, 114 N. Y. 
161, 21 N. E. 135. 



CHAPTBE LXXXI. 



ALIENATING AFFECTIONS. 



Sec. 

1642. Generally. 

1643. Burden of proof. 

1644. Question of law or fact. 

1645. Presumptions. 

1646. The intent. 

1647. Admissions. 

1648. Declarations and letters. 

1649. Res gestae. 



Sec. 

1650. Partial alienation. 

1651. Adultery. 

1651a. Alienation and criminal con- 
versation. 
16511). Consent as a bar. 

1652. Damages. 

1653. Measure of damages. 



§ 1642. Generally. — The right of a husband to recover damages 
from a third party for alienating the affections of his wife has long 
existed at common law ; and as early as 1747 we find a decision which 
clearly recognizes this right.^ But there are no cases in the long line 
of English decisions at common law where the wife has been able to 
maintain an action against one alienating the affections of her hus- 
band. This is explained by the fact that the wife was under certain 
disabilities as a result of coverture under the common law. It would 
have been necessary under the common law for the hlisband to have 
joined in the action, and all damages, if collected during the lifetime 
of the husband, would have been the property of the husband. The 
wrongdoer would thus' have reaped a profit from his wrongdoing.^ 



^Winsmore v. Greenbank, Willes 
577; Berthon v. Cartwright, 2 Bsp. 
480; cited in Hodge v. Wetzler (N. 
J.), 55 Atl. 49; Barbee v. Armstead, 
10 Ired. L. (N. Car.) 530,51 Am. Dec. 
404; Tasker v. Stanley, 153 Mass. 
148; Glass v. Bennett, 89 Tenn. 478; 
Hermance v. James, 47 Barb., (N. 
Y.) 120, 32 How. Pr. 142; Adams v. 
Main, 3 Ind. App. 232; Bigaouette 
V. Paulet, 134 Mass. 123, 45 Am. R. 
307; Holtz v. Dick, 42 Ohio St. 23, 
51 Am. R. 791; Hadley v. Heywood, 



121 Mass. 236; Rinehart v. Bills, 82 
Mo. 534, 52 Am. R. 385; Higham v. 
Vanosdol, 101 Ind. 160; Bennett v. 
Smith, 21 Barb. (N. Y.) 439; Ram- 
sey y. Ryerson, 24 Abb. N. Gas. (N. 
Y.) 114; Preston v. Bowers, 13 Ohio 
St. 1, 82 Am. Dec. 430; Edgell v. 
Francis, 66 Mich. 303; Gilchrist v. 
Bale, 8 Watts (Pa.) 354, 34 Am. 
Dec. 469. 

= Hodge V. Wetzler, (N. J.) 55 Atl. 
49; Bassett v. Bassett, 20 111, App. 
544. 



84 



85 



GENERALLY. 



[§ 1642. 



'Although no woman has ever recovered in an action of this kind at 
common law, and it is not until 1861 that we find any allusion to 
the existence of such a right of action in favor of the wife, in the 
decisions and treatises upon the common law,^ yet there are many 
American decisions holding that independent of any enabling statute, 
still a substantive right exists and that such an action could be main- 
tained according to the rules of common law.* The rule, sustained 
by the weight of authority, however, is that by reason of the disability 
of coverture the right of action remains in abeyance and cannot be 
presented by the feme covert in her own name, where the common 
law prevails. But where the law of coverture has been removed by 



'Lynch v. Knight, 9 H. L. Cases 
577; as reviewed in Hodge v. Wetz- 
ler, 55 Atl. 49; 3 Blackstone Comm. 
143; Bennett v. Bennett, 116 N. Y. 
584, 23 N. E. 17, 6 L. R. A. 553. 

••The right is denied in the fol- 
lowing cases: Lonstorf v. Lonstorf 
(Wis.), 95 N. W. 961; Duffies v. 
Duffies, 76 Wis. 374, 45 N. W. S. 22, 
8 L. R. A. 420, 20 Am. St. 79; Doe 
V. Roe, 82 Me. 503, 20 Atl. 83, 8 L. R. 
A. 833, 17 Am. St. 499; Logan v. 
Logan, 77 Ind. 559; Mulford v. Cle- 
well, 21 Ohio St. 191; Van Arnam v. 
Ayers, 67 Barb. (N. Y.) 544; Mor- 
gan V. Martin, 92 Me. 190, 42 Atl. 
345; Crocker v. Crocker /(U. S.), 98 
Fed. 702; Mehrhofe v. Mehrhoff (U. 
S.), 26 Fed. 13; Clow v. Chapman, 
125 Mo. 101, 28 S. W. 328, 26 L. R. A. 
412, 46 Am. St. 468. Among the de- 
cisions holding that the right ex- 
isted are the following: Foot v. 
Card, 58 Conn. 1, 18 Atl. 1027, 6 L. 
R. A. 829, 18 Am. St 258, it is stat- 
ed: "Whatever inequalities of right 
as to property may result from the 
marriage contract, husband and 
wife are equal in law in one respect, 
namely, each owes to the other the 
fullest possible measure of conjugal 
affection and society — the husband 
to the wife all that the wife owes 
to him. Upon principle, this right 



in the wife is equally valuable to 
her as property as is that of the 
husband to him. Her rght being the 
same in kind, degree and value, 
there would seem to be no valid rea- 
son why the law should deny to her 
the redress which it affords to him." 
Warren v. Warren, 89 Mich. 123, 50 
N. W. 842, 14 L. R. A. 545; Price v. 
Price, 91 Iowa 693, 60 N. W. 202, 
29 L. R. A. 150, 51 Am. St. 360; 
Lockwood v. Lockwood 67 Minn. 
476, 70 N. W. 784; Gernerd v. Ger- 
nerd, 185 Pa. St. 233, 39 Atl. 884, 40 
L. R. A. 549, 64 Am. St. 646; Wolf 
V. Frank, 92 Md. 138, 48 Atl. 132, 
52 L. R. A. 102; Holmes v. Holmes, 
133 Ind. 386, 32 N. B. 932; Bennett 
V. Bennett, 116 N. Y. 584, 23 N. B. 
17, 6 L. R. A. 553; Westlake v. West- 
lake, 34 Ohio St. 621, 32 Am. R. 
397; Clow v. Chapman, 125 Mo. 101, 
28 S. W. 328, 26 L. R. A. 412, 46 Am. 
St. 468; Betser v. Betser, 186 111. 
537, 58 N. E. 249; Humphrey v. 
Pope, 122 Cal. 253, 54 Pac. 847; 
Waldron v. Waldron, (U. S.) 45 Fed. 
315; Haynes v. Nowlin, 129 Ind. 
584, 29 N. E. 389, 14 L. R. A. 787, 28 
Am. St. 213; Postlewaite v. Postle- 
waite, 1 Ind. App. 473, 28 N. E. 99; 
Smith V. Smith, 98 Tenn. 101, 38 S. 
W. 439, 60 Am. St. 838; Bassett v. 
Bassett, 20 111. App. 543. 



§ 1642.] 



ALIENATING AFFECTIONS. 



86 



enabling statutes, giving to the wife the right to sue as a feme sole, 
she may maintain an action for alienating the afEections of her hus- 
band in her own name and need not join him as a party plaintiff.^ 
There can be no doubt that a wife may sustain a loss by the alienation 
of her husband's affections, equal to the loss of the husband in the 
alienation of his ^vife, and the statutes enabling the wife "to sue in 
her own name for any injury to her person or character the same as 
if she were sole," gives her the same right as the husband. But where 
these enabling statutes, do not exist, the rule of no recovery seems to 
prevail." The right of action for alienating affections is based upon 
the loss of consortium, or in other words, the loss which the husband 
or wife sustains by reason of being deprived of the society, affection, 
assistance and comfort of the consort, less, perhaps, in an action where 
the husband seeks to recover, the value of the performance of the 
husband's duty to support, clothe, cherish and care for the wife. To 
this may be added the injury due to mortification, wounded feelings, 
and mental anguish, occasioned by the loss of the society of the other. ^ 



''Westlake v. Westlake, 34 Ohio 
St. 621, 32 Am. R. 397; Williams v. 
Williams, 20 Colo. 51, 37 Pac. 614; 
Beacli V. Brown, 20 Wash. 226, 55 
Pac. 46, 72 Am. St. 98; Hodge v. 
Wetzler, (N. J.) 55 Atl. 49; Mehr- 
hoffi V. Mehrhoffi (U. S.), 26 Fed. 13; 
Railshack v. Railsback, 12 Ind. App. 
659; Holmes v. Holmes, 133 Ind. 
386; Reed v. Reed, 6 Ind. App. 317, 
33 N. E. 638, 51 Am. St. 310; Logan' 
V. Logan, 77 Ind. 558; Haynes v. 
Nowlin, 129 Ind. 581, 29 N. B. 389, 
28 Am. St. 213; Wolf v. Wolf, 130 
Ind. 599, 30 N. E. 308; Clow v. Chap- 
man, 125 Mo. 101, 28 S. W. 328, 46 
Am. St. 468; Nichols v. Nichols, 134 
Mo. 187, 35 S. W. 577; Jaynes v. 
Jaynes, 39 Hun (N. Y.) 40; Baker 
v. Baker, 16 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 
293. 

"Lonstrof v. Lonstrof, (Wis.) 95 
N. W. 961; Warren v. Warren, 89 
Mich. 123, 50 N. W. 842, 14 L. R. A. 
545; Price v. Price, 91 Iowa 693, 60 
N. W. 202, 29 L. R. A. 150, 51 Am. 
St. 360; Lockwood v. Lockwood, 67 



Minn. 476, 70 N. W. 784; Foot v. 
Card, 58 Conn. 1, 19 Atl. 1027, 6 L. 
R. A. 829, 18 Am. St. 258; Gernerd 
V. Gernerd, 185 Pa. St. 233, 39 Atl. 
884, 40 L. R. A. 549, 64 Am. St. 646; 
Wolf V. Frank, 92 Md. 138, 48 Atl. 
132, 52 L. R. A. 102; Holmes v. 
Holmes, 133 Ind. 386, 32 N. B. 932; 
Bennett v. Bennett, 116 N. Y. 584, 
23 N. B. 17, 6 L. R. A. 553; Clow v. 
Chapman, 125 Mo. 101, 28 S. W. 328, 
26 L. R. A. 412, 46 Am. St. 468; 
Betser v. Betser, 186 111. 537, 58 N. 
B. 249; Humphrey v. Pope, 122 Cal. 
253, 54 Pac. 847. 

'Prettyman v. Williamson, 1 Pen. 
(Del.) 224, 39 Atl. 731; Sutherland 
Damages, § 1285; Betser v. Betser, 
186 III. 537, 58 N. E. 249, 78 Am. St. 
303; Jonas v. Hlrshburg, 18 Ind. 
App. 581; Adams v. Main, 3 Ind. 
App. 232, 29 N. E. 792, 50 Am. St. 
266; Perry v. Lovejoy, 49 Mich. 529, 
14 N. W. 485; Lockwood v. Lock- 
wood, 67 Minn. 476, 70 N. W. 784; 
Rinehart v. Bills, 82 Mo. 534, 52 Am. 
R. 385; Bennett v. Bennett, 116 N. 



87 BURDEN OF PROOF. [§ 1643. 

§ 1643. Burden of proof. — To entitle the plaintifE to recover, in 
an action for alienating affections, the burden of proof is upon the 
plaintiff, and the plaintiff must show that there was a direct inter- 
ference upon the part of the defendant, that not only was there in- 
fatuation of the husband or wife for the defendant, but that the de- 
fendant, by wrongful act was the cause of it.' The plaintiff must 
show a wrongful attempt on the part of the defendant to alienate 
the affections of plaintiff's husband or wife. The burden is also upon 
the plaintiff to show that the attempts were successful and without 
the consent of the plaintiff.' The plaintiff, indeed, must usually go 
still farther in order to recover, and must prove that the defendant 
acted from improper motives and thus caused the husband (or wife) 
to leave the other. ^" It is not necessary, however, for the plaintiff 
to show that the acts of the defendant were the sole and only cause 
which induced the husband (or wife) to leave or lose affection for 
the other, but it is sufficient to show that the wrongful acts of the de- 
fendant were the principal or controlling factors which induced the 
separation.^"* In actions against parents of either the husband or 
wife of the plaintiff, a much stronger rule prevails concerning the 
burden of proof, and plaintiff must not only show improper motives of 
the parent, but that the alienation was, in a sense, maliciously brought 
about.^^ Where the action is against a stranger, the plaintiff need 

Y. 584, 23 N. E. 17, 6 L. R. A. 553; 777; Reading v. Gazzam, 200 Pa. St. 

Van Olinda v. Hall, 68 N. Y. St. 711, 70, 49 Atl. 889; Ash v. Prunier, 105 

34 N. Y. S. 777; Bennett v. Smith, Fed. 722; Warner v. Miller, 17 Ahb. 

21 Barb. (N. Y.) 439; Barnes v. Al- N. Cas. (N. Y.) 221; Churchill v. 

len, 1 Keyes (N. Y.) 390; Heer- Lewis, 17 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 226; 

mance v. James, 47 Barb. (N. Y.) Witman v. Egbert, 27 App. Div. 374, 

120; Hutcheson v. Peck, 5 Johns. 50 N. Y. S. 3; Childs v. Muckler, 105 

(N. Y.) 207; Schuneman v. Palmer, Iowa 279, 75 N. W. 100. 

4 Barb. (N. Y.) 227; Reading v. '"McKenna v. Algeo, (N. J.) 51 

Gazzam, 200 Pa. St. 70, 49 Atl. 889; Atl. 936; Tucker v. Tucker, 74 Miss. 

Rudd V. Rounds, (Vt.) 25 Atl. 438; 93, 19 So. 955, 32 L. R. A. 623; 

Fratini v. Caslini, 66 Vt. 273, 29 Atl. Schuneman v. Palmer, 4 Barb. (N. 

252, 44 Am. St. 843. Y.) 225. 

= Waldron v. Waldron, (U. S.) 45 "* Rath v. Rath, (Neb.) 89 N. W. 

Fed. 315; Bailey v. Bailey, 94 Iowa 612; Prettyman v. Williamson, 1 

598, 63 N. W. 341; Van Olinda v. Pen. (Del.) 224, 39 Atl. 731; Rice v. 

Hall, 88 Hun (N. Y.) 452; Witman Rice, 104 Mich. 371, 62 N. W. 883; 

V. Egbert, 27 N. Y. App. Div. 374. Waldron v. Waldron, (TJ. S.) 45 Fed. 

•Prettyman v. Williamson, 1 Pen. 315; Bathke v. Krassin, 78 Minn. 

(Del.) 224, 39 Atl. 731; Van Olinda 272, 80 N. W. 950. 

V. Hall, 68 N. Y. St. 711, 34 N. Y. "Reed v. Reed, 6 Ind. App. 317, 

33 N. E. 638 ; Westlake v. Westlake, 



§ 1644.] 



ALIEKATIXG AFFECTIONS. 



88 



only show that it was wrongfully brought about. The right of the 
parents to advise their children is carefully guarded and the parent 
is presumed to act from honest motive until the contrary is proved. 
The quo animo is an important consideration when the action is 
against a parent and must always be proved.^^ Where the defendant 
is a stranger and intended to cause a separation, the burden of proof, 
in one sense, is upon the defendant to give a proper explanation for 
inducing the wife (or husband) to leave. If the advice was given 
honestly and for the best welfare of the parties, the defendant must 
show this fact.^^ 

§ 1644. Question of law or fact. — In order to recover in an action 
for alienating affections it is necessary to show the intent of the de- 
fendant or his motive in causing the separation and it is therefore a 
question of fact and for the jury to determine whether the defendant 
acted from improper motives. Any explanation upon the part of the 
defendant can only be weighed by the jury, and they are the sole 
judges of whether the defendant acted from honest motives.'^* Where 



34 Ohio St. 621, 32 Am. R. 397; 
Hutcheson v. Peck, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) 
196; Bennett v. Smith, 21 Barb. (N. 
Y.) 439; Burnett v. Burkhead, 21 
Ark. 77; Tasker v. Tasker, 153 
Mass. 148, 26 N. B. 417, 10 L. R- A. 
468; Tucker v. Tucker, 74 Miss. 93, 
19 So. 955, 32 L. R. A. 623; Rice v. 
Rice, 104 Mich. 371, 62 N. W. 833; 
White V. Ross, 47 Mich. 172, 10 N. 
W. 188; Smith v. Lyke, 13 Hun (N. 
Y.) 204, 20 N. Y. S. 204; Payne v. 
Williams, 4 Bax. (Tenn.) 583; Love 
V. Love, 73 S. W. 225, 98 Mo. App. 
562; Brown v. Brown, 124 N. Car. 
19, 32 S. E. 320, says: "The malice 
necessary to be proved is not alone 
such malice as must proceed from 
a malignant and revengeful dispo- 
sition, but that it would be suffi- 
cient to prove to the satisfaction of 
the young, that the parent's action 
was taken without proper investiga- 
tion of the facts, or where the ad- 
vice was given from recklessness or 
dishonesty of purpose; the law pre- 



suming malice from such conduct in 
actions of this nature." 

"Bagon v. Bagon, 60 Kans. 697, 
57 Pac. 942; Reed v. Reed, 6 Ind. 
App. 317, 33 N. E. 638; Rice v. Rice, 
104 Mich. 371, 62 N. W. 833; Oak- 
man V. Belden, 94 Me. 280, 47 Atl. 
553, 80 Am. St. 396; Tasker v. 
Tasker,. 153 Mass. 148, 10 L. R. A. 
468; White v. Ross, 47 Mich. 172, 10 
N. W. 188; Tucker v. Tucker, 74 
Miss. 93, 19 So. 955, 32 L. R. A. 623; 
Modisett v. McPike, 74 Mo. 636;; 
Gernerd v. Gernerd, 185 Pa. St. 
2333, 39 Atl. 884, 40 L. R. A. 549, 
64 Am. St. 646. 

"Johnson v. Allen, 100 N. Car. 
131, 5 S. B. 666; Tasker v. Stanley, 
153 Mass. 148, 26 N. E. 417, 10 L. R. 
A. 468; Higham v. Vanosdol, 101 
Ind. 100. 

"Williams v. Williams, 20 Colo. 
51, 37 Pac. 614; Higham v. Vanos- 
dol, 101 Ind. 160; Westlake v. West- 
lake, 34 Ohio St. 621, 32 Am. R. 
397; Modisett v. McPike, 74 Mo. 



89 . PRESUMPTIONS. [§ 1645. 

the conduct of the defendant is unjustifiable and actually causes the 
alienation and is so determined by the jury, malice in law may be im- 
plied from such conduct, and the court should so instruct." 

§ 1645. Presumptions. — Direct formal proof need not be produced 
to prove that the parties are married, but if a man and woman co- 
habit and live together as man and wife, the presumption, in an action 
for alienating afEections, is that they are married.^^ Where the hus- 
band and wife are not living together and the defendant denies that 
there is a separation, for the purpose of this action, the law will gen- 
erally presume that the domicile of the husband is the domicile of 
the wife and that the husband and wife are living and cohabiting to- 
gether.^^ A different rule is enforced concerning the presumption of 
the motive, or quo animo, when the action is against a parent, from 
that which obtains when it is against a stranger.^^ The motive of the 
parent is presumed to be good until the contrary is proved, but where 
the alienation is caused by a stranger, the defendant must generally 
show that his conduct was actuated by proper motives. The reason 
for this is that the law recognizes the right of the parent to advise the 
son or daughter, even if married; and the presumption is that the 
parent will protect his child from trouble and distress. The law 
will not assume that the parent would do anything to destroy the 
happiness of the child, but that the parent will always counsel and 
advise for the child's best interests. ^° A stranger causing an aliena- 
tion would not naturally be impelled by such motives. The law also 
presumes that the husband and wife have affection for each other, 
and if the defendant desires to question that fact, either by way of a 
justification or to mitigate damages, he must prove the contrary.^" 

636; Hartpence v. Rogers, 143 Mo. Ind. 160; Johnson v. Allen, 100 N. 

623, 43 S. W. 650; Wilson v. Coulter, Car. 131, 5 S. B. 666; Huling v. Hul- 

29 App. Dfv. 85, 51 N. Y. S. 804. Ing, 32 111. App. 522; Rice v. Rice, 

'° Westlake v. Westlake, 34 Ohio 104 Mich. 371, 62 N. W. 833 ; Tucker 

St. 621, 32 Am. R. 397. v. Tucker, 74 Miss. 93, 19 So. 955; 

"Perry v. Lovejoy, 49 Mich. 529, Pollock v. Pollock, 9 Misc. (N. Y.) 

14 N. W. 485; Abbott Tr. Bv. (1st 82; Rath v. Rath, (Neb.) 89 N. W. 

ed.) 681; ante. Vol. 1, § 123. 612. 

"Jonas v. Hirshburg, 18 Ind. "Bennett v. Bennett, 21 Ark. 77; 

581, 48 N. B. 656. Reed v. Reed, 6 Ind. App. 317, 33 

"Tasker v. Stanley, 153 Mass. N. B. 638; and authorities cited in 

148, 26 N. E. 417, 10 L. R. A. 468; preceding note. 

Reed v. Reed, 6 Ind. App. 317, 33 N. "" Beach v. Brown, 20 Wash. 266, 

E. 638; Higham v. Vanosdol, 101 55 Pac. 46, 43 L. R. A. 114, 72 Am. 



§ 1646.] ALIENATING AFFECTIONS. . 90 

§ 1646. The intent. — The intent or motive is the material point 
of inquiry in an action for alienating afEeetions and should always 
be shown ; or, where the intent cannot be directly proved, such a state 
of facts or actions upon the part of the defendant should be shown 
that the intent may be reasonably implied. If the conduct of either 
the husband or wife has been such as to justify the other party ia 
leaving, this will be a complete defense to one who aids or receives 
the wife, if it can be shown that the assistances^ was rendered, not for 
an evil purpose, or in bad faith to the plaintiff, but from motives of 
justice and humanity. Giving advice to a husband or wife, which in- 
duces either to leave the other, is not actionable if given honestly 
with a view of the welfare of both parties, by one who has no special 
influence or authority.^^ Again there is a distinction as between a 
parent and stranger. To recover against a parent there should be 
much stronger evidence of improper motives than where the action 
is against a stranger.^^ There can, ordinarily, be no recovery against 
the parents for harboring a child against the will of the child's hus- 
band, unless there is clear proof that the defendant acted with malice. 
Mere acts of humanity by the parents toward their daughter are no 
grounds for an action for alienating affections, and the parent may 
show the motive and that the advice was given honestly.^* A stranger 
must explain his motive, and when he can show that he acted in good 

St. 98; Lewis v. Hoffman, 54 App. N. "W. 612; Bennett v. Smith, 21 
Div. 620, 66 N. Y. S. 428; Bailey v. Barb. (N. Y.) 439; Tasker v. Stan- 
Bailey, 94 Iowa 598, 63 N. W. 341. ley, 153 Mass. 148, 26 N. E. 417, 10 

'''Pratini v. Caslini, 66 Vt. 273, as L. R. A. 468; Reed v. Reed, 6 Ind. 

reported in 44 Am. St. on page 850; App. 317, 33 N. E. 638; Johnson v. 

Van Olinda v. Hall, 68 N. Y. St. 611, Allen, 100 N. Car. 131, 5 S. E. 666; 

34 N. Y. S. 777; Higham v. Vanos- Huling v. Huling, 32 111. App. 522; 

dol, 101 Ind. 160; Commonwealth v. Rice v. Rice, 104 Mich. 371, 62 N. 

Damon, 136 Mass. 441; Snow v. W. 833; Tucker v. Tucker, 74 Miss. 

Paine, 114 Mass. 520; Campbell v. 93, 19 So. 955. 

Carter, Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 151; "Zimmerman v. Whitely, 95 N. 

Bennett v. Smith, 21 Barb. (N. Y.) W. 989, 10 Det. Leg. N. 383; Camp- 

439; Sohuneman v. Palmer, 4 Barb, bell v. Carter, 6 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. 

(N. Y.) 225; Smith v. Lyke, 13 Hun Y.) 151; 3 Daly (N. Y.) 165; Fratini 

(N. Y.) 204; Tasker v. Stanley, 153 v. Caslini, 66 Vt. 273, as reported 

Mass. 148; 26 N. E. 417; Holtz v. in note 4 of 44 Am. St. on page 850; 

Dick, 42 Ohio St. 23, 51 Am. R. 791. Tasker v. Stanley, 153 Mass. 148; 

=^2 Tasker v. Stanley, 153 Mass. 148, Bennett v. Smith, 21 Barb. (N. Y.) 

26 N. B. 417, 10 L. R. A. 468. 439; Smith v. Lyke, 13 Hun (N. Y.) 

""Hutcheson v. Peck, 5 Johns. (N. 204; Rath v. Rath, (Neb.) 89 N. "W. 

X) 196; Rath v. Rath, (Neb.) 89 612. 



91 ADMISSIONS DECLARATIONS AND LETTEES. [§§ 1647, 1648. 

faith upon the wife's complaint of her husband's ill-treatment, he 
may lawfully aid and shelter her. The mere fact that a stranger or 
third party did not drive her from his home, will not sustain an ac- 
tion, and these facts may be shown in defense.^^ Whenever there is 
a deliberate intention of causing a separation of the husband and 
wife and doing a grievous wrong, without legal justification or ex- 
cuse, malice or evil intent may be implied, as the very essence of 
malice is a disposition or willingness to do a wrongful act injuring 
another; and in an action of this kind the specific motive need not 
be proved.^" 

§ 1647. Admissions. — Admissions of defendant, either by letters, 
acts or declarations, explaining the improper relation of defendant 
with plaintiff's wife may be shown in evidence, tending to prove the 
illegal motive of defendant or that he is wilfully responsible for the 
alienation. Admission of the defendant that the plaintiff and con- 
sort were married is sufficient proof that they were married, and such 
admissions may be used against the defendant. ^^ Admissions of the 
plaintiff that he was guilty of improper relations with other women 
might also be used against him to mitigate damages. Evidence may be 
introduced that plaintiff had made inquiries as to the wealth of de- 
fendant and his statements may be used as admissions that the action 
was brought for purely mercenary motives.^* 

§ 1648. Declarations and letters. — For the purpose of inquiring 
into the relations of the husband and wife with each other prior to the 
interference of the defendant, it is proper to admit evidence of dec- 
larations or letters made or written by one to the other. Declarations 
or letters tending to show the temper or conduct of either party may 
also be shown. Declarations or letters having reference to a separa- 
tion or contemplated separation may be admitted for the purpose of 
showing what caused the separation.^" Declarations or letters tending 

=° Barnes v. Allen, 30 Barb. (N. v. Derham, 125 Mich. 109, 116, 83 

Y.) 663; Sohuneman v. Palmer, 4 N. W. 1005. 

Barb. (N. Y.) 225. '»Roesner v. Darrah, 65 Kans. 599, 

* Williams v. Williams, 20 Colo. 70 Pac. 597; Perry v. Lovejoy, 49 

51, 37 Pac. 614. Micli. 530, 14 N. W. 485; McKenzie 

" Perry v. Lovejoy, 49 Mich. 529, v. Lautenschlager, 113 Micb. 171, 71 

14 N. W. 485. N. W. 489; Rudd v. Rounds, 64 yt. 

"* Zimmerman v. Whiteley, 16 Det. 432, 25 Atl. 438; Fratini v. Caslini, 

Leg. N. 383, 95 N. W. 989; Derham 66 Vt. 273, 44 Am. St. 843; Williams 



§ 1648.] ALIENATING AFFECTIONS. 93 

to show the feeling existing between the plaintiff's consort and the 
defendant may be shown, but it must first be shown that defendant 
was responsible for the affection manifested for him.^" Mere declara- 
tions, however, are rarely admitted to show what defendant's con- 
duct was. When these declarations are used, it may be necessary to 
prove that they were made prior to the existence of anything calcu- 
lated to excite suspicion of misconduct and before there existed 
grounds to suspect coUusion.^^ Declarations or letters of the wife, 
when the husband is plaintiff, relating to the words or acts of the de- 
fendant and tending to prove the wilful interference of the defend- 
ant, cannot be used against the defendant, as they are merely hearsay 
and would be dangerous because of possibility of collusion between 
husband and wife.^^ There seems to be one exception to this rule of 
not allowing declaration of plaintiff's wife, and that is where the de- 
fendant is a parent. In this case the evidence is regarded as explana- 
tory of her relation with her parents and is the only means, except 
calling her as a witness, and is generally admitted."' Where several 
parties are charged with having conspired together to entice away the 
plaintiff's wife, "the declarations of any one of the conspirators are 
admissible to show that he was a member of such conspiracy, but they 
are not evidence against the others, unless the fact of conspiracy is 
proved to the satisfaction of the jury and such declarations are in 
furtherance of the conspiracy."'* In an action against a husband 
alone where it is shown that he and his wife acted together to alienate 
affections and that each is responsible for what was done, as the hus- 

V. Williams, 20 Colo. 51, 37 Pac. 1, 82 Am. Dec. 430; Sanborn v. Gale, 

614; Baker v. Baker, 16 Abb. N. 162 Mass. 412, 38 N. B. 710, 26 L. R. 

Cas. (N. Y.) 302; Sessions v. Little, A. 864; Winsmore v. Greenbank, 

9 N. H. 271; Tenney v. Evans, 14 Willes 577; Westlake v. "Westlake, 

N. H. 350. 34 Ohio St 621, 32 Am. R. 397; 

=°Childs V. Muckler, 105 Iowa 279, Higham v. Vanosdol, 101 Ind. 160; 

75 N. W. 100; White v. Ross, 47 Perry v. Lovejoy, 49 Mich. 529, 14 

Mich. 172, 10 N. W. 188; Edgell v. N. W. 485; White v. Ross, 47 Mich. 

Francis, 66 Mich. 303, 33 N. W. 501. 172, 10 N. W. 188. 

"' Fratini v. Casllni, 66 Vt. 273, 29 » Edgell v. Francis, 66 Mich. 303, 

Atl. 252, and reported in notes of 33 N.,W. 501; Perry v. Lovejoy, 49 

44 Am. St. 843; 1 Phillips Bv. 182; Mich. 529, 14 N. W. 485; White v. 

1 Greenleaf Ev., § 102; 1 Wharton Ross, 47 Mich. 172, 10 N. W. 188. 
Ev., § 225. =* Preston v. Bowers, 13 Ohio St. 

»= Fratini v. Caslini, 66 Vt. 273, 1, 82 Am. Dec. 430; Fratini v. Cas- 

as reported in 44 Am. St. On page lini, 66 Vt. 273, as reported in notea 

848; Preston v. Bowers, 13 Ohio St. of 44 Am. St. 848. 



93 RES GESTAE. [§ 1649. 

band is liable for the torts of the wife, the declarations of the wife 
may be admitted as evidence against the husband.^° In an action 
where the parents are defendants, evidence of the declaration of 
plaintiff's wife concerning the statements and acts of defendants may 
be admitted to explain the motive of the parents in interfering and 
why the wife resides with her parents. This is hearsay evidence, but 
it is admitted upon the ground that the alienation is a continuing act 
and can only be explained by daily conduct and declarations, and 
most of this evidence can only be obtained by examining the wife 
herself or giving evidence of her explanation for remaining with her 
parents.^^ It is the daily conduct explained by concurrent declara- 
tions. 

§ 1649. Res Gestae. — Declarations of the wife, made immediately 
before and at the time she left her husband, of his cruel and inhu- 
mane treatment of her, are competent evidence for the defendant, as 
such declarations are so closely related with the leaving that they form 
a part of the res gestae.^'' But declarations made in the absence of the 
defendant as to the cause of abandoning or putting away the consort 
are not admissible, as they are hearsay and do not form a part of the 
res gestae.^* Yet when the declarations are made in connection with an 
act, as the exhibition of injuries upon the person, such declarations, 
if explanatory of the manner or if they show who inflicted them, may 
be received in an action of this kind.^° Whatever throws light upon 
the cause and motive, whether from "the conduct of kinsman or 
stranger" is, ordinarily, a matter of legitimate inquiry and should be 
admitted.*" Such declarations or letters must be received with great 

==Bdgell V. Francis, 66, Mich. 303, 38 N. E. 710, 26 L. R. A. 864; Hul- 

33 N. W. 501. * ing v. Huling, 32 111. App. 519; 

^Edgell V. Francis, 66 Mich. 303, Winsmore v. Greenbank, Willes 577; 

33 N. W. 501; White v. Ross, 47 Westlake v. Westlake, 34 Ohio St. 

Mich. 172, 10 N. W. 188. 621, 32 Am. R. 397; Adams v. Cosby, 

"Gilchrist v. Bale, 8 Watts (Pa.) 48 Ind. 153; Hlgham v. Vanosdol, 

355, 34 Am. Dec. 469; Palmer v. 101 Ind. 160. 

Crook, 7 Gray (Mass.) 420; Cole- '» Gilchrist v. Bale, 8 Watts (Pa.) 

man v. White, 43 Ind. 430; Rudd v. 355; Berdell v. Berdell, 80 111. 604; 

Rounds, 64 Vt. 432, 25 Atl. 438; Cattison v. Cattison, 22 Pa. St. 275; 

Glass V. Bennett, (5 Pickle) 89 Aveson v. Lord Kinnaird, 6 East 

Tenn. 478; Palmer v. Crook, 7 Gray 188; Hlgham v. Vanosdol, 101 Ind. 

(Mass.) 418; Cattison v. Cattison, 160. 

22 Pa. St. 275. " Clow v. Chapman, 125 Mo. 101, 

^Sanborn v. Gale, 162 Mass. 412, 46 Am. St. 468, 475; Bassett v. Bas- 



§§ 1650, 1651. J ALIENATING AFFECTIONS. 94 

care and caution and not allowed unless it is made to appear 
affirmatively that they were made before the wife came under the in- 
fluence of her paramour.*^ Declarations made by a wife within a few 
days after the marriage, expressing her desire to remain with her hus- 
band as his wife and not there under restraint, are admissible as part 
of the res gestae.*^ 

§ 1650. Partial alienation. — A husband or wife may maintain an 
action for the partial alienation of affections. It is not necessary for 
the plaintiff to show that there was affection and that defendant had 
completely alienated it ; for although the plaintiff's wife (or husband, 
as the case may be) has no affection for the plaintiff, a third party 
has no right to interfere or cut off any chance of an affection spring- 
ing up in the future. Evidence offered by the defendant for the 
purpose of proving that there had existed no affection between the 
husband and wife will not be heard as a bar.*^ 

§ 1651. Adultery. — In an action for alienating affections it is not 
necessary to prove adultery ; and this fact cannot ordinarily be proved 
unless it is specially pleaded.** The action for seducing the wife 
away from the husband is "by no means confined to improper or 

sett, 20 111. App. 543; Baker v. Ex parte, 40 Tex. Cr. App. 413, 50 

Baker, 16 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 293. S. W. 933, 76 Am. St. 727. 

"Price V. Price, 91 Iowa 693, 51 "Perry v. Lovejoy, 49 Mich. 529, 

Am. St. 360; Perry v. Lovejoy, 49 14 N. W. 485; in Adams v. Main, 3 

Mich. 529, 14 N. "W. 485; Gilchrist Ind. App. 235, 29 N. E. 792, 50 Am. 

V. Bale, 8 Watts (Pa.) 355; Cattison St. 266, the court says: "One who 

V. Cattison, 22 Pa. St. 275 ; Palmer by improper means, alienates a 

V. Crook, 7 Gray (Mass.) 418; Glass wife's affections from her husband, 

V. Bennett, 5 Pickle (Tenn.) 478; although she neither leaves him nor 

Rudd V. Rounds, 64 Vt. 432, '25 Atl. yields her person to the seducer, in- 

438; Fratini v. Caslini, 66 Vt. 273, jures the husband in that to which 

29 Atl. 252, 24 Am. St. 843; Dicker- he is entitled, brings unhappiness 

man v. Graves, 6 Cush. (Mass.) 308, to the domestic hearth, renders her 

53 Am. Dec. 41. mere services less efficient and valu- 

« Bennett v. Smith, 21 Barb. (N. able, and inflicts on him a damage 

Y.) 439. in the nature of slander ... so 

" Fratini v. Caslini, 66 Vt. 273, 44 that for the redress of his wrong an 

Am. St. 843; Dallas v. Sellers, 17 action is maintainable." See also, 

Ind. 479, 79 Am. Dec. 489; Pretty- 1 Bishop Mar. and Div. § 1361; 

man v. Williamson, 1 Pen. (Del.) Rinehart v. Bills, 82 Mo. 534, 52 Am. 

224, 39 Atl. 731; Nichols v. Nichols, R. 385. 
147 Mo. 387, 48 S. W. 947; Warfleld, 



95 CRIMINAL CONVERSATION — CONSENT AS BAR. [§§ 1651a, 1651b. 

adulterous relations, but it extends to all cases of wrongful interfer- 
ence in the family affairs of others, whereby the wife is induced to 
leave her husband" or to do such things as destroy the comfort or hap- 
piness of the married life.*' The injury consists in the alienation with 
malice or improper motives. Debauchery and elopement, when they 
are present, are only what may be naturally expected from the wrong. 
If adultery did not take place, it is not due to the defendant's implied 
intent when the defendant is not a parent, but to the "wife's prudent 
reflection and laudable reputation." The alienation of a wife's af- 
fection may be complete and she may never leave the roof of her hus- 
band; and it has been held that such action on the part of the wife, 
after the alienation has been affected, contributes to aggravate the in- 
jury rather than otherwise and that an elopement would afford re- 
lief.** The proof of adultery, where it is alleged, may, however, tend 
to prove alienation. 

§ 1651a. Alienation and criminal conv«rsation, — There is a dis- 
tinction between an action for the alienation of a wife's affections, 
that is, the loss of her comfort, society and assistance, and an action 
by the husband for seducing and debauching his wife. In the first 
instance the plaintiff bases his damages upon the alienation of his 
wife's affections with malice or improper motives, while in the other 
case the plaintiff seeks to recover because of the criminal conversation, 
and if the plaintiff fails to prove adultery, he cannot recover for the 
loss of his wife's society.*'' 

§ 1651b. Consent as a, bar. — The consent of the husband to the 
acts of the defendant may be proved, and if proved, acts as a complete 
bar.*^ No one can maintain an action for a wrong to which he has 
consented. Where the plaintiff had reason to know of the improper 
conduct of his wife and suspected it, but did not take any means to- 

"Callis V. Merrieweather, (Md.) Rinehart v. Bills, 82 Mo. 534, 52 

57 Atl. 201; Heermance v. James, 47 Am. R. 385; Pratlni v. Caslini, 66 

Barb. (N. Y.) 123; Rinehart v. Bills, Vt. 273, 29 Atl. 252, 44 Am. St. 848. 

82 Mo. 534, 52 Am. R. 385. " Prettyman v. Williamson, 1 Pen. 

'"Rinehart v. Bills, 82 Mo. 534, (Del.) 224, 37 Atl. 731; Peek v. 

52 Am. R. 385; Heermance v. James, Traylor, (Ky.) 34 S. W. 705; Van 

47 Barb. (N. Y.) 120, 32 How. Pr. Olinda v. Hall, 88 Hun (N. Y.) 452; 

(N. Y.) 142. Coleman v. White, 43 Ind. 429; Ben- 

"Wood V. Mathews, 47 Iowa 409; nett v. Smith, 21 Barb. (N. Y.) 439.. 



1652.] 



ALIENATING AFFECTIONS. 



96 



prevent it, this may be shown by the defendant and will tend to miti- 
gate the damages.*" 

§ 1652. Damages. — ^An action for alienating affections is based on 
the loss of the consortium, and it is not necessary to prove actual pe- 
cuniary loss. Loss of support caused by the alienation does not neces- 
sarily enter into the question, but it is proper to show mortification, 
injury to feelings and mental anguish caused by such alienation. The 
marriage relation is not entered into for the purpose of labor and 
support alone. This relationship gives to each the right to the affec- 
tion, companionship and society of the other, and whoever wrong- 
fully deprives either of that right may be held responsible in dam- 
ages.'" The evidence of the unhappy relation existing between the 
husband and wife prior to the alienation may be admitted for the 
purpose of reducing damages. °^ It may be proved that they were 
wanting in affection for each other and the unkind treatment of the 
husband for his wife may always be shown. Any misconduct of either 



«Wolf V. Frank, 92 Md. 138, 48 
Atl. 132, 52 L. R. A. 102; Smith v. 
Hasten, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 273, 
holds: "If the plaintiff was in the 
habit of improper intimacy with 
any other than her husband, her 
sense of moral propriety and regard 
for chastity could not be much of- 
fended by the loss of virtue of her 
husband. The guilt of defendant is 
not diminished, but plaintiff has 
sustained less damages. . . . All 
the circumstances which diminish 
the merits of the plaintiff or en- 
hance the other are proper subjects 
for their consideration." 

™Westlake v. Westlake, 34 Ohio 
St. 621, 32 Am. R. 397; Bennett v. 
Bennett, 116 N. Y. 584; Holmes v. 
Holmes, 133 Ind. 386, 32 N. E. 932; 
Haynes v. Nowlin, 129 Ind. 581, 29 
N. E. 389, 28 Am. St. 213; Seaver v. 
Adams, 66 N. H. 142, 49 Am. St. 
597; Foot V. Card, 58 Conn. 1, 18 
Am. St. 258; Warren v. Warren, 89 
Mich. 123; Cooley Torts, § 288; Rice 
V. Rice, 91 Iowa 693, 62 N. W. 833, 



51 Am. St. 360; Bowersox v. Bower- 
sox, 115 Mich. 24, 72 N. W. 986; 
Betser v. Betser, 186 111. 537, 58 N. 
E. 249, 78 Am. St. 303; Adams v. 
Main, 3 Ind. App. 232, 29 N. B. 792, 
50 Am. St. 266; Prettyman v. Wil- 
liamson, 1 Pen. (Del.) 224, 39 Atl. 
731; Perry v. Lovejoy, 49 Mich. 529, 
14 N. W. 485; Lockwood v. Lock- 
wood, 67 Minn. 476, 70 N. W. 784; 
Rinehart v. Bills, 82 Mo. 534, 52 Am. 
R. 385; Reading v. Gazzam, 200 Pa. 
St. 70, 49 Atl. 889; Bennett v. Ben- 
nett, 116 N. Y. 584, 23 N. E. 17, 6 
L. R. A. 553. 

"Love V. Love, 98 Mo. App. 562, 
73 S. W. 225; Higham v. Vanosdol, 
101 Ind. 165; Hadley v. Hey wood, 
121 Mass. 236; Bailey v. Bailey, 94 
Iowa 598, 63 N. W. 341; Bennett v. 
Smith, 21 Barb. (N. Y.) 439; Smith 
V. Hasten, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 270; 
Coleman v. White, 43 Ind. 529; Peek 
V. Traylor, (Ky.) 34 S. W. 705; 
Smith V. Hasten, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 
270. 



97 DAMAGES. [§ 1653. 

husband or wife which would show a lack of affection may be shown 
to reduce the damages.^^ That the husband failed to support his wife 
and that he lived apart from her may be evidenced in mitigation of 
damages.°^ That the wife was a lewd or immoral woman might be 
used by the defendant to mitigate damages, and the fact that the hus- 
band was of loose morals may be used to show that he cared but little 
for the wife and was not damaged to any great extent. But regard- 
less of the character of plaintiff's wife, defendant cannot introduce evi- 
dence of it, to justify his acts. He may use such evidence only to reduce 
the damages. The fact that a divorce has been obtained may be con- 
sidered in mitigation of damages, but the evidence given in a divorce 
proceeding, previously obtained by one of the parties, is not admissi- 
ble in an action for alienating affections.^* The pecuniary circum- 
stances of the defendant may be proved to aid in assessing the dam- 
ages and to show the weight and effect of the property induce- 
ments held out to induce the husband or wife to leave the other.^^ 
Either party may show plaintiff's occupation and perhaps social po- 
sition as bearing on the value of the consortium.^^* For the purpose 
of reducing damages and to show the relation existing between the 
plaintiff and his wife, the defendant may show that plaintiff had 
made inquiries as to the wealth of his wife's parents and that he had 
only married her from mercenary motives.^® 

§ 1653. Measure of damages. — The measure of damages in an 
action for alienating affections is the value of the conjugal society, 

="WoIf V. Frank, 92 Md. 138, 48 Mo. App. 562; Waldron v. Waldron, 

Atl. 132, 52 L. R. A. 102; Churchill 45 Fed. (U. S.) 315; Knapp v. Wing, 

T. Lewis, 17 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 72 Vt. 334, 47 Atl. 1075; Price v. 

226; Schorn v. Berry, 63 Hun (N. Price, 91 Iowa 693, 60 N. W. 202, 51 

Y.) 110; Peek v. Traylor, (Ky.) 34 Am. St. 360, 29 L. R. A. 150; Nichols 

S. W. 705; Prettyman v. William- v. Nichols, 147 Mo. 387, 48 S. W. 

son, 1 Pen. (Del.) 224, 39 Atl. 731; 947; Johnson v. Allen, 100 N. Car. 

Van Vacter v. McKillip, 7 Blackf. 131, 5 S. E. 666; contra doctrine is 

(Ind.) 578; Bassett v. Bassett, 20 held in Bailey v. Bailey, 94 Iowa 

111. App. 543. 598, 63 N. W. 341, which says: 

'^ Prettyman v. Williamson, 1 Pen. "The wealth, rank, social position 

(Del.) 224, 39 Atl. 747. or condition of defendant was 

"Waldron v. Waldron, 45 Fed. wholly immaterial." Stanley v. 

(U. S.) 315; Derhamv. Derham, Stanley, 73 Pac. 596, 32 Wash. 489. 

123 Mich. 457, 83 N. W. 1005; Mead =»* Bailey v. Bailey, 94 Iowa 898, 

v. Randall, 111 Mich. 268, 69 N. W. 63 N. W. 341. 

506; Grose V. Rutledge, 81 111. 266. ""Derham v. Derham, 125 Mich. 

■"Love V. Love, 73 S. W. 255, 98 109, 83 N. W. 1005. 
Vol. 3 Elliott Ev.— 7 



1653.] 



ALIENATING AFFECTIONS. 



98 



affection and assistance, that the husband and wife would render each 
other, less, in the one case, the value of the performance of the hus- 
band's duty to support, clothe, cherish and care for the wife.^^ Injury 
to the feelings, disgrace and dishonor may be proved to help in fixing 
the damages, but this is left more to the Jury to infer than for evi- 
denced^ Where the injury is wilful and malicious the plaintiff may 
prove these facts in order to recover exemplary damages, but ex- 
emplary damages cannot be given unless these facts are fully estab- 
lished." 



"Sutherland Dam., § 1285; Rudd 
V. Rounds, (Vt.) 25 Atl. 438; Pretty- 
man V. Williamson, 1 Pen. (Del.) 
224, 39 Atl. 731; Hartpence v. Rog- 
ers, 143 Mo. 623; Pratinl v. Caslini, 
66 Vt. 273, 29 Atl. 252, 44 Am. St. 843; 
Bennett v. Bennett, 116 N. Y. 584, 
23 N. B. 17, 6 L. R. A. 553; Rine- 
hart v. Bills, 82 Mo. 534, 52 Am. R. 
385 ; Perry v. Lovejoy, 49 Mich. 529, 
14 N. W. 485; Adams v. Main, 3 
Ind. App. 232, 29 N. E. 792, 50 Am. 
St. 266. 



™ Hartpence v. Rogers, 143 Mo. 
623. 

""Waldron v. "Waldron, 45 Fed. 
(U. S.) 315; Prettyman v. William- 
son, 1 Pen. (Del.) 224, 39 Atl. 731; 
Lindblom v. Sontelie, 10 N. Dak. 140, 
86 N. W. 357; Jonas v. Hirshburg, 
18 Ind. App. 581, 48 N. E. 656; Wil- 
liams V. Williams, 20 Colo. 51, 37 
Pac. 614; Warner v. Miller, 17 Abb. 
N. Cas. (N. Y.) 221. 



CHAPTEE LXXXII. 



AEBITEATIOSr AND AWAKD. 



Sec. 

1654. Generally. 

1655. Presumpttons. 

1656. Burden of proof. 

1657. Selecting form of action. 

1658. Evidence of submission and 

authority. 

1659. Umpire. 

1660. Execution of the award. 

1661. Notice — Publication or deliv- 

ery. 



Sec. 

1662. Demand. 

1663. Performance. 

1664. Parol evidence. 

1665. Defenses. 

1666. Revocation. 

1667. Disability. 

1668. Award as evidence in other 

proceedings. 



§ 1654. Generally. — ^It is now the policy of the law to favor the 
voluntary submission of a controversy between parties to arbitrators 
or judges of their own selection by whose judgment or award they 
agree to be bound.^ A submission to arbitration may be by parol, 
with mutual promises to perform the award ; or by deed ; or by rule of 
the court ;^ or by any mode pointed out by statute. In the first case. 



'Groat V. Pracht, 31 Kans. 656, 3 
Pac. 274; Jensen v. Deep Creek &c. 
Co., (Utah) 74 Pac. 427; see, Ed- 
mundson v. Wilson, 108 Ala. 118, 19 
So. 367; Brush v. Fisher, 70 Mich. 
469, 38 N. W. 446, 14 Am. St. 510, 
and note. As to the agreement of 
submission being a contract and as 
to when the award is a judgment or 
in the nature of a judgment, see. 



8 Cow. (N. Y.) 27, 18 Am. Dec. 
423; Johnson v. Maxey, 43 Ala. 521; 
Crook V. Chambers, 40 Ala. 239. As 
to regular judge acting as arbi- 
trator, see, Banigan v. Nelms, 106 
Ga. 441, 32 S. B. 337; Strite v. ReifE, 
55 Md. 92. 

' Buccleuch v. Metropolitan Board, 
L. R. 5 Exch. 221; for history and 
development of this subject. The 



first case above cited, also, Dist. of power of a court, with the consent 



Columbia v. Bailey, 171 U. S. 161, 
18 Sup. Ct. 868; Whitcher v. 
Whitcher, 49 N. H. 176, 6 Am. R. 
486; Garr v. Gomez, 9 Wend. (N. 
Y.) 649; Meyer v. Ludeling, 40 La. 
Ann. 640, 4 So. 583; Story v. Elliott, 



of the parties, to appoint arbitrators 
and refer a case pending before it, 
is incident to all judicial adminis- 
tration where the fight exists to as- 
certain the facts as well as to pro- 
nounce the law: Newcomb v. Wood, 



99 



§ 1655.] 



AEBITEATIOK AND AWARD. 



100 



and in some jurisdictions in other cases as well, the remedy may be 
"by an action of assumpsit, upon the promise to perform the award f 
in the second, it may be by debt for the penalty of the arbitration 
bond,* or by covenant, upon the agreement or indenture of submis- 
sion ; in the third ease, it may be by attachment, or by Judgment and 
execution upon the judgment entered up pursuant to the rule of court 
or the statute ; and in any case it may be by an action of debt upon 
the award.^ An award duly made and performed may also be pleaded 
in bar of any subsequent action for the same cause. * And, while the 
general rule is that a mere agreement to submit to arbitration, an 
award in pursuance of the submission may sometimes be specifically 
enforced in equity.' 

§ 1655. Presumptions. — As a general rule, all reasonable presump- 
tions and intendments are made in favor of awards.' Thus, it has been 
held that in the absence of clear proof to the contrary, an award will 
be presumed to be fair and correct.' And it has been held again and 



97 U. S. 581. The submission and the 
award may both be by parol: Greer 
V. Canfield, 38 Neb. 169; unless it is 
with reference to the title to land: 
Fort V. Allen, 110 N. Car. 183 ; or un- 
less it is under a statute requiring a 
writing: Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. 
McLaughlin, 80 Pa. St. 53. The law, 
unless by some statutory provision 
requires no particular form to estab- 
lish a valid submission. 

^Whitcher v. Whitoher, 49 N. H. 
176, 6 "Am. R. 486; Pooks v. Law- 
son, 1 Marv. (Del.) 115, 40 Atl. 661. 

* Pass V. Critcher, 112 N. Car. 405, 
17 S. B. 9; McCargo v. Crutcher, 23 
Ala. 575. 

" Dickerson v. Tyner, 4 Blackf . 
(Ind.) 253; Titus v. Scantling, 4 
Blackf. (Ind.) 89; Holmes v. Smith, 
49 Me. 242; Duren v. Getchell, 55 
Me. 241; but see, as to waiver by 
making it a rule of court: Boyden 
V. Lamb, 152 Mass. 416, 25 N. E. 
609; Koerner v. Leathe, 149 Mo. 
361, 51 S. "W. 96, and Indiana au- 
thority there cited. 

' The tendency of modern author- 



ity is to give conclusive effect to 
all awards, where there is no cor- 
ruption or misconduct on the part 
of referees, and where no deception 
has been practiced: Kendrick v. Tar- 
bell, 26 Vt. 416; Bbert v. Ebert, 5 
Md. 353; Hartford &c. Co. v. Bon- 
ner Merc. Co., 15 U. S. App. 134, 56 
Fed. 378, 5 C. C. A. 524; Patton v. 
Garrett, 116 N. Car. 847, 24 S. B. 
679. 

'Klrksey v. Fike, 27 Ala. 383, 
62 Am. Dec. 768; Witz v. Tregallas, 
82 Md. 351, 33 Atl. 718; Caldwell v. 
Dickinson, 13 Gray (Mass.) 365; 
Page V. Foster, 7 N. H. 392; Davis 
V. Havard, 15 S. & R. (Pa.) 165, 16 
Am. Dec. 537; Perkins v. Giles, 50 
N. Y. 228; Thompson v. Deans, 59 
N. Car. 22; Hawksworth v. Bram- 
mall, 5 Myl. & Cr. 281, 46 Eng. Ch. 
281. 

* Fooks v. Lawson, 1 Marv. (Del.) 
115, 40 Atl. 661, 663; Brush v. 
Fisher, 70 Mich. 469, 38 N. W. 446, 
14 Am. St. 510. 

» Brush V. Fisher, 70 Mich. 469, 38 
N. W. 446, 14 Am. St. 510; Jensen 



101 BURDEN OF PEOOF. [§ 1656. 

again that an award under a general submission, where there is no 
indication to the contrary, will be presumed to be in conformity with 
the submission as to the matters passed upon, and that it will be pre- 
sumed that all such matters were duly considered by the arbitrators 
and covered by the award.^" 

§ 1656. Burden of proof. — In an action on an award the burden 
is upon the plaintiff to show the submission and the award in con- 
formity therewith.^^ And in a recent case, which was an action on an 
award under a parol submission, the rule in such cases was more 
fully stated to be that the burden is upon the plaintiff to show that 
there was a mutual and concurrent agreement between the parties to 
submit the matters in dispute to arbitrators selected pursuant to such 
agreement, and to abide by their award made pursuant thereto ; that 
the arbitrators were chosen in accordance with such agreement; and 
that they actually made the alleged award, for the amount specified, 
pursuant to and in conformity with the agreement of submission.^^ 
So, on the other hand, where a party seeks to impeach and set aside 
an award the burden is upon him, and it is generally said that the 
evidence must be clear and strong.^^ And even in an action on an 
award, where an apparently binding submission has been shown and 
the award was made in pursuance thereof, there is a presumption that 
the arbitrators did their duty, and in favor of their award, which 

V. Deep Creek &c. Co., (Utah) 74 Ala. 171, 19 So. 302; Boots v. Ca- 

Pac. 427. nine, 58 Ind. 450; Williams v. Wil- 

" Jensen v. Deep Creek &c. Co., liams, 11 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 393; 

(Utah) 74 Pac. 427; Pocks v. Law- Peterson v. Ayre, 15 C. B. 724, 80 E. 

son, 1 Marv. (Del.) 115, 40 Atl. C. L. 724. 

661; New York &c. Co. v. Schnle- '^ Fooks v. Lawson, 1 Marv. (Del.) 

der, 119 N. Y. 475, 24 N. E. 115, 40 Atl. 661, 
4; compare also, Stearns v. Cope, "Brush v. Fisher, 70 Mich. 469, 

109 111. 340; Sides v. Brendlinger, 38 N. W. 446, 14 Am. St. 510; 

14 Neb. 491, 17 N. W. 113; Haynes Hardin v. Almand, 64 Ga. 582; Witz 

V. Forskoll, 31 Me. 112; Bixby v. v. Tregallas, 82 Md. 351, 33 Atl. 718; 

Whitney, 5 Greenl. (Me.) 192; Mar- Liverpool &c. Ins. Co. v. Goehring, 

tin V. Thornton, 4 Esp. 180; Webster 99 Pa. St. 13; Bond v. Olden, 4 

V. Lee, 5 Mass. 334; Gaylord v. Nor- Yeates (Pa.) 243; Mosness v. Ger- 

ton, 130 Mass. 74; Strong v. Strong, man-Am. Ins. Co., 50 Minn. 341, 52 

9 Cush. (Mass.) 560. N. W. 932; Atkinson v. Townley, 1 

" Fooks V. Lawson, 1 Marv. (Del.) N. J. L. 444; Young v. Kinney, 48 

115, 40 Atl. 661; Gay v. Waltman, 89 Vt. 22; Bridgeport v. Bisenman, 47 

Pa. St. 453; Anderson v. Miller, 108 Conn. 34. 



§§ 1657, 1658.] ARBITEATION AND AWAED. 103 

casts the burden in one sense of the term upon the defendant who 
undertakes to assail it in defense.^* 

§ 1657. Selecting form of action. — At common law it was of much 
importance to select the right form of action. The action of debt on 
the award itself was often considered preferable to any other form of 
action, inasmuch as, under that form of action, "if judgment goes by 
default, it is iinal in the first instance, the sum to be recovered being 
ascertained through the medium of the award ; whereas in debt on the 
bond, breaches must be suggested and a hearing had pursuant to stat- 
utes; and iu assumpsit, and in covenant, the judgment by default is 
but interlocutory.^^ But this is only where the award is for a sum of 
money ; for if it is to do any other thing, the remedy should be sought 
in some other mode." Where the submission is by deed, with a penalty, 
■the best form of action would seem to be debt for the penalty ; for by 
declaring on the award, the plaintiff has the burden of proving a mu- 
tual submission ; but, by declaring on the bond, it seems that he trans- 
fers the burden to the defendant, on whom it will then lie to dis- 
charge himself of the penalty, by showing a performance of the con- 
ditions.^® 

§ 1658. Evidence of submission and authority. — In proving an 
award, it must appear that there was a submission, and that the arbi- 
trators had sufficient authority to make the award.^' If the agreement 
of submission was in writing, it must usually be produced, and its exe- 

"Fooks V. Lawson, 1 Marv. (Del.) named the submission is void: 

115, 40 Atl. 661; Jensen v. Deep Greiss v. State Inv. Co., 98 Cal. 241; 

Creek &c. Co., (Utah) 74 Pac. 427, Northwestern Guar. Co. v. Channell, 

and authorities cited In last note 53 Minn. 269, 55 N. W. 121; an at- 

supra; but see, Baltimore &c. R. Co. torney has been held to no author- 

v. Canton Co., 70 Md. 405, 17 Atl. ity to refer on behalf of an infant 

394. plaintiff: Bidden v. Dowse, 6 B. & 

'"Stephens N. P. 180. C. 255; see German-Am. Ins. Co. v. 

'"Ferrer v. Oven, 7 B. & C. 427, Buckstaff, 38 Neb. 135, 56 N. W. 

per Bayley, J. 692; so it has been held that one 

"Antram v. Chase, 15 East 209; partner has no authority to bind the 

Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Peters, 45 firm: Stead v. Salt, 3 Bing. 101; 

Mich. 636, 8 N. W. 584; Boots v. proof of the submission has been 

Canine, 58 Ind. 450; Grayson v. held necessary even after the lapse 

Meredith, 17 Ind. 357; but see. Sad- of forty years: Burghardt v. Turner, 

ler V. Olmstead, 79 Iowa 121, 44 N. 12 Pick. (Mass.) 534. 
"W. 292; if the arbitrators are not 



103 SUBMISSION AND AUTHORITY. [§ 1658. 

cution by all the parties to the submission proved.^' Thus, where 
four persons, being co-partners, agreed to refer all matters in difEer- 
ence between them, or any two of them, to certain arbitrators, and the 
arbitrators made an award in which they found several sums due to 
and from the partnership, and also private balances due among the 
partners from one to another, the action being between two of them 
upon the award to recover one of these private balances, it was held 
necessary to prove the execution of the deed of submission by them 
aU; the execution of each being presumed to have been made upon 
the condition that all were to be bound equally with himself.^' Where 
the submission was by rule of court, an office copy of the rule was 
held sufficient proof of the judge's order.^" But if the agreement of 
submission is attested by witnesses, and its execution is denied, the 
rule or order by which the agreement was made a rule of court is not 
the proper evidence of the signature of the agreement, for it must 
be proved, when possible, by the attesting witness."^ A recital of sub- 
mission in the award has been held insufficient,^^* and it has also 
been held that a submission imder rule of court cannot be proved by 
an arbitrator ;^^** but he is competent to prove a parol submis- 
sion.^^*** If the submission was by parol, it is generally material to 
prove that the promises were concurrent and mutual; for otherwise 
each promise may be but nudum pactum.^^ 

"Ferrer v. Oven, 7 B. & C. 427; & El. (N. S.) 79, 53 Eng. C. L. 79 r 

Fortune v. Killebrew, 86 Tex. 173, see also, Tyler v. Stephens, 7 Ga. 

23 S. W. 976; it has been held that 278; Spooner v. Payne, 56 C. L. 328. 

the submission and award must be ^* Stokely v. Robinson, 34 Pa. St. 

in writing in all cases where a con- 315; Collins v. Freas, 77 Pa. St. 493. 

tract in relation to the subject mat- ^** Lloyd v. Seal, 5 Har. (Del.) 

ter is required to be in writing, but 250. 

an oral submission and award on ^*** Cady v. Walker, 62 Mich, 

the question of how much rent is 157, 28 N. W. 805, 4 Am. St. 834; 

due for the past occupation of a Allen v. Miles, 4 Har. (Del.) 234. 

building is not such a question ih- ""McMahan v. Spinning, 51 Ind. 

volving an interest in land as need 187; Gaffy v. Hartford &c. Co., 42 

be in writing under the statute of Conn. 143; Allen-Bradley &c. Co. v. 

frauds: Peabody v. Rice, 113 Mass. Anderson &c. Co., 99 Ky. 311, 35 S. 

31. W. 1123; Reade v. Button, 2 Gale 

'^Antram v. Chase, 15 Bast 209; 228; 2M. &W. 62; Keep v. Goodrich, 

see also. Brazier v. Jones, 8 B. & C. 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 397; Livingston v. 

124. • Rogers, 1 Cat. (N. Y.) 583; Kingston 

=" Still V. Halford, 4 Campb. 17; v. Phelps, Peake Cas. 299; Somer- 

Gisborne v. Hart, 5 M. & W. 50. ville v. Dickerman, 127 Mass. 272. 

=" Berney v. Read, 9 Jur. 620, 7 Ad. But an express promise to be bound 



§§ 1659, 1660.] ARBITRATION AND AWARD. 



104 



§ 1659. Umpire.; — ^Arbitrators have, ordinarily, no authority to ap- 
point an umpire, unless it is given by the submission or by agree- 
ment of parties. If the award was made by an umpire, his appoint- 
ment must also be proved.^^ A recital of his authority in the award 
signed by himself and the arbitrators is not sufficient.^* He cannot 
be selected by the arbitrators by lot, without consent of the parties.^"' 
But appointment may be good, though made before the arbitrators- 
enter on the business referred to them j^" and they may Join with him 
in making the award.^^ So, although the arbitrators appoint an um- 
pire without authority, or the appointment is otherwise irregular, yet 
if the parties with knowledge thereof, appear and are heard before 
liim without objection, this will constitute a ratification of his ap- 
pointment.^' 

§ 1660. Execution of the award. — The next matter is the execution 
of the award, which must be proved, as in other cases, by the sub- 
scribing witness, if there be any, and if not, then usually by evidence. 
of the handwriting of the arbitrators.^' If the award does not pursue 



by it need not always be proved: 
Dilks v» Hammond, 86 Ind. 563. 

""■The appointment of an umpire 
must be authorized by the parties: 
Gaffy V. Hartford &c. Co., 42 Conn. 
143; McMahan v. Spinning, 51 Ind. 
187; Allen-Bradley Co. v. Anderson 
&c. Co., 99 Ky. 311, 35 S. W. 1123. 
They must also have notice of his 
appointment and an opportunity to 
appear before him: Coons v. Coons, 
95 Va. 434, 28 S. B. 885. For the 
distinction between an umpire and 
an arbitrator, see, Hartford &c. Co. 
v. Bonner &c. Co., 15 U. S. App. 134, 
56 Fed. 378. 

« Still v. Halford, 4 Campb. 18; 
nor is such recital necessary: Rison 
V. Berry, 4 Rand. (Va.) 275. 

=»Grening, matter of, 74 Hun (N. 
Y.) 62, 26 N. Y. S. 117; Young v. 
Miller, 3 B. & C. 407; Wells v. Cooke, 
2 B. & A. 218; Harris v. Mitchell, 2 
Vern. 485; Cassell, In re, 9 B. & C. 
624; overruling, Neale v. Ledger, 16 
East 51; Ford v. Jones, 3 B. & A. 



248; Hart v. Kennedy, 47 N. J. Bq. 
51, 20 Atl. 29; but when the parties 
agreed to a selection by lot, it was 
held good: Tunno, In re, 5 B. & A. 
488. 

""Roe d. Wood v. Doe, 2 Term R. 
644; Bates v. Cooke, 9 B. & C. 407; 
Bryan v. Jeffreys, 104 N. Car. 247, 
10 S. B. 167; Dudley v. Thomas, 23 
Cal. 365; McKinstry v. Solomons, 2 
Johns. (N. Y.) 57; Van Cortlandt v. 
Underbill, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 405; 
Chandos v. American &c. Co., 84 
Wis. 184, 54 N. W. 390; but see, 
Christenson v. Carleton, 69 Vt. 91; 
Sickel V. Keach, 2 Walk. (Pa.) 535. 

" Soulsby V. Hodgson, 3 Bur. 1474, 
1 W. Bl. 463; Beck v. Sargent, 4 
Taunt. 232; Bryan v. Jeffrey, 104 N. 
Car. 242, 10 S. B. 167. 

^ Matson v. Trower, Ry. & M. 17 ; 
Norton v. Savage, 1 Pairf. (Me.) 
458; Brush v. Fisher, 70 Mich. 469,. 
38 N. W. 446, 14 Am. St. 510; Knowl- 
ton V. Homer, 30 Me. 552. 

=» Tyler v. Stephens, 7 Ga. 278; 



105 



EXECUTION OF AWARD. 



[§ 1660. 



the submission, it is not binding.^" If, therefore, the submission is to 
a number of arbitrators jointly, without any authority in the major- 
ity to decide, and the award is not made or signed by all, it is bad.'* 
And though a majority has power to decide, yet, in an award by a ma- 
jority qnly, it must usually appear that all the arbitrators heard the 
•parties, both those who did not, and those who did concur in the de- 



Spooner v. Payne, 56 E. C. L. 328; 
but the award may be oral in many 
cases: Skrable v. Pryne, 93 Iowa 
691, 62 N. W. 21. 

=» Palmer v. Van Wyck, 92 Tenn. 
397, 21 S. W. 761; Leslie v. Leslie, 
50 N. J. Eq. 103, 52 N. J. Bq. 332, 
31 Atl. 724; acceptance by the par- 
ties, it has been held, gives no valid- 
ity to an award which does not pur- 
sue the submission: Hubbell v. Bis- 
sell, 13 Gray (Mass.) 298; see also, 
Anderson v. Miller, 108 Ala. 171, 19 
So. 302. 

" Towns V. Jaquith, 6 Mass. 46, 4 
Am. Dec. 84; Baltimore Tpk. Case, 

5 Bin. (Pa.) 481; Byard v. Hark- 
rider, 108 Ind. 376, 9 N. E. 294; 
Crofoot V. Allen, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 
494; United Kingdom Asso. v. 
Houston, 1896, L. R. 1 Q. B. 567; 
Quimby v. Melvin, 28 N. H. 250; 
Hubbard v. Great Falls &c. Co., 80 
Me. 39, 12 Atl. 878; Liavitt v. Wind- 
sor Land Co., 54 Fed. 439; but stat- 
utes frequently provide for an 
award by a majority : Short v. Pratt, 

6 Mass. 496; Walker v. Meleher, 14 
Mass. 148; Maynard v. Frederick, 7 
Gush. (Mass.) 247; Curtis, In re, 
64 Conn. 501, 30 Atl. 769, 42 Am. St. 
200; Palmer v. Van Wyck, 92 Tenn. 
397, 31 S. W. 761; Kent v. French, 
76 Iowa 187, 40 N. W. 713. In Bul- 
son V. Lohnes, 29 N. Y. 291, where 
the submission was to three arbi- 
trators, with a provision that, the 
award should be in writing, signed 
by the three, "or any two of them," 
and ready for delivery by a certain 



day fixed, it is said: "There can be 
no doubt that, at common law, be- 
fore the Revised Statute, under such 
a submission two arbitrators might 
lawfully meet, and hear the proofs 
and allegations of the parties, where 
the third had notice and refused to 
attend and take part in the proceed- 
ings; and that an award made by 
the two who heard the matters sub- 
mitted, under such circumstances, 
was a valid and binding award. 
This was settled in England, at an 
early day, and upon full delibera- 
tion: Goodman v. Sayres, 2 Jac. & 
Walk. 261; Dalling v. Matchett, Wil- 
lis 215, Barnes 57; Sallow v. Girl- 
ing, Cro. Jac. 278; Watson Arbitra- 
tion 115; Kyd Awards, 106, 107; 
Green v. Miller, 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 39; 
Crofoot V. Allen, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 
495. It was held that, by the latter 
clause of the submission, the entire 
authority was disjoined, so as to 
make it a submission to the lesser 
number to hear, as well as to de- 
termine." But upon a rehearing, if 
one of the arbitrators refuses to at- 
tend, it has been held that the 
others are competent to reaffirm the 
former award: Peterson v. Loring, 
1 Greenl. (Me.) 64; though not to 
revise the merits of the case, Cum- 
berland V. North Yarmouth, 4 
Greenl. (Me.) 459; Tallman v. Tall- 
man, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 325; Clement 
V. Comstock, 2 Mich. 359; Witz v. 
Tregallas, 82 Md. 351, 33 Atl. 718; 
but see, Gary v. Bailey, 55 Iowa 60, 
7 N. W. 410. 



§§ 1661, 1662.] AEBITKATION AND AWARD. 



106 



cision ; or at least it must not appear that some of them did not hear 
the parties and had no opportunity to do so. 

§ 1661. Notice — ^Publication or delivery. — If the submission re- 
quires that notice of the award should be given to the parties, this is 
the next point to be" proved; but if it was not required by the sub- 
mission, both the averment and the proof are unnecessary. ^^ It is 
essential, however, to allege, and therefore to prove, that the award 
was published,^ ^ if the submission requires it, and it has been held 
that an award is published whenever the arbitrator gives notice that 
it may be had on payment of his charges.^* If the agreement is that 
the award shall be ready to be delivered to the parties by a certain 
day, this is satisfied by proof of the delivery of a copy of the award, if 
it be accepted without objection on that account;*^ and if it be only 
read to the losing party, who thereupon promises to pay the sum 
awarded, this is evidence of a waiver of his right to the original or a 
^opy, even though it was afterwards demanded and refused.^" 

§ 1662. Demand. — It is not necessary to allege or prove a de- 
mand for payment, except where the obligation is to pay a collateral 
sum upon request, as where the defendant promised to pay a certain 
sum upon demand, or the like, if he failed to perform an award. '^ "In 



'^Russell V. Smith, 87 Ind. 457 
McClure v. Shroyer, 13 Mo. 104 
Thompson v. Mitchell, 35 Me. 281 
Parson v. Aldrich, 6 N. H. 264 
Juxon V. Thornhill, Cro. Car. 132 
Child V. Horden, 2 Bulstr. 144. 

•"Klngsley v. Bill, 9 Mass. 198; 
Thompson v. Mitchell, 35 Me. 281; 
see also, Anderson v. Miller, 108 Ala. 
171, 19 So. 302; but It is held un- 
necessary where the submission 
■does not require it: Parson v. Ild- 
rich, 6 N. H. 264; Denman v. Bay- 
less, 22 111. 300; see also. New York 
Lumber &c. Co. v. Schneider, 119 
N. Y. 475, 24 N. E. 4. 

'^Macarthur v. Campbell, 5 B. & 
Ad. 518; Musselbrook v. Dunkin, 9 
Bing. 605 ; see also, Munro v. Alaire, 
2 Gal. (N. Y.) 320; New York Lum- 
ber Co. V. Schneider, 119 N. Y. 475, 
24 N. E. 4. 

" Sellick v. Adams, 15 Johns. (N. 



Y.) 197; Low v. Nolte, 16 111. 475; 
Gidley v. Gidley, 65 N. Y. 169; the 
copy must be delivered when stipu- 
lated: Anderson v. Miller, 108 Ala. 
171, 19 So. 302; in strictness, to con- 
stitute the proper service of an 
award, so as to authorize an attach- 
ment for not performing it, a copy 
must not only be delivered, but the 
original must also be shown to the 
party: Lloyd v. Harris, 8 M. G. & 
So. 63; see also. Low v. Nolte, 16 111. 
475; Anderson v. Anderson, 65 Ind. 
196. 

=» Perkins v. Wing, 10 Johns. (N. 
Y.) 143; see also, Gidley v. Gidley, 
65 N. Y. 169; Tracy v. Herrick, 25 
N. H. 381; Rundell v. La Fleur, 6 
Allen (Mass.) 480; 2 Greenl. Ev., 
§■ 7B. 

" See, Hugg v. Collins, 18 N. J. L. 
294; Knight v. Carey, 1 Coul. (N. 
Y.) 39. 



107 CONDITIONS PEKFOEMANCE. [§ 1663. 

other cases, where the award is for money which is not paid, the 
burden of proof is on the defendant to show that he paid the sum 
awarded, the bringing of the action being a sufBeient request.^* The 
averment of a promise to pay will be supported by evidence of an 
agreement to abide by the decision of the arbitrators."'" 

§ 1663. Performaace. — Where the thing to be done by the defend- 
ant depends on a condition precedent, to be performed by the plain- 
tiff, the latter cannot enforce the award until he has performed, or 
offered to perform his own part, and such performance must usually 
be averred and proved by the plaintiff.*" And if, by the terms of the 
award, acts are to be done by both parties on the same day, as where 
one is to convey land, and the other to pay the price, then, in an 
action for the money, the plaintiff must aver and prove a performance, 
or an offer to perform, on his part, or he cannot recover ; for in such a 
case the conveyance, or the offer to convey, is precedent to the right 
to the price .*^ The same rule applies where the award directs convey- 
ance in an exchange of lots,*^ or the execution of mutual releases.*' 
But where the acts to be performed by each party are entirely distinct 
and independent, so that one is in no way a condition precedent to the 
other,** or where the defendant has repudiated the award and rendered 
an offer to perform by the plaintiff fruitless,*^ performance on the 
part of the plaintiff is not, ordinarily, required to be shown. 

■"Birks V. Trippet, 1 Saund. 32, '^ Huy v. Brown, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 

33, and n. 2, by Williams; Scearce 591. 

V. Scearce, 7 Ind. 286; Russell v. *" Jessee v. Cater, 25 Ala. 351. 

Smith, 87 Ind. 457; if the reference "Dudley v. Thomas, 23 Cal. 365; 

is general, and the arbitrator di- McNeil v. Magee, 5 Mason (U. S.) 

rects the payment to be made at a 244, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 8,915. 

certain time and place, this direc- "Jessee v. Cater, 25 Ala. 351; 

tion may be rejected as surplusage, Jones v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 143 

Rees V. Waters, 4 D. & L. 167, 16 M. Pa. St 374, 22 Atl. 883; see also and 

& W. 263 ; but see, Doyley v. Bur- compare, Gray v. Reed, 65 Vt. 178, 26 

ton, 1 Ld. Raym. 533. Atl. 526; Pomroy v. Gold, 2 Mete. 

'^ Efner V. Shaw, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) (Mass.) 500; Groat v. Pracht, 31 

567. Kans. 656, 3 Pac. 274. 

"Gray v. Reed, 65 Vt. 178, 26 Atl. «Duren v. Getchell, 55 Me. 241; 

526; see also. Comer v. Thompson, Collier v. White, 97 Ala. 615, 12 So. 

54 Ala. 265; Comery v. Howard, 81 385; Thomason v. Odum, 31 Ala. 

Me. 421, 17 Atl. 318; Commonwealth 108, 68 Am. Dec. 159; Schmidt v. 

V. Pejepscut, 7 Mass. 399; Parrish v. Glade, 126 111. 485, 18 N. E. 762; 

Higinbotham, (Ore.) 65 Pac. 984; Fargo v. Reighard, 13 Ind. App. 39, 

Huggs v. Collins, 18 N. J. L. 294. 30 N. B. 888; Cobb v. Dolphin &c. 



§ 1664.] 



ARBITRATION AND AWARD. 



lOS 



§ 1664. Parol evidence. — A clear and unambiguous written sub- 
mission or award is the best evidence of its contents, and parol evi- 
dence is not, ordinarily admissible to vary or control its terms or the 
intent and meaning of the parties or arbitrators."" But parol or ex- 
trinsic evidence is often admissible to explain uncertain and am- 
biguous terms, and to determine just what was in controversy and th& 
like,*^ where it cannot otherwise be determined; and, upon a proper 
showing, secondary evidence of the contents of a lost award is ad- 
missible.** So, parol evidence is admissible in a proper case to show 
that an award is absolutely void,** and, in general, where an award is 
attacked in a proper proceeding for an extrinsic matter for which it- 
may properly be avoided in such proceeding, parol or extrinsic evi- 
dence thereof is admissible to show such facts. °° The rule excluding 
parol evidence to vary or contradict a written submission or award ap- 
plies to the testimony of arbitrators themselves,^^ and, indeed, public 



Co., 108 N. Y. 463, 15 N. E. 438; 
Doke v. James, 4 N. Y. 568; Efner v. 
Shaw, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 567; Parker 
v. Parker, 103 Mass. 167; Cobb v. 
Dortch, 52 Ga. 548 ; May v. Miller, 59 
Vt. 577, 7 Atl. 818; Holgate v. Kil- 
lick, 7 H. & N. 418, 31 L. J. Bxcb. 7; 
Doe V. Preson, 1 Saund. &c. Co., 77; 
Gordon v. Mitchell, Moore C. P. 241, 
4 E. C. L. 548; the transcript of evi- 
dence given before the arbitrators is 
admissible, in an action to recover 
the amount awarded, to show that 
all matters submitted were consid- 
ered and adjudicated: Jensen v. 
Deep Creek &c. Co., (Utah) 74 Pac. 
427. 

"Leslie v. Leslie, 52 N. J. Bq. 332, 
31 Atl. 724; Baltes v. Bass Foundry 
&c. Works, 129 Ind. 185, 28 N. E. 
319; Brazill v. Isham, 12 N. Y. 9; 
Odum V. Rutledge, 94 Ala. 488, 10 
So. 222. 

" Bancroft v. Grover, 23 Wis. 463, 
99 Am. Dec. 195; Carter v. Shibles, 
74 Me. 273; Bennett v. Pierce, 28 
Conn. 314; Shackleford v. Pucket, 2 
A. K. Marsh (Ky.) 435, 12 Am. Dec. 
422; Leonard v. Root, 15 Gray 
(Mass.) 553; Converse v. Colton, 49 



Pa. St. 346 ; Huckestein v. Kaufman, 
173 Pa. St. 199, 33 Atl. 1028; Burton 
V. Howard, 38 Ind. 109; Faw v. 
Davy,* 1 Cranch (U. S.) 89, 440; 
Brown v. Croydon Canal Co., 9 Ad. & 
El. 522, 36 E. C. L. 282; parol evi- 
dence is admissible to identify a 
written award : Saunders v. Heaton, 
12 Ind. 20. 

« Callier v. Watley, 120 Ala. 38, 23 
So. 796 ; Brown v. Bast, 5 T. B. Mon. 
(Ky.) 405. But the foundation must 
first be laid: Burke v. Voyles, 5 
Blatchf. (Ind.) 190. 

"Strong V. Strong, 9 Cush. 
(Mass.) 560; Shulte v. Hennessy, 40 
Iowa 352; Lord v. Lord, 5 B. & Bl. 
404, 85 E. C. L. 404; see also, Brown 
V. Harness, 11 Ind. App. 426, 38 N. 
E. 1098. 

^ Bridgeport v. Eisenman, 47 
Conn. 34; Stalworth v. Inns, 2 D. & 
L. 428; Lord v. Lord, 5 Bl. & B. 404, 
84 E. C. L. 404; see also, Brown V. 
Harness, 11 Ind. App. 426, 38 N. B. 
1098; Dodds v. Hakes, 114 N. Y. 260, 
21 N. B. 398. 

'" Doke V. James, 4 N. Y. 568; Cobb 
v. Dolphin, 108 N. Y. 463, 15 N. E.- 
438; Bigelow v. Maynard, 4 Cush.. 



109 



PAKOL EVIDEXCE. 



[§ 1664. 



policy would, ordinarily, require the rejection of testimony of one of 
the arbitrators to impeach his own award by showing his own fraud 
or misconduct.^^ But an arbitrator may be called in a proper case to 
sustain an award,^^ and may testify as to when it was rnade.^* It has 
also been held that he may testify as to other matters arising in con- 
nection with the award, such as what was submitted and considered,''^ 
where the submission and award do not show it ; and, in some instances 
he may testify to show an excess of jurisdiction or authority, or a mis- 
take.°' But testimony of arbitrators as to the grounds of their de- 
cision and what they intend to decide is not, ordinarily, admissible ;^^ 
and there are some authorities to the effect that they cannot, ordi- 
narily, testify as to what matters were submitted and considered.^' 



(Mass.) 317; King v. Jemison, 33 
Ala. 499; Alexander v. McNear, 28 
Fed. (U. S.) 403;. Cobb v. Dortch, 52 
Ga. 548; Wifwall v. Hall, Quincy 
(Mass.) 27; Hubbell v. Russell, 2 
Allen (Mass.) 196. 

"^Overby v. Thrasher, 47 Ga. 10; 
Ellison V. Weathers, 78 Mo. 115; 
Kankakee &c. R. Co. v. Alfred, 3 111. 
App. 511; Tucker v. Page, 69 111. 
179; Claycomb v. Butler, 36 111. 100; 
Ellmaker v. Buckley, 16 S. & R. 
(Pa.) 72; French v. New, 20 Barb. 
(N. Y.) 481; Doke v. James, 4 N. Y. 
568; but see, Levine v. Lancashire 
Ins. Co., 66 Minn. 138, 68 N. W. 85; 
King V. Armstrong, 25 Ga. 264; Na- 
tional Bank T. Derragh, 30 Hun (N. 
Y.) 9, to the effect that one who re- 
fuses to join in the award may testi- 
fy as to misconduct on the part of 
others. Where an afladavit of an ar- 
bitrator was used in support of an 
award, it was held that the court 
might permit him to be orally exam- 
ined by the party impeaching the 
award: Robinson v. Shanks, 118 
Ind. 125, 20 N. B. 713. 

"''Stone V. Atwood, 28 111. 30; Elli- 
son V. Weathers, 78 Mo. 115; Robert- 
son V. McNeil, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 
548. 

" Woodbury v. Northy, 3 Me. 85, 4 



Am. Dec. 214; see also. Porter v. 
Dugat, 12 Mart. O. S. (La.) 245. 

"'Hale V. Huse, 10 Gray (Mass.) 
99 ; Evans v. Clapp, 123 Mass. 165, 25 
Am. R. 52; Spurck v. Crook, 19 111. 
415; Stevens v. Gray, 2 Har. (Del.) 
347; Converse v. Colton, 49 Pa. St. 
346; Hammond v. Deehan, 78 Me. 
399, 6 Alt. 3; Jensen v. Deep Creek 
&e. Co., (Utah) 74 Pac. 427, to sus- 
tain the award; Brown v. Brown, 49 
N. Car. 123; Buccleuch v. Metropoli- 
tan Board, L. R. 5 Exch. 221, af- 
firmed in L. R. 5 H. 418, 41 L. J. 
Exch. 137. 

=» Barrows v. Sweet, 143 Mass. 316, 
9 N. E. 665; Cady v. Walker, 62 
Mich. 157, 28 N. W. 805, 4 Am. St. 
834; King v. Armstrong, 25 Ga. 264. 

" Parker v. Parker, 103 Mass. 167 ; 
Cobb V. Dolphin &c. Co., 108 N. Y. 
463, 15 N. E. 438; Kingston v. Kin- 
caid, 1 Wash. (U. S.) 448; Aldrich 
V. Jessiman, 8 N. H. 516. 

^ Ruckman v. Ramson, 35 N. J. L. 
565; Thomason v. Odum, 31 Ala. 108, 
68 Am. Dec. 159; State v. Stewart, 12 
Gill & J. (Md.) 458; see also. Glade 
V. Schmidt, 20 111. App. 157, affirmed 
in 126 111. 485; Whitewater Valley 
Canal Co. v. Henderson, 3 Ind. 3; 
Rundell v. La Fleur, 6 Allen (Mass.) 
480; De Long v. Stanton, 9 Johns. 



§ 1665.] 



ARBITRATION AND AWARD. 



110 



A valid orai submission, and its terms may, of course, be shown by 
parol evidence.^' It has also been held that a recital in an award to the 
effect that the submission was in writing will not exclude parol evi- 
dence that it was oral, and then, to prove its terms;"" So, when there 
is nothing in the submission or the law to forbid, the award may be 
oral, and in such cases, parol evidence is admissible to establish it 
and show its terms."^ 

§ 1665. Defenses. — "In defense of an action on an award, or for 
not performing an award, the defendant may avail himself of any 
material error or defect, apparent on the face of the award ;" such as 
excess of power by the arbitrators,"^ defect of execution of power, as. 
by omitting to consider a matter submitted,"* or submitting it to 
another and taking his opinion without exercising his own judg- 
ment,"^* or want of sufficient certainty;"* and the same has been 



(N. Y.) 38; Shelling v. Parmer, 1 
Str. 646. 

"Boots V. Canine, 58 Ind. 450, 456; 
Kelley v. Adams, 120 Ind. 340, 22 N. 
B. 317; Blackwell v. Goss, 116 Mass. 
394; Torrence v. Graham, 18 N. Car. 
284; Tucker v. Gordon, 7 How. 
(Miss.) 306; Birbeck v. Burrow, 2 
Hall (N. Y.) 51. 

" Boots v. Canine, 94 Ind. 408. 

"'Smith V. Stewart, 5 Ind. 220; 
Mand v. Patterson, 19 Ind. App. 619, 
49 N. E. 974; Cady v. Walker, 62 
Mich. 157, 28 N. W. 805, 4 Am. St. 
834; Boughton v. Seamans, 9 Hun 
(N. Y.) 392. 

"' Clark V. Goit, 1 Kans. App. 345, 
41 Pac. 214; Morgan v. Mather, 2 
Ves. 18; Fisher v. Pimhley, 11 East 
189; Macomb v. Wilber, 16 Johns. 
(N. Y.) 227; Jackson v. Ambler, 14 
Johns. (N. Y.) 96; see also. Com- 
monwealth v. Pejepseut Props., 7 
Mass. 399; Stearne v. Cope, 109 111. 
340; Amos v. Buck, 75 Iowa 651, 37 
N. W. 118. 

«= Mitchell V. Staveley, 16 East 58; 
Bean v. Farnam, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 
269 1 Clark v. Goit, 1 Kans. App. 345, 
41 Pac. 214; but not unless the omis- 



sion is material to the award: Davy 
V. Faw, 7 Cranch. (U. S.) 171; Bar- 
ker V. Hough, 2 Halst. (N. J.) 428; 
Doe V. Horner, 8 Ad. & El. 235. 

•^* Harley Co. v. Barnefield, (R. I.) 
47 Atl. 544. 

'* Jackson v. Ambler, 14 Johns. 
(N. Y.) 96; Herbst v. Hagenaers, 
137 N. Y. 290, 33 N. E. 315; 
Flannery v. Sahagian, 134 N. Y. 85, 
31 N. E. 319; Mather v. Day, 106 
Mich. 371, 60 N. "W. 198; Clark v. 
Burt, 4 Cush. (Mass.) 396; Ross v. 
Clifton, 9 Dowl. Prac. Cas. 360. An 
award defining a boundary may he 
defeated by proof that there were 
no such monuments as were referred 
to In the award. But a want of cer- 
tainty in the award in this respect 
alone will not necessarily affect an- 
other portion of the same award de- 
ter.mining that one party had tres- 
passed upon the land of the other, 
and awarding to the latter party his 
damages and costs, though the tres- 
pass was upon the same land to 
which the disputed boundary had 
reference: Gidding v. Hadaway, 28 
Vt. 342; award is not valid which 
provides for the payment, by one of 



Ill 



DEFENSES. 



[§ 1665. 



held as to a plain mistake of law, as allowing a claim of freight, where 
the ship had never broken ground/^ and the like. As to corruption, or 
other misconduct or mistake of the arbitrators in making their award, 
the common law seems not to have permitted these matters to be 
shown in bar of an action at law for non-performance of the award ; 
and the remedy was required to be pursued iu equity.** But in this 
country, in those states where the jurisdiction in equity is not gen- 
eral, and does not afford complete relief in such cases, and under the 
codes which permit all defenses, whether legal or equitable, to be in- 
terposed, it has often been held that, if arbitrators act corruptly, or 
commit gross errors or mistakes in making their award, or take into 
consideration matters not submitted to them, or omit to consider mat- 
ters which were submitted ; or if the award be obtained by any fraud- 
ulent practice or suppression of evidence by the prevailing party, the 
defendant may plead and prove any of these matters in bar of an 
action at law to enforce the award.*^ And, although, as already shown. 



the parties to the submission, of a 
certain sum, after making deduc- 
tions therefrom of sums not fixed 
by, or capable of being ascertained 
from, the award: Fletcher v. Web- 
ster, 5 Allen (Mass.) 566. In Waite 
V. Barry, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 377, it is 
said, "It is essential to the validity 
of an award that it should make a 
final disposition of the matters em- 
braced in the submission, so that 
they may not become the subject or 
occasion of future litigation be- 
tween the parties. It is not indis- 
pensable that the award should 
state, in words or figures, the pre- 
cise amount to be paid. If nothing 
remains to be done, in order to ren- 
der it certain and final, but a mere 
ministerial act, or an arithmetical 
calculation, it will be good:" see 
also, Wakefield v. Llanelly &c. Co., 
Jur. (N. S.) 456; Tidswell, In re, 33 
Beav. 213; Ellison v. Bray, 9 L. T. 
(N. S.) 730; see also, Parker v. Dor- 
sey, 68 N. H. 181, 38 Atl. 785. 

"^Kelly V. Johnson, 3 Wash. (U. 
S.) 45; see also, Gross v. Zorger, 3 



Yeates (Pa.) 521; Ross v. Overton, 
3 Call (Va.) 309; hut see, Carson v. 
Barlywlne, 14 Ind. 256. 

=" Hough V. Beard, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 
158; Shephard v. Watrous, 3 Cai. 
(N. Y.) 166; Barlow v. Todd, 3 
Johns. (N. Y.) 367; Cranston v. 
Kenny, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 61; Van 
Cortlandt v. Underbill, 17 Johns. (N. 
Y.) 405; Kleine v. Catara, 2 Gall. 
(U. S.) 61; Sherron v. Wood, 5 
Halst. (N. J.) 7; Newland v. Doug- 
lass, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 62; Hartford 
&c. Co. V. Bonner Merc. Co., 44 Fed. 
(U. S.) 151, 11 L. R. A. 623; Geor- 
gia Home Ins. Co. v. Kline, 114 Ala. 
366, 21 So. 958; Thorburn v. Barnes, 
L. R. 2 C. P. 384. 

"Bean v. Farnam, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 
269; Brown v. Bellows, 4 Pick. 
(Mass.) 183; Parson v. Hall, 3 
Greenl. (Me.) 60; Boston Water 
Power Co. v. Gray, 6 Mete. (Mass.) 
131; Williams v. Paschall, 3 Yeates 
(Pa.) 564; Strong v. Strong, 9 Cush. 
(Mass.) 560; Lincoln v. Taunton 
Copper Mfg. Co., 8 Cush. (Mass.) 
415; Leavitt v. Comer, 5 Cush. 



§ 1665.J 



ARBITRATION AND AWARD. 



112 



arbitrators are not, ordinarily, bound to disclose the ground of their 
award,"' yet it has been held that they may be examined to prove that 
no evidence was given upon a particular subject;*' or, that certain 
matters were or were not examined, or acted on by them, or that there 
is mistake in the award;'" and likewise as to the time and circum- 
stances Under which the award was made,'^ and as to facts which 
transpired at the hearing.'^ It is also said that fraud in obtaining 



(Mass.) 129; French v. Richardson, 
5 Gush. (Mass.) 450; Thornton v. 
McCormick, 75 Iowa 285; Hyeroni- 
mus V. Allison, 52 Mo. 102; Leitch v. 
Miller, 40 Mo. App. 180; Downey v. 
Atchison &c. R. Co., 60 Kans. 499, 57; 
Briggs V. Smith, 20 Barb. (N. Y.) 
409; Hiscock v. Harris, 80 N. Y. 402; 
French v. New, 20 Barh. (N. Y.) 
481; Taylor v. Sayre, 4 Zab. (N. J.) 
647; Tracy v. Herrick, 25 N. H. 381; 
see also, Morgan v. Smith, 9 M. & 
W. 427; Angus v. Redford, 11 M. & 
"W. 69; an award made in pursuance 
of a reference under a rule of court 
will not be set aside for alleged 
mistakes of law on the part of the 
referees, unless they have them- 
selves been misled, or unless they 
refer questions of law to the court: 
Fairchild v. Adams, 11 Cush. 
(Mass.) 549; Bigelow v. Newell, 10 
Pick. (Mass.) 348; when all claims 
and demands between the parties 
are submitted to arbitration, it will 
be intended that the arbitrators 
have decided all matters submitted 
to them, although they do not so 
state in their award, unless the con- 
trary appears: Tallman v. Tallman, 
5 Cush. (Mass.) 325; Clement v. 
Comstock, 2 Mich. 359; an award 
made twelve years after the submis- 
sion is invalid, unless sufficient rea- 
son is shown for the delay: Hook 
V. Philbrick, 23 N. H. 288; the re- 
fusal of an arbitrator to examine 
witnesses is sufficient misconduct on 
iis part to induce the court to set 



aside his award: Phipps v. Ingram, 
3 Dowl. 669 ; Halstead v. Seaman, 82 
N. Y. 27; McDonald v. Lewis, 18 
Wash. 300; so, it seems, if he re- 
fuses to hear any relevant evidence: 
Hurdle v. Stallings, 109 N. Car. 6, 13 
S. B. 720; but there must be an. ac- 
tual offer of evidence: Stemmer v. 
Scottish Ins. Co., 53 Ore. 33, 65 Pae. 
498. 

"■Ante, § 1664; Henry v. Hilliard, 
120 N. Car. 479, 27 S. E. 130. 

''° Martin v. Thornton, 4 Bsp. 180. 

™Roop V. Brubacker, 1 Rawle 
(Pa.) 304; Alder v. Savill, 5 Taunt. 
454; Zeigler v. Zeigler, 2 S. &. R. 
(Pa.) 286; if, upon a submission of 
"all matters In difference," the par- 
ties omit to call the attention of the 
arbitrator to a matter not neces- 
sarily before him, they can not ob- 
ject to the award on the ground that 
he has not adjudicated upon it: 
Rees V. Waters, 16 M. & W. 263. 

''Woodbury v. Northy, 3 Greenl. 
(Me.) 85; Lincoln v. Taunton Mfg. 
Co., 8 Cush. (Mass.) 415; ante, 
§ 1664, note 54. 

"Gregory v. Howard, 3 Esp. 113; 
they may testify to any facts tend- 
ing to show that the award is void 
for legal cause : Strong v. Strong, 9 
Cush. (Mass.) 560; as that they did 
not suppose the reference was final: 
Huntsman v. Nichols, 116 Mass. 521; 
the testimony of referees is admis- 
sible to Identify matters submitted 
to them, and to show that they acted 
on them; but a written submission 



113 DEFENSES. [§ 1665. 

the submission may be given in evidence imder the plea of non as- 
sumpsit, or nil debet, by the common law.'' Where the action is as- 
sxmipsit upon a' submission by parol, the plea of non assumpsit, where 
it is not otherwise restricted by rules of court, puts in issue every 
material averment of the declaration. "Under this issue, therefore," it 
is said, "the defendant may not only show those things which affect 
the original validity of the submission, or of the award, such as in- 
fancy, coverture, want of authority in the arbitrators, fraud, revocation 
of authority, intrinsic defects in the award, and, if there is no other 
mode of relief, extrinsic irregularities also, such as want of notice and 
the like ; but he may also show anything which at law would defeat and 
destroy the action, though it operate by way of confession and avoid- 
ance, such as a release, payment, or performance."'* So, in debt on an 
award the general issue of nil debet puts in issue every material alle- 
gation of the declaration.'^ "And sometimes, where assumpsit has been 
brought upon the original cause of action, either party has been per- 
mitted to show the submission and award under the general issues, as 
evidence of a statement of accounts and an admission of the balance 
due, or of a mutual adjustment of the amount in controversy."'* It 
has also been held that, while the submission must, ordinarily, be 
proved in an action upon an award, where the party against whom the 

•or award cannot be varied or ex- "2 Greenleaf Ev. §, 81; Stephen 
plained by parol: Buck v. SpofCord, PI. pp. 179-182 (Am. ed. 1894); Tay- 
35 Me. 526; declarations by an arbi- lor v. Coryell, 12 S. & R. (Pa.) 243, 
trator, some days after making and 251; Allen v. Watson, 16 Johns. (N. 
publishing his award, are incompe- Y.) 203; see also, Whitcher v. 
tent to impeach it: Hubbell v. Bis- Whitcher, 49 N. H. 176, 6 Am. R. 
sell, 2 Allen (Mass.) 196; it has been 486; Woodbury v. Northy, 3 Me. 85, 
held that an award may be binding 149 Am. Dec. 214; Abbott v. Skin- 
though the arbitrators meet outside ner, 11 U. C. C. P. 309. 
the state: Bdmundson v. Wilson, "Bean v. Farnam, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 
108 Ala. 118, 19 So. 367, and that it 269; Ott v. Schroeppel, 3 Barb. (N. 
is not binding where the arbitrators Y.) 56; Blood v. Bates, 31 Vt. 147; 
strike an average between their Turner v. Alway, 5 U. C. Q. B. (0. 
opinions as to the amount due: S.) 45; but compare, Connecticut &c. 
Luther v. Medbury, 18 R. I. 141, 26 Co. v. O'Fallon, 49 Neb. 740, 69 N. W. 
Atl. 37. 118. 

" Sackett V. Owen, 2 Chitty 39. "2 Greenleaf Bv. § 81; Keen v. 

"See and compare. Rice v. Loom- Batshore, 1 Esp. 194; Kingston v. 

is, 28 Ind. 389. Phelps, Peake Cas. 228. 



Vol. 3 Elliott Ev. — 8 



1666.] 



AEBITEATION AND AWAED. 



114 



award is sought to be used admits it in hie pleadings, he also in effect 
adnrits the submission, and further evidence thereof is unnecessary.'^ 

§ 1666. Revocation. — The defendant may also, in most jurisdic- 
tions, show that the authority of the arbitrators was revoked before 
the making of the award,'* unless it is made under a rule of court and 
no leave is granted to revoke it.'** And the death of either of the 
parties to a submission at common law, before the award is made, will 
amount to revocation ;'° unless it is otherwise clearly provided in the 
submission.*" Whether bankruptcy is a revocation, is not clearly set- 
tled.*^ Where the submission is at common law, and in some in- 
stances, even where it is under the statute, but is not yet made a rule 
of court, it seems that either party may revoke the authority of the 
arbitrators; though he may render himself liable to an action for so 
doing.*^ But if the submission is by two, a revocation by one only has 
been held to be void.** 



" Sadler v. Olmstead, 79 Iowa 121, 
44 N. W. 292. 

" Harrison v. Hartford Fire Ins. 
Co., 112 Iowa 77, 83 N. W. 820; Paul- 
sen v. Manske, 126 111. 72, 18 N. E. 
275 9 Am. St. 532; Boston &c. R. Co. 
V. Nashua &c. R. Co. 139 Mass. 463, 
31 N. E. 751; Butler v. Green, 49 
Neb. 280, 68 N. W. 496; but not 
afterwards: Coon v. Allen, 156 
Mass. 113, 30 N. E. 83; Connecticut 
&c. Co. v. O'Pallon, 49 Neb. 740, 69 
N. W. 118; -in a few cases a submis- 
sion has been held irrevocable: Mc- 
Kenna v. Lyle, 155 Pa. St. 599, 26 
Atl. 777, 35 Am. St. 910; McCune v. 
Lytle, 197 Pa: St. 404, 47 Atl. 190; 
Guild v. Atchison &c. R. Co., 57 
Kans. 70, 45 Pac. 82, 33 L. R. A. 77. 

"*Bash v. Christian, 77 Ind. 290; 
Gregory v. Pike, 94 Me. 27, 46 Atl. 
793; California Academy v. Fletcher, 
99 Cal. 207, 33 Pac. 855. 

"Gregory v. Pike, 94 Me. 27, 46 
Atl. 793; Edmund v. Cox, 2 Tidd Pr. 
877, 3 Doug. 406, 2 Chitty 422; Coop- 
er V. Johnson, 2 B. & A. 394; Potts v. 
Ward, 1 Marsh. (U. S.) 366; but 



compare. Citizens' Ins. Co. v. Coit, 
12 Ind. App. 161, 39 N. B. 766; Mich- 
igan &c. Church v. Hearson, 41 111. 
App. 89; Chapman v. Seccomb, 36 
Me. 102; Toussaint v. Hartop, 7 
Taunt. 571; so held where one re- 
fuses to act: Wolf v. Augustine, 181 
Pa. St. 576, 37 Atl. 574; but if the 
submission is under a rule of court, 
and the action survives, it is not re- 
voked by death: Bacon v. Crandon, 
15 Pick. (Mass.) 79; see also. Bash 
V. Christian, 77 Ind. 290. 

'"Macdougal v. Robertson, 2 Y. & 
J. 11, 4 Bing. 435; Mooers v. Allen, 
35 Me. 276, 58 Am. Dec. 700; Bailey 
V. Stewart, 3 W. & S. (Pa.) 560. 

»' Marsh v. Wood, 9 B. & C. 659; 
Andrews v. Palmer, 4 B. & A. 250; 
Kemshead, Ex parte, 1 Rose 149. 

"^Skee V. Coxon, 10 B. & C. 483; 
Milne v. Gratrix, 7 East 608; Clap- 

"^ Robertson v. McNeil, 12 Wend. 
(N. Y.) 578; see also, Lewis Appeal, 
91 Pa. St. 359; Wilde v. Vinor, 1 
Browhl. 62, and compare, Brown v. 
Leavitt, 26 Me. 251. 



115 



DISABILITY. 



[§ i66r. 



§ 1667. Disability. — It has been said that the defendant may also 
show, in defense, that one or more of the parties to the submission 
was a minor, or a feme covert, and that therefore the submission was 
void for the want of mutuality.** So, he may show that the arbitra- 
tors, before making their award, declined that office, and thereupon 
they ceased to be arbitrators f^ or that the arbitrators, unknown to him 
in time to object, were incompetent and disqualified.*" But it has been 
held that an objection that some of the parties had no capacity to con- 
tract is not available to those who have such capacity.*^ 



ham V. Higham, 1 Bing. 87, 7 Moore 
703; Greenwood v. Misdale, 1 McCl. 
& Y. 276; Brown v. Tanner, 1 McCl. 
& Y. 464, 1 Car. & P. 651; Warbur- 
ton V. Storr, 4 B. & C. 103; Vynior 
Case, 8 Coke 162; Frets v. Frets, 1 
Cow. (N. Y.) 335; Allen v. Watson, 
16 Johns.. (N. Y.) 205; Fisher v. 
Pimbley, 11 East 187; Peters v. 
Craig, 6 Dana (Ky.) 307; Marsh v. 
Bulteel, 5 B. & A. 507; Grazebrook 
v. Davis, 5 B. & C. 534, 538; Brown 
V. Leavitt, 13 Shepl. (Me.) 251; 
Marsh v. Packer, 5 Washb. (Vt.) 
198; Risen v. Moon, 91 Va. 384, 22 
S. B. 165; People v. Nash, 111 N. Y. 
310, 18 N. B. 630 7 Am. St. 747, 2 L. 
R. A. 180; this is said to be true 
though the matters submitted are in 
litigation: Minneapolis &c. R. Co. v. 
Cooper, 59 Minn. 290, 61 N. W. 143; 
a submission to arbitrators, if it is 
not founded on any consideration, 
or is not made a rule of court, may 
be revoked by the party submitting 
at any time before the award is de- 
livered; but in Pennsylvania it is 
not so, when it is made under an 
agreement founded on sufficient con- 
sideration: Paist V. Caldwell, 75 
Pa. St. 161; Lewis appeal, 91 Pa. 
St. 359. 

"2 Greenleaf § 80; Biddell v. 
Dowse, 6 B. & C. 255; see also, Brit- 
ton V. Williams, 6 Munf. (Va.) 453; 
Mann v. Richardson, 66 111. 481; 
Stahl V. Brown, 72 Iowa 720, 32 N. 



W. 105; but it is not a good objec- 
tion that one was an executor or ad- 
ministrator only, where he has au- 
thority to submit to arbitration: 
Coffin V. Cottle, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 454; 
Bean v. Parnam, 6 Ind. 269; Dickey 
V. Sleeper, 13 Mass. 244. 

"^Relyea v. Ramsay, 2 Wend. (N. 
Y.) 602; Allen v. Watson, 16 Johns. 
(N. Y.) 203; see also, Kimball v. 
Gilman, 60 N. H. 54; Johnson v. 
Cheney, 17 Tex. 336. 

*» Connor v. Simpson, (Pa.) 7 Atl. 
161; Stinson v. Davis, (Ky.) 50 S. 
W. 550; Milnor v. Georgia &c. Co., 4 
Ga. 385; Stephenson v. Oatman, 3 
Lea (Tenn.) 462; but see, Goodrich 
V. Hulbert, 123 Mass. 190, 25 Am. R. 
60; Brush v. Fisher, 70 Mich. 469, 38 
N. W. 446, 14 Am. St. 510; Stemmer 
V. Scottish Ins. Co., 33 Ore. 65, 49 
Pac. 588, 53 Pac. 498; Elliott &c. 
Co., In re, 2 De G. Sm. 17, 12 Jur. 
445; Ellis v. Hopper, 3 H. & N. 766, 
28 L. J. Bxch. 1; Bckersley v. Mer- 
sey Docks &c., (1894) L. R. 2 Q. B. 
667. 

^ Chambers v. Ker, 6 Tex. Civ. 
App. 373, 24 S. W. 1118; Fort v. Bat- 
tle, 13 Sm. & N. (Miss.) 133; see 
also, Boyd v. Magruder, 2 Rob. (Va.) 
761. There is, perhaps, no necessary 
conflict between this doctrine and 
that stated in the opening sentence 
of this paragraph, as much may de- 
pend upon the nature and extent of 
the arbitration and the particular 



§ 1668.] ARBITRATION AND AWARD. 116 

§ 1668. Award as evidence in other proceedings. — As a general 
rule a valid award merges all claims embraced in the submission, and 
it is generally conclusive evidence of facts necessarily involved in the 
arbitration in a subsequent litigation between the same parties or their 
privies when the same facts are directly in issue.*' But an award is 
not, ordinarily, at least, competent evidence against one who was 
neither a party to the arbitration nor in privity with a party thereto.'" 
And it has also been held that the rule which permits a verdict, in some 
instances, to be shown as evidence of reputation, even between stran- 
gers to the record, does not apply to an award."" * 

circumstances of each case. Cald- B. 633 ; as to when it is prima facie 

well V. Caldwell, 121 Ala. 598, 25 So. evidence, see, Withington v. War- 

825; Prentiss v. Wood, 132 Mass. ren, 12 Mete. (Mass.) 114. 

486; Gaylord V. Gaylord, 48 N. Car. "Emery v. Fowler, 38 Me. 99; 

367; Haubrick v. Johnston, 23 Minn. Coon v. Osgood, 15 Barb. (N. Y.) 

237; Terre Haute &c. R. Co. v. Har- 583; Woodward v. Woodward, 14 111. 

ris, 126 Ind. 9, 25 N. B. 831; Ten- 370; Smith v. Webber, 1. Ad. & El. 

nessee Mfg. Co. v. Haines, 16 R. I. 119; but compare, Thorpe v. Eyre, 1 

204, 14 Atl. 853; Whitehead v. Tat- Ad. & El. 926, 28 E. C. L. 426. 

tersall, 1 Ad. & El. 491, 28 E. C. L. ^ Evans v. Rees, 10 Ad. & El. 151, 

239; Gueret v. Audouy, 62 L. J. Q. 37 B. C. L. 101. 



CHAPTEE LXXXIII. 



ASSAULT AND BATTERY. 



Sec. 

1689. Generally. 

1690. Burden of proof. 

1691. Questions of law or fact. 

1692. Scope of evidence — Res gestae. 

1693. Time and place. 

1694. Character or reputation. 

1695. Declarations and admissions — 

Res gestae. 



Sec. 

1696. Opinions and conclusions of 

witnesses. 

1697. Justification. 

1698. Son assault demesne. 

1699. MoUiter manus imposuit. 

1700. Moderate castigavit. 

1701. Other defenses. 

1702. Evidence in mitigation. 

1703. Damages — Aggravation. 



§ 1689. Generally. — "An assault," says Judge Cooley, "is an at- 
tempt, with unlawful force, to inflict bodily injury upon another, 
accompanied with the apparent present ability to give effect to the 
attempt if not prevented. ... A successful assault becomes a bat- 
tery. A battery consists in an injury actually done to the person of 
another in an angry or revengeful, or rude or insolent manner."^ 
There must in a sense be an intent, express or implied, to do injury, 
and an accidental injury, as to which the actor was blameless, is no 
battery.^ But it is not essential that the actor should have designed 
to inflict the precise injury that he did inflict;' and personal injury 



'Cooley Torts (1st ed.) 160, 162; 
see also notes in 9 L. R. A. 445 and 
14 L. R. A. 226; 1 Hawk P. C. 263; 
Coward v. Baddeley, 4 H. &. N. 478; 
Bishop Non-Contract Law §§ 190 et 
seq. 

-Brown v. Kendall, 6 Cush. 
(Mass.) 292; Fitzgerald v. Cavln, 
110 Mass. 153; Gibbons v. Pepper, 4 
Mod. 405; Alderson v. Waisteli; 1 
Car. & K. 358; Stanley v. Powell, 
(1901) L. R. 1 Q. B. 6, 60 L. J. Q. B. 
52; see also Commonwealth v. White, 
110 Mass. 407; Stearns v. Sampson, 



59 Me. 568, 8 Am. R. 442; Shriver v. 
Bean, 112 Mich. 598, 71 N. W. 145; 
Metcalfe v. Conner, 5 Litt. (Ky.) 
370; Paxton v. Boyer, 67 111. 132, 16 
Am. R. 615; but compare, Carlton v. 
Henry, 129 Ala. 479, 29 So. 924; and 
see generally. Brown v. Collins, 53 
N. H. 442; Wakeman v. Robinson, 1 
Bing. 213; Weaver v. Ward, Hob. 
134; Fletcher v. Rylands, L. R. 3 H. 
L. 330. 

'State V. Myers, 19 Iowa 517; 
Corning v. Corning, 6 N. Y. 97; Vos- 
burg V. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N. 



117 



§ 1690.] 



ASSAULT AND BATTEEY. 



118 



to another by one who is doing an unlawful act, or by reckless con- 
duct on his part, may constitute an assault and battery although there 
was no actual intention to inflict the injury.* 

§ 1690. Burden of proof. — Under a plea of "not guilty," or gen- 
eral denial, the burden is upon the plaintifE to prove every material 
allegation of his declaration or complaint.^ But it has been held that 
he need not show, in the first instance at least, by direct evidence that 
the defendant actually intended to commit the injury." Where ex- 
cessive force or abuse of authority is alleged, the burden is upon the 
plaintifE to show it.'' But, ordinarily, where the assault and battery is 
proved, the burden of going forward with evidence in justification or 
mitigation is upon the defendant;* and it has been held that if the 



W. 403, 14 L. R. A. 226, and note; 
Peterson v. Haffner, 59 Ind. 130, 26 
Am. R. 81; Scott v. Shephard, 2 "W. 
Bl. 892; Horns v. Mandelbaum, 13 
111. App. 607; Ricker v. Freeman, 50 
N. H. 420, 9 Am. R. 267. 

* Mercer v. Corbin, 117 Ind. 450, 20 
N. E. 132, 3 L. R. A. 221; Vosburg v. 
Putney, 86 Wis. 278, 56 N. W. 480, 14 
L. R. A. 226, and note; Welch v. Du- 
rand, 36 Conn. 182, 4 Am. R. 55; 
James v. Hayes, 63 Kans. 133, 65 Pac. 
241; Markley v. Whitman, 95 Mich. 
236, 54 N. W. 763, 20 L. R. 55, 35 
Am. St. 558; James v. Campbell, 5 
Car. & P. 372; see also, where injury 
is inflicted in a fight engaged in by 
consent: Adams v. Waggoner, 33 
Ind. 531; Grotton v. Glidden, 84 Me. 
589, 24 Atl. 1008, 30 Am. St. 413; 
Willey V. Carpenter, 64 Vt. 212, 23 
Atl. 630, 15 L.. R. A. 853; Boulter v. 
Clark, Buller N. P. 16; Barholt v. 
Wright, 45 Ohio St. 177, 12 N. B. 
185, 4 Am. St. 535. 

"Cogdell v. Yett, 1 Coldw. (Tenn.) 
229 ; but a preponderance of the evi- 
dence is generally held sufficient; 
Shaul v. Norman, 34 Ohio St. 157; 
Elliott v. Van Buren, 33 Mich. 49, 20 
Am. R. 668; even to warrant exem- 
plary damages, St. Ores v. McGlash- 



en, 74 Cal. 148, 15 Pac. 452; he must 
prove the assault and resulting in- 
jury, Sellman v. Wheeler, 95 Md. 
751, 54 Atl. 512. 

"Conway v. Reed, 66 Mo. 346, 27 
Am. R. 354; actual intention is usu- 
ally more important in case of mere 
assault than where there is also a 
battery. 

'Finnell v. Bohannon, (Ky), 44 S. 
W. 94; Henry v. Lowell, 16 Barb. 
(N. Y.) 268; Ayres v. Birtch, 35 
Mich. 501; Wilkes v. Dlnsman, 7 
How. (U. S.) 89; see also, where son 
assault demense, with general repli- 
cation de injuria is pleaded: Samp- 
son V. Henry, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 379; 
Frederick v. Gilbert, 8 Pa. St. 454; 
Watson V. Hastings, 1 Pen. (Del.) 
47, 39 Atl. 587. 

'Rutherford v. Foster, 125 Fed. 
187, 60 C. C. A. 129; Conway v. Reed, 
66 Mo. 346, 27 Am. R. 354; Tucker v. 
Johnson, 89 Md. 471, 43 Atl. 778, 46 
L. R. A. 181;- Schlosser v. Fox, 14 
Ind. 365; Glzler v. Witzel, 82 111. 
322; Great Southern R. Co. v. Fra- 
zier, 93 Ala. 45, 9 So. 303, 30 Am. St. 
28; Hathaway v. Hatchard, 160 
Mass. 296, 35 N. B. 857; Wakefield v. 
Fairman, 41 Vt. 339; plaintifE need 
not show In the first Instance that It 



119 



QUESTIONS OF LAW OR FACT. [§§ 1691, 1692. 



commission of the alleged assault and battery is admitted by the de- 
fendant and justification is pleaded, the burden is upon him ; and he 
has the right to open and close.' 

§ 1691. Questions of law or fact. — ^It is for the court to deter- 
mine what is sufficient in law to constitute an assault,^" and there may 
be eases in which the evidence is undisputed and in which some ques- 
tion is so clear that the court could decide it as one of law, but they 
are not numerous.^'^ Ordinarily, it is for the jury to determine, under 
proper instructions, whether there was an assault,^- whether excessive 
force was used^^ by one having authority, whether the injury was the 
result of the defendant's wrongful act,^* its extent,^" and the amount 
of damages.^" And the same is true as to various other questions that 
usually arise under a plea of justification or the like.^^ 

§ 1692. Scope of evidence — ^Res ^stae. — The scope of the evidence 
depends upon the issues and nature of the particular case. The plain- 
tiff is usually confined to the particular assault or assaults charged,^* 



was without cause or justiflcatlon. 
Sweet v. Boyd, (Iowa) 98 N. W. 601; 
see also, Sellman v. Wheeler, 95 Md. 
751, 54 Atl. 712. 

'Seymour v. Bailey, 76 Ga. 339; 
Johnson v. Strong, (Ky.) 58 S. W. 
430; Berkner v. Dannenherg, (Ga.) 
43 S. E. 463, but not unless he ad- 
mits the commission of the acts 
charged. 

" Handy v. Johnson, 5 Md. 450. 

"Cool«y Torts (1st ed.) 169; cit- 
ing. Commonwealth v. Rush, 112 
Mass. 58; Edwards v. Leavltt, 46 Vt. 
126; Hanson v. European &c. R. Co., 
fi2 Me. 84, 16 Am. R. 404; Currier v. 
Swan, 63 Me. 323; see also, Martin 
V. Moore, (Md.) 57 Atl. 671; Willet 
V. Johnson, 13 Okla. 563, 76 Pac. 174. 

^ Mailand v. Mailand, 83 Minn. 
453, 86 N. W. 445. 

" Sheehan v. Sturges, 53 Conn. 
481, 2 Atl. 841; Lander v. Seaver, 32 
Vt. 114, 76 Am. Dec. 156; Murdock 
V. Ripley, 35 Me. 472; and for this 
reason the opinion of a witness as 



to whether the force was excessive 
has been held inadmissible; Zube v. 
Weber, 67 Mich. 52, 34 N. W. 264. 

" CuUey V. Walkeen, 80 Mich. 443. 
45 N. W. 368; see also, Carlton v. 
Henry, 129 Ala. 479, 29 So. 924; 
Willi V. Lucas, 110 Mo. 219, 19 S. W. 
726. 

^Porter v. Seller, 23 Pa. St. 424, 
62 Am. Dec. 341; Reddin v. Gates, 52 
Iowa 210, 2 N. W. 1079. 

"Gronan v. Kukkuck, 59 Iowa 18, 
12 N. W. 748; Townsend v. Briggs, 
99 Cal. 481, 34 Pac. 307; Thillman v. 
Neal, 88 Md. 525, 42 Atl. 242; Cross 
V. Carter, 100 Ga. 632, 28 S. E. 390; 
Borland v. Barrett, 76 Va. 128, 44 
Am. R. 152. 

''Collins V. Walters, 54 111. 485, 
Handy v. Johnson, 5 Md. 450; Kent 
V. Cole, 84 Mich. 579, 48 N. W. 168; 
Higgins V. Minaghan, 76 Wis. 298, 
45 N. W. 127. 

^Carpenter v. Crane, 5 Blackf. 
(Ind.) 119; Peyton v. Rogers, 4 Mo. 
254; see also, as to the effect of a 



§ 1693.] ASSAULT AND BATTERY. 130 

and evidence is not admissible on the part of the plaintiff to prove that 
the assault was committed by another than the defendant when the 
latter was not present and there is nothing to show that such other 
person was acting under the defendant's authority.^" All the res 
gestae may generally be shown, and these may include not only direct 
evidence of just what was done by the parties at the time, but also 
declarations constituting part of the transaction,^" and other circum- 
stances of the assault.^^ Evidence as to the physical condition or ap- 
pearance of the parties has also been held admissible,^^ in a proper 
ease. In a recent case in an action against a street railway company 
for an assault and battery committed by its conductor, it was held 
proper to show the age and relative sizes of the plaintiff and the con- 
ductor and also that the conductor had used profane language to the 
plaintiff's companion on the same car, whereby the trouble was start- 
ed.^' So, in general, it may be said that proper evidence is admissible 
for the plaintiff to prove any fact which is necessary for him to prove 
in order to make his case under the issues, and, evidence which might 
not otherwise be admissible may be admissible upon the question of 
damages. The inducement of the acts or conduct of the parties form- 
ing part of the assault or leading up to it, and matters throwing light 
on the alleged assault, may usually be shown on the question of the 

replication de injuria where two as- ''"Puett v. Beard, 86 Ind. 104; 

saults are ctiarged and one justl- Monday v. State, 32 Ga. 672, 79 Am. 

fled and, also, as to the difference Dec. 314; Crow v. State, 41 Tex. 468; 

where the plaintiff newly assigns on State v. Wiggins, 152 Mo. 170, 53 S. 

a plea of "not guilty" after a plea W. 421; Cleveland v. Stilwell, 75 

of "not guilty" and son assault de- Iowa 466, 89 N. W. '711; Smith v. 

mesne. Berry v. Borden, 7 Blackf. Dawley, 92 Iowa 312, 60 N. W. 625. 

(Ind.) 384; West v. Rousseau, 7 "Smith v. State, 123 Ala. 64, 26 

Blackf. (Ind.) 450. So. 641; Bruce v. Priest, 87 Mass. 

"Bacon v. Hooker, 173 Mass. 554, 100; Brzezinski v. Tierney, 60 Conn. 

54 N. E. 253; see also, McCann v. 55, 22 Atl. 486; Blake v. Damon, 103 

Tillinghast, 140 Mass. 327, 5 N. E. Mass. 199; Commonwealth v. Craw- 

164; McManus v. Crickett, 1 East ley, 167 Mass. 434, 45 N. E. 766; 

106; Morley v. Gaisford, 2 H. Bl. Hoffmann v. State, 65 Wis. 46, 26 N. 

442; but see as to evidence of acts W. 110. 

of aiders and abettors, Goetz v. ='' Harris v. State, 123 Ala. 69, 26 

Ambs, 27 Mo. 28; Murphy v. Wilson, So. 515; Thomason v. Gray, 82 Ala. 

44 Mo. 313, 100 Am. Dec. 290; Cleve- 292, 3 So. 38; Hodges v. State, 15 

land V. Stilwell, 75 Iowa 466, 39 N. Ga. 117. 

W. 711; Cox V. Crumley, 5 Lea =" Birmingham &o. Co. v. Mullen, 

(Tenn.) 529; Reizenstein v. Clark, (Ala.) 35 So. 701. 
104 Iowa 287, 73 N. W. 588. 



121 



KES GESTAE TIME AND PLACE. 



[§ 1693. 



animus or blame to be attached to either party, and to aid the jury in. 
determining the question of damages/* provided the evidence is not 
too remote.-^ The scope of the evidence of the defendant is deter- 
mined somewhat by the plaintiff's evidence, and more especially by the 
pleadings and issues thereby presented. Thus, as hereafter shown, 
evidence is inadmissible to establish justification unless it is specially 
pleaded;^* but evidence tending to prove that the defendant did not 
commit the assault charged is admissible under the general issue. It 
has been held that a defendant, who is sued for assault and battery al- 
leged to have been committed by his servant in the line of his em- 
ployment, may prove under the general denial that the plaintiff as- 
saulted his servant and that the latter inflicted the injury complained 
of in an attempt to defend himself.^^ 

§ 1693. Time-and place. — As a general rule, neither the time nor 
the place is required to be proved precisely as charged. Proof of the 
assault at any time prior to the commencement of the action is gen- 
erally sufficient.^* So proof that it was committed at any place within 
the county is likewise sufficient.^° 



'' MacDougal V. Maguire, 35 Cal. 
274, 95 Am. Dec. 98; Bagley v. Ma- 
son, 69 Vt. 175, 37 Atl. 287; Blake v. 
Damon, 103 Mass. 199; Baker v. 
Gausin, 76 Ind. 317; Draper v. 
Baker, 61 Wis. 450, 21 N. W. 527; 
Hammond v. Hightower, 82 Ga. 290, 
9 S. E. 1101; Flint v. Bruce, 68 Me. 
183; Blfers v. WooUey, 116 N. Y. 
294, 22 N. E. 548; Bartram v. Stone, 
31 Conn. 159; Spear v. Sweeney, 88 
Wis. 545, 60 N. W. 1060; Watkins v. 
Gaston, 17 Ala. 664; Byers v. Hor- 
ner, 47 Md. 23; Shafer v. Smith, 7 
Har. & J. (Md.) 67; Sledge v. Pope, 
3 N. Car. 402. 

"= Atkins V. Gladwish, 25 Neb. 390, 
41 N. W. 347; Irwin v. Yeager, 74 
Iowa 174, 37 N. W. 136; Morgan v. 
O'Daniel, (Ky.) 53 S. W. 1040; 
Badostain v. Grazide, 115 Cal. 425, 
47 Pac. 118; Chapell v. Schmidt, 104 
Cal. 511, 38 Pac. 892; Miller v. Cur- 
tis, 158 Mass. 127, 32 N. E. 1039, 36 
Am. St. 469; see also, Taylor v. Ad- 



ams, 58 Mich. 187, 25 N. W. 864; 
58 Mich. 187, 24 N. W. 864; Roach v. 
Caldbeck, 64 Vt. 593, 24 Atl. 989; 
Kuhn V. Freund, 87 Mich. 545, 49 N. 
W. 867. 

''"Norris v. Casel, 90 Ind. 143; My- 
ers V. Moore, 3 Ind. App. 226. 

"Oakland City &c. See. v. Bing- 
ham, 4 Ind. App. 545, 31 N. B. 383. 

'^ Palmer v. Skillenger, 5 Har. 
(Del.) 235; Sellers v. Zimmerman, 
18 Md. 255; BuUer N. P. 86; but see, 
where plea of son assult demesne is 
interposed: Gibson v. Fleming, 1 
Har. & J. (Md.) 483; BuUer N. P. 
17. 

* Hammer v. Pierce, 5 Har. (Del.) 
304; Miller v. McKee, 3 Har. & M. 
(Md.) 593; Hurley v. Marsh, 2 111. 
329; Mostyn v. Fabrigas, Cowp. 161. 
In some jurisdictions, as the action 
is personal and transitory, the as- 
sault and battery need not be al- 
leged and proved to have been even 
in the county. 



§§ 1694, 1695.] 



ASSAULT AND BATTERY. 



122 



§ 1694. Character or reputation. — As already shown, evidence of 
the physical condition, relative size of the parties, or the like, is some- 
times admissible, but character or reputation is not, ordinarily, in 
issue in an action for assault and battery. Thus, evidence of the de- 
fendant's good character or reputation for peace is not, ordinarily, 
admissible.^" So, the plaintiff cannot, as a rule, show that he is a man 
of good character or reputation.^^ Nor can the defendant, especially if 
he was the aggressor, ordinarily show, to reduce or mitigate damages, 
that the plaintiff was of a turbulent and quarrelsome disposition. '^ 
But where self-defense is properly relied on, it is usually competent 
to show the quarrelsome character of the other party, and that this 
fact was known to the party, who seeks to show it, at the time of the 
assault in question.^^ 

§ 1695. Declarations and admissions — ^Res gestae. — ^As a general 
rule any acts or declarations that are part of the res gestae are admis- 
sible.^* What was said at the time is admissible in evidence as part of 



"> Elliott v. Russell, 92 Ind. 526; 
Sturgeon v. Sturgeon, 4 Ind. App. 
232, 30 N. E. 805; Anthony v. Grand, 
101 Cal. 235, 35 Pac. 859; Reddin v. 
Gates, 52 Iowa 210, 2 N. W. 1079; 
Day V. Ross, 154 Mass. 13, 27 N. E. 
676; Soule v. Bruce, 67 Me. 584; 
Fahey v. Grotty, 63 Mich. 383, 29 N. 
W. 876, 6 Am. St. 305 ; Barr v. Post, 
56 Neb. 698, 77 N. W. 123; Smith- 
wick v. Ward, 7 Jones L. (N. Car.) 
64, 75 Dec. 453; Brown v. Evans, 17 
Fed. (U. S.) 912, affirmed in 102 U. 
S. 180; hut see, Schuek v. Hagar, 24 
Minn. 339. 

'' Denton v. Ordway, 108 Iowa 487, 
79 N. W. 271; Quinton v. Van Tuyl, 
30 Iowa 554; Givens v. Bradley, 3 
Bibb (Ky.) 192, 6 Am. Dec. 646. 

'^Smithwick v. Ward, 7 Jones L. 
(N. Car.) 64, 75 Am. Dec. 453; 
Kuney v. Dutcher, 56 Mich. 308, 22 
N. W. 866, 868; Macintosh v. Bart- 
lett, 67 Me. 130; Hall v. Power, 12 
Mete. (Mass.) 482, 46 Am. Dec. 698 
McCarty v. Leary, 118 Mass. 509 
Corning v. Corning, 6 N. Y. 97 



Dimick v. Downs, 82 111. 570; Gard- 
iner V. Cross, 6 Rob. (La.) 454; 
McKenzie v. Allen, 3 Strohh. L. (S. 
Car.) 546; Shook v. Peters, 59 Tex. 
393. 

'' Galbraith v.' Fleming, 60 Mich. 
403, 27 N. W. 581; Culley v. Walk- 
een, 80 Mich. 443, 45 N. W. 368; 
Knight v. Smythe, 57 Vt. 529; Beck- 
man v. Souther, 68 N. H. 381, 36 Atl. 
14; Golder v. Lund, 50 Neb. 867, 70 
N. W. 379; Silliman v. Sampson, 42 
N. Y. App. Div. 623, 59 N. Y. S. 923 ; 
Keep V. Quallman, 68 Wis. 451, 32 N. 
W. 233. 

"•Macdougall v. Macguire, 35 Cal. 
274, 95 Am. Dec. 98; Gueen v. Be- 
dell, 48 N. H. 546; Blake v. Damon, 
103 Mass. 199; Bruce v. Priest, 87 
Mass. 100; Ward v. White, 86 Va. 
212, 9 S. E. 1021, 19 Am. St. 883; 
Pokriefka v. Mackurat, 91 Mich. 
399, 51 N. W. 1059; Scheel v. 
Reimer, 98 Mich. 126, 56 N. W. 1108; 
Brzezinski v. Tierney, 60 Conn. 55, 
22 Atl. 486; Smith v. Dawley, 92 
Iowa 312, 60 N. W. 625; Nelson v. 



123 DECLAKATIONS AND ADMISSIONS. [§ 1695. 

ihe res gestae as well as what was done, and even an exclamation by a 
bystander, has been held competent to show the appearances as 
they were presented to the defendant when the blow was struck.' ' 
But it is not competent for a bystander to testify as to what he thought 
of the assault, and it has also been held that it is not competent for 
the plaintiff to show in such a case that, at the time of the assault, by- 
standers asked a policeman to arrest the defendant, and. made com- 
ments in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.'" So, where 
the question of fact upon which the right of the plaintiff to recover 
depended was as to whether the defendant directed his son to throw 
the plaintiff out of the saloon, a statement of the son made upon the 
trial of an action against him, for the same assault to the effect that 
he took the plaintiff's money after he was injured, and said he would 
go and get a hack for the plaintiff but forgot it and spent the money 
for beer, was held inadmissible, although the son was insolvent and had 
been killed in a railroad accident after the recovery of a judgment 
against him.'' And declarations of a defendant, pleading self-defense, 
that he would not go to a certain place, for fear he might have trouble 
with' the plaintiff, made on occasions different from the occasion of the 
assault, have been held inadmissible as too remote.'* A judgment of 
conviction against the defendant on a plea of guilty in a criminal 
prosecution for the same assault and battery may be shown as an ad- 
mission of the defendant." So, admissions or confessions of a de- 
fendant, whether directly made or inferred from silence, may be 
shown,*" and it has been held that evidence of a disposition of his 
property after the commission of the alleged assault may be received 

State, (Tex. Civ. App.) 20 S. "W. see. Riddle v. Brown, 20 Ala. 412, 56 

766. Am. Dec. 202; Byers v. Horner, 47 

•^ Baker v. Gausln, 76 Ind. 317; Md. 23; Hawes v. Knowles, 114 

see. Vol. I, § 550. Mass. 518, 19 Am. R. 383; Elfers v. 

'"Kuhn V. Freund, 87 Mich. 545, "WooUey, 116 N. Y. 294, 22 N. E. 

49 N. W. 867; see. Vol. I, § 550. 548; Spear v. Sweeney, 88 Wis. 545, 

=" Murphy v. Cuff, 177 N. Y. 314, 60 N. W. 1060. 

69 N. E. 607. '°Hamm v. Romine, 98 Ind. 77; 

""Evans v. Elwood, (Iowa) 98 N. see also, Corwln v. Walton, 18 Mo. 

W. 584; see also, Irwin v. Yeager, 71; Hauser v. Griffith, 102 Iowa 215, 

74 Iowa 174, 37 N. W. 136 ; but com- 71 N. W. 223 ; Rex v. Morean, 12 

pare, Peterson v. Toner, 80 Mich. Jur. 626. 

350, 45 N. W. 346; both prior and "Cleveland v. Stilwell, 75 Iowa 

subsequent declarations may, how- 466, 39 N. W. 711; Puett v. Beard, 

ever, be admissible where it is ma- 86 Ind. 104; Breitenbach v. Tow- 

terial to show motive or malice or bridge, 64 Mich. 393, 31 N. W. 402. 
ill will on the question of damages; 



§§ 1696, 1697.] ASSAULT and battery. 134 

as tending to show an admission or to explain the character of the 
acts.*^ But admissions or declarations by one co-defendant are not 
admissible against another/^ unless made in the course of a conspir- 
acy, or before the separation of the parties where circumstances of 
aggravation are shown, or the like.*^ 

§ 1696. Opinions and conclusions of witnesses. — As elsewhere 
shown, witnesses may sometimes testify, as to appearances, conduct or 
demeanor, although their statements may be in a sense opinions or 
conclusions,^* and this is true in assault and battery cases as well as in 
other cases in which the matter cannot be adequately described so as 
to enable the jury to understand it and draw the proper conclusion. 
But if the matter can be adequately described to the jury, or, in 
general, if the ordinary witness has no better means of forming an 
opinion or conclusion, his opinions and conclusions are inadmissible. 
Thus, it has been held that a witness cannot give his opinion as to the 
intent, or motive of the defendant in committing an assault and bat- 
^gpy.45 ajj^ ^jja^ a witness cannot state the impression as to what 
effect the beating of one person by another was producing, where there 
is nothing to prevent him from fully describing to the jury what he 
saw.*" So, it has been held that a defendant, pleading self-defense, 
cannot testify to the conclusion that he acted in self-defense, as that 
is the ultimate issue, to be determined'by the jury.*' 

§ 1697. Justification. — Matter in justification of an assault and 
battery must be specially pleaded, and is not admissible under the gen- 
eral denial.** So, it has been held that where two assaults are charged 

"Myers v. Moore, 3 Ind. App. 226, "Smith V. State, (Tex. Cr. App.)' 

28 N. B. 724; Heneky v. Smith, 10 20 S. W. 360; Trimble v. State, 

Ore. 349, 45 Am. R. 143; hut see, (Tex. Cr. App.) 22 S. W. 879; State 

Givens v. Berkley, (Ky.) 56 S. W. v. Garvey, 11 Minn. 154. 

158. "'Tucker v. State, 89 Md. 471, 43 

"Sodusky v. McGee, 7 J. J. Atl. 778, 44 Atl. 1004, 46 L. R. A. 

Marsh, (Ky) 266; Blackwell v. Da- 181. 

vis, 2 How. (Miss.) 812; Elliott v. "Evans v. Elwood, (Iowa) 98 N. 

Russell, 92 Ind. 526; Wagner v. "W. 584 ; but see. Plank v. Grimm, 62 

Haak, 170 Pa. St. 495, 32 Atl. 1087; Wis. 251, 22 N. W. 470. 

see also, Hoffman V. Eppers, 41 Wis. *' Norris v. Casel, 90 Ind. 143; 

251. Myers v. Moore, 3 Ind. App. 226, 28 

"Bell V. Morrison, 27 Miss. 68; N. E. 724; Lunsford v. Walker, 93 

Mawich v. Elsey, 47 Mich. 10, 8 N. Ala. 36, 8 So. 386; Illinois Steel Co. 

W. 587, 10 N. W. 57. v. Novak, 184 111. 501, 56 N. E. 966; 

" See Vol. 1, 678. 



125 



JUSTIFICATION — SON ASSAULT DEMESNE. 



[§ 1698. 



and both are admitted by a plea of son assault, the defendant, in order 
to justify, must prove two assaults.*" So, if the defendant seeks to 
justify, he must show a justification on the grounds alleged. °'' The 
plaintiff is not ordinarily required to show that the assault and bat- 
tery was without cause or justification.^^ Mere provocation, while it 
may mitigate, will not justify.^^ But evidence of provocation is often 
admissible as part of the res gestae even though it may not be consid- 
ered in justification. °^ It has also been held that a defendant may 
give quarantine regulations in evidence where he properly seeks to 
justify thereunder.^* 

§ 1698. Son assault demesne. — The old plea of son assault demesne 
is a good plea in j^lstification, or where the plaintiff committed an as- 
sault upon the defendant, and the latter merely defended himself.^^ 
To sustain this plea the defendant is ordinarily required to prove that 
the plaintiff assaulted him first,^^ and that what he himself did was 



Barr v. Post, 56 Neb. 698, 77 N. W. 
123; Wilken v. Exterkamp, (Ky.) 

42 S. W. 1140; Konigsberger v. Har- 
vey, 12 Ore. 286, 7 Pac. 114; Wheeler 
T. Whitney, 59 N. H. 197; Atkinson 
V. Harran, 68 Wis. 405, 32 N. W. 
756; Fraser v. Berkeley, 7 Car. & 
P. 621, 32 E. C. L. 789; but see, 
Syers v. Chapman, 2 C. N. S. 438, 89 
E. C. L. 438. 

''"Hardin v. Harrison, 2 Bibb 
(Ky.) 7. 

™ Short V. Symmes, 150 Mass. 298, 
23 N. E. 42, 15 Am. St. 204; Bell v. 
Martin (Tex. Civ. App.) 28 S. W. 
108; Monks v. Dykes, 1 H. & H. 418, 
4 M. & W. 567, 8 L. J. Exch. 73; 
Holmes v. Bagge, 1 E. & B. 782, 22 
L. J. Q. B. 301, 72 E. C. L. 782; 
Moriarty v. Brooks, 6 Car. & P. 684, 
25 E. C. L. 638. 

" Sweet V. Boyd, (Iowa) 98 N. W. 
■601; Berkner v. Dannenberg, (Ga.) 

43 S. E. 463, 60 L. R. A. 559; Ireland 
T. Elliott, 5 Iowa 478, 68 Am. Dec. 
715; Schlosser v. Fox, 14 Ind. 365; 
Birmingham &c. R. Co. v. Baird. 130 
Ala. 334, 30 So. 456, 89 Am. St. 43, 



54 L. R. A. 752; Willey v. Carpen- 
ter, 65 Vt. 168, 26 Atl. 488, 15 L. R. 
A. 853; Goldsmith v. Joy, 61 Vt. 
488, 17 Atl. 1010, 4 L. R. A. 500; 
Norris v. Casel, 90 Ind. 143. 

^ Crosby v. Humphreys, 59 Minn. 
92, 60 N. W. 843; see also, Byers v. 
Horner, 47 Md. 23; Davis v. Franke, 
33 Gratt. (Va.) 413. 

" O'Brien v. Cunard S. S. Co., 154 
Mass. 272, 28 N. E. 266, 13 L. R. A. 
329; where an oflBcer sought to jus- 
tify under a replevin writ, his re- 
turn was held not to be conclusive; 
McKinstry v. Collins, (Vt.) 56 Atl. 

■"1 East P. C. 406; Andrews 
Stephen PI. 287, § 155; 3 Cooley 
Blackstone (4th ed.) 128, 306. As 
to whether evidence of any other 
assault than that charged in the 
declaration can be given, see Gib- 
son V. Fleming, 1 Har. & J. (Md.) 
483; Dole v. Erskine, 37 N. H. 316; 
Peyton v. Rogers, 4 Mo. 254; Randle 
V. Webb, 1 Esp. 38; Downs v. 
Skrymsher, B. & G. 233; Carpenter 
V. Crane, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 119. 

■"Stevens v. Lloyd, 1 Cranch (U. 



§ 169&.] 



ASSAULT AND BATTERY. 



136 



necessary, or apparently necessary, in defense of his own person.^' It 
is generally said that where self-defense is relied upon in justification 
it must be shown that the acts relied upon were done in necessary self- 
defense; but where the circumstances and appearances are such as to 
lead a reasonable man to believe that his life was in danger or that he 
was in danger of great bodily harm from the plaintiff, anu the de- 
fendant so believed, he may, usually act on such appearances. °* Under 
the plea of son assault, and a replication de injuria it is generally 
held that the plaintiff can show and recover for excessive force used 
by the defendant.^* And the same has been held where a general de- 
nial is pleaded under the code.*" 

§ 1699. MoUiter manus imposuit. — The old plea of moUiter 
manus imposuit is likewise a plea in justification where only an 
amount of violence proportionate to the circumstances is used in de- 
fense of person or property, or in the prevention of a crime.®^ Under 
this plea, says Greenleaf, "the matters justified are of great variety; 



S.) 124; Drinkhorn v. Bubel, 85 
Mich. 532, 48 N. W. 710; Thomason 
V. Gray, 82 Ala. 291, 3 So. 38; see 
also, Crogate's Case, 8 Co. 66; 
Reece v. Taylor, 4 Nev. & M. 469; 
Phillips V. Howgate, 5 B. & Aid. 
220; Hulse v. Tollman, 49 111. App. 
490; State v. Bryson, Winst. Eq. (N. 
Car.) 86; Valden v. Commonwealth, 
12 Gratt (Va.) 717; State v. White, 
18 R. I. 473; State v. Marguire, 69 
Mo. 197. 

"Watson V. Hastings, 1 Pen. 
(Del.) 47, 39 Atl. 587; Rogers v. 
Waite, 44 Me. 275; Fitzgerald v. 
Fitzgerald, 51 Vt 420; see also, 
Shipley v. Edwards, 87 Iowa 310, 54 
N. W. 151. 

"* Courvoisier v. Raymond, 23 Col. 
113, 47 Pac. 284; Baker v. Gausln, 
76 Ind. 317; Morris v. Piatt, 32 
Conn. 75; Tucker v. Walters, 78 Ga. 
232, 2 S. E. 689; Irwin v. Yeager, 74 
Iowa 174, 37 N. W. 136; Goucher v. 
Jamieson, 124 Mich. 21, 82 N. W. 
663; Germolus v. Sausser, (Minn.) 
85 N. W. 946; Norris v. Whyte, 158 



Mo. 20, 57 S. W. 1037; Jamison v. 
Moseley, 69 Miss. 478, 10 So. 582; 
Sterling v. Warden, 51 N. H. 217, 12 
Am. R. 80; French v. Ware, 65 Vt. 
338, 26 Atl. 1096; Higgins v. Mina- 
ghan, 78 Wis. 602, 47 N. W. 941, 11 
L. R. A. 138, 23 Am. St. 428. But, 
as held in most of the authorities 
above cited, the belief must be rea- 
sonable. 

™ Fisher v. Bridges, 4 Blackf. 
(Ind.) 518; Watson v. Hastings, 1 
Pen. (Del.) 47, 39 Atl. 587; Thomas 
V. Black, 8 Houst. (Del.) 507, 18 Atl. 
771; Ayres v. Kelly, 11 111. 17; Han- 
nen v. Edes, 15 Mass. 347; Mellen v. 
Thompson, 32 Vt. 407; Curtis v. Car- 
son, 2 N. H. 539; see also, Bennett v. 
Appleton, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 371; 
Galther v. Blowers, 11 Md. 536; but 
compare, Penn v. Ward, 2 M. & R. 
338; Oakes v. Wood, 3 M. & W. 150; 
Selby v. Bardons, 3 B. & A. 1. 

" Steinmetz v. Kelly, 72 Ind. 442. 

"'12 Viner Abr. 182; Bacon Abr. 
C, 8. 



127 



MaH-ITEE MANUS IMPOSUIT. 



[§ 1699. 



but they will be found to fall under one of these general heads, namely, 
the prevention of some unlawful act, or resistence, for some lawful 
cause."'^ Under this plea one who justifies the use of force is required 
to show the facts justifying it,°' and the defense is not, ordinarily, 
sustained if the evidence shows a beating and wounding of the other 
party by him.** If the defendant was justified in laying hands on the 
plaintiff, evidence of the use of necessary and reasonable force will 
sustain the plea, but will not if the force, shown to have been used by 
the defendant, was unnecessary and unreasonable.'" If one unlawfully 
attempts to take the goods of another, the latter is justified in laying 
hands on him to prevent him from so doing, and if he persists with 
violence, sufficient force may generally be used to cause him to desist."* 
So, the owner entitled to possession, or the lawful occupant of prem- 
ises, may ordinarily use necessary and reasonable force to defend his 
possession or to expel trespassers.*^ But where the entry was lawful and 



^ 2 Greenleaf Ev. § 98. 

"^ Brown v. Gordon, 1 Gray 
(Mass.) 182; Coleman v. New York 
&c. R. Co., 106 Mass. 161; Hanson v. 
European &c. R. Co., 62 Me. 84, 16 
Am. R. 404; Rhinehart v. White- 
head, 64 Wis. 42, 24 N. W. 401; but 
see, Higgins v. Minaghan, 78 Wis. 
602, 47 N. W. 941, 11 L. R. A. 138, 23 
Am. St. 428; Finnell v. Bohannon, 
(Ky.) 44 S. W. 94; Mengedoht V. 
Van Dorn, 48 Neb. 880, 67 N. W. 
858; Talmage v. Smith, 101 Mich. 
370, 69 N. W. 656. 

"Cox V. Cooke, 1 J. J. Marsh, 
(Ky.) 360; Shain v. Markham, 4 J. 
J. Marsh. (Ky.) 578, 20 Am. Dec. 
232; French v. Marstin, 24 N. H. 
440, 57 Am. Dec. 294; Bush v. Bar- 
ker, 1 Blng. 72; Gates v. Lonsbury, 
20 Johns. (N. y.) 427. 

" Hyatt v. Wood, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 
239, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 150, 4 Am. Dec. 
258; Bristor v. Burr, 120 N. Y. 427, 
24 N. E. 937; Todd v. Jackson, 26 N. 
J. L. 525; Larkin v. Avery, 23 Conn. 
304; Pitford v. Armstrong, Wright 
(Ohio) 94; Comstock v. Brosseau, 65 
111. 39; Sinclair v. Stanly, 69 Tex. 



718, 7 S. W. 511; Denver &c. R. Co. 
V. Harris, 122 U. S. 597, 7 Sup. Ct. 
1286; Green v. Bartram, 4 Car. & P. 
308; Imason v. Cope, 5 Car. & P. 
193; Hillary v. Gay, 6 Car. & P. 284; 
Edwick V. Hawkes, 18 Ch. D. 199; 
but compare. Sterling v. Warden, 51 
N. H. 217, 12 Am. R. 80; Rich v. 
Keyser, 54 Pa. St. 86. 

" Scribner v. Beach, 4 Denio (N. 
Y.) 448, 47 Am. Dec. 265; Devor v. 
Knauer, 84 111. App. 184; Leach v. 
Francis, 41 Vt. 670 ; Ayres v. Birtch. 
35 Mich. 501: McClelland v. Kay. 14 
B. Mon. (Ky.) 103; Stachlin v. Des- 
trehan, 2 La. Ann. 1019 ; Alderson v. 
Waistell, 1 C. & K. 358, 47 E. C. L. 
358; as to recaption of personal 
property see authorities reviewed in. 
Commonwealth v. Donahue, 148 
Mass. 529, 12 Am. St. 591; also Hem- 
inway v. Heminway, 58 Conn. 443, 
19 Atl. 766; Sabre v. Mott, 88 Fed. 
(U. S.) 780; Hodgeden v. Hubbard, 
18 Vt. 504, 46 Am. Dec. 167; Bow- 
man V. Brown, 55 Vt. 184. 

»' Hammond v. Hightower, 82 Ga. 
290, 9 S. E. 1101; Shain v. Markham, 
4 J. J. Marsh (Ky.) 578, 20 Am. 



§ 1700.] ASSAULT AND BATTERY. 128 

the assailant does not use force, the defendant, under this plea, is re- 
quired to show a notice or request to depart, before he can justify the 
use of force;*' It has also been said that if the interference was to 
prevent others from fighting, the defendant must show that he first 
requested them to desist."' 

§ 1700. Moderate castigavit. — The old plea of moderate casti- 
gavit is likewise a plea in Justification, proper in defense of an action 
for assault and battery where the defendant moderately corrected the 
plaintiff when and as he had a right to do.^° It is held that under this 
plea, the defendant must not only show his authority, and cause for 
the chastisement, but also that it was, in fact, moderate."^ In the case 
of an apprentice it is also said that the defendant must show that fact 
by the articles of apprenticeship, and must produce evidence of mis- 
behavior sufficient to justify the correction given. '^ Evidence as to the 
customary former practice of masters in chastising their apprentices 
has been held inadmissible,'* and so is evidence to the effect that the 
defendant is ordinarily mild and moderate.'^* The rule permitting 
proper correction applies in the relations of parent and child, and 
schoolmaster and pupil, and was also applied in many old cases to 
jailer and prisoner, and shipmaster and seaman; the term "moderate 

Dec. 232; Hlggins v. Minaghan, 78 Tullay v. Reed, 1 Car. & P. 6, 12 E. 

Wis. 602, 47 N. "W. 941, 11 L. R. A. C. L. 16. 

138, 23 Am. St. 428; Chapell v. "Hawk P. C. b. 1, C. 31, § 49; 

Schmidt, 104 Cal. 511, 38 Pac. 892; 1 East P. C. 304; for cases as to 

Fosbinder v. Svitak, 16 Neb. 499, 20 what must be shown where the in- 

N. W. 866; Watson v. Hastings, 1 terference was to prevent a crime 

Pen. (Del.) 47, 39 Atl. 587; Wood- or the like, see Stonehouse v. Elliott, 

man v. Howell, 45 111. 367, 92 Am. 6 Term R. 315; Holyday v. Oxen- 

JDec. 221. bridge, Cro. Car. 234, 2 Roll. Abr. 

™McIlvoy V. Cockran, 2 A. K. 546; Ledwith v. Catchpole, Cald. 

Marsh. (Ky.) 271; Adams v. Free- 291; Hancock v. Baker, 2 B. & P. 

man, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 408, 7 Am. 260. 

Dec. 327; Scribner v. Beach, 4 Denio "2 Chitty PI. 576. 

(N. Y.) 448, 47 Am. Dec. 265; Wood- "HannejQ v. Edes, 15 Mass. 347, 

man v. Howell, 45 111. 367, 92 Am. 365. 

Dec. 221; Redfleld v. Redfleld, 75 "Greenleaf Ev., § 97; 1 Saunders 

Iowa 435, 39 N. W. 688; McDarmott PI. & Ev. 107. 

v. Kennedy, 1 Har. (Del.) 143; "Newman v. Bennett, 2 Chitty 

Breitenbach v. Trowbridge, 64 Mich. 195. 

393, 31 N. W. 402, 8 Am. St. 829; "Lander v. Seaver, 32 Vt. 114, 76 

Green v. Goddard, 2 Salk. 641; Am. Dec. 156. 
Weaver v. Bush, 8 Term R. 78; 



129 



OTHER DEFENSES. 



[§ 1701. 



correction" being given a very liberal interpretation and effect in the 
latter relation.'^ But, while one authorized by a parent to take care of 
a child, may reasonably chastise the child in a proper case,^° an 
employer in the ordinary ease of master and servant, where the master 
^oes not stand in loco parentis, ordinarily at least, has no such 
right." 

§ 1701. Other defenses. — Whatever force may be used in defense 
of oneself may generally be used in defense of members of one's fam- 
ily,^* and a servant may defend his master and the master may defend 
his servant in a proper case.'" Consent may also be sufficient defense,** 



'= Hawkins PI. Cr., § 23; "Watson 
V. Christie, 2 B. & P. 224; Sampson 
V. Smith, 15 Mass. 365; Brown v. 
Howard, 14 Jolins. (N. Y.) 119; 
Tryon v. White, 1 Pet. Adm. (U. S.) 
96, 173; United States v. Ruggles, 5 
Mason (U. S.) 192; State v. Neff, 58 
Ind. 516; Wilkes v. Dinsman, 7 
How. (U. S.) 89; Bacon Abr. As- 
sault and Battery, C, 373; as to 
the extent of the school master's 
right, see Heritage v. Dodge, 64 N. 
H. 297, 9 Atl. 722; Cooper v. Mc- 
Junkin, 4 Ind. 4 Ind. 290; Patter- 
son V. Nutter, 78 Me. 509, 7 Atl. 
273, 57 Am. R. 818; Sheehan v. 
Sturges, 53 Conn. 481, 2 Atl. 841; 
Lander v. Seaver, 32 Vt. 114, 76 Am. 
Dec. 156. 

™Vanmeter v. True, 16 Ky. L. R. 
320; Hernandez v. Cornoheli, 4 
Duer (N. Y.) 642; connection of 
ward by guardian; Dean v. State, 
89 Ala. 46; Snowden v. State, 12 
Tex. App. 105, 41 Am. R. 667. 

"Matthews v. Terry, 10 Conn. 
455; see also. Cooper v. State, 8 
Baxt. (Tenn.) 324, 35 Am. R. 704; 
1 Cooley Blackstone 428; 2 Kent 
Comm. 261; it is also generally held 
by modern authorities that a hus- 
band has no right to whip his wife : 
State V. Oliver, 70 N. Car. 60; Com- 
monwealth V. McAfee, 108 Mass. 
Vol. 3 EiiLiott Ev. — 9 



458, 11 Am. R. 383; Perry v. Perry, 
2 Paige (N. Y.) 501; Poor v. Poor, 
8 N. H. 307, 29 Am. Dec. 664; Pear- 
man V. Pearman, 1 S. & T. 601. 

™ Hanchett v. Bassett, 35 Conn. 
27; Mcllvoy v. Cockran, 2 A. .K 
Marsh (Ky.) 271; Higgins v. Mina- 
ghan, 78 Wis. 602, 47 N. W. 941, 11 
L. R. A. 138, 23 Am. St. 428; Tomp- 
kins V. Knut, 94 Fed. 956; Obier v. 
Neal, 1 Houst. (Del.) 449; but the 
son can only interfere when father 
was not aggressor and only to rea- 
sonable or necessary «xtent: Flint 
V. Bruce, 68 Me. 183; Drinkhorn v. 
Bubel, 85 Mich. 532, 48 N. W. 710. 

"Fortune v. Jones, 30 111. App. 
116, reversed on another point in 
128 111. 518; Tickell v. Read, Lofft 
215; Barefoot v. Reynolds, 2 Str. 
953; Pond v. People, 8 Mich. 150; 
Orton V. State, 4 Greene (Iowa) 
140. 

"■Fitzgerald v. Cavin, 110 Mass. 
153; O'Brien v. Cunard S. S. Co., 
154 Mass. 272, 28 N. E. 266, 13 L. R. 
A. 329; Caldwell v. Farrell, 28 111. 
438; Pillow v. Bushnell, 5 Barb. (N. 
Y.) 156; McCue v. Klein, 60 Tex. 
168, 48 Am. R. 260; Latter v. Brad- 
dell, 50 L. J. Q. B. 448, 45 J. P. 520; 
see also, Christopherson v. Bare, 11 
C. B. 473, 63 E. C. L. 473. 



1703.] 



ASSAULT AND BATTEET. 



130 



provided it is not obtained by fraud or it is not to do an unlawful act 
such as to commit a breach of the peace.*^ It is generally a sufficient 
defense to show that the injury was inflicted by accident, without any 
fault on the part of the defendant; and a former recovery for the 
assault and battery is a good defense notwithstanding the dam- 
ages may have turned out to be greater than appeared at the time of 
the former recovery;'^ but voluntary intoxication is no defense to a 
civil action for assault and battery.^* Common carriers/* innkeep- 
ers/' and the like may eject persons who are disorderly and disobey 
their proper rules, without being held liable, for assault and battery, 
so long as they do so under proper circumstances and in a proper man- 
ner. So, a defendant who resists an unlawful arrest in a prope